Portrait in lead

The temperature reached 58F here in Detroit this afternoon. I was able to take a pleasant walk around the neighborhood – after I pulled down tree branches that had broken off in the high wind but hadn't fallen to the ground.

Cleaning out tabs in my browser...

From last Wednesday's Cheers and Jeers on Daily Kos a bit of haiku that is pertinent to Michigan:

Snyder poisons Flint
And the rich get their tax cuts
Is that a problem?

Michael Dykehouse has painted a portrait of Mich. Gov. Rick Snyder. One particular color of artist's oil paints is called Cremnitz White which is made with a bit of lead. Add in more lead and Dykehouse had shades of gray. Perfect for the image of a governor mired in a crisis over lead in Flint's water.



Another from Daily Kos: If Obama isn't allowed to nominate a new justice to the Supremes in his last year, then Justice Kennedy is illegitimate and all his swing rulings must be voided, including...



A third from Daily Kos: Last Monday Greg Dworkin commented about the previous Saturday in which Trump publicly accused Bush II of being responsible for 9/11 and lying about Iraq. Is this implying the GOP is about to crack open?



The New York Times has created a big chart showing each time a Supreme Court seat became vacant, how long it was vacant, who was nominated, how long the confirmation took, and whether it happened in an election year. The article says:

The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination; on average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn within 25 days. When Justice Antonin Scalia died, 342 days remained in President Obama’s term.

Obama's 2017 has been released and something important is missing. That missing item is funding for sex education programs that only teach abstinence until marriage. That's a good thing because these programs tended to lead to higher rates of teen pregnancy. Better is a program that discusses sexual health, well-being, and pregnancy prevention. Even better is Dan Savage's idea that sex education should not demonize sex. Of course, what Congress does with that budget item is another thing entirely.



Every year the Heritage Foundation releases its "Index of Economic Freedom." One item is "the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property." Great! Then we get into some of the other freedoms: "fiscal freedom" means limited interference from government, "business freedom" means a minimum of regulations, "trade freedom" refers to open markets. Somewhere under those categories is "regulations concerning minimum wages." As in being allowed to pay workers as little as they like. These aren't economic freedoms for people, but for corporations.



A YouGov poll at the beginning of the month asked whether people had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of socialism and capitalism. Most categories of respondents had more people giving a favorable opinion to capitalism than to socialism, sometimes by wide margins (such as family income over $100K a year). The two who answered differently were Democrats who favored socialism and capitalism about the same and those under 30 where more had a favorable opinion of socialism than capitalism. This partly explains their enthusiasm for Bernie, who proclaims his socialism credentials.

This under 30 group is also hard hit by the Great Recession, a huge failure in capitalism. Their job prospects were delayed and their student debt became huge. Yeah, they have a reason to have an unfavorable view of capitalism.



Kerry Eleveld, writing for Daily Kos, has noticed that since our loss in Houston last fall, well, really for a couple years now, the LGBT rights movement has been in a funk. No energy. No badgering candidates. No broad national message. We haven't been all that energetic and effective at countering the nastiness coming from the Right. But the Right isn't letting up and still pushing their agenda. As an example of that the South Dakota legislature succeeded in passing an anti-trans bathroom bill. I don't think the governor has signed yet.



I've written about the hate filled Atlah Church going into foreclosure and the Ali Forney Center trying to acquire it at auction. That auction was originally scheduled for a few days from now. But the church's pastor has been awarded a delay. The next step is a hearing on April 21 to determine if the auction should go forward. The New York City Department of Finance is confident the foreclosure will go through.

In the meantime, Carl Siciliano of the Ali Fornay Center is relieved to have the delay. It will allow them to continue fundraising (topped $315K!), assemble a proper financial package for a winning bid, and to inspect the building. Even if this particular deal falls through this funding campaign means they will be able to acquire more space somewhere.

One funeral at a time

My friend and debate partner has used the phrase, "Society progresses one funeral at a time." He decided to check the source of that phrase. He didn't find anything, though he did find that Max Plank had said, "Science progresses one funeral at a time." So my friend declares authorship of the phrase "Society..."

This bit of research was prompted by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. My friend wrote, "He did tremendous damage to our society and intended to do more. One down, three to go."

My friend had used his phrase to describe the progress of LGBT rights. The elderly, who have a higher tendency of viewing gays and lesbians in negative terms, die off and are replaced by younger voters, who wonder what all the fuss was about.

But I must debate one part of what my friend said. I doubt there are only "three to go." A President Trump, Cruz, or Rubio will gladly refresh the supply of bigoted justices. We'll have to go through many more funerals because Cruz and Rubio are still quite young.

Yesterday I wrote that Timothy Lee of Vox lists fourteen justices who were nominated in an election year. Jim Burroway of Box Turtle Bulletin provides details.

Burroway's list includes Howell Edmunds Jackson. During Franklin Roosevelt's time as president the 20th Amendment changed inauguration date from March 4 to January 20. In November of 1892 Benjamin Harrison lost his bid for re-election. Even so, on February 2, 1893 Harrison nominated Jackson to the Court after Justice Lamar died that January. Harrison, a Republican, knew the new Senate would be controlled by Democrats, so nominated a Democrat.

So even lame-duck presidents nominate justices and get them confirmed. Though I wouldn't want Obama to nominate a conservative, just to get that person through the Senate.

Burroway also mentions six times a justice left the court in an election year and the seat went unfilled until after the election. In June of 1968 Chief Justice Earl Warren retired. Abe Fortas was an associate justice and Lyndon Johnson nominated him for the top job. But Fortas has sketchy ethics and his confirmation was filibustered. The scandal grew and Fortas resigned in May 14, 1969. Now there were two openings on the court. One was filled when Nixon nominated Warren Burger for Chief Justice, who took office on June 23, 1969 (that seat had been empty for a year). That second seat was open for another year before being filled by Harry Blackmun on June 9, 1970.

Gravity is just a habit

The only music videos I watch are the ones by OK GO. They always come up with something intricate and mind bending. And they've released another doozy.

If an airplane flies a particular parabolic pattern (the shape of the curve when a ball is thrown) those in the plane become weightless for about a half-minute. So the intrepid team shot this video in an airplane doing those maneuvers. They designed the routine so that every half minute or so they are in a place where they can hold still when gravity returns. What fun! The video is here and the explanation is here.

Euphemism for bigotry

Yes, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died, apparently of a heart attack. He was 79. Nina Totenberg works through his legacy.

It would be so easy for me to be snarky. But I'll refrain.

Stephen Henderson is the Editorial Page Editor of the Detroit Free Press. He was a reporter at the Supreme Court for several years around the turn of the century before coming to Detroit. That got him on NPR to discuss Scalia's legacy. Naturally, Henderson's editorial of Scalia is a cover story in today's edition of the Freep. He wrote:

He was a man for whom the notion of expanding liberty beyond the narrow confines of those who could enjoy it at the nation’s founding could only happen through the democratic process, with the majority granting rights to minority populations. And if it happened otherwise, through courts that saw the Constitution’s promise of liberty in broader terms, it was in contravention to the nation’s founding principles.

Gay rights? Only if the majority wishes. Affirmative action? For Scalia, it wasn’t a tool for realizing the promise of racial equality, but rather a means of discriminating against the majority. Sexual privacy? Not mentioned in the Constitution, so it didn't exist.

… Those notions sit quite close to the center of the “originalist” or “constructionist” view of the Constitution that Scalia and other conservative appointees since Reagan have aggressively tried to ply throughout American law.

My summary is simple: The Constitution was written at a time when only white male landowners could vote. Therefore the Originalist interpretation of the Constitution is a euphemism for bigotry.

Henderson says the conservative side of the Supremes "had already begun to witness significant erosion of their dominance on the court." And the GOP and their conservative backers fear their majority is slipping away. So, of course, they are crowing they will block a nominee that hasn't been named yet, simply because Obama is the one doing the nominating. They are betting the next prez. will be one of their own.

One of the loud voices slamming Obama is, of course, Ted Cruz, who hopes to be the one doing the nominating. His comments got so silly in their alarm that I won't link. Other sentiments out there is that if Obama's nomination goes through we can say goodbye to the Constitution. Which sounds like the speaker means: the Constitution interpreted to favor straight white Christian guys.

Elizabeth Drew of Ohio, who is a regular contributor to New York Review of Books, put it well: "Senator Cruz, if you're president, which powers would you surrender in the last year of your presidential term?"

Conservatives also like to say that justices nominated in an election year are never confirmed. Timothy Lee of Vox lists fourteen such justices, though the only one since WWII is Anthony Kennedy and he was actually nominated the previous December after Robert Bork was rejected.

