When I tell people the premise of Ignore All Previous Instructions, they often remark how it reminds them of real life these days. In Ignore, the characters live in a space colony on Callisto where a generative AI company owns everything – and where making art or telling stories, without the AI’s assistance, is strictly not allowed. (snip)
Another part of the novel, even closer to my heart and equally timely, was the problem of queer self-expression and book bans.
In 2023, I was at an early stage in therapy. I was just starting to think back, in ways I hadn’t allowed myself before, about how some of my experiences growing up had shaped me. This included a lot of things, many of them not germane to this post, but it also included the experience of growing up queer without understanding that that’s what it was. (snip-MORE, and it’s really good; go read it!)
The Supreme Court’s decision in Callais continues to make clear all the reasons we needed, and continue to need, a Voting Rights Act. And it isn’t about protecting white voters. Congress had an entirely different intent when it passed the Act, an intent that DOJ has forgotten to remove mention of from its website:
Section 2 “prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the [specified] language minority groups,” according to the website, which hasn’t been updated by this administration, at least not yet. “[T]he Supreme Court explained that the ‘essence of a Section 2 claim is that a certain electoral law, practice, or structure interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and white voters to elect their preferred representatives.’” Congress clarified that the courts should look to “the history of official voting-related discrimination in the state or political subdivision,” when determining if the law has been violated. In the states hurriedly enacting new maps that eliminate Black voting power, that history involves denying Black people the right to vote. Instead of using Section 2 to fix that, the Court and Southern state legislatures are turning the law on its head and making a mockery of the rights it was meant to protect.
When the Court gutted Section 5 of the act in Shelby County v. Holder, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg accused the majority of shutting the umbrella that was meant to protect voters in the middle of a rainstorm who weren’t getting wet, because the umbrella was working. The case was decided in 2013, but even before the Supreme Court formally gutted Section 5 of the Act, repressive measures were being adopted in states like Alabama, which adopted a stepped-up voter identification requirement that made it more difficult for parts of the population, including Black voters, to exercise their rights, expecting that the Court would do away with Section 5’s preclearance provision.
A study at the Brennan Center explained the impact: “The racial turnout gap — the difference between white and nonwhite turnout rates in elections — has been consistently growing since at least 2008, reaching 18 percentage points in the 2022 midterm elections. If the gap did not exist, nearly 14 million additional ballots would have come from voters of color that year.” The analysis was based on nearly 1 billion vote records and controlled for factors like regional differences, income, and education.
The kind of behavior the Act was meant to prevent is exactly what’s happening, as Black voting power is diluted with new maps that are being adopted. And the Court seems to have abandoned its allegiance to the Purcell principle, which it has used in the past to prevent changes from being made too close to an election. Some of the new measures adopted by the states are being challenged, or will be challenged in court, and we’ll get a chance to see if the rules are different now that the Court is focused on protecting white voters from discrimination, which was the story behind Callais.
For instance, Tennessee’s extraordinary gerrymander was accompanied by a change to state law, so that election officials no longer have to advise voters about changes to their designated polling places as a result of the newly drawn maps. It’s easy to imagine how this plays out: voters with limited time because of family responsibilities go to what they think is the right polling place. They wait in a long line, maybe for hours, before being told they’re in the wrong location. At every step, the process is being redesigned to insert more friction, in hopes that Democratic-leaning voters will be dissuaded from participating. As Marc Elias noted, “Republicans defended the map by claiming that only population and politics were considered when the new map was created, not race.” But of course, the two are inextricably intertwined in Southern elections, despite the pretense the Court adopted.
To put all of this into context, consider the importance of the right to vote. At bottom, it’s the right that unlocks all of the other rights, the essence of democracy. Efforts by the Trump faction to impede that right—whether it’s by making it more difficult to register, more difficult to vote, or more difficult to have your vote count—is an effort to lock up all of our other rights.
The NAACP filed a lawsuit challenging Tennessee’s new gerrymander late last week. The complaint explains that “The timing of drawing Tennessee’s congressional districts is governed by Tennessee law, including Section 2-16-102 of the Tennessee Code, which provides: ‘The general assembly shall establish the composition of districts for the election of members of the house of representatives in congress after each enumeration and apportionment of representation by the congress of the United States. The districts may not be changed between apportionments.’” The NAACP is asking the court to issue a declaratory judgment that the late-decade redistricting violates the law and to enter an injunction that will prevent the new maps from going into effect.
There are reports that South Carolina is getting ready to join in this week, with a proposal that would gerrymander its only Black member of Congress, Jim Clyburn, into a district that, at least in theory, is designed to make it more difficult for the veteran Congressman to win. But it’s not clear that the South Carolina Senate will extend the legislative session to permit action to be taken. Currently, the state has seven seats in the House and only one Black representative, although the state is roughly 25% African American.
Alito’s Mistake in Callais
Late last week, The Guardian reported that Justice Alito relied on flawed data to justify his majority opinion in Callais. That opinion is predicated on the view that it is no longer necessary to apply the Voting Rights Act as a corrective for historic voter suppression because Black voter turnout has caught up. Of course, that doesn’t square up with the Brennan Center data we discussed up above. But Alito wrote that Black voter turnout exceeded white voter turnout in two of the five most recent presidential elections, both nationally and in Louisiana. He relied on data that the Solicitor General of the United States, who was not a party to the case, but who filed an amicus brief, presented to the Court:
The data is flawed because it calculates voter turnout in Louisiana as a proportion of the total population of each racial group, for people over the age of 18. But that isn’t the same as calculating eligible voters, because total population includes non-citizens, people with felony convictions, and others who are ineligible to vote. For instance, Black people are more likely to have felony convictions in South Carolina than white people are, which skews the data.
Perhaps Justice Alito should have paid more attention to Justice Ginsburg’s explanation about closing the umbrella prematurely. She was right.
Oral Argument in the DC Circuit on Trump Executive Orders
On Thursday, the D.C. Circuit will hear oral argument in the cases regarding Trump’s executive orders that were designed to punish law firms. The terms of the executive orders made it more difficult, if not impossible, for law firms that the president viewed as representing clients or causes he disagreed with to do business. The cases brought by the law firms have been consolidated for the appeal. So far, every court to consider one of the orders has found them to be illegal.
We discussed the executive orders here when they were first issued, and again here, when the administration dismissed the appeals it will argue later this week before abruptly changing course and asking to reinstate them.
Four law firms are involved: Perkins Coie, Jenner and Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey. There is also an executive order against Mark Zaid, a lawyer known for his work representing whistleblowers. He is represented by Abbe Lowell. Lowell has argued in his briefs that the executive orders turn security clearances, necessary for lawyers in this field to do business, into political weapons.
Perkins Coie’s brief to the Court of Appeals opens like this: “One year ago, the President did something no other president had done before: issue an executive order declaring a law firm whose clients and representations he dislikes ‘dishonest and dangerous’ and deploying the levers of federal power to try to put the firm out of business. That was a perilous moment for appellee Perkins, the legal profession, and the rule of law. Nine law firms, cowed by the threat of firm-ending sanctions, ‘settled’ with the President …Four different district judges recognized the President’s executive orders for what they are: shocking abuses of power that trample the constitutional rights of the law firms and their clients. This Court should recognize the same.” Two of the judges on the panel that will hear the case, Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and Judge Cornelia Pillard, were appointed by President Obama. The third judge, Neomi Rao, is a Trump appointee.
Kash On The Hill
FBI Director Kash Patel will join the administrator of the DEA, the Director of the ATF, and the head of the U.S. Marshal’s Service for budget hearings in the Senate on Tuesday afternoon. It’s typical for the four DOJ law enforcement agencies to do this jointly.
Despite the intricacies of the federal budget, the question on everyone’s mind will likely be whether Patel will be passing out bottles of his special Ka$h Patel, FBI Director, Bourbon.
Atlantic reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick, who wrote the original expose on Patel’s erratic behavior in office, had a new story last week. Fitzpatrick wrote, “it is not unusual for him [Patel] to travel with a supply of personalized branded bourbon. The bottles bear the imprint of the Kentucky distillery Woodford Reserve, and are engraved with the words ‘Kash Patel FBI Director,’ as well as a rendering of an FBI shield. Surrounding the shield is a band of text featuring Patel’s director title and his favored spelling of his first name: Ka$h. An eagle holds the shield in its talons, along with the number 9, presumably a reference to Patel’s place in the history of FBI directors.”
Finally
The administrative stay in the mifepristone case ends on Monday. That means that unless the Supreme Court issues an order regarding whether the injunction should stay in place while the litigation proceeds, the Fifth Circuit’s ban on obtaining the abortion drug via telehealth goes into effect.
