CDC Director: Impending Doom for the mostly-vaccinated U.S.

by philg

From state-sponsored media (NPR) yesterday, “CDC Director Fears ‘Impending Doom’ If U.S. Opens Too Quickly”:

In an emotional plea during the White House COVID-19 Response Team briefing on Monday, the CDC chief, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, described a feeling of “impending doom.”

The cause of her concern? A rising number of coronavirus cases in the United States. The most recent seven-day average is just below 60,000 cases per day – a 10% increase compared with the previous week.

Hospitalizations are up, too: about 4,800 admissions per day over the last week, up from an average 4,600 per day in the previous seven-day period. And deaths, which tend to lag cases and hospitalizations, have also begun to rise: increasing nearly 3%, to a seven-day average of about 1,000 per day.

I wonder which states she could be talking about?

“We’re in the life and death race with a virus that is spreading quickly, with cases rising again,” Biden said at the White House on Monday afternoon. “New variants are spreading and sadly some of the reckless behavior we’ve seen on television over the past few weeks means more cases are to come in the weeks ahead.”

Our greatest scientist:

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, agreed. “If we open up completely now, that is premature, given the level of infection” currently seen in the U.S., Fauci said. He added that even as the warm weather gives us the urge “to just cut loose, we’ve just got to hang in there a bit longer.” The likely reason for the uptick in cases, he said, is that states are opening up too quickly.

At first glance, a forecast of impending doom makes sense. However bad things were in the past, they can only get worse. Sweden gave the finger to the coronavirus and now only 99.87 percent of Swedes remain alive (see also Sweden will have a lower death rate in 2020 than it had in 2010). But the virus that killed 0.13 percent of Swedes attacked a population that was initially uninfected and unvaccinated. The doomsayer’s own agency estimates that roughly half of Americans have already had COVID-19. And the NPR article says that most of the Americans who are potentially vulnerable to dying from COVID-19 have already been vaccinated:

Among seniors, 73% have now received at least their first dose. Among all U.S. adults, 36% have received at least one dose. And more than 50 million Americans – nearly one in five adults — are fully vaccinated.

The CDC says that the vaccines are 90 percent effective (new paper). The CDC says that COVID-19 is “involved” in deaths primarily among those 65 and over:

(Biology students should note that #Science says it is “All Sexes” and not “Both Sexes”.)

How do we combine all of the above into “impending doom”? We have immunity from infection + immunity among the older/vulnerable from vaccines + #science saying that vaccines are 90% effective = doom.

Less dramatically, how can all of the above combine to yield the rising hospitalization and death rates described in the article?

Related… the CDC itself says that the vaccines don’t work well enough to exempt the vaccinated from COVID-19 testing on returning to the U.S.:

(Maybe the fear of letting a vaccinated, yet COVID-19-positive, person into a country that has more than 60,000 new “cases” (positive PCR tests) is that the traveler will bring a radical variant to our shores? But if the variant is truly radical, wouldn’t a standard PCR test come back negative anyway?)

And from our science-following leader, “Biden Pushes Mask Mandate as C.D.C. Director Warns of ‘Impending Doom’” (NYT):

President Biden, facing a rise in coronavirus cases around the country, called on Monday for governors and mayors to reinstate mask mandates as the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned of “impending doom” from a potential fourth surge of the pandemic.

Masks worked for the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Slovakia, so they will make all the difference here…

If the forecast of “doom” has you rethinking your migration-via-Cirrus-or-Bonanza… “Psaki: Biden, Harris fly private, don’t need to follow CDC travel suggestions” (New York Post, yesterday):

President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris don’t need to worry about flouting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations against nonessential travel, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday.

The reason: They both fly private.

Psaki made the comments after being asked at her daily press briefing about the commander-in-chief’s recent trips amid continued advisories from the health agency against traveling — even if fully vaccinated.

“I would say that the president travels, as does the vice president, on a private plane. That is the purview of every president and vice president throughout American history,” the press secretary said of Air Force One and Two.

So it is a pretty bad doom, but it likely won’t be bad for those who fly private! (see The social justice of coronashutdowns)

Related:

Full post, including comments

Would limiting charitable deductions raise more than a wealth tax?

by philg

“President Biden not ruling out wealth tax and believes rich aren’t paying enough, White House says” (USA Todaym March 15):

Warren, who campaigned for president on a platform including a wealth tax, introduced an “ultra-millionaire tax” in her legislation. The tax would impose a 2% annual tax on the net worth of households and trusts between $50 million and $1 billion and another 1% surtax on any wealth above $1 billion.

