Rejecting the HUDdled masses - if they're trans

UPDATED
 I failed to include some links to information about the issue and the rule. They are:

https://housingup.org/2026/06/25/hud-proposes-to-remove-key-lgbtq-protections/
https://nlihc.org/resource/hud-proposes-rescind-lgbtq-anti-discrimination-protections-hud-programs-advocates-4-trans

The rest is unchanged. 

 My apologies for not posting this earlier. It was submitted within the time frame (which ended early July) for public comments on a proposed rule change for HUD enforcing stereotypical, transphobic definitions of male and female on applicants for housing aid.

--

In February 2012, a Final rule about HUD’s programs was issued, one which “aimed to ensure that HUD’s housing programs would be open to all eligible individuals and families regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status.”

However, it did not address how to deal with transgender and gender non-conforming individuals in temporary, emergency shelters and other facilities with shared sleeping quarters or bathing facilities.

On September 21, 2016, an updated final rule was issued, clarifying the issue and noting that people must be treated according to their gender identity “and not on another person’s stereotype-based complaints.”

I note that history to emphasize that the current standard is one which has existed since the fall of 2016 through to the present, which means it was in place across the whole of President Trump’s first term - and its one attempt to undo it, in 2020, was washed away under a flood of public opposition from providers, faith-based partners, domestic violence shelter operators, and more, along with the general public. (It was withdrawn by the Biden administration in April 2021.)

Despite that history, on February 7, 2025 HUD Secretary Scott Turner said the agency simply would stop enforcing the 2016 Equal Access Rule - overruling federal regulations by executive fiat - followed by, on April 28 of this year, an announcement of a proposed formal rule change, formalizing and institutionalizing the anti-trans bigotry the administration had been practicing so far.

This rule would apply to all HUD programs and would allow providers of services, including housing and temporary and emergency shelters, to demand “assurances or evidence” to confirm the claimed sex of the person matches their birth certificate, embracing “immutable biological classification as either male or female” - the right-wing approved way of saying “biology is destiny” - while stripping away any references to “gender,” marking it as “ever-shifting concept” with, it appears to say, no real meaning.

This, bluntly, is pseudo-scientific claptrap. It is ignorance pretending to erudition, bigotry wrapped in bureaucracy, animus cloaked as administration. It takes the documented reality that gender-nonconforming people are significantly more likely to be homeless, significantly more likely to be a victim of violence, significantly more likely to be a target of abuse - and says “We don’t care.”

It takes the documented accounts of gender-nonconforming people that “given the choice between a shelter designated for assigned birth sex or sleeping on the streets, many transgender shelter-seekers would choose the streets” because it’s that much safer - and says “Lalala, we can’t hear you!”

Perhaps most importantly, it ignores - I hope through ignorance because doing it deliberately is much worse - the scientifically-documented hard reality that sex (which is about reproduction) and gender (personality, sense of self) are not the same thing, either functionally or neurologically, as they are mediated by partially-overlapping but different parts of the brain.

One of my all time favorite quotes about living an ethical life says “Always try to be good - but never fail to be kind.” The proposed rule change is neither. It should be withdrawn.

News Worth Knowing (which you may have mssed) #4

“News Worth Knowing (which you may have missed)” is one of the regular features of our weekly 1-hour lunchtime vigil downtown. This one involves me taking about 5-7 minutes reporting on a few things which are outside the main headlines but which I think are still worth some attention. I’ve taken to posting those things here for whatever additional attention they get. So here is edition #4, a bit longer than usual but still, I hope, worth the read. Comments are always welcome.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Being arch about “The Arch”

I got a notice about the National Park Service taking public comments on the DC “Arch” desired by The Orange Overlord. So I thought I’d get in on the fun and submit a comment. This was it:

I write in opposition to the proposed “Triumphal Arch at Memorial Circle.”

Contrary to the description, this proposed arch celebrates not our founding principles but rather a parody of them. It is “monumental” for the sake of being monumental, its size substituting grandeur for grace, expansiveness for elegance.

It is, to put it simply, big just for the sake of being big, not for any artistic or even memorializing purpose; it’s an expression not of national pride but of national pridefulness.

Which is why it seems oddly appropriate that the proposal is “drawing on the historic Roman precedent of erecting freestanding arches,” that is, reaching back to a time of emperors and empires, of “bread and circuses” and gladiatorial contests to find inspiration for architecture as well as for fights on the White House lawn.

It is particularly improper for this latest outgrowth of Donald Trump’s desperate desire to be remembered as someone of oversized importance to be intended as an entrance to Arlington National Cemetery, where if it has any effect at all it will be to disrupt and distract from the solemn air, the contemplative atmosphere, of the site.

If it is to be built anywhere, let it span some side avenue somewhere, where it can, in time, come to be seen like the monuments and arches peppering London, as a pretty but ultimately quaint and otherwise unimportant reminder of times when some leader’s sense of self-importance outran their self-awareness.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

This is a feel-good one

Todd Blanch (not a typo; the thought of him makes me go pale) said in April that the Epstein files “should not be a part of anything going forward.” In other words, “Get over it.”

Well, one of Jeffy’s estates was a place called Zorro Ranch in New Mexico - and the people of New Mexico are apparently not willing to get over it.

A small bipartisan commission headed by state Rep. Andrea Romero is going after not just abusers but those who enabled them.

The commission, which has a $2 million budget, has now issued 14 subpoenas to targets ranging from Epstein’s estate through local law enforcement and state officials, Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan Chase, up to the FBI and the DOI (Department of Injustice).

Meanwhile, state authorities have reopened a criminal investigation that was closed in 2019 at the request of the DOI and searched the ranch in March.

No big media splash, no self-promoting puffery, just a state commission doing the work the minions of TOO were too corrupted, cowardly, or contemptuous of others’ pain to undertake.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Taking action

The 2027 National Defense Authorization Act - NDAA - is coming to the Senate floor.

One provision, section 224, would set about “synchronizing cooperative efforts” in military research and integration between the US and Israel, essentially aiming to intertwine the two militaries, which would decrease any leverage the US has over Israel (not that we’re using what we have) while increasing leverage Israel has over the US by making the US at least partly reliant on Israeli military technology.

There will be moves to strip section 224 - which may have been renumbered as section 219 in later versions - from the bill.

I’m confident that in my home state of New Jersey we can count on Senator Kim and probably Senator Booker to support those moves. (”Probably” because Booker’s refusal to oppose arms to Israel, acceptance of AIPAC money, and persistent referral to the slaughter and devastation of Gaza in the passive voice as if it is a natural disaster with no human agent - that is, the IDF - involved give me reason to doubt.)

However, they made need some pushing to commit to - in the event those moves fail - opposing the NDAA in full - which, in fact, they should anyway.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Home Sweet Homeless

In the first weeks of The Orange Overlord take two, on February 7, 2025, HUD Sec Scott Turner said the agency would stop enforcing the 2016 Equal Access Rule, which requires services funded by HUD to have equal access to programs for individuals based on their gender identity.

Now he’s announced a proposed formal federal rule change, formalizing and institutionalizing the anti-trans bigotry they’ve been practicing so far.

The rule would apply to all HUD programs and would allow providers of services, including housing and shelters, to demand “assurances or evidence” to confirm the stated sex of the person matched their birth certificate with no regard to their gender.

Public comments can be submitted through June 29 at:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/04/28/2026-08244/equal-access-to-housing-in-hud-programs-revisions

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

And there is always more to do

TOO and the noxious goo of acolytes, toadies, and grifters that make up his maleficent maladministration have decided to go all in on their hatred of trans people.

