Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 888

Please, Let's Not Have a 'Hunger Games' Theme Park

Lionsgate is apparently mulling a theme park based on the hit novels-turned-blockbuster films The Hunger Games. This is not a good idea, and highlights why some of the Hunger Games marketing techniques should probably make us feel uncomfortable. 

In the lead-up to the release of Catching Fire later this month, Etan Vlessing of The Hollywood Reporter reported that Jon Feltheimer, the Lionsgate CEO, said they have been "approached in two different territories about potential theme park opportunities, which gives you a sense of the cultural impact of this franchise" and are "excited about those opportunities and are pursuing them." 

So a Hunger Games theme park is a fun idea, right? Let's just think about that for a second. This is a story about a dystopian society that, in order to oppress its people makes kids fight to the death. The land of the story, Panem, is not a fantastical dream destination that way that, say, J.K. Rowling's wizarding world of Harry Potter is. Potter, in fact, has already become a theme park and is expanding to more. A Hunger Games immersive experience is a bit more troubling, though, and already a Florida Hunger Games-themed camp raised eyebrows back in August for engaging kids in activities resembling the to-the-death fights of the books.

[image error]The Hunger Games is a dark story that never really lightens up, no matter how wacky the garb of the Capitol denizens gets. That darkness is fine. It is, in fact, author Suzanne Collins's intent. She told the New York Times in 2011: "I write about war. For adolescents." But that means the marketing hoopla surrounding the film tends to have mixed messages. Take, for instance, the Cover Girl Capitol Beauty Studio in which you can learn how to get to the "look" from different districts. Katniss's district, District 12, is known for being an impoverished coal mining region, and is given a sort of punk-y, smokey eye. Read between the lines and you find that this is the rich Capitol's idea of how the districts would be made up, but the distinction isn't necessarily obvious. Poverty? Eh. We've got cool makeup. The Capitol Couture website, a sort of mock fashion website, is a different beast. If you actually read the articles on the site, you see that there is subtle social commentary. A piece about tribute fashion slyly references the Avoxes—servants whose tongues were cut out for rebellion—in the way a callous member of the Capitol society might. Still, without the close-reading, the site might seem to simply celebrate a world which the story actually condemns. 

Collins herself, in a rare statement to the media, praised the marketing. "It’s appropriately disturbing and thought-provoking how the campaign promotes Catching Fire while simultaneously promoting the Capitol’s punitive forms of entertainment," she told Variety in an email. "The stunning image of Katniss in her wedding dress that we use to sell tickets is just the kind of thing the Capitol would use to rev up its audience for the Quarter Quell (the name of the games in 'Catching Fire'). That dualistic approach is very much in keeping with the books." 

If you read the marketing in Collins' way, it's subtly brilliant, and while Adam B. Vary at BuzzFeed wrote back in August that it's meant for "fans" rather than "newbies," it's a lot to expect everyone to get the deeper message. It is, after all, still marketing, and it's marketing a cruel world as a glamorous one.

We should not want to emulate Panem in any way. We shouldn't want to dress like members of the Capitol and we shouldn't want to visit a theme park that immerses us in this world. It's understandable that Lionsgate would want to do as much as possible to make people go see this movie and continue to milk it for all it's worth with a theme park, but perhaps everyone should consider what they are selling. 

 

       

Benghazi Book Pulled from Shelves After '60 Minutes' Story Falls Apart

[image error]Simon & Schuster is "suspending publication" of a book claiming to provide an eyewitness account of the Benghazi consulate attack after the author's version of events turned out to be largely exaggerated. Author "Morgan Jones," who is really Dylan Davies, was also the main source for a 60 Minutes report on the Benghazi attacks that recently aired on CBS. That report was corrected Friday morning, after evidence surfaced that Davies had changed his story.

The book, The Embassy House: The Explosive Eyewitness Account of the Libyan Embassy Siege by the Soldier Who Was There, was published by a conservative imprint of Simon & Schuster called Threshold Editions. Simon & Schuster is also owned by the CBS Corporation.

