Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 877

The NSA is Spying on the British. Does That Mean the U.K. Is Spying on Us?

Despite a general agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom that their citizens won't be surveilled by each other's intelligence agencies, documents leaked by Edward Snowden indicate that, since 2007, the National Security Agency has been explicitly collecting and analyzing information on British citizens, with that country's permission. Raising the question: Could British intelligence be surveilling us — with the NSA's permission?

The new report in The Guardian outlines what's known about the agreement between the countries, two of the five nations that comprise the "Five Eyes" group (the other three being New Zealand, Australia, and Canada). It appears that the collection is largely metadata — email addresses, phone numbers, and IP addresses — collected incidentally, meaning without both people involved in the communication being specific targets of the agency. That data is then apparently used in the NSA's system for building out relationship networks.

The NSA has been using the U.K. data to conduct so-called "pattern of life" or "contact-chaining" analyses, under which the agency can look up to three "hops" away from a target of interest – examining the communications of a friend of a friend of a friend.

The Guardian also notes that this — though undertaken with the U.K.'s consent — runs contrary to the understanding between Five Eyes countries.

The memo states that the Five-Eyes agreement "has evolved to include a common understanding that both governments will not target each other's citizens/persons".

But the next sentence – classified as not to be shared with foreign partners – states that governments "reserved the right" to conduct intelligence operations against each other's citizens "when it is in the best interests of each nation".

The United States made unilateral contingency plans to surveil even its allies. "The document does not reveal whether such operations had been authorized in the past," the paper continues, "nor whether the NSA believes its Five-Eyes partners conduct operations against U.S. citizens."

This raises the question raised above. Could British intelligence be collecting and analyzing information on Americans through its own or joint intelligence systems? Could the NSA explicitly use GCHQ (as the agency is known) to get around the search prohibitions outlined under the Fourth Amendment?

The Wire spoke with Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Lee Tien to ask him those questions. And the answer is, no.

"It's not that easy to circumvent the Fourth Amendment, assuming all the facts were clear," Tien told us. There exists longstanding case law known as the Joint Venture Doctrine, that implicates the government in any unconstitutional behavior undertaken with its knowledge or participation. "Generally, the idea is that if the U.S. joins with a foreign government in conducting a search then any consequences of that search … the U.S.A. would still legally be on the hook for."

"There's another doctrine, a related one, that talks about circuitous and indirect search methods. Again it's the same kind of idea," Tien told us. "I think there's a fairly reasonable argument that you can't launder your way around the Amendment." Even if the agreement were of the wink-and-nudge variety, "the fundamental question is always going to be: how much was the U.S. involved."

Could the GCHQ be surveilling Americans without telling the United States? It could — as could the intelligence services of other countries. It's not clear if the UK is given a pass on surveilling Americans in the same way that we're okayed to look at Britons. But if it is doing so, and the NSA knows about it or benefits from what Tien calls the "fruit" of that surveillance — the NSA would likely be accountable.

Assuming there were a robust system of accountability in place.

       

Cobb County Won't Vote on New Taxes for $300 Million Stadium, Because Elections Are Expensive

AP

Cobb County residents are beginning to push back against the county's plan to contribute $300 million of taxpayer money to build a new stadium for baseball's Atlanta Braves. But that outcry likely won't matter, because county officials have decided that the money will be approved in a vote among Cobb commissioners, and not by a public referendum.

Why won't the voters (and taxpayers) get to weigh in? "It would have to be a special election, and that would cost taxpayers 300, 400 thousand dollars," Cobb Commissioner JoAnn Birrell said to CBS Atlanta.

In Birrell's view, a baseball team moving about 20 minutes closer to Cobb residents is worth $300 million to the area. A democratic vote in costing less than 0.1 percent of that shiny new stadium, apparently isn't.

We noted previously how that public funding is a "really crappy deal" for Cobb County, which won't see nearly that much money come back to them in economic benefits. The biggest opponents so far appear to be Tea Party groups in Cobb, the original home of Newt Gingrich. Tea Party organizations have taken to incessant robocalling of residents, encouraging them to dial their local leaders and oppose the deal. That's having some success, as the citizen calls are shutting down the county's regular phone lines. “It’s like a denial of service. We’re unable to let anyone who’s calling in with regular business, or needs assistance from the commissioner, to get through," a Cobb spokesman said to 11Alive.

