Safety regulations by AI

Yes, I’ve been watching team, dance, and men’s figure skating all this past week. Tonight starts pairs, followed by women’s this week. I’ve been enjoying it very much. I’m thinking about how to portray the stats from the men’s long program results in which the fifth place guy (Mikail Shaidrov of Kazakhstan) ended up in first place (yes, his long program was flawless and beautiful), the second place guy (Yuma Kagiyama of Japan) bobbled a bit to keep second place, the ninth place guy (Shun Sato of Japan) ended up in third, and the first place guy (Ilia Malinin of the US, known as the Quad God) took eighth, well off the medals. I watched Malinin’s performance and his many stumbles and quad jumps that weren’t four rotations. Perhaps calling him the Quad God (he even wore a t-shirt with that on it) was too much stress. When watching these performances I wonder would they be more or less beautiful if the skaters did it because they loved what they do and the joy they give viewers and didn’t get scored or ranked? Back towards the end of January Bill in Portland, Maine, in his Cheers and Jeers column for Daily Kos included a five minute video of Rachel Maddow discussing the protests of the ICE operations in Minneapolis. This was shortly after Alex Pretti was murdered. Her main idea is this: The people who are against democracy and in favor of the nasty guy as dictator believe they will win with intimidation, with guns, and through war. The people who believe in saving democracy, who declare “No Kings,” will win through flexing democracy, through speech, protest, and political power. A week ago Alexander Shur and the staff of Votebeat in an article posted on Kos discussed the nasty guy’s call to Republicans to “nationalize the voting” and “take over the voting in at least 15 places.” Thankfully, there are some Republicans who are pushing back, including from Senate Majority Leader John Thune.

Election officials say the lesson of 2020 was not that the system is invulnerable, but that it can be strained in ways that cause lasting damage long before courts step in. While it’s unclear whether Trump’s latest demands — and possible future actions— would lead to the same level of disruption, legal experts say some of the backstops that ultimately stopped him last time are now weaker, leaving election officials to absorb even more pressure.

Some election officials are stressing transparency, showing in real time the rules are being followed exactly. But that doesn’t help with the skeptic that say, “I don’t believe you.” Also, they recognize the assault is coming to more than the local jurisdiction. Another danger this year is the “charlatans” who created a business model of spreading conspiracy theories for profit. Election officials are also dealing with death threats. They’ve had to enhance security, yet turnover has increased dramatically. Members of the administration that pushed back against the claims of fraud in 2020 are not there this time. Courts are a great line of defense and have already halted many of the nasty guy’s election policies. But court challenges take time and “untold damage” can happen to public trust and public officials before their ruling. That gap is the current risk.

“It’s up to us to choose to believe him or not,” [said Justin Levitt, an election law professor at Loyola Marymount University]. Obedience in advance isn’t required, and treating Trump’s claims as commands would grant him authority he does not have, Levitt said, adding, “We have agency in this.”

Also towards the end of January (yeah, this is a chance to get browser tabs that have sat for a while) Lisa Needham of Kos reported that the Department of Transportation updated safety regulations by letting an AI write them. That should be good enough.

While [DOT’s top lawyer Gregory] Zerzan might just want “good enough,” most people actually do want the perfect rule when it comes to transportation safety. Regrettably, as ProPublica described, Zerzan “appeared interested mainly in the quantity of regulations that AI could produce, not their quality.” ... This is, to be blunt, terrifying. It’s not just the blind faith that somehow Google’s glorified chatbot is more knowledgeable than an entire agency of specialized experts, but also that complex safety regulations can just be generated in seconds.

This isn’t just DOT and Zerzan. The nasty guy, after firing a lot of employees, has talked about AI replacing everything. Nothing will go wrong! Especially if it is Musk’s Grok AI. A month ago Oliver Willis of Kos wrote that the nasty guy has been talking about America First. But the country that benefits the most from his policies is not the US, but China. China may have started surging ahead before the nasty guy took office, but he has made America’s competitive advantage worse and has paid more attention to is ballroom than doing anything about China. Also from a month ago is a cartoon from Clay Jones. About that time the nasty guy had commented that the only this that would constrain him is his own morality. So Jones reviews his morality: He was pals with Epstein (details still TBD), stole from a fake charity, grifted students through his fake university, weaponized the DoJ against his enemies, and monetized the Oval Office. Yeah, we understand his morality and how little that would deter him from anything. In today’s pundit roundup for Kos Chitown Kev quoted Carron J. Phillips of The Contrarian on Substack discussing the nasty guy’s racist posts about the Obamas.

Too often, the oppressed are asked to address their oppression, instead of the oppressed hearing from those who have the privilege of being unscathed. We see this a lot when it comes to activism in sports, which is why it was so refreshing to see a bevy of white American athletes being asked about the state of America during the Winter Olympics.

Those white American athletes declaring their opposition to the nasty guy’s policies are really annoying conservatives. Which is good. In the comments paulpro posted a meme:

Two things Republicans hate: 1. Being called racist. 2. Black people.

Feeding government into the wood chipper

Back in December when I thought about Musk being appointed to head a Department of Government Efficiency to recommend how to cut government spending, I figured he would draw up a list of government services, how much they spend now, how much he thinks they should spend, and he would hand that list to the nasty guy and Congress. I did not think he and his crew would barge into government offices, declare the department closed, tap into or remove computers, fire employees, and leave a lot of chaos. I did not think he would do it with acquiescence or permission of the department heads and cabinet members. I did not expect Republicans in Congress to essentially say, Hmm... Oh well. In the news over the last week... Emily Singer of Daily Kos reported that on Monday Musk announced he (not the nasty guy or Congress) is shutting down the United States Agency for International Development, USAID. The website is offline, employees were told not to report to work. USAID is funded by Congress, so not spending the money as Congress directed is illegal. The agency is critical in many global health efforts around the world – in monitoring diseases and supplying medications. This is as mpox and bird flu are on the rise. Stopping these programs leaves people without lifesaving drugs and medical care. An example is the 6.5 million people who get HIV medications. Another news source said that current HIV meds keep the virus at undetectable levels, but that does not mean gone. Stop the meds, even for a short time, and the virus grows again, this time as a more resistant strain. Even a pause in the regimen can result in a death sentence. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said all of USAID’s program need to be evaluated so they advance the interests of the US. A healthy world is in the interest of the US. Doing this aid work is also in national interest because China and Russia are eager to step in and be nice to countries the US is abandoning. Bill in Portland, Maine, in a Cheers and Jeers column for Kos quoted an ABC News story that said USAID is critical for getting aid into Gaza. That aid is central to the ceasefire bargain. Shutting down USAID raises the risk that the ceasefire deal with collapse. Considering the nasty guy has been talking about a Gaza Riviera, this might be the intended outcome. An Associated Press article posted on Kos gives more details. Including this (“They” being DOGE):

They have ordered a spending stop that has paralyzed U.S.-funded aid and development work around the world, gutted the senior leadership and workforce with furloughs and firings, and closed Washington headquarters to staffers Monday. Lawmakers said the agency’s computer servers were carted away. “Spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper,” Musk boasted on X. The mass removal of thousands of staffers overseas and in Washington would doom billions of dollars in projects in some 120 countries, including security assistance to partners such as Ukraine as well as development work for clean water, job training and education, including for schoolgirls under Taliban rule in Afghanistan.

Yes, USAID is more than health. USAID overseas workers are now scrambling. How do we get back to the states? What about children in school? Do we have time to do the paperwork for pets? Morgan Stephens of Kos reported DOGE has hit the CIA. The entire workforce has received buyout offers.

The CIA collects, analyzes, and disseminates information on economic, military, and political developments abroad to protect national security.

So much for national security. Completely shutting down the CIA doesn’t seem to be the goal here, just shake it up and slim it down. Get rid of a lot of experience. Make it a lot less effective.

Trump’s moves aren’t just reckless, they’re potentially catastrophic for America’s national security at a time when its global security is becoming increasingly more fragile. As the CIA thins out its ranks, U.S. enemies are undoubtedly watching and celebrating.

