Holy Terror, part 1: Fear

I'm reading the book Holy Terror, Lies the Christians Right Tells Us to Deny Gay Equality by Mel White. There are lots of important things from this book to share, so I'll be doing it over several days.

Mel White is an Evangelical Christian and he is clear to say while all Fundamentalists are Evangelical, not all Evangelicals are Fundamentalist. He's definitely not a Fundie. White was a ghostwriter, writing the biographies of some of the top Fundies, including Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. White is gay and spent 30 years trying desperately not to be. He finally admitted it wasn't working. He acquired a partner and started the organization Soulforce, which works to combat the harm the Fundies are doing to us. All of that is recounted in his autobiography Stranger at the Gate. You can get both books on the Soulforce website.

The book Holy Terror was published in 2006 at the height of the Bush II presidency and just after a bunch of states (including Michigan) voted in Marriage Protection Amendments. This was about the time that such an amendment didn't make it through Congress though there was a strong push for it. White added a preface in 2011 for the paperback version.

But now it is 2014 and those same-sex marriage bans are falling like dominoes. Is White's book still relevant? One need only look at last week's election and check out the nuggets in the various state GOP platforms that specify what Fundies intend for us – both America and sexual minorities (and anyone who isn't a straight, white, male fundamentalist).

In the week before the election NPR did a piece featuring an Evangelical pastor who complained that the GOP doesn't seem to be listening to his fellow Fundies as intently as they had in the past. Or at least not talking up the issues as much as before. This pastor warned that his flock might become disillusioned and decide not to vote (Yay!).

But White says part of that is because the Tea Party is championing many of the Fundie issues and many on the religious right are glad to have a secular cover for their religious goals.

White begins with definitions of fundamentalism from a variety of writers. Here are some of them.

From Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth:

I define fundamentalism as the attempt to impose a single truth on a plural world. … What really lies behind fundamentalism is fear, a profound insecurity that makes you feel when you meet someone who doesn't like you or who doesn't agree with you that that challenges and threatens your very being. Aggression is always a sign of insecurity, and insecurity is always at bottom a lack of faith, not the presence of it.

John Shelby Spong, retired Episcopal bishop:

[Fundamentalist Christians are] those whose religious security is rooted in a literal Bible. … they do not want that security disturbed. Fundamentalists are not happy when facts challenge their biblical understanding or when nuances in the text are introduced or when they are forced to deal with either contradictions or changing insights … For biblical literalists there always an enemy to be defeated in mortal combat.

Edward John Carnell, former professor and president of Fuller Theological Seminary:

Fundamentalism is orthodoxy gone cultic. … The mentality of fundamentalism is dominated by ideological thinking. Ideological thinking is rigid, intolerant, and doctrinaire; it sees principles everywhere, and all principles come in clear tones of black and white; it exempts itself from the limits that original sin places on history; it wages holy wars without acknowledging the elements of pride and personal interest that prompt the call to battle; it creates new evils while trying to correct old ones.

I want to branch off White's story to look at that first definition, that behind fundamentalism is "fear, a profound insecurity." White doesn't look any deeper. For that I turn to a book by John Shelby Spong, who has also been battling fundamentalism. The book is Why Christianity Must Change or Die. I both do and don't recommend this book because the change Spong is talking about is much deeper than avoiding fundamentalism and turning to love. Spong says that fear is a fear of death, or more likely, a fear of what happens after death. To me this means Fundies are desperate to get into heaven and afraid they won't make it. So Fundies are ordering their lives in a vain attempt to please God. They load up on rules, thinking that by doing these things and not doing those they attract God's favorable attention. They see God as the sheriff ready to make the bust, not as the embodiment of love. To order their own lives Fundies need to block out the rest of the world, or better yet, make sure the world conforms to their understanding. That combined with their fear means the Fundie is after power, and when one has power one inflicts violence to keep it.

Spong discusses another fear, that of not being able to control everything. If they can't control something directly, they want a God who will control it for them. That control is desired (begged for) for such things as health (about as controllable as the weather) and riches. They're desperate for that control while some of us understand that control isn't possible and are able to deal with that. This idea will be important in White's book later on.

