• The Field Negro surveys the pros and cons of potential running mates for Donald Trump.
• “We want to keep our homes.” The residents of the Flamingo Mobile-home Park in Santa Barbara, California, own those 69 homes, but they do not own the land beneath them, which is now up for sale. These seniors will lose their homes, and their savings, and their neighbors, when the property is likely sold to a developer planning upscale condos.
The alternative looks like this: “Residents purchase mobile community in Belmont.” That’s in New Hampshire, home state of ROC-USA, which is the leading group promoting resident-owned communities — helping manufactured-home owners to purchase the land beneath their homes. That let’s them stay put, removes the constant fear of dislocation, and allows their homes to build equity instead of depreciating.
Every governor in America should be talking to the folks at ROC-USA about how to make this work in the other 49 states too.
• White evangelicals for (medical) marijuana. Fascinating. They have some good theological arguments, mixed with a bunch of sketchy-and-sloppy evangelical prooftexting (but no more strained than that sort of thing ever is).
Their main strength, though, isn’t the force of the arguments they offer for medical marijuana, but the lack of forceful arguments against it. When you ask “Why not?” and nobody has a good answer, you’ve got a chance to win.
• “I don’t think Christianity is in danger of being too weird. I think it’s in danger of not being weird enough.”
• Katelyn Beaty makes the Mark Driscoll-Donald Trump connection in a New York Times op-ed blandly headlined “Trump Is Compatible With Many Evangelicals’ Leadership Style.” You can use one of your five free stories in the Times to read that piece, or you can just re-read this from last month: “Driscoll and Trump: A tale of two bullies.”
And if you’ve really got an appetite for white misogynist bullies, see also Jessica Johnson’s “How Mega-Macho Pastor Mark Driscoll Helps Explain Trump’s Evangelical Support” at Religion Dispatches.
• Libby Anne dives into the footnotes of an amicus brief filed by anti-abortion groups in the Texas case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.
There are footnotes, you see, because these good, honest anti-abortion folks want you to know that they have lots of science and facts and research to support their assertions. Until you read the articles referenced in the footnotes. Three of them, it turns out, have nothing to do with the claims the footnotes purport to defend. And the fourth study in the footnote conclusively says the opposite of what the amicus brief claims.
I realize that lying-liars-tell-lie isn’t Breaking News, but the frequency and brazen audacity of those lies is still pretty stunning.
• The 2016 Democratic primary has lots of folks looking back to re-evaluate 1994. Here’s a reminder that it wasn’t all bad: