FYI: WordPress is forcing me to work with a new type of editor, so things will look … different … for a while. I’m hoping I’ll improve with a learning curve. Please bear with me — Mike
Thinkwing Radio with Mike Honig (@ThinkwingRadio) is now on Sundays at 1PM and re-runs Wednesday at 11AM (CT) on KPFT 90.1 FM-HD2, Houston’s Community Media. You can also hear the show:
Live online at KPFT.org (from anywhere in the world!)
Please take a moment to choose THINKWING RADIO from the drop-down list when you donate.
For the purposes of this show, I operate on two mottoes:
An educated electorate is a prerequisite for a democracy.
You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Except for timely election info, the extensive list of voting resources will now be at the end.
Welcome to Thinkwing Radio with Mike Honig on KPFT Houston at 90.1-HD2, Galveston 89.5-HD2, and Huntsville at 91.9-HD2. KPFT is Houston’s Community Media. On this show, we discuss local, state, national, and international stories that may have slipped under your radar.
The next election is scheduled for May 3, 2025, with early voting beginning on April 22, 2025. Which is only about 6 weeks from now. The deadline to apply for a mail-in ballot is April 22, which is only about 5 weeks.
Voter registration applications or registration updates must be filled out and RECEIVED by the County or State at least 30 days before the election date, which is before April 3rd, and is only about 3 weeks from now. You have been warned.
You can register or update your voting information at HARRISVOTES DOT COM if you live in Harris County, or at VOTETEXAS DOT GOV for anywhere in Texas
I just learned about this 9-month-old story, but I feel it deserves serious commentary — Conn’s files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy; By Nate Delesline III, Reporter | RETAILDIVE.COM | Published July 24, 2024. TAGS: Retail, Bankruptcy, Conn’s Inc.,
Conn’s Inc. on [July 23rd] filed for Chapter 11in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. The company plans to wind down its business,including shuttering its entire fleet of over 550 stores. Prior to filing for bankruptcy, Conn’s started going-out-of-business sales at about 105 stores under its two banners, Conn’s HomePlus and Badcock Home Furniture & More.
The furniture and home goods retailer reported assets and liabilities each ranging from $1 billion to $10 billion. The company’s top-five creditors are collectively owed more than $57 million. Overall, Conn’s said it has $200 million in obligations to trade and unsecured creditors, and about $530 million in total funded debt obligations.
The company is seeking court approval to complete going-out-of-business sales by Oct. 31. Conn’s is also seeking court permission to reject store leases, per court filings.
… Conn’s CEO Norman Miller said “a convergence of factors contributed” to the decision to file for bankruptcy.
The decision to acquire rival retailer W.S. Badcock late last year is one of them. The move generated costs that added to Conn’s liquidity challenges, Miller said in court documents.
[Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData, said in an email to Retail Dive,] “The acquisition of Badcock last year was arguably a mistake and has cost the company time and capital. Expanding in a very soft market was an error.”
[Saunders said,] “Conn’s is very much a victim of the slowdown in demand for home goods. Because consumers are under financial pressure and because they are not moving home as much as they once did, sales have slumped. The impact of these things has been sharper on Conn’s than for other retailers, partly because it has a lot of consumers on more modest incomes who rely on credit, which is now more expensive to service.”
According to Conn’s, about 61% of purchases were financed through Conn’s in-house credit program during the company’s 2024 fiscal year; 23% were financed through third-party or lease-to-own terms; and about 16% of purchases were made with cash or credit cards.
Conn’s relied on the issuance of debt to support its cash flows for operations and strategic initiatives in recent years. However, due to increasing interest rates, Miller said interest rate expenses increased from about $26 million for the year ended Jan. 31, 2021, to nearly $83 million for the year ended Jan. 31, 2024.
Of the $77 million Conn’s said it spent on 350 leases in fiscal year 2024, over $35 million of that figure was related to underperforming stores. The merger with Badcock also resulted in some redundant store locations, exacerbating what the company termed “location functionality.”
The increase in interest rates and costs of capital, coupled with the prospect of minimal to no relief in the near term, has negatively affected the company’s ability to manage its debt obligations, Miller said.
Conn’s began selling appliances in Texas in 1937. At the time of its bankruptcy filing, the company said it employed about 3,800 people and had 553 corporate and dealer retail stores across 15 states, 22 distribution and service centers and six corporate offices. Badcock was founded in 1904 in Florida. Before its deal with Conn’s, the company had 64 corporate locations and 310 independent dealer-owned stores.
MIKE: Italics in the text version of the story are mine.
MIKE: Regular listeners to this show might recall that I was really upset when SEARS filed for bankruptcy. At that time, I discussed how SEARS was a victim of vulture capitalism and a typically-predatory leveraged buyout.
MIKE: My feelings about the CONN’S bankruptcy are just the reverse. Having just recently learned that they had been going out of business for almost a year, I admit to being happy about it. Their bankruptcy is good for consumers and good for the communities in which the stores did business, and I’ll go into some reasons why.
MIKE: When I worked for CONN’S for a few months in 2008 and 2009, the prices at CONN’S were competitively low, but I quickly concluded that Conn’s’ main business model was not selling products, but rather the very high-interest credit loans they offered.
MIKE: I hated working there. I felt that the company was a predatory lender. CONN’S was a different kind of vulture capitalism in that they preyed on customers of modest means and poor credit.
MIKE: I hated that they trained me to do their predatory credit sales to people who really couldn’t afford it. The credit terms weren’t legally usurious, but they were certainly morally usurious. I often found myself subtly discouraging people from accepting those promotional credit terms, but people were either in dire need (like for a refrigerator), or they simply wouldn’t be helped.
MIKE: I’ll give you an example. When someone came in with a low credit score (which was their main customer demographic), they would be offered terms like 50% down and 36 months to pay the balance at a rate of about 35% per year (as I recall), which of course compounds monthly.
MIKE: That was bad enough, but then the credit predation could go a step further.
MIKE: Let’s say the customer had previously bought and financed an appliance at CONN’S and had been making payments for 18 months. I was trained to offer to wrap the remaining balance into a new loan for 36 months.
MIKE: The idea was to make the total monthly payment lower for the customer, and that’s how we were supposed to pitch it. But what CONN’S was actually doing was a form of debt entrapment, turning the original 36-month loan into a 54-month loan at morally usurious rates while adding a new 36 month loan for the new purchase, which was also at morally usurious rates.
MIKE: If credit was offered to low-score individuals with a substantial downpayment and a line of credit on the balance, this isn’t automatically a bad thing. In fact, it can allow folks to buy things they urgently need with finance plans that no one else offered.
MIKE: Consider that usually, if someone wants to buy an item with a financing offer, it’s typically an all-or-nothing proposition in that you’re approved for credit or you’re not. In this sense, CONN’S was acting as a seller-slash-lender of last resort, and that can benefit a community if done ethically.
MIKE: I never felt it was being done ethically, so my feeling is “good riddance to CONN’S.”
MIKE: I will offer this thought, though: Being a lender of last resort is sometimes valuable for consumers. It not only helps the lender fill a need. It can also provide an opportunity for consumers to improve their credit score by paying the loan faithfully and in full. Unfortunately, the offer usually comes with predatory terms.
MIKE: Maybe this is an area where a non-profit lender-slash-credit advisor could be useful, lending money at lower terms with substantial downpayments. It’s just a thought.
For Mo Jenkins, working in the Texas Capitol is a dichotomy: in one moment, a House representative may be rallying against transgender rights, and in the next the same lawmaker will stop by Jenkins’ office for a friendly chat.
The phenomenon isn’t surprising, Jenkins said, but it can be confusing. As one of only a few openly transgender staffers working in the state Capitol, the duality comes with the work she now does as chief of staff for a freshman lawmaker.
[Jenkins said,] “It’s very ironic in a way, to watch members essentially say that you’re not human and deserve to not have health care and not exist in public, to them then wishing you a happy birthday and clapping you on your back, or coming to your office and eating your gumbo.”
[MIKE: I have to pause here for a moment to comment on this behavior. Mo Jenkins is in an impossible position here. She is almost forced to view this behavior charitably to survive and function effectively in the Capitol, but that shouldn’t excuse it.
[MIKE: Legislators who are trying to pass bills that discriminate against Mo Jenkins, who say hateful things that apply to Mo Jenkins, and that literally try to oppress Mo Jenkins, but who then chat amiably with her and wish her happy birthday … These are horrible human beings. But it’s important to confront the question of what would be better?
[MIKE: Should these people also be hateful to Mo Jenkins’ face? Should Mo Jenkins be visibly angry at them for their hateful statements and legislative behavior? That would be honest, sure. But what would that do to Mo’s ability to function effectively in the Capitol? How would that scenario affect her mental health?
[MIKE: Just thinking about it makes me angry on her behalf. That having been said, I’ll continue with the story …]
[I]n the five years Jenkins has worked in the Capitol, anti-trans legislators have made significant headway in their efforts to both restrict the rights of trans people and make their presence more vocal across state and federal offices. In Texas, lawmakers are making second passes at previous restrictions, like access to bathrooms, and going further than before, like expanding bans on funding for gender transition care.
Even as the spread of legislation that could impact major aspects of her life grows, Jenkins wants to remain a part of the legislative process while she wrestles to work with those whom she says actively disrespect her.
[Jenkins said,] “A thing that I’ve struggled with a lot more, especially as a chief, is how do you find common ground with someone who does not even believe in your existence?”
… [Jenkins began working in the Texas Capitol] with an internship with former state Rep. Abel Herrero, D-Robstown, in 2019.
Since that first internship, Jenkins has served a variety of roles: committee clerk and director, and legislative aide. In several cases, she has been the first trans person to serve in those positions, including her current position as chief of staff for Rep. Lauren Ashley Simmons, D-Houston.
But as Jenkins moved up in the Capitol, far-right lawmakers did, too, gaining significant ground in the Legislature and across the country. …
With the 2025 session well underway, the 26-year-old said she’s never seen the Capitol in such a divisive state. Beyond policy shifting more aggressively against trans people, the tension in the Capitol is now palpable, and Jenkins and other LGBTQ+ staffers are unsure if they are even welcome in certain representatives’ offices.
[Jenkins said,] “It is very ugly, and it’s scary, because you’re walking around this building and you kind of don’t know who your friends are anymore.” …
Brian Harrison, R-Midlothian, filed a bill in the House that would ban state funding from being used for gender-affirming surgery or medication that advocates have said unnecessarily bars trans Texans from receiving care. Harrison said him being called anti-trans because of the bill is unfair, as it stems from financial incentive, not disrespect.
[Harrison said in an interview Thursday with the Tribune,] “I don’t actually view that bill from that perspective. Bills like that, for me, they don’t come with any bearing or judgment on how you feel about those things.”
[Imagine me rolling my eyes and grunting with exasperation. Continuing …]
… [C]hanges have materialized outside the Capitol’s walls, as well. In 2024, the Department of Public Safety began blocking trans Texans from changing the listed gender marker on their driver’s licenses. An executive order issued on President Donald Trump’s first day in office also prevents federal IDs from having the listed gender be changed.
Jenkins has a U.S. passport that lists her as a woman, but her state-issued identification lists her as a man. She says the disparity has been stressful for her, but so far, it’s been without issue. …
Even amid the increasing animosity toward a fundamental part of her identity, Jenkins said she has “only honor and reverence” for the Capitol. Her political career and passion for public service are guided by her own life experiences: her mother died of heart failure in 2012, and Jenkins said she was homeless after living on her own for over a year while in school, before being adopted by her best friend’s family. Jenkins said her identity as a trans woman is just one piece of her life — not even the largest — that shapes her goals in politics.
[Jenkins said,] “I care a lot more about health care. I care a lot more about higher education and access to higher education. I care about homelessness because I used to be homeless when I was a teen. There’s a lot more that I care about or am knowledgeable about.”
But the public sentiment shifting further away from trans people doesn’t just concern Jenkins as a person. It also bleeds into her job. There are little moments that instill hope — a lighthearted conversation or a shared meal with Republican staffers — but there are divides widening, as well, especially among a new, more conservative class of representatives.
[Jenkins said,] “Especially as a lot more conservative representatives have gotten elected, it’s a lot harder to maintain those relationships that I built with their predecessors and those offices. A lot of my focus has had to really hone in on lobbyists and some of those mid-to-senior staff on really trying to let them know, ‘Hey, I’m a person. I’m also a resource.’”
Those with antagonistic views on trans people aren’t the only people who need reminding, Jenkins said. After Herrero announced his retirement and Jenkins was searching for new opportunities, a lawmaker approached her about being their chief of staff solely because Jenkins was trans. Jenkins says that experience was degrading in the face of her wealth of experience.
[Jenkins said,] “It is something that I’ve repeatedly said to Democrats and to Republicans alike: don’t obsess over the fact that I’m trans, or that there are trans people here, but obsess over the fact [that] we do really good work.”
For Simmons, a freshman representative with a background in union organizing but with fewer Capitol inroads, Jenkins’ identity was never a thought in the hiring process. Rather, Jenkins’ experience from years in the Capitol is what guided Simmons to hire her.
[Simmons said,] “It was really about just having somebody who had that institutional knowledge and those relationships, and aligned with the direction that I wanted to take the office and our values in our district.”
… There are two family restrooms in the Capitol Extension, across from each other at the bottom floor. Jenkins, who uses only those gender-neutral bathrooms rather than the women’s restroom, dreaded having to go from Herrero’s fourth-floor office down six floors just to feel safe.
[Jenkins said,] “Every little thing that I do, I’m always thinking, how is it going to be perceived? How would people relay this? How are people going to talk about this? I wish that I could just walk through the world and never have to think about it.”
With Simmons’ office located in the extension, Jenkins is glad a restroom is just one floor away. But the fear of being harassed or accused of improper behavior is a lingering fear for Jenkins, and one she extends to other trans staffers in the Capitol who may choose to use the gendered bathrooms.
A refocus on bathroom use was bolstered in the U.S. Congress, when Rep. Nancy Mace, R-South Carolina, filed a bill that passed seeking a bathroom restriction in the Capitol. Mace said in a November interview with media outlets the ban “absolutely” targeted the House’s first openly trans lawmaker, Rep. Sarah McBride.
Some legislators in Texas are seeking to emulate Mace’s restrictions, as 20 representatives co-authored an amendment to the House rules that would similarly restrict bathroom usage. Harrison, one of the co-authors of the amendment, said he was frustrated Texas couldn’t follow in Congress’ footsteps.
[Harrison said,] “It is outrageous to me that leadership in the Texas government has not managed to do what the leadership in the federal government has, which is require you use the bathroom that comports with your gender.”
But gay and gender nonconforming staff have been in the Capitol long before Jenkins or any would-be bathroom bans, and have worked to help shape the state with or without recognition, Jenkins said. As someone who is outspoken about her trans identity, having others around her is a welcome comfort.
[Jenkins said,] “I think it’s also about finding your tribe and creating small pockets of joy. There are a lot of LGBT staffers — whether they’re out or not. We’re all in the building.” …
For Jenkins, her connection to the Capitol and the Texas Legislature runs deeper than her job. Jenkins’ transitions — from teenager to adult, from student to professional, from privately trans to public — are inseparable from the Capitol that is becoming increasingly hostile to her very existence, she said. Working in a Legislature that has scrutinized her existence has influenced her transition, especially after laws like SB 14 and 15 were passed in 2023.
[Some incidents] make Jenkins and her family worried for her safety at times. Despite the concerns from her family and friends, Jenkins is simply unable to pull herself away from working in the Capitol. To her, working alongside the state’s representatives is the best thing she can do to make life safer for everyone else in Texas. …
With committee assignments in and the House’s 60-day restriction on passing bills soon coming to an end, Jenkins said she’s prepped and ready to dig into the demanding work of the two committees on which Simmons sits. To do the work well, Jenkins is hoping lawmakers can put respect for their peers ahead of their political views.
[Jenkins said,] “Even if you think that my being is an ‘ism’ — like, ‘a transgenderism,’ whatever you think it is — I, as a human being, have been through a lot of different things. So all I’m asking for is respect. At the end of the day, that’s all that I want.”
MIKE: As long as this story is, I struggled to shorten it some. I encourage you to click on the story link I’m providing in the show post and read it at the Texas Tribune.
MIKE: Many years ago, I crystallized my view of the world. Basically, there’s lots of stuff I don’t understand for many different reasons. I haven’t experienced it, or I haven’t been exposed to it, or my inclinations and internal life just can’t identify with it.
MIKE: At some point, I concluded that none of that really mattered from my perspective as long as those people don’t actually harm me. It was enough to accept that certain things about people and about the world simply are what they are and must be dealt with or tolerated. People are different, sometimes in ways that we can’t internalize. That doesn’t mean that we can’t accept them and treat them as people.
MIKE: Some folks are basically unhappy or hostile or aggressive. That’s their nature, and the people around them have to cope or leave them be.
MIKE: Some folks are gay or transgender or intersex, or whatever. That’s their personal lives, and at the end of the day, they’re just people trying to live their lives as peacefully, satisfyingly, and happily as they can, just like the rest of us.
MIKE: There’s a saying that your freedom ends at the tip of my nose. Well, the reverse is equally true. Our freedom ends at the tip of their nose.
MIKE: A fundamental principle I live by is equality under the law. That means that laws that single out and favor or discriminate against a class of people for no good reason are unacceptable.
MIKE: I cannot understand why these laws survive legal challenges. It’s obvious that we need an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, and that it be interpreted broadly.
A Texas state bill could charge transgender people with “gender identity fraud,” making it illegal to identify as trans on official documents and potentially leading to jail time.
The bill, which was filed last week by Republican state Rep. Tom Oliverson, would make it a state jail felony if a person “knowingly makes a false or misleading verbal or written statement” by identifying their sex assigned at birth incorrectly to a governmental entity or to their employer. State jail felonies in Texas are punishable by up to two years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000.
Oliverson did not immediately return a request for comment. So far, the bill has no other co-sponsors, making it unlikely to pass, according to Chron, a sister website of the Houston Chronicle. However, the bill is among the first of its kind nationally, and is an example of how legislation targeting trans people has become more clear in its intent and more extreme in recent years, particularly in Texas.
Last month, Texas state Rep. Brent Money, a Republican, filed a bill that would make it illegal for a health care provider to treat any patient, including adults, with puberty-suppressing medication, hormone therapy or surgeries if the purpose of the treatment is to affirm the patient’s gender identity.
Money’s bill is a replica of a law enacted in 2023 that prohibits such treatments for minors. The text of the new bill shows the word “child” struck out and replaced with “person” to apply to adults. The bill would also prohibit medical institutions from receiving public funds if they provide any such treatments.
Money did not immediately return a request for comment. After filing the bill, he said on X that the measure is intended to expand the law restricting care for minors.
[Money, referring to the medical term for the severe emotional distress caused by the misalignment between one’s gender identity and birth sex, said,] “I want to make it clear that my heart goes out to those struggling with gender dysphoria. These individuals deserve compassion, support, and real solutions to address their pain — not irreversible procedures that leave them scarred for life. This legislation isn’t about judgment; it’s about accountability.”
[MIKE: Actually, at its heart and in his, I’m sure it’s entirely about judgment. But continuing …]
He added that the bill targets doctors and “medical profiteers” who “exploit vulnerable people, pushing costly surgeries and lifetime pharmaceuticals for financial gain rather than offering genuine care.”
Multiple studies have found that access to transition-related care, including surgeries for adults, improves mental health outcomes. Last year, the National Center for Transgender Equality, which is now called Advocates for Trans Equality, released the largest nationwide survey of the trans community, with more than 90,000 respondents, and found that 94% reported that they were at least a little more satisfied with their lives.
Texas has provided a blueprint over the last decade for states that have sought to restrict trans rights, becoming in 2017 one of the first states, alongside North Carolina, to consider a “bathroom bill,” which would’ve barred trans people from using the restrooms that align with their gender identities.
The bill didn’t pass, but the state has enacted other measures targeting trans people. In March 2022, after failing to pass a bill restricting transition-related care for minors, the state’s attorney general issued a legal opinion that resulted in the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services opening child abuse investigations into parents who were suspected of having provided such care to their minor children.
The state went on to pass a transition-related care restriction, and it has also enacted a measure barring trans student athletes from playing on school sports teams that align with their gender identities, among others. Additionally, the state recently announced that an executive order signed by President Donald Trump bars it from allowing trans people to update the gender marker on their Texas birth certificates, state IDs and driver’s licenses.
MIKE: Martin Niemöller famously said: “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” —Martin Niemöller (Copied fromushmm.org)
MIKE: That’s still true and may be increasingly true in the United States under Trumpism, and this is no different. We might update it for this current situation in our country. “First they came for the trans-sexuals, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trans-sexual. Then they came for the homosexuals and lesbians, and I did not speak out—because I was not a homosexual and lesbian. Then they came for the Pro-Gaza activists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Pro-Gaza activist. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” —Michael R. Honig, paraphrasing a famous quote from Martin Niemöller (Copied fromushmm.org)
MIKE: Let me be clear. When a government starts to oppress or single-out one group, they are really suppressing all groups.
39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION. (a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.
(3b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.
(3c) In this section, “sexual harassment” means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person’s exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.
(3d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, except that an offense is a felony of the third degree if the public servant acted with the intent to impair the accuracy of data reported to the Texas Education Agency through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) described by Sections 008 and 48.009, Education Code, under a law requiring that reporting.
MIKE: As a non-lawyer, I think that an enterprising civil rights attorney might actually be able to make a case that when Texas legislators propose laws that inhibit the Constitutional rights and freedoms of any minority — which should include sexual and gender minorities — those legislators are at least attempting to act in the capacity of official oppression, or as official oppressors under Texas law, as I cited above.
MIKE: Additionally, it might be argued that anyone who attempts to enforce such legislation, if passed, is engaging in official oppression under color of law.
MIKE: If there are any lawyers listening to this show, I’d love to hear from you on this matter.
A House Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing ended abruptly Tuesday after Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas) referred to Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.), the first transgender person elected to Congress, as “mister.”
Self, who chairs the subcommittee on Europe, introduced McBride as “the congressman from Delaware” during a hearing on arms control and U.S. assistance to Europe. McBride responded by calling Self “Madam Chair.”
As McBride delivered her remarks, ranking member Bill Keating (D-Mass.) interjected, asking Self to repeat his introduction.
“Mr. Chairman, you are out of order,” Keating said. “Mr. Chairman, have you no decency? I mean, I’ve come to know you a little bit, but this is not decent.”
[Self responded,] “We will continue this hearing.”
[Keating responded,] “You will not continue it with me unless you introduce a duly elected representative the right way.”
Spokespeople for Keating and McBride did not immediately return requests for comment.
Self’s intentional misgendering of McBride is not the first time the first-term lawmaker has faced jabs from her Republican colleagues over her identity. On Feb. 7, ahead of McBride’s first floor speech, Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) introduced McBride as “the gentleman from Delaware.”
McBride brushed off Miller’s introduction. “FWIW, there’s an entire speech after I’m recognized by the acting speaker that’s worth a watch much more than the 15 second video of me being called on,” she wrote on X after a video of the introduction went viral.
Other House GOP members have referred to McBride as “a man” on social media and moved to bar her from women’s restrooms on Capitol grounds. In interviews and social media posts, McBride has called Republicans’ targeting of her and the trans community “an attempt to distract” from issues like the rising cost of living.
[McBride told CBS News’s “Face the Nation” in a November interview,] “I think we are all united that attempts to attack a vulnerable community are not only mean-spirited, but really an attempt to misdirect.”
Still, McBride has signaled a willingness to work with Republicans in Congress. She introduced her first bill, legislation to tackle fraudulent practices in the credit repair industry, with Rep. Young Kim, a California Republican.
MIKE: This is another example of oppression by a self-righteous person to deprecate another person because of their own sense of disapproval. Truly, how Representative Self feels about how Representative McBride lives her life is none of his damn business.
MIKE: Further, as a co-equal branch of government. I don’t believe that any executive orders by Trump are binding on how Congress conducts itself. Congress creates its own rules of decorum, for better or worse.
Whether it’s in the halls of power or out in the streets, Jewish Americans are uniting against the abduction of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil — and demanding the Trump administration stop its free speech crackdown under the guise of fighting antisemitism.
A dozen Jewish organizations — including some pro-Israel groups — called Thursday for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to stop efforts to detain and deport those who are student visa holders or legal permanent residents without due process, according to a letter first obtained by HuffPost.
“In the past, laws and policies that limit the right to free speech have often been wielded against the Jewish community, and we are worried that we are seeing signs that they are being wielded against Muslim, Arab and other minority communities now,” the letter said, particularly expressing concern for Khalil.
[New Jewish Narrative President Hadar Susskind told HuffPost,] “President Trump is dressing up his assault on free speech and due process as if it was about fighting antisemitism. That is a lie. Trump is exploiting very real concerns about rising antisemitism to mask his anti-democratic agenda. As a Jew, I am offended and worried.”
Hundreds of Jewish New Yorkers, including rabbis and activists, demonstrated on Thursday in support of Khalil and in opposition of the Trump administration weaponizing their Jewish identity to further crush free speech. The protesters wore red shirts saying, “Not in Our Name” while staging a sit-in at the Trump Tower’s lobby. About 100 protesters were arrested in the demonstration, according to Jewish Voice for Peace.
Khalil’s abduction is “further proof that we are on the brink of a full takeover by an authoritarian regime,” said Jane Hirschmann, whose grandfather and uncle were kidnapped by the Nazis during the Holocaust.
[She continued,] “As Jews of conscience, we know our history and we know where this leads. This is what fascists do as they cement control. This moment requires all people of conscience to take bold action to resist state violence and repression. Free Mahmoud now.”
“Jewish leaders need to ask themselves if they’re willing to allow our community to be used in this way to dismantle democratic norms,” said Rabbi Jill Jacobs, CEO of T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights. “If the answer is no, their condemnation of this arrest should be loud and swift.”
MIKE: Forgive me as I again read this quote by Martin Niemöller because it applies here as well: “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” —Martin Niemöller (Copied fromushmm.org)
MIKE: I’m pro-Israel, but against Benjamin Netanyahu and his fascistic government, just like I’m pro-American, but against Donald Trump and his fascistic government.
MIKE: I have no affection for the so-called pro-Palestine movement and much of its veiled calls for another Jewish holocaust in Israel, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t see official oppression here when it happens.
MIKE: Unfortunately, this emergence of official oppression against unpopular people or minorities or causes seems to be a constant thread throughout today’s show, and currently throughout today’s America.
MIKE: Twenty-five years ago, I was saying that racism had become as unfashionable as spitting on the sidewalk, but that was then. Extreme Rightwingers — proto-fascists — have taken us back to hateful times that I thought we had mostly gotten past.
MIKE: Over the decades, I’ve often wondered how otherwise patriotic Germans in the 1930s could find the reasons and courage to so actively oppose their Nazi government at great personal risk to themselves. Indeed, many of these anti-Nazi activists were ultimately arrested, tortured, and then executed.
MIKE: I feel that is where we are heading now. American protesters today do not face the dire consequences the anti-Nazi Germans faced. At least not yet. But make no mistake. We are living through an era that falls squarely into the old belief that “it can’t happen here.”
MIKE: It can, and it is, and there are powerful people and forces that are working to accomplish it. It will take a lot of work and, in some cases, personal risk to combat it.
Arlington National Cemetery has scrubbed from its website information and educational materials about the history of black and female service members.
Some of the content unpublished from the site was on veterans who had received the nation’s highest military recognition, the Medal of Honor, according to military news site Task & Purpose.
The content removal is part of a larger effort by President Donald Trump to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices in the military and throughout the federal government.
Approximately 400,000 veterans are buried in the Army-run cemetery, which was established after the US Civil War at the home of the South’s general, Robert E. Lee.
On the cemetery’s website, internal links that directed users to webpages with information about the “Notable Graves” of dozens of black, Hispanic and female veterans were missing on Friday.
The pages contained short biographies about veterans such as Gen Colin L Powell, the first black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which is the highest rank in the military after the president.
They also told the life stories of members of the Tuskegee Airmen, the country’s first black military airmen.
Earlier this year, the Defense Department had to reinstate training materials on the revered airmen after a national outcry over their removal following Trump’s orders on DEI.
Information on Hector Santa Anna, a World War II bomber pilot and career military leader who has been called a hero of the war, has been taken down, as well.
Visitors to the site may also have trouble finding information, as links to major sections have disappeared. It no longer lists pages for African American History, Hispanic American History and Women’s History.
Content still exists on some notable women buried there, including former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and 14 veterans from the unit recently featured in the Oscar-nominated movie The Six Triple Eight, but it is only found from a direct search.
Since re-entering the White House, President Donald Trump has signed multiple executive orders banning DEI within the federal government.
A spokesperson for the cemetery said in a statement it was working to restore links and content and remained “committed to sharing the stories of military service and sacrifice to the nation”, according to the Washington Post.
It added that it wanted to ensure that the content aligned with Trump’s orders and also with instructions from Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth.
Representative Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, condemned the content removal.
[Smith said in an interview with the New York Times,] “The whole thing is deeply concerning. Even if you have concerns about the way DEI was handled in a number of different places, I’ve never seen a problem within the military.”
Trump has made dramatic changes in the military in his second term, including firing the country’s top general, CQ Brown, a black man who had supported diversity in the armed forces.
Secretary Hegseth – a former Fox News host and military veteran – has pledged to root out all diversity initiatives and had accused Gen Brown of being “woke”.
There are [over 2 million] people serving in the US military on active duty or in reserves, with 30% identifying as part of a minority group such as black or Native American, and 18% as Hispanic or Latino, according to the latest Defense Department report. One-fifth of those in the military are women.
MIKE: This is another petty, hateful example of White Male Supremacism in the current US regime. I don’t see how this country can survive another 45 months of this government and survive without being permanently damaged. Our country has already been permanently scarred.
MIKE: Where is the “Law and Order” part of the Republican Party when we actually need them?
While America’s blamer-in-chieffoments a culture of finding fault — blaming Democrats for the LA fires, “DEI” for plane crashes and immigrants for high housing prices — those of us who care about women’s and children’s rights are justly concerned about the future of no-fault divorce.
I feel a cold chill reading about these things. My divorce five years ago was painful, but, because New York state has no-fault divorce laws (the last state to adopt this, phew), at least we didn’t have to codify our private struggles within a punitive framework. As of 2010, every state in the U.S. has instituted no-fault divorce, which does not require proof of wrongdoing.
Much of our economy, from housing prices to childcare availability, is designed around the unit of straight married couples. Of course, an administration devoted to shuttering social services wants to shore up the institution of marriage.
No-fault divorce sets a legal precedent for ending a marriage without sinking into a morass of enmity. It’s a law that makes space, in other words, for divorce without blame.
Once upon a time (when things were “great,” I suppose), couples looking to end their marriage had to pick something on which to blame their divorce from a set list of legally justifiable reasons like adultery, domestic abuse, or criminal behavior. This led to a lot of crafty lying and divorce tourismfor those with resources. And for the less resourced, more vulnerable people, it often meant staying in marriages they didn’t want to be in — including the people who needed most urgently to get away, like women who were actually being abused by their husbands.
For some, this is a matter of life and death. A 2006 study published in the Quarterly Journal of Economicsfound that no-fault divorce “increases the likelihood that a domestic violence relationship ends, and acts to transfer bargaining power toward the abused.” (In fault-based divorce, one of the parties can contest the other’s claims in court, a frightening possibility for a victim of abuse.)
No-fault divorce legislation also correlates with an “8-16 percent decline in female suicide, roughly a 30 percent decline in domestic violence for both men and women, and 10 percent decrease in women murdered by their partners.”
Research has shown “the most dangerous time for women experiencing abuse is when they attempt to escape” — evidence in favor of simplifying and potentially hastening divorce proceedings. But while this is obviously important, part of the ethos behind no-fault divorce is that it shouldn’t have to be a life-or-death matter in order for people to choose divorce.
One of my favorite facts about no-fault divorce is that it was first ushered into law in 1969 by a divorced politician called Ronald Reagan, who as you might recall was in fact a Republican. The California Family Law Actintroduced the grounds of “irreconcilable differences.” Under this precedent, no one’s “fault” had to be established, and couples could avoid the long, expensive, and bitter process of placing the blame on one or the other of them. Reagan said at the time, “I believe it is a step towards removing the acrimony and bitterness between a couple that is harmful not only to their children but also to society as a whole.” He had just been through a bitter “sideshow” of a divorce from his first wife, and knew of what he spoke.
But some are now wonderingif this law will go the way of Roe v. Wade, thanks to Reagan’s own party. Vice President JD Vance’s view of divorce is “that people do it too easily, shifting ‘spouses like they change their underwear,’” the Washington Postreports. Republican and conservative lawmakers are threatening to “eliminate or at least narrow laws that allow couples to divorce without having to prove one person was to blame.” Influential podcasters and right-wing activists (only some of them known abusers!), along with politicians in Texas, Nebraska and Louisiana, have called for the restriction or elimination of no-fault divorce. House Speaker Mike Johnson has said it’s too easy to get divorced (spoken like someone who has never gotten divorced), suggesting that no-fault divorce laws are immoral and somehow responsible for school shootings, another gambit in the party’s bizarre blame game.
As Joanna Grossman, a professor of family law at SMU Dedman School of Law in Texas, told Slate, men “want the women to be stuck with them because marriage is pretty good for men.”
Let’s be real. The Republican party — roiling as it is with divorcees, serial cheaters and convicted sex offenders — can spare us the lectures on the sanctity of marriage. Nor do I buy that adding friction to the divorce process is about what’s best for children. This administration hasn’t shown much interest in protecting children — poised as they are to slash funding for schools, for example. Besides, as the authors of this historical study of the idea that divorce hurts kidsnote, “Most of the problems associated with being a child of divorce are instead related to sexism, racism, homophobia, shoddy recordkeeping, and insufficient government support.”
[MIKE: As a child of divorce myself, I experienced lots of scars and problems related to my parents’ divorce, but I didn’t experience any of those. It makes me go, “Hmmmm …” But continuing …]
The movement against no-fault divorce is about walking back women’s rights and autonomy. Even opponents of no-fault divorce don’t claim that making divorce harder to obtain will lead to happier marriages, or any change in men’s behavior. As Anne Helen Peterson writes, our culture assumes that a miserable marriage is something that the wife — always the wife — can fix through some good old-fashioned grit and hard work. And that it’s inherently worth such grit and hard work.
Not to get too Marxist here, but marriage serves a useful function in capitalist society. Much of our economy, from housing prices to childcare availability, is designed around the unit of straight married couples. Of course an administration devoted to shuttering social services wants to shore up the institution of marriage.
The argument that marriage should be an iron-clad contract, however, elides the actual reasons that couples in the modern age tend to get married. Most of us don’t get married in order to protect extant social structures, or to do our part to strengthen the economy.
Most of us living secular lives in this country marry for love, seeking spouses we feel a romantic and soul-level connection with. I wasn’t traded to my husband for some goods and a goat or two. We didn’t expect it to be an advantageous match for our family’s land holdings. The reason we got married was as squishy as it gets: We loved each other. It’s the emotions, stupid!
And why wouldn’t we have married for love? No one has to prove anything in order to get married, other than their desire to get married. (Not yet, anyway.) To get divorced, why should couples have to prove anything other than their desire to be unmarried? I got married because of a feeling, and I got divorced because of a feeling.
I’m grateful that, while my divorce wasn’t pleasant or easy, at least it didn’t require me to lie. I didn’t have to invent a crime to accuse my spouse or myself of, the way generations of people did before the advent of no-fault divorce. For us, no-fault divorce meant we could go to mediation together, attempt to have adult and caring conversations, and avoid a punishing, drawn-out court drama that would surely have distressed our children, drained our bank accounts, and nudged us into contempt for each other, as setting people on opposite sides of a battle tends to do. We were able to ethically end our marriage and move on to the next stages of our lives without unduly harming each other.
Because you really can want out of a marriage and not hate the other person. In fact, being able to grasp nuance, to hold several ideas in your head at once (i.e., I can’t be married to this person anymore, and also I don’t think he is a criminal or even a bad person), is, if anything, a sign of emotional intelligence, something I think we could all use a little more of.
No-fault divorce allows for a civil proceeding guided by mutual respect, without accusations or undue legal drama. Without hatred. Without blame. No wonder the blameocracy questions its validity.
MIKE: In a time before no-fault divorce, my parents’ divorce was nasty and traumatizing for me at 13. In a time of no-fault divorce in Texas, my divorce took 21 months and cost me $100,000, which was borrowed from my mom. And I didn’t even have to prove fault! And it took me over 10 years to get back to a zero net worth.
MIKE: Anyone — any Republican — who thinks that divorce is too easy hasn’t been through one.
MIKE: Modern Trumpist Republicanism is all about control and creating a world they think they’ll like better. A world they’ll no doubt try to exempt themselves from when it suits them.
The renowned German classical violinist Christian Tetzlaff was blunt in explaining why he and his quartet have cancelled a summer tour of the US.
“There seems to be a quietness or denial about what’s going on,” Tetzlaff said, describing his horror at the authoritarian polices of Donald Trump and the response of US elites to the country’s growing democratic crisis.
[He continued by saying,]“I feel utter anger. I cannot go on with this feeling inside. I cannot just go and play a tour of beautiful concerts.”
Tetzlaff is not alone in acting on his disquiet. A growing international move to boycott the US is spreading from Scandinavia to Canada to the UK and beyond, as consumers turn against US goods.
Most prominent so far has been the rejection by European car buyers of the Teslas produced by Elon Musk, now a prominent figure in Trump’s administration as the head of the [so-called] “department of government efficiency” a special group created by Trump that has contributed to the precipitous declines in Tesla’s share price. About 15% of its value was wiped out on Monday alone.
The fall in Tesla sales in Europe has been well documented, as has a Canadian consumer boycott in response to trade tariffs and Trump’s calls for Canada to become America’s 51st state, but the past week has seen daily reports of cultural and other forms of boycotts and disinvestment.
In Canada, where the American national anthem has been booed during hockey matches with US teams, a slew of apps has emerged with names such as “buy beaver”, “maple scan” and “is this Canadian” to allow shoppers to scan QR barcodes and reject US produce from alcohol to pizza toppings.
Figures released this week suggested the number of Canadians taking road trips to the US – representing the majority of Canadians who normally visit – had dropped by 23% compared with February 2024, according to Statistics Canada.
While Canada and Mexico have been at the frontline of Trump’s trade war, the boycott movement is visible far beyond countries whose economies have been targeted.
In Sweden, more than 70,000 users have joined a Facebook group calling for a boycott of US companies – ironically including Facebook itself – which features alternatives to US consumer products.
[One member of the group wrote,] “I’ll replace as many American goods as I can and if many do so, it will clearly affect the supply in stores,”.
In Denmark, where there has been widespread anger over Trump’s threat to bring the autonomous territory of Greenland under US control, the largest grocery company, the Salling group, has said it will tag European-made goods with a black star to allow consumers to choose them over products made in the US. …
More striking, perhaps, is the decision by companies to cut ties with the US. Norway’s largest oil bunkering operation, the privately owned Haltbakk, recently announced a boycott of its occasional supplying of fuel to US navy ships.
Referring to the fiery meeting in the White House between Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Trump last month, the company posted on Facebook [in part]: “We have today been witnesses to the biggest [s-show] ever presented “live on TV” by the current American president and his vice-president. …”
“As a result, we have decided to [immediately] STOP as fuel provider to American forces in Norway and their ships calling Norwegian ports … We encourage all Norwegians and Europeans to follow our example.”
While boycotts have been a familiar tactic in the past – targeting apartheid South Africa and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories – what is striking is how quickly the second Trump administration has become a target for both consumer anger and ethically minded companies. …
Elisabeth Braw, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, wrote for the Centre for European Policy Analysis this week: “Nobody – nobody – would have thought that western businesses or consumers would use such tools against America.
[Braw said,]“The United States is, after all, the leader of the free world. Or was: its vote with Russia, against Ukraine, at the United Nations last month, combined with Trump’s and Vance’s verbal attack on Zelenskyy, along with Trump’s denunciation of Zelenskyy as a dictator and a refusal to use similar language about the Russian despot, suggests to many that America is no longer an instinctive member of what we term the west.” …
MIKE: There’s much more of this article, and I suggest clicking on the story link in this show post to read it. I’m sorry it’s come to this, but I cannot blame these countries for their anger and resentment toward the new US regime and its policies. I feel the same! I can only hope that their actions will have some political benefit here as part of the resistance against our increasingly fascistic and authoritarian government.
There’s so much more I’d like to discuss, but that’s all we have time for today. You’ve been listening to Thinkwing Radio with Mike Honig from KPFT Houston 90.1-HD2, Galveston 89.5-HD2, and Huntsville 91.9-HD2. We are Houston’s Community Media. I hope you’ve enjoyed the show and found it interesting, and I look forward to sharing this time with you again next week. Y’all take care!
If you are denied your right to vote any place at any timeat any polling place for any reason, ask for (or demand) a provisional ballot rather than lose your vote.
Fill out a declaration at the polls describing a reasonable impediment to obtaining it, and show a copy or original of one of the following supporting forms of ID:
A government document that shows your name and an address, including your voter registration certificate
Current utility bill
Bank statement
Government check
Paycheck
A certified domestic (from a U.S. state or territory) birth certificate or (b) a document confirming birth admissible in a court of law which establishes your identity (which may include a foreign birth document)
Remember! When you donate to KPFT, your dollars pay for:
Transmitter and equipment costs
Programs like Thinkwing Radio, Politics Done Right, and other locally-generated political talk shows
KPFT’s online streaming
Maintaining a wide variety of music programs
Each time you turn on the radio, you can hear your dollars at work!Make your contribution to this station right now. Just call 713 526 5738. That’s 713-526-5738. Or give online at KPFT.org!
FYI: WordPress is forcing me to work with a new type of editor, so things will look … different … for a while. I’m hoping I’ll improve with a learning curve. Please bear with me — Mike
Thinkwing Radio with Mike Honig (@ThinkwingRadio) is now on Sundays at 1PM and re-runs Wednesday at 11AM (CT) on KPFT 90.1 FM-HD2, Houston’s Community Media. You can also hear the show:
Live online at KPFT.org (from anywhere in the world!)
Please take a moment to choose THINKWING RADIO from the drop-down list when you donate.
For the purposes of this show, I operate on two mottoes:
An educated electorate is a prerequisite for a democracy.
You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Except for timely election info, the extensive list of voting resources will now be at the end.
Welcome to Thinkwing Radio with Mike Honig on KPFT Houston at 90.1-HD2, Galveston 89.5-HD2, and Huntsville at 91.9-HD2. KPFT is Houston’s Community Media. On this show, we discuss local, state, national, and international stories that may have slipped under your radar.
The next election is scheduled for May 3, 2025, with early voting beginning on April 22, 2025. Which is only about 6 weeks from now. The deadline to apply for a mail-in ballot is April 22, which is only about 5 weeks.
Voter registration applications or registration updates must be filled out and RECEIVED by the County or State at least 30 days before the election date, which is before April 3rd, and is only about 3 weeks from now. You have been warned.
You can register or update your voting information at HARRISVOTES DOT COM if you live in Harris County, or at VOTETEXAS DOT GOV for anywhere in Texas
I just learned about this 9-month-old story, but I feel it deserves serious commentary — Conn’s files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy; By Nate Delesline III, Reporter | RETAILDIVE.COM | Published July 24, 2024. TAGS: Retail, Bankruptcy, Conn’s Inc.,
Conn’s Inc. on [July 23rd] filed for Chapter 11in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. The company plans to wind down its business,including shuttering its entire fleet of over 550 stores. Prior to filing for bankruptcy, Conn’s started going-out-of-business sales at about 105 stores under its two banners, Conn’s HomePlus and Badcock Home Furniture & More.
The furniture and home goods retailer reported assets and liabilities each ranging from $1 billion to $10 billion. The company’s top-five creditors are collectively owed more than $57 million. Overall, Conn’s said it has $200 million in obligations to trade and unsecured creditors, and about $530 million in total funded debt obligations.
The company is seeking court approval to complete going-out-of-business sales by Oct. 31. Conn’s is also seeking court permission to reject store leases, per court filings.
… Conn’s CEO Norman Miller said “a convergence of factors contributed” to the decision to file for bankruptcy.
The decision to acquire rival retailer W.S. Badcock late last year is one of them. The move generated costs that added to Conn’s liquidity challenges, Miller said in court documents.
[Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData, said in an email to Retail Dive,] “The acquisition of Badcock last year was arguably a mistake and has cost the company time and capital. Expanding in a very soft market was an error.”
[Saunders said,] “Conn’s is very much a victim of the slowdown in demand for home goods. Because consumers are under financial pressure and because they are not moving home as much as they once did, sales have slumped. The impact of these things has been sharper on Conn’s than for other retailers, partly because it has a lot of consumers on more modest incomes who rely on credit, which is now more expensive to service.”
According to Conn’s, about 61% of purchases were financed through Conn’s in-house credit program during the company’s 2024 fiscal year; 23% were financed through third-party or lease-to-own terms; and about 16% of purchases were made with cash or credit cards.
Conn’s relied on the issuance of debt to support its cash flows for operations and strategic initiatives in recent years. However, due to increasing interest rates, Miller said interest rate expenses increased from about $26 million for the year ended Jan. 31, 2021, to nearly $83 million for the year ended Jan. 31, 2024.
Of the $77 million Conn’s said it spent on 350 leases in fiscal year 2024, over $35 million of that figure was related to underperforming stores. The merger with Badcock also resulted in some redundant store locations, exacerbating what the company termed “location functionality.”
The increase in interest rates and costs of capital, coupled with the prospect of minimal to no relief in the near term, has negatively affected the company’s ability to manage its debt obligations, Miller said.
Conn’s began selling appliances in Texas in 1937. At the time of its bankruptcy filing, the company said it employed about 3,800 people and had 553 corporate and dealer retail stores across 15 states, 22 distribution and service centers and six corporate offices. Badcock was founded in 1904 in Florida. Before its deal with Conn’s, the company had 64 corporate locations and 310 independent dealer-owned stores.
MIKE: Italics in the text version of the story are mine.
MIKE: Regular listeners to this show might recall that I was really upset when SEARS filed for bankruptcy. At that time, I discussed how SEARS was a victim of vulture capitalism and a typically-predatory leveraged buyout.
MIKE: My feelings about the CONN’S bankruptcy are just the reverse. Having just recently learned that they had been going out of business for almost a year, I admit to being happy about it. Their bankruptcy is good for consumers and good for the communities in which the stores did business, and I’ll go into some reasons why.
MIKE: When I worked for CONN’S for a few months in 2008 and 2009, the prices at CONN’S were competitively low, but I quickly concluded that Conn’s’ main business model was not selling products, but rather the very high-interest credit loans they offered.
MIKE: I hated working there. I felt that the company was a predatory lender. CONN’S was a different kind of vulture capitalism in that they preyed on customers of modest means and poor credit.
MIKE: I hated that they trained me to do their predatory credit sales to people who really couldn’t afford it. The credit terms weren’t legally usurious, but they were certainly morally usurious. I often found myself subtly discouraging people from accepting those promotional credit terms, but people were either in dire need (like for a refrigerator), or they simply wouldn’t be helped.
MIKE: I’ll give you an example. When someone came in with a low credit score (which was their main customer demographic), they would be offered terms like 50% down and 36 months to pay the balance at a rate of about 35% per year (as I recall), which of course compounds monthly.
MIKE: That was bad enough, but then the credit predation could go a step further.
MIKE: Let’s say the customer had previously bought and financed an appliance at CONN’S and had been making payments for 18 months. I was trained to offer to wrap the remaining balance into a new loan for 36 months.
MIKE: The idea was to make the total monthly payment lower for the customer, and that’s how we were supposed to pitch it. But what CONN’S was actually doing was a form of debt entrapment, turning the original 36-month loan into a 54-month loan at morally usurious rates while adding a new 36 month loan for the new purchase, which was also at morally usurious rates.
MIKE: If credit was offered to low-score individuals with a substantial downpayment and a line of credit on the balance, this isn’t automatically a bad thing. In fact, it can allow folks to buy things they urgently need with finance plans that no one else offered.
MIKE: Consider that usually, if someone wants to buy an item with a financing offer, it’s typically an all-or-nothing proposition in that you’re approved for credit or you’re not. In this sense, CONN’S was acting as a seller-slash-lender of last resort, and that can benefit a community if done ethically.
MIKE: I never felt it was being done ethically, so my feeling is “good riddance to CONN’S.”
MIKE: I will offer this thought, though: Being a lender of last resort is sometimes valuable for consumers. It not only helps the lender fill a need. It can also provide an opportunity for consumers to improve their credit score by paying the loan faithfully and in full. Unfortunately, the offer usually comes with predatory terms.
MIKE: Maybe this is an area where a non-profit lender-slash-credit advisor could be useful, lending money at lower terms with substantial downpayments. It’s just a thought.
For Mo Jenkins, working in the Texas Capitol is a dichotomy: in one moment, a House representative may be rallying against transgender rights, and in the next the same lawmaker will stop by Jenkins’ office for a friendly chat.
The phenomenon isn’t surprising, Jenkins said, but it can be confusing. As one of only a few openly transgender staffers working in the state Capitol, the duality comes with the work she now does as chief of staff for a freshman lawmaker.
[Jenkins said,] “It’s very ironic in a way, to watch members essentially say that you’re not human and deserve to not have health care and not exist in public, to them then wishing you a happy birthday and clapping you on your back, or coming to your office and eating your gumbo.”
[MIKE: I have to pause here for a moment to comment on this behavior. Mo Jenkins is in an impossible position here. She is almost forced to view this behavior charitably to survive and function effectively in the Capitol, but that shouldn’t excuse it.
[MIKE: Legislators who are trying to pass bills that discriminate against Mo Jenkins, who say hateful things that apply to Mo Jenkins, and that literally try to oppress Mo Jenkins, but who then chat amiably with her and wish her happy birthday … These are horrible human beings. But it’s important to confront the question of what would be better?
[MIKE: Should these people also be hateful to Mo Jenkins’ face? Should Mo Jenkins be visibly angry at them for their hateful statements and legislative behavior? That would be honest, sure. But what would that do to Mo’s ability to function effectively in the Capitol? How would that scenario affect her mental health?
[MIKE: Just thinking about it makes me angry on her behalf. That having been said, I’ll continue with the story …]
[I]n the five years Jenkins has worked in the Capitol, anti-trans legislators have made significant headway in their efforts to both restrict the rights of trans people and make their presence more vocal across state and federal offices. In Texas, lawmakers are making second passes at previous restrictions, like access to bathrooms, and going further than before, like expanding bans on funding for gender transition care.
Even as the spread of legislation that could impact major aspects of her life grows, Jenkins wants to remain a part of the legislative process while she wrestles to work with those whom she says actively disrespect her.
[Jenkins said,] “A thing that I’ve struggled with a lot more, especially as a chief, is how do you find common ground with someone who does not even believe in your existence?”
… [Jenkins began working in the Texas Capitol] with an internship with former state Rep. Abel Herrero, D-Robstown, in 2019.
Since that first internship, Jenkins has served a variety of roles: committee clerk and director, and legislative aide. In several cases, she has been the first trans person to serve in those positions, including her current position as chief of staff for Rep. Lauren Ashley Simmons, D-Houston.
But as Jenkins moved up in the Capitol, far-right lawmakers did, too, gaining significant ground in the Legislature and across the country. …
With the 2025 session well underway, the 26-year-old said she’s never seen the Capitol in such a divisive state. Beyond policy shifting more aggressively against trans people, the tension in the Capitol is now palpable, and Jenkins and other LGBTQ+ staffers are unsure if they are even welcome in certain representatives’ offices.
[Jenkins said,] “It is very ugly, and it’s scary, because you’re walking around this building and you kind of don’t know who your friends are anymore.” …
Brian Harrison, R-Midlothian, filed a bill in the House that would ban state funding from being used for gender-affirming surgery or medication that advocates have said unnecessarily bars trans Texans from receiving care. Harrison said him being called anti-trans because of the bill is unfair, as it stems from financial incentive, not disrespect.
[Harrison said in an interview Thursday with the Tribune,] “I don’t actually view that bill from that perspective. Bills like that, for me, they don’t come with any bearing or judgment on how you feel about those things.”
[Imagine me rolling my eyes and grunting with exasperation. Continuing …]
… [C]hanges have materialized outside the Capitol’s walls, as well. In 2024, the Department of Public Safety began blocking trans Texans from changing the listed gender marker on their driver’s licenses. An executive order issued on President Donald Trump’s first day in office also prevents federal IDs from having the listed gender be changed.
Jenkins has a U.S. passport that lists her as a woman, but her state-issued identification lists her as a man. She says the disparity has been stressful for her, but so far, it’s been without issue. …
Even amid the increasing animosity toward a fundamental part of her identity, Jenkins said she has “only honor and reverence” for the Capitol. Her political career and passion for public service are guided by her own life experiences: her mother died of heart failure in 2012, and Jenkins said she was homeless after living on her own for over a year while in school, before being adopted by her best friend’s family. Jenkins said her identity as a trans woman is just one piece of her life — not even the largest — that shapes her goals in politics.
[Jenkins said,] “I care a lot more about health care. I care a lot more about higher education and access to higher education. I care about homelessness because I used to be homeless when I was a teen. There’s a lot more that I care about or am knowledgeable about.”
But the public sentiment shifting further away from trans people doesn’t just concern Jenkins as a person. It also bleeds into her job. There are little moments that instill hope — a lighthearted conversation or a shared meal with Republican staffers — but there are divides widening, as well, especially among a new, more conservative class of representatives.
[Jenkins said,] “Especially as a lot more conservative representatives have gotten elected, it’s a lot harder to maintain those relationships that I built with their predecessors and those offices. A lot of my focus has had to really hone in on lobbyists and some of those mid-to-senior staff on really trying to let them know, ‘Hey, I’m a person. I’m also a resource.’”
Those with antagonistic views on trans people aren’t the only people who need reminding, Jenkins said. After Herrero announced his retirement and Jenkins was searching for new opportunities, a lawmaker approached her about being their chief of staff solely because Jenkins was trans. Jenkins says that experience was degrading in the face of her wealth of experience.
[Jenkins said,] “It is something that I’ve repeatedly said to Democrats and to Republicans alike: don’t obsess over the fact that I’m trans, or that there are trans people here, but obsess over the fact [that] we do really good work.”
For Simmons, a freshman representative with a background in union organizing but with fewer Capitol inroads, Jenkins’ identity was never a thought in the hiring process. Rather, Jenkins’ experience from years in the Capitol is what guided Simmons to hire her.
[Simmons said,] “It was really about just having somebody who had that institutional knowledge and those relationships, and aligned with the direction that I wanted to take the office and our values in our district.”
… There are two family restrooms in the Capitol Extension, across from each other at the bottom floor. Jenkins, who uses only those gender-neutral bathrooms rather than the women’s restroom, dreaded having to go from Herrero’s fourth-floor office down six floors just to feel safe.
[Jenkins said,] “Every little thing that I do, I’m always thinking, how is it going to be perceived? How would people relay this? How are people going to talk about this? I wish that I could just walk through the world and never have to think about it.”
With Simmons’ office located in the extension, Jenkins is glad a restroom is just one floor away. But the fear of being harassed or accused of improper behavior is a lingering fear for Jenkins, and one she extends to other trans staffers in the Capitol who may choose to use the gendered bathrooms.
A refocus on bathroom use was bolstered in the U.S. Congress, when Rep. Nancy Mace, R-South Carolina, filed a bill that passed seeking a bathroom restriction in the Capitol. Mace said in a November interview with media outlets the ban “absolutely” targeted the House’s first openly trans lawmaker, Rep. Sarah McBride.
Some legislators in Texas are seeking to emulate Mace’s restrictions, as 20 representatives co-authored an amendment to the House rules that would similarly restrict bathroom usage. Harrison, one of the co-authors of the amendment, said he was frustrated Texas couldn’t follow in Congress’ footsteps.
[Harrison said,] “It is outrageous to me that leadership in the Texas government has not managed to do what the leadership in the federal government has, which is require you use the bathroom that comports with your gender.”
But gay and gender nonconforming staff have been in the Capitol long before Jenkins or any would-be bathroom bans, and have worked to help shape the state with or without recognition, Jenkins said. As someone who is outspoken about her trans identity, having others around her is a welcome comfort.
[Jenkins said,] “I think it’s also about finding your tribe and creating small pockets of joy. There are a lot of LGBT staffers — whether they’re out or not. We’re all in the building.” …
For Jenkins, her connection to the Capitol and the Texas Legislature runs deeper than her job. Jenkins’ transitions — from teenager to adult, from student to professional, from privately trans to public — are inseparable from the Capitol that is becoming increasingly hostile to her very existence, she said. Working in a Legislature that has scrutinized her existence has influenced her transition, especially after laws like SB 14 and 15 were passed in 2023.
[Some incidents] make Jenkins and her family worried for her safety at times. Despite the concerns from her family and friends, Jenkins is simply unable to pull herself away from working in the Capitol. To her, working alongside the state’s representatives is the best thing she can do to make life safer for everyone else in Texas. …
With committee assignments in and the House’s 60-day restriction on passing bills soon coming to an end, Jenkins said she’s prepped and ready to dig into the demanding work of the two committees on which Simmons sits. To do the work well, Jenkins is hoping lawmakers can put respect for their peers ahead of their political views.
[Jenkins said,] “Even if you think that my being is an ‘ism’ — like, ‘a transgenderism,’ whatever you think it is — I, as a human being, have been through a lot of different things. So all I’m asking for is respect. At the end of the day, that’s all that I want.”
MIKE: As long as this story is, I struggled to shorten it some. I encourage you to click on the story link I’m providing in the show post and read it at the Texas Tribune.
MIKE: Many years ago, I crystallized my view of the world. Basically, there’s lots of stuff I don’t understand for many different reasons. I haven’t experienced it, or I haven’t been exposed to it, or my inclinations and internal life just can’t identify with it.
MIKE: At some point, I concluded that none of that really mattered from my perspective as long as those people don’t actually harm me. It was enough to accept that certain things about people and about the world simply are what they are and must be dealt with or tolerated. People are different, sometimes in ways that we can’t internalize. That doesn’t mean that we can’t accept them and treat them as people.
MIKE: Some folks are basically unhappy or hostile or aggressive. That’s their nature, and the people around them have to cope or leave them be.
MIKE: Some folks are gay or transgender or intersex, or whatever. That’s their personal lives, and at the end of the day, they’re just people trying to live their lives as peacefully, satisfyingly, and happily as they can, just like the rest of us.
MIKE: There’s a saying that your freedom ends at the tip of my nose. Well, the reverse is equally true. Our freedom ends at the tip of their nose.
MIKE: A fundamental principle I live by is equality under the law. That means that laws that single out and favor or discriminate against a class of people for no good reason are unacceptable.
MIKE: I cannot understand why these laws survive legal challenges. It’s obvious that we need an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, and that it be interpreted broadly.
A Texas state bill could charge transgender people with “gender identity fraud,” making it illegal to identify as trans on official documents and potentially leading to jail time.
The bill, which was filed last week by Republican state Rep. Tom Oliverson, would make it a state jail felony if a person “knowingly makes a false or misleading verbal or written statement” by identifying their sex assigned at birth incorrectly to a governmental entity or to their employer. State jail felonies in Texas are punishable by up to two years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000.
Oliverson did not immediately return a request for comment. So far, the bill has no other co-sponsors, making it unlikely to pass, according to Chron, a sister website of the Houston Chronicle. However, the bill is among the first of its kind nationally, and is an example of how legislation targeting trans people has become more clear in its intent and more extreme in recent years, particularly in Texas.
Last month, Texas state Rep. Brent Money, a Republican, filed a bill that would make it illegal for a health care provider to treat any patient, including adults, with puberty-suppressing medication, hormone therapy or surgeries if the purpose of the treatment is to affirm the patient’s gender identity.
Money’s bill is a replica of a law enacted in 2023 that prohibits such treatments for minors. The text of the new bill shows the word “child” struck out and replaced with “person” to apply to adults. The bill would also prohibit medical institutions from receiving public funds if they provide any such treatments.
Money did not immediately return a request for comment. After filing the bill, he said on X that the measure is intended to expand the law restricting care for minors.
[Money, referring to the medical term for the severe emotional distress caused by the misalignment between one’s gender identity and birth sex, said,] “I want to make it clear that my heart goes out to those struggling with gender dysphoria. These individuals deserve compassion, support, and real solutions to address their pain — not irreversible procedures that leave them scarred for life. This legislation isn’t about judgment; it’s about accountability.”
[MIKE: Actually, at its heart and in his, I’m sure it’s entirely about judgment. But continuing …]
He added that the bill targets doctors and “medical profiteers” who “exploit vulnerable people, pushing costly surgeries and lifetime pharmaceuticals for financial gain rather than offering genuine care.”
Multiple studies have found that access to transition-related care, including surgeries for adults, improves mental health outcomes. Last year, the National Center for Transgender Equality, which is now called Advocates for Trans Equality, released the largest nationwide survey of the trans community, with more than 90,000 respondents, and found that 94% reported that they were at least a little more satisfied with their lives.
Texas has provided a blueprint over the last decade for states that have sought to restrict trans rights, becoming in 2017 one of the first states, alongside North Carolina, to consider a “bathroom bill,” which would’ve barred trans people from using the restrooms that align with their gender identities.
The bill didn’t pass, but the state has enacted other measures targeting trans people. In March 2022, after failing to pass a bill restricting transition-related care for minors, the state’s attorney general issued a legal opinion that resulted in the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services opening child abuse investigations into parents who were suspected of having provided such care to their minor children.
The state went on to pass a transition-related care restriction, and it has also enacted a measure barring trans student athletes from playing on school sports teams that align with their gender identities, among others. Additionally, the state recently announced that an executive order signed by President Donald Trump bars it from allowing trans people to update the gender marker on their Texas birth certificates, state IDs and driver’s licenses.
MIKE: Martin Niemöller famously said: “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” —Martin Niemöller (Copied fromushmm.org)
MIKE: That’s still true and may be increasingly true in the United States under Trumpism, and this is no different. We might update it for this current situation in our country. “First they came for the trans-sexuals, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trans-sexual. Then they came for the homosexuals and lesbians, and I did not speak out—because I was not a homosexual and lesbian. Then they came for the Pro-Gaza activists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Pro-Gaza activist. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” —Michael R. Honig, paraphrasing a famous quote from Martin Niemöller (Copied fromushmm.org)
MIKE: Let me be clear. When a government starts to oppress or single-out one group, they are really suppressing all groups.