That takes the cake

Since the district judge struck down the Michigan same-sex marriage ban and 300 couples got married before a stay was issued, Gov. Rick Snyder has been saying yeah, those marriages are legal, but the state isn't going to recognize them or provide any benefits. Now that the 6th Circuit overturned the district court and upheld the ban Snyder says, "it is as if the marriages never existed." Sweet guy.

Now that the Michigan legislature is heading into its lame-duck session (and the GOP is contemplating all kinds of mischief) there has been talk of finally adding sexual minorities to the state's civil rights act. Well, some sexual minorities. There's lots of resistance to adding transgender people. I've been getting emails from gay rights organizations saying they will oppose the inclusion of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals in the law if transgender people are excluded.

The civil rights bill has brought out a companion bill – a Religious Freedom Act which would allow people to discriminate (violate the civil rights law) against gay people if not discriminating violates religious beliefs. See, we're not supposed to discriminate against religious beliefs either. We need balance.

Commenter Joel summarized it this way:

I cannot understand the cognitive dissonance required to both want to protect a gay person's right to buy a cake and a bigot's right not to make a cake for that gay person.

Kansas! South Carolina in process

A District Court judge struck down the Kansas same-sex marriage ban. The state asked the Supremes for a stay. The Supremes denied the stay. Marriages have begun.

There is an interesting bit on the reply from the Supremes: "Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas would grant the application for stay." That caught a lot of attention. Why did the two justices feel the world should know how they voted? Do they want to make it clear how anti-gay they are? Does that mean Alito and Roberts refused the stay? And does that imply when the 6th Circuit cases are decided the vote will be 7-2 or at least 6-3 instead of the expected 5-4?

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback vows to fight on with an appeal to the state Supremes. The AG claims the ruling applies only to the two counties named in this particular suit, not the entire state. So most county clerks are being cautious.



In South Carolina a District Judge struck down the states same-sex marriage ban. Surprising nobody the AG has filed an appeal with the 4th Circuit, which had previously overturned Virginia's ban. This time the AG has the 6th Circuit ruling to claim that South Carolina's ban is different enough to warrant "their day in court."



A complaint was filed against another United Methodist pastor over same-sex marriage ceremonies. This one has a twist. Detail at my brother blog.

Missouri, West Virginia!

News of the week...

Michigan's same-sex marriage case will go straight to the Supremes, rather than trying for a different result from a hearing by the full 6th Circuit. Surprising nobody (since they were on the winning side) Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and AG Bill Schuette (both just re-elected) vowed to continue to defend the state's same-sex marriage ban., though they did promise to cooperate with the lesbian couple in this case to get it before the Supremes as quickly as possible.


The dissenting judge in the case, the one who thought her colleagues violated their oaths of office, included this musing in her dissent.

Because the correct result is so obvious, one is tempted to speculate that the majority has purposefully taken the contrary position to create the circuit split regarding the legality of same-sex marriage that could prompt a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court and an end to the uncertainty of status and the interstate chaos that the current discrepancy in state laws threatens. Perhaps that is the case, but it does not relieve the dissenting member of the panel from the obligation of a rejoinder.

A federal judge in Missouri struck down that state's same-sex marriage ban. This is on top of the ruling that seemed to apply only to St. Louis.

Another federal judge struck down the ban in West Virginia, even though same-sex marriages have already begun there through the Supremes refusing to hear the 4th Circuit case.



Because they know Congress and many state legislatures won't act a few progressive groups put minimum wage initiatives on five state ballots. All five passed (and they weren't squeakers), including the four in red states.

Michigan's initiative process sends the proposal first to the state legislature. It goes to the voters only if the legislature doesn't act. So signatures were gathered for raising the minimum wage. The state did act – by raising it to a much smaller number than was in the initiative. At least it got raised.



Another winner was gun reform. Washington state's initiative passed by nearly 60%. An advisory referendum in Cook County, IL passed by 86.5%. Governors in New York, Connecticut, and Colorado signed gun restrictions and were re-elected. So was Maine's Senator Susan Collins.



Cardinal Raymond Burke has been quite loud in saying the Catholic Church should continue to trumpet social issues (such as discrimination against us) even though Pope Francis has been talking of a kinder, gentler approach. So Francis removed Burke as head of the Vatican's "Supreme Court" and gave him the ceremonial job of Patron of the Order of Malta.



The Parliament in Uganda didn't like that their nasty anti-homosexual bill was invalidated by their country's Supreme Court (on technical grounds). They're working on a replacement. This one is worse because it also bans "promotion" of homosexuality. That means anyone who just mentions homosexuality – newspaper article, Twitter account, LGBT human rights groups – would violate the law.



The Human Rights Campaign has launched a TV campaign across the Deep South. The first ad is of the mother of a gay son who is calling for people of faith to do a better job treating sexual minorities.

Just resolution

The case of the Michigan pastors who performed same-sex marriages has been resolved. Read more in my brother blog.

Still space in the deserts

When church evangelizers come to my door I take time to talk to them. I interrupt their spiel and ask them how their church treats gay people. I want them to know why I'm not interested in their church. One came this morning just as I finished my time on the exercise bike. I didn't get her denomination, but it is only the more conservative churches that do this sort of thing. Before she could hand me her brochure I asked. Her reply was that gay people were welcome. And when you have a gay couple sitting in your pews? We teach them what the Bible says. What does it say? She surprised me. She didn't turn to a clobber passage, she turned to words of welcome. But then there was a bit of a slip. She said something about gay people not fitting into God's plan because they don't reproduce. Ah! I said with 7 billion people in the world it was hardly necessary for gay people to reproduce. Oh, she said, there's still plenty of room for more people. We haven't filled the deserts yet. I tried to say we are to take care of the earth, not overrun it, but I couldn't think fast enough to say the words. She replied God said right there in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply. At that point I declared all that to be quite ridiculous and gently closed the door.



This evening I saw the movie The Overnighters at the Detroit Film Theater. The town of Williston, North Dakota is at the center of the oil fracking boom. Thousands of workers, many looking for a second chance, are drawn there. But the town isn't building new housing fast enough. The movie is a documentary of one of the pastors who opens his church to allow the men to sleep on the floor or to sleep in their cars in the parking lot. He is shown as a very compassionate man, helping the newcomers any way he can. Many church members are upset at the ongoing intrusion. After a teacher is murdered townspeople are distrustful of the newcomers and those who harbor them. A couple of the men turn against him, though the situation is not well explained. The church fills up so he invites a man to stay in his house and the guy turns out to be a registered sex offender because of an indiscretion in his youth. The town paper latches onto the story. The city council wants to shut him down over fire code violations.

(Spoiler alert!) If all that wasn't enough... about the time he is shut down he finds he must admit that he has always "suffered from same-sex attractions" – I hate the way it was phrased, but in this case it was likely the way the pastor saw it. His marriage crumbles and he feels he has let down his four kids. He resigns as pastor and doesn't have much luck finding work in the oil fields.

No seat at the table

There was a United Methodist panel discussing homosexuality and managing to do it without any actual homosexuals present. Details on my brother blog.

Michigan (sigh)

Three full months after the hearing in August, the 6th Circuit finally ruled on the same-sex marriage cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The three judge panel ruled 2-1 that the bans are upheld. Sorry sis, no party yet. Though there are over 30 other states that will legally perform your ceremony and where you may want to move to. Look at the purple states (for gay, not politics) in this map.

Though I haven't read the ruling (it doesn't sound like pleasant or worthwhile reading), I've read some analysis of it, such as the one from Ari Ezra Waldman of Towleroad. The ruling doesn't say whether or not same-sex marriage violates the Constitution. Instead, the lead judge, Jeffrey Sutton, goes on at length on why he's not allowed to rule on the underlying issue and must allow the state to do what it wants.

Last week I wrote about the case in Puerto Rico and how it was based on the 1972 dismissal by the Supremes of the Baker v. Nelson case. The Supremes said there was no "substantial federal question." Therefore, says Sutton, there is no case for me to consider.

And if that isn't enough of an excuse Sutton has a few more for us. (1) As in fine conservative tradition if it ain't in the Constitution it ain't a federal right. And "gay marriage" isn't in the Constitution. Um, dude, we don't want to get "gay married" we want to get married. (2) Also in conservative tradition, judges should leave as much power with the states and Congress as possible, let the legislative process work as it should. The customary political process is so "fair-minded." Perhaps that part was written before Tuesday's election – a remedy through this state legislature that just became more red? (3) Gosh, there's just millennia of tradition. (4) We need to proceed with caution. So if you want me to actually take up the case somebody better give me explicit instructions.

The dissenting judge, Martha Daugherty, isn't buying.

The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state's constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, the majority sets up a false premise – that the question before is "who should decide?" – and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and federalism.

She goes on to point out the judiciary was set up to avoid tyranny of the majority. And then she accuses her colleagues of betraying their oaths by not doing their jobs.

Waldman reminds us that before the Supremes decided not to rule a month ago (only that?) Ruth Bader Ginsberg (I hope she lasts another two years!) said there is something that might prompt the Supremes to take up same-sex marriage – whether the 6th Circuit upheld bans. She specifically mentioned the 6th Circuit. And now the 6th Circuit has done exactly that.

An appeal to the Supremes is in the works. Perhaps there will be a ruling by June.

As for that rulng, Ted Olson, lead lawyer in the Calif. Same-sex marriage case that made it to the Supremes a year ago, says the nation has reached a "point of no return." The Supremes allowing same-sex couples in all those states to marry and then snatching that right away would be inhuman and cruel and inconsistent with what it has said so far.

Missouri? Kansas!

A Missouri Circuit Judge has overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage. The Missouri Constitution violates the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

I'm not sure why (I haven't delved into the details) the ruling seems to apply only to the city of St. Louis. Marriages have begun. Other counties are holding off.

A federal judge has ruled that Kansas may not enforce its ban on same-sex marriage. The ruling comes with a week-long stay to allow the state to appeal. But this appeal will go to the 10th Circuit which has already ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in Utah and Oklahoma. All other states in the 10th Circuit allow same-sex marriages.

There are still two states in Circuits affected by last month's refusal by the Supremes that don't yet have same-sex marriage. Those two are South Carolina and Montana.

Six judges in various counties in North Carolina have resigned. Their reason is their position requires them to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies and their religion prohibits it.

Little to say

I have very little to say about the election results. First is this cartoon by Mike Thompson of the Detroit Free Press which sums up my views (it is about the Koch brothers, you may have to click on the little image in the corner). It ran in last Sunday's edition. There is also Jon Stewart's fine (and crude) summary.

Ari Ezra Waldman of Towleroad wrote that gay rights have gone from a Democratic problem (2004) to a Democratic gain (2012) to nothing at all.

If I see a post of how sexual minority candidates and issues fared (current indication: not well), I may tell you about it.

There is, however, one race to mention now. Gary Glenn, head of the American Family Association of Michigan, author of Michigan's 2004 Marriage Protection Amendment, and scourge of sexual minorities and our issues, has, alas, won his seat to the Michigan House, where he will continue to demonize with ready access to fellow lawmakers.

On to another topic.

Call now...

I'm on the mailing list for MoveOn.org, a progressive organization outside any single campaign. It is good to hear bits of news about progressives, though for the last month their emails have been almost exclusively "urgent" requests to contribute money to their campaign assistance efforts. Some days I would get 2-3 donation requests and then perhaps a repeat – hey, did you see my note? The tone of the messages have been either dire warnings or exclamations that we're really close – maybe 8-9 Senate races within the margin of error.

Amongst my web browsing this week I came across this: Sean McElwee, in an article posted on Huffington Post, explains why voter turnout efforts matter in four charts. The first chart shows voter turnout by income over the previous 3 elections. Even in 2008 (the highest turnout of the three) only 48% of those who earned less than $10,000 a year voted. The participation rate increased steadily for rising income. Only 71% of those with an income in the $50-75,000 range participate. But 98% of those who are in the 1% of the wealthiest vote.

The second and fourth charts shows nonvoters are more likely support liberal causes than voters. The third shows that those who vote tend to favor lower taxes while those who aren't registered to vote tend to favor more government services. Conclusion: Increasing voter turnout "is an important first step toward a more equal democracy and would bring force politicians to consider the interests of low-income voters."

Then there is this tidbit: The number of billionaires globally has more than doubled between March 2009 and March 2014. There are now 1645 of them. And the top 85 have collectively seen their wealth increase by $668 million a day (that works out to about 7.8 million a day each). By my calculation that means it takes them about four hours to earn the maximum they are allowed to give directly to House and Senate races every two years.

So when MoveOn.org started sending out requests for Get-Out-The-Vote efforts I paid attention. This afternoon I took part in a phone bank to urge progressive voters in Kentucky to turn out to defeat Mitch McConnell. I called them for a 15 minute training session. Then through their online hub they called me and used a dialing program to connect me to those registered to vote. As each call went through, and after the system (at least tried to) verify it wasn't an answering machine I was connected and a script popped up on my computer complete with voter's name. Hopefully, they would promise to vote. Many times they refused the call in some manner. Saturday afternoon must not be a good time to call. That got discouraging after a while, even though I'm one to not talk to political people on the phone. Once I indicated on the website what happened during the call I clicked on a button to say I was ready for the next call. Then I waited, sometimes for more than a half minute for their system to find a live person for me to talk to. That gave me time to clean out my email imbox Over about 90 minutes I had at least 35 calls (I may have missed tallying a few). The MoveOn site tallies over 4 million calls have been made, over 200,000 calls during my 90 minute effort.

You can do this too. They will continue calling through Tuesday.

Dogged by an old dismissal

Back in 1970 Richard Baker fell in love with John McConnell. They applied for a marriage license in Minneapolis. Gerald Nelson, the county clerk, denied their request. Baker sued for a license in a case known as Baker v. Nelson. He lost every step of the way through the Minnesota Supremes. In 1972 the federal Supremes responded to the appeal by saying, "The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question."

In layman's terms that means the Supremes said they didn't have jurisdiction because the issue didn't involve federal law or the Constitution (remember this is 1972). That dismissal has been dogging marriage equality cases ever since, with cases arguing why Baker no longer applies.

Baker and McConnell eventually found a clerk to issue a license and a pastor to perform the ceremony. The two haven't been involved in the recent marriage equality cases because they consider themselves having been married since about 1972.

That brings us to the marriage equality case from Puerto Rico. Ari Ezra Waldman of Towleroad explains the importance. First, since the Supremes haven't ruled on a marriage equality case Baker is still in effect as their last word. Second, Circuit and especially District courts are reluctant to challenge a ruling from above, which is why we didn't get a flurry of rulings until after the DOMA case last year. So the judge in Puerto Rico who denied hearing a marriage equality case could be said to be following the instructions from the Supremes.

Waldman goes on to document the legal progress we've made since 1972 and how that allows many District and Circuit courts to dismiss Baker and its implications.

That Puerto Rico case is headed to the 1st Circuit. All the states in the 1st Circuit already have marriage equality so that Circuit hasn't ruled on the matter. Also, the 1st Circuit upheld Baker just two years ago. Perhaps the 1st Circuit will set up the conflict that will prompt the Supremes to take a marriage equality case – if the 5th or 6th Circuits don't get there first.

Model v. reality

My friend and debate partner, who has a PhD in Mathematics, has talked quite a bit lately about how every person has a mental model of their personal world and uses that model to make sense of the world and to make decisions. Over the last couple years (since I read a book during General Conference) my personal model includes a section on power – a recognition when someone is acting to project power and an understanding of when people are affected by power.

There remains a fascinating question of what happens when a person's model (or even a group's model) strays a long way from reality? For many of us our models are useful because they help us understand and negotiate our way through reality. We tend to revise our model when we see a discrepancy. But what if a person instead tries to revise reality?

I wrote a while ago about the mess that was created when a school board tried to make their history books more patriotic. I finally have time to look at an article on Salon by Sean McElwee. He discusses the fallacies behind conservative arguments, the places where their models don't match reality. Editing school books is an attempt to modify reality instead of the model. Some areas of descrepancy:

Everything was awesome before welfare and if we get rid of welfare things will be awesome again. Before welfare private charity took care of the poor. But support for the poor is much older than the programs FDR put together. In many eras of history the church did the taxing instead of or in partnership with the state. There has never been a successful purely voluntary public assistance program that made much of a dent in need.

Slaves really had a pretty good deal, well cared for from birth to death. This claim is made to support the idea that blacks are responsible for their own success or failure. But the legacy and weight of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, and persistent racism are what is keeping black people down.

American violence can spread democracy. Nope, can't work and there are many failed attempts. There is usually an ulterior motive of stealing a country's resources. All those failed attempts are why there is such a need to rewrite history books.

Conservatism used to be about preserving tradition and preferring the familiar over the unknown. But conservatism today in America is full of racism, conspiracy, free market dogma, bad Biblical interpretation, and sentimentalized past. We can't afford their redefinition of history.

Our system isn't working

I wrote about my complaint of the Detroit Free Press and its endorsement of incumbent GOP Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. That endorsement prompted a response from Jack Lessenberry, political analyst for Michigan Radio. Lessenberry notes the Freep didn't like Snyder's record on the environment, education and transparency. Then he wrote:

Harsh words. But now here’s the shocking part: The newspaper then endorsed Snyder’s reelection!

They did this because they said in spite of all that, the governor had shown leadership skills, and felt Democrat Mark Schauer had failed to show he could lead anywhere.

What the paper is saying, whether it realizes it or not, is that our system just isn't working.

What’s most stunning about that is not who the newspaper is supporting. Anyone reading their full endorsement article might be more inclined to apply for asylum in Canada than vote at all. What the paper is saying, whether it realizes it or not, is that our system just isn’t working. Not for you; not for me. Not for our state.

And that may just be the biggest story of all.

Lessenberry comments on the cost of running for office, and says:

So, how can normal, decent, non-wealthy people run for office without selling their souls to special interests?

Increasingly they can’t, and don’t.

He concludes by saying:

Eight days from now, we’ll have a national election in which a majority of those eligible to vote won’t even bother.

History has many examples of societies where citizens felt helpless before a system they felt powerless to change.

Usually, what eventually happens isn’t pretty.

Being shot is a nutritional supplement

In a news item from Michigan Radio (meaning it isn't a story and not online) there was the comment of another use of Michigan's Emergency Manager law. That law allows the state take over control of a city that has scary finances. The elected officials are moved aside and the EM has free rein to do whatever it takes to make the city's budget balance with manageable debt, including forcing new contracts on unionized city employees. A lot of Michigan residents decry the law because for the duration of the EM's work the city is not run by elected leaders – democracy is usurped. It is probably no coincidence that nearly all cities that have had an EM are majority black, so there is an element of racism too.

Back to the most recent comment about the EM. Residents, most of whom are black, voted, then found their vote was made meaningless through the EM. So they get used to the idea that it isn't worth the bother to vote at all. And the GOP prevents another minority person from voting.



Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention has denounced ex-gay therapy, the effort to supposedly help gay people become straight. It is good to see they consider such therapy to be useless and harmful. So, yeah, if you're gay you're going to remain gay. But that doesn't mean the SBC has changed any other aspect of their view of gay people. If you're gay you still had better remain celibate.



Of course, the GOP doesn't like anything Obama proposes, and they do it just because. The latest incident: Obama appointed an Ebola Czar, who isn't a doctor. GOP House member Jason Chaffetz ranted why doesn't the Surgeon General be the head of the Ebola response? The answer to that is rather simple. At the moment the office of Surgeon General is empty. Obama nominated someone. But that someone suggested that being shot by a gun would be bad for a person's health. The NRA had a fit. Apparently they think being shot is a nutritional supplement. Nah, the GOP doesn't intend to actually govern.



A couple maps give a sense of world population and how it is distributed. One was created in 2004 and projected population in 2005. The second was created this year projecting population for next year. Both maps are built on a grid with each square of the grid representing a million people. So, yes, in this year's map China fills 1306 squares and India fills 1060 squares. In contrast, USA fills 322 squares and Canada fills a thin strip of 35 squares. In Africa Nigeria pops out with 184 squares.



A professor and grad student at University of Southern California wanted to see if politicians acted on biases. They sent emails to over 1800 legislators across the country asking what kind of documentation was needed when voting. Some letters were signed with Anglo names, some with Latino names. The difference in response rates wasn't between Dem and GOP lawmakers, but between GOP lawmakers who did or didn't sponsor voter ID laws. And the gap was huge. To put the study in context, it is reasonable to say the lawmakers who sponsored voter ID laws are biased. It is not proven that the bias prompted the sponsorship of such laws.

Get the values right

The Detroit Free Press printed its endorsement for Michigan governor in last Sunday's edition. They said it was a tough choice because both candidates, current GOP Gov. Rick Snyder and challenger Dem Mark Schauer, have important advantages and significant drawbacks. So they took three full pages to explain their choice with articles looking at Snyder's record and Schauer's campaign. The six areas are Taxes and the Economy, Education, Detroit and other cities, Values, Environment, and Leadership. The conclusion: Snyder was a bit better, thus gets the endorsement. The paper gets praise for being so thorough in their analysis of the two candidates. But since I disagree with their choice I'll use this post to critique their reasoning.

I heard through a news report on Michigan Radio that the Toledo newspaper didn't like either candidate for governor of Ohio and thus didn't endorse either one. But the Free Press (I'll use their own nickname of Freep) attitude was that one of these two guys is going to be governor; we need to state our view. Michigan Radio also said lots of progressives in Michigan are furious with the Freep but some also said the newspaper's endorsement, especially made 10 days before the election wasn't going to make much difference.

Taxes and Economy
In the last four years Snyder has made significant changes to Michigan's tax system with claims that it would boost the economy. While Michigan's economy is better, not much has to do with Snyder's tax system. Alas, his changes have significantly shifted the burden from corporations to poor and low-income people in the form of higher taxes, reduced services, and worse education. But with some "tweaks" (Freep's word) the tax system can be improved. They still gave Snyder the edge.

Their complaint against Schauer is that he is too vague. Also, he has no plan on how he would get his changes through a hostile legislature. The legislature would indeed be hostile – the state Senate is in GOP hands and isn't up for election.

My reaction: I seriously doubt Snyder has any inclination (even if he isn't beholden to the Tea Party) to even try to shift the tax burden away from the poor or to make their plight any better. Besides, tweaking the tax code won't be enough. Yes, the tax code needed simplification, but it could have been done in a revenue neutral way to maintain funding for schools and services for the poor.

Education
Snyder touts his increased funding for schools. But most of that money went into underfunded retirement programs, to the detriment of the classroom. With a proper tax code he could have funded both. He talks about the need for high quality education but his actions don't match.

Schauer says enough of the right things that the Freep gives the education advantage to him.

Detroit and cities
Snyder was instrumental in getting Detroit into and through bankruptcy (final ruling next week) and pushing the Grand Bargain between donors, the Detroit Institute of Arts, the legislature, and unions to make it happen. Snyder also pushed for the Emergency Manager law (over strong voter objection) that allowed the recalcitrant city gov't to be pushed aside so that the bankruptcy could happen. Detroit's finances will be in a much better place. Snyder wins this round.

The Freep has significant doubts that Schauer, a Democrat tied to unions, could have made any of it happen. Schauer is running on his opposition to the Emergency Manager law. The Freep says "But there's got to be a middle ground between noninterference and bankruptcy."

My reaction: Yes, there is a middle ground. It includes such things as: Restoration of revenue sharing that the state promised, then chopped (Detroit isn't the only Michigan city with shaky finances). Filing suit against some of the fraudulent bank deals that ensnared Detroit's finances and decimated the city's housing. Work out deals before bankruptcy to avoid cutting pensions of city workers.

Values
Snyder has repeatedly said he is above and outside the social and cultural battles being waged in Michigan. But every time the GOP controlled legislature indulged in extremism (which has been often) Snyder went along with it. That means in the areas of gay rights, abortion rights, minority rights, and labor rights Michigan or "Michissippi" has become a much less tolerant place under Snyder's leadership. Snyder also touted transparency, which the Freep says "has become a joke."

In this area Schauer's chief qualification is his willingness to veto GOP extremism. Schauer also says he will push for a non-partisan redistricting commission to end gerrymandering. The Freep says "Schauer is far and away preferable to Snyder."

My response: This issue alone is enough for me to choose a candidate. I guess that makes me a "values voter." How a candidate views minorities (including gays), women, and the poor (including those in a labor union) colors everything – tax code, education funding, health of cities, environmental protection, and even leadership – he or she does. Get the values right and everything else follows. And Snyder's values are opposite of mine.

Environment
Snyder's record is pretty bad. He has supported fracking, cut funding to both Dept. of Environmental Quality and Dept. of Natural Resources, backed a steel plant that wanted pollution limits to be raised, and not opposed the legislature from opening public lands to industry and private use.

There was a big oil spill in a Michigan river a few years ago. The cleanup is just now being finished. That spill was in Schauer's district at a time when he was in the US House. He led the response in Washington for appropriate punishment and cleanup. Here's a place where Schauer has a record, one the Freep likes.