In contrast to income taxes, which are applied to a person’s individual earnings or an entity’s profits, a wealth tax charges an amount from the value of given assets. Progressive economists have long argued for a wealth tax as a means of combating wealth inequality and other ills.

We already have a few wealth taxes, though. One is property tax, which is almost impossible to get out of. The second is capital gains tax, which actually functions as a wealth tax because it isn’t indexed to inflation. Any time someone sells a long-held asset, some of the original value will be taxed away due to the fact that even an asset whose value falls will usually appreciate in nominal terms. The third is estate (inheritance) tax. The super rich generally escape both capital gains and estate taxes by putting money into their pet foundations. Most of Bill Gates’s personal profits from Microsoft will never be taxed, for example, because he puts appreciated Microsoft stock into the Gates Foundation and from there the money can go straight to Africa without the U.S. Treasury getting a rake.

What if Warren Buffett and Bill Gates could still carry out their charitable goals, but had to sell appreciated assets and pay capital gains tax before donating the resulting cash? In California, for example, at least one third of the money would end up in the hands of state and federal government (the other two-thirds can then be sent to Africa!).

Readers: What do you think would raise more money for the U.S. government (now $2 trillion (about 10% of GDP) larger than before and therefore occupying as large a role in our economy as the most lavishly funded European governments (but without providing the free education, free health care, and other good stuff that the European governments provide)), Warren’s wealth tax or eliminating the ability of billionaires to stuff what would have been taxable $billions into foundations?

Once implemented, would President Harris keep the wealth tax at 2-3%? From The Last Castle:

In 1909, President Taft suggested a tax on income. In July 1909, the Sixteenth Amendment passed but four years elapsed before Wyoming became the thirty-sixth state to ratify it. On February 3, 1913, it became law. Its first full year in effect was 1914, the same year of George [Vanderbilt]’s unexpected death.

Later that year, the government levied a 1 percent tax on net personal income in excess of $3,000 annually, and a 6 percent surtax on income that exceeded $500,000.

Note that the $500,000 threshold is equivalent to roughly $13 million in today’s mini-dollars. I.e., if the rates had stayed where they were when proposed, anyone earning under $13 million/year today would pay at most 1 percent income tax and those earning less than $80,000/year would pay nothing.

A fishing boat in Dar es Salaam (2008) that could use some paint, but I’m not sure that the Gates Foundation has delivered…

Related:

  • “MacKenzie Scott Announces $4.2 Billion More in Charitable Giving” (New York Times): “In her short career as one of the world’s leading philanthropists, MacKenzie Scott has made a mark through the enormous scale of her giving and also through its speed, donating nearly $6 billion of her fortune this year alone.” (Also a good example of how much more lucrative it is to have sex with the boss than to continue working as an admin assistant.) Washington State has no income tax, but this would have yielded 23.8 percent (20 percent capital gains; 3.8 percent Obamacare tax) = $1.428 billion for the federal government.
  • “Biden has promised not to raise taxes on people earning less than $400,000. Here’s what he might push for instead” (CNBC): She clarified on Wednesday that the $400,000 threshold applies to families, not individuals. Consequently, individuals who make $200,000 could be affected if they are married to someone who earns that same amount, for example.
Full post, including comments

The Ever Given’s interaction with the Suez Canal

by philg

“The bank effect and the big boat blocking the Suez” (FT, mostly paywalled, but the link might work because I’ve included a Facebook ID) is interesting and reveals some similarities to Queen Elizabeth 2‘s grounding off Cape Cod, in which the ship dug a 9′ hole in the water by traveling at 25 knots. Some excerpts:

The canal has been getting wider and deeper over time…

But it is not so wide/deep that displaced water can be ignored.

Is it time to read Parting the Desert: The Creation of the Suez Canal? (Remember that the Pharaohs who purportedly oppressed the Jews built this first!)