A big issue of the prez. campaign has just gotten a lot more visible. The GOP candidates have already been trumpeting what kind of justice they would nominate – if we get a President Trump, Cruz, Rubio, or Carson they have vowed they will nominate someone to overturn marriage equality. Even a President Kasich or Bush wouldn't do us any favors (I've lost track of how many are still in the race). Alas, Sanders and Clinton haven't made a big deal of what kind of justice they would appoint. I hope they start saying so soon. Of course, if Mitch McConnel, Senate Majority Leader, is able to block Obama's nominee, this issue will definitely be part of the fall campaign.

But it should already be part of the campaign with Ginsberg, Breyer, and Kennedy all 77 or older. Scalia sat on the court for almost 30 years. His successor will be with us for a long time.

In the meantime leaving a vacancy in the court would not benefit the GOP. Ties of 4-4 mean the lower court rulings remain in effect – and at the moment there are more Obama and Dem appointees than GOP appointees. Will that vacancy bring more conservative voters to the polls? Do they already vote? Will the usual increased Dem turnout in an election year make the difference? Do younger voters understand the importance of the Supremes?

Want to save time? Elizabeth Drew suggests ignoring all stories that speculate on who Obama will nominate.

Jim Burroway of Box Turtle Bulletin reminds us of Scalia's legacy regarding LGBT rights. Burroway quotes Scalia's dissents (fortunately merely dissents) on four of our big cases: Romer v. Evans, which overturned a Colorado constitution amendment that banned laws granting rights to LGBT people. Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws. US V. Windsor, which declare the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional. And Obergefell v. Hodges, which brought marriage equality. Scalia can be somewhat amusing with his phrasing, but it is tough to wade through the bigotry.

Blew past the goal

Yay! The Ali Forney Center in New York blew past its $200,000 fundraising goal in less than two weeks. I just checked and the total is $202,850. The money for this campaign is designated for buying the extremely anti-gay Atlah Church which will be put up for auction in about two weeks.

It is not a done deal yet. This is Manhattan and bidding will go much higher than the $1 million in unpaid bills the Atlah Church owes. Executive Director Carl Siciliano wrote:

AFC’s acquiring the beautiful and historic building that now stands as a symbol of hate would be extraordinary, but the bottom line is this: the Ali Forney Center has 200 youths per night on the waiting list for our beds. As an organization, we have no obligation more urgent than to increase our capacity to provide housing to these vulnerable youth. With the support of the Harlem community, those who have contributed and many others offering to help, we approach the February 24th auction with confidence and hope. Given the real estate market in Harlem we anticipate the bidding will go significantly higher than the $1.02M owed and we are in discussion with potential developers and investors to acquire the building and we anticipate having a partner by the time of the auction. We will continue fundraising through the #HarlemNoHate campaign and make every effort to be in as strong a position as possible to acquire the building.

Yes, you can still donate.

Pay raise

A couple things from Washington Spectator:

D.R. Tucker, in a Speaker's Corner article, writes about race. His last sentence sums it up well:

It’s simply not enough to declare that black lives matter; black votes must matter, too.

Sarah Anderson of the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies has an editorial about who needs a raise. The rich like to say increasing inequality just happens. This is one way it "just happens."

At General Electric, CEO Jeff Immelt closed his company’s worker pension plan in 2011, substituting it with a riskier 401(k) plan. Immelt’s company-sponsored retirement assets have ballooned to more than $82 million.

Yeah, it is as simple as the CEO cutting the compensation of the workers and being rewarded with a big raise for doing so.

This discussion came up in WS because Social Security has said there will be no cost of living increase in 2016. Inflation on the economy as a whole may be close to zero, but seniors don't benefit from dropping gas prices and are hardest hit by increasing prices on medications.

Senator Elizabeth Warren has responded with a Seniors and Veterans Emergency Benefits Act (SAVE Benefits Act). It would give seniors a much needed boost. Retirees, not CEOs, need a raise. To pay for it the act would eliminate unlimited tax deductions for stock options and other "performance based" pay.

The chance of getting through Congress? Slim. Increased inequality "just happens"? No, there are specific policies that make it happen.

Pester Congress

Bernie Sanders has called for a revolution. He wants to break the hold the 1% has over American politics. He and his supporters know the system is rigged and corrupt. Good. It is a goal I am very much in favor. Bernie says he will do this by calling on his supporters to pester Congress until his goals are enacted.

Melissa McEwen of Shakesville wants details. How are you and your millions of supporters going to get through or around a GOP Congress? Write letters? Call? Demonstrate and march? Sign petitions? McEwen has these concerns because:

Take, for example, Wendy Davis' filibuster in the Texas legislature. Despite the then state senator's 11-hour filibuster to block legislation that would severely undermine reproductive access in Texas, a packed floor of activists, a nationwide call to attention, and countless pro-choice people across the country taking action in support of her, the Republican-majority legislature, with a corrupt assist from then Governor Rick Perry, forced the measure through.

That moment is one of many examples of how an engaged citizenry is not always enough to overcome the steep power imbalance between an entrenched conservative legislature and We the People.

So I want and need to know what Sanders' plan is to effectively overcome this power imbalance.

Those other examples include Scott Walker in Wisconsin and the GOP in Indiana.

Granted, as president Bernie can veto such nastiness. But how will Bernie budge an obstructionist Congress that can simply do nothing? Ask Obama how well that works out.

Bernie talks a lot about breaking up banks. Good. But how will that happen without also addressing voter restrictions, gerrymandering, and electing fellow progressives to Congress and state legislatures? Bernie doesn't say much about these things. And his actions don't speak any louder.

One way Bernie can discourage his army of supporters is not be able to deliver on the promises he made. McEwen says Hillary isn't making promises she can't keep, though that means an incrementalist strategy.

Egberto Willies, writing for Daily Kos, has had enough of political incrementalism. That has been good because it brought us the Affordable Care Act, and has helped some with student debt. It was a way to make some progress when both parties don't want to upset wealthy benefactors.

But we've reached the end of incrementalism. The remains of the middle class can't take any more of it.

Democracy is a corporate stakeholder

Back in 1963 author Ayn Rand wrote the novel The Virtue of Selfishness. In 1971 economist Minton Friedman proclaimed "The Social Responsibility of Business is to increase its Profits." Corporate executives were told their job was to increase profits (and shareholder value) and nothing else.

David Akadjian, writing for Daily Kos says that is one fundamental idea we should get rid of. He says that corporations that follow this idea suffer from these impacts:
1. Emphasis on quarterly profit numbers.
2. Bad employee morale.
3. Problems with profits in the long run.
4. Pursuit of extraction of value rather than creation of value.
5. Pressure to shift the gains in productivity from the worker to the shareholder.
6. Reduced innovation.
7. Pursuit of easy gains through financial engineering (sometimes illegally).

The long-term health of the company and the society suffers. Yes, a focus on increasing shareholder value destroys shareholder value.

Akadjian expands on that 7th point.

Companies barter with state and local gov'ts for tax breaks and threaten to move elsewhere to get them. Companies buy political influence to bend regulations in their direction, such as FedEx and UPS lobbying to cripple or privatize the US Postal Service. Companies fight union strength. Banks gut regulations that led to the collapse of the world economy. In summary, companies are now at war with citizens and our democratic gov't.

What should replace Friedman's bad idea? A corporation should increase value for all stakeholders. This includes customers, employees, long-term corporate health, the society at large, and democracy. Ideas to make it happen include: ethics scorecards, employee oversight of lobbyists, customers and employees on boards of directors, an independent corporate news source, and minimum standards for vendors.

Nothing more than fat hatred

For several years my health insurance has demanded I see my doctor for a checkup, including recording my weight. From the scale and height my Body Max Index is computed. If my BMI is in the "obese" range my health insurer demands I go on a diet. If my BMI says I'm merely "overweight" then no diet is necessary. Most of the time I'm just above that division. Last year was the first time I was under it. That means I don't have to see my doctor for a checkup this winter – which is good because my BMI is high again.

One year I was offered the alternative of wearing a pedometer and uploading my number of steps per day. I called them and said I frequently ride my bicycle and I'm sure I get a much more strenuous workout on that than I would by walking. Could I do that instead? The answer: no, we're unable to verify it. So to satisfy their bean counters I would have had to reduce my level of exercise. I chose the diet. Which didn't work.

The form the insurance company requires my doctor to fill out also includes such things as smoking (never), alcohol consumption (I don't), cholesterol (safe range), blood pressure (within limits). The only thing the insurance company objects to is the BMI.

Researchers in Calif. have looked at BMI, blood pressure, blood sugar, cholesterol, and several other cardiometabolic assessments. All those tests (except BMI) can give an accurate measure of heart and overall health. The research found that BMI doesn't correlate with them. That means BMI had nothing to do with heart health.

