It’s not that I am any less overjoyed that DOMA got the toss from SCOTUS this week.  It’s a victory for fairness and equality; and for plain common sense.

That it happened this week means  we must celebrate the news while bitterly recognizing that social justice battles are NEVER over; because this was also the week in which that same black robed posse rolled back the clock on civil rights to the shameful days of 1964.

In remarks explaining why it overturned a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the nation’s highest court completely discounted blatant attempts at voter suppression that occurred in the general election as recently as last November.

As far as the Supremes are concerned, racial equality is a done deal.

Finishing the job begun with Citizens United, this decision sets the stage for future U.S. Congresses to be even less representative of “we the people” than they are now.

As if to illustrate the complete disconnect that exists between the supposedly post-racial U.S. that SCOTUS imagines we’ve got going on here, and the simmering stew that actually exists, American media has virtually ignored the knee-capping of  votier rights to focus instead on the etiquette of racially charged semantics.  

They devoted hours of debate to discussing whether or not celebrity chef Paula Deen ought to be run out of town on a rail for her use of the ultimate racial perjorative, not for the bizarre antebellum reference in which the word was used; then they capped off the week by “examining” whether use of the word “cracker” in the Trayvon Martin murder case was somehow an equivalent outrage!

Whether the target is black Americans’ or women’s rights, we are witnessing new assaults on those values that threaten to undo much of the good that was accomplished over decades of struggle.

So, even once marriage equality finally (inevitably) becomes the law of the land, LGBT Americans would be well advised to stay organized and activist.  Someone will (also inevitably) be waiting in the wings to try and take it all away again.  

Well.  All the Gays and Lib-er-als are happy, happy, happy!  Wednesday, The Supremes dumped DOMA and won’t go near California’s Prop 8.  Yes.  After all, they had to do something right after gutting the Voting Rights Act on Tuesday.  It’s like:

“Well, we fucked the Blacks, Hispanics, the Elderly and Disabled, and all those other voters out there on Tuesday, who are the same voters that made us turn around on Wednesday and look like we’re supporting Gay Marriage,” says Scalia to Roberts.

“You’re right, Tony,” says Roberts.  “It made me sick how we had to throw this Gay bone out there, but it will keep all the Lib-er-als so happy, it will be weeks before they catch up with what we did to Article 4 of the Voting Rights Act.  And they probably won’t even care about it.  Cause Gay Marriage is IN.  We’re hip, you and me, Tony.”

“What’s this WE shit, asshole?” says Scalia.  “You and I voted to uphold DOMA.  God, I told Bush you were a dim dim bulb when he appointed you.”

“I know,” says Roberts.  “But listen, Tony, they’ll be celebrating so much, they won’t even know or care which four of us voted in favor of DOMA.  You think Lib-er-als care about Black people?  Hell, Lib-er-als don’t even want Gays moving in next door to their kids, let alone Blacks.”

“Speaking of which,” replies Scalia, “we’ve got to do something about Clarence.  He’s been harassing that new white lesbian aide of mine.  She told me yesterday that Clarence asked her if she noticed any pubic hairs on his briefs.”

“Tut-Tut, Tony,” says Roberts.  “Clarence is our ace in the hole–heh-heh–yeah, ace of spades.  I mean, a Black Supreme Court Justice dissing the Voting Rights Act?  Hell, with a different Black Justice, it could have gone 5-4 the other way.  So, if the Lib-er-als and the Blacks and whoever start getting bitchy, we just point to Clarence and say Black Power Has Spoken.”  

“Bitchy?” says Scalia.  “What is that?  You picking up that Gay lingo now?  I’ve been wondering about you?  I saw you with that Gay Civil Liberties attorney last week.  So what is it, John-Boy?  Are you like Clarence?  Cross-addressing?  Man, this court is getting fucked-up.  Am I the only one here with integrity and real male balls?  Am I the last straight white male Supreme Court Justice?  Let’s see:  Breyer’s a fag.  That’s one.  And now I’m not sure about Kennedy.  That’s two.  And Alito?  Yeah–a fairy.  Close enough.  Three.  Clarence?  Yeah, all that sexual harassment of women.  A big act.  Definitely a closet fag.  Or at least queer-bait.  Four.  And you?  Tell me, John-Boy?  Say it ain’t so.  Cause that would make it 5-4 again as far as…hey, wait a minute…no…Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan are absolute lesbos…Shit!  That would make it 8-1!  Say it ain’t so, John-Boy.”