Even without a public vote, it's unlikely that the Braves and Cobb County — which finalized a Memorandum of Understanding on Tuesday – will call off or change their deal. Cobb County official Tim Lee claimed there won't even be a public hearing on the subject. "I don't know that having a public hearing would add to the objective of getting more input since we've got a lot of input to date." Cobb is intent on ramming the new taxes through, avoiding both a hearing and a vote that could scuttle the whole thing. Opponents have until next Tuesday to make their voices heard before the executive committee votes to approve the stadium.

       

Accents Abound in the 'Muppets Most Wanted' Trailer

Europe, accents, and a bad frog are all on the menu in the new trailer for Muppets Most Wanted.

Disney's 2011 Muppet movie reboot successfully brought Jim Henson's characters into the modern era by keeping their trademark Old-Hollywood feel. Based on the trailer for the upcoming Muppets Most Wanted it looks like they are following in the footsteps of the earlier Muppet movies by turning their focus away from Hollywood into something more The Great Muppet Caper-y. 

The trailer finds our Muppets in quite a predicament when a criminal mastermind steals Kermit's identity. Tina Fey is a Russian prison guard wrongfully arresting Kermit. Ty Burrell is a French Interpol inspector comparing badges with Sam the Eagle. Ricky Gervais is British in that Ricky Gervais way.

Will this be any good? Who knows! The first one was certainly charming, but this lacks the influence of Jason Segel, who provided a good measure of that charm. Still, Tom Hiddleston and Diddy make cameos so we're like, definitely, seeing this. 

 

       

How Much Crack Would a Crack Mayor Smoke If a Crack Mayor Could Admit He Smoked Crack?

AP

Crack-addled Toronto mayor Rob Ford can't keep straight his statements about when he smoked crack, or how many times he has smoked crack. 

Initially, Ford admitted smoking crack "probably in one of my drunken stupors." Not definitely, only probably. There's a chance Ford has hit a pipe sober. Since then, Ford's comments and clarifications have evolved in the ensuing media storm. Tuesday, Ford told NBC's Today Show he "barely" remembers the night the crack video was filmed. In another interview with Canada's CP24, Ford said he smoked crack "maybe once," and claimed he hasn't done drugs in a year. Again, Ford doesn't claim definitively that he smoked crack cocaine only once. Maybe Ford did drugs once. Again, nothing definitive. To commit to a denial would trap Ford the next time new, damaging details are revealed, which is inevitable, if we've learned anything about this particular scandal.

Oh, and Toronto police tell a different story. According to an official police document, first reported by the Toronto Star, the cops have concluded Ford's infamous crack video was shot in February. That's about three months shy of the last time Ford says he did drugs. "The video appears to show the Mayor of Toronto consuming what appears to be a narcotic," the document claims. 

The claims coming from the mayor's mouth have varied wildly, and are drowning in cautionary modifiers. At this point the possibility mayor Ford has smoked crack cocaine more than once must be seriously considered. 

To add insult to injury, especially now that he has no real power at city hall, Ford's brief television career came to a swift conclusion Monday. Last night Ford and his city councillor brother, Doug Ford, debuted Ford Nation on Sun News, a right-wing news network often heralded as Canada's answer to Fox News, to record ratings. But Sun News cancelled the show less than 24 hours after it aired its first and only episode because of an expensive shooting and editing process: 

While Ford Nation pulled about 155,000 viewers, according to overnight ratings, it is a victim of the brutal economics of cable TV and the Fords’ relative inexperience with the medium: Monday’s episode took five hours to record, and another eight hours to edit, making it an unusually expensive endeavour for a niche network that is in only about 40 per cent of Canadian households.

Ford mostly used the show to spout the same talking points he always does. Ford Nation was, largely, unremarkable television, though it earned some fans. 

       

A Brief History of Members of Congress Breaking the Law

Sen. Larry Pressler, R-S.D., celebrates his 38th birthday at a surprise party in Washington,1980. At right is former Michigan State judge James Schooner dressed as an Arab in reference to Pressler having been mentioned in the ABSCAM investigation. (AP)

The arrest of Florida Rep. Trey Radel for cocaine possession puts him in rarified company. Only 68 members of the House and Senate have been convicted of crimes while in office — and only two of those were convicted of drug possession.

We decided to break down the numbers. Using this handy Wikipedia list of legislators who've been convicted of crimes — which, we hasten to point out, Radel has not — we looked at which states, decades, and chamber of Congress were most likely to see criminal convictions.

