Author: Andrew Sullivan

Jack Hamilton marks Jason Collins’ momentary return to the NBA:

Years from now memories and box scores will attest that Collins entered that game and was the best thing anyone could hope for:

He was himself. He was himself without any hint of incident, turmoil, or gawky spectacle. In the aftermath of his coming out last spring, the vast majority of NBA players voiced strong support for their friend and co-worker, but that landmark Sports Illustrated cover also provoked its share of ugliness. Certain members of the media howled about how they could care less about Collins’ sexuality, and shame on all of us for turning Collins into a “hero” since sexual preference (suddenly) mattered so little to them (that is, straight dudes). As we’ve seen repeated in the wake of Michael Sam’s announcement, there were passive-aggressive grumblings about “distraction”: Hey, I’m not saying it’d bother me, just the guys who work with me, even though they’re saying the opposite. There were no “distractions” last night—Brooklyn came away with a victory—and no one was unduly concerned with sexuality, outside of the energized anticipation of seeing a brave and important person make history.

Update from a reader:

Taking nothing away from Jason Collins, but he wasn’t the first active player of a major American sport to come out; Glenn Burke was (Los Angeles Dodgers and Oakland As from 1976 to 1979 ). He was out to his team, family and the front office of the Dodgers. He even talked to reporters about it. But they wouldn’t print it.

“We’re at our worst when it comes to politics,” declares Paul Bloom in an essay about reason and morality:

Most of us know nothing about constitutional law, so it’s hardly surprising that we take sides in the Obamacare debate the way we root for the Red Sox or the Yankees. Loyalty to the team is what matters. A set of experiments run by the Stanford psychologist Geoffrey Cohen illustrates this principle perfectly.

Subjects were told about a proposed welfare program, which was described as being endorsed by either Republicans or Democrats, and were asked whether they approved of it. Some subjects were told about an extremely generous program, others about an extremely stingy program, but this made little difference. What mattered was party: Democrats approved of the Democratic program, and Republicans, the Republican program. When asked to justify their decision, however, participants insisted that party considerations were irrelevant; they felt they were responding to the program’s objective merits. This appears to be the norm.

The Brown psychologist Steven Sloman and his colleagues have found that when people are called upon to justify their political positions, even those that they feel strongly about, many are unable to point to specifics. For instance, many people who claim to believe deeply in cap and trade or a flat tax have little idea what these policies actually mean.

So, yes, if you want to see people at their worst, press them on the details of those complex political issues that correspond to political identity and that cleave the country almost perfectly in half.

Recent Dish on Bloom’s work here.

The latest installment in the saga of a brilliant comic actor felled by his extreme temper unfolds this week in New York magazine. The “greatest actor in the world” has declared that he is now withdrawing from public life, and eschewing “show-business” for the artist’s life. I hope he finds happiness, really hope he can do what he does best again, and I sure don’t begrudge him his utter frustration with the price of celebrity in 2014.

But he accuses me and Anderson Cooper of falsely accusing him of homophobia. He insists he did not call that photographer a “cock-sucking faggot.” Rather, he called him a “cocksucker” and some other word he can’t quite remember. And he had no idea that “cock-sucker” was an anti-gay slur in any case. Yes, he did refer to someone has a “toxic little queen” but again he was utterly unaware that the phrase had anything to do with homosexuals. He is now researching homophobia he was so oblivious to it before: “I want to learn about what is hurtful speech in your community.”

A couple things: as I said before, I have no window into Alec Baldwin’s soul and have no reason to believe he is, in some permanent or fundamental way, homophobic. So much of his public life would seem to portray the opposite. My point is nonetheless that he deployed homophobic curse-words in public against other human beings, in order to cut them down to size. All he has to say is that he has a hot Irish temper, that it got the better of him, that he realized he has some buried issues that he needs to grapple with … and get on with his life. The gay community would have welcomed him with open arms. But he cannot accept the truth of what transparently occurred, because it would dent his pride. So he still bizarrely insists his Twitter tirade against a nasty British tabloid hack had nothing to do with homophobia:

At the time, I didn’t view “toxic little queen” as a homophobic statement. I didn’t realize how those words could give offense, and I’m sorry for that.

Really? He had no idea that this was homophobic:

George Stark, you lying little bitch. I am gonna f%#@ you up … I want all of my followers and beyond to straighten out this fucking little bitch, George Stark. @MailOnline … My wife and I attend a funeral to pay our respects to an old friend, and some toxic Brit writes this fucking trash … If put my foot up your fucking ass, George Stark, but I’m sure you’d dig it too much … I’m gonna find you, George Stark, you toxic little queen, and I’m gonna fuck…you…up.

My italics. And so – drum-roll – comes the classic non-apology apology:

If I offended anyone along the way, I do apologize.

And, of course, after a non-apology will come a non-exit from public life. If you want to exit from public life, you can do it. You can stop giving paparazzi what they live for; you can let old stories die and rebuild your career with good work; and you can give to charity with total anonymity. Alternatively, you can write a long screed in New York magazine, claim that you were completely and falsely smeared, re-visit every tortured detail of the story that made life more difficult for you, detail your expansive holiness, throw barbs at lots of people who once worked with you, and loudly tell the world you’re taking your marbles and going home.

He is a good actor, isn’t he?

Update from a reader:

A Jezebel commenter nails it:

Alec Baldwin is less sad if you imagine Jack Donaghy saying the things that come out of his mouth. “I won’t be in tomorrow, Lemon, I’m being subpoenaed by the Gay Department of Justice.

Alex has apparently morphed into Jack Donaghy, or was that portrayal truer to life than we knew?

Paul Ford ponders how new currencies like Bitcoin might actually make us appreciate online advertising:

Advertisers pay to reach highly valued online audiences; they use a variety of technologies, many surprisingly ineffective, to find these individuals. Could cryptocurrencies help? [Digital advertising and finance analyst Larry] Smith asks us to consider the following scenario: imagine a brand like Dunkin’ Donuts that wanted to create a loyalty program. Now imagine that brand creating its own currency: DunkinDollars. Finally, imagine an online advertising campaign where people who clicked on an advertisement would be given the virtual coins. Small amounts of money might be distributed without friction. If large brands could create their own currencies and allow individuals to participate in this marketplace, they could create consumers who were truly invested, in every sense.

The entire web of advertising would suddenly become a more interesting place. Before, the ads seemed to hunt you, but now you would have reason to hunt for ads. The coins you earned could then be exchanged for branded goods, but they could also be exchanged on an open market, like a kind of penny stock. “Pay consumers for clicks and acquisitions,” says Smith, defining this new kind of model.