39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION. (a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.
(3b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.
(3c) In this section, “sexual harassment” means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person’s exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.
(3d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, except that an offense is a felony of the third degree if the public servant acted with the intent to impair the accuracy of data reported to the Texas Education Agency through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) described by Sections 008 and 48.009, Education Code, under a law requiring that reporting.
MIKE: As a non-lawyer, I think that an enterprising civil rights attorney might actually be able to make a case that when Texas legislators propose laws that inhibit the Constitutional rights and freedoms of any minority — which should include sexual and gender minorities — those legislators are at least attempting to act in the capacity of official oppression, or as official oppressors under Texas law, as I cited above.
MIKE: Additionally, it might be argued that anyone who attempts to enforce such legislation, if passed, is engaging in official oppression under color of law.
MIKE: If there are any lawyers listening to this show, I’d love to hear from you on this matter.
A House Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing ended abruptly Tuesday after Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas) referred to Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.), the first transgender person elected to Congress, as “mister.”
Self, who chairs the subcommittee on Europe, introduced McBride as “the congressman from Delaware” during a hearing on arms control and U.S. assistance to Europe. McBride responded by calling Self “Madam Chair.”
As McBride delivered her remarks, ranking member Bill Keating (D-Mass.) interjected, asking Self to repeat his introduction.
“Mr. Chairman, you are out of order,” Keating said. “Mr. Chairman, have you no decency? I mean, I’ve come to know you a little bit, but this is not decent.”
[Self responded,] “We will continue this hearing.”
[Keating responded,] “You will not continue it with me unless you introduce a duly elected representative the right way.”
Spokespeople for Keating and McBride did not immediately return requests for comment.
Self’s intentional misgendering of McBride is not the first time the first-term lawmaker has faced jabs from her Republican colleagues over her identity. On Feb. 7, ahead of McBride’s first floor speech, Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) introduced McBride as “the gentleman from Delaware.”
McBride brushed off Miller’s introduction. “FWIW, there’s an entire speech after I’m recognized by the acting speaker that’s worth a watch much more than the 15 second video of me being called on,” she wrote on X after a video of the introduction went viral.
Other House GOP members have referred to McBride as “a man” on social media and moved to bar her from women’s restrooms on Capitol grounds. In interviews and social media posts, McBride has called Republicans’ targeting of her and the trans community “an attempt to distract” from issues like the rising cost of living.
[McBride told CBS News’s “Face the Nation” in a November interview,] “I think we are all united that attempts to attack a vulnerable community are not only mean-spirited, but really an attempt to misdirect.”
Still, McBride has signaled a willingness to work with Republicans in Congress. She introduced her first bill, legislation to tackle fraudulent practices in the credit repair industry, with Rep. Young Kim, a California Republican.
MIKE: This is another example of oppression by a self-righteous person to deprecate another person because of their own sense of disapproval. Truly, how Representative Self feels about how Representative McBride lives her life is none of his damn business.
MIKE: Further, as a co-equal branch of government. I don’t believe that any executive orders by Trump are binding on how Congress conducts itself. Congress creates its own rules of decorum, for better or worse.
Whether it’s in the halls of power or out in the streets, Jewish Americans are uniting against the abduction of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil — and demanding the Trump administration stop its free speech crackdown under the guise of fighting antisemitism.
A dozen Jewish organizations — including some pro-Israel groups — called Thursday for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to stop efforts to detain and deport those who are student visa holders or legal permanent residents without due process, according to a letter first obtained by HuffPost.
“In the past, laws and policies that limit the right to free speech have often been wielded against the Jewish community, and we are worried that we are seeing signs that they are being wielded against Muslim, Arab and other minority communities now,” the letter said, particularly expressing concern for Khalil.
[New Jewish Narrative President Hadar Susskind told HuffPost,] “President Trump is dressing up his assault on free speech and due process as if it was about fighting antisemitism. That is a lie. Trump is exploiting very real concerns about rising antisemitism to mask his anti-democratic agenda. As a Jew, I am offended and worried.”
Hundreds of Jewish New Yorkers, including rabbis and activists, demonstrated on Thursday in support of Khalil and in opposition of the Trump administration weaponizing their Jewish identity to further crush free speech. The protesters wore red shirts saying, “Not in Our Name” while staging a sit-in at the Trump Tower’s lobby. About 100 protesters were arrested in the demonstration, according to Jewish Voice for Peace.
Khalil’s abduction is “further proof that we are on the brink of a full takeover by an authoritarian regime,” said Jane Hirschmann, whose grandfather and uncle were kidnapped by the Nazis during the Holocaust.
[She continued,] “As Jews of conscience, we know our history and we know where this leads. This is what fascists do as they cement control. This moment requires all people of conscience to take bold action to resist state violence and repression. Free Mahmoud now.”
“Jewish leaders need to ask themselves if they’re willing to allow our community to be used in this way to dismantle democratic norms,” said Rabbi Jill Jacobs, CEO of T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights. “If the answer is no, their condemnation of this arrest should be loud and swift.”
MIKE: Forgive me as I again read this quote by Martin Niemöller because it applies here as well: “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” —Martin Niemöller (Copied fromushmm.org)
MIKE: I’m pro-Israel, but against Benjamin Netanyahu and his fascistic government, just like I’m pro-American, but against Donald Trump and his fascistic government.
MIKE: I have no affection for the so-called pro-Palestine movement and much of its veiled calls for another Jewish holocaust in Israel, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t see official oppression here when it happens.
MIKE: Unfortunately, this emergence of official oppression against unpopular people or minorities or causes seems to be a constant thread throughout today’s show, and currently throughout today’s America.
MIKE: Twenty-five years ago, I was saying that racism had become as unfashionable as spitting on the sidewalk, but that was then. Extreme Rightwingers — proto-fascists — have taken us back to hateful times that I thought we had mostly gotten past.
MIKE: Over the decades, I’ve often wondered how otherwise patriotic Germans in the 1930s could find the reasons and courage to so actively oppose their Nazi government at great personal risk to themselves. Indeed, many of these anti-Nazi activists were ultimately arrested, tortured, and then executed.
MIKE: I feel that is where we are heading now. American protesters today do not face the dire consequences the anti-Nazi Germans faced. At least not yet. But make no mistake. We are living through an era that falls squarely into the old belief that “it can’t happen here.”
MIKE: It can, and it is, and there are powerful people and forces that are working to accomplish it. It will take a lot of work and, in some cases, personal risk to combat it.
Arlington National Cemetery has scrubbed from its website information and educational materials about the history of black and female service members.
Some of the content unpublished from the site was on veterans who had received the nation’s highest military recognition, the Medal of Honor, according to military news site Task & Purpose.
The content removal is part of a larger effort by President Donald Trump to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices in the military and throughout the federal government.
Approximately 400,000 veterans are buried in the Army-run cemetery, which was established after the US Civil War at the home of the South’s general, Robert E. Lee.
On the cemetery’s website, internal links that directed users to webpages with information about the “Notable Graves” of dozens of black, Hispanic and female veterans were missing on Friday.
The pages contained short biographies about veterans such as Gen Colin L Powell, the first black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which is the highest rank in the military after the president.
They also told the life stories of members of the Tuskegee Airmen, the country’s first black military airmen.
Earlier this year, the Defense Department had to reinstate training materials on the revered airmen after a national outcry over their removal following Trump’s orders on DEI.
Information on Hector Santa Anna, a World War II bomber pilot and career military leader who has been called a hero of the war, has been taken down, as well.
Visitors to the site may also have trouble finding information, as links to major sections have disappeared. It no longer lists pages for African American History, Hispanic American History and Women’s History.
Content still exists on some notable women buried there, including former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and 14 veterans from the unit recently featured in the Oscar-nominated movie The Six Triple Eight, but it is only found from a direct search.
Since re-entering the White House, President Donald Trump has signed multiple executive orders banning DEI within the federal government.
A spokesperson for the cemetery said in a statement it was working to restore links and content and remained “committed to sharing the stories of military service and sacrifice to the nation”, according to the Washington Post.
It added that it wanted to ensure that the content aligned with Trump’s orders and also with instructions from Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth.
Representative Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, condemned the content removal.
[Smith said in an interview with the New York Times,] “The whole thing is deeply concerning. Even if you have concerns about the way DEI was handled in a number of different places, I’ve never seen a problem within the military.”
Trump has made dramatic changes in the military in his second term, including firing the country’s top general, CQ Brown, a black man who had supported diversity in the armed forces.
Secretary Hegseth – a former Fox News host and military veteran – has pledged to root out all diversity initiatives and had accused Gen Brown of being “woke”.
There are [over 2 million] people serving in the US military on active duty or in reserves, with 30% identifying as part of a minority group such as black or Native American, and 18% as Hispanic or Latino, according to the latest Defense Department report. One-fifth of those in the military are women.
MIKE: This is another petty, hateful example of White Male Supremacism in the current US regime. I don’t see how this country can survive another 45 months of this government and survive without being permanently damaged. Our country has already been permanently scarred.
MIKE: Where is the “Law and Order” part of the Republican Party when we actually need them?
While America’s blamer-in-chieffoments a culture of finding fault — blaming Democrats for the LA fires, “DEI” for plane crashes and immigrants for high housing prices — those of us who care about women’s and children’s rights are justly concerned about the future of no-fault divorce.
I feel a cold chill reading about these things. My divorce five years ago was painful, but, because New York state has no-fault divorce laws (the last state to adopt this, phew), at least we didn’t have to codify our private struggles within a punitive framework. As of 2010, every state in the U.S. has instituted no-fault divorce, which does not require proof of wrongdoing.
Much of our economy, from housing prices to childcare availability, is designed around the unit of straight married couples. Of course, an administration devoted to shuttering social services wants to shore up the institution of marriage.
No-fault divorce sets a legal precedent for ending a marriage without sinking into a morass of enmity. It’s a law that makes space, in other words, for divorce without blame.
Once upon a time (when things were “great,” I suppose), couples looking to end their marriage had to pick something on which to blame their divorce from a set list of legally justifiable reasons like adultery, domestic abuse, or criminal behavior. This led to a lot of crafty lying and divorce tourismfor those with resources. And for the less resourced, more vulnerable people, it often meant staying in marriages they didn’t want to be in — including the people who needed most urgently to get away, like women who were actually being abused by their husbands.
For some, this is a matter of life and death. A 2006 study published in the Quarterly Journal of Economicsfound that no-fault divorce “increases the likelihood that a domestic violence relationship ends, and acts to transfer bargaining power toward the abused.” (In fault-based divorce, one of the parties can contest the other’s claims in court, a frightening possibility for a victim of abuse.)
No-fault divorce legislation also correlates with an “8-16 percent decline in female suicide, roughly a 30 percent decline in domestic violence for both men and women, and 10 percent decrease in women murdered by their partners.”
Research has shown “the most dangerous time for women experiencing abuse is when they attempt to escape” — evidence in favor of simplifying and potentially hastening divorce proceedings. But while this is obviously important, part of the ethos behind no-fault divorce is that it shouldn’t have to be a life-or-death matter in order for people to choose divorce.
One of my favorite facts about no-fault divorce is that it was first ushered into law in 1969 by a divorced politician called Ronald Reagan, who as you might recall was in fact a Republican. The California Family Law Actintroduced the grounds of “irreconcilable differences.” Under this precedent, no one’s “fault” had to be established, and couples could avoid the long, expensive, and bitter process of placing the blame on one or the other of them. Reagan said at the time, “I believe it is a step towards removing the acrimony and bitterness between a couple that is harmful not only to their children but also to society as a whole.” He had just been through a bitter “sideshow” of a divorce from his first wife, and knew of what he spoke.
But some are now wonderingif this law will go the way of Roe v. Wade, thanks to Reagan’s own party. Vice President JD Vance’s view of divorce is “that people do it too easily, shifting ‘spouses like they change their underwear,’” the Washington Postreports. Republican and conservative lawmakers are threatening to “eliminate or at least narrow laws that allow couples to divorce without having to prove one person was to blame.” Influential podcasters and right-wing activists (only some of them known abusers!), along with politicians in Texas, Nebraska and Louisiana, have called for the restriction or elimination of no-fault divorce. House Speaker Mike Johnson has said it’s too easy to get divorced (spoken like someone who has never gotten divorced), suggesting that no-fault divorce laws are immoral and somehow responsible for school shootings, another gambit in the party’s bizarre blame game.
As Joanna Grossman, a professor of family law at SMU Dedman School of Law in Texas, told Slate, men “want the women to be stuck with them because marriage is pretty good for men.”
Let’s be real. The Republican party — roiling as it is with divorcees, serial cheaters and convicted sex offenders — can spare us the lectures on the sanctity of marriage. Nor do I buy that adding friction to the divorce process is about what’s best for children. This administration hasn’t shown much interest in protecting children — poised as they are to slash funding for schools, for example. Besides, as the authors of this historical study of the idea that divorce hurts kidsnote, “Most of the problems associated with being a child of divorce are instead related to sexism, racism, homophobia, shoddy recordkeeping, and insufficient government support.”
[MIKE: As a child of divorce myself, I experienced lots of scars and problems related to my parents’ divorce, but I didn’t experience any of those. It makes me go, “Hmmmm …” But continuing …]
The movement against no-fault divorce is about walking back women’s rights and autonomy. Even opponents of no-fault divorce don’t claim that making divorce harder to obtain will lead to happier marriages, or any change in men’s behavior. As Anne Helen Peterson writes, our culture assumes that a miserable marriage is something that the wife — always the wife — can fix through some good old-fashioned grit and hard work. And that it’s inherently worth such grit and hard work.
Not to get too Marxist here, but marriage serves a useful function in capitalist society. Much of our economy, from housing prices to childcare availability, is designed around the unit of straight married couples. Of course an administration devoted to shuttering social services wants to shore up the institution of marriage.
The argument that marriage should be an iron-clad contract, however, elides the actual reasons that couples in the modern age tend to get married. Most of us don’t get married in order to protect extant social structures, or to do our part to strengthen the economy.
Most of us living secular lives in this country marry for love, seeking spouses we feel a romantic and soul-level connection with. I wasn’t traded to my husband for some goods and a goat or two. We didn’t expect it to be an advantageous match for our family’s land holdings. The reason we got married was as squishy as it gets: We loved each other. It’s the emotions, stupid!
And why wouldn’t we have married for love? No one has to prove anything in order to get married, other than their desire to get married. (Not yet, anyway.) To get divorced, why should couples have to prove anything other than their desire to be unmarried? I got married because of a feeling, and I got divorced because of a feeling.
I’m grateful that, while my divorce wasn’t pleasant or easy, at least it didn’t require me to lie. I didn’t have to invent a crime to accuse my spouse or myself of, the way generations of people did before the advent of no-fault divorce. For us, no-fault divorce meant we could go to mediation together, attempt to have adult and caring conversations, and avoid a punishing, drawn-out court drama that would surely have distressed our children, drained our bank accounts, and nudged us into contempt for each other, as setting people on opposite sides of a battle tends to do. We were able to ethically end our marriage and move on to the next stages of our lives without unduly harming each other.
Because you really can want out of a marriage and not hate the other person. In fact, being able to grasp nuance, to hold several ideas in your head at once (i.e., I can’t be married to this person anymore, and also I don’t think he is a criminal or even a bad person), is, if anything, a sign of emotional intelligence, something I think we could all use a little more of.
No-fault divorce allows for a civil proceeding guided by mutual respect, without accusations or undue legal drama. Without hatred. Without blame. No wonder the blameocracy questions its validity.
MIKE: In a time before no-fault divorce, my parents’ divorce was nasty and traumatizing for me at 13. In a time of no-fault divorce in Texas, my divorce took 21 months and cost me $100,000, which was borrowed from my mom. And I didn’t even have to prove fault! And it took me over 10 years to get back to a zero net worth.
MIKE: Anyone — any Republican — who thinks that divorce is too easy hasn’t been through one.
MIKE: Modern Trumpist Republicanism is all about control and creating a world they think they’ll like better. A world they’ll no doubt try to exempt themselves from when it suits them.
The renowned German classical violinist Christian Tetzlaff was blunt in explaining why he and his quartet have cancelled a summer tour of the US.
“There seems to be a quietness or denial about what’s going on,” Tetzlaff said, describing his horror at the authoritarian polices of Donald Trump and the response of US elites to the country’s growing democratic crisis.
[He continued by saying,]“I feel utter anger. I cannot go on with this feeling inside. I cannot just go and play a tour of beautiful concerts.”
Tetzlaff is not alone in acting on his disquiet. A growing international move to boycott the US is spreading from Scandinavia to Canada to the UK and beyond, as consumers turn against US goods.
Most prominent so far has been the rejection by European car buyers of the Teslas produced by Elon Musk, now a prominent figure in Trump’s administration as the head of the [so-called] “department of government efficiency” a special group created by Trump that has contributed to the precipitous declines in Tesla’s share price. About 15% of its value was wiped out on Monday alone.
The fall in Tesla sales in Europe has been well documented, as has a Canadian consumer boycott in response to trade tariffs and Trump’s calls for Canada to become America’s 51st state, but the past week has seen daily reports of cultural and other forms of boycotts and disinvestment.
In Canada, where the American national anthem has been booed during hockey matches with US teams, a slew of apps has emerged with names such as “buy beaver”, “maple scan” and “is this Canadian” to allow shoppers to scan QR barcodes and reject US produce from alcohol to pizza toppings.
Figures released this week suggested the number of Canadians taking road trips to the US – representing the majority of Canadians who normally visit – had dropped by 23% compared with February 2024, according to Statistics Canada.
While Canada and Mexico have been at the frontline of Trump’s trade war, the boycott movement is visible far beyond countries whose economies have been targeted.
In Sweden, more than 70,000 users have joined a Facebook group calling for a boycott of US companies – ironically including Facebook itself – which features alternatives to US consumer products.
[One member of the group wrote,] “I’ll replace as many American goods as I can and if many do so, it will clearly affect the supply in stores,”.
In Denmark, where there has been widespread anger over Trump’s threat to bring the autonomous territory of Greenland under US control, the largest grocery company, the Salling group, has said it will tag European-made goods with a black star to allow consumers to choose them over products made in the US. …
More striking, perhaps, is the decision by companies to cut ties with the US. Norway’s largest oil bunkering operation, the privately owned Haltbakk, recently announced a boycott of its occasional supplying of fuel to US navy ships.
Referring to the fiery meeting in the White House between Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Trump last month, the company posted on Facebook [in part]: “We have today been witnesses to the biggest [s-show] ever presented “live on TV” by the current American president and his vice-president. …”
“As a result, we have decided to [immediately] STOP as fuel provider to American forces in Norway and their ships calling Norwegian ports … We encourage all Norwegians and Europeans to follow our example.”
While boycotts have been a familiar tactic in the past – targeting apartheid South Africa and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories – what is striking is how quickly the second Trump administration has become a target for both consumer anger and ethically minded companies. …
Elisabeth Braw, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, wrote for the Centre for European Policy Analysis this week: “Nobody – nobody – would have thought that western businesses or consumers would use such tools against America.
[Braw said,]“The United States is, after all, the leader of the free world. Or was: its vote with Russia, against Ukraine, at the United Nations last month, combined with Trump’s and Vance’s verbal attack on Zelenskyy, along with Trump’s denunciation of Zelenskyy as a dictator and a refusal to use similar language about the Russian despot, suggests to many that America is no longer an instinctive member of what we term the west.” …
MIKE: There’s much more of this article, and I suggest clicking on the story link in this show post to read it. I’m sorry it’s come to this, but I cannot blame these countries for their anger and resentment toward the new US regime and its policies. I feel the same! I can only hope that their actions will have some political benefit here as part of the resistance against our increasingly fascistic and authoritarian government.
There’s so much more I’d like to discuss, but that’s all we have time for today. You’ve been listening to Thinkwing Radio with Mike Honig from KPFT Houston 90.1-HD2, Galveston 89.5-HD2, and Huntsville 91.9-HD2. We are Houston’s Community Media. I hope you’ve enjoyed the show and found it interesting, and I look forward to sharing this time with you again next week. Y’all take care!
If you are denied your right to vote any place at any timeat any polling place for any reason, ask for (or demand) a provisional ballot rather than lose your vote.
Fill out a declaration at the polls describing a reasonable impediment to obtaining it, and show a copy or original of one of the following supporting forms of ID:
A government document that shows your name and an address, including your voter registration certificate
Current utility bill
Bank statement
Government check
Paycheck
A certified domestic (from a U.S. state or territory) birth certificate or (b) a document confirming birth admissible in a court of law which establishes your identity (which may include a foreign birth document)
Remember! When you donate to KPFT, your dollars pay for:
Transmitter and equipment costs
Programs like Thinkwing Radio, Politics Done Right, and other locally-generated political talk shows
KPFT’s online streaming
Maintaining a wide variety of music programs
Each time you turn on the radio, you can hear your dollars at work!Make your contribution to this station right now. Just call 713 526 5738. That’s 713-526-5738. Or give online at KPFT.org!