They have proposed a new federal rule regarding the distribution of all discretionary federal funds and grants across all agencies - “discretionary” meaning anything not set by law.

Centrally, it requires that before a grant recipient can get any money they have to go through a “pre-issuance review” done by a political appointee who is explicitly instructed to look for any sign of a “denial by the recipient of the sex binary in humans” or support for “the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic,” with “sex” and gender being declared as identical - which they decidedly are not.

Note well: They are not examining the grant in question, they are examining the entire organization requesting it.

So any institution that acknowledges in any way, even indirectly, that transgender people, or nonbinary people, or gender-diverse people exist - maybe it has a DEI policy, maybe healthcare coverage includes gender care, maybe it allows trans restroom access or sports participation, anything at all - could be deemed to “deny the sex binary” and so denied funding.

Hell, it’s easy to imagine a university looking for a grant for a new gymnasium being rejected on the grounds of promoting “gender ideology” because its medical school has a class on human sexuality that includes a section on gender being on a spectrum - because remember, it’s the whole organization, not the grant request, that’s on trial.

What they’re proposing, in short, is that federal funding be available only to those people and institutions who are prepared to actively behave as if trans folks literally do not exist. Don’t mention them, even by suggestion, even indirectly, even from areas unrelated to the funding. Erase them entirely from archives, historical records, even, it would appear, from casual language or offhand reference - or risk losing all federal funding.

Oh, and be sure to act fact, because the same proposal includes means to cancel any existing grants.

This is more than draconian, more than diabolical. It is outright evil.

Comments can be submitted through July 13 at

https://www.regulations.gov/document/OMB-2026-0034-0001

and be assured I’ll bug you about this every week until then.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

A revealing footnote to that

During a press event at the Oval Office on Thursday, in the middle of a long, rambling response to a question about the voter-suppression SAVE Act, TOO went off about “mutilization of your children for transgender purposes” (No, you’re not wrong; there is no such word as “mutilization.”) and that there are six states where “they take your child from you do what they want to do,” which is “transgender mutilization.”

The next question was not a follow-up, nothing about “which six states.” Rather, it was another reporter asking about US intelligence staffing.

And so the normalization of this man’s descent into paranoid delusion continues apace while another lie about trans folks goes unchallenged.

==================

The White House lawn isn’t the only place where there are fights

Finally some encouraging news, as the courts show there’s still fight in the legal system, especially at the district court level.

Last July, ICE instituted an unprecedented policy of mandatory detention without bond of anyone they said was undocumented. Formerly, that had only been applied to those caught crossing the border; now it was to be applied to everyone, no matter where in the US they were found or how long they have lived here.

As a result, thousands of immigrants filed suit to be released based on improper detention, that ICE was misapplying the law - which it was - and the vast majority of them won.

That is, until February 6, when the extreme right-wing 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed that overwhelming rejection of ICE’s new policy and upheld the mandatory detention scheme.

So what happened? Judges in the 5th Circuit switched from addressing claims of not following the law to addressing claims of a denial of due process, and continued setting people free.

According to data gathered by Politico, since the February ruling, District judges in the circuit have ordered bond hearings or release of detainees more than 1,200 times on due process grounds - that’s nearly 60% of all immigration detention rulings on all bases in the 5th Circuit since Feb. 6.

What’s more, overall, across all circuit courts and again according to Politico, since the new policy went into effect last July, there have been rulings in at least 15,100 immigration cases - and the Whitest House has lost at least 13,300 of them, a loss rate of 88%.

Finally, while the 8th Circuit agreed with the 5th, the circuit courts of the 2nd, 4th, and 6th Circuits have all reached the opposite conclusion, which means it will at some point be at SCOTUS. Which is potentially bad news but you have to wonder if there’s a point where when decisions of the district courts are so overwhelmingly on one side and are supported by a majority of the circuit courts that have ruled on the matter that even this court not dismiss them.

Keep hope alive. And keep on keepin’ on.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

You have the best week you possibly can and we’ll see you then.

Remember, comments and reactions are always welcome.

 

The Erickson Report, Page 4: Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages [the Outrages]

The Erickson Report, Page 4: Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages [the Outrages]

Now for the Outrages and we certainly had enough to choose from.

We had Tucks Carlson capping Faux News months-long attacks on the homeless with his own week-long diatribe against San Francisco and the homeless problem there under the claim that it's all because of "liberalism" - because, as is well known, the way you make people homeless is by caring about them.

We had examples of the Tweetie-pie gang just openly ignoring a court order not to deport someone who was challenging their deportation order - and worse, getting away with it because the court was too cowardly use its contempt powers.

We had that same gang finalizing a rule to roll back clean water protections for streams and wetlands, affecting not only areas protected by a 2015 rule but even some covered by the original Clean Water Act of 1972, overturning pollution controls that have stood for nearly 50 years.

However, our runner-up is an outrage I'm not going to talk about. It's one I was going to talk it about even though it technically hasn't happened yet: It's Tweetie-pie's so-called "Deal of the Century" for Israel and supposedly for Palestinians although from what's known of it certainly doesn't look that way. I was going to go over it based on what it was expected to include but as it develops it is being released almost literally the same moment I am recording this so I will hold off until next time when we can look at it more closely if only because with Tweetie-pie, the actuality is almost always worse than the prediction.

What we can say now is that based on what's known and expected, it is indeed the "Deal of the Century" for Israel - if the century is the 16th or 17th, full of colonialism, expansionism, oppression, and might makes right.

But if you really want an outrage, you have to go to the source, the real source of too many outrages. You have to go to Washington, DC. No, not the White House: Many of those outrages can be undone by a new administration. No, you have to leave the White House and go past the other end of the National Mall - to the Supreme Court.

You may recall that back in October I noted a proposal to greatly expand the definition of a "public charge" under immigration law and so also greatly restrict the number of people who could get green cards, cutting legal immigration by an estimated two-thirds.

There long had been an understanding that the term "public charge," which had no specific definition in law, referred to people who as immigrants would be primarily dependent on cash benefits from the government - more simply, they would be mostly on welfare.

Supreme Clown

The Whitest House wants to dramatically expand that definition to include noncash benefits such as Medicaid, supplemental nutrition aid - that is, SNAP, still often called Food Stamps - and federal housing assistance. Even using subsidies under the Affordable Care Act to purchase health insurance on an exchange could be affected. Anyone predicted to use any such benefits for more than 12 months out of any three year period would be denied a green card and note that is a standard that millions, even tens of millions, of our fellow citizens could not meet.

The proposal has been under legal challenge in multiple jurisdictions with mixed results. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals had issued a nationwide injunction, barring the change from being enforced while those suits worked their way through the courts.

But on January 27, the Supreme Court overturned that injunction, freeing Tweetie-pie's thugs to start turning away anyone they think is not rich enough - or white enough - to merit their imperial favor.

It's hard to grasp the moral depravity of this decision. Injunctions are supposed to consider the idea of "irreparable harm." Where is the irreparable harm to the administration, to anyone at all, in letting "public charge" continue to be understood the same way it has been all along while the suits work their way through the courts? None that I can find. On the other hand, the irreparable harm to the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who will be denied entry across that same time is manifest and undeniable.

There is just as clearly no denying that people, people denied the chance to flee the crime, the violence, the oppression, the hunger, that drives them to seek refuge in a foreign country, that people will die because of this decision. That a majority of the Supreme Court just doesn't care is an affront to basic human decency. It is indeed an Outrage.

The Erickson Report, Page 4: Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages [the Outrages]

The Erickson Report, Page 4: Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages [the Outrages]

Turning to our Outrages, here's an outrage you probably didn't even know was one: so-called "chronic nuisance" laws.

Towns and cities across the country are passing local laws that punish landlords and tenants when crimes occur on a property.

Approximately 2,000 municipalities in the United States have such "chronic nuisance" ordinances on the books. The ordinances are usually extremely vague, sometimes defining nuisance behavior as whatever city officials decide is an “annoyance” or an “inconvenience.” A majority of such laws rely on an “excessive” number of 911 calls to make that determination, all of which leave doors wide open for discriminatory enforcement.

That's because upon citation for being a "nuisance," property owners typically are instructed to "abate the nuisance" or face steep penalties, up to in different places thousands of dollars in fines, revocation of rental permits, or even seizure of the property. Many landlords respond by evicting the tenant, refusing to renew their lease, or demanding tenants not call 911 - because the laws make no distinction between a tenant that is a nuisance and a tenant that is a victim, so getting rid of the tenant is often the easiest and cheapest way to deal with it.

The result is that the people most hurt by these ordinances are poor, handicapped, elderly, and/or people of color - that is, people with fewer resources to fight back and fewer options to pursue - and most particularly survivors of domestic violence, forced to choose between enduring threats and violence or risking homelessness.

You want some examples? Here are three:

- One woman was evicted from her home after the City of Bedford, Ohio, labeled her a nuisance and fined her landlord $250. Her crime? Calling 911 on two occasions because her boyfriend threatened to commit suicide.

- A tenant in Neenah, Wisconsin, was evicted after police responded to two calls within four months. The police were called during the first incident because the tenant’s boyfriend overdosed on heroin.

- A man living with AIDS in Portland, Oregon, was too sick to clean his yard. A city inspector decided the yard was a nuisance. Portland issued a warrant against him while he was hospitalized for meningitis, charging him nearly $2000 for the clean-up. He didn't have the money and had to sell his home to satisfy the debt.

Too many people facing emergencies - a loved one is experiencing an opioid overdose or a mental health crisis or they themselves are the victims of domestic abuse or some other crime - too many people facing emergencies feel that they can’t call 911 because the end result will be that they lose their homes.

In 2016 the Obama administration called on local governments to repeal chronic nuisance ordinances and said it’d issue guidance on how enforcement of such ordinances could discriminate against people with disabilities and thus violate the Fair Housing Act. But they never followed through. The guidance never came. And now, of course, there's no way in hell it'll happen before 18 months from now at the soonest. Tweetie-pie's DOJ has said it won’t even force municipalities to follow existing federal guidelines.

Proponents of these laws argue they are necessary to deter crime and protect public safety but how in hell you do that by discouraging people from calling for help is far beyond my comprehension.

Activists have fought back with lawsuits and pressuring local lawmakers, with some success - but fighting something like this town by town is a discouragingly long undertaking. Happily, in May New York became the 10th state to pass a law saying you can't be evicted for calling 911. But that is a long way from putting an end to this outrage.

=

This next one is largely taken from Alternet's piece on this, so I want to give them most of the credit.

Okay. You send your child to school. Your kid gets lunch at school. Maybe you don't have the resources or the time to prepare a lunch or maybe they prefer school food, which if true means schools have much better food than when I was going but never mind.

Anyway, your child accrues a school lunch “debt.” Maybe it’s because you’re financially struggling and have to prioritize other bills, like maybe medicine or rent or food for dinner. Maybe you gave your child money for lunch and they forgot to hand it in or they lost it or someone stole it and they were too embarrassed or ashamed to say so. For whatever reason, the debt increases.

What does the school do? If your child attends the Wyoming Valley West School District in Kingston, Pennsylvania, they send you a threatening letter saying that if the debt is not paid, you could lose your child.

About one thousand parents received a letter with just this thinly veiled threat. The letter informs parents that, “Your child has been sent to school every day without money and without a breakfast and/or lunch” - although how they knew about breakfast I have no idea - and alleges that failing to provide your child with food - as in, not packing them lunch or paying for a school meal - could result in parents being sent to Dependency Court.

“If you are taken to Dependency court," the letter reads, "the result may be your child being removed from your home and placed in foster care.”

Making this obscene threat - remember, we are talking about a school lunch here - making it even worse is that the Wyoming Valley’s Cafeteria Purchase Charging and Insufficient Funds Policy (something obviously written by a government committee) doesn’t mention anything about going to court. Joseph Muth, the director of federal programs for the school district and the author of the letter, made it up.

Happily, no one outside the district is backing up the school's threat. In fact, County Manager David Pedri issued a statement saying

Foster care is to be utilized only when absolutely needed - when a child has been abused, is in need or has suffered a tragedy. It is NOT to be utilized to scare parents into paying school lunch bills.

And Joanne Van Saun, who runs the Luzerne County Children and Youth Services feels her agency was weaponized to threaten families, calling the letter "totally inappropriate and unnecessary."

It’s true, schools want to collect the money and in some school districts around the country that have such policies, the total debt for all families across the whole district can run into tens of thousands of dollars.

So I understand having a collections policy.  And indeed, Wyoming Valley West has one: If the debt gets big enough - $10, to be specific - the parents get a weekly automated phone call until it's paid. Which might be annoying but is is a far far cry from shaming kids by giving them PBandJ sandwiches instead of the regular lunch or, much worse, threatening families with taking away their children. That is simply unconscionable.

Even more unconscionable is the fact that this should be an issue at all. It's unconscionable that a family should ever be in a position to be unable to afford meals for their children. The thread of hunger - or to use the technical term, "food insecurity" - that weaves through our nation remains a moral and ethical outrage and cases like this, where people are threatened and shamed - and I hope Joseph Muth gets fired - when people are threatened and shamed for their struggles, well it just serves to put that outrage in ever starker relief.

The Erickson Report for July 24 to August 6

The Erickson Report for July 24 to August 6

Heroes and Villains
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/journalism-racist-racism-reports_n_5c9e6245e4b0bc0daca861d7
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/if-it-s-racist-call-it-racist-associated-press-stylebook-n989056
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/trump-falsely-accuses-omar-al-qaeda-fact-check/index.html


Five Things Noted in Passing
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ok-iceland-glacier-monument_n_5d34408de4b004b6adb11b7e
=
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/antifa-right-wing-violence-ted-cruz-bill-cassidy-resolution_n_5d33c982e4b0419fd32de46b
=
https://thinkprogress.org/fox-news-host-decimates-trump-aide-stephen-miller-racism-hypocricy-8a8b7b4b5db3/
=
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/20/close-camps-protesters-march-against-trumps-plan-imprison-migrant-kids-site-japanese
https://www.paulsvalleydailydemocrat.com/news/detention-of-migrant-children-at-fort-sill-set-for-august/article_0e526814-aa6a-11e9-a357-8f082fd2b010.html
=
https://www.salon.com/2019/06/22/do-you-actually-like-your-private-health-insurance_partner/


Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages [the Clowns]
https://journalstar.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/city-hall-public-art-spider-man-hands-confused-for-devil/article_af1fe866-aa7b-5d8c-8975-0c25c64d1800.html
=
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mike-kelly-trump-tweets_n_5d2f28a9e4b0a873f644f5e3
https://www.newsweek.com/gop-mike-kelly-maxine-waters-car-dealership-racism-926843
=
https://thinkprogress.org/house-republicans-demand-pelosi-hold-usmca-vote-trump-has-not-submitted-2a95cb0c3cce/
=
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/florida-principal-holocaust-teaching_n_5d2235bbe4b04c481415dab4
=
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/aclu-georgia-housing-discrimination-lawsuit_n_5d2767f9e4b02a5a5d578da9
=
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2019/07/22/sebastian-gorka-i-think-whole-trans-thing-started-teletubbies/224300


Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages [the Outrages]
https://www.aclu.org/other/i-am-not-nuisance-local-ordinances-punish-victims-crime
https://thinkprogress.org/chronic-nuisance-laws-ordinances-evicting-people-with-disabilities-from-their-homes-7c64a7129dea/
=
https://www.alternet.org/2019/07/school-district-threatens-to-send-kids-to-foster-care-over-unpaid-school-lunch-debt/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/20/us/pennsylvania-school-lunch-debt-trnd/index.html


Remembering Lightning Bugs
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/07/15/fireflies-glow-could-soon-be-extinguished-human-actions
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/15/us/firefly-population-science-in-a-twinkle-of-nighttime-in-the-south.html

The Erickson Report for June 5 to 18, 2019

The Erickson Report for June 5 to 18, 2019

This week:

Following Up on reproductive rights
https://www.wired.com/story/heartbeat-bills-get-the-science-of-fetal-heartbeats-all-wrong/
https://www.thecut.com/2019/05/embryos-dont-have-hearts.html
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/more-heartbeat-abortion-bans-advancing-in-south-midwest/ar-AABdRgK?li=BBnb7Kz
https://news.yahoo.com/roe-v-wade-danger-states-120000421.html
https://www.pressconnects.com/story/news/local/2019/05/17/abortion-america-how-ny-law-differs-alabama/3692504002/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nevada-bill-abortion-pro-choice_n_5ce46870e4b0d513447bf2de
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/illinois-passes-abortion-rights-bill_n_5cedc171e4b0ae671058a21c
https://www.vox.com/2019/6/1/18648506/illinois-abortion-bill-2019-fundamental-right-repeal-restrictions
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kansas-supreme-court-abortion-ruli_n_5cc342cbe4b04eb7ff95ab6e
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/05/previously-unreleased-poll-shows-alabama-voters-disapprove-of-extreme-abortion-ban/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/03/abortion-poll-fetal-heartbeat-laws-most-oppose-democrat-voters-energized/1319419001/
https://www.henryherald.com/features/pattillo-says-he-won-t-enforce-hb/article_586ee2ba-815c-11e9-8ab1-cf068ca463ea.html
https://www.salon.com/2019/05/29/clarence-thomas-makes-it-clear-the-right-is-coming-for-birth-control-next/
https://thinkprogress.org/supreme-court-abortion-opinion-kavanaugh-3c85c3260764/
https://www.businessinsider.com/states-passing-abortion-bans-have-highest-infant-mortality-rates-2019-5

Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages
https://triblive.com/news/roman-numerals-anyone-poll-suggests-bias-against-arabic-numerals/
https://twitter.com/jdcivicscience/status/1127285936977522688/photo/1
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2019/05/16/fox-analyst-inaccurately-says-if-roe-were-overturned-pregnant-people-could-just-go-where-infanticide/223716
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/missouri-barry-hovis-consensual-rapes-abortion-ban_n_5ce0194de4b00e035b90c307
https://www.npr.org/2019/05/20/723990399/california-teachers-pay-for-their-own-substitutes-during-extended-sick-leave
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ben-carson-house-finance-services-committee_n_5ce44115e4b06f64624be926
https://www.commondreams.org/further/2019/05/22/its-not-brain-surgery-oreos-and-idiots-and-arrogant-incompetence-oh-my
http://time.com/5595474/donald-trump-roll-back-transgender-protections/
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/05/24/latest-attack-women-and-trans-people-trump-invites-medical-providers-discriminate
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alabama-marriage-licenses_n_5ce997b5e4b0512156f26cd3
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jews-germany-kippahs_n_5cea826fe4b0512156f339c2
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hogan-gidley-trump-pelosi-compliant-media_n_5cead2e3e4b0512156f3a10b
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-insult-tweet-biden-absurd-excuse_n_5cedb178e4b0793c2346e8b1
https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-moron-imbecile-and-idiot.htm
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/05/30/fox-news-and-right-wing-media-freak-out-about-muellers-press-conference-you-are-disgrace/223835
https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/palestine-occupied-palestinian-territory-west-bank-and-gaza-strip_en/52895/EU%20Local%20statement%20on%20the%20dismantling%20of%20schools%20in%20the%20West%20Bank
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/05/31/shockingly-cruel-move-israel-auction-classrooms-it-dismantled-west-bank
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/31/israel-to-auction-prefab-classrooms-donated-by-eu-to-palestinians
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/virginia-beach-mass-shooting/index.html
https://www.theonion.com/
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/thomas-tobin-child-harm-lqbtq-pride-abuse_n_5cf30259e4b0e346ce7f3e36

A Longer Look at immigration
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/05/19/officials-possibly-1712-more-migrant-children-separated/23730010/
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/30/asylum-restrictions-trump-central-america-1489012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/03/03/america-borders-porous-from-start/OUF92CcYcpCFbAeruuKwKO/story.html
https://www.history.com/topics/immigration/chinese-exclusion-act-1882
https://www.vox.com/2018/1/11/16880750/trump-immigrants-shithole-countries-norway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
https://openborders.info/blog/diminish-white-supremacy-increased-immigration/
https://whoviating.blogspot.com/2017/07/282-outrage-of-week-enforcement-of.html

20.1 - Good News: cities can sue banks for housing discrimination

Good News: cities can sue banks for housing discrimination

Let's start, as we always like to, with some Good News. This time we actually start with a sort of Good News-Bad News sort of thing.

In 2013, the city of Miami sued Bank of America and Wells Fargo, charging that their practice of targeting black and Latino homeowners for riskier, less favorable mortgages ultimately drove a wave of defaults and foreclosures producing a fall in property values in the city, cutting city revenue even as the city had to spend more money to deal with a rash of blighted or abandoned homes.

The Good News is that on May 1, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that yes, the city of Miami can be an "aggrieved person" under the Fair Housing Act and so can sue the banks.

The bad news is that the bar for the city to prove damages under the law will be high because of the difficulty of showing that the banks' lending practices were the "proximate cause" of the city's losses. Because so many economic and social issues can affect the value of the city's housing stock, it can be hard to tease out what effect the banks' policies had.

But even so, establishing the principle that cities can be victims of bank-driven housing discrimination, adding a weapon, even if a weak one, to the arsenal that can be wielded against the banks, has to be considered Good News.

What's Left #20

What's Left
for the week of May 4 to 10, 2017

This week:

Good News: cities can sue banks for housing discrimination
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-housing-discrimination-miami_us_590745cde4b0bb2d086fba0b?mvfj&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

Good News: Kim Davis can be sued for damages
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kim-davis-appeals-court_us_59090488e4b0bb2d0872eb1e?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/17a0098p-06.pdf

Footnote: Enzi gets tutu'ed
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wyoming-senator-homophobia_us_59076bffe4b0bb2d08700799

Mass marches in April
https://thinkprogress.org/thousands-march-calling-for-trump-tax-returns-2c1a7ca275e4
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nationwide-tax-marches-donald-trump_us_58f22c49e4b0b9e9848c5bb4
https://taxmarch.org/local-marches/
http://fortune.com/2017/04/22/march-for-science-photos/
https://www.marchforscience.com/satellite-marches/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/thousands-across-the-us-march-for-science-in-defiance-of-trump_us_58fb5a62e4b018a9ce5bb1e2
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/march-science-demonstrators-say-they-re-real-patriots-n749686
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/To-oppose-budget-cuts-scientists-take-to-Center-City-streets.html
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-science-march-20170422-story.html
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/science/seattle-march-for-science-draws-thousands-on-earth-day-including-a-nobel-prize-winner/
http://fox40.com/2017/04/22/march-for-science-worldwide-protests-begin-to-support-evidence/
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/science/article/The-Latest-March-for-Science-attracts-thousands-11091330.php
https://350.org/press-release/peoples-climate-march-a-huge-success-200000-march-in-d-c-for-climate-jobs-and-justice/
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-march-20170429-story,amp.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/climate-marches-today-were-huge-180918958.html
https://peoplesclimate.org/
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/trending-now/climate-protesters-march-to-edge-of-donald-trumps-maralago/517660955
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/front-range/denver/peoples-climate-march-snowy-weather-didnt-stop-hundreds-from-protesting-in-denver
http://cornellsun.com/2017/04/30/cornellians-protest-in-climate-march-in-ithaca-and-d-c/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/04/29/marchers-use-trumps-100th-day-protest-climate-policies/101070064/?platform=hootsuite

The little Thing: "Russian Wikileaks"
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/05/02/hillary-clinton-blames-james-comey-russian-involvement-for-2016-election-loss/22065769/

Outrage of the Week: "stealthing"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/inside-the-online-community-of-men-who-preach-removing-condoms-without-consent_us_58f75eb2e4b05b9d613eb997
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2954726
http://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/2017/04/24/men-removing-condoms-during-sex-in-disturbing-online-trend-stealthing.html

Everything You Need to Know: Teresa Manning
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/teresa-manning-contraception-hhs_us_5907582ae4b05c397680d921

For the Record: Desiree Fairooz convicted of laughing
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-laughter_us_5908c55ee4b0bb2d08726a91?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/laughing-congressional-hearing-jeff-sessions-code-pink_us_59076a93e4b05c3976810a3a?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/us/code-pink-sessions-laughter-trial.html?_r=0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-attorney-general-jeff-sessions-racist-remarks_us_582cd73ae4b099512f80c0c2?cn5id4ygk5rf9lik9
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB-BBVQLnxI

Clown Award: Mick Mulvaney
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mark-green-second-amendment_us_59077af8e4b02655f83f0ff6
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/2/1658245/-Trump-budget-director-bypasses-reality-gives-press-the-hard-sell-on-WH-wins-We-are-competent#read-more

Foreign policy and North Korea
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/28/north-koreas-army-1-2m-men-obsolete-equipment-and-nukes.html
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/05/01/japan-breaks-from-military-tradition-to-protect-american-ship/22063664/
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/05/03/north-korea-media-china-nuclear-action-grave-consequences/22067632/
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/19/asia/china-coal-north-korea-ban/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-north-korea-sanctions-20170504-story.html

249.2 - Part Two: Issues that won't be discussed in the fall election

Part Two: Issues that won't be discussed in the fall election

You want some examples of issues they don't want discussed? I'll give you some. But let me say at the top that the sort of political revolution I envision, which I dream about, goes beyond what Bernie Sanders has proposed. So what I will be talking about here is not my revolution, but issues, ideas, proposals, that have been brought up during the course of the primaries but which are now threatened with being disappeared because too many among our power elite don't want us to be thinking about them.

That said: What do you think are the changes that single-payer health coverage is going to be a topic in the election we now face? The Clintonites mocked the idea and mocked Sanders for advocating it; they called it impractical, impossible, pie in the sky, rainbows and unicorns, all that and more despite fact that US has been and remains almost the only industrialized nation without some sort of national health system.

And no, Obamacare is not that, not even close, not when by the estimates of even its most ardent defenders it will leave tens of millions without health insurance and an unknown number more with insurance they can't afford to use because of high deductibles and other costs. Obamacare doesn't even provide universal access to health insurance, much less what's really important, which is universal access to health care. But if we hear anything about health care this year, it will be about "preserving Obamacare" - because that is a debate the economic and political powers are willing to have.

Another example: As I've noted before, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, this secretly-negotiated trade deal looking to turn the entire Pacific Rim into a playground for transnational corporations and banks, is going to be an issue after the election, during the lame duck session of Congress. What do you think are the chances that either of the campaigns or the media will bring it up in the coming election season? Do you really think that Hillary Clinton, who once called the TPP "the gold standard" for trade deals but turned against it - supposedly and only gradually and only in reaction to its obvious unpopularity and Sanders' opposition - is going to make that part of her campaign? If you do, remember that Tom Donohue, president of the US Chamber of Commerce, has said not to worry about what Clinton is saying about the TPP now because once she is office she will flip back to supporting it.

If we hear anything about trade, it will be about the supposed "millions of jobs" free trade has created and will create - with no consideration of the type of jobs, even as evidence shows that living-wage jobs, jobs that pay enough to provide for a family, are quickly being replaced by lower-wage and less secure forms of employment such that even the Wall Street Journal admits that "many middle-wage occupations have collapsed."

This is all part of the new "gig economy," the latest corporate buzz-phrase echoing across the country. We won't have jobs, they say, we'll do "gigs." We won't be stuck in traditional jobs with moldy, old-fashioned concerns such as regular hours, middle-class pay rates, benefits, some job security, and all those other silly "traditionals" of the workplace. In fact, in the gig economy, we won't even have a workplace. Instead, we'll be "liberated" to work in a series of low-paying, no-benefits, short-term jobs in many different places, always being on-call through a mobile app on your smart phone or through a temp agency.

What do you think are the chances that the phrase "gig economy" will pass the lips of either Hillary Clinton or Donald TheRump this fall?

Meanwhile, income inequality, one of the centerpieces of Sanders' campaign and which earlier drove the Occupy Movement - which was crushed by some of the same forces now arrayed against the resurgence of those issues which Sanders has helped spark - is now the highest it has been since 1928. And it continues to worsen, as it has across several decades, including during the administration of the sainted Bill Clinton, who Hillary now proposes to bring back to manage the economy in her planned administration.

Do you really think that economic, that income, inequality will be a centerpiece of the fall campaign? Do you think it even will be addressed in any way beyond vapid bromides?

Do you think a $15 minimum wage is going to come up in this race, particularly when Clinton opposes it? Consider that a new study of all 22 increases in the federal minimum wage between 1938 and 2009 not only showed no correlation between raising the minimum wage and loss of jobs, it actually showed that in a substantial majority of cases, employment in affected industries went up. Is that going to be part of the debate? What about the fact that despite the doomsday predictions, a year after Seattle raised its minimum wage, retail prices have not risen?

Will the moral scourge of poverty be on either candidate's regular agenda? Since as I noted last week, our major media are already prepared to ignore it, to make it a non-issue, why should the candidates bring it up?

Will either the GOPpers or the Dems talk about homelessness, again, in any way more than as rhetorical devices? It's generally agreed that to comfortably afford housing, it should take up no more than 30% of your income. (Years ago, it was 25%.) Will either party address the fact that, on that basis, as a national average it takes an income of $20.30 an hour to comfortably afford a two-bedroom apartment - at a time when the average hourly wage for Americans is $15.42? Will they address the fact that there is not a single state in the US where someone working full-time, year-round at federal minimum wage can comfortably afford even a one-bedroom apartment? Will they talk about how homelessness has long since spread from the cities to the suburbs, such that now school buses can been seen to drop off childen at tents and cars? They won't - because they and their backers don't want to.

Remember concerns about student debt, something else that drove the Occupy movement? What are the chances that will be a focus of the concerns of the major parties?

I have to make a quick detour here. A couple of minutes ago, I referred to the Occupy Movement as having been crushed by some of the same forces now arrayed against what strictly and solely for the convenience of the moment I'll call the Sanders movement. I want to make clear that while there actually was evidence of coordination among federal and local officials on the best ways to break the backs of Occupy encampments, I'm not talking here about grand conspiracies; I'm not talking about secret cabals Skyping each other in a weekly meeting to plan their latest outrages. It's rather agreement based on common interests, common values, common ways of viewing the world. It doesn't require conscious cooperation, in fact if doesn't require active cooperation at all. What it requires - and what it has - is a range of powerful interests all heading in much the same direction, with much the same attitudes.

But getting back to the issues, talking about student debt leads directly to something else that Bernie Sanders talked about but I'll guarantee won't come up after the convention: free college.

It is, in fact, not a particularly radical idea. Twelve nations currently offer college tuition free to their citizens: Argentina, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Norway, Scotland, Slovenia, Sweden, and Turkey; Chile will make it 13 next year.

When last year Obama proposed a government program to make community college tuition-free for a number of students who met certain guidelines and academic standards, why the Dems were falling all over themselves with praise. Because that idea, offering some help to a limited number of people that wouldn't cost that much or change that much in the grand scheme of things but which can be made to sound like a great dramatic advance, that is the kind of debate our political establishment is willing to have.

But go beyond that, talk about four-year public colleges being tuition free? Talk about something that actually is dramatic, that actually would make a fundamental change in our educational system? Impossible! Crazy! Just promising "free stuff!" And something to be forgotten as soon as the convention lights dim.

Oh, and here's something: See if there is any talk this fall about breaking up the big banks, about actually doing something about "too big to fail." It's something else that Sanders made one of the centerpieces of his campaign and something else I guarantee you will not sully the lips of Clinton or TheRump.

But all that has happened since 2008 is the the biggest banks have gotten bigger. Just four huge banks - Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citigroup, and JPMorgan Chase - now hold $6.87 trillion in assets, 42.2% of the total assets held by banks in the US. They have continued to grow since 2008 and will continue to do so.

Conveniently for the Dems, the GOPpers proposing to revoke Dodd-Frank, legislation setting up regulations which have already been watered down almost to the point of irrelevancy. So see if there is any discussion about regulating the financial industry, about controlling Wall Street, beyond "preserve Dodd-Frank" - which is another debate the economic establishment is willing to have, while actually fracturing their hold on the economy is not and so will be off the table.

And then there's the elephant in the room: campaign finance reform. I noted just last week that 80% of the $76 million Clinton's Super-PAC has raised has come from just 20 donors and the so-called "Hillary Victory Fund" has acted essentially as a money-laundering scheme to get around limits on campaign contributions. The idea that she will make campaign finance reform a significant part of her campaign - in fact, that she will raise it at all - is laughable.

There is so much more, so much that has been raised over these past several months that now will be pushed to the shadows because those that have the power in our society don't want to talk about them, don't want to take them on in any actual way, because to do so would be too much of a challenge to their privileged positions, raise too many uncomfortable questions about our economy, about our society, about our culture.

See how much either campaign talks about fracking.

See how much they talk about immigration reform in any way other than vote-pandering.

See if they talk about our broken criminal justice system in any way other than that same vote-pandering.

See if they bring up Black Lives Matter; see if they talk about police brutality, particularly in minority communities; see if they talk about racism in any way other than platitudes.

And see, frankly, if foreign policy even comes up in any form other than "terrorists bad, US good."

Sources cited in links:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/heres-a-map-of-the-countries-that-provide-universal-health-care-americas-still-not-on-it/259153/
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/02/insured-not-covered-problems-obamacare
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/sunday-review/insured-but-not-covered.html?_r=0
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/05/2472-some-updates-on-secret-trade.html
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/the-collapse-of-the-middle-class-job
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/what-does-it-mean-to-gig-american-workers
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/01/2357-income-inequality-is-growing.html
http://fightfor15.org/
http://www.nelp.org/publication/raise-wages-kill-jobs-no-correlation-minimum-wage-increases-employment-levels/
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3059118/after-a-year-seattles-new-minimum-wage-hasnt-raised-retail-prices
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-05-04/unicef-report-reveals-americas-childhood-poverty-is-a-global-embarrassment
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/06/2486-footnote-media-ignore-poverty-in.html
http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/05/the-hourly-wage-needed-to-rent-a-2-bedroom-apartment-in-2016-mapped/484091/
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/the-hidden-homeless-families-in-the-suburbs/
http://www.deseretnews.com/top/1642/0/Countries-that-offer-free-higher-education-.html
https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/02/7_countries_where_college_is_free_partner/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/us/politics/obama-proposes-free-community-college-education-for-some-students.html?_r=0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/09/obama-free-community-college_n_6446866.html
https://www.thestreet.com/story/13598498/1/lsquo-too-big-to-fail-rsquo-bank-review-finds-wells-fargo-now-number-2.html

242.5 - Drug war used to demonize poor people

Drug war used to demonize poor people

Well, plus ça change. In more recent times, drugs have served not so much to attack hippies or the antiwar left - probably in good part because there aren't a lot of hippies around and the antiwar left seems to evaporate whenever a Democrat is in the White House. But they have still proved politically useful to demonize a different group: poor people, who are usually envisioned in the racism-infused public mind as African-Americans, so it's kind of a two-fer.

Patron saint of welfare "reform"

It was in 1996, during the presidency of - and with the urging of - the sainted Bill Clinton, that the US enacted a welfare "reform" law that among other abominations placed a lifelong ban on receiving welfare on people convicted of drug felonies. No other sort of felony was subject to this lifelong ban - not murder, not assault, not armed robbery, not arson, none of them. Nothing except drugs.

As a direct result, to this day, many men and women exiting prison after doing their time don't have access to certain forms of government assistance, including TANF, or Temporary Aid to Needy Families, what we used to call welfare, and SNAP, still commonly known as Food Stamps.

It has gotten somewhat better with regard to SNAP: Eighteen states have abandoned the federal prohibition on drug offenders receiving Food Stamps and 26 more, most recently Alabama, have eased the restrictions, allowing benefits under certain conditions. Three more states - Georgia, Indiana, and Nebraska - are considering doing the same.

But six states - Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming - still bar anyone with a drug felony from receiving any Food Stamp benefits and need be damned.

"Need be damned" is even more true of TANF benefits. Thirteen states continue to fully prohibit anyone with a drug-related conviction from getting welfare benefits, and 23 others maintain a partial ban. Only 14 have lifted the ban and treat people who have done their time the same as they do anyone else.

The Marshall Project, which collects this data, suggests that the difference is that, unlike Food Stamps, states have to foot part of the bill for TANF. Put another way, the frequent attitude is, "Sure, you can have benefits on the same basis as everyone else - provided we don't have to pay for it."

But even if there has been some improvement in the possibility of those with drug convictions being able to obtain aid if they need it, there is still an on-going effort to use the specter of drugs to demonize the poor. Only the means, not the intent, has changed.

The means now is drug-testing of applicants or recipients of public aid, of making it a requirement for obtaining or continuing to receive assistance.

State after state after state - 13 states, in fact - have instituted some form of drug-testing regimen for those in need of aid, with 19 more considering it. And it's always, always, always, done on the claims that this will save money and we don't want the tax dollars or hard-working citizens to be subsidizing the drug habits of those poor people and besides we're actually helping poor people because this will force them to get off drugs and get a job!

That stigma of the poor as being druggies, and as being poor because they are druggies, drives the entire enterprise, an enterprise pushing the idea that we are somehow doing poor people a favor by treating them all as suspected criminals who have to prove the purity of their bodily fluids to their governing overlords, those who hold in their hands the power to decide if the accused gets any help with food or shelter or health care for themselves or their children.

So state after state after state has pursued this notion - and state after state after state has shown it to be a fantasy.

Florida tried it and found only 2% of recipients of public aid used drugs, in a state where the rate of drug use among the population as a whole is estimated to be 8%.

Utah tried it and found a rate of drug use among benefit recipients to be just 0.2%. In Tennessee, it was under a quarter of a percent.

In Arizona, more than 87,000 welfare recipients went through drug testing and only one person tested positive. Not one percent, one person.

Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, all with similar results.

And now North Carolina has joined the list. According to the state's Department of Health and Human Services, a mere 0.3% of the approximately 7,600 applicants and recipients screened for drug use tested positive.

But none of this has stopped states from doing testing and it hasn't stopped other states from considering doing the same. How many failures does it take to add up to failure?

Unless - unless it actually wasn't a failure. Unless the drugs were never the issue. Unless the actual intent is to, as I said at the top, demonize the poor, mark them as somehow different, alien, as "not us," and so as undeserving of our concern.

That stigma of the poor as druggies, which drives the entire drug-screening idea, is just one more obstacle faced by those who economically struggle every single day, with all that entails for, again, necessities such as food and clothing and shelter and health care and more, who struggle every day to try to escape the trap of poverty but who find that stigma of them as drug abusers that follows them even as they try to find work, that demonization of their condition, that assumption of their moral inferiority, that classism, our contempt for the poor, is just one more mountain for them to climb.

For the sake of maintaining our sense of class superiority, we have made the poor into more victims of our failed war on drugs.

But I have to add, footnote, whatever, that the stigma goes beyond the false idea of the poor as druggies. It goes to the core of our entire social attitude about poverty.

Consider, for example, how many states have precise rules as to what Food Stamps can be used to buy, in one case going right down to the size and type of canned beans you can buy. Consider how often any sort of treat for a child, a soda, candy, whatever, is on the banned list. Consider how many states have similar rules about TANF, with long lists of things for which welfare assistance can't be used, ranging from the absurd (jewelry, cruises) to the mundane because God forbid if you are poor that you should be able to take your kid to a movie.

Consider, particularly, how often we put demands on the poor that we would never dream of putting on others who are not poor but who are getting public benefits.

CalWORKS is California's welfare program. Everyone who applies for aid and is accepted must agree to have their homes be preemptively searched for evidence of fraud at a time of the agency's choosing, which of course they do not tell you in advance because then you could hide the evidence of fraud of which they assume you are guilty - and if you're not there when they come, obviously unannounced, you can be declared "uncooperative" and denied aid. In short, the Fourth Amendment does not exist for you and neither does innocent until proven guilty - because you are poor and need help.

Can you even conceive of someone who declares their children as deductions on their tax return being told they have to agree to have their home preemptively searched to prove those kids really live there and really are dependent on them? Remember, that deduction is a benefit, a tax benefit that by cutting their taxable income puts extra money in their pocket just as surely as does any cash aid to a poor person. But can you even imagine anyone being told they have to surrender their Fourth Amendment rights in order to claim that benefit?

You know, some of those drug-testing regimens not only want you to be drug-tested to get benefits, they want you to be tested on a regular basis to keep them.

Can you even imagine, can you even conceive of, someone declaring a home mortgage deduction on their income taxes being told that every year that they do so that they have to submit to a drug test to prove that they are not using the benefits we are providing to them to get high?

Of course you can't. It seems absurd. But you can imagine such being done to a poor person; in fact, you know it does and it happens to them every single day.

None of this is about helping the poor. Rather, it is all about being able to say that because you are poor, because you are in need of help, because you are struggling, therefore you are no longer a full human being, therefore you are morally inferior, therefore we have the right and the power to judge you, to look down on you, therefore we have the right and the power to shape you, to correct your (to we superior sorts) obvious failings, to demand that you behave as we tell you to, we have the right and the power to humiliate you, to demean you, to strip away your rights, and you will kowtow and tug at your forelock and kiss our ring or you can just damn well go hungry and cold.

I say it again: None of this, none of this, none of this is about helping the poor. It is about our contempt for the poor, our classist assumptions that those who are poor are simply inferior in some way, morally, ethically, or both, that it's simply a matter of personal failings and they somehow deserve their condition rather than being just the most obvious victims of the economic injustice that has turned too many of us into economic throwaways as power and wealth become more concentrated.

I have in the past referred to classism as our greatest unacknowledged evil. And so it remains.

Sources cited in links:
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/03/17/should-people-with-felony-drug-convictions-have-access-to-food-s/21328901/
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/alabamians_with_drug_convictio.html
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/02/04/six-states-where-felons-can-t-get-food-stamps?ref=tsqr_stream#.8s7hSzmEc
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2015/02/1939-outrage-of-week-drug-testing-poor.html
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/02/18/States-tested-their-welfare-recipients-and-the-results-w/21314760/
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2015/10/2237-states-continue-to-demonize-poor.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2015/07/2112-our-worst-unacknowledged-evil-part.html
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/22/1489251/-The-Republican-war-on-poor-people-s-grocery-lists-continues
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/20/1501544/-Punishing-the-poor-is-not-going-to-end-poverty

238.2 - Hero Award: Nic Marchesi and Lucas Pratchett

Hero Award: Nic Marchesi and Lucas Pratchett

Still trying to start on upbeat notes, we have a Hero Award, something we give out here on occasion to someone who just does the right thing on a matter big or small.

This time, it's a joint award and it's going to two young Australians, Nic Marchesi and Lucas Pratchett.

In 2014 they came up with a simple but brilliant idea to improve the health standards of and offer some self-respect to homeless people in their home city of Brisbane. It began with an old van, a generator, and, most importantly, a washer and dryer. With that, they founded Orange Sky Laundry, a free mobile laundry service for the homeless.

The pair, who had previously worked in a food van to help feed those in need, realized there were mobile organizations that fed people, offered medical care, and so on, but nothing to help people maintain clean clothing. They set about to fix that.

In no time, the program expanded and now has five vans operating in 36 locations in five cities in Australia with the help of more than 270 volunteers, washing and drying over 350 free loads of laundry every week.

It's one of those things we don't often think about, one of the more hidden burdens of homelessness and poverty, that a simple thing we take for granted, like putting on a clean shirt, is something denied to so many.

Nic Marchesi / Lucas Pratchett

Does Orange Sky Laundry - the name came from the song "Orange Sky" by Alexi Murdoch - provide a home for the homeless? Of course not. Does it provide some dignity to the homeless? Absolutely.