Convictions by chamber This one is a gimme. The House, given that it has far more members, has seen more convictions. Sixty-four members of the House have been convicted of crimes. Only four Senators have been. Convictions by decade

Setting aside Rep. Matthew Lyon's 1778 conviction for sedition, every congressmember's conviction has come since 1900.

You'll notice that we're on something of a downward trend. In the 1970s, a series of scandals took down members of Congress (for example, Koreagate). In the 1980s, the spike was from Abscam. In the 1990s — an array of things.

We didn't include executive branch convictions, which, thanks to Watergate and the Iran-Contra scandal, would have made the 1970s and 1980s bars much, much higher.

Convictions by state

Only one representative from Radel's home state of Florida have been convicted of crimes: Richard Kelly, who was busted in Abscam after taking $25,000 in bribes by federal agents posing as Middle Eastern businessmen.

The grand champions of criminal convictions? Pennsylvania. Nice work, guys.

Convictions by crime

Here's the really interesting stuff. Since this isn't conducive to a chart, an old-fashioned list of crimes.

Bribery, 11 times Fraud, 10 times Corruption, 9 times Abscam, 7 times Tax evasion, 3 times Possession, 3 times (including Radel) Campaign law , 3 times Koreagate, 2 times Extortion, 2 times Embezzlement, 2 times Drunk driving, 2 times

Fourteen crimes fit into the category of "other." Among them: Disorderly conduct, obstruction of justice, perjury, false disclosure, misuse of funds, sexual assault, voter fraud, manslaughter, and lewd conduct. And: Leaving the scene of an accident — for which Ted Kennedy was convicted in 1969.

Incidentally, Radel holds one record by himself. The two possession convictions were for marijuana, and accompanied other charges. Radel, if convicted, will be the only member convicted of possession cocaine.

       

The Supreme Court Won't Block Texas's Abortion Law

AP

The Supreme Court refused to block a series of restrictions in Texas's new abortion laws on Tuesday, meaning that a provision that could close up to a third of the state's clinics will be enforced even as it faces a court challenge. There are two provisions of the omnibus law in question: a measure requiring doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, and a series of restrictions on drug-induced abortions. The Supreme Court order was written by Justice Antonin Scalia, with Thomas and Alito concurring. Scalia writes, addressing an application for a stay by the lawsuit's plaintiffs: 

It would flout core principles of federalism by mandating postponement of a state law without asserting that the law is even probably unconstitutional. Reasonable minds can disagree about whether the Court of Appeals should have granted a stay in this case. But there is no doubt that the applicants have not carried their heavy burden of showing that doing so was a clear violation of accepted legal standards — which do not include a special "status quo" standard for laws affecting abortion 

Justices Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg dissented. Because the decision was 5-4 in against the stay, that means Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy also voted with Scalia. 

In late October, federal District Judge Lee Yeakel blocked the enforcement of the admitting privileges requirement on the grounds that it was "without a rational basis, and places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a non-viable fetus." The provision requires doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital no more than 30 miles from their clinic. The judge also imposed limitations on a provision restricting drug-induced abortions. Yeakel's block was lifted by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals days later, leading to the immediate closure of a portion of the clinics in the state. The 5th Circuit has a history of siding with anti-abortion advocates in its opinions. They'll hear oral arguments on the case in January. The court is hearing the case on an expedited basis.  

The law in question was famously filibustered by Texas state legislator Wendy Davis, who is now running for governor. Other provisions in the law, including a 20-week abortion ban, were unchallenged in the suit brought by Planned Parenthood and other abortion rights groups. 

       

How Not Expanding Medicaid Fits Into Scott Walker's 2016 Plan

Associated Press

In his effort to be the "not Chris Christie" of the Republican 2016 race, Wisconsin Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is attempting to not expand Medicaid while still keeping the state's low income residents insured. In February, when he announced that the state plan to not accept federal funds to expand the program, Walker said the plan was "to get more people out into the workplace, more people covered when it comes to health care and fewer people dependent on the government, not because we've kicked them out, but we've empowered them to take control of their own destiny." The state's Republican-led legislature approved the budget in June. 

So what's his game plan?

Currently, Wisconsin's Medicaid program — BadgerCare — accepts people making 200 percent of the poverty level, though the program caps how many people are in the program, creating a waiting list. Walker's plan undoes that cap, which will open up BadgerCare to 83,000 people, but he'll lower the income level to 100 percent of the poverty level, or $11,490. That kicks out 77,500 people, forcing them on to the exchanges. 

The good news is that, unlike a few other states that declined to expand Medicaid, that 77,500 wouldn't be caught in the limbo of being too "well off" for Medicaid but too poor for subsidies on the exchanges.  

