A rather light week even including the exchange where I got a little testy. The outside world made its claim on my time, including a new commitment to the folks at a weekly rally I attend to doing a regular 5-7 minute presentation which is called for the moment “News Worth Knowing Which You Might Have Missed.”
As always, I’ll try to include enough relevant context to make the comments understandable.
With that said, onward. (I’d say “onward!” but again, content is a bit light this week, so no exclamation point.)
==
2026-04-10
[In comments on an article about Boise’s resistance to attempts to ban Pride flags, someone asked if the rainbow design was related to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition.]
Design of the Pride flag, by all accounts, was the work of San Francisco artist and gay rights activist Gilbert Baker. His original version, from 1978, had eight stripes in different colors and the flag went through a couple of revisions until the now-standard one with six.
Although the Rainbow Coalition itself predates the flag, Jesse Jackson’s National Rainbow Coalition postdates it. Baker said the use of colors was inspired by the hippie movement of the ‘60s and suggested it was inspired to some degree by the Rolling Stones’ “She’s a Rainbow.”
Oh, and to answer more directly, use of a rainbow in symbolism is ancient.
==
2026-04-10
[Lelaina Brandt posted on the source of the gap between polls reflecting support for equal rights for trans folks with others finding opposition to specifics.]
I will have to go back and read this closely, but I did want to throw in this immediate reaction (beyond noting it’s clearly worth taking that close read), which is what may be a quibble about the phrase “people are no longer responding to an idea; they are reacting to its implications.”
Rather than “implications,” I think a better word is “impacts,” recalling Phil Ochs definition of a liberal as “someone who is 10 degrees left of center in good times and 10 degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally.”
==
2026-04-10
[Hemant Mehta
posted about a Puppeteers of America “World Puppetry Day,” which
included a Christian group which gave an inoffensive performance but
later proved to be extremist.]
I think the statement “It seems like the group’s Board was simply unaware that a Christian group in their subculture might be problematic... even though you would think the name itself would raise red flags everywhere” is too harsh.
Without details about how any decision was made we’re not in a position to judge. For all we know, the PofA did check - enough to feel secure that nothing in the performance would be offensive and that’s what they focused on.
Contrary to the implication, being Christian does not by definition
equal bigot to the point that PofA should have assumed the group was
packed with bigots based on the word. “Well, they shoulda known” is not a
persuasive argument.
-
[Three different people responded;]
2026-04-10
[1st person: It’s in (the group’s) constitution and bylaws. Not hard to find.]
Did
they do that for all groups? Do you? Should they have? If “no,” then
you’re arguing that “Christian” means “presumptively bigoted.” And I’ve
known too many people in my life for who their religious faith provided a
foundation for a life of courage and justice to accept that. No, you
don’t need religion for such a foundation, don’t be stupid, but it was
theirs and it worked for them.
-
2026-04-10
[2nd
person: “NALT argument” - referring to “Not All Like That,” an attempt
to downplay or excuse abuses in one’s own group and so implying that’s
what I was doing.]
I doubt this will move you, but
based on the median age of US adults, I can reasonably expect that I
have been when we used to call a “hard” atheist longer than you’ve been
alive. But thanks for confirming that you’re acting on pure presumption,
not knowledge.
-
2026-04-10
[Lyndon Johnson was president when i was born.]
I stand corrected. I’ve been a hard atheist since you were in nursery school.
-
2026-04-10
[Sure, Jan.]
If you were born during LBJ’s term, you were born no earlier than the tail end of 1963. I was born in 1948 and became an atheist at around 19 or 20, i.e., around 1967-1968, when you would have been no more than 5 and very likely younger.
So yeah, nursery school. If that.
I’m done here.
-
2026-04-10
[3rd person: You should consult with your physician (in response to my comment about me being older than most).]
Median age of US adults is 39, i.e., half are older, half younger. I’ve been an atheist for 57-58 years. So yeah, good chance.
But thanks for playing.
==
2026-04-10
[OynxRose reposted a graphic about grammatical mistakes in referring to trans folks.]
The real problem with “transgendered” from my perspective is that is appears to be a transitive verb, i.e., being transgender is something done to someone, not what someone is.
On the other hand and just to maintain my reputation for persnicketiness, if you were going to make some generalized comment about tall people, then referring to them as “talls,” (e.g. “Talls tend to look down on other people”) while being, yeah, kinda weird, is not grammatically incorrect. It’s called nominalization.
==
2026-04-11
As
we deal with what appears to be another horrendous case of abuse of
power and sexual assault, this time in the form of Eric Swalwell, there
is one thing I will not hear.
And that is one effing word from the GOPpers.
Dozens of women have accused the Orange Overlord of crimes and abuses including rape, child rape, sexual assault, physical abuse, kissing and groping without consent, and voyeurism, including both peeking under skirts and walking in on naked pageant contestants.
He’s repeatedly cheated on his wives, was close friends with a known pedophile and trafficker, and was twice found liable for sexual assault.
And still you GOPpers grovel at his feet, pleading for his favor.
Until you turn your collective backs on him, completely and permanently, you lack the moral standing to say anything at all on the matter. So shut up.
==
2026-04-11
A
reality check for those who are calling for invoking the 25th Amendment
to get The Orange Overlord out of office, based around I mean, have you
actually read it?
Section 4 of the Amendment says if a majority of the cabinet tells the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House in writing that Trump is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” Vance becomes Acting President.
But - if Trump responds with a written declaration that “no inability exists,” he’s back in charge.
Except - if within four days after that a majority of the Cabinet repeats the previous assertion, Congress will decide the matter and can remove Trump and make Vance Acting President …
here it comes…
by a two-thirds vote of both Houses, which is a higher standard than impeachment, which only requires a majority in the House.
I’ll be blunt, friends and neighbors: I figure it ain’t gonna happen.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment