Here is a photo with commentary by the indispensable Charles Gaba, who runs the site, ACA Signups, the go-to place for data about the Affordable Care Act:
Apparently, 12 people showed up for the Confederate flag rally.
On Monday, South Carolina’s governor Nikki Haley announced a plan to remove the Confederate battle flag from the grounds of the SC state house. That got many Republican presidential candidates off the hook after a weekend in which most delivered waffles about the subject.
But, everything you need to know about the conservative Republican position on the Confederate flag in 2015 was summed up by Bill Kristol on the very same day:
OK. Time to talk about history. The South seceded, and then fought a war to preserve slavery. It was not a war of Northern aggression. It was a war of Confederate choice, and the choice was made first by South Carolinians, who were the first to announce their secession.
SC’s Declaration of Causes of Secession was issued on December 20, 1860, after the election, but three months before Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office. If you choose to read at the link, you’ll see the entirety of their complaint had to do with slavery. They were angry:
• That slaves were escaping from their territory and Northern States were refusing to send them back
• That blacks had been granted citizenship in some Northern states
• That the election of Lincoln would lead to slavery’s exclusion from the new territories
Here is a snippet: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)
A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the Common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that Slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
Lincoln was explicit during the early years of the war that he fought back, not for slavery, but to preserve the union. Today, some modern “confederates” use those quotes from Lincoln to argue that the war wasn’t about slavery, but that is revisionist history.
The people who started the war, in every confederate state, were explicitly doing so to preserve slavery. Read the other secession statements. Read the speeches of leading confederate politicians. Read the founding CSA documents, in which the CSA states were free to do anything they wanted except end slavery. In fact it’s clear that the main purpose of even having a confederation was to preserve slavery.
The Confederate flag was basically forgotten after the civil war until the civil rights movement when the battle flag was resurrected by those in the south who were against the federal laws prohibiting lynching, segregation, and vote blocking. In other words, that flag has been used only by those promoting white supremacy. Heritage? Of course, but for a flag that represents something that existed for four years?
The flag is just a start. Why are there Civil War reenactments in the South? Battle field reenactments where they honor their defeat of the north, focused on battles they won in a war that they lost. Imagine if Mexican Americans had an Alamo reenactment where they storm the Alamo and kill Davy Crockett.
Taking down the Confederate flag over the South Carolina Capitol, along with Walmart and EBay stopping sales of the flag, and the number one Confederate flag manufacturer ending production are all important steps, but they are the just a few steps on a long road.
The next big question is will country music follow the lead of Governor Haley and distance itself from the Confederate flag? The rebel flag is deeply interwoven into country and southern rock music, that relationship is both deep and wide.
This stuff is symbolic, and a very important symbol is being phased out.
This is meaningful.
See you on Sunday.
Yesterday we talked about how America is losing middle class jobs to technical outsourcing on our way to becoming a land of spreadsheets and flags. Today, let’s discuss another aspect of that; how technology continues to cost more and more mid-skilled jobs. We usually think of technology as a great panacea, making most of our processes more efficient. In fact, many of us can look back on the “sneakernet” of the 1980s and feel good about how far we’ve come with technology.
But technology has also reduced the number of middle class workers required, at a time when American wages are stagnant and benefits are falling for the remaining available jobs.
The meme used to be that if technology replaced workers, new jobs came along and net-net, more people were employed. Although things weren’t that simple, by 1900 if you were displaced, you could get another job because 99% of all jobs were still done only by humans.
Today corporations tell us that the knowledge economy can take as many workers as we can create, and since we can’t create them fast enough, technology firms need more of the H-1B visas we discussed yesterday. This is false. Facebook is touted as a prime player in the knowledge economy, but it only employs 5,800 to service 1 billion customers! Twitter has 400 million total users. It has 2,300 employees.
What is the value of Facebook and Twitter to the jobs economy? These are two of our very “best” success stories, and they only employ 8,100 workers. They have had a huge impact on society, but the total jobs they have created are only a rounding error in our economy.
Much of what we want to buy is produced in factories increasingly run with robots, and maintained and operated by small cadres of engineers. Increased sales of iPhones only add a few sales jobs at $12/hour in the US and not many new factory jobs in China. Also, keep in mind that globally, some 3 billion people are looking for work and the vast majority are willing to work for less than the average American.
We all know that technology is costing jobs, and by some estimates it could cost half of all current jobs in the next 20 years. So, we can expect an ever-greater number of unemployed chasing an ever-shrinking number of jobs that can’t be eliminated or simplified by technology. Thus, the prognosis for many medium and some higher-skilled workers appears grim. With this being said, technology is benefiting a lot of businesses and the way they operate. You’ll get a better understanding of it just by reading these Quotes about AI. Seeing as technology doesn’t look like it is going anywhere anytime soon, we might as well use it to our advantage in a business.
The oligarchs have seen these forecasts. That may explain their unwillingness to do anything serious to create effective jobs programs here at home. They don’t need to do anything, because there is a (virtually) infinite supply of skilled and unskilled workers in the overpopulated third world.
The issue is not technology, or robots, or restoring our manufacturing base. Nor is the issue better skills, or technology or outsourcing. We have too many people chasing too few good jobs.
Incomes will continue to stagnate, because automation does not threaten unskilled jobs. This is sometimes called “Moravec’s Paradox”, which says that, contrary to traditional assumptions, high-level reasoning requires relatively little computation, but low-level sensorimotor skills require enormous computational resources. The “Roomba” robotic vacuum cleaner is, despite years of development, just an expensive toy. It has had zero impact on the market for janitors and maids, yet, wages for American janitors and maids have fallen because of competition from the currently unemployed and newly arrived immigrants. While the Roomba aims to be a forward-looking cleaning solution, it still cannot compete with the manual vacuum cleaners, like Bissell’s, that still prove to be the preferred choice despite innovative attempts to move towards automation. See this link for Bissell vacuum cleaners – https://www.bissell.com/vacuums/upright-vacuum-cleaners/
If we forecast continuing technology breakthroughs (and we should), and combine that with the 3 billion people currently looking for work globally, we have to conclude that the planet is overpopulated if the goal is a growing global middle class.
This is why the quest for better technology has become the enemy of sustaining middle class growth in the developed world.
And why aren’t they out in the streets? Why isn’t every bank office, and every legislature, “occupied?”
The NYT reported on their NYT/CBS News poll on income inequality. It found that Americans are broadly concerned about inequality of wealth and income despite the improving economy. Among the findings:
Nearly six in 10 Americans said government should do more to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.
Inequality is no longer a partisan issue. The poll found that inequality is important to almost half of Republicans and two-thirds of independents, suggesting that it is likely to be a central theme in next year’s general election. We are already seeing populist appeals by politicians of both parties who are trying to capitalize on the sense among Americans that the economic recovery benefited only a handful at the very top.
Sadly, the surveillance society has changed the costs and benefits of protests. The Occupy movement was crushed with a coordinated 17 city paramilitary crackdown. In this day of background checks as a condition to get a job, a misdemeanor arrest for protesting can make you unemployable. You can find yourself on any one of a variety of official lists that cannot be challenged because of secrecy laws; there are sham arrests like those conducted at Occupy Wall Street or, at the NYC Republican convention in 2004 by then-Mayor Bloomberg.
And the financial services industry seems to be able to get cops to come in and round up people on their behalf.
It is not enough to gather in the street. Once you are there and gathered, it must lead somewhere, there must be a goal. Admittedly, the problem with activism is that the fight is to change perceptions and narratives, and progress toward those goals is slow, and rarely concrete and visible.
It’s astonishing today to see how Americans have been conditioned to think that political action and engagement is futile. The Wrongologist was a demonstrator when the reverse occurred, when activism in the 1960s produced significant advances in civil rights for blacks and women, and eventually led the US to exit the Vietnam War. But today, when activism is an option, quite a few argue that there is no point in making the effort, that we as individuals are powerless. Yet, what Richard Kline wrote about protest in 2010 still applies:
The nut of the matter is this: you lose, you lose, you lose, you lose, and [then] they give up. As someone who has protested, and studied the process, it’s plain that one spends most of one’s time being defeated. That’s painful, humiliating, and intimidating. One can’t expect typically, as in a battle, to get a clean shot at a clear win.
What activism does is change the context, and that change moves the goalposts on your opponent. It also raises the political price for governments that make bad decisions. Demonstrations helped stop LBJ and Nixon from making a few bad decisions. The same principle could apply to the Conservative’s desire to kneecap Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare while they hand out more baubles to their rich friends. This kind of class inequality is deeply un-American, but it has big political benefactors in both parties.
We can’t use the protests of the 1960s as a model in today’s political environment. Back then, power feared the people. Power feared the people because there was a free press to publicize and record events. The White House press confronted presidents; they didn’t pander, or act as stenographers as they do now.
That no longer exists. The press has been destroyed by corporate consolidation and foreign ownership. Investigative reporting and the institutions that nurtured and supported it were alive and well.
In the 1960s, few local politicians would refuse a permit for a peaceful demonstration, if in fact, a permit was even required. That is no longer true. No permit, no demo. The arrogance of power is demonstrated repeatedly right in front of cameras and reporters; the police harass and provoke, restrain and intimidate at peaceful demonstrations. They also create incidents to blame on demonstrators, which are dutifully captured by the cameras.
If one unit of protest worked in 1965, we need 10 units today to achieve similar results. In the meantime, reflect on this quote from a noted demonstrator:
“When the idea is a sound one, the cause a just one, and the demonstration a righteous one, change will be forthcoming”–Martin Luther King, Jr.
See you on Sunday.
May 9th was the 150th anniversary of the end of the Civil War. It passed unnoticed in most national media. Despite Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, America’s black citizens were not truly free until MLK made us really see their problems during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s. In 1965, the 100th anniversary of the Civil War, the Voting Rights Act was passed.
The Voting Rights Act, along with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, were the largest step forward for equal rights in our nation’s history, certainly more important than the Emancipation Proclamation.
We are fascinated by the Civil War because it is an epic story. The American Republic was founded in 1789, and the nation only lives 72 years with slavery before it is torn apart by the argument over states’ rights, and the right to own slaves. We go on to fight a war that kills some 750,000 people, (equal to 7 million today). We then free 3.5 million people overnight, and then take years to try to put the country back together. Today, about 1 in 3 Americans can trace an ancestor to one side or the other in the Civil War. That adds up to about 100 million of our population who are remotely connected to the war.
What is sometimes lost in the story is that Lincoln, a Republican, introduced big government to America. At the start of the war, the country had a weak central government. Lincoln built the centralized state. Consider what Lincoln created:
• The first national income tax
• The first military draft
• The Quartermaster Corps, which became the 2nd largest employer in the country during the war, behind only the Union Army
• The largest confiscation of property in US history when he emancipated the slaves. Slave owners in the South lost $3.5 billion of net worth in the process
• A re-imagining of the US Constitution, passing the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, ending slavery, formalizing birthright citizenship, creating black male suffrage, and guaranteeing equal protection under the law. It can be said that these Amendments were a second American revolution.
Conservatives ask: “Where did big government come from?” It was invented by Lincoln, a Republican, to win the Civil War. If the Civil War ended with Constitutional Amendments that can be called a 2nd American Revolution, perhaps the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts of the mid-1960’s was yet a 3rd American Revolution. And there may be other “revolutions” to come.
Yale University Professor of Civil War History, David Blight wrote in The Atlantic that the nation has never truly gotten over that conflict. He says that the great issues of the war were not resolved at Appomattox, and in a sense, not only is the Civil War not over, it can still be lost.
When we think about the legacy of the Civil War, one of the issues that we have re-visited since the Reagan era is the revival of a debate about states’ rights and the place of federalism in our Republic. This is a persistent legacy of the Civil War, the issue of state power versus federal power: does America owe its first loyalty to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, that says the Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties are “the supreme law of the land?” Or does the 10th Amendment come first, which states that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it under the Constitution?
Professor Blight says that the question we have to ask the states’ rights supporters is: “states’ rights to do what?” Or, “for whom and against whom?”
During the Civil War, the states’ rights argument was used to preserve the racial order in the South. Today, the states’ rights debate is hidden in the term “limited government”, versus the right’s categorization of “big government”.
Lately, conservative partisans have brought back “nullification”, but couched in near-Orwellian terms, such as “right to work,” or, “religious freedom.” We have 36 state legislatures controlled by Republicans that are trying to eliminate abortions, remove environmental protections, enhance gun rights, and privatize education, all of which need a weaker federal government to succeed.
And every time a politician of the South says she/he is “standing on principle” and pledges “a return to our founding principles of limited government and local control,” our progress from the time of the Emancipation Proclamation, through the New Deal reforms, to the 1960’s Civil Rights acts are again threatened.
50 years after the Voting Rights Act, we are finally aware that there are millions of Americans who have never fully accepted the verdict of Appomattox.
As Professor Blight said this week in a BBC lecture, as long as we continue to debate states’ rights, and as long as we continue to leave the “problem” of racism unresolved, we will need to study our Civil War.
Eye of the beholder: Baltimore in flames!
The only problem is the photo wasn’t taken in Baltimore. It was taken in Venezuela. But, Fox13 in Memphis, TN posted it as “Baltimore in Flames.” For those who saw Fox’s rendition of the story, the image is of urban devastation in Baltimore. A viewer recalled the actual event and called Fox out. Fox took the photo down after it racked up tens of thousands of views, saying: “Our team didn’t fact check the picture the way we should have.”
At the time, many commentators stressed the need for peaceful protests. It wasn’t long before some invoked MLK. You can always count on Wolf Blitzer:
I just want to hear you say there should be peaceful protests, not violent protests, in the tradition of Martin Luther King.
Sure, why not? Here is what a 38 year-old Martin Luther King Jr. already the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, said to the American Psychological Association’s convention in Washington, DC:
Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena. They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest.
MLK said more: (emphasis and brackets by the Wrongologist)
But most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he [the Negro] is shocking it by abusing property rights…This may explain why most cities in which riots have occurred have not had a repetition, even though the causative conditions remain. It is also noteworthy that the amount of physical harm done to white people other than police is infinitesimal and in Detroit whites and Negroes looted in unity.
He also said:
It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society. When we ask Negroes to abide by the law, let us also demand that the white man abide by law in the ghettos. Day-in and day-out he violates welfare laws to deprive the poor of their meager allotments; he flagrantly violates building codes and regulations; his police make a mockery of law; and he violates laws on equal employment and education and the provisions for civic services.
And Dr. King closed with this:
These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society.
Speaking truth, or showing photos that distort the truth?
Take another “truth”, the Republican’s emerging 2016 campaign idea: What matters is economic opportunity, not inequality. A Wall Street Journal poll asks the question:
Which concerns you more: the income gap between the wealthiest Americans and the rest of the country or middle and working class Americans not being able to get ahead financially?
The answer?
• Income gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country: 28%
• Middle and working class not being able to get ahead: 68%
People tend to share values, and they lean more towards equal opportunities than equal outcomes. But, these are linked through causation. That means we can’t increase opportunity without reducing inequality. If we have narrowly distributed growth, those with asset-driven incomes hold disproportionate power relative to those whose incomes depend on paychecks. So, measures that attempt to reduce the 1%’s economic “rents”, things like collective bargaining, higher minimum wages, trade policy that protects workers’ rights and wages, robust safety nets, and progressive taxation, are attacked by Republicans as counterproductive to growth and jobs.
The political selling of “equal opportunity” is a house of cards. Why would anyone be happy with just equal opportunity, if it means an equal chance to live in in poverty? The R’s seem to be comparing equal economic opportunity to one roll of the dice: Roll a six sided die, get a 1, and earn less than $20,000, roll a 6, and you earn more than $115,000.
It’s high stakes, but relax, you’ve got equal opportunity.
Here is a Red-Winged Blackbird for your moment of Zen. Saw the first of the year today in a Crab Apple tree on the vast land holdings at the Mansion of Wrong:
For those who read the Wrongologist in email, you can see the video here.
See you on Sunday.
Regarding Baltimore, the NYT says:
Hundreds of rifle-toting National Guard members began deploying here on Tuesday morning, lining one of the city’s main thoroughfares and taking up posts around a police station in western Baltimore that had been the scene of earlier protests.
From the start of the demonstration through Tuesday morning, 15 police officers were injured, 2 people were shot, both in the leg. And approximately 200 people were arrested. There is a night curfew. There are the predictable images of large groups of young black males, buildings on fire, up-armored cops and National Guard, and the shaking of jowls by media and politicians.
These stories are always depressingly similar: Police shoot a black guy. They obfuscate for several days. A protest turns violent, and some of those professing to be “victims” create victims of their own, mostly in their own neighborhoods. The police are happy to give them room to destroy property in black neighborhoods, but then draw the line when the crowd moves out of that prescribed area.
Something was bound to give in Baltimore. Check out this report from the Baltimore Sun, called “Undue Force“:
Over the past four years, more than 100 people have won court judgments or settlements related to allegations of brutality and civil rights violations [by the Baltimore police department].
According to state law, Baltimore cops cannot be sued for more than $200,000 for each “offense”. That statutory cap can be exceeded when there are multiple claims in a lawsuit, and if there is malice the cap may not apply. The largest settlement has been $500k. In total, the city has paid $5.7 million since January 2011, and that doesn’t count the $5.8 million spent by the city on legal fees to defend these claims against their police. Just a cost of doing business in Baltimore.
So, once the riot started the mayor and the governor called for calm. “Why can’t these people react non-violently?” Ta-Nehisi Coates of The Atlantic provides an answer:
When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con.
Here is a series of tweets by Billmon: (edited by the Wrongologist)
…but the cops did not destroy the black industrial working class, or finance the slumlords, or redline poor neighborhoods. Police brutality isn’t the only reason that #BlackLivesMatter.
… And not being unlawfully killed is a pretty minimal standard for “mattering.”
…And so the policy “debate” becomes limited to: “Black men: Should we let the cops kill them or not?” Which is fucking sick. Or: “Should America have an incarceration rate that’s 10 times higher than the rest of developed world? Or just 5 times higher.”
We are witnessing a continuing trend in US policing: Violence against inanimate property equals violence against “the people”. It brings a disproportionate response, whether it is the Occupy movement, Ferguson, or Baltimore.
“Urban riots” always conjure up bad images and bad responses, like the riots in 1964 in Harlem and Philadelphia, and in Newark in 1967, all of which were ignited by allegations of police brutality. In Newark, Governor Richard J. Hughes (R) called up the National Guard. When they arrived, reports were coming in of black snipers roaming the city, and terrorists with dynamite and arms heading towards Newark. The result was 26 deaths and 725 wounded in Newark, but no snipers or terrorists were found.
Maryland governor Larry Hogan (R), channeling his inner Spiro Agnew, vowed to quell rioting by sending in 1,000 National Guard troops. From the Baltimore Sun:
Hogan said New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a political ally of the new Republican governor, would sent 150 troopers plus additional resources to Baltimore.
Christie will never let a good crisis go to waste.
The ultimate outcome of Baltimore will predictably be calls for more law and ordering by the right, and more calls for inconsequential band aids by the left. Perhaps the policy debate ought to be broader than: “what will it take for police to stop killing black guys?”, although that would be a good start.
Police need to remember that since they have the authority and the power, they also have the responsibility to use both properly. It’s not the responsibility of the person they pull over, the person they want to question, or the person who is standing nearby, it’s THEIR responsibility.
Let’s face it, Americans live in a soft police state. Whites may not sense its severity or doom like urban black males, since their threat is to privacy. But the freedoms of most Americans have never been more threatened and violated by governments at the federal, state and local levels.
Here is Randy Newman singing his composition, “Baltimore“:
For those who read the Wrongologist in email, you can see the video here.
Big week. Another black man killed, Hillary announces to no one’s surprise, the anti-Iran deal resistance cranks it up a notch and a Cuban handshake for Mr. Obama.
Let’s start with the cop-involved killing in North Charleston SC. Two memes that appear every time a cop kills an unarmed black man are “one bad apple” and “the victim probably deserved it”. Let’s unpack this: The knee jerk response in some quarters is that since there are so many good cops, and so few bad ones, that the cops who kill merit the benefit of the doubt, particularly when the shooters say they were in fear for their lives. No need to look at a systemic problem in policing.
The second is the steady drip of “facts” that amount to character assassination of the already-dead victim. They had a record, they were late with family support payments, they resisted, or they made a sudden move. Or, a cascade of other facts that indicate the victims were no saints.
But, none of these things merit vigilante justice.
It’ll always be “one bad apple” but that bad apple will most often be a white cop killing a black man. It’ll always be “maybe the victim deserved it”, and it will most often be a black victim who deserved it.
Here is the value of video:
“Comply or die” is the state of the art in policing:
Republicans want Iran deal to go away. Obama too:
Chicken Hawks count noses on Iran:
Iran hears a familiar song and dance:
SS Hillary launches:
In 2008, Barack Obama wrapped up the delegates he needed to be the Democratic nominee at a shockingly early point in the campaign. Even a very strong finish by Hillary Clinton did nothing to improve her chances. She was finished before she knew what hit her.
She learned a huge lesson. This time, getting the nomination seems more inevitable, but she’s out of the gate early.
Given the lack of bench strength in the Democratic Party, it’s no wonder that the New Republic worries that she is a single point of failure for Dems.
What could go wrong?
A final thought about Indiana. The Financial Times has an article about corporate backlash to the RFRA laws in Arkansas:
The Arkansas u-turn followed a rare intervention by Walmart in a sensitive social policy debate. Doug McMillon, the retailer’s chief executive, said on Twitter the bill ‘threatens to undermine the spirit of inclusion present through the state of Arkansas and does not reflect the values we proudly uphold.’
Who is the moral arbiter for 21st century America? Wal-Mart. Big business has become MORE of a moral arbiter for equality in our society than religious right legislators.
We also are seeing a love-fest between Progressives and Big Business over the Arkansas/Indiana fracas. This isn’t the first time Progressives and Big Business have seen eye-to-eye, but the spectacle of Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, taking his brave position on Indiana’s lack of discrimination protection for the LGBT community begs the question about whether he would ever take the same position about China’s discrimination of LGBT individuals. Would he reward states in the US that had already protected LGBT rights even before big business made it trendy, maybe by pulling a factory or two out of China and relocating them to those states?
You already know the answer.
On to music, well, to a story about music. The Smithsonian has an exhibition of the art and music of Mingering Mike. Mingering Mike is a fictitious funk and soul recording artist created in the late 1960s. Mike’s work might never have been seen if Dori Hadar hadn’t visited a flea market in Washington, DC in 2003. Digging through a crate of used LPs, he found 40 album covers that Mingering Mike had created for his non-existent music career:
I came upon this one crate that contained albums like I had never seen before…There were approximately 40 LPs that had hand-painted covers and handwritten liner notes and lyrics. And they were all made by someone named Mingering Mike.
Hadar later met Mike, and learned that starting in the late 1960s, Mike recorded hundreds of songs on a reel-to-reel recorder with his cousin. Today his music is only available on the subscription service eMusic.
To Mike, the album covers seemed like a natural way to archive his music in case a record label ever came calling. That never happened. In 1970, he was drafted into the military. He made it through basic training, but when it was time to fly to Vietnam, Mike just went home. In 1977, after President Carter pardoned Vietnam draft dodgers, Mike got a job and put his hand-painted albums in a storage unit. After 20 years in storage, when he fell behind on the payments, his albums eventually ended up at the flea market.
NPR reported that Leslie Umberger, who curated the exhibition, Mingering Mike’s Supersonic Greatest Hits at the Smithsonian, was drawn to one cover, made just after Mike went AWOL, because it shows his feelings at the time:
It kind of shows him as the civilian on one side, back to back with himself as a soldier…On the back side it shows the singer and the artist making people happy, and the other Mike, the soldier, going to war and standing in formation.
Here is a clip of Mingering Mike at his art show at Duke University in 2010:
Here are two images of his album art:
See you on Sunday.
We all have heard about Indiana’s “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (RFRA). Republicans are arguing that Indiana’s law is no different from the federal law passed in 1993 that Democrats voted for and Mr. Clinton signed. That is untrue. As Think Progress points out, Indiana’s bill goes much further than the 1993 federal law or any other state law:
There are several important differences in the Indiana bill but the most striking is Section 9. Under that section, a “person” (which under the law includes not only an individual but also any organization, partnership, LLC, corporation, company, firm, church, religious society, or other entity) whose “exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened” can use the law as “a claim or defense…regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.”
So here is the difference: Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state RFRA statutes says anything like that, only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, and the new Arkansas RFRA law contain similar language.
Garrett Epps in The Atlantic points out that the federal RFRA and the other 18 state RFRAs protect private citizens’ religious beliefs from their government. Indiana’s is the only law that explicitly applies to disputes between private citizens. This means it could be used by individuals to justify discrimination against individuals that might otherwise be protected under law.
That’s the difference. The Indiana law is a blanket permission to discriminate, plain and simple. It’s effectively a “Stand Your Ground” law for bigots. If you choose to discriminate against someone, you can claim the law as a defense if you feel your “exercise of religion is substantially burdened.”
Back to Section 9, which also defines a person in this case as any organization, partnership, LLC, corporation, company, firm, church, religious society, or other entity. So, if an Indiana business wanted to refuse to serve LGBT customers on religious grounds, they could theoretically claim this law as a defense, and say that allowing them to shop there would “substantially burden” the business’s “exercise of religion”.
If you doubt the original intent of the Indiana RFRA, check out the photo of Gov. Pence’s signing ceremony. You will see nuns in full regalia, along with 2 anti-gay lobbyists as well. If you missed it, you can see it here. Maybe its not surprising that the Governor’s people won’t reveal the names of all who are in the picture. Indiana had the lowest voter turnout percentage in the Nation in 2014 at 27.8%. Maybe Indiana voters need to take charge of their own situation.
Those on the religious right who hold political office continually promote a social agenda as an act of political resistance to our secular world. This problem has been with us since before we became a country. It was part of most of the original 13 state constitutions. Except for Pennsylvania, every other state’s constitution required you to be a Christian believer to hold office, or in some cases, only Protestants could hold office, since being a Christian seemed too broad a definition.
William Penn only required an acknowledgement in some sort of creator, leaving only atheists outside of the political arena.
Those that want the laws of god in heaven to become the laws of the USA here on earth see Indiana’s RFRA as a political victory. Conservative Christians vote for politicians who will prosecute various forms of “sinful” behavior, especially if sexually defined, like abortion, online pornography websites like hdpornvideo.xxx, pornography magazines, and homosexuality. Some want to outlaw certain books, or music. Some go further, and bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors, while some will beat a gay person to death every now and then.
Now they are back to passing laws against “sin” while pretending they are upholding religious liberty. This is a country where Christianity is overwhelmingly the majority religion. To carry on as if its followers are a persecuted minority is abjectly false. Many of them carry little copies of the Constitution. Too bad they don’t understand what it says.
The Wrongologist is sick of eating their shit, and so are the majority of Americans.