Last Call

For Bon, a giant rubber duck story.




Because GIANT RUBBER DUCK.

Chucking An Airball On Jason Collins, Race, And Homophobia

There's a distinct reason Esquire's Charles Pierce is in my blogroll.  He is, on a daily basis, one of the truly excellent and most unabashedly liberal voices out there in any medium.  But his take on Jason Collins's coming out over at Grantland contains a rather nasty paragraph that's frankly far beneath him.

To be sure, he's already couched his decision somewhat in the iconic; he says he chose to wear no. 98 in Boston and Washington in honor of Matthew Shepard, the young man who was tied to a fence and beaten to death in Wyoming in 1998, a hate crime so horrific that national hate-crimes legislation bears his name. (Collins also caught President Barack Obama's reference to Stonewall in his second inaugural address in January, a citation that caused a lot of heads to spin.) His explanation for his decision to come out is rich with the historical "dual identity" forced on black Americans under Jim Crow, and the similar dynamic within which he lived as a gay man. Homophobia in the black community — indeed, even among the leaders of the civil rights movement of the 1960s — was some of the most virulent and stubborn of all, and there are still some who resent the equation of the gay rights movement with their struggle. In his announcement in Sports Illustrated, then, Collins gave every indication that he's fully aware of the historic and cultural dimensions of his decision, and of the sacrifices made elsewhere so that he would be free to make it now.

Adam Serwer rightly points out the glaring awfulness of that passage:

There was certainly homophobia in the civil rights movement—but in the 1950s and 60s, American society was homophobic, and Pierce offers no evidence that the civil rights movement was more homophobic than any other American institution during that period. Given that one of the architects of the civil rights movement's nonviolent strategy was Bayard Rustin, it was arguably less homophobic than much of society at the time. With a few notable exceptions, surviving leaders of the movement, from Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), to Rev. James Lawson, to Jesse Jackson, to Julian Bond are all in favor of gay and lesbian rights.

There's also little evidence for the proposition that black homophobia is "the most virulent and stubborn of all." Black folks, who were disenfranchised for centuries, didn't put any of those old anti-sodomy laws on the books. The legal architecture of discrimination based on sexual orientation is one of the few things in America that dates back to colonial times that wasn't built by black people.

Serwer's point is extremely important.  I've written multiple times myself on the completely false notion that African-American voters were responsible for Prop 8 passing in 2008, to the point that it was being manufactured to try to specifically fracture the Obama coalition.  The fact that a writer of Pierce's caliber brings it up in passing is just further evidence of how pervasive this nonsense is.

And if you haven't noticed, our black President came out and said bluntly that full equality, not just tolerance, was the goal for LGBT Americans.  The jarring and visibly hypocritical message of intolerance by some black pastors and priests doesn't equate to "black folks are more homophobic" any more than it does among white pastors and priests, yes?

I'm not slagging on Pierce here, I'm not one tenth the writer he is and I've been wrong ten times as often.  But Adam Serwer is in the right, and the lesson here is that everyone needs to be more aware of this.

Haters Gonna Hate

Well, if this story is true, I hope this guy gets to cool his jets in prison for a very, very long time.

A 39-year-old Muslim cab driver who served in the Iraq war says that an executive from an aviation company accused him of being a jihadist and broke his jaw in what activists are calling a hate crime.

Mohamed A. Salim told The Washington Post that Emerald Aviation President Ed Dahlberg attacked him after he picked him up at Country Club of Fairfax in Northern Virginia at around 2 a.m. on Friday. Dahlberg had been drinking and was told that he would have to finish his open beer before getting into the cab.

Salim recorded audio of the encounter on his cell phone. 

Dahlberg's rant, as recorded on the phone, is pretty horrific.  It's just straight, raw, hate, bred by a decade plus of stupid, ignorant Islamophobia.

Dahlberg was charged with misdemeanor assault and police are determining if charges should be elevated to a felony hate crime. The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) on Monday said that medical records and the 11-minute cell phone recording were being used as evidence in the case.

