Month: May 2013

Charles Pierce sees Jason Collins’ coming out as especially symbolic:

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 takes issue with Pierce, arguing that the race-sexuality issues in Collins’ case “deserve a more thoughtful examination”:

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.

Previous Dish on Collins’ announcement here and here.

A reader writes:

McArdle’s memory is faulty.  The 2000 election was held November 7. Gore asked for recounts in four counties on November 9, but offered to accept recounts in all counties on the 15th. This offer was rejected by Bush later that day. The Supreme Court decision was December 8. So the idea to “count all the votes” came 8 days into a process that lasted 31, not “very late in the process,” as McArdle claims.

Another goes into greater detail:

You approvingly quote Megan McArdle’s judgment that it was basically Gore’s fault and endorse the historical scenario she uses to justify that judgment:

The original sin, in my view, was Gore’s attempt to recount just the votes in a few heavily Democratic counties.  [….]  ”Count all the votes”, which most progressives now remember as the rallying cry, actually came very late in the process, and only after the Supreme Court of the United States told the Florida Supreme Court that no, it couldn’t just let Al Gore add in some new votes from Democratic Counties his team had personally selected.

I’m sorry, but this is just flatly incorrect. After the Florida Supreme Court’s first ruling in favor of the Gore campaign, on November 15, Gore immediately made a public offer to conduct a state-wide manual recount of all the votes in Florida, if the Bush campaign would also agree.  Gore did so on several occasions before the US Supreme Court had issued any rulings on the matter. November 15:

I am also prepared, if Governor Bush prefers, to include in this recount all the counties in the entire state of Florida. I would also be willing to abide by that result and agree not to take any legal action to challenge that result. If there are no further interruptions to the process, we believe the count can be completed within seven days of the time it starts.

The Bush campaign rejected that proposal.  A lot of lawsuits, countersuits, political fireworks, and other shenanigans followed.  The most crucial ruling in favor of the Gore campaign by the Florida Supreme Court came on November 21.

The US Supreme Court first agreed to hear the Bush campaign’s appeal on November 24.  The first arguments in the US Supreme Court (which, of course, came before their ruling) were on December 1, 2000.  Here’s something that Gore said before December 1, on November 28:

Two weeks ago, I proposed to forego any legal challenge if Governor Bush would let a complete and accurate count go forward, either in the counties where it was proposed or in the full state of Florida. He rejected that proposal and instead became the first to file lawsuits. And now, two weeks later, thousands of votes still have not been counted. [….]  Let me repeat the essence of our proposal today: Seven days, starting tomorrow, for a full and accurate count of all the votes.

I’m sorry, but the plain fact is that the Republicans stole the 2000 election, and did so with the active complicity of the US Supreme Court.  I know that’s serious language, which we should not use carelessly or casually, but I say it with due consideration, and I think that judgment is clearly supported by the facts.

Some may disagree.  But at the very least, we should not rewrite history along the lines of Republican propaganda (currently being spouted, perhaps sincerely, by Megan McArdle.)

Or why I still worship the Pet Shop Boys:

Stereogum: Hello boys. Where are you?

Neil: We are in London.

Stereogum: Are you doing a ton of press for the new record?

Chris: Not if we can help it.

Neil: You are the first one, actually … and possibly the last.

Chris: We’ll see how this goes and then decide whether or not to move forward with publicity for this album.

They also capture the core thing I admire about my favorite working artists, writers, singers, actors, et al. They do it for no other reason than they love it:

Neil: If we had run out of musical ideas ten years ago or something, I can assure you that we would NOT now be touring as some kind of 80′s revival act. We’d simply just be doing something else with our lives. We would have moved on. Really, the making of new music is what fuels and re-fuels an interest in the old songs … and being able to see the through-line of continuity within all the work and how both the new material and the old somehow tie together. We’ve always just really loved the process of writing songs and recording albums and then choosing remixers to work on the songs — we love all that stuff. Our love for that has never dimmed, it has never felt like chore. I can assure you that if it had ever felt like a chore, we are lazy enough to have given it up. We both still have the constant impetus to go into a studio and make songs.

Sometimes I wake up in the morning and Chris has sent over three or four demos that he’s made the night before at home in his studio … It remains one of the constants in both of our lives. We do it for pleasure, really. That’s how we started … we started making music together as a hobby and it just kind of took off from there. It never ceased to have that playful element … and I think it’s really important to stay connected to that childish, playful element to making music. Some people cut themselves off from that when they become a “grown up”… and when you do that, you generally cut yourself off from your own creativity.

Chris: We’re also still enormous music fans as well. We follow everything happening in popular music and are constantly being asked about it. People want to know what we think of the new Daft Punk single. It’s an issue for us. (laughs)

Neil: Oh, more than an issue. I mean, is there anything more important right now than that that Daft Punk single?!