Given that the Court virtually disallowed nationwide injunctions last June in Trump v. Casa, it’s difficult to see the legally consistent path to permitting this one to go into effect. And, in the 2023-2024 term mifepristone case, the Court stayed efforts to restrict the availability of the drug from going into effect during the pendency of the lawsuit (before it dismissed it rather than decided the substantive issues, because it found the plaintiffs lacked standing). The smart money would seem to be on similar treatment here, but this is a Court that has been willing to ignore the past to put abortion out of reach for American women, so we will wait and see.
There’s a busy week ahead of us. But Donald Trump is spending the evening on Truth Social, reposting memes about his popularity.
The latest NPR/PBS News/Marist poll shows Trump with just a 37% approval rating; 59% of those polled disapproved of his performance. That’s the worst score this poll has given Trump in either of his terms in office.
Democratic TN state Rep. Justin Jones burns a Confederate flag in the state Capitol, Thursday, May 8, 2026, video screengrab
Yesterday, the Ku Klux Klan, we mean Tennessee state Legislature, rushed through new maps to eliminate the state’s last remaining Democratic congressional seat in Congress, and racist pigfuck Governor Bill Lee signed them, because that’s what white supremacists do when Donald Trump’s partisan hack Supreme Court says it’s unconstitutional for them not to hurt Black people by gutting the last remaining piece of the Voting Rights Act.
The lawsuits are already being filed, and to be sure, Republicans don’t even understand the war they started yesterday. As we wrote, it’s useful to remember that Republicans always, 100 percent of the time, overplay their hands.
We quoted Tennessee state Rep. Justin Pearson, who until yesterday was running in a primary against long-serving Congressman Steve Cohen to represent what was the Ninth District, in Memphis. We guess how exactly that will end up is undetermined at this exact moment, but Pearson said earlier this week at a rally that “[I]f we keep marching, if we keep pressing, if we keep fighting, the future that our descendants will live into will be a better one than this one. And our message to the Republican Party, our message to that racist, white-supremacist president Donald Trump is that we will fight.”
Pearson, if you remember, is one of the two Black men in the Tennessee Three, back when the grand wizards of the Tennessee Lege first bent over and showed everybody their Klan-hood-shaped buttplugs, expelling the two men from the state House for taking to the House floor to try to defend their constituents against gun violence. Also for being Black men, because they didn’t expel the white woman, Knoxville Rep. Gloria Johnson, for being part of the same protest. (Voters of course sent the two Justinsright the fuck back to the Legislature.)
Both Justins were of course present yesterday to witness what white supremacist Tennessee Republicans really think was the Birth of a Nation. And there were many protests in the Tennessee state Capitol yesterday. Justin Jones of Nashville set a Confederate flag on fire, or at least a paper version of it.
And then he stomped that sad loser little bitch of a flag — a flag the greatest losers who ever lived died defending, and their family legacies are less valuable than dried dogshit because of it — right on out.
And what are people saying about that, and about iconic pictures photographers captured of that? “Hang it in the Louvre.”
Oh, it’s gonna be in museums and history books all right.
Rep. Jones, “Brother Jones” as he refers to himself on Instagram, posted videos and images of the already iconic moment.
The South will not rise again, until it’s paid for all its sins of racism and white supremacy.
Today, I left the Capitol Klan Rally, where my white Republican colleagues took off their white hoods and dismantled Black political power in our state. It’s shameful, it’s immoral, and it will go down in the history books alongside the legacy of George Wallace and Bull Connor.
Tennessee has shamefully become the first state to pass a new, racist congressional map following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which dismantled the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
When I walked into the building it was 2026, and when I walked out it was pre-1965. This racial power grab against Black voters is purely rooted in control and elimination of their voices in our democracy. Today’s Jim Crow laws passed in our legislature spit on the graves of our Civil Rights martyrs who bled and died for the right to political power and representation.
They are dragging us backwards in history but we refuse to be moved.
I burned the Confederate flag, because the neo-Confederate caucus that assembled today will be defeated again. Their vision of the South, rooted in plantation politics and racial division will not win. Instead we must use this moment to ignite our rebellion and movement even more towards real justice and multiracial democracy. We must build towards a South that can RISE ANEW.
We will not go back!
