Friday Reads: As the world–and my stomach–churns (e.g. Dugger Excuse Fest)

Good Morning!8932e1433

I want to talk about the ridiculous Duggar interview on Fox but really hate to hit you with that first thing since it’s just another example of the perps calling themselves innocent victims of the liberal media. So,  there’s some Hillary news this week that’s worth sharing.  I’ll do that and then dissect the Duggar debacle downpost.

First, Hillary has come out front and center for voting rights and for enfranchisement.

Saying there is a sweeping effort underway across the country to disenfranchise people of color from voting, Hillary Clinton called for universal, automatic voter registration for every citizen when they turn 18, at a speech at Texas Southern University in Houston, one of the largest historically black colleges in the nation.

“I think this would have a profound impact on our elections and our democracy,” she said.

People would be able to opt out of being automatically registered under the proposal, Clinton said. She also called for the adoption of an early voting standard of at least 20 days before an election across the country, along with increased availability to online voter registration and reduced waiting times on election day.

She spoke to the largely black crowd after receiving the Barbara Jordan Public-Private Leadership Award and recalled coming to the area after Katrina with her husband “and a young senator from Illinois by the name of Barack Obama,” she said to cheers.

But Clinton also sought to connect the life of Barbara Jordan, who was the first woman and first African American woman ever elected to represent Texas in the House of Representatives, and her fight for the Voting Rights Act, to the current climate, where she said the law has had its “heart ripped out.”

And she called out former Texas governor Rick Perry, as well as Scott Walker, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush — all for their actions on voting rights.

Clinton pointed to a law passed in Oregon in March that registers everyone who visits the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to vote as a model for the country to look towards.

images (1)

Cynical wingers are calling this a way for Clinton to shore up the black vote.  Increased voter participation always favors the Democratic party so Republicans are thwarting the voting process all over the place. However, the right of one person to one vote is a pretty sacred idea in the US unless the Surpremes go all plutocracy as they have been known to do recently.

In 2012, Republicans won a majority of seats in the House even though more people voted for Democratic candidates over all. This is because of structural biases, factors that allow a party to outperform its share of the popular vote. The Republicans are expected to again have a big advantage in 2016 because of such factors, which include gerrymandering and the tendency of Democratic voters to be concentrated in cities.

But not all structural biases favor Republicans, and one that doesn’t will be the subject of a Supreme Court case connected to the question of what “one person, one vote” really should mean. If the court overturns current law, it will probably make the composition of Congress even more biased and lengthen the odds for Democrats to retake the House.

Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, Evenwel v. Abbott. It’s about whether voting districts need to have equal populations (as they do today), or whether they need to have equal numbers of eligible voters: adults who are citizens and who haven’t been disenfranchised as a result of imprisonment or felony convictions.

Equal population districts have been taken for granted; every state draws its districts in this way, and it was surprising to see the court even consider the question. But it’s a system that has been an advantage for Democrats for a long time. If the court requires that districts have equal numbers of eligible voters, it will make the elections of representatives to Congress even more biased toward Republicans.

That case may be the reason Clinton is coming out strongly for universal voter registration. We know of at least two Supremes that are basically Right Wing Political Operatives.

The misogyny machine is gearing up and Lady Lindsey Graham is the latest gear in the gasbaggery.  Question.  How is Hillary Clinton like the infamous North Korean Dictator?  No clue?  That’s because you’re not delusional and living a life that’s a public lie.

Presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) took a swipe at Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton during a Thursday appearance on Fox News, comparing her to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

“Well, it’s easier to talk to the North Korean guy than it is her,” Graham said on “Fox & Friends,” referencing Clinton’s refusal to take questions from the press in the past several weeks.

“I think it’s the lack of confidence in her ability to distinguish herself from Barack Obama,” he said.

Graham was on message throughout, telling the hosts that he was committed to sending American troops back to Iraq to destroy the Islamic State.

Co-host Steve Doocy had to cut in.

“It’s a tough message,” Doocy said. “A lot of people are just worn out by war.”

“Well, don’t vote for me,” Graham said.

“Don’t vote for me, because I’m telling you what’s coming. Barack Obama’s policies of leading from behind are going to allow another 9/11,” he said.

I’m not sure who exactly Graham believes will be voting for him but I certainly wouldn’t want to meet those folks.  I can’t imagine what those ten or twenty people might be like frankly.  Probably a few of them are self-loathing closet cases and defense contractors.  I can’t imagine any other following.

Okay.  NOW, I’ve come to the long part of the post.  BB did a great job of covering the start of the Duggar scandal.  I’m going to follow up her work here and hope she can add to some of the research I found on juvenile sex offenders.

As usual, Fox News did something to really piss me off.  It provided a platform to air Duggar Excuse Fest.  Yes, the Duggar dig out continues with the fallout from the Megyn Kelly interview. They are now doing the usual thing of pointing to the press and every one else and claiming they’re the real victims. They’ve even sunk so low they’ve trotted out their abused daughters.  It should be clear by now that the Duggar parents are not victims. They are perpetrators.   The interview may not have had its intended goal. They seem generally confused that no one sees them as doing the right thing.

CGG87KpUMAABF25

The Duggar sexual philosophy is that girls’ bodies never belong to the girls themselves. They’re under the authority of their father or another male figure, and then they belong to their husbands. There is no individual right of female sexual pleasure. There is no value placed on female bodily autonomy or ownership or control. Instead, the message is that girls’ bodies are never their own, that the girls themselves are simply vessels for male pleasure, male desires, and male authority, and the girls’ job is to preserve their bodies to hand over to the appropriate man.

It’s the same mentality — male authority over and right to female bodies — that begets sexual assault in the first place.

Compounding the sexual abuse and then the raising of their girls to believe that sexual touch sullies them was the Duggar parents’ decision to put the whole family on TV and turn their then 16 kids into a cash cow.

“They’ve been victimized more by what has happened in these last couple weeks than they were 12 years ago,” Michelle Duggar told Megyn Kelly about her daughters, “because they honestly they didn’t even understand or know that anything had happened until after the fact when they were told about it. In our hearts before God, we haven’t been keeping secrets. We have been protecting those who honestly should be protected. And now what’s happened is they’ve been victimized.”

Now, Michelle says, the Duggar daughters have been victimized — not when their brother was sneaking into their bedrooms to molest them or when he was molesting them on the couch or when their parents never actually got him professional help. It’s now that the story is public. And surely this is awful and traumatizing for them. Surely they do feel victimized.

But who put them on TV in the first place? Who turned them into public figures? Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar invited cameras into their home to put their family in the public eye, both so they could make money and so they could spread their religious beliefs (evangelism is part of the requirements of their religion, and what better way to spread the word than a television show beamed into households across the country). They believe their way of living — the woman at home and subservient to her husband, girls not pursuing higher education, forgoing contraception, and having as many children as God gives you even if it kills you — is not just right for them, but the only righteous, acceptable, moral way to live. They presented themselves as living examples of a particularly strict, misogynist, and retrograde sexual morality. They made their many children into minor celebrities. They wanted the public to be interested in them, because that interest meant cash and it meant influence.

They did that knowing their own family’s history. They sold a narrative of sexual restriction as noble, of sexuality as shameful, knowing their daughters were sexual abuse victims and that being publicly identified as such would be, to use their word, “devastating.”

They did that. That was a choice. The tabloid media may have also behaved poorly, but if the Duggars were just another big family in Arkansas, no one in the national media would have cared.

Many key points made by the Duggars in the interview were not only delusional, they were out-and-out lies.   The Duggar parents are basically unrepentant felons that did everything to avoid the consequences of their actions and their son’s actions.

When discussing the legal situation surrounding Josh’s confession of molestation, Jim Bob told Fox News that he and Michelle were “not mandatory reporters, the law allows parents to do what they think is best for their child.” Not so. While they are not mandatory reporters, the law does not allow them to do what they think is best for their child in this situation, multiple legal experts tell In Touch.

By not reporting the at-least SEVEN instances of abuse on at least THREE occasions during a period of more than a year, they could have faced felony charges for child endangerment, with a six-year prison term.

Law professor Michael Johnson, a former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, tells In Touch: “It is possible that investigators looking into this case could have cited the parents Jim Bob Duggar and Michelle Duggar with Arkansas Code 5-27-221 ‘Permitting Abuse of a Minor.’ Having once learned of the behavior, they recklessly allowed it to continue. This crime is a class D felony because the abuse consisted of sexual contact with a minor. The maximum penalty for permitting this type of abuse under Arkansas Code 5-4-401 is six years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.” The new issue of In Touch magazine has complete details on the Duggars’ cover-up and how it could have landed them in prison.

Also, they’ve consistently stated that the police reports were made public illegally.  Not so. Arkansas has its own version of FOIA and every release was in keeping with its law. This was not some little adolescent curiosity at work given the time period and the number of victims.

Jim Bob suggested the records of Josh’s crimes were released because the Springdale police chief, Kathy O’Kelley, may have taken a bribe. The records were obtained through Arkansas’ Freedom of Information Act, which is one of the most liberal open records laws in the country, according to the state’s attorney general.

In Touch has a paper trail that proves city attorneys reviewed the FOI request and approved the records’ release. Further, Jim Bob’s “bribe or personal agenda” explanation for the records’ release loses all credibility in light of the fact that a SECOND police report detailing Josh’s crimes was obtained by In Touch magazine through FOIA.

That second report comes from the Washington County Sheriff’s Office, and the Springdale police chief has no involvement in deciding if those records can be released.

It does appear that Huckabee is ready to throw them under the bus.  He’s removed all evidence of their endorsements from his website.  He got an earful from potential voters after his May 22nd defense.  Now, he’s sent them to byte heaven.

Endorsements from Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, of TLC’s “19 Kids and Counting,” have disappeared from former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s (R) presidential campaign website.
The Duggar endorsements enjoyed top billing on the campaign site’s “I Like Mike” sidebar on May 22, the day Huckabee issued a full-throated defense of the family following the publication of a 2006 police report that showed the Duggar’s eldest son, Josh, was investigated for molesting five underage girls when he was a teenager. Parents Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar said that four of the victims were Josh’s sisters, while the fifth was a babysitter, during an interview with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly that aired Wednesday night.

Jim Bob, a former Arkansas state representative, and Michelle Duggar endorsed Huckabee both for his 2008 and 2016 presidential campaigns. Their endorsements did not appear in the “I Like Mike” section of the site Thursday morning. Archived versions of the campaign site show that the endorsements were removed sometime Monday night.

cbe0523cd_363_244USA Today has a tick tock up on the Duggar antics releated to Josh’s sexual assaults on the five young girls.  However, this is the thing that’s interested me. The new police report has information that shows exactly how delusional the Duggar family have become in order to protect themselves, their financial interests, and their cult. 

Josh Duggar confessed to his father Jim Bob Duggar on THREE separate occasions to multiple acts of sexual molestation against his sisters and a family friend, according to a new police report obtained exclusively by In Touch magazine.
The document also makes clear that Josh was 15 years old when he molested his 5-year-old sister and committed at least SEVEN acts of sexual molestation.

The new report is from the Washington County Sheriff’s Office and was obtained by In Touch using the Freedom of Information Act. In Touch broke the story about Josh’s dark past and previously obtained and published a Springdale Police Department report about the molestations, also by using FOIA.

With fewer redactions than the first report, the Washington County Sheriff’s document makes it clear that despite Josh’s chilling confessions the Duggars waited at least 16 months before contacting authorities about the molestations, even though the behavior was continuing and growing worse. During that period they did not get professional counseling for Josh or his victims. Legal experts tell In Touch that Jim Bob and Michelle could have faced six years in prison for their inaction, if the statute of limitations had not expired.

“James said that in March of 2002 [redacted, Josh] who had just turned 14, came to him very upset and crying,” the new report reads. “James said that [redacted, Josh] had told him that he had been sneaking into [redacted, his sisters’] room at night and had been touching [redacted, his sisters] on the breasts and vaginal areas while they were sleeping.”

The report details that Josh went from sister to sister, stating, “Apparently all of the girls were sleeping in a common room at this time.”

The sheriff’s document also shows the extent of Josh’s abuse. “[Redacted, Josh] told James that this had occurred 4 to 5 times and had occurred as [redacted] was sleeping on the couch.”

We probably won’t fully understand the nature of their crimes until one of the Duggar girls breaks free from the cult.  This admission from the police report is the most chilling to me. 

A 15-year-old Josh Duggar confessed to molesting his 5-year-old sister while he held her on his lap and read her stories, according to a newly released police report obtained by In Touch Weekly.

duggarThat confession alone would make any aware person realize Josh has issues.   Here is an extremely interesting report/study on Juvenile Sex Offenders.

In addition to a diversity of backgrounds, diversity in motivation is evident. Some juvenile sex offenders appear primarily motivated by sexual curiosity. Others have longstanding patterns of violating the rights of others. Some offenses occur in conjunction with serious mental health problems. Some of the offending behavior is compulsive, but it more often appears impulsive or reflects poor judgment (Becker, 1998; Center for Sex Offender Management, 1999; Chaffin, 2005; Hunter et al., 2003).

Similarly, clinical data point to variability in risk for future sex offending as an adult. Multiple short- and long-term clinical followup studies of juvenile sex offenders consistently demonstrate that a large majority (about 85–95 percent) of sex-offending youth have no arrests or reports for future sex crimes. When previously sex-offendingyouth do have future arrests, they are far more likely to be for nonsexual crimes such as property or drug offenses than for sex crimes (Alexander, 1999; Caldwell, 2002; Reitzel and Carbonell, 2007).

These empirical findings contrast with popular thought and widely publicized anecdotal cases that disproportionately portray incidences of sex crime recidivism. Nevertheless, a small number of sex-offending youth are at elevated risk to progress to adult sex offenses. To identify those who are more likely to progress to future offending, researchers have developed actuarial risk assessment tools that have demonstrated some predictive validity; efforts to refine these tools are underway (Parks and Bard, 2006; Righthand et al., 2005; Worling, 2004).

This fact sheet comes from the National Juvenile Justice Network.

Youth Sexual Offending Behavior Is Different from Adult Sex Offending Behavior The scientific literature on this issue distinguishes the behavior of juveniles from adults. • Youth sex offenders engage in fewer abusive behaviors over shorter periods of time and have less aggressive sexual behavior. (National Center on Sexual Behavior of Youth (NCSBY) • Juveniles are not fixed in their sexual offending behavior. Juvenile offenders who act out sexually do not tend to eroticize aggression, nor are they aroused by child sex stimuli. Mental health professionals regard this juvenile behavior as much less dangerous. (NCSBY) • More than nine out of ten times the arrest of a juvenile for a sex offense is a one-time event, even though the juvenile may be apprehended for non-sex offenses typical of other juvenile delinquents. (Zimring, p. 66) • Only 8% of the incidents leading to juvenile arrests for sexual offenses would be eligible as evidence of a pedophilia disorder under American Psychiatric

The information and studies seem to indicate that providing Josh with an evaluation and proper counselling at the time might have been enough to head off any future problems.  However, the Duggars have not been forthcoming about what exactly they did for the son other than to send him off to a friend to build things and keep his hands otherwise occupied.  They also have not been open with the HHS evaluation done in 2006.  The incidences with Josh occurred over a period of time and to five separate little girls. It’s really a shame that this family seems to have a more vested interest in denying and downplaying the incidences rather than investigating the possibility that their son may truly have an issue.

This may come from a lot of their own issues but certainly the views of their religious cult played a role.  How any one can accuse a five year old of immodest behavior or excuse the abusive 15 year old as just being curious is beyond me.  But, some of these beliefs contribute to the idea that men basically own women’s bodies and lead them into sin. Yes, that good old Adam and Eve story strikes again.  When do we get to leave the iron age mythology in the proper receptacle like a library.

The Duggars frame dysfunction, abuse, and psychopathology in terms of sin, repentance, forgiveness, and grace … oh, and DEMONS.

I’ve written before about the way popular Christian teachings about love and relationships actually provide chapter and verse justification for “dysfunctional game playing and crazy-making head trips.”

Like the majority of fundamentalist Christians, JimBob and Michelle harbor a grave mistrust of pretty much every respected, evidence-based approach to behavioral issues: secular psychology is “spiritually dangerous,” modern medicine, therapy, and pharmaceuticals are equated with “witchcraft,” and abusive, criminal behavior is often attributed to “a heart issue,” or even demonic influence or possession.

The sad fact is, the Duggar family called Josh’s sexual abuse of minor girls a “teenage mistake” and they naively believe that because the boy repented, humbled himself before God, and asked forgiveness, God’s “grace, mercy, and redemption” have changed Josh into a new man who can be trusted not to molest minor children.

Anna Duggar, Josh’s wife and mother of his three young children (with another baby on the way), is standing behind her husband, calling him, “a man who knows how to be a gentleman and treat a girl right.”  Apparently, her immersion in Christian culture influenced Anna to interpret the revelation of Josh’s “past mistakes” (which she says he confessed to her and her parents two years before he proposed to her) through the “sin, forgiveness, and redemption” narrative rather than giving credence to the prevailing understanding that sex offenders rarely (never?) change.

Christians who trust in repentance and forgiveness of sins when it comes to abusive situations will PRAY for the abuser rather than PROTECT the abuse victim.

Whatever the issues, TLC should insure that this cult is not fetishized ever, ever again.

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?


Monday Reads

Santorum ewwwOkay, this is Monday.  I’m sure because I watched a really creepy new Game of Thrones last night after I got back from gigging.   It’s funny how white walkers and their armies of the dead remind me of Republicans and their voters.  So, here we go …

Did y’all see that little bit on Twitter over the weekend?  It seems some one has forgotten to google his name recently.  Given the historical proclivities of Republican politicians these days I would say that’s about right.

So with that, I give you the rundown of all the news we keeping hearing about the Republican Bottoms.  Long may their fat little asses wave in the air with well deserved publicity.

Lady Lindsey–the Senate’s best unkept secret closet case–announced the official presidential campaign thingie today to not a lot of fan fare. As true with all campaigns, it starts with the candidate defining himself by his early life.  Lindsey did not sing “This boy is a bottom” who votes against nearly everything that represents being authentically gay.  The only thing authentic about Lady Lindsey is that he–along with co-conspirator John McCain—has never met a war he hasn’t want to send other people’s kids to fight.  Keep clutching those pearls Senator Bottom!

