As we all brace for what is now and has always been the near certainty that there will be no indictment in Michael Brown’s death, it is a good time to consider black “irresponsibility” as a cause of their status as an underclass. This is the idea that whites have reasons for their racist behavior because of the “bad” blacks that are out there. The argument usually goes like this, “Sure, there is racism in America. And 95% of blacks are good, hard-working people. But there is 5% of the black community who ruin it for everyone!” It is a bizarre argument that admits white racism but then immediately minimizes it and blames blacks for all their problems.

Sadly, we hear this all the time from successful African Americans like Bill Cosby and President Obama. Most recently, we’ve heard this from Charles Barkley. That’s right: the basketball player, who really ought to be aware of his own luck. But of course, he isn’t. I’ve known for decades that he was a Republican. I guess being self-deluded goes along with being one — even if he has backed away from the party in the last few years. But this comment is very Republican, “We as black people are never going to be successful, not because of you white people, but because of other black people. When you are black, you have to deal with so much crap in your life from other black people… There are a lot of black people who are unintelligent, who don’t have success. It’s best to knock a successful black person down because they’re intelligent, they speak well, they do well in school, and they’re successful. It’s just typical BS that goes on when you’re black, man.”

Ta-Nehisi Coates took on this issue late last month, Charles Barkley and the Plague of “Unintelligent” Blacks. He looks at the history of this, which he calls “respectability politics” — “the inability to look into the cold dark void of history.” And what I didn’t know is that this dates back to the postbellum era. And in fact, in a certain sense, it goes back to slavery, when many whites justified the practice on the basis of the supposed savagery of African Americans. But it was only in the postbellum era when blacks themselves made this argument.

Coates quotes the African American mathematician Kelly Miller in 1899 saying, “It is not sufficient to say that ninety-five out of every hundred Negroes are orderly and well behaved. The ninety-five must band themselves together to restrain or suppress the vicious five.” Get it?! Blacks weren’t being denied rights and opportunities because whites were oppressing them; blacks were being treated like this because they weren’t distinguishing the “good” negro from the “bad.”

So all this stuff about gangsta rape and low hanging pants is just the most recent manifestation of this. Barkley said, “For some reason we are brainwashed to think, if you’re not a thug or an idiot, you’re not black enough.” But a century ago, Mary Church Terrell said, “According to the testimony of eye-witnesses, as well as the reports of southern newspapers [!], the Negroes who are known to have been guilty of assault have, as a rule, been ignorant, repulsive in appearance, and as near the brute creation as it is possible for a human being to be.” Nothing changes, and remember: this is what African Americans were saying about themselves.

Now, in a way, I totally understand this and salute it. These are people who are looking for answers in something they think they control. So I understand someone like Charles Barkley looking at people who are considered part of his “race” and thinking, “If only black kids acted more like upper middle class white kids, everything would be great!” There are two problems with this. First, the way that people in an underclass behave (eg, dress) is primarily a function of them being an underclass, not the cause of it. And by focusing on it, people like Barkley just give the power elite reasons to do nothing to change the racist structure of our society.

The second problem is that this assumes a racist precept: that black people ought to be judged by other black people. If I were judged based upon the actions of other white people — especially white men — I would never leave the house. I could make an outstanding argument for sterilizing all white men. But I’m not judged based upon what other white men do. This is the very core of white privilege in this country. And the lack of appreciation for this is the basis of systemic racism here.

I’m with Coates, “For if black people are — as I maintain — no part of the problem, if the problem truly is 100 percent explained by white supremacy, then we are presented with a set of unfortunate facts about our home.” It is as simple as this: you can’t fight racism by rebranding racial groups. Racism is reverse engineered: first comes and hatred and fear, then comes the rationalizations. So we have to deal with the racism, and not perfecting the “race.”

Earlier this year, Marco Rubio said, “What I disagree with is the notion if we pass cap and trade, for example, this will stop this from happening, when in fact half of the new emissions on the planet are coming from developing countries and half of that is coming from one country, China, that isn’t going to follow whatever laws we pass.” Around the same time, Charles Krauthammer said pretty much the same thing, “In the absence of [an emissions pact], all that we’re doing is committing economic suicide in the name of do-goodism that will not do an iota of good.” So these guys must be thrilled to read The New York Times last night, US and China Reach Climate Accord After Months of Talks.

But of course, they’re not. Jonathan Chait presented the early responses this morning, China Tries to Save Earth; Republicans Furious. James Inhofe claims it is not credible — even though he would be against it even if he thought it was credible. I mean, as James Inhofe will tell you for $25.95, global warming is a hoax. Mitch McConnell thinks the deal is meaningless, “As I read the agreement, it requires the Chinese to do nothing at all for 16 years.” That’s would be an excellent point if it weren’t totally untrue.

According to The Times, the deal requires that China “stop its emissions from growing by 2030.” It also requires that green energy “would account for 20 percent of China’s total energy production” by that year. That obviously does not mean that China doesn’t have to do anything for the next 16 years. McConnell is just being calculatedly stupid. But again, McConnell would be against this deal regardless, because his oil company backers are against it.

This all brings me back to my days in graduate school. We talked a lot about China and other developing countries and how it was wrong to expect them to simply stop their greenhouse emissions. There were a number of aspects of this. One was that we had used excessive emissions to build our country and power our industrial revolution. We are richer now and thus more able to switch to green technologies. The obvious solution to this is for the developed economies to pay for the developing countries to get green technologies. This, of course, is totally opposed by conservatives. But more important, China then and now doesn’t emit nearly as much carbon as we do per capita. The US emits about as much carbon as China does, but China has 4.3 times as many people. The fact that one fat America eats as much as ten starving Chinese does not mean that the Chinese need to go on a diet.

None of this matters to conservatives, of course. Any idea that implies that the United States is a country like almost 200 others makes them see red. And the idea that we would do anything that would help everyone — even when it includes ourselves — is anathema to them. The whole “What about China!” argument is part of the Global Warming Denial Stages. The point is conservatives refuse to do anything about global warming — not because they don’t believe it but because it involves collective action that doesn’t involve killing people. So literally everything they say on the issue is just a justification for doing nothing.

The first step of global warming denial is, “There is no global warming!” The final step is, “Humans are causing global warming, but there is nothing we can do about it!” What’s remarkable is just how many sub-steps there are in that last one. And you will notice conservatives commonly switch between steps. One will make a “Can’t do anything” argument, but then retreat into a “scientists disagree and I’m no scientist” as soon as actual policies that could fight global warming are proposed.

I was taking a political science course during the Iran-Contra hearings. I remember a student asking, “After Watergate and this, why don’t people stop trusting the Republicans.” My teacher — an old school Democrat — said, “People just see these things are being representative of individuals and not the party.” And that’s what will continue to happen here. Regardless of how badly this all goes, conservatives in the future will just say, “Of course the party was wrong about global warming!” And they’ll say that as they continue to fight every new threat we face. And the people will vote for them, because hell, it isn’t the ideology — it’s just those old conservatives! Anyway, by then, they will probably have managed to change the voting requirements to being over 65 years old and at least seven-eighths Caucasian.

According to Dustin Volz over at National Journal, AOL Becomes Latest Tech Giant to Flee From ALEC. AOL has not said why it is leaving the American Legislative Exchange Council, but it is part of a trend. “In the space of two weeks in September, Google, Yahoo, and Yelp announced they had already left or were in the process of leaving ALEC, an exodus that began when Google Chairman Eric Schmidt charged that the group was ‘just literally lying’ about climate change.” So good for those high tech films — always forward thinking! Or not.

For example, Occidental Petroleum is leaving the group. A lot of companies have left ALEC and a lot of them will continue to do it. That’s because ALEC is toxic. It has long been known just what a vile group ALEC is, but it got a lot of press after George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin. It turned out that ALEC had been pushing open carry and stand-your-ground laws. What the hell did that have to do with business interests? Well, nothing. And as soon as it became a political problem, the group stopped that. It’s two and a half years later and Google only just figured this out?

What’s really going on is that corporations are like psychopaths. ALEC pushed policies like “starve the poor and cut my taxes,” so Google and AOL didn’t care if the group was also calling for the genocide of all Americans less than seven-eighth Caucasian. Facebook is “not likely” to renew its membership — showing once again that it is a follower of followers. But these companies should get no credit for leaving this vile group years after its villainy was clear. (That’s years before Zimmerman started swaggering around Sanford, Florida.)

But the truth is that there is no reason for Google and company to not jettison support for ALEC. The group has done its job. America has been harmed. The economic playing field has tilted toward rich companies and away from start-ups. Many people all over the nation have gotten away with murder. And most of all: the companies themselves have been enriched. Now ALEC is a political liability. Google doesn’t need it. I’m sure they can find another group (They probably already have!) to do the same things, but with a less embarrassing name.

This sums up the current situation:

Why does anyone support any of these companies? Why did these companies — Especially a healthcare company! — support ALEC? It is disgraceful, but fully expected. These companies hate us. If they could put the human race in The Matrix style pods and siphon off our energy, they would. I was being extremely accurate above when I described these companies as psychopaths. It is enshrined corporate law that they must act with the single focus of making money. And it has poisoned our entire society.

Have you always wanted to live inside a William Gibson novel? Good news: you already are! Except, of course, the cool parts.

H/T: Tom Sullivan

I’ve written a couple of articles about the threat that we now face because the Supreme Court decided to review King v Burwell. The first was, Supreme Court May Yet Destroy Obamacare — which goes over the case and how it could ultimately lead to the repeal of Obamacare. The second was just last night, Consservatives Will Kill Textualism to Hurt Obamacare — which discusses how the textualists on the Supreme Court will likely abandon their supposed judicial philosophy for the chance to harm the healthcare law they so hate. What I haven’t discussed is just what the effect of such a decision would be in the thirty-odd states that did not create their own exchanges.

Luckily, Jonathan Cohn is on the job, Here’s What the Supreme Court Could Do to Insurance Premiums In Your State. We are going to see insurance premiums go up — way up. This is a lot of disruption, “Nationwide, more than 4 million people living in 37 states would be in situations like these.” But there’s more. Because the premiums would quickly rise, most people would be unable to continue to afford it and this would have a destabilizing effect on insurers. And this would mean everyone else would be paying more:

I’m reminded of John Roberts disingenuous comment about just calling balls and strikes. This case is not about playing umpire. If the Supreme Court manages to gut Obamacare, it will be doing it as the partisan judicial arm of the Republican Party. I know this sounds like hyperbole, but it is literally true: if the Supreme Court does this, people will die as a direct result. And John Roberts and the rest of the conservatives on the court are delusional if they think they are just disinterested parties calling strikes.

The one thing that has most defined the Roberts Court has been legal scholars consistently amazed that cases that would have been laughed out of small claims court a few years ago finding a winning audience in the highest court in the nation. If Roberts is really interested in his legacy, he’s doing a terrible job of it. Roger Taney is mostly remembered for a single decision. Roberts will be remembered as the Chief Justice who oversaw the complete breakdown of law in the name of partisan gain.

In this case, the people most targeted are going to see an overwhelming assault. Cohn provided the following graph to show just how big an effect the lack of federal subsidies will be in the states that are directly affected:

That’s a 500% increase in Florida. Good thing they voted for Rick Scott! But that’s actually nothing compared to the people of Mississippi who will see their average premium go from $23 to $438 — an increase of over 1,900%! What’s most remarkable about this lawsuit is that this is exactly what it is trying to do. This isn’t some unfortunate side effect. The idea is to get people angry so that they kill the law. But if that doesn’t happen, it means that people will pay taxes and without getting any benefit from it.

I hate books and television shows with titles like, “America’s Stupidest Criminals!” It doesn’t reflect an understanding that most crime is the result of desperation. Robbing a liquor store is not at the top of most people’s list of, “How to make ends meet!” So I’m very understanding of the millions in our jails and prisons. But the kind of people who push lawsuits like King v Burwell are not desperate. They are simply harming other people — mostly powerless people — just to get an advantage. They are doing this because a tiny tax was enacted for the rich. That is, after all, the reason conservatives are against Obamacare. Forget the individual mandate and all that; they hate the law because it raised taxes on the rich.

So remember this graph when you hear conservatives talk with glee about the impending doom of Obamacare. This is what we are talking about. And these are not the people on welfare — those people won’t be affected. This is something that conservatives are doing to the working poor: people doing hard jobs for little money. That’s what modern conservatism is all about: afflict the afflicted and comfort the comfortable. They must be so pleased with themselves. Of course, that’s the great thing about being a sociopath: you always sleep well.

I bristle at most holidays, but Veterans Day has a special place in my mind. I’m not at all bothered by paying tribute to our veterans, but this holiday has a strong jingoist feel to it. Here in the United States, being against war is generally seen as being against the soldiers who we have do our dirty work. But that’s just a con. In general, people don’t like wars. So by grafting “support the war” onto “support the troops” our war mongers can get a pass.

Remember when Donald Rumsfeld said, “You go to war with the army you have — not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time”? The implication there was that the Iraq War was existential. We had to go war right then. Of course, missing from this analysis was the six months that the administration used for a propaganda campaign to goose up support for that war. Where exactly was the support for the troops then?

Rumsfeld was answering a question from Army Specialist Thomas Wilson, “Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles? And why don’t we have those resources readily available to us?” But in the American psyche, support for the troops is putting a yellow ribbon on your SUV and never questioning the justice or advisability for the war. “America right or wrong!”

Last year, when writing about Veterans Day, I noted that most of our wars were useless and this does not reflect on the men who fight them, “It is no disrespect to Achilles and Hector to note that the Trojan War was useless and tragic.” But useless wars are a reflection on those who start them and those who sell them.

Veterans Day was originally Armistice Day — a celebration of the end of the very useless World War I. It was specifically intended to mark that war and the roughly twenty million who had died fighting it. At the end of World War II, Armistice Day was expanded to celebrate all veterans and the day was changed officially to Veterans Day in 1954 — the first one was 60 years ago today.

It is a technical distinction, but an important one. Armistice Day was always about veterans — specially dead veterans. But it called to mind the end of war — a great gift to soldiers everywhere. Veterans Day flips this on its head. It implies that veterans are a good thing to have. “Let’s make some more veterans!” To me the day is not about celebrating veterans, but of asking forgiveness. Does anyone think it was right to draft young men and have them die for the sake of World War I? Such a distinction is the difference between jingoistic “America, hell yeah!” and, as Woodrow Wilson said when first celebrating Armistice Day, an occasion of “solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service.”

I would think differently if something had changed. We can celebrate past wars and the people who fought in them. My concern is that Veterans Day is used to push casual war as an acceptable practice. Now the United States is in perpetual war. We might as well change Veterans Day to Soldier Day, for all the difference it makes. Many of the founders of this country were concerned about having a standing army. I wonder what they would think of us today with our standing wars.

So celebrate Veterans Day. Honor our veterans — living and dead. But don’t lose sight of reality. There are no “bloody good wars” — just bloody wars.

I read a remarkable article today over at SCOTUSblog today by Yale Law Professor Abbe R Gluck, The Grant in King — Obamacare Subsidies as Textualism’s Big Test. She is a big advocate of textualism — the theory that judges should base the decisions only on the text of the law. As I discussed in, Originalism, Textualism, and Politics on the Supreme Court, this is usually misidentified as “originalism.” So textualism is the theory that supposedly animates such conservative judicial titans as Scalia and Thomas.

According to Gluck, the case in King v Burwell, which threatens to destroy Obamacare, is the ultimate test of textualism. If Scalia and company find for the plaintiffs, they will do so because they don’t like Obamacare and it will “threaten all that textualists have accomplished.” She argued that the case is not about what the law says versus what the intent of the legislators was — the critical issue in textualism. Rather it is all about what the law itself says. In fact, the plaintiffs can only make their case by resorting to non-textual arguments about what Congress did or did not mean when it wrote the law.

She further noted that Scalia himself recently argued that “the fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” And in another case he argued that the court should read legislation such that it “does least violence to the text.” So, is the “liberal” reading of the text this time the “textual” reading? It would seem so.

The critical clause that the plaintiffs have latched onto is in section 1401 that states that subsidies will be based upon the premiums found through the “Exchange established by the State under 1311.” Section 1311 gives the law about the state exchanges. But that isn’t the end of it:

It seems pretty straight forward. The plaintiff’s case is dependent upon saying, “We know that Congress meant to not provide these subsidies to the states because they wanted to encourage the states to set up their own exchanges.” But this isn’t in the text of the law. I would add that the evidence of this being the case is pretty weak anyway. The interesting thing in this case is that it shows that the conservative efforts to destroy Obamacare has a scattershot approach. I doubt very seriously that the people at the Cato Institute who came up with this idea thought very much of it. But the idea is just to throw everything at the courts and hope something sticks. The last time it did, it was, “Could the government force people to eat broccoli?!”

Gluck seems a little freaked out about this case. I can’t speak for her, but I assume she’s thinking the same thing that I am: the conservative textualists don’t much believe in the theory. It has always been a simple justification for coming to their conservative (neolithic) decisions. And now that a case comes up where the choice is either to apply the textualism they supposedly believe in or to destroy a law they don’t like for other reasons, they will simply abandon textualism.

Of course, here we are primarily talking about the two justices: Scalia and Thomas. Kennedy and Alito will vote for the plaintiffs just because they hate the law. That leaves Roberts, who voted to uphold the law in National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius. Wouldn’t he vote to uphold it again? Probably not. As Bill Gardner noted earlier today, this case allows the conservative justices to greatly harm the law (very likely fatally) without killing it outright. It doesn’t look good.

What’s sad about all this is that it shows what a sham the Supreme Court is. At this point, the conservatives on the court are as partisan as any member of Congress. I fully expect to see Scalia and Thomas cast aside all their high ideals for a chance to strike a blow against Obama’s most important piece of legislation. But it won’t matter. Anyone who is not already convinced that they are partisan hacks will never see what’s really going on.