Related:

Full post, including comments

A year of face masks in Slovenia

by philg

Today is the one-year anniversary of the Slovenian government ordering residents to wear face masks. From Wikipedia:

From 29 March, wearing a face mask, even one made at home, or equivalents such as scarves that cover the mouth and nose, is mandatory along with protective gloves; the decree stipulates that masks and gloves need to be worn in indoor public spaces. As of 15 October 2020 face masks or equivalent face coverings are required everywhere in public spaces (including outdoors) for any of the statistical regions designated as “red” (more than 140 confirmed infected per 100k population)

American say-gooders had good things to say about Slovenia. From Vox, May 5, 2020:

It seems like some countries have figured out not only how to flatten their coronavirus curves, but also how to send them plunging downward. From Slovenia to Jordan to Iceland, governments took early action to impose lockdowns, test and trace thousands of people, isolate the sick, encourage social distancing and preventive measures like mask wearing, and communicate honestly with the public. In effect, they followed the prescribed playbook for such a pandemic, and — surprise, surprise — it worked.

(Note that the WHO’s prescribed playbook for a pandemic, prior to 2020, explicitly said “do not wear masks or close borders unless you’re an island”)

Its success mainly stems from an aggressive early lockdown, quarantines of sick people, and generous government spending.

What Slovenia has shown, then, is that aggressive government action and intervention can help keep people from spreading the disease. Even by the government’s own numbers, it could do more testing, but for now, the current measures appear to be working.

How has a year of science-informed “aggressive government action” worked out? Slovenia is #3 on the leaderboard of countries ranked by COVID-19 death rate. Only Belgium and the Czech Republic (masked since March 18, 2020) have had a larger percentage of the population killed by COVID-19.

Our government is impressed enough by these statistics to use our hard-earned tax dollars to buy Facebook ads. From March 16:

The Golf Hotel Mokrice Castle near Brežice:

Related:

  • Slovenian border barrier (folks in Slovenia follow science, but fail to recognize how much wealthier a country can become via low-skill migration)
  • Pipistrel, a world leader in aviation innovation (including electric airplanes), based in Slovenia
  • Melania Trump, the country’s most famous export
Full post, including comments

Freedom, British style

by philg

The national lockdown in the U.K. ends tomorrow, March 29, according to the U.K. government’s general aviation page:

Even after April 12, however, “travel should be minimised as far as possible.”

2020/2021 has been a great time to own an aircraft in the U.S. (it has been tough to find a parking space at our local airport from December through March due to so many people having departed for Florida), but apparently it hasn’t been so great in the U.K.!

Forget flying then. What about folks who might want to take the train over to France through the 31-mile Eurotunnel? “It is illegal to travel abroad for holidays”:

From the same page:

you need a legally permitted reason to leave your home, including to travel abroad.

Your emotional and mental wellbeing is important. Keep in regular contact with the people who usually support you: family, friends and colleagues, especially if you are self-isolating abroad.

Noted!

Related:

  • “Covid-19: Pubs could require vaccine passports – Boris Johnson” (BBC): The idea of asking pub goers to show a vaccine certificate was raised at Wednesday’s House of Commons Liaison Committee hearing, when Conservative William Wragg asked Mr Johnson if vaccine certificates were “compatible with a free society such as ours”. Mr Johnson said the concept “should not be totally alien to us” as doctors already have to have hepatitis B jabs. … Pushed further, Mr Johnson said: “I find myself in this long national conversation thinking very deeply about it” adding that the public “want me as prime minister to take all the action I can to protect them”. (i.e., “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.”) [American version: “Rutgers to require Covid-19 vaccine for students this fall” (CNN): Some experts say it remains a gray area — the US Food and Drug Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for all three of the vaccines now in use in the United States. But that does not mean formal approval. … In its guidance on products that have emergency use authorization, the US Food and Drug Administration says that recipients must be informed that they “have the option to accept or refuse the EUA product and of any consequences of refusing administration of the product.” (not-at-risk 18-year-olds will have the option to refuse the experimental vaccines so long as they’re willing to do without a college education)]
Full post, including comments

Passover 2021: Would Pharaoh have allowed Israelites to travel with a vaccine passport?

by philg

Happy Passover, starting tonight, for readers who are practicing Jewcraft. We celebrate G*d facilitating our travel from Egypt to Israel, which Pharaoh had purportedly obstructed. “Once We Were Slaves, Now We Are Free” is the conventional sentiment to express.