But as he announced his presidential bid Monday here in the tiny town where he grew up, Lindsey Graham sought to knock down the idea that he’s a creature of Washington and instead told a personal story that’s largely been overlooked over the course of his two decades in the House and Senate.

 It’s the tale of a son of pool-hall owners, who grew up near-impoverished in the back room of his parents’ bar. As a college student, he raised, and eventually adopted, his little sister after their parents died, before going on to have a career as an Air Force lawyer and then rising to become South Carolina’s senior senator.

“Those of you who’ve known me a long time know I had some ups and downs as a young man,” he said. “I lost my parents, and had to struggle financially and emotionally … There are a lot of so-called ‘self-made’ people in this world. I’m not one of them. My family, friends, neighbors and my faith picked me up when I was down, believed in me when I had doubts. You made me the man I am today.”

Larry Flynt continues to offer $1 million dollars to anyone with a legitimate “I fucked this politician” story. I’m gop_closetsure we’ll eventually find the men that made him the man Lady Lindsey is today. I say that all these damn fool Republican closet cases be outed and outed with a big ol’ vengeance.   I’m tired of hearing them grab that evangelical carousel ring while fucking who they want to and the rest of us too.

The Supreme Court is releasing its decisions for the October 2014 year and started with one sure to make the thumpers few brain cells go thumpa thumpa thumpa.  Yes, religion expressions other than the endless crass consumerism season we all endure each year are protected activities. So Long Dong Silver was the sole hold out on this one.  Not a bottom but certainly some one who is no stranger to whatever goes on in the world of anything goes porn.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday for a Muslim woman who did not get hired after she showed up to a job interview with clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch wearing a black headscarf.

The justices said that employers generally have to accommodate job applicants and employees with religious needs if the employer at least has an idea that such accommodation is necessary.

Job applicant Samantha Elauf did not tell her interviewer she was Muslim. But Justice Antonin Scalia said for the court that Abercrombie “at least suspected” that Elauf wore a headscarf for religious reasons. “That is enough,” Scalia said in an opinion for seven justices.

The headscarf, or hijab, violated the company’s strict dress code for employees who work in its retail stores.

Elauf was 17 when she interviewed for a “model” position, as the company calls its sales staff, at an Abercrombie Kids store in a shopping mall in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 2008. She impressed the assistant store manager with whom she met. But her application faltered over her headscarf because it conflicted with the company’s Look Policy, a code derived from Abercrombie’s focus on what it calls East Coast collegiate or preppy style.

Abercrombie has since changed its policy on headscarves and has settled similar lawsuits elsewhere.

The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit on Elauf’s behalf, and a jury eventually awarded her $20,000.

But the federal appeals court in Denver threw out the award and concluded that Abercrombie & Fitch could not be held liable because Elauf never asked the company to relax its policy against headscarves.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote separately to agree with the outcome, but not with Scalia’s reasoning. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.

Here’s the finding that was decided  8-1.597722013cb34e86be8f6bf3e2f24ebb

Back to closet cases for a moment.  So, I’m not not in to quoting the National Review but this is a good question: How Did Denny Hastert Get Rich Enough to Pay Millions to an Accuser?

By the sketchy standards of Illinois politics, that might well have been true. But his fall from grace should prompt other questions about how a former high-school teacher who held elective office from 1981 to 2007 could leave Congress with a fortune estimated at $4 million to $17 million. When he entered Congress in 1987, he was worth at most $275,000. Hastert was the beneficiary of very lucky land deals while in Congress; and since leaving office, he has earned more than $2 million a year as a lobbyist. That helps explain how he could agree to pay $3.5 million to a former student to cover up an ancient sex-abuse scandal.

You can go read the details at the link.  The land deal is characterized as “honest graft”.  Hmmmmmm ….

Among other bottom in the news is that Republicans are once again eating their own.  (Again, with the Santorm reference for good measure!) Down with Tyranny writes that: Crooked Republican Closet Case Aaron Schock Draws a Primary Challenge.  I think of him every time I hear some one call some one else a butt munch.

Maybe Aaron Schock’s congressional seat isn’t as safe as we’ve been saying it is. The seat was redrawn in 2010 by the Democratic Illinois legislature to concentrate Republicans in one district in order to make IL-13 and IL-17 safe for Democrats. The Democrats have still be unable to capture the 13th (Rodney Davis’ district) and the reactionary Blue Dog Democrat who won in the 17th, Cheri Bustos, wasn’t worth the effort.

Shock wound up with an R+11 district, won by McCain with 54% and by Romney with 61%– and won by Schock in 2012 with 74% and last November, despite mounting ethics charges, with 75%. Ostensibly, IL-18 loves Aaron Schock. He’s been very popular in the district where his excuses for being a dashing young bachelor– “I still just haven’t had time to find the right gal”– are accepted at face value. Inside the Beltway, everyone knows Aaron Schock is a gay party boy. In the suburbs around Springfield and Peoria and the farming villages that run east from Iowa Schock’s lifestyle doesn’t compute as “gay.” And nothing would get these people to vote for a Democrat anyway.

But this week it’s looking likely that they will have an opportunity to replace Schock with a more conservative Republican… if they want to. As the financial scandals pile up and get more and more press back home, Bloomington attorney Mark Zalcman has been putting together the beginning of a primary challenge against Schock. He declared his candidacy on Monday and said his platform will be centered on his Christian faith and values. His campaign slogan: “Because Washington needs the Gospel.” Presumably his allies will get more specific about Schock’s non-Gospel lifestyle as the campaign heats up.

I’m thinking that some of these folks outta spend some time around some good Buddhists and learn about Karma. Karma appears to be a top.

Lindsey_Graham_Keeping_It_GayHere’s another one from North Dakota:    “North Dakota Rep. with anti-gay voting record comes out of closet after lewd pictures on dating site Grindr surface.”   You would think he could stop thinking with his little head long enough to not post to a Gay hook up site, wouldn’t ya?

A conservative North Dakota lawmaker has come out of the closet after lewd texts he sent on a gay dating site were made public this week.

The randy red-state Republican, Rep. Randy Boehning, was outed Monday, more than a month after the Roughrider State legislator sent an unsolicited picture of his penis and several other messages to 21-year-old Bismarck resident Dustin Smith back on March 12 on the gay dating site Grindr, according to multiple reports.

Boehning, a 12-year veteran of North Dakota’s state assembly who has routinely voted against gay rights legislation, charged that the leaked messages were sent to media outlets in retaliation for his vote against Senate Bill 2279, which would have added sexual orientation to the state’s anti-discrimination law. For the third time since 2009, the bill was voted down by conservative North Dakota lawmakers, including Boehning.

But Smith, who first leaked the Grindr messages to The Forum, claims he simply wanted to reveal Boehning’s hypocrisy.

“How can you discriminate against the person you’re trying to pick up?” Smith told the local Bismark-area newspaper on Monday.

Boehning, 52 and unmarried, has been an active member of the site and conducted his affairs under the profile name “Top Man!,” Smith said.

“Seems I haven’t found mister right yet, so need to keep looking for and having fun on the way! Hit me up boys,” Boehning’s Grindr bio reads.

Boehning, a staunch conservative, insistently refused to comment on the allegations for two weeks, but this week finally came forward to admit that he had been using the platform to chat with other men and that he was gay,according to The Forum.

Well, guess that dude was look for Mr. Good Bottom.  Maybe Denny Hastert needs a new room mate. Oh, wait, he’s going to jail so he’ll have plenty of tops looking for him now!!!

Absolutely nothing drives me nuttier than a candy bar than the utter hypocrisy of these guys.  Again, my biggest hope is that we have a rush on Larry Flint’s email and that each and every one of  these hypocritical dudes gets outted in a spectacular way.

I not only want the closet cases outted. I want the serial adulterers with the smirkier holier than thou attitudes out in the open too. That would include all the hookers that did my Senator Vitter before he becomes my damned governor.   Larry already netted Vitter but some how we still can’t get rid of him.  There has to be a few more hookers in need of a million out there with some pictures.  C’mon ladies!!!

I’ll get to race handicapping in a few paragraphs, but first let’s deal with the only thing most people know about David Vitter (who has not, by the way, distinguished himself in the Senate in any way). I’ve always wondered: How in the world did he survive that hooker business? Not only did he admit he was a client of Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s escort service. She then went and hanged herself. Not over him personally. Over the whole mess, and staring at serious jail time. But still. Extramarital relations are one thing, with a staffer or a woman of accomplishment; politicians almost always slog their way through that. But here we had the guy calling on hookers, and the dead body of the madam. And Vitter skated through it and sailed to reelection two years later. How?

“He hid for a year and a half,” says my operative. At first, when his name was revealed by Hustler in connection to the case, Vitter acknowledged it. He said he’d asked for and received his wife’s and (somewhat presumptuously) God’s forgiveness. After that he would say no more—“out of respect for my family.” Nice touch.