Well that's good, right?

Kinda. The bad news is that's a lot of people who'll have to use the exchanges, a system that's not designed for people at their income level (they should be on Medicaid). Wisconsin will also bear the honor of having kicked more people off Medicaid that any other state in the country. Also, some estimate that Wisconsin would save $460 million between now and 2020 by expanding under Obamacare, but he could be president by then so what does it matter? 

Walker, meanwhile, gets the best of both worlds. He's turning down taxpayer handouts from Big Government, while also keeping people insured. Walker also postponed the January 1 BadgerCare cuts and the close of the state's high risk insurance pool for three months, till April 1, because of problems with the federal exchange. (The state legislature will vote on the expansions next month.) He made the announcement hours after President Obama announced his plan to allow insurers to continue offering plans that don't comply with the Affordable Care Act.

Basically it gave him a chance to gloat about Obamacare.

Walker definitely didn't mince words about the rollout. “The whole reason we’re here today is because the federal government couldn’t get its act together,” he said during a Thursday press conference. Another good sound bite:

We’re talking about real people’s lives. I’m not going to let the failures of the federal government bring down people who are caught in between systems that just aren’t working right now.

At the same time, Walker is advocating restraint. During a chat with the National Review on Friday, he said Republicans can't be seen “spiking the football” or bragging about Obamacare. His job is to help the people who "slip through the cracks" because they lost their old insurance. 

That's very presidential of him.

Well, Walker is the sort of cool guy you might want to have a beer with, as Time notes. And to paraphrase the general conservative consensus, "as long as it's not Christie, am I right?" If, three long years from now, Obamacare is a success, Walker won't be the guy who left thousands of his constituents uninsured. Well, he'll have kicked over 70,000 people out of BadgerCare, and have failed to provide Medicaid to those in the 100 percent to 133 percent of the poverty level bracket, but there are the exchanges. If they can't get insured there it's Obama's fault.

If Obamacare doesn't go well, he won't be the guy who drank the Obamacare Kool-Aid and took federal money. Plenty of policy decisions could come back to haunt him, but with Republican voters, Medicaid probably won't be one of them. 

       

'Star Wars' Casts Its First Major Role

20th Century Fox

Today in show business news: We have one confirmed cast member for the new Star Wars movie, Ender gets a new game, and Lake Bell and Simon Pegg are hooking up.

After tons of speculation about J.J. Abrams's hotly anticipated Star Wars Episode VII, we finally have at least one answer. One solid bit of casting news: R2-D2 will be in the movie and, presumably, will be played by R2-D2. I mean, who else would be playing R2-D2? Manny from Modern Family? Pfft. No, this was always R2's role if he wanted it, and it looks like he's accepted it. I wonder what his quote was. I mean, he's very famous, but he also hasn't worked in a while. Like, eight years? That's a long time. Not Terry Malick long, but long. And R2-D2 is no Terrence Malick. He only does the one thing! OK, fine, Malick only does the one thing too, but it's different. The point is, it's great that R2 will be in the new movie, but I'm just curious how they got him back. And, hm, what's that? The character of R2-D2 will likely be done with computers this time as he was in the last three Star Wars movies, so this whole joke doesn't really hold water? Fine. Whatever. Enjoy your R2. In whatever form he is. [Deadline]

Speaking of space movies, the little gay kid from Ender's Game (he was gay, right? That was Orson Scott Card's intention, to make a gay hero? I mean his name's Ender), Asa Butterfield, has landed a role opposite Clive Owen in a movie called King of the Kastle. The film is about "a middle-aged philanderer [who] is blackmailed by a teenager." I'm just assuming here, so don't quote me, but I think that Butterfield will play the teenager while Owen will play the middle-aged philanderer. Though, Jacki Weaver is also in the cast, so maybe she's the middle-aged philanderer. Whatever the case is, I'm glad they used that "k" for "Kastle," because if the movie was King of the Castle I think people would get confused between that and what they call me at the weekly TV trivia thing I go to, alone, where I frequently win because of my deep knowledge of, and love for, ABC's hit detective series Castle. If Richard Castle did it, I know it. If Kate Beckett said it, I can say it too. I can give you a thorough synopsis of every episode, from S02E12 "A Rose for Everafter," to S02E16 "The Mistress Always Spanks Twice." I am King of the Castle. Take heed, Butterfield. [Variety]