Days after 60 Minutes aired its dramatic report by reporter Lara Logan just under two weeks ago, it emerged that Davies's story didn't match the account he gave to his employer, a British security contractor, just after the attack. But CBS News and Simon and Schuster stood by Davies's story in the face of increasing calls for a retraction of the piece, including one from liberal media watchdog Media Matters.

In Davies's public version, he was able to scale the compound's walls during the attack and fight off terrorists to rescue the Americans inside. He even talked of a dramatic hand-to-hand fight where Davies takes out an attacker with the butt of a rifle. Davies also claimed that he viewed the body of the slain American ambassador in the hospital after the attacks. None of those things happened, according to the account he gave to his employer. On Thursday, The New York Times reported that his dramatic story didn't match the story he gave the FBI, either. That revelation finally prompted CBS to review their story and eventually issue a correction and apology.

Along with Simon & Schuster's decision to pull the books from retail shelves, Slate has also added a long disclaimer to an excerpt of Davies's book they published in late October. 

       

Even John Kerry Couldn't Prevent the Senate From Going Nuclear

Apparently, only Secretary of State John Kerry can avert the threat of nuclear war, so it's too bad he left the Senate. For at least the third time this year, Senate Democrats are threatening to use the "nuclear option," changing the chamber's rules to prevent partisan filibusters of presidential nominees.

We foresaw this last week, not that it took much foresight. In May, with several Obama appointees blocked by Republican filibusters, the Democrats threatened to use their majority — big enough to change the rules but not big enough to overrule the blockades — to make filibusters of appointees an impossibility. This had already been dubbed the "nuclear option" when the Republicans proposed doing it in 2005; by now, the appelation has lost a bit of its sting. The suggestion built into the term is that the rule change — in the Democrats' case, forbidding filibusters of certain nominations — is such a blow to the Senate's traditions that it's like blowing the whole thing up. This, as we've noted before, is melodramatic.

At New York, Jonathan Chait gets at why this latest nuclear option threat is different than those in the past on both sides. At the heart of the debate, as it was in May, are appointees to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, a court that is given jurisdiction over a broad swath of federal legislation. Chait quotes Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, who argued that the president, by nominating judges to open seats on the court, was seeking to shift the balance toward the Democrats. Which is of course correct.

Of course, every single judicial appointment is intended to alter the ideological balance of that court. Grassley is, therefore, asserting a blanket right to blockade judicial nominees. His principle could be extended to prevent Obama, or any president, from filling any judicial vacancy at all.

Chait goes on to point out that the argument is fundamentally hypocritical. No one thinks that Grassley's mandate that no court should ever have more Democrats than Republicans also means that he would keep a court from having more Republicans than Democrats. Instances of that hypocrisy aren't hard to find; on Friday morning, the liberal site ThinkProgress pointed out exactly such a flip-flop from Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. Alexander was among those filibustering one of Obama's D.C. Circuit Court nominees, Patricia Millett. In 2005, he had a different view of the practice, when the Democrats were the ones blocking nominees: "I would never filibuster any President’s judicial nominee, period. I might vote against them, but I will always see they came to a vote." Whether or not Alexander's fingers were crossed when he said that is lost to history.

Chait's larger, unstated point is that the imaginary Senate comity that the nuclear option would obliterate is already laying in ruins. The excessive use of the filibuster — as we've pointed out time and again — has already crippled the Senate's ability to do much of anything. The abuse of the informal filibuster rule, changes to which are now described in apocalyptic terms, has alrady done its damage. The body only looks functional at this point because the House is an even more desolate wasteland.

So there's probably not much point in calling the Secreatary of State back from Geneva, having vanquished the threat of annihilation posed by the Iranians, in hopes he could similary broker peace on Capitol Hill. He was there when the Senate crumbled. Perhaps that memory, of having lived through the nuclear explosion that upended the Senate's legendary and largely imaginary good-naturedness, is what makes Kerry so eager to avoid another nuclear terror.