“Burn it, young brother,” said Joy-Ann Reid in response. So say we all.
I have appointments throughout today, so I’ve set up a few things to read. This one is interesting in that it ties several things together to show us how not only our government but our companies are selling us into thinking we might actually get some fair treatment. It piqued my interest because of the strike last week; it seems “brands” are trying to work against being seen as part of those needing to understand what we the people don’t like how things are and that we expect change. Resist-
Red Lobster wants your attention. You can tell, because their current ads deploy not one but two separate announcers. There’s the expository guy. He’s a little pushy but at least he sticks to the facts. And then there’s the loud guy. He’s got a deep voice. He sounds like he’s broadcasting live from the submerged city of Atlantis. He says it with feeling, and also reverb.
“Because you’ve been asking… a lot… and we made it happen.”
So claims the not-from-Atlantis announcer. But what’s he talking about? We have been asking for many things. To be able to afford homes, for example, or not to have war crimes committed in our names, or to have our planet still exist twenty years from now.
Oh, this is about shrimp. Endless shrimp. It’s back, or so I’m told, in multiple forms. Every time the less pushy guy shares one of the currently available shrimp offerings, his partner pipes up with a complementary point straight from the bottom of the sea.
“Walt’s favorite shrimp.”
“ ENDLESS!”
“Garlic shrimp scampi”
“ENDLESS”
“Shrimp linguini alfredo”
“ENDLESS?”
“And all new marry me shrimp”
“ALL ENDLESS!”
The duo isn’t wrong. Endless shrimp is back. While the previous iteration didn’t technically bankrupt the chain (the real culprit was private equity and real estate chicanery) it was, by all accounts, an absolute mess. American consumers, who rightfully identified that they were getting ripped off in every facet of their lives, leapt at the opportunity to get one over at least one big business.
Back when Endless Shrimp was a permanent feature, shrimp hoarders would occupy tables for hours at a time, not leaving until they beat the house. The real victim of this behavior was, of course, the chain’s underpaid servers (if you walk into a restaurant with “me against these suckers” mindset, you’re less likely to view your waiter as a fellow victim of capitalism and you’re definitely not going to tip well). For the C-Suite, though, the larger concern wasn’t the dignity of their employees. It was a jumbo-sized hole in their bottom line.
It’s like The Boss once sang. Endless shrimp dies baby, that’s a fact. But maybe the endless shrimp that dies, some days comes back. Put your make-up on, do your hair up pretty, and meet me tonight at the only Red Lobster still open in your city.
I’m not all that interested in the relative success or failure of chain restaurant promotions, but I do care about the various ways corporations try to win our affection (meaningful cultural signifiers, or so I’d argue). And contra the two announcer voices, the most interesting thing about Red Lobster’s promotion isn’t the shellfish, either of the Walt’s Favorite or Marry Me varieties. It’s what’s whispered rather than shouted.
You see, the biggest difference between the current iteration of Endless Shrimp and its unprofitable predecessor is that now Red Lobster wants you to know that you (the shrimp-loving consumer) and they (the company) are in this together.
If you want the full story, I highly recommend this piece by Luke Winkie in Slate, but here’s the truncated version. There are varieties of shrimp on the Red Lobster menu that aren’t officially part of the promotion. They’re on the menu, but excluded from the benevolent blanket of endlessness. But if a customer were to ask for unlimited quantities of a non-official item (for example, Crispy Dragon Shrimp, a food item that I’m assured contains no actual dragon), the server is to welcome them into a cool secret. Their official, handbook-mandated line? “These items aren’t on the menu for this promotion, but I would be happy to make an exception for you.”
It’s like they say, “the exception is the rule.” Except literally, and by mandate. Servers are required by corporate policy to act like you and they are cheating the system, in hopes that when you remember the night you rode the dragon (shrimp), you remember it not as a conspiracy-of-one, but a sneaky secret between you and your best friend (Red Lobster restaurants, a subsidiary of the Thai Union Seafood Company).
This is not a new psychological trick. It’s a classic low stakes confidence game. The most effective way to a mark is to convince them that they are, in fact, in on the con themselves. It’s the same move that car salesmen use when they leave the room to “talk to their manager” before returning with a report that “he didn’t want me to give you this deal, but…”
It’s still striking, though, to see the strategy laid out in grandiose internal strategy documents. A beleaguered but iconic American brand name, flailing for its survival, hedges its survival on two bets. First, that you are tired, angry and aware that you’re on the wrong side of a rigged game (correct). And second, that, by offering you a facsimile of camaraderie and a very real pile of seafood, that they can win your loyalty (huh).
“[This is] about more than just shrimp,” the document proclaims. An absolute work of art, that sentence.
“[It’s] about creating an experience that says, ‘We listen to you.”
“When guests see Endless Shrimp back on the menu, they feel heard and valued.”
I have never addressed a sit-down chain’s internal strategy document, but I’m sure I speak for all of us when I say, tears in my eyes: Red Lobster, thank you. THIS is what democracy looks like.
As Eli Zeger argued in his 2020 essay about companies that talk like snarky teens on social media, this particular iteration of the “brand as friend” canard is the product of the marriage of late stage capitalism (and its reliance on the selling of “ideas” rather than goods and services) and the post-Citizen United codification of corporate personhood. Red Lobster isn’t a restaruant anymore. It’s your rule-breaking, shrimp loving, newly empathetic pal. It sees you. In fact, it is the only one who see you. It gets that you’re broke, but more so that you’re alone. It’s no longer offering you cheap shrimp (the price tag for the promotion has risen markedly since its last iteration). It’s promising you something more important– belonging, connection, a port in the storm of alienation and precarity we’re all weathering.
But Red Lobster isn’t alone, in surveying a landscape of mass alienation (economic, relational, spiritual) and seeing a business opportunity. Advertising agencies are publishing unironic blogs chillingly titled “the loneliness crisis: how brands can step up?” Silicon Valley’s greatest minds heard that you wanted community and responded with sycophantic AI chatbots. Apparently, our tech overlords’ understanding of human relationships is a robot who agrees with you all the time, including when you muse about harming yourself. Even the outright scammers get it. Gone are the days of far flung princes offering you a financial windfall. As you may have experienced personally, the hot new con is… pretending to be an acquaintance and inviting you to a party.
This is a step beyond the classic commodification funnel, as documented in nineties leftist classics like No Logo and The Conquest of Cool. The brands are no longer promising a great deal, or even hipness. What’s on offer now is the dream of a welcoming community, one deep enough to solve for the isolation that the companies themselves helped create.
That’s very depressing, of course, both the reminder that our economy has always been built on the exploitation of vulnerability, and the reality that there’s just so much more vulnerability to be exploited at this particular moment.
But there’s another truth, not a counterpoint, but a complement. How fortunate, for those of us who actually want to connect with other human beings, rather than just make a quick buck off of them. We already have what every corporation in the world wishes they had– the fact that, when we offer a space by our side, to either a stranger or a friend, we actually mean it. We’re not trying to trick you into springing for a Main Deck Margarita Flight to go along with your shrimp. We’re not trying to mine your data or add you to a marketing funnel or load you up with debt and junk. We just think this world would be more navigable together rather than apart.
And as an organizing opportunity? From union drives to neighbor-to-neighbor activism to the precious few political campaigns that care more about building community than personal brand building? My goodness. Why do you keep hearing about neighborism these days, and not just from true believers like me? Because more people are admitting every day how hungry they are for connection, and then taking the risk of making an offering.
The terrible news right now is that the hucksters are going to keep selling us a flim flam simulacra of belonging. Yes, the consultants, but also (I fear) the politicians. I strongly suspect the 2028 Democratic primary to feature a million text messages about “neighbors” and “community” penned by a well-heeled K-Street consultants. But the good news is that we aren’t that dumb. We know the brands aren’t our friends. We’ve lived through the great social media con together. We know what the lie looks like, and now we’d much prefer the deeply imperfect, thoroughly messy alternative.
People and companies really need to quit calling regular real people and starting out asking “Is this [your name, or another name, even]?” before identifying who is making the call. I’ve always hated that, and I even remember a time when a person working to be certified as an office manager (a pre-cursor to the paralegal cert) would lose valuable points on the exam if they called someone and began the call before stating their name and organization.
I do hope no one here does that so sorry-not sorry, but I’m fairly certain that most of us receive these calls. I also feel that more people agree with me than don’t, so I’m taking the risk of ranting about it here. It is at the very least inappropriate to call someone and start out with, “Hello, is this [you]?” If you’re not up to no good, ID yourself first, then ask for who you’re calling.
Scottie's Playtime 