So 54 million people are labeled as unhealthy and pushed into treatment they don't need and sometimes charged higher health insurance premiums. And another huge number of people (don't have exact numbers) who have a great BMI yet are actually not healthy.

This matters because the EEOC has proposed a rule which "could penalise people with BMIs higher than 25...by making them pay higher premiums."

I've reported that my nutritionist has clipped a monitor to my finger and reported that my heart is significantly younger than the rest of me.
http://gaycrowsnest.blogspot.com/2015/05/younger-at-heart.html

Melissa McEwen of Shakesville summarizes it this way:

I've noted that these sorts of policies are, truly, nothing more than fat hatred that penalize fat people for the way we look—and this study confirms it. Despite the alleged concern about "health," it's really just a tax we're required to pay, irrespective of our actual health, because we don't conform to a kyriarchetypical Beauty Standard.

BMI is garbage. And using it as a metric to assess health is actively incompatible with meaningful healthcare.

Fighting (um, enforcing) tyranny

I had understood the Second Amendment to be about the right of the citizens to take up arms if their government became tyrannical. Actor Danny Glover says my understanding is wrong.

The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans. So, a revolt from people who were stolen from their land, or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis of the Second Amendment is.

Glover has backup:

Mother Jones also posited the theory in a 2008 article. "[Some] scholars believe the founders enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution in part to enforce tyranny, not fight it," Mother Jones reporter Stephanie Mencimer wrote. Explaining, "the 'well-regulated militias' cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections."

Glover made his remarks at an MLK event apparently in response to a question. The event was at Texas A&M. Conservative students have started a petition that accuses the school of hosting "radical leftist speakers" and using school funding to do so. Yeah, a big university in Texas is accused of being too far left.

So this is how the Supremes are able to say laws that limit gun sales and ownership are unconstitutional. Europen-Americans are still afraid of revolts by descendants of slaves.

Greenland!

Marriage equality comes in Greenland on April 1st. Greenland and Denmark Parliaments approved the gender neutral marriage and adoption bills, which were give their Royal Assent on Wednesday. The blog Perchy Bird adds:

Greenland’s Bishop had been looking forward to couples being allowed to marry in the local Church since the bill was first proposed in 2014.

I wish I knew the denomination of this bishop!



A graph of annual global temperatures, including the record-setting 2015 can be found here:



The Ali Forney Center is above 95% of their goal in hopes of buying the hateful Atlah Church.

The real Hillary

I seem to be referencing Melissa McEwen of Shakesville a lot today. There is a good reason for that. She has spent a great deal of time studying the whys and hows of oppression. And there's a big reason for that – she's been on the receiving end of a great deal of it. She now devotes her blog to calling it out.

In one of today's posts McEwen takes a look at why young people have mostly gone for Bernie and not Hillary. Many young will say there is something vaguely untrustworthy about her.

Hillary entered the national stage as Bill ran for and won the presidency in 1992. Both were progressives, thus drawing the ire of conservatives who assumed they were supposed to be in charge. Hillary got an extra dose of misogyny thrown at her. She was characterized as a monster, an idea that mainstream media perpetuated.

That garbage started 25 years ago, sometimes as a whisper, sometimes as a shout. "This decades-long, relentless campaign to create a supervillain, led by the GOP and abetted by the media, is so insidious and ubiquitous that we don't even see it." Which means this noise has been in the background (and sometimes not all that far back) for the entire lives of these 25 year-olds. No wonder they don't trust Hillary.

Remember those emails that Hillary released? McEwen actually read a few hundred of the 3,000. They reveal a woman "who is running for president because she genuinely cares about people." Quite a dramatic contrast from the portrayed monster. And when people meet her, like this one (sweet picture!), they find someone fundamentally different from how she is portrayed.

Will the young voters see the real Hillary? If they do will they face up to having been brainwashed? Or will they continue the untrustworthy narrative?

There are reasons to oppose Hillary. I don't think she will push hard enough on such issues as gerrymandering and corporate money in politics. But arguments against her can be made without invoking the monster created by misogynists. And there are a great number of reasons to support her, including the grace she portrays while all this misogyny is thrown at her.

Dogwhistles to bullhorns

Melissa McEwen of Shakesville has, with this campaign season, started a series of posts, of which there will likely be many more. She has done, and will continue to do, one of these posts every time a GOP leader wrings his (definitely his) hands and wails about how Trump and Cruz are ruining the party.

Nope, says McEwen, Trump and Cruz have merely replaced the dogwhistles with bullhorns. So behold your roosting chickens.

In this particular post she explores in detail how the GOP got into this situation. I could quote a deal of this long post. It is that insightful. Alas, I'll settle for a summary.

For a long time the GOP has been selling a dream. It is a dream of what life supposedly was in the 1950s, containing beautiful suburban homes with white picket fences and with men going off to work and wives doting on babies. Dad had a secure job with a pension and a promise of a gold watch after a long career with one company. There was no "disillusionment, dispossession, or a lack of opportunity."

Of course, this little suburban paradise (which never existed) also has deep traditions of racism, sexism, and homophobia. Also of course, the GOP couldn't, and had no intention of trying to, deliver this paradise. What they delivered were jobs moved overseas and a tattered social safety net along with tax reductions for the rich.

So we get to the second half of what the GOP sold: We couldn't deliver that dream to you because of progressives, because of feminists and gays, because of those undocumented immigrants, because of that dark-skinned president.

And a lot of people whose dreams were dashed are now angry. And they quickly blamed who the GOP told them to blame, exploiting prejudices along the way. These people certainly weren't going to exclaim, "I've been misled!"

But now they have candidates who refuse to exploit those prejudices with a wink and a nod, but know their base so well they can do away with niceties. Yes, the chickens have come home to roost.

I work harder than half the world

I would have gone to the Ruth Ellis Center today for my usual volunteer time, but I got an email from the evening director saying the center was closed. There was a big warehouse fire about a mile to the west (as in upwind). It started last night and while under control it was still burning. The fire department determined the smoke was toxic.



A couple days ago I mentioned the Ali Forney Center was raising money to buy the Atlah Church, which will be auctioned off due to not paying its bills. Since then Dan Savage has urged support and the campaign is above $153K, 77% of its goal.

The campaign's website reminds us why they are so interested in taking over the Atlah site. The AFC has several residences for homeless LGBT youth, one of them a few blocks from Atlah Church. The church frequently posted its anti-gay tirades on the church marquee, which these kids would see. In addition, these kids are homeless because their parents listened to and believed the hatred spouted by church pastors, such as Rev. Manning of Atlah.

Buying the building that had been this pastor's pulpit will make these kids' lives a bit easier and hopefully cause fewer other kids to become homeless.

Of course, Rev. Manning isn't going quietly, but I'm not going to link to something that toxic.



Many months ago I heard someone propose that a good person to be nominated to the Supremes would be Barack Obama. His expertise is constitutional law, he knows how gov't works, and he's a decent progressive. It would be good to have a person of color with the opposite views of Justice Thomas. Obama would follow the steps of William Howard Taft, who was president, then Chief Justice.

About a week ago someone proposed that idea to Hillary. She's delighted with the idea. Obama, not so much.



A couple weeks ago Oxfam released an analysis that showed the richest 62 people in the world "have as much wealth as the bottom half of humanity."

A common refrain from the rich is that they work harder and are worth their wealth. Along with that is the refrain that the poor are poor because they don't work hard. Melissa McEwen of Shakesville replies:

But surely, surely, even the people who make this reprehensible argument cannot choke out the incredible claim that 62 people work harder than half of the entire world. Or even that their work is more important, more inherently valuable, than the work of the population of half of the entire world.

No one can possibly believe this. Especially when the accumulated wealth of those 62 people was largely earned not by their own labor, but by exploiting other people's labor.

Another delicious result.

There was big news last summer about two videographers, David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, made a video of their meeting with officials at Planned Parenthood, edited the result to look like PP was making a profit from selling organs from aborted fetuses, and released it to the delight of the anti-abortion crowd.

Numerous states have investigated PP and have found nothing illegal or outside standard medical practices. A grand jury also cleared PP and then indicted Daleiden and Merrit on charges of tampering with a gov't document (they used false driver's licenses for ID in PP offices). Sweet!

Gender does matter

So that Iowa thing happened yesterday. Trump was beaten out by Cruz, who isn't any better and Rubio pulled off a strong third, and he isn't any better either (not that the GOP crowd had such a person). At least Carson and Huckabee have decided to go home. We won't miss you.

On the Dem side Bernie and Hillary are almost tied. And O'Malley has gone home. Bye!

Only 9 months to go!

A big part of Bernie's spiel is income inequality and what he would do about it. A few days ago he was introduced at an event by Susan Sarandon, who said, "I'm here because gender is not what's important, the issues are important."

Melissa McEwen of Shakesville disagrees.

You can't talk about income inequality, as but one of a million examples, and say gender doesn't matter, when the means by which income equality is enacted against women is different than how it is enacted against men.

And how it is enacted against women of color is different than how it is enacted against white women. And how it is enacted against trans women is different than how it is enacted against cis women. And black trans women vs. white trans women. And all the other identities that overlap with womanhood: Queer women, women with disabilities, fat women, etc.

Each of these groups are economically marginalized in very specific (and demonstrable) ways, explicitly on the basis of our particular identities.

House of hate to house of love

Ooohh, this is delicious!

The Atlah Church in Harlem has been spewing nasty anti-gay messages for a few years now, messages such as "Jesus would stone homos." The church is nasty enough to be classified as a hate group by the SPLC. But the church hasn't been paying its bills and now owes over $1 million. The church has been ordered into a public auction on February 24th.

Almost immediately, LGBT people began circulating the idea wouldn't it be cool if the Ali Forney Center could buy the place? The AFC of New York serves over 1000 LGBT youth every year. They provides 50,000 meals a year for homeless LGBT youth (dwarfing what the Ruth Ellis Center in Detroit does) and offers interventions for medical and mental health care, case management, and educational and career services. They are delighted with the prospect of taking over the Atlah site, turning a house of hate into one of love. They would use it to house LGBT youth and launch a catering business operated by the youth.

The AFC is asking donors for $200,000. They plan to leverage that money with support from local gov't, major donors, and foundations. In 48 hours they raised $75,000. Even if the AFC doesn't get the Atlah site all this money will go to expand services for LGBT youth. I donated.

Atlah Pastor James David Manning wailed that "sodomites are trying to silence me!" Yup.

Not ready

Yeah, it has been a while...

Back in December I noted that one group, Fair Michigan, looked at polling data and said that the state was ready for a constitutional amendment to protect gay rights. Other groups, Equality Michigan and ACLU, looked at voter modeling and determined that an amendment would not pass and we would need to expend a significant amount of money and hours to change the large number of minds for the amendment to pass.

Fair Michigan proceeded with their plans. They created wording for their petition and put it before the Michigan Board of State Canvassers, which approved it in mid January. They could begin to collect the 315,000 signatures needed to put the question to voters in November.

But two weeks later Fair Michigan suspended their effort. The reason: they couldn't raise the millions of dollars needed to mount the petition drive and pay for the campaign. It appears that when Equality Michigan said they doubted it would work, lots of wallets closed.

Fair Michigan says we need to gain our rights through a ballot measure. Equality Michigan says a ballot loss will set us back both in Michigan and nationally so we have to go through the legislature. Neither looks like it will happen any time soon. Which means national LGBT rights groups have a strategy that doesn't include Michigan. They don't think we're ready.

So they're focusing on states where they think chances in those legislatures are better. Likely next are Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Arizona. Indiana? The state that prompted such an uproar last spring and has more Religious Freedom Restoration Acts on the way? That Indiana? Pardon my skepticism.

Thus the Michigan strategy is to let other states go first.

Revenge or restoration

Daniel Holtzclaw is a despicable man. He is white and was a police officer in Oklahoma City. He was found guilty of 18 charges of sexually assaulting 13 black women. The jury recommended he spend 263 years in prison. The judge agreed.

This doesn't sit well with Melissa McEwen of Shakesville. She is both an anti-rape advocate and a prison abolitionist.

Yes, it is good that Holtzclaw will be held accountable for his crimes. Yes, it is good the justice system believed the black women over the white man.

But 263 years? That is only punishment and revenge. And that has led to a corrupt, violent, and dehumanizing prison system. More violence is not the solution to violence.

Will such punishment make any difference in our nations rape culture, a culture that consistently defends the perpetrator and subjects the victim to even more abuse? Will this revenge lead to the eradication of rape? No, and no.

But in America we don't have alternatives.

What would justice for these women without revenge look like? I don't know. But we aren't using our imagination to look for it.

It looks like Norway does have that imagination. Their rate of incarceration is one-tenth of what it is in America. Their rate of recidivism is 20% compared to 77% here. Violent crime is mostly confined to drug trafficking and gangs. They're doing something right.

So let's take a look at Halden Prison. A loss of freedom is the punishment. It doesn't include being treated like an animal. The prison maintains as much "normalcy" as possible, including friendships with guards and extensive vocational programs.

This normalcy allows the inmates to work on restorative justice and on making sure when they are released they are ready to be a fully contributing member of the community.

In Norway a judge is restricted to a maximum sentence of 21 years, though if an inmate isn't rehabilitated in that time successive five year terms can be added. This applies also to Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people in a mass shooting. Americans were outraged at such a lenient sentence. Norwegians, including the victim's parents, weren't.

Americans want revenge. Norwegians want restoration.



After all that I think it is time to look at a link that's been sitting in my browser tabs for almost 10 months now (alas, that row of browser tabs only seems to grow). The article is by Mychal Denzel Smith, a black man, and is published in The Nation. It explores an important question: What are police for?

Police are there to stand between upstanding citizens and the violence of the deranged. Right? But from the black perspective they can only provide the illusion of safety to a select few. Most of a cop's job has nothing to do with violence prevention. Only about 10% is devoted to any kind of criminal matters. Most of 90% is dealing with infractions of various codes and regulations. The police are essentially bureaucrats with weapons, inserting the potential for violence were there is cause for none. And for the most common acts of violence, such as domestic violence and sexual assault, police are ineffectual.

The police are not performing the function we say they are, and there are real ways to achieve a world with less violence that don’t include the police. We simply haven’t tried. Until we invest in full employment, universal healthcare that includes mental health services, free education at every level, comprehensive sex education that teaches about consent and bodily autonomy, the decriminalization of drugs and erasure of the stigma around drug use, affordable and adequate housing, eliminating homophobia and transphobia—things that actually reduce the amount of violence we witness—I don’t want to hear about how necessary the police are. They are only necessary because we are all too willing to hide behind our cowardice and not actually put forth the effort to create a better world. It’s too extreme.

And...

What do you do with an institution whose core function is the control and elimination of black people specifically, and people of color and the poor more broadly?

You abolish it.

But replace them with what?

What people mean is “who is going to protect us?” Who protects us now? If you’re white and well-off, perhaps the police protect you. The rest of us, not so much. What use do I have for an institution that routinely kills people who look like me, and make it so I’m afraid to walk out of my home?

My honest answer is that I don’t know what a world without police looks like. I only know there will be less dead black people. I know that a world without police is a world with one less institution dedicated to the maintenance of white supremacy and inequality. It’s a world worth imagining.

Are you scoffing at Mychal Denzel Smith? Larken Rose, in Alternet, lists seven ways in which cops routinely break the law.

1. "Do you know why I stopped you?" You might think you are explaining. They will treat that as a confession. It is a trick to get you to testify against yourself, which the Fifth Amendment says you can't be forced to do.

2. "Do you have something to hide?" This flips the burden of proof with the implication that failure to cooperate with this harassment is evidence of guilt.

3. "Cooperating will make things easier on you." Implying you will be punished for exercising your rights.

4. "We'll just get a warrant." Implying that if you inconvenience the police you will receive worse treatment.

5. "We have someone who will testify against you." Probably obtained through bullying and likely false.

6. "We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you." At this point your concern is release, so this bullying tactic will likely produce a confession of a minor offense the police know will be false.

7. "I'm going to search you for my own safety." By asserting you might have a weapon police can disregard the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.

Presidential

I had recently written about my internal debate between Bernie and Hillary. I'm not the only one pondering that. Melissa McEwen of Shakesville described what she considers when studying candidates (and apparently does a much more thorough job than I do). She reminds us that these are her criteria and don't need to be anyone else's. Even so, they fit my thinking pretty well.

For example: I look at campaign staff, its diversity and its structure and its efficacy and its decency. I look at how candidates respond to crisis and criticism. I look at voter outreach efforts, especially to marginalized populations, where voters are disproportionately likely to be disenfranchised. I look at the precise language used to discuss issues of concern to me. I look at candidates' debating style, and how diplomatic they tend to be during debates and interviews. I look at their negotiating skills. I look at their preparedness and flexibility and versatility. I look at how capable they seem of being able to pivot, when they are proven wrong. I look at their willingness to be accountable for mistakes and fuck-ups and endorsements of shitty policy. I look at the quality of their apologies, and whether they are willing to apologize at all. I look at how much they value transparency.

This is not a complete list, but you get the picture. In addition to policy, I am keen to assess the attributes that I want to see in a president. I want a president who is competent, effective, unflappable, adaptable, accountable. Who knows when to stand their ground and when to compromise. Who understands that diplomacy and negotiation are huge parts of the president's job, and who is a solid diplomat and negotiator.

And I look for examples, on the campaign trail, of how a candidate might respond to something if they were president. ...

McEwen then provided an example. Over the last week and in connection with the Flint, Mich. water crisis the Dem candidates showed what they are made of.

Bernie called on Mich. Governor Rick Snyder to resign. Snyder has apologized and remains in office.

Hillary sent a few staffers to Flint with the message: What can I do to help?

McEwen wrote:

[I]t means something to me that Sanders responds like someone running for president while Clinton responds like someone who is president.

It means something to me too.

Drip, drip, drip...

The contaminated water in Flint, Michigan is now making national news. There are lots of news sources to fill in the details of that nightmare and lots of opinion about how it wouldn't have happened in a rich white city.

Though as for that last bit...

Oliver Milman, writing for The Guardian, reports:

Water authorities across the US are systematically distorting water tests to downplay the amount of lead in samples, risking a dangerous spread of the toxic water crisis that has gripped Flint, documents seen by the Guardian show.
…
Documents seen by the Guardian show that water boards in cities including Detroit and Philadelphia, as well as the state of Rhode Island, have distorted tests by using methods deemed misleading by the Environment Protection Agency.

That bit about Detroit definitely caught my attention. The Detroit water system, now the Great Lakes Water Authority supplies water to all of the Detroit Metro Area – and now including Flint again. Does that bit about Detroit mean the city, or the entire Detroit area water system?

Is my water also contaminated?

My water has always been a bit off. It can turn the bowl of a toilet orange (not too bad when I had a yellow toilet) and has a slightly musty taste. About 20 years ago the city partnered with a company to test the water of individual homes. I put out a sample of water to be tested, then found out they wouldn't give me the results unless they could also give me a sales pitch for their filtering products. I decided their results must be unreliable and said no.

Perhaps 3 years ago I had enough of the musty taste and bought a pitcher with a water filter. I still get water straight from the tap when I brush teeth (the pitcher is in the kitchen), though it looks like that needs to change. But does the filter trap lead or enough other harmful stuff? My nutritionist sells a super-duper model (with matching price) but it is big and I don't have space in my kitchen. She has also suggested I buy a filter for the shower. It might be time to do that.

The Guardian saw data gathered by Dr. Yanna Lambrinidou of Virginia Tech. The article also included this:

Lambrinidou warned that the issue of misleading test results was widespread. “There is no way that Flint is a one-off,” she said.“There are many ways to game the system. In Flint, they went to test neighbourhoods where they knew didn’t have a problem. You can also flush the water to get rid of the lead. If you flush it before sampling, the problem will go away.

“The EPA has completely turned its gaze away from this. There is no robust oversight here, the only oversight is from the people getting hurt. Families who get hurt, such as in Flint, are the overseers. It’s an horrendous situation. The system is absolutely failing.”

Do we thank years of the GOP trying to squeeze the gov't by not budgeting enough money? Is the EPA scared because of GOP rants on excessive regulations and has long been targeting the agency? Is this what Libertarians mean when they promote small gov't so it doesn't intrude on our freedom? Are we all supposed to have our own water purification system, responsible for the safety of our own water?

Full throated support

As part of the recent Democratic Presidential Debate Bernie Sanders said that we should replace Obamacare with a single-payer healthcare system, essentially Medicare for all. That would greatly simplify the current system and reduce costs with a big chunk of those reductions from eliminating paying profits to health insurance companies.

Hillary Clinton dismissed Bernie's suggestion, saying that is isn't practical. There's no way a GOP controlled House would pass such a bill.

I wrote recently about a lot of progressives hungering for someone to challenge the way gov't works for the rich and not for the majority of voters, which Bernie is championing. I've written many times about Medicare for all, including in the first month of this blog and also here and here and here and here and here and here and here.

Hillary is probably right that a GOP controlled House wouldn't touch Medicare for all. But Bernie said it. In that Michigan Dem primary in March perhaps I should vote for Bernie.

Then there is this. Sigh.

Bernie was asked about his low support among African Americans and Latinos. Bernie's answer was essentially once they get to know me they'll love me. Melissa McEwen of Shakesville notes that Bernie has been around long enough and has a large enough record that is possible – and likely – that minorities do know Bernie and don't like what they see. Leaders of minority groups don't endorse on a whim, they do actual research. If Bernie has to go all the way back to marching with MLK to demonstrate his street cred, something is missing. Such a patronizing tone from Bernie is not a way to build a progressive coalition.

Then Bernie threw a snit when the Human Rights Campaign endorsed Hillary.

I'm not a fan of the HRC and stopped donating years ago. And neither Bernie nor Hillary are long-time champions of our causes (though lately Hillary is definitely now on board). But in an attempt to show he has our backs, Bernie was a bully. That isn't acceptable.

One more factor. A week ago Hillary gave a full throated cry to end the Hyde Amendment. Back in 1976 Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois put a clause in the federal budget saying Medicaid (and I think the federal gov't in general) is prevented from spending money on abortions. That phrase has been renewed in every budget since then. And signed by both GOP and Dem presidents.

That clause isn't a law that needs to be repealed. It simply needs to be left out of future budgets. Which Hillary could refuse to sign if that phrase is still there. Government shutdown? Perhaps. But better in defense of the right to an abortion than over some Tea Party dream of limited (read: oppressive to the poor) government.

Katie Klabusich, writing for The Establishment (in a worthwhile post), goes on to explain what overturning Hyde would do and how much of a big deal this is. She also discusses how the current climate of constantly chopping away at Roe has been accepted by Dems as simply the way things are.

So Hillary is coming out as a champion of the right to an abortion (which, she says, isn't a right if you can't get one) and rights of women (and, no doubt, of others).

Hillary is saying nice words here. But will she follow through once elected? Or is she saying them only to get elected? Klabusich believes Hillary's statements are for real. There is no financial advantage to these statements. She already has the endorsement of the big pro-choice organizations. In addition, these words will be a fundraising bonanza for the GOP. So, yeah, Hillary means it.

Hillary may (correctly) determine that Medicare for all isn't possible yet. She may not be calling for significant government reforms. But she's not a bully and a full throated support for several other progressive causes sounds pretty good right now, especially after all of that trashing of anyone not a white straight male by the GOP.

Hillary is looking pretty good!

If Bernie does become the Dem nominee, he will get my vote because he is way better than any of the GOP candidates. Though if it is the cantankerous Bernie and bullying Donald I may turn off my radio and stop reading newspapers in September.

Collective effort of human genius

Last evening I attended a performance of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra. On the program was a Dvorak wind serenade, an Elgar string serenade, a Mozart symphony, and a world premier.

The DSO commissioned this piece for an Arab-American composer to write a piece to feature an Israeli cellist. The result is Concerto for Cello and Orchestra "Desert Sorrows" by Mohammed Fairouz with Maya Beiser playing the cello. The three movement work depicts three angels common to Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions. They are Archangel Michael, the angel of thunder and mercy. This first movement depicts the apocalypse and final judgment. The second movement feature Azrael, angel of death. Azrael leads the listener from on funeral procession to another. In the Muslim tradition graves are not a final resting place, but a place we temporarily visit while waiting for the resurrection. The third movement is of Gabriel leading these souls to Heaven. The music is a joyous dance.

I enjoyed the music very much and plan to listen to it again when the DSO makes it available on replay through their website. Alas, this may only be available to subscribers. The audience gave it a standing ovation.

Before the concert the Assistant Director Michelle Merrill held a conversation with Fairouz. He's a young guy, only 30, and has already written a great deal of music. Much of it is a reflection of the conflict between nations. Merrill asked him, "Which composers influence you?" After naming several modern composers he said, "I have a very complicated relationship with Schubert, which I've been discussing with my therapist for years."

I attended the concert in Orchestra Hall, though the DSO has been going out to suburban venues and the first of these three concerts was at Congregation Shaarey Zedek. Yes, the piece by the Arab-American composer was premiered in a Jewish synagogue. He told Merrill, "I now have fifty Jewish grandmothers who will make sure I never go hungry again."

During the conversation with Merrill, someone in the audience asked Fairouz why the title of the piece is "Desert Sorrows"? He said both Arabs and Israelis are desert people with a long tradition of telling tribal stories around the fire as a means of passing on identity. As for that second word, "We both have a PhD in sorrows."

I just now listened to the discussion WRCJ host Chris Felcyn had with Fairouz and Beiser on Wednesday, which was before the first concert. During that time Fairouz said that he and Beiser had met and soon started talking about him writing a concerto for her. She then took that idea to the DSO for funding and performance.