       

'Thor: The Dark World' Is As Fun As It Should Be

Part of why the Thor movies work as well as they do is because Chris Hemsworth really doesn't have to do that much to convince us he's a god. (Or a space sorta-immortal, whatever.) And it's not just that he's got the face of an angel and the body of a titan. He simply has a commanding presence about him, you genuinely trust in his ability to protect us puny Earthlings from the cosmic forces threatening to destroy us. But, and this is a crucial but, his eyes also twinkle with a bit of humor. Hemsworth knows that all his muscly hunkiness and hammer-tossing and whatnot is a goofy lark. And the Thor movies know it, too, which is why they remain the true comedies of the Marvel universe. Which is just fine by me.

Though not quite as sprightly as Kenneth Branagh's original outing, Thor: The Dark World is still a zippy gambol. Well, the second half at least. Which is somewhat strange for a superhero movie. Usually the set-up is what's fun, and then by the time the big climactic action set piece kicks into gear, things have muddied into a senseless clatter. Instead, the beginning of Dark World is a slog of exposition that grows tiresome. We learn about the movie's MacGuffin, some sort of evil weapon that some bad guys want to use to cast the universe into terrible darkness, and there's some strife between wicked Loki (Tom Hiddleston), now in a dungeon in Asgard for his crimes against New York, and his proud, noble family. It's all rather soupy, especially everything involving the villain (a "dark elf," heh) and his nefarious plot. One problem with all of these Marvel movies is that the villains always seem too arbitrary; it's just a fill-in-the-blanks of [bad guy] + [thing he wants]. I know that's true of pretty much all action movies, but particularly in Marvel's world, the stakes never feel quite as high as they should.

If you think about it too much, anyway. After The Dark World gets through all of its plodding, director Alan Taylor picks up the pace and takes us on a good-natured romp through the heavens and on Earth. The stuff happening on this planet before Thor gets here is also a good time, with Natalie Portman's Jane and her wisecracking sidekick Darcy (Kat Dennings) bopping around London and investigating a mysterious gravitational phenomenon. When Thor finally does arrive, we're reintroduced to the first film's winning mix of Asgardian stiffness clashing with Earthly ordinariness. I love seeing Thor bumble around our human world, and it's the perfect way for Marvel to cleverly acknowledge that he can be a pretty silly character without completely undermining him. The goofier Thor seems on Earth, the more heroic he seems when he inevitably saves the planet. Ultimately, the thing that makes him funny is what wins the day. It's odd that a big hunk of avenging man-meat can be called endearing, but he is. He really is!

What else to say about this film without spoiling? (Really, there's not much to spoil, but Marvel fans seem particularly spoilerphobic, so I'll be cautious.) Hemsworth and Portman have nice chemistry together, though I'm dying for more domestic scenes between the two of them. Siting down and eating dinner. Something. Portman is a fine damsel in distress, but she could have a little more to do. Hiddleston, as ever, makes Loki a charmingly sneaky dandy. This is his third outing in the role and yet nothing is too practiced or overplayed. Loki is one of the better characters in the Avengers universe because he's cleverly written, yes, but he'd not have survived this long were it not for the almost classical wit that Hiddleston brings to the role. He was a great find — maybe Branagh knew him from British TV? — and a sterling example of the surprising creativity and intelligence that Marvel has employed in undertaking this massive endeavor.

Speaking of creativity and intelligence, the big final battle in the film uses a gimmick that's so kooky and fantastic that I thought for a second that Joss Whedon might have directed it. He didn't -- those duties went to TV veteran Alan Taylor -- but his stamp is all over this movie. Which is a good thing, and bodes well for the future of the franchise. Who knows what to expect from next spring's Captain America: The Winter Soldier, but The Dark World suggests to me that this whole operation still has some life left in it. What a smart thing Marvel did in making these films as bouncy and elastic as they are. If they'd been somber dirges like Christopher Nolan made — dirges I loved, but grew tired of — all would be a mess. But instead, a film as silly and, let's face it, unnecessary as a Thor sequel sent me out of the theater plenty giddy and cheered. I had a big dumb grin on my face for much of the film's raucous, eye-popping finale, which is exactly the effect that these movies should have, and almost consistently do. Marvel has built quite a brand here. They should think about branching out. TV shows? Comic books? The possibilities seem endless.