In a statement, Dahlberg’s attorney, Demetry Pikrallidas, admitted that his client “became rather emotional as the discussion turned to jihad and 9/11, and especially heated on the subject of jihadists who want to harm America.”

But Salim is an Iraq War veteran.  Unreal.  Just unreal.  And yet the haters on the right will now ruin Salim's life anyway.  It doesn't matter that he served his country in the military.  Muslims are nothing but subhuman animals to these morons and this is what they want to happen.

Keep openly backing these clowns, GOP.

StupidiNews!

• Three college friends of Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsaenaev have been taken into custody by the FBI on charges of obstructing justice and allegedly removing evidence.
• A team of Smithsonian archaeologists have uncovered remains of a 14-year old girl from the lost Jamestown colony that show evidence starving colonists resorted to cannibalism.
• President Obama has picked Congressman Mel Watt of NC to head the agency that oversees federal mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
• North Korea has sentenced an American tourist to 15 years of hard labor, accusing Pae Jun Ho of "committing hostile acts" against the DPRK.
• Cable and internet industry giants are reportedly very happy with President Obama's choice of former lobbyist Tom Wheeler to head the FCC.

Last Call From Mooseland

Apparently Alaska teabillies really, really want Democratic Sen. Mark Begich to win re-election in 2014, because guess who they're drafting to run against him?

A group of tea partiers is hoping Sarah Palin will challenge Democratic Sen. Mark Begich in 2014, when he is up for reelection. “We know that, with Sarah in the Senate, conservatives across America can rest a little easier at night knowing that she’s at the watch,” said Todd Cefaratti of the Tea Party Leadership Fund, in a fundraising email to supporters.

“You and I both know that Sarah Palin is a fighter who will stand up to Harry Reid and his pals in the Senate to protect our Constitution in issues like amnesty, gun control and our nation’s crushing debt,” Cefaratti wrote.

Only one little problem...

But the Los Angeles Times, which obtained the email, reports that Palin might not have the “clear path” to victory that the Tea Party Leadership Fund says she does. A February PPP poll had Begich’s approval rating at 49 percent, and winning in a potential match-up against Palin by a margin of 54-37 percent. 

Now Begich's approval numbers have taken a hit recently thanks to being one of the few Dems who ran away like a punkass coward (sorry Mark, it's true) from gun control legislation in the Senate last month.

But I'm willing to bet that Begich can still handily beat Gov. Quittina McHalfterm, and I'll back him all the way over her.  Of course, I'd back a jar of pickles over Moose Lady, so there's that.

In For One Hell Of A Rubio Awakening

Sen. Marco Rubio is finding out that hard truth about the bigots in his own party:  their votes on legislation count just as much as his.

Sen. Marco Rubio acknowledged Tuesday on a conservative radio talk show that the Gang of Eight’s comprehensive immigration reform bill won’t likely pass the Republican-led House.

The comments from Rubio, perhaps the most influential congressional Republican on immigration, illustrate the challenges facing the prospects for reform after months of private negotiations by a bipartisan coalition of senators produced a wide-ranging, 844-page bill.

“The bill that’s in place right now probably can’t pass the House,” Rubio told Mike Gallagher, a nationally syndicated talk show host. “It will have to be adjusted, because people are very suspicious about the willingness of the government to enforce the laws now.”

And what does Rubio mean by "have to be adjusted"?

Rubio was inviting conservatives to offer proposed changes to strengthen the bill instead of trying to sink it altogether. But of course, given all of the different interest groups with a stake in the debate, changes from the right are likely to cause some consternation on the left that could further complicate negotiations.

So what about efforts in the House? Well, if conservatives there get what they want, it’s unlikely the Democratic Senate would sign off. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said last week he plans chart a narrower path by introducing several small-scale proposals. Democrats hoping for a broad proposal were instantly alarmed over the idea.

House Republicans don't see any downside to sinking immigration reform and blaming Obama.  Given that 90% of House Republicans will be re-elected in 2014, why should they care?  We, the voters, aren't going to do anything.  You're not going to vote your GOP Congressperson out, frankly.  they've rigged it so you can't (thanks, 2010 voters!)

House Republicans realize they can hang Rubio out to dry here, along with Latino voters.  This was always going to be the case with immigration, but as with gun control, the real goal is to get Senate Republicans to kill the deal so that House Republicans don't have to take a vote.  That plan seems to be well underway now...

The Shine Has Flaked Off...For Now

Steve Benen reminds us that at least in the short term, Republicans who blocked Manchin-Toomey are actually paying a price for it.  The main question is if it will matter 18 months from now.

Yesterday, Public Policy Polling noted that Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), on the heels of his support for a Republican filibuster on gun reforms, has become the nation's least popular senator. The new figures point to Flake having a dismal 32% approval rating.

Asked about his poor standing, Flake initially blamed PPP, questioning the pollster's accuracy, despite its impressive track record. Today, the Arizona senator took a different line.

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) has an interesting take on a recent poll by Democratic Public Policy Polling that showed his approval rating imploding after his recent vote against expanded background checks for gun purchases: It's probably right.

"Nothing like waking up to a poll saying you're the nation's least popular senator," Flake wrote on his Facebook page late Monday night. "Given the public's dim view of Congress in general, that probably puts me somewhere just below pond scum."

And yet Jeff Flake won't have to face voters until November 2018 at the earliest, five and half years from now.  You think Flake cares?  You think voters will remember?  Despite being a right-wing reactionary, he won by three points last year over Richard Carmona.  He may be in trouble now, but he's got a political lifetime to dig himself out of this hole, and the NRA will back him every step of the way.

He may be pond scum now, but in 2018, at least 45% of voters will say "Yeah, but he's our pond scum."

StupidiNews!

• The FDA has decided to approve "Plan B" emergency contraception for sale to girls 15 and older without a prescription.
• FBI sources say traces of ricin were found in the dojo of the man currently charged with trying to frame a Mississippi Elvis impersonator for sending poison-laced letters to politicians.
• President Obama's 100-day second term press conference included another vow to convince Congress to close Guantanamo Bay.
• CBS is the latest network to suggest it will stop broadcasting over the air and become a cable-only channel if "rebroadcaster" internet startup Aereo wins it court case to remain online.
• Apple took out $17 billion in bonds to raise cash in order to avoid having to repatriate offshore accounts that could cost them billions in taxes.

Last Call

The misleading, untruthful and generally stupid Obamacare DOOOOOOM articles are becoming a weekly occurrence now at FOX News the Wall Street Journal.

Start with people who have individual and small-group health insurance. These policies are most affected by ObamaCare's community-rating regulations, which require insurers to accept everyone but limit or ban them from varying premiums based on age or health. The law also mandates "essential" benefits that are far more generous than those currently offered.

According to consultants from Oliver Wyman (who wrote on the issue in the January issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries), around six million of the 19 million people with individual health policies are going to have to pay more—and this even after accounting for the government subsidies offered under the law. For example, single adults age 21-29 earning 300% to 400% of the federal poverty level will be hit with an increase of 46% even after premium assistance from tax credits.

"Insurance industry study finds that Obamacare will hurt insurance industry" is getting old, but now the nonsense is getting outright crazy.   By the way, if you're 21 and earning 300-400% of the federal poverty level, that's roughly $38-45k a year. That 46% premium increase means your insurance would go from about $60 a month to what, $85?  Somehow, if you're single and pulling down $45,000 at 21, you can afford it.  But we press on...

In total, it appears that there will be 30 million to 40 million people damaged in some fashion by the Affordable Care Act—more than one in 10 Americans. When that reality becomes clearer, the law is going to start losing its friends in the media, who are inclined to support the president and his initiatives. We'll hear about innocent victims who saw their premiums skyrocket, who were barred from seeing their usual doctor, who had their hours cut or lost their insurance entirely—all thanks to the faceless bureaucracy administering a federal law.