In recognition of their work, Patchett and Marchesi just became the first-ever joint winners of the Australian of the Year Award.

Now they are talking about going global: They intend to introduce the service to Europe next month and the US later in the year, where it will no doubt be sneered at by some as just encouraging dependency.

Doesn't matter. Nic Marchesi and Lucas Pratchett are, without doubt, heroes.

Sources cited in links:
http://www.care2.com/causes/young-aussies-become-heroes-doing-laundry-for-the-homeless.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak7afgLM5fM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-26/brisbane-friends-win-young-australian-of-the-year/7114428

222.7 - The pursuit of profit is the baseline cause of economic injustices

The pursuit of profit is the baseline cause of economic injustices

And yes, that pursuit of profit distorts our economy and our society. The pursuit of profit is the baseline cause of income inequality, it is the baseline cause of poverty, it is the baseline cause of unemployment, it is the baseline cause of homelessness, it is the baseline cause of hunger.

The pursuit of profit does not allow for the common good, it does not allow for the advancement or the benefit of the community as a whole, it does not allow for "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few - or the one." In fact, the  pursuit of profit declares the opposite: not even the needs, but the desires of the one outweigh the needs of all the rest.

Just consider one example: The Wall Street Journal has reported on "a severe shortage of midtier apartments," meaning apartments with a rental cost range "aimed at the working class." This shortage has driven up rents for lower- and middle-income-earners, with a market segment average of $845 a month - a daunting amount for many of today’s part-timers and even many full-timers.

The reason for this is simple: It costs about as much to develop a luxury apartment complex for the rich and well-off as it does for one for low- or moderate-income people. But the rental income on the luxury apartments is, obviously, much higher, with rents nationwide averaging over $1700 a month - more than double those for people futher down the income scale. As a result, since 2002, the supply of cheaper apartments has shrunk by 1.6% - there are fewer less-expensive apartments than there were in 2002 - while the number of luxury units has gone up by 31%. Put all that together with ordinary population growth and you have more people finding fewer apartments with escalating rents which fewer and fewer can afford, to the point where any sort of housing becomes out of reach for them.

Which in turn leads to the estimate contained in the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Annual Homeless Assessment Report for 2014 that there are close to 580,000 people homeless on any given night in the US and the estimate by the Urban League that around 2.3 million Americans are homeless for some period of time at some point during the year.

At the same time, according to Census Bureau’s homeownership survey, in the first quarter of 2015 some 17.3 million housing units in the US were vacant, a figure that does not include those which are vacant only part of the year. That is about 7.5 empty places to live for every person who is homeless at some point in a year and 30 empty spaces for everyone homeless on a given night.

That state of affairs does not exist because of some force of nature or some ineluctable law of physics. It exists because of the drive for profit being placed above the needs of living, breathing human beings.

It is the drive for profit the generates unemployment, unemployment that is actually far higher than the supposed "official" rate. In fact, if you include those who are working part-time only because they can't find full-time work and an estimate of the number of "discouraged workers," those who dropped out of the labor force because they came to despair of ever finding work and so who are not counted in the unemployment numbers, unemployment is estimated at nearly 23%, Depression-era levels.

This is because corporations and their lackeys see employees as a cost, as something to be minimized. We've heard it so many times we can repeat the mantras from memory: "Businesses create jobs." No, they don't. Businesses incur labor costs in the pursuit of profit. That's why, despite the horrendous predictions of massive unemployment if the minimum wage is raised, such predictions have never come true in the past - because businesses do not make a practice of keeping employees they do not need, especially those lowly people at the bottom of the wage scale who obviously are unimportant because if they were important they would be making more money.

A full employment economy is possible; there certainly is enough work to do. Every four years, the American Society of Civil Engineers puts out a report card on the US's infrastructure, something I will say on my own behalf I was talking about before most politicians even knew what the term meant. The Society considered 16 areas of concern, such as dams, bridges, and public parks, under four categories: water and environment, transportation, public facilities, and energy.  Eleven of those 16 areas rated a grade of D, with only one getting as high a B-.

So yes, there is a great deal of work to do, but it's not getting done because there is no profit in it for private corporations and the rich are not willing to pay the taxes needed for the government to be able to afford to do it. The pursuit of profit not only keeps us unemployed and underemployed, it threatens our infrastructure and therefore our health and safety by its indifference.

And it keeps us poor.

Poverty in two states - North Dakota and Colorado - is at or below the level it was at in 2007, before the great recession. In every other state, poverty is above the level it was at in 2007. Between 2007 and 2014, median household income for non-elderly families dropped over 9%. Over essentially that same period, specifically from June 30, 2007 to June 30, 2015, corporate profits after taxes went up 37.5%.

Indeed, the pursuit of profit keeps us so poor that some 1.5 million American families subsist on as little as $2 per person per day, a 70% increase since the 1990s, people who are so far on the fringes, whose lives are so unstable, exposed to so many risks, going from one crisis to the next, that researchers said the stories of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse seemed like the norm rather the exception.

Those 1.5 million families include 3 million children, because as the pursuit of profit keeps us poor, it particularly keeps our children poor.

According to a study by the Urban Institute, 22% of US children, more than 16 million of them, live in households with income below the federal poverty line, a figure which itself is absurdly low: The federal poverty line for a family of four is $24,250, and research shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice that to cover basic expenses. What's more, nearly 40% of American children live in poverty for at least one year of their life before they reach the age of 18. And, it shouldn't be necessary to point out but I will, the figures were far worse for black children than for white children. All those children experience unmet needs, low-quality schools, and unstable circumstances that can damage their chances for success as adults.

That, too, is the result of the pursuit of profit. And what really tops this off is that in all too many cases, it's not even that some enterprise, some project that could provide employment and stability to a struggling family, is not profitable, it's because it's not profitable enough. It's not that the corporations can't make money, it's that they can't make as much as they want. Because the drive for profit, the thirst for profit, even overrules profit.

If we are ever to build a just society, or at least an economically just society, a minimally just society,
- a society in which there are jobs, decent jobs at decent pay for everyone who wants one,
- in which yes, there may still be rich but no one will be poor,
- in which yes, there may still be McMansions but no one will be without a decent place to live,
- in which yes, there may still be those who will indulge in various nips and tucks and facelifts and the rest of the vanities but no one will lack for adequate health care,
- in which yes, there may still be those who can pop off to Paris for the weekend but no one will lack for the means of travel and the opportunity for recreation and the arts,
- in which opportunities for life-long education will be freely available to all,
then we will have to accept that our economy, even our society, is built on a false premise, a premise that says profit is a goal rather than the very most it properly can be allowed to be, which is a means.

Sources cited in links:
http://inthesetimes.com/article/18441/the-1s-houses-are-getting-bigger-and-swankier-while-average-americans-strug
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/grades/
http://www.epi.org/blog/in-virtually-every-state-the-poverty-rate-is-still-higher-than-before-the-recession/
http://www.epi.org/blog/income-stagnation-in-2014-shows-the-economy-is-not-working-for-most-families/
http://ycharts.com/indicators/corporate_profits
http://www.dailycensored.com/39-of-us-children-spend-at-least-one-year-in-poverty-75-of-black-children-demanding-obvious-reforms-and-arrests-or-need-more-pain/
http://www.urban.org/
http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000369-Child-Poverty-and-Adult-Success.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-shocking-reach-of-us-child-poverty/
http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html