Comedy darling Lake Bell will star opposite comedy darling Simon Pegg in Man Up, a comedy directed by British comedy darling Ben Palmer. (He directed The Inbetweeners Movie, so I don't know if "darling" exactly applies, but just go with it.) The movie is about "a single woman who is mistaken for a stranger’s blind date — leading to her finding the perfect boyfriend." Hm. Sounds cute. Sure. That sounds like exactly the kind of movie that Lake Bell would do. I suppose we're to assume that Simon Pegg is the perfect boyfriend? Only one way to find out! (This item has been sponsored by Studio Canal's Man Up.) [Variety]

       

David Cameron and Iran's Hassan Rouhani Had a Phone Chat

AP

Continuing the trend of Iran getting back on speaking terms with other countries, British Prime Minister David Cameron called Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Tuesday, the first time a U.K. leader has done so in a decade. Iran enters another round of international negotiations on its nuclear program next week. 

According to 10 Downing Street, the two leaders "agreed to continue efforts to improve the relationship on a step by step and reciprocal basis." Here's their summary of the discussion of Iran's nuclear capabilities: 

Both leaders agreed that significant progress had been made in the recent Geneva negotiations and that it was important to seize the opportunity presented by the further round of talks which get underway tomorrow. The Prime Minister underlined the necessity of Iran comprehensively addressing the concerns of the international community about their nuclear programme, including the need for greater transparency.

Rouhani, as has become characteristic for the new leader, summarized his side of the story on Twitter: 

In a phone conversation, @David_Cameron expressed regret over the #terrorist attacks in front of the Iranian embassy in #Beirut.

— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) November 19, 2013

Finding a political solution to the #Syrian crisis and improving bilateral ties were other issues discussed in phone conv w/ @David_Cameron

— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) November 19, 2013

In phone conv w/ @David_Cameron, ways to create positive atmosphere to address concerns of both sides on the #nuclear issue was emphasized

— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) November 19, 2013

Following Rouhani's so-called "charm offensive" to the West, international leaders have re-entered negotiations with Iran over his enrichment of uranium, which Rouhani insists is only for peaceful purposes. And while previous rounds of negotiations have left participants cautiously optimistic, the negotiators have not yet agreed on a short- or long-term deal that would lift sanctions against the country. That, it should be noted, is the main reason Iran is engaging in the negotiations. On Tuesday, President Obama met with members of Congress from both parties to talk about an interim deal the P5+1 negotiating body would like to pursue. That agreement could, among other things, be complicated by a desire among some members of Congress to impose new sanctions on the country. 

       

A Brief Survey of When People Are and Aren't Punished for Acting Like Alec Baldwin

The latest chapter in the Alec Baldwin saga is debating whether MSNBC is punishing him enough for his gay slur outburst. By not firing the salty Millard Fillmore doppelgänger, critics say the network is giving him a pass and sending a more troubling message: that gay people, and their rights, are inconsequential.

In the past week, Baldwin called a paparazzo a "cock-sucking fag" and was suspended from his talk show for two weeks. 

One of Baldwin's and MSNBC's biggest critics has been CNN's Anderson Cooper. Cooper played a game of Bad Word Olympics with his guest Andrew Sullivan last night. Usually the game is played over wine among adults trying to be philosophical, in a conversation about race and civil rights. Nevertheless, Cooper made the point that the message being sent is that calling someone a "faggot" or "fag" still isn't considered as bad as calling them the n-word. And this is disrespectful to LGBT people. Cooper said:

If Alec Baldwin had yelled the N-word to that photographer or yelled an anti-Jewish slur against that photographer, it would be over. But the F-word is a word that kids are called in school every single day. Teachers often do nothing about it.

While Baldwin has given more people proof that he's a homophobic jerk, the bigger bigger problem that concerns Cooper is that society doesn't really care about gay people if they don't punish anti-gay slurs the same way they would the n-word and anti-Semitism.

I'd argue that slurs are not the only indicator of bigotry. Richard Cohen, for example, says some pretty offensive, dumb, racist things at The Washington Post but hasn't really ventured out to use the n-word.

When it comes to the varying degrees of severity, it's be silly to think that a hierarchy doesn't exist. Louis C.K. points out that the easiest way to tell if the word is bad is if you can't actually say it out loud (see: the n-word). But, you don't have to agree or believe in a hierarchy.  