       

Eric Cantor Smiling at Children

After the 2012 elections, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was determined to turn things around for the GOP by reshaping its image into something friendlier. He still is. Cantor has told reporters he thinks Republicans have a perception problem (himself included) and wants to highlight the kindler, gentler side of conservatives. Lately, he's taken to smiling at children to make his point. 

Friday morning he tweeted this pic, highlighting one of his new signature issues, school choice:

These are good kids, thriving in a better school environment and making the most of this opportunity. pic.twitter.com/iZGEEFlE56

— Eric Cantor (@GOPLeader) November 8, 2013

Cantor didn't entirely get the reaction he must have hoped for. Radio Dispatch's Molly Knefel tweeted, "This picture of Eric Cantor making faces at children is terrifying."

When The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza took a long look at Cantor's GOP rebranding efforts in March, Cantor hopefully asked if the magazine for some help softening his image:

[Cantor] persistently struck a diplomatic note and mentioned again and again how much he looked forward to working with Obama, a position that he said he’s been articulating for a long time.

"Why isn’t that your reputation, then?" I asked.

"I have to ask you that. Maybe you can make it so!"

Until The New Yorker prints it's surely forthcoming "Eric Cantor: A Nice Man" essay, the Majority Leader is trying to improve his reputation himself — with America's future leaders — with some photo ops. The children are not always convinced.

Here's Cantor smiling at a child at the Good Shepherd School in New Orleans.

The President should really visit this wonderful school when he's in New Orleans this week: http://t.co/97vbKORccU pic.twitter.com/D7j8thGan1

— Eric Cantor (@GOPLeader) November 5, 2013

He smiled at a couple more children there, too.

[image error]

[image error]

Here he is holding a child while smiling.

[image error]

And here he is smiling at lunch time.

[image error]

[image error]

The Majority Leader smiling over some books.

[image error]

And smiling about football.

[image error]

Here he is perfecting the bend-and-smile.

[image error]

And sometimes, just smiling near children is enough.

[image error]

Lizza notes, "When cameras are around, [Cantor] has a tendency to look frozen, as if he’d just been caught doing something wrong; his smile can look like a snarl. He’s more genial in person."

Photos via the Majority Leader's Twitter, Facebook, and Flickr. 

       

David Ortiz Came In (a Very Distant) Third In Boston's Mayoral Election

David Ortiz performed surprisingly well in this week's Boston mayoral race, especially for a professional baseball player with no known aspirations towards city government, but reports of his political viability are greatly exaggerated.

As WGBH reported, the Red Sox hero and World Series MVP has cemented his place in Boston's hearts and minds—so much so that he garnered the most write-in votes of anyone in this week's mayoral race, according to the Election Department. "Ortiz came in third place in the Boston mayoral election," writes Politico, noting that Big Papi's strong showing placed him just behind Mayor-elect Martin Walsh and opponent John Connolly, since there were no other names officially on the ballot.

However, no one's quite sure how many votes Ortiz actually garnered, since the results don't break down the individual write-in candidates; they only gave the total number of write-in votes, which fell at 560. Even if all of those had gone to Ortiz (they probably didn't), he'd still lag well behind second-place Connolly's 67,606. For all we know, he could have gotten two votes and still been the leader among write-ins. Plus, as CBS Boston points out, the city "[doesn't] count votes for people who are not official write-in candidates listed on the ballot"—so Ortiz's nonexistent campaign was doomed from the beginning.