“It ain’t so, Tony,” answers Roberts.

“Good,” says Scalia.  “This shit keeps up, the Corporate Persons are going to turn Gay too.”

“Hey, Tony?”

“Whaatt?!  I’m fucking thinking.  Of an Opinion.”

“Tony, what if all the Blacks and Spics and Immigrants and the fucked-up old people all turn Gay?” asks Roberts.  “And then these nine states and other counties we let off the hook, along with a shitload of other states, start fucking with these new Gay people’s vote?  Then we’re right back where we started.  Only worse.”

“Hell,” says Scalia.  “We’ll have to address the Constitutionality of Black people and other fucked-up people turning Gay for voting entitlements.  There must be something in the Constitution about CrossGender-Race-Age-SameSex-Marrying-Your-Daughter-Sexual-Citizenship-Literacy, or whatever.  Maybe in that Article where they wrote that the more slaves you had, the more representation you had.  I’ll look it all up.  If it’s there, I’ll find it.  I’m the fucking Constitutional Scholar here.  That fucking old dyke Ginsburg!”

“Okay, Tony,” says Roberts.  “You’re the swellest Constitutionalist I’ve ever known.  Want to go get a drink?”

“Jesus F. Christ!  I don’t need this.  Get your fucking hand off my robe, John-Boy!” yells Scalia.  “That fucking Reagan!  Yeah, definitely a fruitcake.  At least a fairy.  And probably an outright fag!  He did this to me!  And Bush appointed you, John-Boy.  Bush!  Another one.  I’m outta here, John-Boy.  Got to go write an Opinion about whether the Constitution says fags can become President.  Or Supreme Court Justices.  Shit.”

“Can I watch you do it?” asks Roberts.

“Jesus F………….”

So remember, folks.  This ain’t exactly a week that calls for a big CELEBRATION of one people’s civil rights being upheld in exchange for another’s being shit on.  Think about it.

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

More evidence of Wendy Davis's status as folk hero has emerged on Amazon.com, where the shoes she wore to filibuster have started to gather the kind of reviews previously accorded to the Three Wolf Moon t-shirt and the pink Bic pen.

 The shoe is the Mizuno Wave Rider 16 and it's made just for women. Take a look at what some of the satisfied customers are saying:

She's a real hero, so why don't you just go ahead and contribute to her campaign right here? That would be just great. 

Congratulations to all who benefit from this decision. BUT, one big problem that is now made worse is that an entire class of people is even more marginalized. Those who cannot marry because of circumstances other than LGBT issues. An entire class – hidden, marginalized, no one to speak for them, no one to lobby for them, no legal dream team to fight for them. They should not be denied the legal benefits of marriage.

This marginalized class of citizens includes those with medical issues, age, circumstances that make marriage unavailable. Imagine a disabled mother of 6 children widowed or abandoned by a spouse.

A ‘next-of-kin law’ would remedy this. Allow anyone to chose anyone else as their legal next of kin… a brother, sister, friend, neighbor. Get the government out of marriage. Give the legal/financial benefits to all, or to none. (A simple trip to a lawyer will not fix this.) Justice means giving all equal rights. This could happen only if the legal benefits of marriage were open to everyone. They are not.

This decision marginalizes the most disadvantaged among us. Who will speak for them?

UPDATE: Republican abortion vote fails. 

Not what I thought happenetd, but here's the report from Talking Points Memo:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/texas-abortion-bill-fails-after-challenge.php?ref=fpa 

As we saw a couple of years ago in Wisconsin, the Texas Senate President is ramming through a draconian anti-abortion bill by means of bogus parliamentary maneuvers, and the crowd in the gallery is refusing to sit still for it.

 We'll see if the demonstrators will recognize the end of the session or continue to sit in, which in Wisconsin is really what gave rise to the Occupy movement. 

UPDATE: The president has found that a third point of order was well founded. The question was whether the senator's comments were germane to the bill. She was discussing the impact of this new bill on Texas women in the context of other legislation that Texas has already passed that also restricts access to abortion.

 This is a blatantly partisan ruling, and has now been challenged from the floor, to tremenous cheers from the gallery.

My prediction, unfortunately, is that the Republican, anti-woman majority will uphold the chair and end the filibuster. 

You should load this page and start watching right now.

It's a debate in the Texas state senate, and a pro-choice senator, Wendy Davis, is attempting to sustain a filibuster through the scheduled end of their session tonight to block a vicious anti-choice bill. 

A lot of it has to do with the pecularities of the senate rules, which apparently provide that the speaker must stand on her own without leaning on anything, may not take a sip of water, may not leave for a bathroom break, and must confine her comments to what is germane to the bill.

For a parliamentarian this is intrinsically interesting, but what's more important is that here we have an individual state legislator doing everything she can to stand up to the nationwide Republican war on women.

She has hours yet to go and I don't know if she'll make it. She's already had two points of order sustained against her, and if another is sustained they can move to vote to cut off debate, but she appears to be pretty composed  and focussed, and she has allies who are doing what they can to help her.  

Go, Wendy! I admire her for standing up for this.

 “We've traced the call… it's coming from inside the house. Now a squad car's coming over there right now, just get out of that house!”

If I even thought about it, I assumed that security and defense contractors had monitoring systems (like in the movies) to prevent a lower level employee such as Edward Snowden from walking away with the family jewels. But if they do, that system isn’t working – turns out ‘the calls’ are coming from inside a broken system.  

Public revelations by Booz Allen employee Edward Snowden about government phone record and data collection may have the security/surveillance-state industrial complex spooked. Booz Allen and businesses like them may be worried that because the information came from one of their own – from inside – their reputations are tarnished beyond polishing, their potential for leaks beyond the power of self-adhesive pipe wraps to prevent.

And now Sphere of Influence of McLean VA, specializing in “big data” and behavioral analysis, is attempting to capitalize on the crisis and fear. Sphere of Influence is a small company (and likely not the only one) looking to get a new piece of a huge pie and hoping their software catches on in the surveillance market.  

Sphere of Influence says cyber security breaches are a red herring – the real threat is “abnormal behavior”

Chris Kauffman, managing partner and director of R&D at Sphere of Influence: “Fundamentally we are talking about abnormal behavior in and among the workforce. The insider threat is an industrial security problem, and detection needs to focus on behavior, not breaches.” The new software will analyze and detect subtle behavioral anomalies and will alert security contractors to possible threats from a company’s own employees.

The number of people now “guarding” secrets and whose “subtle behavioral anomalies” may now be monitored is huge. As of last fall, almost five million people held government security clearances. More than one third of the 1.4 million people with Top Secret clearances are private contractors. And in true MAD Magazine Spy v. Spy style, most of the background checks are done by private contractors.

Most of the news stories about this issue today will probably be about where Edward Snowden is located, and not about the information he made public. Since there is so little talk of reining in or reforming the laws that allow BoozAllen and similar big data gathering missions, maybe Sphere of Influence’s dream of capitalizing on watching the watchers isn’t too outrageous.  

Sounds like I missed a fun little evening last Friday, when Vermont Republicans gathered at the Rutland Holiday Inn for their spring fundraiser. A “party of nearly 50,” according to VTDigger’s Andrew Stein.

Wow. “Nearly 50”?

Maybe they can hold next year’s event in a phone booth.

Anyway, the assembled non-multitude was treated to a speech by Senator McDreamy himself, ex-Cosmo centerfold Scott Brown, formerly of Massachusetts and currently flirting with a run in the more GOP-friendly provinces of New Hampshire.

Brown’s message? The VTGOP must be unified in order to win. Yep, yep, sure thing. But the big news was the talk of possible 2014 gubernatorial candidates. Brown, sharing the spotlight with Vermont’s own plausibly moderate McDreamy — Lt. Gov Phil Scott — openly talked of a Scott candidacy. Which led Stein to raise the question with Speed Racer himself:

Is Scott interested in running for governor?

