I stopped posting last year out of exhaustion from health problems and my job. Since then, I’ve gotten married, quit that job, backpacked through Europe with my husband and now landed back in the United States and your inbox again.
During a 7-week period snaking through Europe, I fell ill twice, so I don’t think I’m cut out for a long-term digital nomad lifestyle. Our trip through walkable communities and exclusively using public transit left me oddly optimistic about returning to the United States.
Behold, the Neuschwanstein Castle in Germany.
It’s strange to me that in the face of skyrocketing food and housing prices, dooming SCOTUS opinions and adding a “wildfires” layer to my weather app to check daily air quality, I once again return to the American dream. I am dreaming of a house to decorate. A food forest and garden. Dinner parties. Thinking about it feels like touching a cloud.
Right now, we’re staying with family and while it’s been lovely, that dream is very far away. The USA stage is a bit of a nightmare.
If you haven’t heard, SCOTUS had a 1-2 punch on Friday. I’m still confused about standing for both cases, and here’s why.
Business owners can choose not to serve gay people if they think it’s against their religion. The plaintiff of this case is a graphic designer who did not ever attempt to offer or create wedding websites before her case. She ~wanted~ to add a note on her website that she would only cater to heterosexual couples due to her religious beliefs but never actually did. No gay couple came to her asking for a website. She made one up, using the address of a straight designer in San Francisco, and the case continued.
As you know, I’m not a lawyer, but usually there has to be a clear and present danger or existing harm to have standing. This person would have to be faced with a real gay couple asking her for a wedding website while having her no-gay-weddings policy out on the internet, and a lawsuit would ensue when she said no and a gay couple could sue her over her website policy. But the anti-gay Alliance Defending Freedom legal organization doesn’t care and neither does the SCOTUS majority.
I wonder about the possible backfires in terms of an already polarized America. If I profess my religion to be anti-hate, could I refuse to serve anti-gay and anti-trans people? The way that ADF explains it, could a soldier or police officer refuse to commit violence on behalf of the state if it is against their religion?
The US Administration can’t use the HEROES Act to forgive federal student loans because Missouri makes billions from processing those loans. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey took the baton from AG-turned-Senator Eric Schmitt on this one. Missouri prevailed because MOHELA is the nation’s largest processor of student loans, and the Attorney General’s Office claimed that forgiving student loans would financially hamper MOHELA. The state governor appoints people on MOHELA’s board, but the AGO did not contact MOHELA or involve the organization in the suit. The AGO had to request MOHELA data via the Sunshine Law, and released emails show that MOHELA would not have been interested as a plaintiff on its own.
If the AGO had responded to a direct MOHELA request instead of joining a coalition of Republican AGs as plaintiffs, this suit would make sense to me. But the AGO continues to springboard its office holders to greater political heights for Missouri Governor Mike Parson’s favorites, and Bailey’s appointment is no different based on his behavior in office so far. And this AG coalition will continue to be a gaggle of bully pulpits.
The AGs claimed the HEROES Act could not be used in a national emergency like COVID to forgive student loans because it would not be fair to taxpayers who paid off their student loans and taxpayers who didn’t go to college because they couldn’t afford it.
I should really look into if these AGs had PPO loans during COVID. I know for a fact that Bailey is a veteran, so he went to college and law school for free. This is an easy Google, but he did tell me himself when I interviewed him (he was still Parson’s general counsel at the time). Some people argue that free education should remain a veteran’s privilege. I find this quite interesting that many Republicans support communist and socialist policies as long as it’s firmly within the bounds of the military. Only people who are property of the United States and live on a base get communism.
Anyway, I’m reading a MOHELA audit to figure out where all the money from servicing federal loans ends up. How is the state using this MOHELA money? I don’t know yet, because this report is really long. It’s certainly not going toward the broken foster care system or mental health facilities. I’m really curious if that money benefits Missourians and if it’s really better than forgiving loans. Here’s the audit report in case you can read faster than me. Let us know in the comments if you find anything. This also might not have the information I need, which means I will make some calls after the 4th of July.
So as Pride Month ends with an L and we approach July 4, I somehow have hope for the future while being sucked back into this country’s reality show.
If you’ve read this entire thing, that’s really cool. I don’t have a job. My Venmo is @Chloe-Murdock. My PayPal is Chloe Murdock under chloeannmurdock@gmail.com. You can also email me job opportunities.