By the time 2010 came around, Palfrey was less important to the state’s voters than the fact that Charlie Melancon, the Democrat who challenged Vitter, had “voted with Barack Obama 98 percent of the time” in Congress. That’s all Vitter said. That, and the forgiveness thing, and the “fact” that illegal immigrations were cutting holes through chain-link fences and being welcomed by bleeding-heart Melanconistas with a brass band and a waiting limousine, as this really vile and racist TV ad of his had it. Vile and racist works down there, so what had seemed at first like a close-ish race became a 19-point whupping.

Ever since, Vitter has been fine, with his approval rating up in the high 50s. I guess all it takes to do that is to be right wing and anti-Obama. And so, he’s the favorite to be the state’s next governor.

Maybe the evangelicals were just happy that found a compound adulterer who wasn’t gay for a change.  Who knows?  All I know is that if I were any where near their clown car, I would be sure to wear a human size condom.

Take note reporters.

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?


Friday Reads: Air BnB wrecking neighborhoods all over the country including mine

airbnb1Good Morning!

I’ve written about gentrification and the impact on inner city neighborhoods like mine.  Today, I’d like to introduce you to a real nightmare ruining my neighborhood and other neighborhoods all over the country.

I’m going to approach it from several vantage points.  First, as a person who is living the firsthand nightmare of being surrounded by illegal, unlicensed short term rentals that bring party happy tourists into quiet neighborhoods.  Second, as a person who has watched many friends get booted from their rental properties because their apartments are worth more as short term illegal rentals for tourists.  Studies in cities like New York City and San Francisco show the impact of illegal and unlicensed AirBnB short term rentals on homelessness and increasing the unavailability of long term rentals in cities already facing issues by not having enough affordable housing.  It’s not pretty.  Get ready for an increase in homeless in a town or city near year.

The art installation you see on the left comes from the creative minds of two women in my neighborhood.  I was pleased to see this come so quickly after I’ve started emailing and calling my city councilwoman about what’s been going on all around me.

Over Memorial Day weekend, a Coney Island-style stand-in popped up on a porch on Royal Street in Bywater. The art piece featured two Bywater caricatures on a satirical billboard: “Welcome to the Bywater, where the vacation never ends!” Artist Caroline Thomas, who paints Mardi Gras floats for Royal Artists, created the piece and posted photos on Facebook. The spread went viral. Meanwhile, dozens of people — including many out-of-town visitors — posed for photos, gawked at and talked about the piece outside her home.

And her neighborhood is full of those visitors. Most of her block offers a room (or entire home) on Airbnb, she says. She counted 140 Airbnbs within her neighborhood, compared to just a handful of apartments for rent listed on sites like Craigslist.

“We noticed over the past six months a definite shift in the neighborhood,” she says. “Big packs of tourists where you see 20 people going down the street with rolling suitcases and you’re like, ‘What’s happening?’ … We walk outside and people are taking constant photos of our house. At first it was charming, then you start to feel like an animal in a zoo.”

She may feel like an animal in a zoo but I feel more like a hostage in my own home.  I have an endless parade of strangers at all hours of the day and night within inches of my bedroom. It’s hard to park in front of my house. I frequently hear noises that you’d expect from a frat house that’s known for wild parties.  People from New Jersey–who basically never even live here or come here any more–are buying houses on my street and renting them out for around $200 a night.  Take $200 x 30 and you’ll have a monthly income for a small apartment in Tokyo.  However, Tokyo has a lot of well paying jobs. New Orleans does not and long term rentals–while rising to east coast levels–are way too high for New Orleans incomes. I’m losing neighbors and gaining party-throwing crime bait.

Here’s Caroline’s original story from her facebook page.

My roommate Chascarillo Meow and I have been struggling with a lot of anger over our neighborhood (the Bywater) and decided to work it out with some art. We’ve slowly come to realize that the entire neighborhood is being overrun by Airbnb, to the point where it’s near impossible to find long term leases (140 Airbnb listings versus 18 apartments up on craigslist). Every house around us is running an Airbnb hustle, and specifically the one to the left of us: the woman that owns it has multiple properties in the neighborhood, she doesn’t live on premise, heck, she isn’t in town half the time, she’s packing as many as 10 people into each side of the shotgun, and it’s back to back rentals. It’s bachelorette weekends and birthday getaways every day of the week over there. I used to live on a quiet block and now it’s packs of bros heading to Booty’s for craft cocktails. I walk outside and people are taking selfies in front of my house. Markey’s and the Country Club (though both very considerate establishments) are completely overrun with tourists, and no long function as the neighborhood establishments they once were.

I know this is touchy subject, because everyone knows someone who’s using Airbnb to supplement their income, but take a second to think about what you’re doing to your city. All 140 of those properties (excluding a few, I’m sure, that are just offering up something like a couch or are only renting it out a few times a year) could be filled with locals. People that pay taxes and care about potholes and our police and whether Pres Kabacoff is going to build high rise apartments along our riverfront. And people displaced from the Bywater will start filling up poorer, more vulnerable neighborhoods in the city, and those people in turn will be displaced. Pre-Katrina, people were spending 19% of their income on rent. Now it’s 41%. And when people like the lady next door are charging $250/ night how can locals compete? Her price for renting it out for a month? $5,000. That’s Tokyo prices.

Here is my letter to my city councilwoman that I sent on May 14th.

Hi! I live at (address redacted for obvious reasons) and am at my wit’s end dealing with the short term air bnb next to me at (house numbers redacted). The owners live in NJ and are never here. The property manager appears to live in San Francisco. It is like living next to a frat house. I live next to a legitimate b&b with owners in resident and it’s like night and day. Also, I can tell you that I’ve lost 4 friends whose landlords evicted them to do the same set up. We are totally losing our neighborhood to these things. The same people have just bought a property across the street and are planning to do the same thing. I don’t have time to list all the issues I have had but just ask yourself if you would want complete strangers walking within inches of your bedroom window at all hours of the day and night. One time it was with about 20 bicycles.

Help!

american_splendor-gentrification Yes I said 20 bicycles at all hours of the night and day rolling within inches of my bedroom window.  Most of these folks  act like my street is an extension of Bourbon Street.  They also seem to be unaware that they’ve introduced incredible levels of muggings in my neighborhood because most of them aren’t very streetwise and don’t know how to deal with an inner city neighborhood like mine. We may be gentrifying but we are a long way from being a quiet little burb. These folks are like walking crime bait.  There are laws surrounding these things but the city doesn’t have the resources to enforce them.

I also live next to one of the few licensed B&B’s in the neighborhood with resident owners.  They pay their taxes, their fees, and they follow the rules.  Their business is being hurt by the black market short term rentals that have spread like wildfire the last year or so. My neighborhood is not zoned for multiple commercial ventures. However, this is what’s happening now.  

My neighbors used to be the folks that worked in the quarter like musicians and artists, writers, barbers, waiters and just hard working people.  If they are like me and own their house, they’re still here and live in fear of the potential increase in property taxes and service fees that will have to come with supporting all this activity that is totally out of place in a neighborhood. Plus, property values are sky rocketing. If they are renting, they better hope their landlord isn’t struck by the greedbug because they will be booted and will join a huge number of people having to find apartments in a city where there are fewer and fewer options all the time.

This is not unique to New Orleans.  All you have to do is start searching and you will see how New York, San Francisco, and even small cities and towns are dealing with this.  Here’s a blog relating issues that Air Bnb’s are causing in LA.

However, Airbnb has become politically controversial in high-priced, regulation-obsessed cities like Los Angeles and New York. Hotels and hotel unions quite understandably see Airbnb as competition in the short-term lodging industry, and wish to regulate it intensively (if not to destroy it). One common anti-Airbnb argument** is that Airbnb, by making short-term lodging more affordable, actually reduces the supply of traditional apartments—that is, apartments leased for a month or more at a time). The argument runs as follows: units that are on Airbnb for a few days at a time would, in the absence of Airbnb, be rented out as traditional apartments. Thus, Airbnb reduces the housing supply and raises rents.

This argument rests on an essentially unprovable claim: that Airbnb units would otherwise be rented out as traditional apartments. More importantly, the argument proves too much. If Airbnb hosts reduce the supply of apartments by not using their houses and spare rooms as traditional apartments, why isn’t this equally true of hotels who are not using their rooms as apartments, or homeowners who are not renting out every spare room? And if homeowners and hotels are reducing the rental housing supply, why shoudn’t they be forced to rent out their units as traditional apartments?

Finally, the argument rests on the assumption that Airbnb includes a significant share of the rental housing market. For example, LAANE (a union-affiliated policy organization based in Los Angeles) recently issued a report claiming that Airbnb takes ,7316 units off the Los Angeles rental market, which “is equivalent to seven years of affordable housing construction inLos Angeles.” But since Los Angeles produces very little “affordable housing” (whatever that term means) this statistic proves nothing.

A better way of understanding Airbnb’s impact, if any, on rents is to compare it to the total number of housing units in Los Angeles. There are just over 1.2 million housing units in the city of Los Angeles; thus, Airbnb units are roughly 0.6 percent of the housing market. There are about 700,000 rental units in Los Angeles—so even if every single Airbnb unit would otherwise be part of the rental market, Airbnb units would comprise only 1 percent of the rental market. (I very much doubt that this is the case, if only because since some Airbnb units are in privately owned homes and not every part-time Airbnb landlord wants a permanent roommate). Thus, it seems to me that even if every single Airbnb unit would be used as traditional apartments in the absence of Airbnb, its impact on regional housing markets would be small.

That analysis does not stand up to study. Here’s an article in The Examiner about the impact in San Francisco. Its Mission neighborhood is particularly hard hit.10035223

San Francisco is once again debating how best to regulate short-term rental websites like Airbnb, after a law legalizing the practice went into effect less than four months ago.City planners have since said the law is unenforceable and needs to change, a position supported by Mayor Ed Lee and the Board of Supervisors.But just how to strengthen the law remains a point of contention, as does the question of what impact short-term rentals are having on San Francisco’s housing stock.Today, a report will be released by Budget Analyst Harvey Rose that provides new analysis of the impact of short-term rentals on The City, drawing comparisons between longer-term hosts and evictions and estimating that in some neighborhoods Airbnb units could comprise as much as 40 percent of potential rentals.

Between 925 and 1,960 units citywide have been removed from the housing market by hosts renting out entire units on Airbnb for more than 58 days, the report estimates. While this total comprises a small fraction of San Francisco’s 244,012 rental units, it does represent up to 23.2 percent of the total citywide vacant units, which are estimated at 8,438, the report says.Airbnb is not the only short-term rental website with listings in San Francisco — VRBO, for example, is the second-most popular — but the report only analyzed Airbnb because data for other companies was unavailable. The report notes that “rentals for private and shared rooms would reduce the available rental stock even further.”The data was not provided by Airbnb, but rather compiled through online research.The impact in San Francisco varies by neighborhood, with the greatest impacts in the Mission, Haight-Ashbury/Western Addition, Castro-Eureka Valley and Potrero Hill-South Beach.In the Haight, for example, nearly 32 percent of the vacant rental housing units were listed on Airbnb, some 122 total. In the Mission, 29 percent of potential rentals, or 199, were listed on the website. Another estimate says the Mission percentage could be as high as 40 percent and as high as 43 percent in the Haight.“Airbnb has made a lot of claims that they are not impacting our housing stock. This demonstrates that they clearly are,” Campos said during an interview with The San Francisco Examiner. “And that in some neighborhoods like the Mission the impact is so significant that it’s definitely pushing people out.”The report draws a comparison between the number of evictions in neighborhoods with the most hosts, though notes there is no way to draw a direct connection. In the Mission, for example, there were 315 hosts last year and 323 evictions.“There seems to be a connection,” Campos said. “We won’t know for sure until we actually get Airbnb to give us the information.”The report draws a distinction between commercial hosts, those booked in excess of 58 days, and casual hosts, and bases its analysis on 6,113 Airbnb listings identified in December, of which nearly 4,200 were casual hosts. The impact on the housing stock is based on commercial hosts, which the report defines as those not supplementing living expenses but treating short-term rentals as a steady source of income.Those debating the regulations talk about striking the right balance, such as with the cap on the number of allowable stays per year. Current law states there can only be 90 days for unhosted stays but unlimited days when a host is present. That is being proposed to change to 120 days for all types of stays by the Planning Commission. Campos is pushing for a 60-day cap. A proposed short-term rental measure for the November ballot proposes a 75-day cap.The report said that if the existing regulations were enforced, the current listings of 6,113 would decrease to 5,557. With the 120-day cap, they would decline to 5,706. A 60-day cap would lower them to 4,471.

carolita-johnson-it-ll-have-to-be-your-place-i-airbnb-d-myself-out-of-my-apartment-tonigh-new-yorker-cartoonHere’s an Alternet article on Air BnB’s “Parasitic Impact on New York City”.  It’s an article on a New Yorker who has done a study on the impact on affordable housing.

Airbnb has permeated New York City’s housing market and its impact has been parasitic. Since its creation, the apartment-rental startup has been praised as a shining example of collaborative consumption, but like many aspects of the “sharing economy,” there’s a dark underbelly to its success. Some of the most disturbing details can be gleaned from the new website, Inside Airbnb. The site, and its interactive NYC map, are the work of activist Murray Cox. I caught up with Cox to discuss his findings and the emerging fight against Airbnb.

Michael Arria: What inspired you to create the website?

Murray Cox: There were a few things that inspired and motivated me to create the Inside Airbnb website. Firstly, I noticed the marketing campaigns that Airbnb ran in the New York City subways last year stating that “Airbnb was great for New York.”

At the same time it was widely reported that many Airbnb hosts were operating illegal hotels and that neither the hosts nor Airbnb were collecting taxes. There was an active and public debate in Albany about the laws, and a legal battle to get Airbnb to release data on how their rental platform was being used.

I get suspicious when a company engages in a public relations campaign while laws are being debated by elected officials, or in the courts. It seemed that Airbnb was being completely unaccountable to the community, yet asking for the laws to be changed for their benefit.

I was also inspired by work I did over the summer with DIVAS for Social Justice at the Weeksville Heritage Center. We taught young children from the neighborhood about gentrification using STEAM subjects. My contribution was to use statistics and maps to allow the students to understand some of the forces that shaped and is now changing their community. That experience, and seeing the reaction from the public to various exhibitions of the student’s work made me realize that data-driven storytelling about the world around us and important issues is very powerful.

MA: Did your findings confirm your suspicions? Did they surprise you?

MC: I started off just looking for data on Airbnb in my neighborhood of Bedford-Stuyvesant in central Brooklyn. I knew of a few people in my community that rent out entire apartments in their multi-family homes via Airbnb, and based on other data I had seen, I suspected that this might be widespread.

Once I saw the data for my neighborhood, it both confirmed my suspicions and surprised me. At least 1,224 Airbnb listings were on the Airbnb website for Bedford-Stuyvesant, with 633 (51.7%) of those being for an “entire home/apartment.” Looking at the calendars and reviews for the entire homes/apartments, I found that more than 90% of them were available for more than 60 days out of the year, and on average received a review from a guest once a month.

This directly refuted Airbnb’s claims that “87 percent of Airbnb hosts share the home in which they live.” And more importantly, 633 is a large number of apartments being taken off the long-term housing market in a neighborhood with historic records of homelessness, displacement and reduced housing affordability.

In addition, 43.5% of the listings in Bedford-Stuyvesant were by hosts with more than one listing, sometimes multiple entire apartments or multiple rooms in an apartment building. This is not a story of “sharing” or of a “sharing economy.”

Once I collected and analyzed the data for Airbnb in Bedford-Stuyvesant, I decided to collect data for the entire city, and saw that the same story was repeated throughout the city. I then went about building a site that made it easy for anyone, even without a statistical background, to see the true story.

Here’s further evidence of the impact of Air BnB on NYC. Basically, it’s made already unaffordable and unavailable housing even more unaffordable and unavailable.

Here’s another article at Slate featuring a view point of some one who has rented their house out in Marfa, Texas.

When I first began listing my one-bedroom adobe house in Marfa, Texas, on Airbnb, the service seemed like a godsend. When I took a weekend trip, I’d host tourists from Austin; their rental fees would more than cover the cost of a few tanks of gas and a nice dinner. The rewards weren’t just financial: The people who stayed in my house felt more like houseguests than clients. After a visitor left, I’d find a handwritten thank-you note on the kitchen table, leftover snacks in the fridge, and once, a charming pencil drawing of my cat scratching his ear. And since the hotel options in town are limited, plenty of visitors were happy to pay below-market prices for an authentic Marfa experience, housecats and all.

This utopian vision of regular people helping each other out (and making a little money along the way) is a cornerstone of Airbnb’s PR strategy: “It’s like the United Nations at every kitchen table. It’s very powerful,” Airbnb co-founder Brian Chesky told attendees at a hospitality conference last year. “For us to win, no one has to lose.”

But that’s a more contentious claim than it might seem. Recent years have shown there are plenty of profits to be made in the short-term-rental world—and big profits tend to produce both winners and losers. Airbnb’s top 40 hosts in New York City have grossed more than $35 million combined. It didn’t take long for the original hosts of the so-called sharing economy to find themselves competing with enterprising property owners. “There are entrepreneurs out there who see that there’s a huge difference between the cost of a hotel room and what you can get on Airbnb, and they take advantage of it,” says Neal Gorenflo, co-founder of the nonprofit Shareable. “Basically, there’s a dramatic difference in the price of the same commodity that’s normally in two separate markets. People who have the means realize they can exploit that difference.” In a recent blog post, Gorenflo calls this “the dark side of the sharing economy.”

It’s easy to see why many landlords would be tempted: They stand to make much more renting apartments to short-term guests at higher rates than they would if they signed up tenants for yearlong leases. In many cities (although not in Marfa), laws protect tenants somewhat, but property owners are finding creative workarounds. In San Francisco a man is suing his landlord for unjust eviction, claiming that he was kicked out of the rent-controlled apartment where he’d lived for nearly a decade, allegedly so his landlord could list it on Airbnb.

“We have a dwindling stock of rent-controlled units in San Francisco,” says Steven Jones, editor-in-chief of the San Francisco Bay Guardian. “Any of those precious few units going to visiting tourists rather than permanent residents certainly adds to the housing crisis here.”

I bump into Air BnB trippers every where.  They usually sit out on the stoops eventually next door or they wind up on the bar stools in any number of our local bars. You just walk around and see all these strangers sitting on stoops where your friends used to live and you think, well there went another one.

These Air BnB idiots are easy to spot. That’s undoubtedly why the muggings are going up along with the rents that people around here can’t afford.  I ask them why they chose an illegal rental over an actual licensed B&B or hotel.  First, they all don’t know they’re basically breaking the law and staying at an illegal hotel. It all looks innocent to them and they think they’re actually helping bring money into our neighborhoods.  Their answer is always that it’s cheaper than the hotels or the B&Bs.  I tell them it’s because the hotel taxes are what pays for our police, our schools, our roads, and a lot of the things that need fixing here in New Orleans.  I explain they are enabling people to make money while avoiding paying for the wear and tear on the city that all of you cause including the crime you’ve brought here.  So, crime bait, you really thinking you’re spending enough money here in the city to make up for the fact that what you’re paying for in nightly “rent” is going up to New Jersey?

C’mon.  They’re in these places because they can get them on the cheap compared to the legitimate places.  You really think they’re also spending lots of money in the city? But, like Caroline says, why should they care about affordable housing and neighborhoods when they have brunch?

Then, I tell them, I hear you walk on the floors.  I heard you arguing last night. I almost called the police because I thought some one was getting hurt.  Oh?  You were just “playing cards”.  Really?   Did you know you held a conversation outside my bedroom window and that I gig until early morning? Did any of you think that dragging 20 bicycles past my bedroom window might wake me up or bother me? Do you think that I might not like going to the grocery store loaded down with sacks and coming back to find I can’t park anywhere near my home?

Oh, great, you’re spending some money here.  That makes up for it all.  In your case, more of your money is going to New Jersey than New Orleans. Now you want to think about it next time you do this to some one else?  Would you really like to live surrounded by Air BnB tripsters coming and going loudly all the time while you’re trying to work, sleep or just relax? You just wanted to save money and be part of a neighborhood the New York Times keeps calling hip.  Let me tell you about the families that actually use to live in that place when I first moved here. They ain’t here no more.  But, hey, you’ve got your brunch!

Somebody may be making a killing off of all of this otherwise the New Jersey carpetbaggers wouldn’t have bought the double across the street that used to be home to a nice black family and doing a repeat. It’s certainly not the folks that are having to look for apartments in other parts of the city with rents that are now displacing the working poor.  It’s certainly not benefiting me although my house price is going up. I’m more afraid that I’ll have to sell because if the property taxes catch up to the market value, I’m fucked.

95438294_2fd841b9f7_oLet me point you to another New Yorker with something succinct to say:  Airbnb Will Probably Get You Evicted and Priced Out of the City.

Renting your place on Airbnb might help you pay your rent, but it’s making New York City — and San Francisco, Montreal, Berlin and other popular destinations — even less affordable than they already are.

The young and mobile love Airbnb. It’s a step up from crashing on a friend or a stranger’s couch without shelling a month’s rent on a three-day stay at a hotel. It’s also a great way to make up for rent that’s “wasted” on an empty apartment.

‘In an attempt to make an extra buck, you may be slowly screwing yourself out of the market.’For those of us trying to survive in some of the most expensive cities in the world — where everyone wants to live, but fewer and fewer people can afford to — it might even be what allows us to be able to pay the rent.

But wait until you are looking for your next place to live, and see the going rates for rentals in the city.

If you look at the economics of it, Airbnb is ruining your life. Or, at least, your chances at a lasting life in the city. In an attempt to make an extra buck, you may be slowly screwing yourself out of the market.

It’s making New Orleans totally unaffordable and it’s turning the historical neighborhoods with their unique cultures and traditions into mini-Bourbon Streets.  It’s time for City Government to Make THIS GO AWAY.

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?


Monday Reads: Human Relations or not

peace

Good Afternoon!

Today is Memorial Day but it’s also known as Decoration Day! It’s the day we celebrate the sacrifice of the soldiers and sailors who gave their lives in service to their country. Wouldn’t it be nice if no one lost their lives to war?

“Three years after the Civil War ended, on May 5, 1868, the head of an organization of Union veterans — the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) — established Decoration Day as a time for the nation to decorate the graves of the war dead with flowers. Maj. Gen. John A. Logan declared that Decoration Day should be observed on May 30. It is believed that date was chosen because flowers would be in bloom all over the country.”

The passage of the National Holiday Act of 1971 by Congress made it an official holiday.

I have a few news items to share with you.  As an economist, I cannot understand the contribution of John Nash’s game theory to our understanding of high concentrated markets like duopoly or oligopoly.  Dr. Nash and his wife were killed in a car accident over the weekend.

US mathematician John Nash, who inspired the Oscar-winning film A Beautiful Mind, has died in a car crash with his wife, police have said.

Nash, 86, and his 82-year-old wife Alicia were killed when their taxi crashed in New Jersey, they said.

The mathematician is renowned for his work in game theory, winning the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1994.

His breakthroughs in maths – and his struggles with schizophrenia – were the focus of the 2001 film.

Russell Crowe, who played him, tweeted: “Stunned… My heart goes out to John & Alicia & family. An amazing partnership. Beautiful minds, beautiful hearts.”

The film’s director, Ron Howard, also tweeted his tribute to the “brilliant” John Nash and his “remarkable” wife.

Alicia Nash helped care for her husband, and the two later became prominent mental health advocates.

I loved the movie that detailed the mental health struggles of Nash and how he because the hero of his own life.

BB and I talk a lot about homeschooling and how–in the majority of cases–it’s a clear form of child abuse.  Children really need to be with their peers to learn socialization skills as well as learn about their idea of 8828027484_5561ee6ec7_mself in a world full of different kinds of people.   Many parents that home school are in it to assert control over their children and most rely on dubious curricula.  No where is this more clear than  in the Christianist Cults identified by BB in her post on Saturday. The more we learn about the kinds of things these children have been subjected to, the more outrage we should feel. Children are not their parents property to use and abuse for their personal hang ups.  Here’s a disturbing item on how to handle sexual abuse in home schooling environments but out by some even scarier people.  It undoubtedly leaves children quite scarred.  This is the material from Gothard-the Grabber–covered a bit in BB’s post. The details are just profoundly upsetting to any one that cares about young girls.

According to its website, the ATI is a “home education program” that provides parents with curriculum and support to teach their children with a Biblical worldview.

The ATI operates under the Institute of Basic Life Principles, a conservative Christian nonprofit group.

The group came under fire last year after its founder, Bill Gothard, resigned in the wake of sexual harassment allegations against him.

Gothard was accused of hiring young women, some of them teens, to work for him and then making unwanted advances toward them. The allegations stretched back for decades, the Christian Post reported.

The family has also discussed sending their sons to an ATI program called ALERT, which “focuses on training men in Biblical disciplines and character within the framework of learning skills for crisis response and ministry support.”

After the sexual abuse allegations against Josh Duggar emerged, documents from ATI’s programs about sexual abuse came under heavy scrutiny.

One document in particular, called “Lessons From Moral Failures in a Family,” is particularly striking because it describes circumstances eerily similar to what allegedly happened in the Duggar home.

The document was shared by Recovering Grace, a website dedicated to those impacted by the teachings of Gothard and ATI.

The website says the document was distributed in the late 1990s by ATI at several of its conferences.

The document describes a situation in which social workers visited a home and informed the parents that their oldest son had sexually abused younger members of his family.

According to the document, the boy repented for what he had done and was later asked to answer a list of questions in writing to shed more insight on what happened.

The questions included asking what factors had contributed to his sin, what could have been done to prevent it, and what factors “in the home contributed to immodesty and temptation.”

“The information he gives is so helpful that every parent should read it and diligently apply the lessons that this family learned the hard way,” the document states.

The most striking part of the document comes when the boy seems to blame his actions on the lack of “modesty” in his home, especially when it came to his young sisters.

The boy wrote that modesty was a “factor” in his actions because it “was not at the level is should have been in my family.”

“It was not uncommon for my younger sibling to come out of their baths naked or with a towel,” he wrote.

He also said his younger sisters acted inappropriately when they wore dresses, saying they “did not behave in them as they should.”

He then said his sisters didn’t realize what they were doing to him because they didn’t realize their “own nakedness,” and it wasn’t taught properly to them. He seems to blame this on his mother, who he says didn’t see the human body as a big deal because she is a nurse.

The boy said he spoke with his mother who had “no idea” how “visual” men are sexually compared to women. He said changes have since been made in his home.

“This was not a major reason for the offending, but it allowed my little sister to be open to what I made her do,” he wrote.

He then wrote, “A different lifestyle, with more modesty, might have prevented what happened.”

The document then provides guidelines as to how to prevent this type of situation. These include “[insisting] on modesty at all times” and “[not allowing] boys to change diapers.”

memorial-day-vintage-postcard-2This advice filled with victim shaming and blaming is totally disgusting. The more information that comes out about the Duggar scandal, the more that fans of the show realize how the behavior they’ve seen in the girls is explained by their molestation and shaming. There are all kinds of tweets that mention how their behavior differs from the show that tries to show a happy cheery family that I admit to never having watched. Tbogg lists a series of tweets that express concern for the girls, something that has failed to reach any critical level among the  Quivering Cult and Mike Huckabee.

Fans express concern and support for Duggar daughters on Twitter: ‘Run away and be free!

In their statement to the media, parents Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar — who hushed up the scandal — mentioned “God” six times without mentioning their daughters once.

Fans of the show, and of the daughters in particular, expressed more support for the girls on Twitter, with one advising eldest daughter Jana to “Run away and be free!”

Many noted that some of the daughters seemed to have a darker side on the normally bright and peppy show, and wondered if it was a manifestation of being molested when they were little.

Particular attention is being paid to 25-year-old Jana Duggar, known as “Cinderella Duggar,” because she is unmarried, still lives at home, and is treated like a maid, taking care of the younger Duggars.

card00780_frWhat is even more disturbing is that an Arkansas State Senator is calling for the police chief’s head who released the Duggar records on a FOI request.

A state senator from Northwest Arkansas is calling for the Springdale police chief to be fired over the recent release of a 2006 police report detailing accusations that Josh Duggar as a teenager molested five underage girls.

Sen. Bart Hester, R-Cave Springs, said the girls have been re-victimized now that the report is public. He said Police Chief Kathy O’Kelley acted recklessly in releasing the report and should be held accountable.

“The law to protect minors’ identities is not a suggestion,” Hester, pictured, said Saturday (May 23). “So sad to see the person charged with protecting the community being so reckless and irresponsible. I believe it is unavoidable that the Springdale police chief should be terminated. She has re-victimized these young ladies.”

Springdale Mayor Doug Sprouse said O’Kelley and Springdale City Attorney Ernest Cate determined after researching the matter that the report had to be released under law.

“From every indication I have the chief and city attorney reluctantly did what they had to do to comply with the state FOI (freedom of information) law,” Sprouse said Saturday (May 23).

The Springdale police report was obtained by In Touch Weekly magazine and posted on the magazine’s website this week. The names are redacted in the report. On May 21, Washington County Juvenile Judge Stacey Zimmerman issued a court order that the police report be destroyed and expunged from the public record.

That’s great.  Fire a police chief for doing his job!  Makes perfect sense in the twisted authoritarian minds of those trapped in Christianist cults.

In other news, hateful expressions of racism are still resplendent all over our country.  This is an example from New Orleans. It’s hit the press now but most of us that know the Neville family received notice about 5 minutes after it happened.  I’m still pretty shocked frankly.  This is a prime example of a privileged little white boy who got a job from his general manager father and just seems to think he can do anything to any one.

The waiter who wrote the N-word on a New Orleans restaurant receipt knew what he was doing when he unleashed the racial slur that caused intense backlash and calls for boycotts, according to one former coworker.

“I printed those receipts 50 times a day. I know for a fact he knew it would show up on his receipt,” a former Huck Finn’s waitress told the Daily News. “I was like, are you that hateful that you would put that on the receipt?”

Dakota Crochet, 23, was fired from the French Quarter sports bar this week after the phrase “N—– 100% dislike” appeared on a check he gave to a group of black customers Thursday.

One of the diners, Liryca Neville Branch — the daughter of New Orleans musician Cyril Neville — is now mulling a lawsuit and demanding a personal apology from both the canned waiter and the restaurant’s management.

“I’ve never had anything like this happen before to me,” she said. “Trust me — this is not over. I refuse to let this die out.”

Branch, 33, was eating lunch with three coworkers when they were given a bill with the racial slur in all capitals staring them in the face.

Another disturbing racist letter was sent to a family in Lindenhurst NY.md6

Suffolk County police are investigating a possible hate crime targeting an African-American family in Lindenhurst.

Ronica Copes, a resident of the suburban neighborhood, received a letter saying “YOU DON’T BELONG HERE” and other hateful words on Thursday.

Understandably so, she was disappointed at the sight of the hateful letter.

“Unbelievable but then it’s not…our daily reality, I’ve just never seen it in this form,” Copes posted on Facebook.

The writer of the flyer who says “Lidenhurst is 84 percent white” urges Copes in bold capital letters to “LEAVE AS SOON SHE CAN” because “IT WILL BE BETTER FOR ALL OF US.”

The racist letter gained the attention of  county executive Steven Bellone, who lashed out against the author of the flyer in a statement Friday.

“To the coward who committed a hate crime against an innocent family in Lindenhurst — There is no place for intolerance in Suffolk County.  I know the Suffolk County Police Department will do everything possible to solve this hate crime, out you and see you punished. I stand together with all Lindenhurst residents who decry this act of hatred. This community and all of Suffolk County are better than that.”

While police continue their investigation, Copes is thankful for the support she’s received during the ordeal.

So, today is a day to remember all of the beautiful minds that we’ve lost. It is also a day to ensure that the not-so-beautiful minds don’t get away with ruining other people’s lives. On many levels, we are still fighting the Civil War.

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?


Friday Reads: SCOTUS Plays Doctor (and God)

Good Morning!

retro_vintage_1950s_kids_playing_doctor_handmade_cross-stitch_pattern_35b72268I’ve got all kinds of personal reasons to hope that  when the Supreme Court decides King v. Burwell next month that one just one Republican-appointed justice will consider the complaint trivial and it will be dismissed.  That’s because I will be among the millions of people that will lose their health care.   Jonathan Chait-writing for New York Magazine--wonders if that’s really what Republicans want in the year running up to a Presidential election.

Next month, the Supreme Court will rule on King v. Burwell. If all five Republican appointees support the plaintiffs (there’s no chance any of the Democrat-appointed justices will take the lawsuit seriously), some 7 million Americans will quickly lose their insurance. The prospect that this will occur has induced a wave of panic — not among the customers at risk of losing their insurance, who seem largely unaware, nor even among Obamacare’s Democratic supporters, but among Republicans. The chaos their lawsuit would unleash might blow back in a way few Republicans had considered until recently, and now, on the eve of a possible triumph, they find themselves scrambling to contain the damage. It is dawning on the Grand Old Party that snatching health insurance away from millions of helpless victims is not quite as rewarding as expected.

Unlike the Obamacare lawsuit that failed three years ago, the latest case is not based on a radical legal theory. Instead it is based on a novel reading of legislative history. The law allows states to set up their own exchanges to sell insurance to those who don’t have it through employer coverage, Medicare, or Medicaid. If states don’t establish an exchange, the federal government sets one up for them and, as it does with the state exchanges, offers customers tax credits. The trouble is that the law authorizing tax credits defines the exchange as “established by the state.” This ambiguity — does “by the state” not also mean the federal government? — was a technical omission. Many other parts of the law indicate its intent to make tax credits available to customers on the federal and the state exchanges alike.

The plaintiffs are led by a Vietnam veteran in Virginia named David King who makes $39,000 a year and objects to having to purchase insurance on a federal exchange. He would be exempt from this requirement were he not eligible for the tax credit — his $275 monthly payment would rise to a disqualifyingly unaffordable $648 — and this exemption, his lawyers argue, was exactly Congress’s intent. Without tax credits, the insurance would be unaffordable to most customers, triggering an actuarial death spiral that would destroy the individual insurance market in any state that attempted it. The plaintiffs insist Congress created the threat of self-destructing federal exchanges to coerce states into creating their own. (Disregard the copious evidence that the law’s drafters, and officials at the state level in both parties, believed federal exchanges would include tax credits.)

The lawsuit works more on the level of an elaborate prank than as a serious reading of the law. And yet it stands at least some chance of success — it only needs to persuade Republican-appointed judges. That prospect has grown suddenly unnerving because, unlike previous Republican efforts to strangle the law, the current one comes as Obamacare is functioning extremely well. Premiums on the exchanges have come in well under projected costs, customers report higher satisfaction with their coverage than those who have employer-sponsored insurance, and overall medical costs have grown far below the projected rate. It is one thing to take away a scheduled future subsidy, of which most intended beneficiaries are unaware. It is quite another to take away a benefit they’re already using.

Can you imagine the optics of people being taken off chemotherapy, dialysis, or insulin shots? So, Republicans76f68857685129195adf6bfdddec8355 are gearing up a way to blame it on Obama or trying to find a way to get the extreme right to compromise and provide a short term extensions of the credits should SCOTUS agree with the plaintiffs.

Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska has likewise warned that a successful lawsuit would create problems. “Chemotherapy turned off for perhaps 12,000 people, dialysis going dark for 10,000. The horror stories will be real,” he wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. For decades, medical deprivation of this sort used to be a uniquely American fact of life, at least among industrialized countries. Obamacare has turned it into something different: an actual political problem for opponents of universal health insurance.