Still, it's an impressive showing considering there doesn't seem to have been any coordinated effort among Sox fans to get Ortiz into the mayor's mansion. We're still awaiting word on whether or not Joe Biden called the Red Sox slugger to congratulate him on his performance.

       

Obamacare's Biggest Winners Also Have the Most to Lose

Before the Affordable Care Act, sick people with pre-existing conditions did have some access to insurance, through state-run high-risk insurance pools. As ProPublica explains on Friday, many of those programs are closing on December 31, which means people will need to sign up for insurance through a functioning federal or a state-run exchange. The Obama administration has promised that Healthcare.gov will work smoothly by November 30, which gives shoppers a little more than two weeks to enroll in coverage effective January 1. 

There are insurance programs for people with pre-existing conditions?

Yes. Obviously, people with pre-existing conditions have been denied coverage and dropped from plans prior to Obamacare, but there were state-run programs that provided temporary coverage to high-risk individuals who had been uninsured for at least six months. The rules varied, but Oklahoma's high-risk pool has a lifetime benefit maximum of $1 million and California's high risk pool capped lifetime benefits at $750,000, and annual benefits at $75,000. 

Then there's the federal and state-run (in 10 states) Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan, created by Obamacare to tide people over until next January. Like state high-risk pools, the program accepted individuals with pre-existing conditions who had gone six months without health insurance (including a limited benefit plan). These plans will end when Obamacare insurance kicks in on January 1. 

So what are people supposed to do?

For the most part, get insured by January 1. To be insured by January 1, you have to be enrolled in a plan by December 15. That means you've picked a plan that meets your needs, you've completed an application, your income and subsidies have been verified and you've paid your first month's premium. It also means the exchange hasn't sent your insurer the wrong information. It's not a process you want to put off until the last minute, especially when you can't afford to go a month without insurance. One Oklahoma woman told the Associated Press her cancer treatment would cost her $500,000 without insurance (though she didn't say over how long a period).

How serious is this?

Things get a little more serious every day the federal exchange isn't working. The Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan ends on December 31, but most of the state high-risk pools will stay open until after January 1. As of June 2013, according to the National Association of State Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans, of the 35 states with high-risk pools, 15 states have confirmed that they will shutter their pools on December 31 or January 1. The other states are either undecided, or plan to continue coverage into early or late 2014. Of the 15 states ending coverage at the end of next month, Kentucky has a functional state-run exchange.

[image error]

That leaves residents in 14 states in a potentially precarious situation. Aware of the situation their residents are in, a few of those states extended their risk pools. Indianians will have until the end of January 2014 to enroll through the exchange, and Oregon is working on a contingency plan, since no one has enrolled through Covered Oregon.

And while it may work out that the federal and state-run exchanges are all working perfectly on November 30, there's no accounting for stress. "Even if the technology was really perfect, it would still be hard to sign up because many people who are really sick don't respond well to change," Linda Nilsen Solares, executive director of Portland's Project Access NOW for the uninsured, told the Associated Press. "Many of them are just trying to get through the day."

(Map by National Association of State Comprehensive Insurance Plans.)

       

The Redskins Are Very Protective of Their Racist Name

The Washington Redskins are cracking down on unsanctioned use of its controversial team name among media outlets. This is pretty ironic, considering lots of media outlets
    

Super Typhoon Yolanda Rips Into the Philippines, Four Confirmed Dead

Update 12:19 p.m. EST: The first death toll figures of super typhoon Yolanda/Haiyan are in, and there have been four confirmed deaths, the Sydney Morning Herald reports. Yes, that's appears to be very low considering how strong and wide the storm is. But there's one major caveat — the storm has knocked out communications and electricity for much of the Philippines, meaning there's no way to tell yet exactly how many people may dead, missing, hurt. Nor will we know the full extent of the damage until Saturday morning. (There's a 13-hour time difference between the U.S.'s East Coast and the Philippines.) 

"The humanitarian impact of Haiyan threatens to be colossal," Patrick Fuller, a spokesman for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, told Reuters. Officials in the Philippines are expecting the death toll to rise considerably.