During the discussion with Merrill, Fairouz talked about his mentor, Prince Saud Al-Faisal. The last movement is dedicated to the memory of the Prince. The program notes describe him as a man who "lived his life in the pursuit of peace and reconciliation to the best of his abilities." Fairouz discussed a quote from Prince Saud: "I believe there can never be a clash of civilizations...It is a contradiction of terms. Civilizations are not competing products in the marketplace but rather the collective effort of human genius built on cumulative contributions from many cultures." Fairouz expanded on that contradiction – if civilizations clashed they would not be civilized. He added, "It is possible to have a clash between civilization and barbarians."

A commitment to reform government

I'm getting around to reading the June-August 2015 issue of Washington Monthly that my father left behind. I haven't gotten into it very far, but of the three major articles I've read, two are worth talking about.

Stanley Greenberg wrote "The Average Joe's Proviso." Strangely (my term), the two groups of white working-class voters and white unmarried women are not reliable voters of Democrats. I really want to see what charms the GOP holds for these people, since over the last 30 years the GOP has been working against these groups (see: stagnant wage growth). But Greenberg doesn't get into that.

What he does get into is how the fortunes of the Dems will change if they actively court these groups and – what I want to share – what the Dems need to say to these groups. There are two parts of this message.

The first part is promotion of policies that build up the middle class:

[The initiatives] include policies to protect Medicare and Social Security, investments in infrastructure to modernize the country, a cluster of policies to help working families with child care and paid leave, and new efforts to ensure equal pay and family leave for women. Voters embraced these initiatives, and they tested more strongly than a Republican alternative.

You can see some statistics about the fragile position of the middle class here.

But spouting a middle class agenda isn't enough.

What really strengthens and empowers the progressive economic narrative, however, is a commitment to reform politics and government. That may seem ironic or contradictory, since the narrative calls for a period of government activism. But, of course, it does make sense: Why would you expect government to act on behalf of the ordinary citizen when it is clearly dominated by special interests? Why would you expect people who are financially on the edge, earning flat or falling wages and paying a fair amount of taxes and fees, not to be upset about tax money being wasted or channeled to individuals and corporations vastly more wealthy and powerful than themselves?

When gov't reform is coupled with policies for the middle class the candidates who push that combination are rewarded with much higher poll numbers.

That's why Bernie Sanders is essentially tied with Hillary. Bernie wasn't mentioned in this article (a photo of Hillary is at the top of the story), perhaps by the time he was growing in the polls this issue had already gone to print.



The second article is "Scott Walker's Real Legacy" by Donald Kettl. Walker is the governor of Wisconsin who busted the teachers union back in 2011 and whose bid for prez. ended shortly after this article was published. Kettl takes a look at Walker's actions as governor and what that would mean for a Walker presidency. Kettl is quite rational and thorough in his takedown.

Why did Walker bust the union? One reason he gave is based on fairness:

We can no longer live in a society where the public employees are the haves and taxpayers who foot the bills are the have-nots.

I think he found this definition of fairness in a GOP dictionary. Teachers are among the haves? Ask the teachers in Detroit who are staging sickouts over low pay and deplorable working conditions (thanks to 7 years of state appointed Emergency Managers). Ask teachers of most suburban schools how much they pay out of their own pocket for their materials. Even in rich communities the teachers are on the lower rungs of the income ladder. Corporate leaders are among the have-nots? These are citizens who could foot the bills and are not.

This sounds like the usual GOP trick of convincing one poor group that their cake crumbs have been taken by this other poor group while obscuring that the rich have already swiped the whole cake.

Kettl also goes through and refutes Walker's other reasons for busting the union. There is no correlation between union strength and student achievement. Or union strength and state budget deficits. Unions don't drive up salaries – government employees are actually paid less than private sector employees and that gap increases with the amount of education (and teachers are well educated). Other states closed big deficits through negotiation, not union busting. Though the state saved $3 billion, teachers took that much less spending power into their communities. While unions may protect poor performing teachers, after busting the union Walker has done little to get rid of bad teachers.

Kettl says Walker could have achieved all his stated goals through negotiation instead of union busting.

So what is the real reason for busting the union? Back in 1998 the control of the Wisconsin Senate appeared to come down to one district. The Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC), the state's chamber of commerce pumped a lot of money into the GOP candidate. The Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), the major public employee union, ran its own issue ads, to the point the Dem candidate felt like a "bit player" in his own campaign. But he won – or more accurately, the WEAC won. It and the WMC fought proxy battles in the state's big issues. That is until Walker busted the WEAC.

If Walker had gotten further in the nominating process he could have included this in his speeches (summarized by Kett1):

The problem with government, he can say, is not just that it is too big, holds back private-sector growth, and robs us of our freedoms—the standard Republican view, which he tirelessly proclaims—but that it has been captured by its own employees, who run it for their own benefit, not the public’s.

But the government doesn't have too many workers, it actually has too few. Back in 1960 about 1.8 million federal workers managed a budget of about $0.6 trillion (2009 dollars). Since then the size of the population has more than doubled, the size of the budget has more than quadrupled, and the size of the federal workforce has been essentially flat. Today about 2 million workers manage a budget of about $3.4 trillion.

In 55 years did federal employees improve efficiency tha much? No, the management of all that money has been outsourced. That has lead to conflicts of interest and program breakdowns (remember the disastrous launch of healthcare.gov?). It also means a profit for the management company has to be included in the cost of running gov't services.

Want to reduce the gov't deficits? Bring all that budget management back in house.

Audacity substitution

Before Christmas I wrote about the Michigan House and its last-minute passage of a bill that skewed the election laws of the state in favor of the GOP. Brian Dickerson's editorial in the Detroit Free Press supplied the details. Last Sunday he was back with the rest of the story.

Senate Bill 571 was approved by the state Senate and was now before the House. It was a 12 page bill that did some minor tweaking of the state's campaign finance laws. At 10 pm on the last session day before the Christmas/New Year break, Rep. Lisa Posthumus Lyons asked for the bill to be taken up – and she proposed the original bill be gutted and a completely new chunk of legislation be put in its place. Doing it this way meant there was no need for committee hearings, or even much floor debate. The new bill contained 53 pages of goodies for the GOP and its backers.

The method of introduction and the lateness of the hour meant Democrats didn't get a chance to read it, much less amend it, though they were uselessly united against it. It also meant most GOP members didn't have time to read it either and had no real idea what they were approving. Only later did a few regret their vote.

Tim Greimel, House Minority Leader, marveled at the audacity of Lyons' coup and said:

The bill does a lot of things, but mostly it's about increasing the volume of political contributions and making it harder for voters to learn who's contributing. I've talked to thousands of voters about the political process in Michigan, and I've never heard a singe one say we needed more money and less disclosure.

Dickerson, newspaper man that he is, tried to find out who enticed Lyons to pull off her maneuver. Current disclosure laws meant he didn't get very far.

The bill was sent back to the Senate, which quickly passed it. Since they had already passed SB 571 the rules probably limited debate and chances to amend (not that the Dems had any time to offer amendments).

It went to (GOP) Gov. Snyder's desk. He had plenty of time to review the bill. He wasn't under an end of session deadline. And he did take the time. He said there were several aspects of the bill he did not like (though those weren't named in news reports) and he wanted legislators to fix it. Then he signed the nasty thing – throwing away any leverage he might have had in making those changes happen. That was highly irresponsible.

The hits (63 of them) just keep on coming

I was going to discuss the movie about Frank Schaefer (preview mentioned here), but this evening's showing at a downtown church was canceled. I didn't find out about that until I got down there.

So, let's see if there are any brief items hiding in my browser tabs I can mention.

Protect Thy Neighbor is an organization that tracks "bills across the country that would allow individuals, businesses, and government employees to harm others in the name of religion." Most of these allow discrimination against LGBT people, many deny access to reproductive health care. Their tally of bills in progress at the start of the 2016 legislative session:

There are 18 bills to expand Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, which are now frequently used to allow religion to discriminate. Three of these bills are in Georgia, four in Kentucky, and four in Oklahoma. There is one pending in Michigan (though the Senate committee got it a year ago).

There are 11 bills to allow gov't employees to withhold marriage licenses. Four of these bills are in Kentucky.

There are 3 bills for First Amendment Defense Acts. These are similar to RFRAs but without the religious overtones. Some go beyond same-sex couples into unmarried couples, remarried couples, single mothers, etc.

There are 8 bills that allow private businesses to refuse to provide wedding services.

There are 4 bills that penalize (including termination) gov't officials who recognize same-sex marriages. Three of these are in Oklahoma.

There are 13 bills for Pastor Protection Acts, to prohibit the state from requiring clergy to perform weddings that conflict with their beliefs (unnecessary because of the First Amendment). There are two each in Florida, Michigan, Missouri, and South Carolina.

Two bills, in South Carolina and Tennessee, would defy the Supremes and declare marriage to only be one man and one woman.

Four bills would eliminate or reduce a state's role in licensing marriages. Two of them are in Michigan.

That's 63 active bills.