Singer reported:

After illegally axing USAID and drafting plans to do the same with the Department of Education, President Donald Trump and his unelected co-president, Elon Musk, have now set their sights on decimating the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal scientific agency that helps forecast the weather, monitors oceanic and atmospheric conditions, and manages the protection of marine life. "Hearing reports that Musk’s cronies are targeting NOAA—infiltrating key systems & locking out career employees," Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland wrote on X. "NOAA is vital for weather forecasting, scientific research & more. Their critical work saves lives. My team and I are looking into this & we will not stand for it."

There are a couple reasons why the nasty guy and Musk would want to decimate NOAA. The big one is it is instrumental in doing and keeping track of research into global warming. The bonus is with NOAA gone weather forecasting can be taken over by a for-profit company and the forecast you use to plan your day would then depend on how much you are willing to pay for it. NOAA provides it for free. Walter Einenkel of Kos reported that many Republicans are just fine with all this government destruction. They’re glad American tax dollars will be spent only on the interests of the American people (not that they have a clue – unless their definition of “American people” is the billionaires). They’re pleased that Musk is finding so much waste to eliminate (a billionaire’s “waste” is a poor person’s living allowance). They hesitate to deny Lutheran Family Services is a money-laundering operation. In a pundit roundup for Kos Greg Dworkin quoted a tweet by Loren DeJong Schulman:

You say: they shutdown USAID. You mean: they illegally broke in to a secure facility over a weekend, hijacked sensitive data on vulnerable people and US businesses, destroyed property Americans paid for, cut off resources for hungry families, and fired Americans.

In the comments SanAntonioKrust included a tweet from Acyn of a clip of Rachel Maddow, who says:

I think it's pretty obvious now that they are using DEI as just a pretext. They're giving everything that, you know, unfashionable boogeyman label to try to avoid people in general, realizing that what they're really doing is just wrecking the US government.

Way down in the comments is a cartoon showing a MAGA couple at the grocery store:

Wife: They cut our Social Security and Medicare! Trump’s tariff have cause massive inflation! Remember when we were upset about the price of eggs? Husband: It’s getting more and more expensive to own the libs!

In another roundup Chitown Kev quoted Ross Andersen of The Atlantic. I will summarize it by saying we’re in deep trouble if DOGE decides it can take its chainsaws to the National Nuclear Security Administration. Down in the comments is a cartoon by Mike Luckovich based on the announcement by Waffle House that it is adding 50 cents for each egg in an order to offset high egg prices. The cartoon shows a Waffle House. On one side is a patron with a newspaper headline, “Trump attacks Democracy not high food prices.” On the other side a patron is giving his order, “Do you serve Eggs Benedict... Arnold?” In the comments of a third pundit roundup is a meme by Aaron Rupar:

Draw your own conclusions, but Donald Trump is not behaving like a leader who expects democratic accountability for himself or his party next year or in 2028.

In the comments of a fourth roundup exlrrp is a photo of a person painting over a wall that displayed the words, such as Fairness, Initiative, Respect, Constitution, and more. The caption says:

Trump’s had them paint over a mural about fairness and compassion at the F.B.I. Academy at Quantico. All of these values must now be hidden from society under the new Nazi regime.

Added by exlrrp: “OK: Looks like: (checks notes) fairness, leadership, compassion, diversity, integrity, and stability are just too woke for the FBI.” A ways further down exlrrp posted a meme:

Frustration is knowing that the agenda is not hidden anymore and yet the sheep are still obeying.

As part of a series on explaining the right, Oliver Willis of Kos discussed why the right wants small government. Commenters seemed to agree that Willis got to the how, but not the why. They added their own answers. The answers (some posed by more than one person): Racism. Limit taxes and regulations on corporations. Only a federal government can stand up to the crimes of a big corporation, so they want a government incapable of that. They want to eliminate anything that doesn’t support them at the top of the social hierarchy. Others disputed that Republicans want a small government. The big plans the MAGA crowd want (doing deportations, imposing tariffs, and much more) require a big government. It just won’t be doing things for the common people. Another rejected the idea business people want the government to run like a business – no business operates this way. Two Americas included a couple quotes on the role of government. The first is from Franklin Roosevelt’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention of 1936. The whole quote is long. Here’s the first paragraph:

An old English judge once said: “Necessitous men are not free men.” Liberty requires opportunity to make a living – a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

The other is by Abraham Lincoln from about 1854. Here are the first and last paragraphs:

The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves—in their separate, and individual capacities. ... From this it appears that if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need of government.

We claim the right to report that there's no knowable result

My new computer is closer to what I want and need it to be. I was able to copy my stash of browser tabs from the old computer (you go ahead and debate whether that’s good or bad... I’ll catch up later). I’m still getting used to the different layout of the keyboard. It has lots of new things for Windows 11 (much I’ll probably never use) and some keys, like “End,” are in slightly different positions. The only major computer thing not resolved is what to do about my music composing program – I haven’t had any composing time since before the switch. Walter Einenkel of Daily Kos wrote that Rachel Maddow, on her show Monday night, discussed Republican election games in Georgia. The Republican dominated Georgia State Election Board has passed a bunch of changes that would allow election officials to “question, delay, or otherwise sabotage election certification.” Democrats are trying to stop it. Einenkel wrote:

“I think part of understanding the importance of this tactic is that confusion and mistakes are probably the point,” Maddow explains. “It's one thing to say we want the right to flip an election result. That's going to be sort of a hard sell. It's another thing to say we want the right, and we claim the right to essentially report that there's no knowable result here, that there isn't any discernible result, that there's a big question about it, that it seems like there's a cloud over the result.”

Maddow saw hope in that Georgia’s Republican Gov. Brian Kemp has asked the state attorney general whether or not he has the right to remove obstructive members of the board. Part of Kemp’s effort might be because the nasty guy has been critical of him. Mark Sumner of Kos wrote about campaigns raising and spending money. Harris has significantly outraised the nasty guy, with her mostly drawing from small donations and he drawing mostly from billionaires. As for spending, the New York Times reported that during the 2020 campaign about two-thirds of the money the nasty guy spent went to one company, American Made Media Consultants. What did this money buy? AMMC is a private company, so doesn’t have to say where it spent the money it received. The only hint is that it is run by the nasty guy’s former campaign director Brad Parscale. Also involved are son Eric and the Pandemic Prince. Receiving payment on a smaller scale is Red Curve Solutions. We do know a bit more about this one. Campaign Legal Center says Red Curve is used to pay the nasty guy’s legal bills. Another company is Launchpad Strategies and about this one is no information of who runs it and where the money goes.

These billionaires cut Trump big checks, then the checks go into a big black hole. What comes out doesn’t appear to be any recognizable campaign activity. Even before Harris entered the race, President Joe Biden was outspending Trump three-to-one on television advertising. The money going into these companies seems to disappear … which certainly makes it hard to discern whether Trump is running his campaign in a legitimate fashion or simply pocketing hundreds of millions in bribes.

Matt Davies posted a cartoon he titled Stop the Stale. It shows an elephant approaching the 2024 Word Salad Bar that contains tubs of “Wilted grievances” “Stolen Election Re-hash” “Stale insults” “Belittle Veterans” and a few more. In a pundit roundup for Kos Dworkin quoted William Kristol and Andrew Egger of The Bulwark:

As political obsessives, we confess it: We’re already getting a little sick of the “weird” thing. Weeks of seeing the same point every day about these guys! Surely there’s some other way we can— What’s that? There’s new audio out of JD Vance yukking it up with a podcast host who says that “the whole purpose of the postmenopausal female” is to help raise their grandkids? Okay, a few more days of “weird” won’t hurt.

Contrast that with this meme posted way down in the comments by exlrrp, showing Walz stopping to pet a cat. The caption says, “When you’re famous, they let you do it.” Joan McCarter of Kos reported that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has suspended his campaign for president and endorsed the nasty guy. I heard a lot about this over the weekend and don’t have time to track down the sources. Some say he did it because those who didn’t like Biden and went to Kennedy have now shifted back to Harris. That left Kennedy polling at 7%. All that shows the whole ploy, the whole purpose of his campaign, was to pull voters from Biden to help the nasty guy. McCarter then went on to document all the Kennedy siblings and cousins denouncing his move, much the same way they denounced his candidacy when he started. Kennedy has asked to be removed for several state ballots. He won’t be removed from Michigan’s ballot because he was nominated by a minor party and they don’t have time to hold another convention to nominate someone else. In another pundit roundup Greg Dworkin quoted Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Inquirer. Bunch described the placement of American flags around the hall during the Democratic National Convention.

Moments later, those flags were fanning the last and strongest waves of euphoria at an unforgettable Democratic National Convention, as the vice president pivoted toward defining American freedom as the right to make family choices, breathe clean air, or cast a ballot, and she vowed to defend those rights through strength. The Democratic delegates kept chanting “U-S-A! U-S-A!” — as if they were watching Steph Curry draining three-pointers against France in this cavernous basketball arena instead of an acceptance speech — as Harris staked her claim to the red, white, and blue.

A quote from Molly Ball of the Wall Street Journal:

“I am really happy to see that the Democratic Party is taking our rightful place as the patriotic ones,” said Gov. Wes Moore of Maryland, a rising star in the party who has been arguing for a forceful embrace of patriotism since he ran for office two years ago. “We cannot forfeit this idea of patriotism to people who claim it when they are not actually willing to sacrifice anything for their country.” Yet the convention’s unapologetic embrace of liberal causes, from abortion and gun control to climate change, was also a defiant insistence that their ideology is the new American majority, the new American normal—that it is those who insist on bygone gender roles and restrictive mores who are the “weird” ones, that a diverse, multicultural array of identities can lay claim to apple pie and the American dream. ... One strategist noted after watching Walz’s rural Minnesota football-coach presentation, “We’re not giving up on white guys”—as long as they are the type of white guys who aren’t afraid to cry and support their wives’ careers.

And a quote from Greg Sargent of The New Republic discussing the convention speech Harris gave.

But, in mulling what Harris means by all this, it’s crucial to appreciate what she did not do. Harris offered all this outreach to voters outside the core Democratic coalition without making serious concessions to the ideological preoccupations we associate with MAGA-style right-wing populism. There was no real accommodation with what might be called The World According to MAGA. Instead, Harris treated Trumpism and the MAGA movement as forces that must be decisively repudiated—and unequivocally left behind.

In the comments exlrrp posted a meme from Occupy Democrats listing some of the tough issues Harris avoided, including: “Electric boars versus sharks. ... With wind power you can’t watch TV when the wind isn’t blowing.”

Three profound misunderstandings in one small Bible verse

Yesterday I wrote about an episode of Rachel Maddow’s show in which she talked about how election deniers who are now election clerks are planning to refuse to certify their county’s election, thus throwing the whole thing into chaos. newusername, the author of the Daily Kos post with the video of Maddow’s show provided an update. Part of the update is that there are groups that are working on this, including Democracy Docket and ACLU. Both need donations. The author provided a link to a post by chloris creator with other ways we can help: Work to win and win big. Also win the Senate and especially the House so that Hakeem Jeffries and not Mike Johnson is Speaker by certification day. Be careful not to vote for election deniers. This post links to a list of those to avoid. In Michigan Voters Not Politicians (the group that brought independent redistricting to the state) is pointedly asking every candidate in every race they can whether they will abide by the results of the election. Be seen and heard before the election with signs and merch. The more such displays are seen the harder it is to buy into the idea the nasty guy won. Speak up against election deniers. If a person denies the election integrity say that we have one of the safest election systems in the world. Offer support to your city, county, and state election officials. Michigan’s Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson talked about being threatened after the 2020 election and how much citizen support meant to her. If you can, be an election worker or a poll watcher. In addition to the ACLU and Democracy Docket donate to State’s United Democracy Center. One of their videos is at the end of this post (alas, it is 50 minutes). Mark Sumner of Kos reported on an interview between the nasty guy and Laura Ingraham of Fox News to explain what he meant when he said we won’t have to vote anymore. It’s quite something when Fox News recognizes a statement’s difficulties and tries to hand a person a ladder to climb out of a hole. It’s also quite something when that person rejects the ladder and digs deeper. I’ve mentioned many times Project 2025, the conservative playbook to turn America from a democracy into an authoritarian state run by them. Thankfully, news about Project 2025 is now being distributed widely. The more people hear about it the less they like it. Even Between the Lines and Pridesource have an article about Project 2025. This one is by Sarah Bricker Hunt and talks about how it calls to get rid of transgender rights, same-sex marriage, gay and lesbian rights, and DEI programs. Hunt reported on other goals in Project 2025: Abolish the Department of Education and severely harm public education in general. End student loan relief. Privatize the weather service, abolish Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, privatize the Transportation Security Administration. Severely restrict Abortion. Leave the Paris Climate Agreement and refuse to do anything about the climate emergency. Overhaul the Department of Justice and FBI to be tools of conservative retribution. Alter the tax structure so the poor pay more and the rich pay less. Cut Medicaid and Medicare and other parts of the social safety net. Describe China as a “totalitarian enemy” to prompt pulling out of World Health Organization and United Nations agencies. Kos of Kos reported that news of Project 2025 is getting such bad press, people were finding so repulsive, that its sponsor, The Heritage Foundation, is shutting down the project. Project 2025 director Paul Dans is resigning. The nasty guy disavowed it a long time ago, though Vance is praising Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts for having the foresight to create Project 2025. Kos says don’t believe it. Project 2025 is a blueprint or a roadmap. One doesn’t “shut down” something like that. Also, there is another component, a database of 20,000 conservative minions eager to implement it. That is most definitely not getting shut down. Michael Harriot has a thread in Threadreader about a passage from the Bible that is a warning from God that has long been used as a weapon of hate and a justification for MAGA and similar efforts. The passage is in the Old Testament and found at 2 Chronicles 7:14. Harriot quoted the King James version:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

When Reagan was sworn in as governor of California his Bible was open to that passage. When Pence became the vice nasty he wanted the same Bible opened to that same passage. It was cited in 1793 when a yellow fever pandemic broke out in Philadelphia. The pandemic was blamed on abolitionists and free black people. It was cited as payback when the Confederate Army surrendered and a week later Lincoln was shot. Also shortly after that Confederates loaded 1,800 Union POWs in a steamship. It exploded. It is still the deadliest maritime disaster in US history. It is used to explain segregation, mass shootings, the anti-abortion movement, the anti-LGBTQ movement, and why some church leaders say a second civil war is coming. And a lot more. I got to be thinking about the assumptions that prompt this passage to be so misused. I’m pretty sure the author of this passage (written originally in Hebrew about 3000 years ago) meant by “my people” was especially the country’s leadership, both religious and governmental. Americans see that and assume two things. First is that America is is ordained by God for greatness (all that Manifest Destiny garbage) so “my people” refers to the whole country. Second, they assume that God is not calling themselves to repent. God is calling the rest of the country, everyone but themselves, to repent. This passage (at least by itself) does not define “wicked ways,” so they say they get to. And they define it as those don’t follow their religious teachings, those who permit abortion, and those they label “sexual deviants.” They assume God has ordained a social hierarchy (with themselves at the top) and a wicket person is one that doesn’t uphold that hierarchy or one who refuses their “proper” place low in the hierarchy (see that bit about free black people). Since they defined “wicked” their way I’m going to define it my way – a person who believes in retribution and oppression instead of the love that Jesus teaches and demonstrates, one who works to uphold and enforce a social hierarchy that Jesus consistently teaches we should ignore, undermine, and subvert. The passage says that if people turn away from their wicked ways God will heal the land. It does not say that if people remain wicked God will smite them. So when a ship explodes and kills 1,800 people it should not be interpreted as an action of God against the wicked. It is not payback. I understand the interpretation (though also disagree) that if wicked people are still about then God will withhold his healing and we as a country won’t be as great as it can be. But the passage talks about converting and forgiving, not about killing off. Wow. Three profound misunderstandings in one small Bible verse.

We don’t need the votes

Mark Sumner of Daily Kos reported on a paper published in the Journal of American Medical Association that shows an enormous number of unnecessary deaths during the COVID pandemic. These deaths aren’t directly because of the nasty guy, but because of the actions by state governments.

As many as one-quarter of a million Americans died simply because their state governments refused to impose good public health standards. They died as appeasements to the twin gods of ignorance and politics.

I’ll let you read the details of how the analysis was done. The refusal to take proper precautions wasn’t about saving money. I’m sure the states lost money through medical expenses. It also has an estimate in the trillions on the value of lives lost (though I didn’t understand that part).

The sheer number of people who died because a group of red state governors chose to—not had to, but chose to—implement policies they could brag about at the next big Republican event is simply devastating. Those amoral governors may never answer for these lost lives in any meaningful way, but voters can make sure those who are still in office get their just desserts at the ballot box.

Alas, many of those governors were and are praised for the actions that caused these deaths and have already been voted back in. In an article from ten days ago Aldous Pennyfarthing of Kos discussed a new Florida bill that opens schools to additional counseling services for students from outside organizations. It is a way to get religious “chaplains” on the school campus. Though the volunteer chaplain can, but doesn’t have to, disclose their organization Gov. DeathSantis is clear that the intent is to insert Christianity into public education. Members of the Satanic Temple are ready to join the volunteer chaplains. Pennyfarthing wrote:

The temple is really more secular than satanic, and uses the dark threat of “Satan” to make a point about religious pluralism. Its leaders see the new law as an entree—not for satanism, per se, but for reason and fairness. Satanic Temple members are ready to bring the good news of Satan and all his fictional works—as well as the Founding Fathers’ very real work product—to Sunshine State schoolchildren from the Panhandle to the Keys. But this isn’t a joke or a prank. It’s a serious effort to wake America up to the theocratic cancer that’s currently metastasizing across the country. “You have theocrats pushing further and further, signing unconstitutional bills into law, and they realize there’s no consequence,” Lucien Graves, co-founder of The Satanic Temple, told The Guardian. “And they also realize that when people see these laws passed, and the outrage comes, they’re not even necessarily going to recognize or realize when those laws are later overturned by the courts. “They’re giving everybody the impression that these types of things are legal, this is just the environment we’re living in,” Graves said. “And in that way they’re really numbing people to when these things actually do take effect, or when they are upheld by a corrupt judge who’s just playing partisan politics.”

So when you vote, fill out the entire ballot. Not voting for the lower races means Republicans have a higher chance to slip in a theocrat at the state or local level. You started to vote, so finish the job. In a pundit roundup for Kos from last week Chitown Kev quoted David Litt of The Atlantic who discussed Biden’s proposed (at that time not yet released) reforms to the Supreme Court:

As the Court has become more politicized, its conservative judges have insisted that checks and balances ought not apply to the judicial branch. Chief Justice Roberts declined an invitation to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, citing separation of powers. Alito went further, arguing that Congress doesn’t have the ability to set rules and guidelines for the Court at all. Meanwhile, although no one has formally declared the change, it has become generally accepted that no justices will be confirmed while the Senate and the White House belong to opposite parties, and that justices will not retire while a president of the opposite party is in office. When you combine these two factors, the old method of checking the Court—winning elections and letting time take its toll—has been rendered unworkable. The Court is thus, to use a phrase popularized by Game of Thrones and embraced by Donald Trump and his movement, demanding that the American people bend the knee. It is asking them to accept that their country will continue to become more conservative for decades, maybe forever, no matter what they want or whom they vote for. In proposing checks on the Court, Biden is refusing to capitulate to this new arrangement. This is particularly notable given his former opposition to such changes. He is going beyond a single decision or appointment and taking on the structure of the Court itself.

Kos of Kos listed several reasons why the nasty guy had a bad weekend after having a bad week: The broader electorate is now paying attention to his fascism. Harris is motivating Democrats and independents. The more voters see her they more they like her. She is hauling in the cash and volunteers. Fox released a poll showing Harris ahead in four swing states (and ten points ahead in Michigan!). She’s not firing on all cylinders yet. Vance continues to demonstrate how bad he is and he’s been the butt of jokes. The nasty guy’s favorables went down – the assassination attempt and convention didn’t give him a bounce. He’s still campaigning against “sleepy Joe.” Democratic surrogates – Buttigieg, Walz, and Beshear – are hitting hard and effectively. Biden is and can continue tossing out policies that voters want but will only happen if Democrats control the White House and Congress. The description of the nasty guy/Vance as “weird” has taken hold (and is only better than “creepy”).

For Republicans, the problem is that it’s true. Their obsession with sex is weird. Their archaic notions about the role of women and autonomy over their bodies is weird. Their dalliances with white supremacists and Nazis are weird. Their love for Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is weird. Their hysteria over the Paris Olympics is weird. Much of what’s in Project 2025 is weird. Yes, they’re obviously dangerous, but weird captures the zeitgeist far better than any alarmist language (no matter how justified).

That bit about the hysteria over the Olympics: The opening ceremonies featured drag queens and a tableau many are claiming mocks Jesus and the disciples at the Last Supper. Weird they don’t complain about the headless Marie Antoinette. Kos concludes:

Guys, we don’t just have a chance to win, but we have a chance to win big. And winning big doesn’t mean just nipping any second Trump insurgency in the bud. It means lifting up all electoral boats—the Senate, the House, state governorships, and legislatures.

newusername of the Kos community posted a segment of Rachel Maddow and is wondering if Democrats have a plan for dealing with it. The six minute video is included in the post. I replayed parts of it to make sure I got the quotes right. This segment seems to be the end of Maddow discussing the many weird things about the Republican and nasty guy campaigns. Harris is running a traditional campaign. The nasty guy isn’t. In this part she started by saying the nasty guy had called on his supporters to vote “just this time.” Then they won’t have to do it again – as if voting is a burden would would be relieved to leave behind. But democracy is based on voting. And what the nasty guy said is exactly what one would think it is. He said that on Friday. The day before he said it a bit differently: His supporters don’t need to vote for him this November. He had said frequently “We don’t need the votes. We have so many votes.” Saying that is truly weird. Because it means, as Maddow said, “He doesn’t need to win the vote...to win the election. He doesn’t need to win the election in order to take power. He thinks something other than votes is going to determine whether he gets back in the White House.” Rolling stone reported they had identified at least 70 pro nasty guy election conspiracists and denialists working as county election officials in six swing states. Their purpose is to make sure November’s votes do not get certified. They are assuming if they don’t certify in several small counties, the statewide results cannot be certified. Maddow said, “They are not planning on the vote being counted as normal. They are not counting on the election results being tallied as normal. They are not counting on the vote, and in fact Trump is now repeatedly saying the vote will not matter. The Republicans are counting on the election results not being certified, thereby creating chaos in Washington around the results.” These 70 people are in place to make sure there won’t be official results. Maddow concluded: “Are [Democrats] prepared for this level of weirdness after the votes are cast? Are they ready for what’s coming?” I’m including a link to this post of LGBTQ literature not because of the book mentioned (the host took a break) but because the photo at the top is of Harris in a rainbow vest. She’s with us.

Arizona Republicans boxed themselves in over abortion

On Monday the nasty guy posted a video of himself discussing his position on abortion. Kerry Eleveld of Daily Kos reported the nasty guy seemed to think he took the issue out of play in the campaign. His position satisfied nobody. Conservatives say it didn’t go far enough. Those not conservative say it went too far. And Biden issued ads blaming the national abortion mess squarely on the nasty guy. Biden has a campaign issue to take him all the way to victory in November. Part of what the nasty guy said is that abortion should be a state issue. And on Tuesday the Arizona Supreme Court issued a decision that put a restrictive 1864 abortion ban in play. Walter Einenkel of Kos reported that Rachel Maddow of MSNBC discussed the headlines in various media outlets which gave the impression the nasty guy had moderated his position on abortion, which he has not. Those headlines likely delighted him. He got what he wanted. A more accurate headline might be:

Trump abandons previous criticism of strictest state abortion bans. Trump avoids mention of Republican proposals for national restrictions.

Mark Sumner of Kos discussed the Republican response to the Arizona abortion ban. It’s like what happens when a dog succeeds in catching the car. Yup, Republicans have been pushing a ban, campaigning on a ban, and even working to get a case before the state Supremes. Sumner lists many of their efforts. But now the ban is about to be put in place and because of how unpopular it is they are frantically backpedaling. In a pundit roundup for Kos Chitown Kev quoted Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic. There is already an effort to get a proposal on the November ballot to put abortion rights in the state constitution. That will be a big gain for Biden, who narrowly won the state in 2020. That puts Republicans in a box.

But here is what is clear: If the GOP-run Legislature does nothing and allows this 19th century law to stand, Republicans soon could be looking at a state where abortion is a constitutional right and Democrats take total control of the state. ... But how does a MAGA Legislature extract itself from the box it built? If Republicans repeal the 1864 law now about to take effect, they make a mockery of their own belief that life begins at conception and all abortion is murder. If they put a competing measure on the ballot, proposing that abortion be legal for up to 15 weeks, they risk alienating their voter base and send a message that the “ultimate sin” is negotiable. And if they do nothing, disaster.

Please, take that last option! Down in the comments is a cartoon posted by Mike Luckovich. Two elephants are talking as behind them are a crowd of angry women with “Keep Abortion Legal” signs. One elephant says, “Perhaps we erred in ending women’s reproductive rights...” And the other replies, “...Without ending women’s voting rights...” Kos of Kos discussed the stock price of the nasty guy’s Truth Social company. At its height the company was worth $8.8 billion and the nasty guy’s share was about $5 billion. The share price is down to $36 and the company is down to a value of under $5 billion (as of Monday) with his share down to $2.8 billion. How low can it go? What is a company like that really worth? A generous valuation would be ten times its annual revenue (not profit), or $32 million, a lot less than $5 billion. The average tech stock is worth about five times its revenue, or $16 million. That would put the stock price at 12 cents a share with his portion worth about $9 million. This could fall a lot further. In the situation of a highly overvalued company investors like to short a stock, to profit from a falling price. But so many people want to short this stock the cost of doing so has jumped sky high. Last week Republicans promoted the idea of renaming Washington’s Dulles airport in honor of the nasty guy. Why not? The other big airport in the area is named for Ronald Reagan. Einenkel reported Democrats have a different idea:

Introduced by Gerry Connolly of Virginia, Jared Moskowitz of Florida, and John Garamendi of California, the legislation would “designate the Miami Federal Correctional Institution in Florida as the Donald J. Trump Federal Correctional Institution.”

Connolly wrote in a statement:

I see no reason to wait. Donald Trump faces nearly 100 felony charges. He has been found liable of sexual abuse and, subsequently, for defaming the victim of that abuse. He has been fined hundreds of millions of dollars in a civil fraud case. It is only right that the closest federal prison to Mar-a-Lago should bear his name. I hope our Republican friends will join us in bestowing upon Donald J. Trump the only honor he truly deserves.

And Moskowitz said:

Everyone knows President Trump loves to write his name in gold letters on all his buildings. But he’s never had his name on a federal building before and as a public servant I just want to help the former president. Help us make that dream a reality.

If convicted perhaps he can ask to be sent to the prison with his name on it. They could even put his name in gold. A while ago I wrote that the Senate would have to deal with the articles of impeachment against Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas even as their schedule was full preventing a government shutdown. Well, the budget was approved and they left town for Easter and there is no impeachment trial yet. The reason is because though the House approved the articles of impeachment back in February they haven’t been delivered to the Senate yet. Joan McCarter of Kos reported the Senate is getting ready. They’re doing that by trying to figure out how they can get the whole thing over with as quickly as possible. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the whole thing is “absurd” and a waste of time. Sen. Joe Manchin trashed it. Even at least three Republicans, including Mitt Romney, think there is no crime to warrant impeachment or trial. So the first item in dealing with it is to vote whether to hold a trial, with the expectation the answer would be no. Kalli Joy Gray of Kos wrote on Tuesday that Mike Johnson might delay delivering those articles of impeachment until next week. A Johnson spokesperson wrote: “To ensure the Senate has adequate time to perform its constitutional duty, the House will transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate next week.” What difference would that make? None. See above for what the Senate thinks of the mess. Wrote Gray:

Okay, sure. Just wait a little bit longer and the Senate will come around. But perhaps, just to be safe, Johnson should give it another week after that. And another week after that. And another week ...

In an Earth Matters column for Kos Meteor Blades discussed a report by Matthew Eisenson, Jacob Elkin, and others at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School. It is titled “Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles.” I downloaded it and read through the list of false claims and a couple of the rebuttals. Some of the false claims are: Solar panels generate too much waste and will overwhelm our landfills. Solar energy is more expensive than fossil fuels and completely dependent on subsidies. Wind turbines frequently fall over, and blades or other components easily break off, threatening human health and safety. Wind turbines are bad for farmers and rural communities. Electric vehicles are impractical due to range restrictions. Again, all those claims are false. Each of those false claims is met with facts and a large number of references to research. Blades quoted the rebuttal to the first false claim I mentioned. Yes, manufacturing panels produces waste, as does any manufacturing. But it is significantly less waste than the fossil fuel industry produces. Making solar panels has 300-800 times less waste than coal ash. Blades also quoted science fiction author Kim Stanley Robinson, who has written several novels on environmental themes. He and the books have won honors. One of those books is “The Ministry for the Future.” Robinson said,

If we could have gotten a 9% rate of return for destroying the world and 6% for saving the world, we’re going to go for the 9% because we don’t care about the world. We like capital, so we go to the highest rate of return. And so do governments. If you want us to invest in good things like saving the Earth, you need to indemnify us, we need to be insured by the government. ... The pandemic slapped us in the face with the realization that the biosphere could kill us and change your life drastically on a turning of a dime. I think that gave “The Ministry for the Future” more force in people’s minds when they read it. It comes down to this: we really are paying attention and trying to do things and I’ve seen huge commitments by people all across the board, governments, diplomats, business people, academics, all of them focused on can we deal with this problem, and that is a powerful combination of social forces. I didn’t think that was true when I wrote the book, but now I think it is true.

Mark Parisi posted an eclipse cartoon. Just after the event the sun says, “Can’t believe I just got mooned.”

Kicking and screaming

Officials in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana had declared that same-sex marriage would not come to their state until the 5th Circuit Court lifts its stay. The 5th Circuit has now done so. In Louisiana, because a District Court had ruled against same-sex marriage the orders from the 5th Circuit must go through that District Court. The District judge has until July 17th, though he was urged to resolve the issue as fast as possible. Some Louisiana clerk offices are giving licenses to same-sex couples anyway.

In Alabama, the state has been battling a District Court order from earlier this year. The federal judge had ruled for equality and several state judges had done all they can to say the federal ruling didn't apply to them. The federal judge has now said the Supremes say it does apply. Get to it.

Even so, as Rachel Maddow points out, several local officials across the South are still kicking and screaming and individual court actions may be necessary.

North Carolina and Idaho!

What happened in the marriage equality world today:

A federal judge struck down the North Carolina same-sex marriage ban. Licenses are being issued and weddings performed.

The governor of Idaho took his shot at explaining why the 9th Circuit ruling didn't apply to his state. Or at least he should be granted an en banc hearing. Justice Kennedy wasn't impressed and lifted the stay he had granted. Couples gathered in clerk's offices, but it doesn't look like the state AG gave the go-ahead before closing time. Since Monday is a holiday, the next day they open is Tuesday.

Same-sex marriage was happening in one county in Kansas. The state AG has asked the state Supremes for a stay.

Stephen Colbert does a 7 minute reaction to the ruling by the Supremes.

Rachel Maddow, on last Tuesday's show, does a thorough report on the ruling. A great moment – the gay couple at the heart of the Virginia case were first in line to get their license. The clerk who signed their license was the guy they sued, triggering the case.

David Crary (I think) wrote an article for a Fox affiliate, though I'm not sure where. He says there are now three views of same-sex marriage in the GOP. One faction has endorsed same-sex marriage. Some, such as Rob Portman of Ohio, have gay kids. The second faction is the bunch who are strongly anti-gay. This includes Ted Cruz of Texas. The third group doesn't want to talk about it. That includes Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, running for reelection.

Arc of the moral universe

Says Rachel Maddow, using a line from Martin Luther King:

Sometimes the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice. But you know what? Sometimes the arc of the moral universe runs around like a chicken with its head cut off.

She bases that conclusion on two stories that appeared on the same day. I already mentioned one of them -- Louisiana choosing to keep its unenforceable sodomy law.

The other story is about Charles Cooper. A year ago he was the lead lawyer before the Supremes arguing that Calif. should be allowed to keep its same-sex marriage ban. This year he is helping his daughter plan her lesbian wedding. Yep, his opinion has changed.

The video is under five minutes.

The stay will stick around

The stay of same-sex marriage in Michigan is going to be with us for a while. A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit split 2-1 on whether to continue the stay. The two noted that in similar situations the Supremes issued a stay and other district courts, similar to the one who ruled in Michigan, issued stays with their rulings. The other one said a stay isn't warranted, perhaps because the Supremes didn't explain their stay so aren't saying a stay should be followed. So now we wait for the 6th Circuit to take up the case. No date set for that yet.



Rachel Maddow has a non-obituary on Fred Phelps. She says it isn't an obituary because she doesn't need to say his name (and she doesn't) to get her point across. Her point is that the hurt he tried to inflict on others brought out the best in us in trying to shield that hurt. The video is 7 minutes.

The most vitriolic "I told you so"

The full Indiana Senate passed a marriage protection amendment. This is not all bad, because they approved the version passed by the House, the one without the second sentence that banned civil unions. Which means it will not go before voters this fall. The legislature has to vote on it again after 2014 for possible voter approval in 2016. And voter opinion might change enough to prevent its passage -- or the Supremes may make it unnecessary.

Perhaps many GOP legislatures want the issue to just go away.



There is a lawsuit filed against the 2011 Michigan law that banned employee benefits for same-sex couples in state and local governments. Gov. Rick Snyder has filed a motion asking the court (not sure at what level) to keep the ban. Snyder's reasoning: banning benefits to gays "'eliminates local government programs that are irrational and unfair' and promotes 'financially sound' local agencies." Translation: offering domestic partner benefits is irrational and unfair because the relationships themselves don't meet a government interest. In addition, allowing governments to discriminate against homos saves money.



Vladimir Luxuria is a former Italian Member of Parliament and is transgender. She has been in Sochi and doing some protesting. She was first escorted out of the Olympic Park and dumped in the countryside. After her second protest she was escorted to the airport. Alas, the International Olympic Committee is just fine with that.



Rachel Maddow had a discussion with Kenji Yoshino, NYU law professor, about the string of gay marriage court victories. What caught my attention was the first part of the 9 minute segment in which Maddow reviews all the cool progressive stuff Attorney General Eric Holder has done in just the last year.



Back last June when the Supremes ruled that the federal gov't must recognize same-sex marriages, Justice Antonin Scalia fumed in his dissent that the ruling will be used to overturn state same-sex marriage bans. And that, according to Scalia, was a Bad Thing.

Jesse Wegman of the New York Times Opinion Pages lists all the cases since then where that ruling -- including Scalia's dissent -- has been influential in the judge's thinking: Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Utah, and Oklahoma with more to come.

Which means when another marriage case gets to the Supremes we all are eager for Scalia "to deliver the most vitriolic 'I told you so' in recent Supreme Court memory."



Teresa Tritch, also of the New York Times Opinion Pages, says the call to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour is worthy of support, but still inadequate. But why this figure?

But the recommended amount is more a political calculation than an economic one. It is enough to embarrass Republicans for not going along, but not enough to risk alienating business constituents (with the notable exception of the notoriously low-paying restaurant industry.)

First Presbyterian Church of Norfolk, VA has affirmed three tenets. From the first two -- Jesus is the way to salvation and the Bible is God's infallible Word -- one gets the impression that these are required beliefs for members of the congregation. So here's the third:

God’s people are called to holiness in all aspects of life. This includes honoring the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, the only relationship in which sexual activity is appropriate.

Yep, the third most important belief in this church is that the only permissible sex is straight, married sex.

Fine, lots of churches believe that, though it may be rare to put it in the top three beliefs. But there is a reason for highlighting this particular church. It is where Judge Arenda Wright Allen attends and she credits her current success to the pastor there. And Judge Wright Allen is the one who recently struck down Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage. She has mastered the separation between church and state.

It's Freaking Utah!

Another big Christmas gift. Though a ruling wasn't expected until next month, federal district court judge Robert Shelby has declared Utah's ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. He agreed that marriage is defined and regulated by the states, as Utah asserted (which was their way of telling the feds to butt out). But such laws still have to comply with the national constitution.

Dozens of gay couples in Utah dashed to county clerk's offices and Salt Lake City mayor Ralph Becker was available to conduct ceremonies. State Senator Jim Dabakis was one of those who quickly married his partner. The clerk's office closed at 7:00 so the line was cut off at 5:00 -- with 75 couples in it.

Shelby did not stay the ruling pending appeal. The state Governor and Attorney General have now filed the appeal with the 10th Circuit Court, but apparently did not file a stay at the same time. A commenter named Cowboy, a resident of Utah, noticed something important. The ruling was issued on a Friday afternoon before a holiday. It could be January 4th before a stay could be issued. And only someone truly hateful (alas, they exist) would want to undo all the marriages that could happen in the meantime.

One reason why filing a stay might take a while is that "Utah’s elected Attorney General John Swallow resigned last month in the wake of multiple corruption investigations." The acting AG, Brian Tarbet, wants to make sure he gets all the details right.

This little bit is so delicious! Shelby pulled Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in last summer's Windsor case that struck down DOMA and used it against him. Scalia wrote:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion . . . is that DOMA is motivated by “bare. . . desire to harm” couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Scalia was warning that if the Supremes strike down DOMA it will provide rationale to strike down state same-sex marriage bans, so we shouldn't strike down DOMA. Shelby said, yep, striking down DOMA provides rationale to strike down same-sex marriage bans. Thanks, Tony.

Shelby, already called an activist judge overriding the will of the people, was nominated by Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, one of the conservative Republicans.

Rachel Maddow contrasts the Uganda story with the Utah story. She also wonders if this decision is different from all the previous ones because "it's freaking Utah!" Or is it because this is the first federal ruling after last summer's Supreme ruling which shows a successful way to attack those 30 marriage protection amendments. The video is 14 minutes. She notes that the bill in Uganda and the law in Russia were driven by Fundie American anti-gay lobbyists.

Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin had to update his map of what states have marriage equality. He had added New Mexico just the day before. A commenter adds that not being able to keep this kind of map up-to-date is a delightful problem to have.

In this map two states stand out. One is Pennsylvania. Someone noted it is possible to take Amtrak from Washington, DC to Boston (or Portland, ME) and Philadelphia is the only stop where same-sex marriage is illegal. They're working on it. The other state is Arizona, surrounded by Calif, New Mexico, Utah with equality and Nevada and Colorado who have all the rights without the word "marriage." But don't expect a change in Arizona soon.

In related news, the GOP in New Mexico are considering a marriage protection amendment. Gov. Susana Martinez, also GOP, said efforts are better spent elsewhere, such as with education and the economy. She could have added that though New Mexico didn't have a marriage protection amendment the ruling was written as if there was one -- meaning the state Supremes have already ruled it unconstitutional.

Frivolous? Try callous

The Washington Post delved into state level polls of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). They found that the state with the least support for federal workplace protections for gays and transgenders was Mississippi (no surprise there). But even in Mississippi, support for ENDA was at 63%. The highest support was 81% in Massachusetts. Overall, America approves ENDA by over 70%. That means this bill is not controversial.

Terrence Heath recounts the history of ENDA. It was first submitted to Congress over 20 years ago and has been reintroduced eight times. Heath goes on to tell his personal involvement with ENDA, including protests at Cracker Barrel Restaurants who had fired all their non-straight employees. Work on the bill gave him a chance to meet Sen. Ted Kennedy.

I discussed ENDA with my friend and debate partner earlier this week. I was lacking a few facts at that time. The Washington Post has a guide to explain what ENDA is. It only affects employment -- workers can't be fired for being a sexual minority.

Which left me and my friend wondering about other protections. There is a law named after Matthew Shepard that includes sexual minorities in hate crimes. But, as my work in Royal Oak last weekend showed, there are no federal laws to prevent discrimination of us in public accommodation.

On Thursday the US Senate passed ENDA. All 54 Dems voted for it. And so did 10 GOP. Though given 60% approval for the law in Mississippi one wonders (but only a little bit) why more GOP didn't vote for it.

Alas, there is a big problem with this version of ENDA. There are broad religious exemptions. Church exemptions we expect. But exemptions for religiously affiliated hospitals and universities for jobs with no religious function (billing clerks) only legitimizes the discrimination we are trying to end.

Law professor Ari Ezra Waldman discusses these exemptions in detail. Part of the problem is the gay rights groups pushing ENDA agreed to them without even a hint of protest. The lack of protest now will make our next demand for rights (public accommodation) harder. These exemptions show that religious rights trump gay rights. When a borderline case comes before a judge he will look at that acquiescence along the way to affirming religious rights at our expense.

