A deal with the devil

William Greider, writing for The Nation, puts some history behind the current chaos in the House, which is currently unable to find anyone willing to be Speaker. The current troubles are a result of Nixon's Southern Strategy of 1968.

That Southern Strategy was a deal between Richard Nixon and Strom Thurmond to unite corporate Republicans with Southern segregationists. These are two quite different groups – corporate leaders and Wall Street partnered with "poor, rural, church-going voters" looking for a way to preserve segregation. And the corporate leaders "don't care about prayer in the public schools, gun rights, stopping birth control, abortion and immigration." And the common folk "don’t worry over marginal tax rates, capital formation, or subsidies for major corporations."

The problem was that the corporate types had no intention of fulfilling the dreams of the common folk, though they threw the occasional small bone. But this group could be whipped up to vote against the Democrats. Scott Lilly, a Democrat who was the staff director of the House Appropriations Committee said:

If [the common folk] ever fully understood that their more prosperous party brethren were contemplating deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid to pay for [subsidies for major corporations], they would be in open rebellion.

So what happened? The common folk finally understood. They realized they were being played as suckers. The GOP establishment always failed to deliver on their issues. Then there was the Great Recession and the shrinking middle class and that intensified the sense of betrayal. Thus the Tea Party was born.

The sense of betrayal intensified again when the GOP leadership railed against Obama, created a sense of terminal crisis, called on followers to stand up to this huge threat and take back the country, then didn't follow through – even though they had majorities in both the House and Senate.

Fifty years ago a strategy to unite corporate people with segregationists was a deal with the devil.

What now? A sign: This summer the South was mighty quick to condemn and remove the Confederate Flag. And a suggestion: The Democrats should demand the Tea Party explain why their partners intend to cut Medicaid and Social Security to finance billionaire tax cuts.

There's a job opening

Did you happen to notice that a week ago Kevin McCarthy withdrew from campaigning for Speaker of the House of Representatives and nobody has stepped forward to ask for the job? There's a reason for that.

The Tea Party members of the House now call themselves the Freedom Caucus. They have 40 members and maybe a hundred admirers – members who don't want to make a scene yet know their constituents want them to vote the same way as the Freedom Caucus. That means there aren't enough other Republicans to get a vote for Speaker through the House.

The Freedom Caucus says they want to be heard by the leadership. But in their proposal for "more democracy" they include a list of demands. If a candidate for Speaker won't commit to these demands the Freedom Caucus refuses to vote for him. Their demands include a cut in welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs comparable to the coming increase in the debt limit, and a removal of funding for Planned Parenthood from all budget bills. Failure to meet their demands and they threaten to shut down the government and let gov't debt default.

So, yeah, nobody wants the job of Speaker. I've heard that might give John Boehner an opening to stay in the job. He had been coddling the Freedon Caucus because he was afraid they would force him out of the job of Speaker. But he has already resigned. He may have room to ignore the Freedom Caucus and craft deals with Democrats. Kick me out? Go right ahead.

It's the cover-up that does it

A month ago, Todd Courser and Cindy Gamrat, two GOP members of the Michigan House, were caught trying to cover up an affair using a bizarre email and an aide who refused to lie for them. The scandal has roiled Lansing since then. After investigations the issue went before the full House on Wednesday. The session went through the night. Though Courser had vowed to never give up, around 3:00 am, he saw how the proceedings were going and gave his resignation. Gamrat insisted she deserved censure, not expulsion, and asked for a vote. She was expelled. Since the pair pushed an extreme conservative agenda, I'm not sorry to see them go.

Jack Lessenberry of Michigan Radio adds a few details. The reason why the session went so long into the night was because the 2/3 majority required for expulsion needed a few Democrat votes and they held out for a while wanting to expand the investigation in hopes of catching some of the GOP leadership as well. Of course, the GOP leadership wasn't going to let that happen.

Lessenberry reminds us the expulsion wasn't because the affair (though some commenters are skeptical). It was because of the abuse of state resources to cover it up. Lessenberry also says expulsion was also because Courser and Gamrat didn't have a clue how to be legislators and refused to learn. A big part of that, says Lessenberry, is Michigan's term limits, which prevents lawmakers from gaining the expertise to do their jobs.

Blackmail and the Lansing mafia

Todd Courser and Cindy Gamrat, both Republicans, joined the Michigan House back in January. They have teamed up to offer a succession of anti-gay bills, even outdoing Gary Glenn, who used to head the American Family Association in Michigan and was the author of Michigan's marriage protection amendment. So, yeah, Gamrat and Courser, Tea Party darlings, are quite a pair.

It seems they are a pair in another sense. They've been having an affair with each other. Recently the story got bizarre. And confusing. Courser sensed their affair was about to be exposed. So he concocted an email to be sent anonymously that accused Courser of being a porn-addicted sex deviant who paid for gay sex. He asked an aide to send the email out to all the Republicans in Lansing. The aide refused. Courser did it himself.

Eventually someone figured out the anonymous sender was Courser. He then tried to claim he sent it out in an attempt to ward off blackmail by the "Lansing mafia." That didn't work. He finally said he did it to "inoculate" himself. Something about if he was accused of paying for gay sex and that was proven false then a little affair wouldn't sound so bad.

The Michigan GOP is asking for both of them to resign. The case against Courser is he attempted to use state money (his aide) as part of his cover-up. The case against Gamrat appears to only be her association with Courser. She might survive the scandal. His future is less certain.

As I said, this scandal is confusing. What I laid out here is what I quickly pieced together from a pair of reports in Between the Lines. But it is nice to see those who portray themselves as extra holy are shown to be just as sinful.

Will not take you for your word

The lead story in this week's Between the Lines, Michigan's gay newspaper, was naturally about Gov. Rick Snyder signing those bills that allow faith-based adoption agencies to refuse to serve gay people. I've summarized much of the story before, so I'll only add new details.

Such as … BTL reported that Snyder's signature to these bills may be part of a deal to fund the state's roads (the big proposal to fund roads was voted down, lawmakers are still struggling to find another way). That is, as the BTL editorial put it, "a new moral and ethical low." Sexual minorities have long heard the term, "thrown under the bus," referring to a person or group sacrificed so another person or group can get ahead. A big example is transgender people being excluded from bills to expand civil rights so that rights for gays and lesbians might pass. But if the BTL reporting is true same-sex couples weren't thrown under the bus, they were thrown under the pavement.

Or under this:

In Illinois the courts demanded all agencies accepting taxpayer money must provide domestic partner benefits. Catholic agencies refused, and closed. "There are no reports that shifting the adoption cases from those agencies to other agencies resulted in any difficulties impacting the children." So Snyder's fear the closing of Catholic agencies would mean fewer kids being adopted is a smokescreen. We won't miss them.

BTL's editorial on this topic is quite blunt with this close:

Gov. Snyder, despite all your rhetoric about opposing discrimination, you've proven yourself to be a liar. We cannot and will not take you for your word anymore. You, Mr. Governor, are a threat to the health, safety and welfare of Michigan. You, Mr. Governor, are a danger to Michigan's children and a menace to the LGBTQ community.

The Michigan legislature, sometimes in cooperation with Snyder, had a busy week showing how intolerant they are. Some of these bills are not law yet.

* The religious objection adoption bills (as mentioned above).

* Needy families can be kicked off welfare if one child is chronically truant.

* Part of a proposed road funding package is funded by reducing the Earned Income Tax Credit, which will take money away from poor people.

* More road money would come from cutting economic development programs.

* The Film Office would be eliminated, decimating the state's film industry.

* The bill to ban local laws that require prevailing wages.
http://gaycrowsnest.blogspot.com/2015/06/thwarting-democracy.html

* A bill that requires teaching the portions of the US and Michigan constitutions that mention religion.

New Michigan Tea Party representatives Todd Courser and Cindy Gamrat apparently liked the speed at which Snyder signed the adoption bills. So they've proposed a few more.

* Only straight couples may marry without publicity (no secret weddings for gays).

* Clergy is defined as "a minister of the Gospel, cleric, or religious practitioner."

* All marriages must be performed by clergy.

Translation: Marriage becomes the property of religion. To get married a couple must go to the church. And if the church doesn't think you should get married, well, too bad.

Equality is a family value

While my dad was in the rehab center and when my conservative brother came to visit I thought it prudent to borrow Dad's copy of the March/April/May issue of Washington Monthly to get it out of the house (hmm... named "Monthly" and printed quarterly). The reason: the cover article is Can Gay Wedlock Break Political Gridlock? The illustration showed a happy donkey and elephant in a red convertible with a "Just Married" sign on the back and heading into the sunset. Even my 16 year old niece had learned there are some issues we simply do not discuss with this brother.

Of course, with a title like that I just had to actually read it. And then I read a couple more articles.

This cover article is by David Blankenhorn, William Galston, Jonathan Rauch, and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead. I've read stuff by Rauch before and was quite impressed with his understanding. The article in the magazine is six good-sized pages, so my summary will be leaving lots of it out.

With same-sex marriage soon legal nationally the political landscape for marriage has changed. For about 50 years both parties have lamented the decline of marriage. A big part of that has been marriage becoming a class-based institution. Middle and upper class people get married, poor people don't. A big chunk of the article goes into this in detail. This marriage gap harms children because it deprives them of a parent's support. It harms adults by reducing their chance of economic success. It harms communities because the young aren't guided into stable relationships. It harms the country by fueling inequality.

Lots of research went into the importance of families during the 1970s and '80s along with much discussion of what to do about it. But the debate was sidetracked in the 1990s by women's equality and gay rights. The discussion of marriage became a pitched battle with equality on one side and family values on the other. Pro-equality meant anti-family (sound familiar?).

But the ideas have shifted. Progressives have realized that family structure and social justice are related. Conservatives are beginning to realize that a man's marriageability is dependent on his prospects in the job market. Gays and lesbians have realized that they have a stake in the health of marriages. That has prompted progressives to see that social equality of both gays and the poor is impossible without access to marriage. Conservatives are realizing that antagonism to same-sex marriage turns off the younger voters and it is better to support gay and lesbian couples.

The authors make some recommendations. Make a public argument for marriage opportunity; explain why it is important. Increase marriageability by helping the poor join the workforce and handle life in the middle class and by providing community support of marriage. Change public policy, such things as not reducing benefits upon marriage, offer counseling to those considering divorce, support public education of life and financial literacy, and reduce incarceration which removes men from families. Include sexual minorities in all that family support. Do research on gay families, including why marriage matters and cultural factors that support marriage.

Equality is becoming a family value.



Another article in Washington Monthly that caught my attention is A New Agenda for Political Reform by Lee Drutman and Steven Teles. Most of this nine page article describes how Congress made itself stupid by cutting a big chunk of its support staff. That included staff that knew institutional history, how things got done, and could offer independent analysis of what was in various bills, and guide legislators in writing bills. Only in America are the ranks of advisers to lawmakers filled with twentysomethings, even if they are bright and eager. That means Congress must rely on industry lobbyists to explain what is going on in the world, and to write the bills that Congress passes. Naturally, those lobbyists are highly biased. I knew the situation was bad, but I didn't know how bad and precisely why.

All through the article I was thinking this is the situation the Congressional corporate masters want. How would we convince Congress to defy their masters? What reasons could we give? Thankfully, the authors have some, though they know it will be an uphill fight.

The Tea Party may realize that a stronger Congressional staff is necessary to effectively oversee the rest of government and root out waste. The GOP may realize that while they wail about executive overreach they are cutting their power to do anything about it. Both parties complain about out-of-control and do-nothing bureaucrats and may soon realize they need staff to identify and fix abuses. The cost for an expert support staff? Less than the typical Pentagon project overrun, which legislative oversight, made possible by an expert support staff, could reduce.



A third article has only a morsel to share. The title is How Mike Huckabee Became the New Sarah Palin, and is by Ed Kilgore. In 2008 Palin turned resentment of the "liberal elites" who supposedly run the country into victimization, self-pity, and vengeance. Democrats didn't just do bad things, they looked down their noses a "real" Americans. Since then many Republicans, especially Huckabee through his new book, have adopted Palin's line of attack.

The Christian Right, Tea Party members, and conservatives in general have added this general indictment of the liberal elites and their underclass clients:

an unpatriotic determination to undermine rights and overthrow governing norms set down eternally by the Founders of this exceptional nation under the direct inspiration of Almighty God. So liberals were not only mocking the religion and culture of good white middle-class folk, and stealing their hard-earned money (and richly earned government benefits) to buy votes from the lower orders – they were also spitting on the foundational principles of America and defying God.

Yeah, that's what we're facing.

The convoluted and bumpy road

The Detroit Free Press has an editorial to explain Michigan's road funding deal and the sales tax increase that is going before voters in May. As I understand it, this is the entire package:

* The current fuel tax to pay for road maintenance hasn't been raised in 20 years and the problem is made more acute because we drive fewer miles in more fuel efficient vehicles.

* The most straightforward way to pay for roads would be to raise the fuel tax and raise car registration fees.

* But the Michigan legislature determined drivers would balk at the sticker shock at the pump, so they exempted fuel purchases from the general sales tax.

* Car registration fees are being raised and will no longer be reduced as the value of the car depreciates. Alas, this step also reclassifies the registration fee so that it would no longer be deductible on federal income tax forms.

* The increase in fuel tax and registration fees should – eventually – generate enough money to pay for road maintenance plus help improve public transit. The reason for the delay is first some road-related debt will be repaid.

* Exempting fuels from the sales tax means those things the fuel sales tax paid for – schools and municipalities – would lose money. That's why the sales tax needs to be raised.

* The increase in the sales tax would raise about $830 million. It would be allocated: $292 million to the School Aid Fund, $90 million to cities, $14 million for public transit, $269 million to restore the Earned Income Tax Credit (gutted by the GOP in 2010) so poor people hurt by the higher income tax get some relief, and the rest to the general fund. In the past a designation of money to the School Aid Fund meant schools did not receive the corresponding amount from the state's general budget, so there was no actual increase going to schools.

All this is dependent on voters approving the sales tax increase in May. And if it is rejected?

The legislature that began work last January is much more beholden to the Tea Party. Two things might happen:

* Refuse to raise any taxes so any road funding would be their chance to force huge reductions on gov't worker pay, public health, and general social services. This would likely not pass both legislative houses nor get the governor's signature.

* Nothing. The legislature would refuse to raise taxes or cut gov't services and so would dither over the problem for another year or two.

Put another way: There is no Plan B.

Luxembourg!

As part of my ongoing efforts to get ready for a new computer I downloaded the Libre Office suite and I'm writing today's posts on it. There are a few things I wish it did differently, but it opens all the files it should. As for the rest of the migration efforts, email is still the big issue.



On to the news of the week.

The US Senate has approved two nominees for federal courts at the district level. They are Darrin Gayles in Florida and Staci Yandle in Illinois. The significance (beyond the Senate actually filling court vacancies) is that both are black and openly gay. In addition, Gayles is the first openly gay black man to be confirmed.



The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals has declared a ban on gay sex to be unconstitutional. Um, yeah, the Supremes did that more than a decade ago. But this is progress. Eleven states still have such unenforceable laws on their books (including Michigan) and two months ago Louisiana voted to keep their law even though it can't be enforced – it is still useful for intimidation.



A while back in the same-sex marriage case in Wisconsin I had wondered about the legal definition of “injunction.” Now I know. An injunction is the part of a judge's ruling that says what the losing side has to do to fix things. In the Wisconsin case the original ruling didn't come with an injunction. She declared the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, but she didn't say what the state should do about it. Instead, she asked the state and plaintiffs what they thought should be done. On hearing that the clerk's offices weren't sure what they were supposed to do. Most offered marriage licenses to same-sex couples, a few did not. It's official now. The injunction was issued along with a stay. And I know what that means.



Luxembourg has approved same-sex marriage! It's passage through Parliament took two years, though it passed 56-4. I think the hold-up was making sure the related adoption laws permitted both closed and open adoptions by same-sex couples, just like straight couples. Though in a country where the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are both openly gay one would think passage would have been more swift.



The Presbyterian Church (USA) voted at their national gathering to allow clergy to perform same-sex weddings. The vote was 76% in favor, quite the change from two years ago when the resolution failed by 1%. The resolution now goes to 172 regional assemblies for confirmation.



An increasing number of gay advocacy groups are declaring they are against the version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that was passed by the Senate (and won't be touched by the House). The reason is the religious exemptions are too generous. It can be summarized this way: if the exemptions are different from those for race, gender, or disability then the non-discrimination act is discriminatory.



I had written about the HBO documentary The Case Against 8 and how worthwhile I thought it is. Jacob Combs of Towleroad interviews the makers of the film, Ben Cotner and Ryan White.



Newsweek has an article on the GOP Establishment v. Tea Party. Though the Tea Party won big ousting Eric Cantor it has lost most of the other races where it fielded candidates. But the Tea Party isn't conceding defeat because most of the Establishment candidates are much more to the right than before the Tea Party got into the fray. Some are so far right they are doing a pretty good imitation of Tea Party candidates.

Political upset

A big news item this morning is that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost is primary bid to an unknown Tea Party candidate. I'm sure lots of pundits will tell you how momentous that is. I listened to some of them on On Point on my local NPR station. I had no love of Cantor, given his position as #2 GOP in the House. His victorious opponent will be worse. But won't this give the Dem candidate an opening? Nah, the district is gerrymandered to be highly conservative.


What caught my attention is the GOP leadership realizing what their prez. candidates in 2016 will have to say and do to get through the primaries. Which means whoever comes out ahead will be less appealing to the country as a whole. Good. The Tea Party agenda doesn't mix well with the agenda of women, blacks, Latinos, gays, and the poor.

Can't mention the best solution

Obama and the White House called last week Infrastructure Week to focus attention on the need to replenish the Highway Trust Fund. That's the pot of money that pays for lots of national road rebuilding projects. And in Michigan we could use whatever we can get.

When that fund was set up a long time ago the source of money was a federal gas tax. But the gas tax hasn't been raised since 1993 and since then we have more efficient cars and drive fewer miles. For the last several years Congress has had to transfer money into the HTF to keep it going.

The best solution? Raise the gas tax. That's the only way to insure the funding will be secure. In addition a higher gas tax is good for the environment.

One little problem. If the GOP proposes raising the gas tax (or any tax) they get blasted by the Tea Party. If the Dems propose a raise they get blasted by the GOP. So the best solution is one that politicians can't talk about.

Take it to the square

I'm not sure why I did not get a paper version of The Washington Spectator this month. It's only now, half way through the month, that I've gotten around to reading it online. The article that caught my attention is a review of the book The Machine: A Field Guide to the Resurgent Right by Lee Fang. The review is written by Samir Chopra so most of the quotes are of Chopra's words. This book is a thorough review of the relentless takeover of American society and politics by the Koch brothers.

Chopra starts off by confirming the actions of the Koch brothers and their puppet GOP are all about Power.

The modern Republican Party supposedly suffers from ideological confusion. It is for the regulation of gay marriage and reproductive rights; it is against the regulation of industrial pollution, healthcare insurance, and workplace safety. It is for the reduced power of the executive branch, except when it comes to spying on Americans and declaring war. It is for the religious freedom of Christian evangelicals but not Muslim Americans. These seemingly disparate platforms actually display a coherent unity: the American Right is committed to preserving all hierarchy and imposed order: men over women, white over black, rich over poor, bosses over workers, Christian majorities over Muslim minorities. This love of hierarchy, of entrenched power, is manifest in the most visible face of opposition to the Obama Presidency: the Tea Party and the new crop of Republican representatives it has sent to Congress.

The rest of the review -- and the whole of the book -- delve into how the Koch brothers have thoroughly derailed Obama's agenda and voter mandate. Distressing reading, and perhaps a guidebook on how they might be resisted. I'll only mention one more item.

Fang shows how the Tea Party never was, or is, a grassroots phenomenon; its birth is found in the tobacco industry’s resistance to government regulation, packaged in a verbal and visual co-optation of the language and symbols of the Boston Tea Party. Indeed, every instance of supposed bottoms-up Tea Party activism is shown to be corporate funded and organized to advance a corporate agenda, whether in pursuing tax breaks or derailing climate change legislation.

Yes, distressing. Add to that Nate Silver's prediction that the Senate will likely flip to GOP this November and I'm feeling glum. I'm also thinking about how this might play out. So a prediction -- with the warning that you have no reason to trust my fractured and cloudy crystal ball, especially since I fear I'm right yet hope I'm wrong.

So, the Senate flips to GOP. That means at the national level absolutely nothing gets done in the next two years. Anything Congress gets past a Dem filibuster and passes Obama vetoes and Congress won't have the votes to override. Anything Obama proposes is severely criticized and ignored. I know this isn't all that different than what is happening now (though there was that bipartisan budget deal not long ago).

Which leads us to what comes after the 2016 election. The House will stay GOP -- it is too gerrymandered to change. Will enough Dem voters (the ones who tend not to vote in midterm elections) be enough to flip the Senate back to Dem? We're likely to get a Dem president. Will he or she be as hobbled as Obama? Will the takeover be so complete that it won't matter? Strange that this prediction has more questions than answers.

A second Washington Spectator article is about Art Pope, North Carolina's local equivalent to the Koch brothers. Pope sprinkled enough money around politicians that he got himself appointed as the state budget director. Which means if you annoy him he defunds you. That is what is happening to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill because they are teaching economic theories that Pope disapproves of. Yup, another Power. As expected, Pope is working to discredit the Moral Monday protests. Thankfully, that work is backfiring.

A third Washington Spectator article is written by Gigi Ibrahim and is about the new documentary The Square by Jehane Noujaim. It is about Egypt's rough road after the Tahrir Square protests that ousted Hosni Mubarak three years ago. Ibrahim reminds us:

The Square returns us to Tahrir and the beginning of a revolution that not only inspired other revolutions in the Arab world in Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, and Syria, but the entire world: Wisconsin, Trafalgar Square, Catalonia Square, Syntagma Square, Zuccotti Park and most recently the Maidan in Kiev.

Ibrahim concludes by saying:

Squares are not just physical places. They are an idea that becomes a state of mind. One of the lessons we must learn is that unless Tahrir is taken to our cities, councils, factories, universities, where alternative systems of democratic power can be organized and nurtured, then the idea of a revolution in a public square may become our very own limitation to freedom.

Will Americans take to the Square? We did in Wisconsin and Occupy Wall Street. Though we now talk about the 1% those protests didn't accomplish much.

Another prediction: If we take it to the Square it will be because too many Americans have so little prospect and hope they have nothing to lose. It will likely get bloody. It certainly won't end well.

Will you see me in the Square? Right now I’m sitting pretty good with a comfortable retirement. But I can see the squeeze on the middle class could get to the point where it affects me. The last economic mess sucked a lot of value out of the poor and handed it to the rich. Another such downturn could possibly wipe out my pension and savings, leaving me with nothing to lose.

If the Square becomes a big part of American life, I plan to be there, whether or not my savings crashed. I have much more empathy with the poor and with justice than I would have with the 1%.

Gay office holders aren't so strange

Election results of interest:

I had reported I spent an afternoon campaigning in Royal Oak for their ordinance to include gays and transgenders in public accommodation without discrimination. It passed, 54-46 percent with about 12,000 votes cast. Royal Oak is now the 30th community in Michigan to enact such an ordinance (East Lansing was the first in, I think, 1972). And Royal Oak did it with voter approval. Perhaps the legislature will get the hint that it is time for a state-wide law. Alas, both chambers are GOP controlled and they like to pick on us.

Ken Cuccinelli, raging homophobe and Tea Party darling, won't be the next Virginia governor. Alas, as my friend and debate partner said, his loss wasn't overwhelming.

The city council in Holland, Michigan voted against a non-discrimination ordinance a couple years ago. At this election, two city council members who voted against us were targeted for replacement. They were, alas, reelected.

Don Guardian, who is gay, beat the incumbent to become mayor of Atlantic City, NJ. Lesbian Annise Parker captured her third term as mayor of Houston. Gay candidates and office holders aren't so strange anymore.

Journalism or stenography

The Washington Post did a story on the economic distress in Georgia. Terrence Heath is convinced they traded journalism for stenography. The Post story focused on Tom Hackett, Tea Party supporter. Hackett had to close his butcher shop because the economy was so bad. And Hackett blamed Obama for his difficulties. That's the stenography part.

But, Heath says, the Post didn't do the journalism part and explore whether what Hackett said was accurate. Heath lists the actions the GOP has done since Obama took office that have reduced the number of jobs in Georgia, which played a part in reducing the customers in Hackett's shop.

Then Heath goes on to document the results of the GOP Southern Strategy over the last 30 years. First there was significant offshoring that decimated the textile industry. Then there was the opening of foreign auto plants across the South that paid non-union wages and diverted so much tax money into corporate subsidies that gov't services were slashed. (After driving out one industry, the GOP brought in another industry? The jobs that left were union. The jobs that came were not -- and also competed directly with union jobs in Detroit.)

The shutdown was intentional

I wrote yesterday about how the GOP switched the rules so that only Eric Cantor can submit a bill to end the government shutdown. DailyKos adds two bits of clarification:

* When there is legislation that the Senate and House can't agree on, any member of the House can force a vote on a version of that legislation. In this case it is the clean continuing resolution bill from the Senate. As I mentioned yesterday the House Rules Committee said in this case only Eric Cantor can bring the bill to the floor.

* The rules change which made sure the shutdown happened wasn't brought by the Tea Party faction. It was brought by the leadership. Thought the Tea Party may be delighted with the outcome, they did not ask for the rules change and likely don't have any idea of the intricacies of House rules.

It will last as long as I want it to last

This is getting bizarre. Does the GOP really want self-immolation? Perhaps you should review what I posted yesterday about the GOP and morality and how the gov't shutdown fits in their goals. Now to the latest revelations:

The plans for a shutdown began not long after Obama was reelected as a final effort to undo Obamacare (since over 40 votes in the House didn't seem to do the job).

And…

Normally, any House member can bring a continuing resolution (the bill at the core of the shutdown) to the floor for debate. On the evening before the shutdown the House Rules Committee (dominated by the GOP) declared that only one person -- House Majority Leader Eric Cantor -- can bring a continuing resolution bill to the floor.

A few of the GOP House members who want to vote on the Senate version of the bill (and end this madness) have made a motion to do so. They have been denied, because they aren't Eric Cantor. They reply, "Democracy has been suspended, Mr. Speaker."

So the shutdown will last as long as Tea Party puppet Eric Cantor wants it to last.

My friend and debate partner said that while the debt limit extension has a deadline of Wednesday night, the shutdown doesn't have a deadline until voting day 2014.

Poisonous family feud

Steve LaTourette is a former US Rep. from Ohio and GOP. He says the gov't shutdown and debt ceiling squabble is all within the GOP, the two factions battling for the future of the party.

One side has read and believes the reports produced by various GOP thinkers after the last election about the party needing to broaden its base.

The other side believes in the existing (shrinking) base must be catered to, and the reason why Romney and other conservatives lost was because they weren't conservative enough. This is all about ideology.

LaTourette says as long as that second faction has its way the GOP "will become increasingly poisonous as a brand."

My reaction: let's keep the dispute going. The brand could use more poisoning.

A hissy fit with consequences

We've had a string of beautiful days in Southeastern Michigan, cool overnight with highs around 70F. The trees are starting to turn color. It is great bicycle weather -- when I have time. Cloudless skies have meant no sunsets, though that changed this evening.

This is the time of the year when it is hard to photograph a sunset because the position of the house next door. So I ventured into what had been a golf course behind my house to get the shot. It is getting to be quite overgrown and a neighbor suggested it would require too much money to restore it into a proper course. So I guess I have a nature preserve behind my house.

While in the nature preserve, I saw a jumble of blue canvas or nylon. I didn't investigate closely, though thought it might be trash or a shelter for a homeless person. If it is the latter, there is certainly lots of privacy.

Now on to all the things I want to bring to your attention that accumulated in my browser over the last week.

The Freedom to Marry organization has a page that lists the 19 states (Michigan among them) where there are lawsuits seeking marriage equality. Some, like New Jersey, are likely to succeed. Others, such as Mississippi, not so much.

Speaking of New Jersey… A judge there has ruled banning gay marriage is unconstitutional and set a date for gay marriage to begin. Gov. Chris Christie asked for a stay of that ruling so he could take the case to the NJ Supremes. The judge denied his request. There are real harms to citizens that must be addressed.

So Christie has asked for an emergency stay from the NJ Supremes. Somehow it isn't right for one judge to rule in favor marriage equality, though one governor wielding a veto pen was appropriate to stop it. Will seven justices somehow be better than one judge? The NJ legislature is sitting in the wings waiting to see if their veto override is necessary.



A few days ago George Takei forwarded a Tweet of a quote from Barney Frank: "We are making progress. It's now more socially acceptable to be gay than a Congressman."



The Dean of the National Cathedral in Washington (the same guy who made lovely comments about rooting out privilege when I was there six weeks ago) has made a bold declaration: Homophobia is a sin.



Terrence Heath offers his view of the gov't shutdown. It is only a "Tea Party hissy fit" and childish in the extreme -- I'm losing so I will change the rules. Even so, there are real consequences. He lists some, though he is sure the list is not complete: Sick children can't get care, poor children lose Head Start, families lose food assistance, scientific research halted, food inspection suspended, toxic cleanup halted, no flood relief for Colorado, worker safety protections on hold, small businesses and black-owned business lose money, communities around national parks suffer, the economy loses $12.5 million an hour ($300 million a day) in wages not paid out.



Alvin McEwen of the blog Justice For All lists the six different ways in which our opponents attack us:

* Use junk or out of date science or distort legitimate science.

* Keep repeating a distortion even though it is disproven.

* Claim a conspiracy theory, such as claiming gays are really aiming to haul all good Christians into court.

* Claim dire consequences, such as the loss of religious liberty (progress -- they used to shout about the destruction of straight marriages and the downfall of Western Civilization).

* Use phony experts, such as a "sex expert" whose degree is in economics.

* Consistently us dehumanizing words, such as "radical gay agenda" and "sodomy advocates."

Averting the End Of The World

I listened to a bit of The Diane Rehm Show on NPR this morning. I was on my way to the nutritionist on the west side of Ann Arbor and got too far away from my classical music station in Detroit. So I switched to the Ann Arbor NPR station. I found the transcript online, but didn't bother to read the whole thing -- they stayed on topic for an hour.

The topic, of course, was the gov't shutdown. What caught my interest was a comment by Molly Ball, staff writer for The Atlantic. It's at 10:26 in the transcript. She is referring to Tea Party Republicans.

So I don't think that they're really amenable to being swayed by the fact that people are upset about their vacations or the fact that people are missing a couple of paychecks because to them they are averting a disaster of world historical proportions in their attempt to stop Obamacare. Which, by the way, they are not doing, right, because as we've seen, the exchanges are opening anyway.

A bit later Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute adds:

[T]hey are united by and large on a strategy to hold out at least until the 17th. Then tie default to the government shutdown, believing that then they can up their demands and force Harry Reid and Barack Obama to accede to many of their...

He is interrupted at this point.

My summary: The Tea Party GOP believe allowing Obamacare to exist will cause an apocalyptic End Of The World. Yeah, we in the gay community have heard this before, that gay marriage will end Western Civilization and all that. I suppose, though, they are right -- it will mark the end of their world, the one in which straight white conservative males control everything so tightly there is no chance for those people to challenge their place at the top. And healthy poor people are the first step in that challenge.