Leadership
There are some important projects that Snyder made happen. These include: A second international bridge between Detroit and Windsor over fierce opposition from the billionaire who owns the existing bridge (clearing of land has begun). Getting the legislature to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Tax reform. Detroit finances. I don't agree with all of them (though I do agree with the bridge and Medicaid).

There have been a few leadership failures: Road repair funding. Refusing to stand up to the Legislature's extremism.

Alas, Schauer hasn't been in big leadership roles and isn't using the campaign to demonstrate whatever leadership skills he has. The Freep nod goes to Snyder.

So, according to the Freep Snyder wins on tax reform, guiding Detroit into solvency, and leadership. Schauer wins on education, values, and environment. Three each. Yet, the Freep goes contrary to its own values (by their own admission) to break the tie in favor of Snyder. Since I oppose how Snyder went about tax reform and guiding Detroit my choice is clear. I will vote for Schauer and recommend you do too.

The latest polls show the race too close to call.

Refrocking upheld

Rev. Frank Schaefer was defrocked almost a year ago for performing a same-sex ceremony for his gay son. His case was appealed and that decision was in turn appealed to the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church. The Council issued its ruling today. His reinstatement is upheld. See my brother blog for more.

Progressive voter guide

The gay newspaper Between the Lines has put together a voter guide for progressives in Michigan. They give their endorsements for all the statewide races. For each of the US Congress, state Senate, and state House races the guide lists whether the candidate has been endorsed by gay rights groups (including BTL), women's groups, environment groups, labor groups, and also conservative groups (such as Michigan Right to Life so you know who to avoid). For some zip codes (though not mine) there are also endorsements for local elections. I strongly encourage you to follow its recommendations.

Humanizing Palestinians

I wrote more than a year ago about composer John Adams and his frustration to present his opera The Death of Klinghoffer because it tells the Palestinian side of their conflict with Israel. I was delighted to hear the Metropolitan Opera would be producing Klinghoffer this fall and that they would be simulcasting it to area movie theaters in mid November as part of their regular season. I put it on my calendar.

Alas, the same forces that protested the opera for glorifying terrorism (humanizing Palestinians) when it was first produced 20 years ago are protesting the Met's production. In a compromise that pleases nobody performances will continue in New York, but the simulcast has been canceled. Klinghoffer also won't appear in the Saturday radio broadcasts. Because Adams is a favorite composer I'm quite disappointed – enough that I'm wondering if it is worthwhile to go to New York for two nights. I checked – the total cost would be above $700. But to be in NYC for just a short amount of time would be frustrating and in the middle of the semester I don't have time for a long trip.

The disastrous old fashioned way

And other news of the week …

Jonathan Capehart, writing for the Washington Post, says Pope Francis may have lost the battle in the recent Vatican Synod, but he will win the long-term war. Yes, conservatives made sure the gay-friendly statements were voted down in the final document. But Francis made sure the interim report with all that fine language as well as the vote tally of the final report was made public. Thus the topic is now open for discussion by the wider church. That is his win. In addition Francis has changed the tone from demonization to recognition of gays as children of God.



I listen to NPR for my news. Their coverage of the ebola epidemic (here and in Africa) is measured and calm. That is not the style of other media sources. The hysteria is bad enough that Tristan McConnell of GlobalPost has listed five myths of the disease. So why are these media people so hysterical? One reason is that hysteria on TV attracts viewers. And another is the old conservative-GOP claim: Vote for us because we're the only ones who can keep you safe. That claim is made after huge cuts to the budget of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), especially cuts to funding for public health preparedness and response.



Credit Suisse issued its Global Annual Wealth Report. Global wealth has risen annually since 2008 at a pretty good pace. That's good. Except nearly all of it is going to those already wealthy. We're to the point where the richest 1% own almost half the world's assets – and the poorest half own less than 1% of total wealth.

Lynn Stuart Parramore of AlterNet says this level of imbalance tends not to end well. See 18th Century France. So do we recognize

… that inequality is extremely destabilizing and dangerous, and that non-violent interventions are possible, as we saw in America with the New Deal. Things like robust tax reform, unions, regulation, changes in corporate governance and CEO pay, affordable education, jobs programs, expansion of Social Security and universal healthcare.

Or we could just do things the old-fashioned way and wait for a disaster even bigger than the meltdown of 2007-'08. In that case, fasten your seatbelts. This ride could get very rough.