The allure of the David-versus-Goliath narrative is likely to prove irresistible to the media, raising the pressure on Washington to repeal or dramatically modify the law. With the implementation of ObamaCare beginning to take full force at the end of the year, there will be plenty of time before the 2014 midterm elections for Congress to consider its options.

Obamacare's not going anywhere.   When it starts working, people will accept it and move on.  Besides, Republicans have nothing to replace it with.

More Nullification Nonsense

South Carolina is once again trying to do everything it can to sink a federal law it refuses to enforce.  150 years ago we had a few problems along those lines, but it seems the SC GOP hasn't learned anything from the lesson as it seeks to make sure Obamacare can never work in the Palmetto State.

Nearly two centuries ago, South Carolina Sen. John C. Calhoun nearly sparked a civil war when he led an unconstitutional effort to nullify a federal law his state government disagreed with. One hundred and eighty years later, South Carolina lawmakers want to do it again. Last night, the South Carolina House passed an attempt to “interpose and refuse to enforce” much of the Affordable Care Act. 

The bill includes a number of attempts to undermine health reform, some of which are unconstitutional, others of which are merely unwise. The most insidious provision of the bill, however, is this: 

A South Carolina resident taxpayer who is subjected to a tax by the Internal Revenue Code under 26 U.S.C. Section 5000A of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act shall receive a tax deduction in the exact amount of the taxes or penalty paid the federal government pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 5000A. The tax deduction allowed by this section must be used in the year the federal tax or penalty is paid.

You know, the individual mandate.  The one that penalizes those folks who don't buy health care in order to fund state health care exchanges.  The feds collect the mandate, and the state of SC would refund it back immediately under this law.

You're beginning to see where the problem is, yes?  It's patently unconstitutional (at least until the Roberts Court decides 5-4 that maybe it's cool to deliberately make laws to undermine black presidents and stuff) but there's tons of damage that could happen in the years it would take to settle this fight.

Meanwhile, SC's state budgets would increasingly go into the red, meaning more cuts in schools, safety, public services, etc in a state that already has one of the lowest per capita spending on students in the nation.  It's a recipe for disaster, and SC Republicans are deliberately sabotaging the law in order to make the system collapse, then say "Obamacare can't work, see!"

You can bet more states will follow.  Health care for the neediest among us?  Let's sabotage it!

The Republican way, indeed.

Your Right To Be Wrong As Hell

King Reasonoid Matt Welch reminds us that ESPN's Chris Broussard apparently has every right to be a homophobic fundamentalist bigot about NBA player Jason Collins coming out because AMERICA.

Broussard is predictably getting beaten to a rhetoric pulp on Twitter. And while I think today is a wonderful, watershed day for people (especially the artist formerly known as Ron Artest) to live as open and free as they wanna be, I agree with the New York Post editorial Robert George here:

Chris Broussard spoke what more than a few players feel. If such comments aren't expressed, a real conversation can't be had.

I'm trying to come up with what "real conversation" Broussard is adding when he says Collins is a sinner who is "walking in open rebellion to Jesus Christ."  But here's where Welch goes with this as he brings in the civil rights movement in sports and the racism Jackie Robinson faced:

Now, there is no doubt that Jackie Robinson vehemently disagreed with this go-slow sentiment, but he also understood that you can't always persuade fence-sitters through a two-handed chest-shove.* And sometimes engaging with the I'm not ready to go that far just yet crowd brings out the best in activists. See, for example, Martin Luther King's "Letter From a Birmingham Jail."

Bigotry brings conflict which brings "real conversations" which brings out the best in people, not the worst, so apparently we need bigotry, racism, and outright ignorance in America because FREEDOMS AND THE LIBERTY.