Neither Johnson nor Sasse has a real plan designed to stop those horrors from taking place. Instead, their aim is to give Republicans a way to divert the blame onto Obama. The party is circulating contingency plans to temporarily restore the tax credits in exchange for crippling the law in other ways. Phil Gramm, the former Republican senator turned conservative-think-tank “visiting scholar” and financial-industry lobbyist, has proposed that Republicans pass a bill to temporarily extend the credits in return for eliminating the law’s regulations prohibiting insurance companies from rejecting old or sick customers. Competing proposals by Johnson and Sasse would likewise weaken Obamacare’s insurance regulations, ultimately destroying the law’s functionality. Gramm evenacknowledges that his plan “would put Obamacare on the path to extinction.” Obviously, Obama is not going to sign a bill that puts Obamacare on the path to extinction. The purpose is simply to give Republicans a talking point — they can say they passed a bill and blame Obama for vetoing it. But odds are that Republicans will fail to unify around a bill that can pass both houses of Congress with only Republican votes, because some will deem even a bill that causes Obamacare’s eventual demise unacceptably conciliatory.

At that point, it will fall to the states to either establish their own exchanges or watch their individual-insurance markets collapse. Neither option is terribly attractive for Republicans. The former means surrender. Doing nothing means sowing chaos, deprivation, and death. Will Republicans let this happen?

Legal Analyst and Lawyer Jeffrey Toobin has a lengthy article in The New Yorker examining the issues.il_570xN.713327777_tkas

So that’s the theory: millions will suddenly be uninsured, and will blame Republicans. As Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, put it recently, “I don’t think they will [win the case]. If they do, that’s a problem that the Republicans have.”

No, it’s not. If the Obama Administration loses in the Supreme Court, the political pain will fall almost exclusively on the President and his Party. To paraphrase Colin Powell and the Pottery Barn rule, President Obama will have broken health care, so he owns it. To the vast mass of Americans who follow politics casually or not at all, Obamacare and the American system of health care have become virtually synonymous. This may not be exactly right or fair, but it’s a reasonable perception on the part of most people. The scope of the Affordable Care Act is so vast, and its effects so pervasive, that there is scarcely a corner of health care, especially with regard to insurance, that is unaffected by it. So if millions lose insurance, they will hold it against Obamacare, and against Obama. Blaming the President in these circumstances may be unfair, but it’s the way American politics works.

Republicans, of course, will encourage this sentiment. The precise legal claim in King v. Burwell is an esoteric one. It is not based on a claim that Obamacare is unconstitutional. (The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law three years ago.) Rather, the central assertion by the plaintiffs is that the Obama Administration violated the law itself. In any event, the subtlety of the issue at the heart of the case will surely be lost in its aftermath. The headlines will read, correctly, “Court rules against Obamacare,” and this will be all that matters. The Republicans will argue that the Supreme Court showed that the law was flawed from the start, that the Obama Administration is lawless, that a full repeal of the law is the only appropriate response to the Court’s decision—and that the millions who lose their subsides should blame the sponsor of the law. Watch for references to a “failed Presidency.” There’ll be plenty of them.

Understandably, perhaps, the Administration has courted this kind of reaction. Better than anyone, Administration officials know the scale of the problems that would be created by a loss in the Supreme Court. Advertising this possibility makes sense as a litigation strategy; Obama officials don’t want to make it easy for the Supreme Court to rule against them. In testimony before Congress and elsewhere, Sylvia Burwell, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (and the defendant in the case), said that the Administration has no contingency plan for an adverse ruling in the Supreme Court. But playing chicken with the Justices only works if it works. If the Supreme Court strikes down the subsidies, the Administration will also have to answer for why it didn’t prepare for this possibility.

hqdefault “Conservatives” have tried to laugh off the concerns.

 A few weeks ago, the Heritage Foundation’s Edmund Haislmaier published an “Issue Brief” entitled “King v. Burwell: A Loss of Subsidy Does Not Mean a Loss of Coverage.” That’s a provocative title, considering 87 percent of the 8.8 million enrollees from federal exchanges receive those tax credit subsidies, meaning they have low or moderate incomes.

Haislmaier recently was seen saying it’s “premature” to conclude the huge drop in the uninsured rate since Obamacare passed is the result of Obamacare passing. In this brief, he correctly points out the Affordable Care Act and previous federal and state laws would enable current Obamacare enrollees to switch to some other form of health insurance if the lawsuit he supports succeeds in making their current plans unaffordable. (The brief also chides low-income people for using their subsidies to buy “king-crab-legs-and-steak” insurance rather than take the cheapest possible “powdered-milk-and-frozen-peas” plans.)

“In sum, should the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling in King v. Burwell result in people losing insurance subsidies, the affected individuals will have options for maintaining their coverage or choosing replacement coverage,” Haislmaier wrote. There’s even a chart.

Is that good news for people at risk of losing their health insurance subsidies? Maybe not. “Of course, some might still not be able to afford the unsubsidized premium even if they switched to a less expensive plan,” Haislmaier adds as a disclaimer. Of course.

That seems like it could be a problem, since 83 percent of Obamacare enrollees on the federal exchanges have annual incomes of 250 percent of the federal poverty level or less, which works out to no more than $23,450 for a single person, according to Avalere Health, a consulting firm. In other words, these aren’t Americans with a lot of extra money. And the average value of the tax credits they stand to lose is $263 a month, a substantial amount for people at this income level.

There’s a lot of variation in the price of health insurance, but a look at national average premiums and cost-sharing requirements illustrates what the “Let them eat Bronze plans” line of thinking ignores.

A 40-year-old at the poverty line, which is $11,770 for a single person, would pay $20 a month for a mid-tier Silver plan with tax credits. That amounts to about 2 percent of her annual income. Take away the subsidies, and her premiums jump almost 14-fold to $276 — or about 28 percent of her income.

What about dropping down to a lesser Bronze policy with higher out-of-pocket costs like deductibles?

That would cost almost 11 times as much as the subsidized Silver plan, at $213 a month, or about 22 percent of her income. Another person making twice as much money as her would see his premiums for the same Silver policy rise by 80 percent, which would eat up 14 percent of his income. His premiums would rise by 39 percent if he switched to a Bronze plan, which would cost him 11 percent of his yearly earnings.

Even opting for a slimmer policy might not make sense for lower-income people, considering how much more Bronze policyholders have to spend before their coverage kicks in. For example, the average deductible for an individual Bronze plan is $5,181, compared to $2,927 for a Silver plan, according to Health Pocket.

And this doesn’t even factor in the effects of a second type of subsidy only available to people earning up to 250 percent of poverty, which reduces their out-of-pocket health care expenses, and which also would go away in the high court rules for the plaintiffs.

Some are seeing this as the classic American “State’s Right’s” argument that has been responsible for–among 5388385143_aa5e7bbcc7_mmany other things–the Civil War.

But what may eventually prove to be the key line of questioning may have been kicked off by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who expressed concern about the consequences of a ruling for the challengers.  If a state’s residents don’t receive subsidies, she told Carvin, it will lead to a “death spiral”:  because a large group of people in those states will no longer be required to buy health insurance, but insurers will still be required to offer insurance to everyone, only sick people will buy health insurance.  And that will cause everyone’s insurance costs to rise, leading more people to drop out of the insurance market.  States will then feel like they have no choice other than to establish their own exchanges to ward off the “death spiral” – a scenario that is so coercive that it violates the Constitution.

Perhaps critically for the government, Justice Anthony Kennedy – who is often regarded as a strong supporter of states’ rights – also expressed concern about the possibly coercive effect of a ruling for Carvin’s clients.  There is, he told Carvin, “something very powerful to the point” that if the challengers prevail, the states have to choose between the death spiral and creating an exchange.  “There’s a serious constitutional problem,” he concluded.  (Carvin tried to downplay this concern by telling Kennedy that the government had not raised this issue, but Kennedy quickly retorted that “we sometimes think of things the government doesn’t argue.”)

Like Carvin, Solicitor General Don Verrilli – the government’s top lawyer at the Supreme Court – also faced questions about the challengers’ right to sue.  But between his acknowledgement that, as Carvin had asserted, a veteran who had only served a short time would not be eligible for free health care and the lack of certainty about the plaintiffs’ 2014 annual incomes (which would determine whether they would be required to buy health insurance at all), the issue didn’t seem to have much traction with the Justices.

On the merits of the challenge to the subsidies, Verrilli faced repeated questions from Justices Scalia and Alito, who were both obviously skeptical of the government’s arguments.  Scalia pushed back against Verrilli’s argument that the challengers’ reading simply doesn’t work, while – by contrast – the government’s interpretation accounts for the ACA’s structure and design.  The question, Scalia admonished Verrilli, is not what Congress intended; the question is what it actually wrote in the statute.  But in any event, Scalia queried a few minutes later, if the Court were to rule for the challengers, did Verrilli and the government actually expect Congress to “really just sit there while disaster ensues?”  (Based on Verrilli’s response – a dubious “This Congress?” – the answer appeared to be yes.)

Justices Alito and Scalia also contested Verrilli’s assertion that, had Congress actually intended to force states to choose between setting up their own exchanges and depriving their residents of subsidies, it would have done so more clearly.  Scalia asked rhetorically why, because the ACA is “not the most elegantly drafted statute,” would it “be so surprising” if Congress didn’t make the states’ obligations obvious?  Alito added that, if Congress didn’t want to limit the subsidies to the residents of states that had set up their own exchanges, it could have used more precise language to do so – as it did, for example, in making clear that the District of Columbia (which is not a state) nonetheless qualifies as a “state” for purposes of the ACA.

So, we’re down to brass tacks again. Will the ACA go down on a technicality which, essentially, is what the law is all about?

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?