Original Post: A massive storm known as Super Typhoon Haiyan finally hit the eastern Philippines on Friday, with winds of more than 200 miles per hour, causing flooding and evacuations in certain parts of the country. The storm, known locally as Yolanda, is the most powerful typhoon in recorded history, and those monitoring it are expecting a lot of damage. One meteorologist told USA Today that in the Philippines, "there aren't too many buildings constructed that can withstand that kind of wind."

Approximately 10 million people are in the path of a direct hit from the storm. And because it's 2013, pictures are already beginning to surface online, though luckily, things don't look too harsh just yet.

An old tree at Barangay Mabolo, Cebu City succumbed to the tenacious winds of #YolandaPH @philredcross pic.twitter.com/fL4Qboejk2

— Red Cross Cebu (@RedCrossCebu) November 8, 2013

Flashfloods also affecting residents of Sitio Bahala, Barangay Dumlog, Talisay City, #Cebu. #YolandaPH @sunstarcebu pic.twitter.com/TDJDQIx2EP

— Rianne Tecson (@life_of_ri) November 8, 2013

R. Landon St. in #Cebu City is not passable to motorists (note that leaning tree on the left). #YolandaPH pic.twitter.com/MzdBh96bhP

— Sun.Star Cebu (@sunstarcebu) November 8, 2013

@sunstarcebu Situation in Sitio Riverside after the Mananga River rose #YolandaPH pic.twitter.com/xevUfL6FIf

— Justin K. Vestil (@JKVSunStar) November 8, 2013

@sunstarcebu A tree fell off right at d gate of Talisay consultant Yul Julia. Luckily, no one was home #YolandaPH pic.twitter.com/r9u61GQiTh

— Justin K. Vestil (@JKVSunStar) November 8, 2013

#Cebu-wide evacuation on; LGUs give food to evacuees, prepare emergency equipment. #YolandaPH http://t.co/qxCM42DKCP pic.twitter.com/BBlBHWwdVJ

— Sun.Star Cebu (@sunstarcebu) November 8, 2013

@sunstarcebu Evacuees huddle inside d Talisay City Hall with #yolandaPH still battering Cebu pic.twitter.com/msUG2LBL6H

— Justin K. Vestil (@JKVSunStar) November 8, 2013

Some are sleeping soundly in Daanbantayan Natl High School before typhoon Yolanda makes a landfall @sunstarcebu pic.twitter.com/dKeXdQa8QQ

— Davinci S. Maru (@dsm_sunstar) November 7, 2013

PHOTO: Effects of #YolandaPH in Tacloban pic.twitter.com/5SH08Nj7Cy

— ABS-CBN News Channel (@ANCALERTS) November 7, 2013

Attn: Miss Myla, ANC pic.twitter.com/ez2jKhbXAh

— Ernie Manio (@ernie_manio) November 8, 2013

Sea travel cancelled in Atimonan Port; no stranded passengers reported. #YolandaPH pic.twitter.com/ZtSiowsTHB

— Ernie Manio (@ernie_manio) November 8, 2013

 

       

Daily Caller Nostalgic for Gay Golden Age of Poppers and Discrimination

In the Daily Caller's quest to become the the go-to conservative troll site, it's published an entertaining column with this premise: Gay people were much more fun when they had to risk being beaten, ostracized, were dying of AIDS, and discriminated against. "Gays have become totally boring," Patrick Howley wrote in his column — a piece that's tagged to the Senate's passage of the Employment Non Discrimination Act (ENDA), a measure that would prohibit employers from firing or not hiring someone based on their sexuality.

According to Howley, that anti-discrimination stuff is just one more layer of boringness on already boring gay people. The inevitable question then becomes, what does Howley not find boring? The answer is being a bottom (the receiving partner) in some projected gay man's fantasy:

I can’t even walk around DuPont Circle on early autumn evenings or interact with male bank tellers without getting eyed down like a side of ribs. It’s not even flattering. I know why it happens. I only get it because I’m skinny and I look like I’d be a bottom. It’s demeaning, really.