Then the Senate took one more step. The approved an amendment that says federal funding cannot be reduced if a religiously affiliated organization discriminates against us. Yup, my federal taxes will still go to discriminators. Which gives one pause over wanting to get this version passed.

But I won't wish too hard. Get it passed, then get it fixed. Speaker John Boehner is opposed to ENDA because he feels it would result in too many "frivolous" lawsuits. Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid, promptly responded through Twitter:

Speaker Boehner opposes ENDA for fear of frivolous lawsuits? He led a frivolous lawsuit defending DOMA that cost taxpayers over $2 million!

A bit later Reid added:

Not only is Speaker Boehner’s claim untrue, it is also callous. It fails to take into account the heartbreak and suffering — not to mention lost wages and productivity — that workplace discrimination causes

Terrence Heath documents several people who lost jobs because they were gay or colleagues thought the were gay. One of Heath's jobs was to collect such stories. He also reports that 42% of gay and lesbian workers have experienced discrimination and 90% of transgender workers have. Hardly "frivolous."

Part of the problem in passing ENDA is shown when Rachel Maddow visits Jimmy Fallon. He, like many ordinary citizens, assumes such protections are already in place. And Boehner is capitalizing on that misguided thought. He says ENDA isn't needed because gays are already protected. Yeah, they are -- in only 21 states.

In another essay Heath looks at what comes after the Senate passed ENDA while the House is opposed. First, Obama could be more supportive. He doesn't need political cover. He can sign an executive order banning discrimination by gov't contractors (which affects nearly a quarter of the civilian workforce). And he can do that at the same time he urges the House to sign the bill. He can even use it to shame Boehner: I've been a leader in protecting all the workers I can. Now you need to be a leader to protect the rest.

Heath shows us what has changed in a decade. Back in 2004 Bush and the GOP effectively used gay marriage as a wedge issue against the Dems (when Michigan and several other states voted in marriage protection amendments). Now the wedge is pointing in the other direction being used to split the GOP.

So we and Obama need to keep the pressure on Boehner and the GOP. ENDA may not pass the House in this Congress. But that pressure will improve the chances of it passing in the next.

Retired gay Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson slams other denominations, especially the Catholic bishops, for working against ENDA.

For instance, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is vigorously opposing ENDA, asserting that their right to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity is essential to Catholics' religious liberty. Now stop, and just take that in for a moment. A Church, dedicated to following the man known for his outreach and compassion for the marginalized, petitioning the government to be exempted from the fair treatment of marginalized and vulnerable LGBT people. It takes my breath away.

I'll let a cartoon depicting Pope Francis have the last word:

Torture for being gay

Several weeks ago the Russian gov't passed a law prohibiting all kinds of gay propaganda. It is so draconian that even wearing a rainbow lapel pin is grounds for arrest. News has come of offers of "discreet" gay hook-ups, but when gays arrive there they are severely tortured. This has human rights violations all over it.

This is especially troublesome because Russia hosts the Winter Olympics in February. Are gay athletes protected? The International Olympic Committee says yes. A Russian legislator says no -- there are no grounds to suspend laws during the games. Russian gay organizations don't want a boycott of the games. They want the exposure of international media. That has put NBC in a bind. Others point out the perfect person to highlight those kinds of stories would be lesbian Rachel Maddow of MSNBC.

But what should we do about it? Dan Savage and others have been pushing campaigns to dump Russian Vodka. John Aravosis says the boycott is already working. Once the boycott started it became newsworthy and the rest of the world took notice and began to care. So we are accomplishing Stage 1 of galvanizing the public and the media. On to Stage 2.

Ari Ezra Waldman isn't convinced. Will Putin and the Kremlin pay any attention to the economic hits to vodka producers who have headquarters in Western Europe and distilleries in Latvia? More likely the international pressure will allow Putin to play his patriotic cards and stand firm.

Instead, Waldman discusses other options. Boycott the Games? The USA boycotted the 1980 Moscow games and nobody remembers that. Better to have a Jesse Owens moment. He was a black man who went to Hitler's 1936 games and won gold, disproving Aryan supremacy. So perhaps we make sure our gayest athletes do well next winter.

Perhaps we can airlift gay Russians to someplace safe, similar to what Israel did for Soviet Jews. Torture for being gay in Russia would be grounds to seek asylum. Alas, that's expensive and it is better to stand and fight.

Even so, Waldman thinks we need a bigger goal than media attention.

Prevent them from voting

Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend reviews what the Supremes did to the Voter Rights Act a couple days ago. Section 4, the part the Supremes said is unconstitutional, is the formula for declaring which states and districts have to get preclearance before changing voter laws.

Elspeth Reeve of the AtlanticWire lists that formula:

* Was a law, like a literacy test, used to keep people from voting?

* Did less than 50% of the eligible population vote in 1964?

So, yeah, the formula is outdated. It doesn't include such things as Voter ID laws, limits to early voting, purging voter rolls, having ballots only in English when there is a large non-English population, and requiring proof of citizenship. Those are only some of the things the GOP has been doing lately.

But the ruling leaves minority voters exposed. Shelby County, the plaintiff in the case, has a recent history of election shenanigans. And Shelby County, not to mention all of Texas, will certainly take advantage of that exposure. That leaves excluded voters at the mercy of court cases -- and those cost money.

Rachel Maddow, in a 16 minute segment, looks at the inability of the House to get anything of substance accomplished. It is why Obama made a series of actions on climate change that specifically don't need Congressional approval. She then notes that it was into that do-nothing House that the Supremes tossed the Voting Rights Act formula. Along the way Maddow has examples of discriminatory voting (like assigning 6500 white voters to one polling place and 67,000 non-white voters to another) that had been stopped by the VRA. She then shows the eagerness these Southern states have today in enacting new laws to take advantage of this missing formula. So the VRA had a dagger to the heart (as Rep. John Lewis puts it), but is not dead. The doctor leaning over the body is the GOP. What will they do?

This Rep. John Lewis, back in 1965, was on the Edmund Pettis Bridge for a protest and was severely beaten. In a 6 minute interview with Maddow he is sad he will have to fight this battle again.

So, GOP, with all those minority voters not voting for you, do you want to prove you aren't racist? Here's your chance.

Alas, I see another possibility. Why appeal to minorities if the GOP can simply prevent them from voting?

The debate moves to the states

Gay news sources are full of reactions and implications of yesterday's gay marriage rulings by the Supremes.

The end of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) had an effect within 30 minutes. There was a court hearing to determine if a Colombian man should be deported. He is married to an American man. The hearing was interrupted with the news of the ruling. Deportation was suspended. Thanks to Gabe the intern who dashed through five city blocks to get the ruling to the judge. Rachel Maddow includes that story in her report.

That report by Maddow, all 15 minutes (and well worth it), talks about the importance of these rulings. That's the first of 3 videos on this page. She focuses on the gay-rights case of 10 years ago, Lawrence v. Texas that said gay sex is not criminal. In horror, Scalia predicted that the case would be used to justify gay marriage. He was right -- Kennedy, who wrote both that ruling and this one cited the previous one. Scalia, still horrified, said in his dissent, that yesterday's ruling will bolster the case for gay marriage in states where their constitution bans it. And I agree, it will. But with hope, not horror.

Ari Ezra Waldman, who has a regular column on Towleroad to explain gay legal issues, explains both cases. In the Calif. gay marriage case he explains why the Supremes rejected the case. Even though the Calif. Supremes said the authors of the law have standing, federal law is very clear in saying they don't. They have a grievance, but they aren't injured.

In the DOMA case, even though the GOP House leadership brought the suit instead of the Justice Dept. they do have an injury as part of the gov't -- somebody in the gov't has to pay back Edie Windsor's $350,000 estate tax bill. It is the language of the ruling that is most important. Justice Kennedy wrote a lot about the importance of marriage and the dignity equality brings. These words will be used again.

The organization Freedom to Marry put out a fact sheet. It lists the various areas that are affected by the elimination of DOMA. These include bankruptcy, benefits for federal employees and the military, family and medical leave for non-federal employees, federal taxes, federal student aid, immigration (leaving gays out of the big immigration bill doesn't matter anymore), Medicare and Medicaid, employment benefits, Social Security survivors, veteran spousal benefits, and assistance to needy families.

Some news reports talked about how much gay couples will save in federal taxes. Rob Tisinai reminds us that not all the changes will save us money. There are also responsibilities -- the income of both couples will be used to determine student financial aid, for example. These are responsibilities that any couple in love would take on.

The leadership in the House -- who spent several million defending DOMA -- are saying the debate now moves to the states. That means the House leadership is done with the issue. They've accepted the ruling by the Supremes. Subtext: gays are no longer relevant to their reelection.

That's not true of all the House members. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, surely playing to his base, announced he will introduce a federal marriage protection amendment. At least we're now confident it won't go anywhere. The last such amendment came in 2006 and came 54 votes short of the required 2/3 majority.

Money shifts to the states as well. Both marriage equality and anti-gay organizations are starting fundraising pushes for a state-by-state battle. Expect to raise at least $1 million per battle.

Civil unions were sold on the idea that they are identical to marriage except in name. Several states have this variety now, including New Jersey, Oregon, and Nevada. There were countless little ways where this was not true -- various businesses saying, "but that's for married couples." But now there is a really big, demonstrable difference between civil unions and marriage -- married couples get federal benefits. Civil union couples do not. This is the start of a fresh crop of lawsuits, starting at the state level.

Though the Supremes are done with rulings for this term, they had a couple bits of business for today.

In 2008 Arizona added domestic partner benefits for state employees. In 2009 Gov. Jan Brewer canceled them. In 2011 the 9th Circuit Court told Brewer she can't do that. Now the Supremes say they aren't taking the case, leaving the 9th Circuit ruling in place.

A challenge to Nevada's ban on gay marriage (they have civil unions that are supposed to be the same, see above) was denied by the Supremes. Though the high court doesn't explain why it takes or rejects a case, the assumption this time is because those seeking equality in Nevada asked to bypass the 9th Circuit.

Gay rights groups are laying out a five-year plan:

* In moderate states, such as Oregon, use a ballot initiative to overturn the constitution ban.

* In states that have civil unions same as marriage in all but name, aim for a court case.

* In more conservative states, work for expansion of gay rights, such as non-discrimination cases, and recognition of marriages celebrated elsewhere. This will get the citizens of those states at least talking about marriage equality to lessen a backlash when the Supremes rule again.

Yup, the goal is marriage equality across the country by 2018. Go for it!

Skim-milk marriage

I didn't have a chance earlier to listen to Rachel Maddow's discussion of Tuesday's arguments before the Supremes. The video is under 10 minutes. She starts with a clip of Justice Kagan talking to the lawyer wanting to maintain the gay marriage ban. The lawyer makes his usual claim about marriage being for procreation. Kagan asks what about banning marriages when both people are over 55? Maddow is frustrated with the number of men -- lawyer and fellow justices -- who refuse to see Kagan's point. No matter that a man stays virile until he dies, the couple isn't going to be creating babies. Why do we allow them to get married?

Maddow then discusses the case with Kenji Yoshino of New York University Law School. Yoshino notes the evolution of using kids in this debate. It's still about "protect the kids." That used to mean protect the kids because gays will molest them. Then it was about protecting kids from learning about gays because they might become gay. Now since Obama talked about children when he began supporting us, the phrase means lets protect the children of gay couples by allowing their parents to marry. The combination of kids and gays isn't so toxic anymore.

Rachel Maddow's show yesterday was a summary of the second day of gay marriage before the court. There are three videos.

In the first one (17 minutes) Maddow plays the important audio clips of the proceedings with a bit of discussion. She has great admiration for spunky Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who had one of the great lines of the day. Ginsberg mentions many of the ways in which the federal gov't supports straight marriages but doesn't support gay marriages. The result is full (straight) marriage and gays who end up with "skim-milk marriage." You go, girl!

In a second clip Maddow interviews Mary Bonauto. The video is about 6 minutes. I've heard that name quite a bit over the last decade, but hadn't connected it all together. Bonauto was behind the case to get Vermont to create civil unions in 2000 (yeah, a court case prompted the law). She was directly involved in the case the brought gay marriage to Massachusetts, and one of the cases that declared DOMA to be unconstitutional (alas, not the one the Supremes heard). Here's a profile in the New York Times listing the cases I missed. Thank you for your strategy and your work.

In the third clip, 9 minutes long, Maddow discusses why the GOP is getting very quiet on the gay marriage issue. Thanks to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the military now deals with married gay servicemembers. The military is saying the Defense of Marriage Act requires them to discriminate against our soldiers, sailors, and such and this discrimination is harmful to them and to the military as a whole.

And for a bit of icing on the cake, Jon Stewart discusses the shift in support in the Senate.



Earlier this week I discussed how the Defense of Marriage Act might be tossed out because it interferes with states rights. I had noted how that might prevent overturning the Calif. gay marriage ban. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo (by way of Box Turtle Bulletin) caught the significance of the states rights argument.

If that’s the case, it would probably be the first time that “states rights” was ever used to vindicate any actual person or group’s rights. It’s almost always been bulwark behind which states hide to deprive citizens of rights. There are likely some marginal examples of the contrary. But the big verdict of history is unmistakable. It would be an ironic first.

About a week ago I noted polls showing a big jump in approval for gay marriage in just the last seven months. Alas, Nate Silver isn't so impressed with the data. He shows the gains have been rather steady since 2004, with no strong upturn in the last couple years.

We also look to Silver for predictions. He has a chart for projected support for gay marriage in 2016 and 2020 compared with support in 2008 and 2012. Conclusions: lawmakers better get cracking in Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Jersey, Delaware, and even Oregon and Nevada. Michigan should get it done by 2016. Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi -- it's gonna be a while, sometime after 2020.



Rob Tisinai of Box Turtle Bulletin discusses the various points made in the Calif. gay marriage case. Tisinai is very good at pointing out absurdities. I'll let you read it on your own. It's in two parts. I mention it because a commenter, Ben in Oakland, has a description of Scalia that made me laugh:

He’s a finger down the throat for the soul, an emetic in the medicine cabinet of life, last year’s unrefrigerated mackerel, a bit of sushi that long since went to its final reward.

Do you think I am biased?

Heather Long of The Guardian reminds us discrimination against us does not end with favorable rulings on these cases. And it isn't just marriage discrimination. It takes a while for attitudes to change -- we're still dealing with racism.

For example, the Kentucky legislature passed a bill to preserve the right for people with "sincerely held beliefs" to discriminate against whomever they want. The governor vetoed it (yay!). The legislature wasted no time in overriding that veto. Commenters note all they've accomplished is a lot of grandstanding and the accumulation of a lot of legal bills.



Noah Feldman of Bloomberg looks at the mess that would result of the Supremes try to go slow by making a narrow ruling. What happens when a gay couple from Massachusetts moves to Louisiana? Do they get federal benefits but not state benefits? That's the reverse of what happens now. Lawsuits will result. We've already had another type of case -- a gay couple moves and find they can't divorce in their new state. Yeah, there is the issue of imposing marriage equality across the country before a lot of people are ready for it (see above). It seems a few justices don't want to get involved (at least not yet). But a narrow decision will keep them involved for a good long time as they hear cases from state after state.



Ari Ezra Waldman (who I've been reading all week) takes a step back and looks at seven broad "takeaways" related to the two cases heard this week. I won't bother with all seven, but two caught my attention.

Let's hear it for the women -- Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsberg who deftly sliced up the flimsy arguments of our opponents, attorney Roberta Kaplan who represented Edie Windsor in the DOMA case, Edie herself who is at the center of one case and Kris Perry and Sandy Stier who are at the center of the other. And especially Mary Bonauto (see above). Yes, of course, there were fine men in there too -- the male couple in the gay marriage case, Jeff Zerillo and Paul Katami, and their lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies.

The Supreme Court matters. Just being in front of the Supremes is a big boost for our cause. Even w lukewarm ruling gives us something to build on. And an adverse ruling would be devastating.



I've heard comments over the last few days about the Supremes ducking the Calif. gay marriage case and waiting for another to come in "five or ten years". I got to be thinking -- it won't take anywhere near that long. I've already reported on a marriage equality case in Michigan where the judge has delayed his ruling until after the Supremes rule in June. If the Supremes don't allow marriage equality in Michigan, this judge could rule our state ban unconstitutional. Give it a couple years in Circuit Court and it will be before the Supremes.