“No, not at this point in time,” he said.

Good thing, since there’s no election “at this point in time”.

But if not Scott, then who? Exactly how desperate are Vermont Republicans for a soupcon of electoral credibility?

Sen. Kevin Mullin, R-Rutland, lobbied his peers to persuade [Jim] Douglas to run for election in 2014.

“He oozes honesty and integrity,” Mullin said of Douglas, as he leisurely sipped on a gin and tonic.

Well, he oozes something, that’s for sure. But in my dictionary, honesty and integrity are not things customarily oozed. Slime, yes; honesty, no.  

No surprise that it’s come to this: a faint glimmer of hope that Oozin’ Jim will descend from his mountaintop retreat and restore the VTGOP to its former glory. Mullin’s coin-in-the-fountain was echoed by State Reps. Tom Terenzini and Lawrence Cupoli. After all, the list of plausible contenders is… well…

Other prominent Republican names, like the Snelling Center’s Mark Snelling, swirled around the room as possible candidates come 2014, but nothing was definite.

Mark Snelling? Whoopee.

One more thing from Stein’s writeup: some fascinating lacunae from the very concise list of attendees:

Noticeably absent from the fundraiser were the three Republican candidates who ran for statewide office in 2012 and lost: Wendy Wilton, who ran for treasurer; Vince Illuzzi, who ran for auditor; and Randy Brock, who ran for governor.

(Forget about Jack McMullen, did we, Andrew?)

I’m a little surprised about Wilton. I guess she couldn’t make it to the Rutland Holiday Inn from her home in… er… Rutland.

Not as surprised at Brock’s absence, considering this little gem from Rep. Cupoli:

I don’t see Randy these days. I have not seen Randy at all.

Siberia?

I’ve had occasion, in the past, to disagree with George Plumb of Vermonters for Sustainable Population; but we are pretty much in agreement that the population of Vermont has no need for growth.

Focussing on the news that Vermont’s population has actually declined by 581 individuals between 2011 and 2012, VSP is reminding us that that may, in fact, be a good thing.

“Sustainability” is what defines a healthy population, and VSP recognizes that the metrics of sustainability involve many contributing factors.

Says Plumb:

“We’re writing a study on 11 different indicators, and each indicator will determine the optimal, or sustainable, population size of Vermont.” The indicators… range from a population’s ecological impact, to that population’s degree of democratic representation, to the numbers needed to support a “steady-state economy.”

It’s a pleasure to read that someone else is less concerned about the much ballyhooed “exodus” from Vermont and more about how we can ensure that the human population can be fully supported here without further compromising the state’s fragile natural resources and quality of life.

For years now, like clockwork, UVM Economics instructor Art Woolf has routinely hung crepe in the pages of the Freeps, lamenting that the population of Vermont is “aging.”  

Disregarding the fact that the population of the entire country is also aging, state Republicans have taken up the cry, demanding tax “incentives” to stem the imagined flight of “job creators.”  Even Governor Shumlin seems to have bought into that myth, although recent indications are that those old folks coming in and cluttering up the register have more disposable income than in most other states.

It appears to have occurred to no one in the administration that this aging demographic represents a new market to be addressed with goods, services and quality of life experiences; all of which Vermont might position itself uniquely to deliver.  When that “aging” population is creatively recognized for the nascent market it represents, there will be plenty of jobs attracting young workers who will have families, reinvigorating both the economy and the gene pool at the same time.  Then, the cycle will begin again.

But all that is beside the fact that a sustainable population should be the goal, not a growing one.  

Why is it that we recognize the unsustainable nature of unlimited growth with regard to the body (ie. cancer), but can’t quite grasp the fact that economies and even nations “die” when population growth exceeds the loading capacity of both natural resources and human services?

The sustainable population message is not without its problems, however.  In order for a sustainable population model to allow for the essential revitalizing effect of immigration, some things have got to give.

Opportunities lie in voluntary changes to our consumption patterns in order to spare resources; and in establishing easy access to birth control and full-choice family planning services for everyone.  