Also in Michigan there is a proposal to put a ban on discrimination against sexual orientation and gender identity into the state constitution. That proposal has cleared the Michigan Board of State Canvassers, which approved the language that will appear on petitions. Now the Fair Michigan organization can begin collecting signatures. They need 315,000 by July 11.

Unless I see something change between now and whenever a petition is put in front of me, I won't sign. Some election advisors don't think it will pass and we won't have enough time or money to assure passage. However, if it does get on the ballot I'm pretty sure I'll be doing my part for a win.

Gilded bubble bath and champagne

This afternoon I saw the movie The Big Short. About 2004 Michael Burry, a hedge fund manager. took a close look at the subprime mortgages driving the housing boom and the various financial thingies they were packed into. He realized the whole market was built on smoke and mirrors and as soon as all these adjustable rate mortgages started adjusting the whole mess would fall apart. So he went around to the various banks and asked for a deal that essentially made more than a billion dollar bet against the booming housing market. They all thought he was crazy so gladly accepted his money. A "short" is a bet that the price of something will fall. A trader at another bank got wind of this idea, realized he was onto something, and worked behind his boss's back to draw in other investors to bet against his own company. This includes a team at another company that decided to research the idea by actually visiting a new housing complex in Miami. They also placed bets. Two whiz-bang kids stumbled across the idea and also bet against the housing market.

Spoiler alert (though we've already lived through it): The rest of the movie is about how these four groups are ridiculed, then proven right as in 2007 the financial industry collapsed around them. The two kids made a daring bet, that the entire mortgage market would collapse, not just the subprime market. These kids did a happy dance over their own audacity and their mentor (played by Brad Pitt!) told them to cut it out – if their bet is successful it means the whole economy will collapse and that means millions of people would be out of work. That deflated their sails.

Along the way some of these arcane financial terms are explained in novel ways. One term is explained by a woman in a gilded bubble bath sipping champagne. Another is explained by a chef not throwing out the three day old fish, but making fish soup. Yet another is explained by a woman at a gambling table about to make a bet while two people behind her make a bet whether she will succeed at her bet and two more people make a bet on which of the first two will will their bet.

Throughout the characters talked about the fraud they were uncovering. The big banks were protected from the consequences of their fraud by the gov't bailout. Their fraud ruined the lives of lots of Americans. Only one low-level guy went to jail. Most of those who were responsible for the fraud are still in charge of the super banks and have so much money they can easily distort the political process to give themselves even bigger tax breaks.

I spotted in the credits the usual disclaimer, "The persons and events in this motion picture are fictitious. Any similarity to actual persons or events is unintentional." It didn't seem accurate. The IMDB goofs page for this movie didn't like it either. Michael Burry is a real person using that name, and a few scenes in the movie recreate events that actually happened. And even if individual scenes are fictionalized, the overall story is true and we're still feeling its effects today.

I've wondered what America would be like now if we hadn't bailed out the big banks in 2008. Yeah, the short term would likely have been a lot rougher. But in the long term I suspect the rebound would have been a lot faster and included more people. Wall Street wouldn't have continued to vacuum up money and distort the political process. It worked for Iceland.



More about our financial overlords (though this happened before the events in the movie):

Bryce Covert, writing for Think Progress, reports on research done by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman. They looked into tax data and a few other things to figure out why after 1980 the income of the rich grew faster and the income of the poor grew slower than before when both grew at about the same speed. This research shows two sources for that difference in growth. First, the income of the wealthy shifted from wages to capital income – money made from investments, such as stocks. Second,, the tax rate on such income, the capital gains tax, was reduced. Yup, a reduction in a tax that only the rich pay.

We're talking gigatons

Yesterday The Diane Rhem Show on NPR spent an hour discussing carbon in the atmosphere. Her panel was Thomas Armstrong of the Madison River Group, a science policy consulting firm, Jane Long, former associate director of energy and environment at Livermore National Laboratory, and Noah Diech of the Center for Carbon Renewal. For part of the time they were joined by David Keith, professor of applied physics at Harvard and president of Carbon Engineering, devoted to developing industrial-scale technologies for direct air capture of CO2.

First, a bit of praise for the recent Paris conference. It didn't say the world should keep temperature change below 2C as has long been stated as a goal, but to claim the goal of 1.5C. But, according to recent projections by the IPCC, to do that we can't just stop all carbon emissions, we must actively intervene and take carbon, specifically carbon dioxide, out of the atmosphere.

We can't simply cut emissions to zero (which isn't happening all that quickly anyway) because CO2 stays in the atmosphere a really long time. The CO2 already in the atmosphere will have an effect on warming, even if no more is added. Most of the rest of the hour was spent discussing how we might actively take carbon out.

First, the scale of the problem. We're talking gigatons of CO2. That's billions of tons. And if we're aiming for all the CO2 emitted since the start of the Industrial Revolution we're talking 2,000 gigatons, or 2 trillion tons (though we probably don't have to deal with all of it). So a big component of the solution must be what to do with that amount of stuff. In addition, much careful research must be done to make sure putting that amount of stuff somewhere doesn't cause other problems.

On to possible solutions...

Geologic carbon capture. We've been doing a lot of fracking lately to extract oil and gas from cracks in the rock. Perhaps we can reverse the process to store CO2. Or put CO2 in oil reservoirs, which are now underpressurized. But we already know about earthquakes caused by fracking. How will we avoid earthquakes with carbon capture? This takes careful study of possible sites.

Carbon capture directly at the power plant. At the moment it is frightfully expensive (but so was solar power when it began) and there is still the issue of what to do with the stuff once it isn't going up the smokestack.

Trees absorb CO2, so planting more trees helps (at a time when we're cutting down trees faster than we can plant them). But a tree tends to live only 40-60 years and when it decays it releases the carbon again.

There is known technology to capture CO2 from the air. Keith's company is working to combine that CO2 with hydrogen generated from solar power to create a fuel with a much smaller environmental impact than biofuels or fossil fuels. All of his research is attempting to use known technologies so that the process is inexpensive. It is a carbon fuel, but it is recycled carbon.

It is possible to turn CO2 into cements, plastics, and composite materials for use in building. Good idea, but it won't deal with billions of tons.

CO2 can be dissolved in sea water, and our globe has huge oceans. But higher CO2 in water makes it more acidic, another environmental problem. Even so, CO2 could be put into the deep ocean. Alas, the process would require as much limestone as we currently pull out of the ground for all other purposes.

Some good ideas out there, some can be used. But none of them will be the "silver bullet" able to handle the problem. A lot of ideas must be developed, tested, and tried and a lot of ideas will be a part of the solution.

Convert a shield into a sword

Let's start with this comic. Go ahead and click on it and then come on back.

Adam Sonfield of The Guttmacher Policy Review wrote the article Learning from Experience: Where Religious Liberty Meets Reproductive Rights. As I've mentioned once or twice before Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA) were created to make sure the government does not unduly prevent people from practicing their religion. But many Fundies now are trying to use that law to subvert the rights of others.

These demands reflect an increasingly stark formulation of how and when people and institutions should be granted religious exemptions from their legal obligations—a formulation in which the concept of balancing competing rights, responsibilities and needs seems to have given way to religious liberty trumping all other concerns. Social conservatives are in effect using laws like RFRA to erode rights, programs and services that they wish to eliminate entirely but have been unable to do so directly through other means.

A set of 7 cases around employers not wanting to associate with their insurance companies providing contraceptives is before the Supremes. RFRA laws have also been used to battle funding abortion and LGBT rights.

Conservatives assert that any burden on religious liberty is inherently unacceptable, regardless of the tradeoffs, the harm to others and how attenuated that burden might be. That absolutist stance has allowed them to convert religious liberty from a shield against government intrusion into a sword that can be used in the political process.

What to do? RFRAs point up a balance between the rights of a religious person and the rights of others, such as women and LGBT people. What is an undue burden on religion and what is an appropriate burden? The balance should be addressed in the RFRA itself and we should push for that balance.

When Indiana enacted its RFRA last year there was a huge blowback. The state legislature was forced to amend the law to explicitly state that the RFRA could not be used to deny services based on a wide range of personal characteristics. Alas, I'm not sure we were included.

Yeah, this work won't advance the rights of those targeted by an RFRA. But it could prevent the erosion of rights.


Aphra Behn of Shakesville explains how the erosion of access to abortion has affected her life. She didn't find a person with whom she wanted to have children until age 35. But she had to think long and hard about whether to go through with becoming a mother. Due to age and family history the chance of fetal abnormalities was high and many of these problems would not appear until late in the pregnancy. Such pregnancies have a higher risk of harming her, not just the fetus. She didn't want to be in the situation that some hospital or insurance administrator (perhaps associated with the Catholic Church) would decide an acute situation wasn't sufficiently life-threatening for them to do an abortion. So the lack of availability of an abortion was what prompted her to decide to not get pregnant. Abortion is health care.