So if the goal is to stop the End Of The World, shutting down the government, or even the entire economy, is a small price to pay. Which means this could be a long, drawn out battle ending in calamity.

The thought from an evening talk show (on NPR) was that the GOP has boxed itself into a corner and can't let go. They're going to look pathetic if they aren't able to extract some concession from the Dems, something worth all the hassle they've put everyone through.

States just clamoring to be next

Ned Flaherty of Policymic says there are 12 states that will probably have gay marriage by the end of 2014. Since there are only 9 such states (plus DC) now, this is a big jump.

Flaherty says there are only 5 demographics with opposition to gay marriage still over 50% -- less educated whites, those over 65, the GOP, evangelical Protestant whites, and those in the Tea Party (nearly 100% against us, yikes!). Everyone else, and a majority in the country as a whole, support us.

Those 12 states are listed with the percentage the population supports us, along with whether lawmakers will vote it in, whether it will be decided by a court, and whether the voters will approve gay marriage.

Michigan is in the list. Only half the population supports us. Lawmakers might support gay marriage, the governor won't. We'll likely get gay marriage through the federal courts -- that case that was recently put on hold.

Other states in the list: Illinois, Rhode Island, Delaware, New Jersey, Minnesota, Hawaii, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and California.



Michigan now has its first legal same-sex marriage. Dexter McNamara, chairman of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians signed a tribal law permitting same-sex marriages, then immediately married two men who had been together for 30 years. Of course, the GOP Attorney General made it clear the state won't recognize the marriage.

Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall

Now that I have time I can write about Obama's Second Inaugural.

First, there was a little difficulty. I don't watch much TV (only Rose Bowl Parade and this so far this year). My cable TV company has required I install a box between the cable and my TV (a 1982 vintage). Thankfully, they provided the box for free. But since it gets so little use I don't want it to be an electronic vampire, sucking electricity when I'm not actually using it, so I unplugged it. But the blasted thing has no persistent memory and must be reinitialized by the company over the cable every time it is plugged in. So I had to call them to do that. I asked if I would have to do that every time my home lost power. Yup. I told him how annoying that was. But on to better things.

The more I listened to Obama's speech the more impressed I was. I really like what he said. I was delighted with his mention of Stonewall and even more so when he forcefully declared marriage equality is important. My delight didn't end there. A lot of what he said, on all sorts of topics, was music to my ears. I am so glad he had such a strong overall defense of progressivism.

I paid attention when Obama reeled off "Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall." I'm very aware of the Stonewall Riots that got the gay rights movement going. I'm also familiar with the role Selma played in civil rights. But I had to look up Seneca Falls. That was a convention back in 1848 and is considered the start of the women's rights movement that eventually included allowing women to vote.

Naturally, anti-gay groups are now trying to reinterpret Stonewall. They've done a lot of reinterpreting history, not just gay history. Our side is, of course, delighted that our seminal moment in rights has been linked by the president to the other big rights movements.

Delaying my comments a few days allows me to include the commentary that has appeared. Many of them can praise the speech better than I can.

I'll start with one delightful feature of the speech -- it ticked off the GOP. They were looking for more of Obama's 2004 Dem Convention speech when he talked about no Red states, no Blue states, only United States. In other words, they were looking for Obama to say how much he would compromise with them. Not in this speech.

Adele Stan of AlterNet lists the dozen ways this speech ticked off the Tea Party and the Right in general. I won't list them all, but they include: reclaiming the Declaration of Independence and Constitution for liberalism, saying we built this country as a community instead of as a bunch of individuals, refuting the idea that the economy does best without business regulations, called for action on climate change, gave a hug to Hispanics (with his selection of poet and benediction speaker), made a patriotic case for the social safety net (and swatted away the idea of "takers"), asserted the morality of gay rights, called for equal pay for women, and highlighted voter suppression. Quite a list!

Of course, lots of gay blogs are praising Obama's inclusion of us -- first time gays are mentioned in an Inaugural speech! Though some are a bit miffed that transgenders weren't explicitly mentioned.

Others, such as Rachel Maddow and Frank Rich (9 minute video), note a big reason for Obama to mention marriage equality -- he was standing right in front of the members of the Supreme Court. And they are working on a couple gay marriage cases. Making an historical link between gay rights and women's rights and civil rights is being seen as offering the Supremes a reason to be on the right side of history on our issues. That might sway John Roberts.

There was one disappointment to the day. The networks stopped broadcasting before the parade started.