But Cooper's words got us to thinking about some of the biggest stories over the last couple of years which involved people using slurs, insults, and saying negative things about people's race, sex, or orientation.  We also looked at whether or not they kept their jobs after. Here's a brief rundown: 

June 2011: Tracy Morgan's Rant About Murdering His Hypothetical Gay Son

Baldwin's 30 Rock co-star said something worse than Baldwin did back in 2011. During the middle of a stand-up act in Nashville, Morgan told a bunch of fans in Nashville that he would murder his son if he ever found out he was gay. A fan named Kevin Rogers wrote about the incident on his Facebook post:

He said if his son that was gay he better come home and talk to him like a man and not [he mimicked a gay, high pitched voice] or he would pull out a knife and stab that little N (one word I refuse to use) to death. ...  Tracy then said he didn't f--king care if he pissed off some gays, because if they can take a f--king d-ck up their a--... they can take a f--king joke."

The Outcome: Morgan apologized. Tina Fey apologized. Morgan worked on the show until it ended two years later. 

February 2012:  ESPN's "Chink" in the Armor

Gosh, people were saying a bunch of dumb stuff about Jeremy Lin right when he started being successful. Despite all the insults about his race (which included a small dick joke), people stopped short of using a slur. People, except ESPN and editor Anthony Federico who went with the headline "Chink in the Armor" (below), after writing a story about a Knick loss and how Lin's play factored into it. Frederico says this was all an accident. 

The Outcome: Frederico was fired one day after he wrote the headline. The anchor who read the headline on air was suspended for a month. 

December 2012: ESPN Again with "Cornball Brother"

Commentator Rob Parker, for some reason or another, decided to question the blackness of Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III. "Is he a brother or a cornball brother?" Parker asked during an episode of First Take. He added: "'I'm just trying to dig deeper as to why he has an issue. Because we did find out with Tiger Woods, Tiger Woods was like, I've got black skin, but don't call me black. So people got to wondering about Tiger Woods early on." 

The Outcome: Parker was suspended the next day. He was eventually let go a month later when his contract was not renewed.

June 2013: Alec Baldwin's Other Homophobic Remark

Alec Baldwin's latest anti-gay outburst is a big deal because it now looks like he has a habit of using gay slurs as an insult. To be honest, it's a little beyond me as to why we're surprised that someone who calls their 11-year-old daughter a "rude, thoughtless pig" is actually kind of a jerk. 

But back in June, Baldwin was offended that a Daily Mail writer insinuated his wife was tweeting during James Gandolfini's funeral. He tweeted that the writer was a "toxic little queen."

The Outcome: Baldwin wasn't really working then, and only in commercials (the companies didn't drop him). He also tried to clear things up and say that he wasn't being homophobic, but rather was trying to say that the writer was haughty (like royalty) and not of average human size. And those were the reasons he wanted to inflict violence on the writer. "I don't think it’s a call for violence against a specific person because they’re gay, it’s a call for violence against a person who lied about my wife ... I do not call on anyone to attack this guy from the Daily Mail because he's gay." Baldwin said.

June 2013: Paula Deen Crazy Racist Fantasies

Paula Deen, the gray-haired, one-time butter darling of the Food Network had a rough summer too. During a deposition in regards to discrimination suit (which was dropped), Deen revealed she had used the n-word in the past. "Yes, of course... It's just what they are — they're jokes... most jokes are about Jewish people, rednecks, black folks... I can’t determine what offends another person," she told lawyers. 

She also revealed she wanted to hire black caterers to play slaves and create "really Southern plantation wedding." 

The Outcome: Deen's business partners began dropping her left and right. Her upcoming book was canceled. And Food Network decided to drop the star. That all happened within the span of two weeks.

October 2013: That Really Racist Guy on The Daily Show

Buncombe County Republican Precinct Chairman Don Yelton will forever be known as the guy who said all that racist stuff on The Daily Show. One of Yelton's lowlights included lamenting "lazy black people that wants the government to give them everything."

 

W

What we didn't know at the time was that he might be sexist too. Before his Daily Show, appearance Yelton took to his Facebook page and called CNN's Ashley Banfield a "loud mouth bitch." 

listen to this and learn [h]ow to deal with a loud mouthed bitch who suffers from anterior upas posterior. The real question is whose posterior. I think we know Obama.

The Outcome: Yelton was fired the day after his Daily Show appearance aired. 

These people, of course, don't represent every single person who has said something racist/sexist/homophobic against another human being. And perhaps Cooper has a point in these high-profile cases: people are punished more definitively and harshly when they say something racist rather than homophobic or misogynistic, sometimes even if those homophobic comments sometimes imply murder or physical violence.