I wonder if Passover 2021 should be modified. Jews in most parts of the world are not, in fact, free to travel. Borders are closed (except to the undocumented coming to the U.S.; read what Obama’s Border Patrol chief has to say) or obstructed via administrative requirements. In many parts of the world, people (including Jews) are not free to leave their apartments, work at their trade, teach children, gather with friends, etc. If they can do any of these things at the moment, that’s by permission of the local rulers and the freedoms can be revoked at any time. (66 governor’s orders so far here in Maskachusetts; see Freedom to travel, Maskachusetts $500/day edition)

For American Jews, “Once We Were Slaves, Now We Are Free” should be replaced during this year’s Seder with “Once We Were Slaves, Now We Are as Free as Our Governor Wants Us To Be”? Jews in Ireland could say “Once We Were Slaves, Now We Are Free to Wait Another Few Months Before Going More Than 5 km From the House” (pubs are still closed too!) Those Jews in the Czech Republic who survived the animosity of some of their neighbors and the Germans can say “Once We Were Slaves, Now We Are Free to Watch TV at Home” (Euronews: “the government is set to limit the free movement of people by not allowing them to travel to other counties”)?

(Note that historical “slavery” in Ancient Egypt may simply have been the requirement to pay 20 percent of one’s income in tax. See Passover thoughts on slavery in Egypt and Passover Tax Day thoughts. So it might be more accurate to say “Once we paid 20 percent tax. Now we pay 90 percent and vote for Elizabeth Warren who promises to raise that to 98 percent.” Note also that the “Egyptians” who purportedly enslaved (or taxed) the Israelites have been mostly replaced by Arabs via conquest and immigration; the “Egyptians” of the Torah survive as today’s Coptics. Note further that the dramatic events of Exodus cannot be confirmed by scholars reading the excellent records that Ancient Egyptians kept. When a Swiss friend asked what she should bring to the (potentially legal depending on how you read the 66 Maskachusetts Governor’s executive orders) Seder we are hosting, I replied “Häagen-Dazs because the academics tell us that the Jews were never in Egypt so we should eat the Bronx-based ice cream that was never in Denmark“.)

Cairo, 1992:

Also, what would be the Facebook fact check if someone in a locked down country were to post “Let My People Go”? How about this: “Science proves that travel restrictions are an effective means of fighting Covid.”

Original post:

When Israel was in Egypt’s land
Let my people go
Oppress’d so hard they could not stand
Let my people go

Refrain:
Go down, Moses
Way down in Egypt’s land
Tell old Pharaoh
Let my people go

Facebook Fact Karens:

Dr. Fauci and the CDC recommend that Americans avoid Passover gatherings and travel.

Related:

Full post, including comments

A year of masks and lockdowns in Slovakia

by philg

“Lessons From Slovakia—Where Leaders Wear Masks: The country’s politicians led by example, helping it flatten its curve.” (Atlantic):

In March, when the severity of the coronavirus pandemic was becoming clear but many of the world’s leading nations had yet to formulate a response to it, one country was springing into action. Within 10 days of identifying its first case, it went into lockdown: Its borders were sealed, schools and restaurants were closed, and face masks were made mandatory in public places, with some of the country’s most visible public figures, including its president and prime minister, sporting them to set an example.

The country in question? Slovakia, the nation with the lowest per-capita death rate in all of Europe, and the one that on Friday recorded its first day of no new cases since March.

When this pandemic ends, and when the reckoning over how the world responded invariably begins, Slovakia will likely be among those highlighted as a success story, whereas the United States—which was supposed to be the country best prepared for such a crisis—will be remembered as among those that suffered the worst. How Slovakia was able to flatten its curve comes down to more than just quick decision making and the widespread adoption of face masks. Perhaps the greatest lesson to be learned from Slovakia is of the value of leading from the front.

Let’s check the scoreboard in the COVID Olympics:

Slovakia has suffered a slightly higher death rate than the U.S. Czech Republic is #1 and they’re mentioned in the same Atlantic article:

That signal from the top in Slovakia helped set the tone for the second factor: the widespread adoption of face masks. Despite often-conflicting advice about the efficacy of masks, Slovakia was among the first countries worldwide (and the second in Europe, after the Czech Republic) to make them mandatory in public spaces. This decision put it at odds with the World Health Organization, which has so far held off on advising people to wear masks in public.

The picture in Slovakia has now changed—but its leaders are still proceeding with caution and leading by example. “Hopefully things will go back to normal,” Čaputová told two park-goers last week, both of whom were wearing face masks. But if they don’t, and if a second wave appears, she added: “We will be better prepared. We will be able to mitigate the impact.”

(see also WHO guidance on pandemics then and now)

Who was to blame for the U.S. being on track (according to #Science) to have a much higher death rate than the science-following Slovakians?

President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence have both refused to wear face masks…

Speaking of Trump, who #DeniedScience by ordering vaccines that the experts said wouldn’t be ready for 2-3 years (although maybe the experts were right, since the vaccines are not actually “approved”? see We love our children so much we will give them an investigational vaccine)… Slovakia is at 15 vaccine shots per 100 people right now (the European average) while the U.S. is at 40.

  • the Swedish MD/PhD who said, in April 2020, that the hyperactive (or “hyperinactive” depending on how you look at it) countries like Slovakia wouldn’t end up with a dramatically different death rate than no-mask, no-lockdown Sweden’s. Chart below.
Full post, including comments

Learn Mayan and other less popular languages as a career path?

by philg

“Oakland clinic offers Mayan interpreter for COVID-19 vaccinations” (Mercury News):

A new COVID-19 vaccination clinic in the Fruitvale neighborhood is offering interpreter services for the Latin Mam or Mayan-speaking community.

This month, La Clinica de La Raza began offering the community-targeted vaccination service at 32 locations across the Bay Area, including ASCEND Elementary School on East 12th Street, where Latinos who speak Mam, K’iche ‘and Q’eqchi’ can get translation help from appointment to inoculation on Thursdays.

The article is illustrated with a photo of a guy who has apparently adapted completely to prevailing American cultural norms (he’s wearing a “WEED; Keep it lit” T-shirt).

Now that the U.S. border is effectively open, especially to those who can credibly claim to be under 18, I wonder if this suggests a good career path for young people: medical interpreter for Mayan and similarly unpopular languages. If folks didn’t learn Spanish when they lived in a predominantly Spanish-speaking nation, why expect them to learn English now that they’re Americans? They’ll be entitled to interpreters whenever they’re taking advantage of public housing, Medicaid, food stamps (SNAP/EBT), etc. At least for some of these jobs, certification is required and therefore immigrants themselves may not be able to perform them (also those immigrants may be undocumented and unable to work a W-2 job at a hospital or clinic).

What do folks think? Is learning an obscure language a good career in what is likely to be a growth industry?

(Also, does “Latinos who speak Mam, K’iche ‘and Q’eqchi’” make sense (leaving aside the issue that it should be “Latinx who speak”)? If a person doesn’t speak any language with Latin or Indo-European roots, is he/she/ze/they “Latino” or “Latinx”?

Full post, including comments

USC pays out $1.1 billion: should universities shut down health clinics?

by philg

I’ve long been an advocate for universities shutting down dormitories. Why take responsibility for what 18-22-year-olds do when they’re not in class? Build shared spaces for students to work together, not spaces for students to sleep together, party, etc. This goes double for the Age of Coronapanic. In addition to purporting to be students’ educators, universities have taken it on themselves to become students’ jailers (see College Today: Exercise by going to your twice-weekly COVID-19 test).

Recently we’ve learned that University of Southern California has lost 20 percent of its endowment as a predictable consequence of running its own health clinic: “USC agrees to $1.1 billion in settlement with hundreds of women alleging abuse by gynecologist” (NBC):

A Los Angeles County Superior Court approved a deal Thursday that would give 710 women who alleged that they were abused by Tyndall an $852 million settlement. That is in addition to a $215 million settlement that was given final approval last year as part of a different federal class action lawsuit.

(That’s $1.55 million to each survivor, equivalent to 33.3 years of median pre-tax earnings of Americans who work full-time and identify as “women”. Since the money will be tax-free and the typical American who identifies as a “woman” does not work full-time year after year (see “Women with elite education opting out of full-time careers” (Vanderbilt) for example), $1.55 million is more than a median American woman would earn via a lifetime of W-2 wages.)

The university administrators haven’t lost their ability to lie. From “U.S.C. Agrees to Pay $1.1 Billion to Patients of Gynecologist Accused of Abuse” (NYT):

In a letter to students and alumni, the president of the university Carol L. Folt said, “These events have been devastating for our entire community.”

Dr. Folt also said the university would fund the settlement over two years through a combination of “litigation reserves, insurance proceeds, deferred capital spending, sale of nonessential assets, and careful management of nonessential expenses.” She added that no philanthropic gifts, endowment funds or tuition would be redirected to pay the costs.

This makes as much sense as saying “I didn’t use our household funds to pay for that case of booze; I used money that I won from a scratch-off lottery ticket.”

Readers: What is the upside for a university or college in running its own clinic? Given that academic administrators are selected for their skill at harvesting tax dollars (tuition subsidies, student loans, research grants), how could anyone ever have expected them to properly supervise something complex such as health care delivery? If the goal is to have convenient primary care available, wouldn’t it make more sense to offer low-cost leases to unaffiliated providers?

Full post, including comments

The haters who said that polygamy would follow same-sex marriage

by philg

Back when same-sex marriage was the subject of referenda (eventually rendered irrelevant by the Supreme Court), the haters said that same-sex marriage was the camel nose under the tent for polygamy. This was an outrageous calumny. See “Polygamy Is Not Next” (TIME, 2015), for example and “No, Polygamy Isn’t the Next Gay Marriage” (Politico, 2015): “Opposing the legalization of plural marriage should not be my burden, because gay marriage and polygamy are opposites, not equivalents.”

From CNN, six years later: “Three dads, a baby and the legal battle to get their names added to a birth certificate”:

This isn’t news, actually, but we’re just hearing about it now…

The judge ruled in their favor before their daughter Piper was born in 2017. Jenkins believes they are the first polyamorous family in California, and possibly the country, to be named as the legal parents of a child.

The journalists want us to know how much better this is than when there are two squabbling opposite-sex parents:

The dads and their children share a bustling house with two Goldendoodles named Otis and Hazel.

“We’ve had zero negative feedback from coworkers and friends. Everyone seems to just be delighted about the arrangement and that’s because they know us,” Jenkins says. “I think some people will look at this and say like, ‘Oh, this is exotic. It’s going to harm the child.’ But people who know us know that we have been taking care of these kids as best as we possibly can.”

That however hopeless things may seem as a young gay man struggling to fit in, the world is changing. And that he’ll someday find more love under one roof than he ever imagined.

(If two dads are good, maybe three are better! See The happiest children in Spain live with two daddies,)

From my inbox, “How Polyamorists and Polygamists Are Challenging Family Norms” (New Yorker): “Campaigns for legal recognition may soon make multiple-partner marriages as unremarkable as same-sex marriages.“

Some excerpts:

The next year, in an online forum, they saw a post from a woman in her early thirties named Julie Halcomb that said, “I’m a single mom, I’ve got a two-year-old daughter, and I’d like to learn more.” Rich wrote, “If you want to know more, ask my wives.” Angela had opposed adding a third wife, but when she got off her first call with Julie she said, “O.K., when is she moving in?” Julie visited, mostly to make sure that the kids would get along, and joined the household permanently a week later.

Their living arrangements attracted other unwelcome attention. Neighbors called the police, and Child Protective Services interviewed the children. Since there was only one marriage certificate, the police couldn’t file bigamy charges. “They said, ‘We don’t like it, but there’s nothing we can do,’ ” Julie recalled. “But we had them at our door constantly. One of the kids would have an accident at school—we’d have them there again. They were constantly trying to find signs of abuse.”

At the family’s largest, Rich had four wives, but when I met him, a couple of years ago, he and Angela were divorcing, and another woman, April, had come and gone. Rich, Brandy, and Julie were living with their kids—six, including Rich’s and Julie’s from earlier relationships—and saw Angela’s two every other weekend.

The Austins would like one day to enjoy the legal benefits that married couples take for granted. Brandy and Julie take heart from the success of the gay-marriage movement. “I’ve got a wedding invitation on the way from a friend who’s transitioning from female to male,” Julie said. “I’ve got classmates that came out almost twenty years ago. They’ve been lucky enough to get married. I wish people would be as accepting with us as we try to be of everyone else.”

We already have functional polygamy in the U.S. An American doesn’t need to settle for the highest-earning partner whom he/she/ze/they can find for a long-term marriage. He/she/ze/they can have sex once with an already-married high-income defendant and earn more via child support (see Hunter Biden’s plaintiff) than by getting married to a mediocre earner and enduring his/her/zer/their presence in the apartment 24/7. Soon we can have de jure polygamy?

Full post, including comments