Neither option will appeal to everyone, but sooner or later those will be the choices we all have to make.  Mindlessly ramping-up population growth, were it even possible in Vermont, would just force us to make those choices that much sooner.

It’s time to look at our state as “almost full” rather than “almost empty,” and to start making some smart decisions to optimize the situation.

Usually, I get an unbridled kick out of saying “I told you so” when one of my fearless forecasts actually comes to pass. But this time, I have decidedly mixed feelings. Because it means a lot of suffering for our most troubled citizens, not to mention a significant policy error by the Governor and a whole lot of hard work for some talented and dedicated professionals.

Yesterday, the legislature’s Mental Health Oversight Committee received an avalanche of bad news about the creaky, overstretched, jury-rigged system. It shows a real crisis in the short term, and the flaws in Shumlin’s grand plan for the long term.

And yes, it’s exactly what I predicted a year and a half ago, when Shumlin was ramming his plan through the legislature.

To get the full picture, you have to read both VTDigger and the Freeploid; each highlighted different aspects of the dismal tidings.

Digger’s Andrew Stein focuses on the fact that patients in need of urgent psychiatric care are being parked in hospital emergency rooms for days at a time. Last month, the average ER wait time — the average — was more than two days. The longest was almost two weeks. The reason: a shortage of beds for people with severe psychiatric illness.

We lost roughly 50 beds when the Vermont State Hospital closed. The chronic shortage is proof that we either need a central hospital of equivalent size or, at the very least, an equivalent number of beds throughout a decentralized system. Neither will happen under Shumlin’s plan.

After the jump: a flawed partner in Brattleboro, and musical chairs at the DMH.

The Freeploid’s Nancy Remsen (behind the Gannett paywall) opens her story with the potential consequences of Shumlin’s reliance on the Brattleboro Retreat. The feds have threatened to withdraw their funding if the Retreat doesn’t shape up, and the primary trouble spot is its handling of the most seriously ill patients — the ones who would have gone to VSH in the past. Remsen:

Termination of the Retreat’s Medicare and Medicaid contracts would not only challenge the financial viability of the psychiatric hospital, but potentially throw the state’s entire mental health system into crisis if the Retreat had to close.

The Retreat has had a checkered history in financial management and quality of care; the Shumlin administration chose to place even more faith — and a whole lot of Irene recovery money — in the Retreat’s hands. That may prove to be a mistake.

As to whether there are contingency plans, Interim Mental Health Commissioner Frank Reed said, “We are pulling a work group together.”

Let’s pause here and take note of the “Interim” tag on the Commissioner’s title. Frenk Reed is the fourth person to occupy that office during the four-plus years of the Shumlin Administration. And when Paul Dupre takes the job on July 1, he will be the fifth.

Five commissioners. During a time when the system has been in crisis, and needs a firm hand on the tiller. Makes me wonder if Shumlin’s stubbornly-held idea of a decentralized system is unworkable. Or so damnably difficult that Mental Health Commissioners are falling like dominoes.

Shumlin’s much-vaunted reorganization is aimed at providing more outpatient crisis care and more “step-down” recovery services. But this doesn’t really do squat for the very small but persistent number of Vermonters who need one thing, and one thing only: inpatient treatment. Proof: even as the administration begins to open new facilities, ER wait times continue to grow.

The worst part of all this? Key lawmakers are still hoping to build the new system on the cheap. From VTDigger, a quote from Interim Commissioner Reed and the legislative response:

“We still have bed shortages. And until we have the new hospital built with 25 beds, we’re going to continue to have a bed shortage for acute inpatient care.”

… But legislators are considering outfitting the 25-bed Berlin hospital with 16 beds at first.

[Sen. Sally] Fox and [Rep. Anne] Donahue said that they don’t have enough information yet to determine that the state needs the facility to operate at full capacity, and the committee plans to wait until November before making a recommendation to the Legislature as to whether to equip the facility with 16 or 25 beds.

Oh. My. God.

If the current, wretched state of things isn’t enough to convince the Legislature of the need for a full build-out in Berlin, then I don’t know what is. They can’t possibly be looking at what’s best for our most troubled Vermonters; instead, they’re trying to save a few bucks.