On the other hand, Welch basically saying that the struggle of racism was necessary in order to forge a leader as brilliant as Dr. King is just about the best example of false equivalence Glibertarian nonsense that I've ever seen, so there's that.  Dave Zirin's take on Jason Collins is worth reading just as a reminder that Welch is full of crap, as usual, and the real change comes from those standing up to idiots like him who give bigotry acceptable cover in the first place because "conflict creates change".  That's great if you're a megalomaniac with a space fortress and an army of flying cyborg raptor ninjas, not so great if you want to live in a world where people are decent towards each other because people are decent.

StupidiNews!

• Holland's Queen Beatrix has abdicated her throne as planned, leaving the Dutch monarchy to her son Willem-Alexander on the Queen's Day holiday.
• Washington State lawmakers have approved a law to re-criminalize large-scale possession of marijuana.
• Senate sources say that the "Gang of 8" immigration bill would add unmanned surveillance drones to patrol remote areas of the US border.
• The Eurozone's official unemployment rate for March rose to a record 12.1% amid youth unemployment twice that amount.
• Microsoft's offerings for cloud-based products has topped $1 billion yearly under its Azure label, the company reports.

Last Call: Just The First

A couple of weeks ago I noted this article on the economics of coming out in a major professional team sport:

According to Bob Witeck, 61, a gay-marketing strategist and corporate consultant, the first openly gay team-sport athlete -- provided he’s a recognizable name -- would earn millions in endorsements and speaking engagements from companies seeking to capture more of a U.S. lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender adult population whose annual buying power he pegs at almost $800 billion.

“We’ve passed the tipping point to where national advertisers are no longer afraid of the gay market,” said Mark Elderkin, chief executive officer of the Fort Lauderdale, Florida-based Gay Ad Network. 

Well America, it took about two weeks, but we've got our first test of this theory:  12-year NBA veteran center Jason Collins (now a free agent), who comes out in a Sports Illustrated article this week.

I'm a 34-year-old NBA center. I'm black. And I'm gay.

I didn't set out to be the first openly gay athlete playing in a major American team sport. But since I am, I'm happy to start the conversation. I wish I wasn't the kid in the classroom raising his hand and saying, "I'm different." If I had my way, someone else would have already done this. Nobody has, which is why I'm raising my hand.

My journey of self-discovery and self-acknowledgement began in my hometown of Los Angeles and has taken me through two state high school championships, the NCAA Final Four and the Elite Eight, and nine playoffs in 12 NBA seasons.

I've played for six pro teams and have appeared in two NBA Finals. Ever heard of a parlor game called Three Degrees of Jason Collins? If you're in the league, and I haven't been your teammate, I surely have been one of your teammates' teammates. Or one of your teammates' teammates' teammates.

Now I'm a free agent, literally and figuratively. I've reached that enviable state in life in which I can do pretty much what I want. And what I want is to continue to play basketball. I still love the game, and I still have something to offer. My coaches and teammates recognize that. At the same time, I want to be genuine and authentic and truthful. 

Good luck to you Jason.   Hopefully it'll open the floodgates.  The truth is a hell of a thing, folks.  Here's hoping that the rest of the NBA is as accepting.

Stopped Clock Is Right Alert For Johnny Volcano

Turns out Sen. John "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" McCain doesn't want to put troops in Syria after all.  Given his warmongering, that's an improvement.

An international coalition of troops should be ready to go into Syria to secure the country’s chemical weapons stockpiles, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Sunday, warning that U.S. troops on the ground would only spark more Mideast anger.

But McCain said that putting troops in Syria is the “worst thing United States could do right now,” because the Syrian people are bitter and angry at the United States.

“I think that the American people are weary. They don’t want boots on the ground. I don’t want boots on the ground,” McCain said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Well, he's right, actually.  But, as always with the constantly dishonest and prevaricating McCain, there's always a catch.

But McCain urged the Obama administration to take several actions in Syria, such as arming rebel groups or establishing a safe zone, steps he and other GOP hawks have long pressed for.

Yeah, what does "establishing a safe zone" mean, and how do we do that without troops on the ground to enforce that zone?  Doug Mataconis responds:

What McCain doesn’t understand, or which he chooses to ignore, is that even the “limited” involvement that he’s in favor of poses the significant danger of sucking us further into the conflict in the future. In for a penny, in for a pound so to speak. Additionally,an “international coalition” is far harder to put together than McCain seems to think. Who is going to make up this coalition? The British? Somehow I don’t think the British public is going to want to bear that burden in the wake of their experiences in Iraq. The French? That poses the danger of reigniting passions from the days when France controlled what is now Syria and Lebanon after the post-World War I collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The Turks? That poses the danger of igniting regional tensions, not to mention Kurdish resentment in the areas of Syria where they predominate. In the end, the U.S. would end up having to shoulder a large part of the burden of this “international coalition,” and the mission would be seen as predominantly an American initiative notwithstanding whatever “international” window dressing may be put upon it.

I'll go one step further.  Who's going to pay for this?  Deficit hawk Republicans who are screaming about "the debt crisis" every 35 seconds?  The ones who say we can't spend money for Sandy victims because we can't afford it, but can spend tens of billions, maybe hundreds of billions or more in a protracted Syria campaign?  And in the age of European Austerity, who in Europe has the appetite for war, either?

Here's the truth about Damascus:  there are zero good options.  Bashar al-Assad is by no means innocent in this vicious civil war, but he's also riding the runaway train that is the Syrian Army, and if he tries to rein them in, they'll end him.  Frankly, he's the only thing standing between the generals and a full-out military coup, and the junta would then go weapons free on everything moving.  He's inherited all the sins of his father Hafez, and the cost in blood to the Syrian people will skyrocket no matter what happens.

Getting rid of al-Assad won't stop the war, and if anything he's the plug in the dam bottling up a lake of blood.  If he goes, so does the region...and yet I don't see any way out for him at this point that doesn't end in his demise, Saddam-style.  He knows this, and I don't think he's too keen on his death. 

A lot of people are going to die in Syria if we get involved.  That's going to go up by an order of magnitude or so if we do.  Perhaps pressure on China and Russia to stop blocking the UN on Syria will finally pay off and something can be done through peacekeeping forces, but as Doug says anything the US puts together is a guaranteed hunk of sodium in the bathtub.

There may not be much of anything we can do other than try to contain the fallout.  The alternative is another ten-year war.  I'll pass. President Obama continues to play things cautiously, and given the last guy in the Oval Office, I'm glad for it.

The GOP Plan Is Backfiring

There's new evidence from the Associated Press today that GOP efforts to suppress the black vote backfired in 2012 and resulted in record turnout instead.

America’s blacks voted at a higher rate than other minority groups in 2012 and by most measures surpassed the white turnout for the first time, reflecting a deeply polarized presidential election in which blacks strongly supported Barack Obama while many whites stayed home.

Had people voted last November at the same rates they did in 2004, when black turnout was below its current historic levels, Republican Mitt Romney would have won narrowly, according to an analysis conducted for The Associated Press.

Census data and exit polling show that whites and blacks will remain the two largest racial groups of eligible voters for the next decade. Last year’s heavy black turnout came despite concerns about the effect of new voter-identification laws on minority voting, outweighed by the desire to re-elect the first black president.

That's why you're seeing Republicans scramble to kill early voting and institute increasingly strict voter ID hoops for voters to jump through.  When African-Americans vote, things change.

Romney would have erased Obama’s nearly 5 million-vote victory margin and narrowly won the popular vote if voters had turned out as they did in 2004, according to Frey’s analysis. Then, white turnout was slightly higher and black voting lower.

More significantly, the battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and Colorado would have tipped in favor of Romney, handing him the presidency if the outcome of other states remained the same.

Romney would have won all three of the traditional big three battleground states (OH, FL, PA) without the black vote (plus VA and CO).  4 of those 5 states, including the big three, are currently under Republican control.  No wonder the GOP is furiously trying to make voting more difficult.

What will happen in 2014 and 2016?  Time will tell.