But that brings me to my point. At least creepy old gay dudes cowering in the corners of Metro stations are still keeping things interesting. Their weird, trembling, ballpoint ink stains-on-their-buttoned-down-shirts brand of gayness is in line with the hallmarks and the tenets of the gayness that I know and love.

Howley really put a lot of thought into the type of gay fantasy, down to the position, that he'd be a part of. But being a receiver of anal sex in septuagenarian gay fantasies isn't really the point that Howley says he's trying to make. Howley explains that the reason LGBT people have become boring is because they've been bottoms to a liberal agenda that's taken away the gay movement's beloved "back-alley glory holes," "leather costumes," and "poppers." "Gayness used to be pretty awesome,  according to alternative literature from the period 1954-78," he says. But that's been lost: 

And their sexual proclivities, unfettered by the Cloroxed asexuality of the progressive movement, reached glorious climaxes befitting what has always been, and must always remain, a fundamentally libertarian country.

The progressives hosed all of that activity down.

Howley ignores a plethora of things to make his theory work. One of those is technology, which has changed the way LGBT people meet. He also ignores places like D.C.'s Crew Club, a 24/7 "fitness and lounge facility" where you can probably find some combination of poppers, glory holes, and leather "costumes." Howley omits a large portion of gay culture that doesn't revolve around anonymous sex. He also forgets to give conservatives a little bit of credit.

What Howley is missing in his lament of boring gay people is that what made them what he finds so interesting — and turned them into "subversive adventurers, trolling the city streets at night on a lustful quest for experience and with an outlaw mentality not seen since the days of the Wild West," as he calls them — was a combination of fear and fear of discrimination, a kind of discrimination helped along by conservatives for past few decades. 

"What Howley fails to mention, of course, is that much of the gay community’s 'outlaw mentality' probably had a lot to do with the fact that gay people were frequent targets of harassment and legal discrimination," Equality Matters, an LGBT advocacy group, wrote in response to Howlety's column. 

Don't Ask Don't Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act, Prop 8., the Reagan administration's silence during the AIDS crisis, the police harassment at gay bars in the '60s, being branded as "mentally ill,"  sodomy laws, etc. — that's just a brief survey of the types of discrimination and hostile political backdrop that made LGBT people "interesting" to Howley. 

A number of those measures were pushed and instigated by conservatives, the religious right, and politicians pandering to the religious right. Running up to the 2012 election, Mitt Romney was signing an anti-gay marriage pledge and trying to make people forget that Massachusetts passed gay marriage under his governorship. 

Yet recently, there's been a rash of discrimination-amnesia in the conservative hive-mind. Howley is just the latest case, in a series of instances highlighted by the oral arguments during the Supreme Court hearing on DOMA when attorney Paul Clement, the man representing House Republicans and DOMA, had to reminded by a Supreme Court justice about the document's anti-gay animus.

That more or less brings us to the nugget of Howley's lament: the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The Senate passed the measure on Thursday, but House Republicans have all but promised to strike it down — Speaker John Boehner opposes it, and the bill might not even see the floor. Bad news for LGBT people who don't want to be fired because they're gay, but maybe they'll be a little bit less boring. And they couldn't have done it without Republicans. 

Update 12:49 p.m. A couple of journalists have asked Howley to clarify his knowledge of gloryholes. Howley has defended his familiarity and gloryhole expertise in an entertaining Twitter conversation:

@Ray_Harmon @jbarro I've not only heard of, but also seen, glory holes in back alleys constructed from cardboard

— Patrick Howley (@PatrickHowleyDC) November 8, 2013

Update 2:13 p.m.: Howley took offense to our headline, and pointed out that Media Matters actually made fun of Howley's romanticizing of a pretty terrible era for gay people before we did.That was an obvious joke, so we've changed the headline.