I talked with my niece yesterday. Her 17th birthday was the day before. She won't be old enough to vote in the November election (being just 2 months shy of 18). But that didn't stop her from sharing her opinion on a couple of the campaign's issues. According to her, not having full rights for LGBT people is stupid. Of course, she has said her favorite relatives are the gay ones. As for abortions, if she ever needed one only seven people will be allowed to share an opinion – herself, her partner, her parent (but only to the point of answering the question are you or I able to raise this child?), a trusted friend, maybe her pastor, the doctor, and the nurse. That's it. Smart girl. She liked the phrase I've heard elsewhere: My body is not a democracy – you don't get a vote.

Coming from the grassroots

Sarah van Gelder, writing for Yes! Magazine, lists six trends of 2015 that she suggests could be at a turning point in America and in the world.

* Leadership in the health of the climate is coming from the grassroots – activists resisting dirty infrastructure projects, such as mines and pipelines, and state and local ordinances for carbon taxes and against fossil fuel infrastructure. It helps that the drop in oil prices means it isn't such a good investment and that there has been a boom in renewables.

* Black Lives Matter is changing hearts.

* Bernie Sanders has forced the power of Wall Street and inequality into the national debate.

* The politics of vilifying and scapegoating people is running out of people to vilify. Gay people? Mormons march in the Utah Pride. Black folks? South Carolina took down the Confederate flag. Immigrants? Political advisors warn both parties that the Latino vote is critical. Muslims? Beyond the GOP extreme Americans are standing with their Muslim neighbors. Who does that leave? Women. Sigh.

* Yeah, American actions made a mess of the Middle East, but Americans now see it as a quagmire. That prompts a much bigger conversation. What is the global role of the US military? What happens when we reduce our use of fossil fuels and no longer rely in Saudi Arabia? It is a discussion worth having.

* America is turning away from the prison state. Both Dems and GOP are looking for ways to reduce and avoid incarceration.

Not on the table

Yes, Obama used executive orders to do something about the level of gun violence in America. And we should give him credit for that because doing anything means kicking the hornet's nest. But Melissa McEwen of Shakesville is not impressed. Her reasons:

* Obama's budget for next year will include funding for 200 more Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents. McEwen's objection: Obama's remarks had nothing about people killed by hair trigger officers.

* Keep guns out of the wrong hands?

The problem with restrictions designed to keep guns out of the "wrong" hands is that most of the people who decide to use a gun to harm someone else are, per these definitions, the "right" hands until they're not anymore.

Also...

And we're going to make domestic violence a disqualifying crime for gun ownership, which is a good idea in the abstract, except that it necessitates reporting, which victims of domestic abusers may not do if they know their abusers' guns will be taken away, thus enraging them and putting their victims at further risk for harm.

* As for making sure the mentally ill don't get guns McEwen has this sarcastic summary of what Obama said:

We have to reduce stigma around mental illness, but we definitely need to reflexively see every shooter as mentally ill and also track mentally ill people.

Her summary:

The only meaningful thing that is going to curb gun violence is fewer guns.

But that isn't on the table.

Obama, in his speech, talked about the Declaration of Independence and the unalienable rights that include life. Then there is the modern interpretation of the Second Amendment that is taking away the right to life.

And we're not surprised at all... Stocks in gun companies jumped up – Smith & Wesson by 12% – as investors flocked to them in anticipation of a spike in gun sales because people will want to buy before this modest tightening of background checks goes into effect.

These investors have reason. Whenever Obama does more than lament that Congress isn't doing anything gun sales spike. There were 1.6 million guns sold in December. The previous spike was January of 2012 at 2 million guns sold. That was just after Obama was reelected and the Sandy Hook shooting – and Obama talked about restrictions. A third big spike was November of 2008 when Obama was elected. That spike was 1.1 million guns sold. And that spike is now pretty much the monthly average. Annual gun sales have doubled since Obama took office, mostly because the GOP says Obama will take away their guns. That line was missing from Obama's speech.

It is interesting to scan through the comments of the last link to see the cartoons that were posted. Such as this one:

So let me get this straight, requiring an ID at the voting booth is protecting our freedoms, but requiring and ID at a gun show is violating our freedoms?

One commenter addresses the claim that if we restrict ownership of guns then only criminals will have guns. Yes, that is true – and also a big improvement over what we have now. For instance, we'll have a lot fewer guns accidents and a lot fewer incidents of guns in domestic disputes.

Priceless

I went to the Detroit Institute of Arts to see the special exhibit 30 Americans that ends in about 2 weeks. The interesting aspect of this exhibit is that those 30 Americans are black and the show is about the art they produce. The museum encouraged taking photos of the artwork to share on the show's Instagram page. I'll describe a few of the images and provide links to them. Of course, seeing the images in person is better.

* Painter Kehinde Wiley pulled out an assortment of European art that, of course, featured white guys. He asked young black men to choose one of the artworks. Wiley then recreated the artwork with the black man posing to replace the white guy. The original of this one was of a Spanish (I think) duke or count wearing armor and on a rearing horse. The young black man sitting in for the duke is wearing the typical hoodie with big insignia across the back.

* A riff on the long-running MasterCard ad campaign produced the strongest message of the show. Alas, I don't remember the name of the artist. The text across the image: 3 piece suit: $250, new socks $2, gold chain $400, 9mm pistol $80, bullet ¢60, Picking the perfect casket for your son: Priceless.

* A riff on a children's game resulted in a piece titled "duck, duck, noose." There are nine child size stools in a circle, each with a child size Klan hood. Hanging in the center of the circle is a noose.

* Not all of the art was grim and aiming for a pointed message. Another of Wiley's works was a huge canvas of a sleeping almost nude black man. The level of exactness is amazing. Yes, this is a recreation of a painting showing a similarly nude white man sleeping.

Look elsewhere for secret sauce

So it gets problematic when one is invited to join the conversation as a stakeholder, especially when determining the price point of the secret sauce in hopes of breaking the internet. But that's better than having to walk it back during a presser. Though it is giving me life with great physicality.

Yeah, the Unicorn Hunters of Lake Superior State University in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan have published their annual list of words that should be banished for mis-use, over-use, and general uselessness. This year's list:

So, when used to start an answer to a question.

Conversation, which one is expected to join, replacing such useful words as discuss, debate, chat, argue, lecture, and talk.

Problematic, a corporate weasel word.

Stakeholder, which used to mean someone who actually had a stake in an issue but now means just about everyone.

Price point, a fancy and meaningless extension of "price."

Secret sauce, a corporate expression for something to boost business success, even outside the fast food industry.

Break the internet, an overused phrase implying lots of internet traffic.

Walk it back, a favorite phrase of pundits when a politician retracts a statement.

Presser, an annoying shorthand for press release or press conference.

Manspreading, a man (who else?) taking up too much space in public transportation.

Vape, a word to correspond to smoking when the subject is e-cigarettes, which emit a vapor.

Giving me life, which means a person finds something exciting.

Physicality, a word overused by sports writers.

One of the first

I start this evening with some blog stats...

My post about being a skeptic of both sides of the global warming debate was viewed directly 83 times (and likely many more times from people reading the home page of the blog). The follow-up post, in which I responded to my friend and debate partner, was viewed 18 times.

I had the fewest number of posts to this blog in 2015 with only 285. I had other priorities this year. The next fewest was 329 in 2011. The most number of posts was 459 in 2009. The average over the last eight years (including this year) is 378 posts a year.



This afternoon I saw the movie The Danish Girl the story of Einar Wegener who transitions from male to female in the 1920s, becoming one of the first to have transitioning surgery. She becomes Lili Elbe. The other half of the story is the response of wife Gerda. Over the course of the movie we see Einar realize she is a woman in a man's body. This was not understood in 1920s Denmark or Paris where Lili and Gerda spend some time.

Eddie Redmayne does a great job as Einar/Lili. There has been talk of him receiving the Oscar for Best Actor two years in a row (he won last year for portraying Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything). Alicia Vikander as Gerda could be nominated for Best Actress.

There was a real Lili ad Gerda. Lili kept a diary, which, along with letters and dictated material, was the source material for the book "Man into Woman" by Niels Hoyer (pseudonym for Ernst Jacobson). But the movie isn't based on that, it is based on the novel "The Danish Girl" which is much more fiction than fact. More annoying, the movie strayed quite a ways from the novel. The book portrays Gerda as bisexual or lesbian, preferring Lili to Einar, and straying far from the marriage. The movie portrays Gerda as straight and faithful.

I also wondered about the ending. I don't want to spoil it (this is a good introduction to what it means to be transgender and I recommend it), so there won't be any detail here. But I wonder how far the movie ending strayed from the novel and from the real life Lili.