So I said...
Another collection of my recent comments made, well, somewhere, with context if it seems needed.
2026-01-26
The White House gangsters, including Greg Bovine (not a typo) and Kristi No-one, have made much of the claim that Alex Pretti was not carrying ID while armed, which meant, they claim, he was breaking the law and that somehow proved he intended to “slaughter” the DHS thugs and deserved to be shot down.
YouTuber Jesse Dollemore bothered to look up the actual law. It turns out the penalty is a max fine of $25 and if you later show the court or the arresting officer your ID plus permit it goes away.
Truly a major crime worthy of instant death.
The clip starts ~3:30 at this link.
==
2026-01-27
So the face of The Orange Overlord’s repression regime in Minnesota is going to go from Greg Bovine (not a typo) to Tom Homan, well-named because he’s almost human.
Color me unimpressed.
==
2026-01-27
According to Ron Filipkowski, John Fetterman says he’d like to see DHS funding separated from the mini-bus and voted on separately. But it it’s not (and it won’t be), he’ll vote for the full bill anyway. He ended by saying he’s “committed to being a voice of reason and common sense.”
A worthwhile goal. I hope someday he achieves it.
==
2026-01-29
[Background: Julia Serano did a video essay on “marked” vs. “unmarked” (that is, “othered”) people]
I watched the essay with appreciation. Thank you for doing it. I gave a little fist pump when you referred to part of being “unmarked” is not just what others think about you, it’s what they don’t think about you - having made the same point a couple of years ago in discussing white privilege.
Related to that is the idea that if you are “marked” and in some way misbehave, it’s taken as “that’s what ‘those people’ do” - but if you are “unmarked,” it becomes “that’s what that one individual does.”
Again, thanks for the essay.
==
2026-01-30
[A collection of 47 groups - including faux-Christian ministries, anti-choice twits, and state-based far-right outfits - have started something they’re calling the “Greater Than” campaign to push for overturning Obergefell based on the vacuous claim that children of same-sex parents have been “failed” by marriage equality.
The campaign was started by right-wing activist Katy Faust, who has previously blathered that children with same-sex parents are inherently “victimized.”]
So I just checked out their website and three things struck me:
One: The first person they picture and quote is Charlie Kirk and they quote Barack Obama as if he is a supporter - which, it shouldn’t be necessary to say, he is not.
Two: There is no hint they oppose divorce, which would be required to be consistent with their insistence that “mother and father are never optional, they are essential.” (Then again, when has ethical or logical consistency ever been a requirement for this crowd?)
Three: They equate children’s “needs, rights, safety, [and] development” with not having same-sex parents without a word about prenatal care, WIC, SNAP, health care, educational and housing programs, the list would be quite long. (Repeat previous parenthetical.)
Conclusion: Exactly what you’d expect. A concoction of bigots, bozos, and buffoons united in their homophobic paranoia.
==
2026-01-30
[A poll cited by Erin Reed says voters prefer Democrats to GOPpers on trans issues, suggesting there is no need for Dems to shy away from defending trans rights. An objection was raised that trans issues rank low on lists of voter concerns, so extremists dominate on the issue.]
The answer, then, is to be loud. To show it matters to (the generic) you.
Political parties don’t just look for voters, they look for motivated voters, not only because they’re a source for campaign volunteers but more importantly because they’re the ones most likely to turn out if they think the party is on their side and also are the ones most likely to say “the hell with it” and not vote at all if they think you’re not.
That “extremely radical vocal minority” you cite fits that description: loud and motivated. So should we.
-
2026-01-30
[In response to a different person’s comment on the same poll.]
I expect the coming campaigns to be even more vicious than those to date and the wave of continuously increasingly evil legislation to continue - in spite of the diminishing returns in elections.
Why? Because the most fanatical among the reactionaries know, they can’t NOT know, that they are in the long run losing. They’ll even say it; their constant desperate whining about the approaching collapse of civilization unless unless unless - that’s not just posturing, it’s a primal scream and they will fight to hold off the denouement as long as they can.
But at the same time, the rest of the right wing knows that’s the only thing they’ve got. They are so far underwater that they have already essentially surrendered the House and are getting twitchy about the Senate. They can’t hope to run and win on issues that people care most about and they know it, so they have to exploit our all-too common discomfort about anything elated to sex to arouse fear and then ride a social panic.
Combine the most fanatical with the merely ordinarily fanatical and you’ve got a recipe for a very very bad several months.
==
2026-01-31
[A post with a link I failed to record described anti-trans legislation as genocide.]
A bit under three years ago I compared what the right wing wants to do to trans folks with an oubliette (from the French oublier, “to forget”), a type of Medieval prison cell in which people would be stuffed and then, well, forgotten.
“That’s what the right wing wants to do to trans people in this country. Not physically, at least not yet, but legally, socially, politically, psychologically, wants them to be disappeared and forgotten as if they simply do not exist, do not have the right to exist, do not even have the right to say ‘I exist.’”
I didn’t use the term “genocide,” but damn, it fits.
==
2026-01-31
CBS network news just this moment, on its Sunday evening broadcast, referred to the new DHS policy that its agents can enter private homes without a judicial warrant.
NO THEY CAN’T! PERIOD TRIPLE-EXCLAMATION POINT ALL CAPS!!!
The masked thugs are claiming an administrative warrant is sufficient. IT’S NOT. End of argument. But I guarantee you there will be more smashed-in doors as a result.
Why why WHY do our major “news” media treat any claims to powers and authorities claimed by The Orange Overlord and his Brownshirted underlings as if they actually had them? Why it is always “Donald Trump did such-and-such” or “ordered such-and-such” and only several graphs down (if at all) offer some mealy-mouthed CYA like “Constitutional scholars question if the president has the authority?” Is it cowardice? Sloppiness? Incompetence? Indifference?
It really doesn’t matter. It’s just another example of how we are uninformed, misinformed, and malinformed by corporate media.
==
2026-01-31
[The following involves an exchange with another commenter. As always in such cases, I have edited their remarks to the points to which I was responding. If you suspect I may be being unfair, I urge you to check out the unedited exchange, which can be found at this link.
It began with a comment that defended the arrest of Don Lemon and Georgia Fort by citing 1 Corinthians 3:17: “If anybody should destroy the temple of God, God will destroy that person, because God’s temple is holy; and you are that temple.”]
I think I’m going to remember that quote. The next time some transphobe wants to deny needed health care to a trans person, I will tell them that they are destroying the temple of God.
As for its use here, I recall the line from “Pilgrims Progress” that says “The devil can quote Scripture for his purpose.”
-
2026-02-01
[Their response: “Let’s be clear about targets and responsibility. I quoted Scripture to talk about physical intrusion into holy space and natural law fundaments of the Western legal tradition.” He also laid healthcare issues faced by trans folks on insurance companies, not the laws.]
Macbeth may have been referring to life, but he could just have well meant your argument.
So let’s skip the attempts to change the subject (to “Who is REALLY to blame for trans people being denied care: profit-mongering insurance companies or the right-wing fundamentalist Christian Bible-thumpers behind the drives to legislate trans folks out of existence?”) and get back to the point.
That point being that you quoted the Bible - you know, that book that “has been debated for two thousand years” without even reaching a consensus as to what should be included in it but with a plethora of sects claiming their particular interpretation of their preferred translation is THE TRUTH - as expressing “natural law” and therefore as the foundation of common law and the Constitution.
Which says at minimum that you don’t understand the concept of natural law while indicating strongly that you would have our secular laws be “Bible-based,” thereby rejecting the very Constitution you claim as a backing, all in service of justifying the arrest of Don Lemon and Georgia Fort in contravention of the social contract that allows journalists to bear witness to and report on events.
That contention is given weight by your choice of closing [Bible] quote [about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah], which bears no connection anything certainly I and as far as I know anyone else has said but seems to be just a random rant threatening divine retribution for, well, for something from your imagination but not for anything here.
And since you brought up Sodom and Gomorrah, I’ll reply with Ezekiel 16:49 (NIV): “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.”
I believe I’ve given you as much time as you deserve. Last licks are yours if you want them.
-
2026-02-01
Except for this, which I separate to a reply to myself because it’s more of a sidebar than part of the actual argument.
Would your contention that Lemon was an “appendage of the protest mob, an added feature ... part and parcel of the intimidation” and therefore deserves punishment be the same if the site had been, say, the HQ of one of those insurance companies you consider “the real enemy of trans people in health-care disputes?”
If yes, your argument about “sacred spaces” goes out the window.
If no, should it be assumed that you would likewise demand punishment for ICE or CBP agents who entered a “sacred space” to arrest a so-called “illegal immigrant?” (Note that the answer “yes, with the permission of those in charge of that space” by definition gives those same authorities the power to absolutely bar entry.)
Finally, who and what gets to define what is a “sacred space?” Does it include all Christian (including Catholic) sects? Does it include synagogues, mosques, Native American sacred lands, various shrines around the world where entry is only by permission? And note that using “a house of God” as a reference point only throws you back onto the already-rejected “’cause the Bible says so.”
-
2026-02-02
[“Societies define what is a sacred space.”]
I said I wouldn’t reply and it’s taking considerable will to keep to that, but I can’t resist noting your statement “The moment you redefine reporters as ‘appendages’ of a mob, you’ve justified the baton,” etc.
That “redefinition” of Don Lemon was yours. No one else’s. By your own words you have “justified the baton, the cuff, and the cell - forever.”
And “societies” don’t define sacred spaces - the dominant forces in a society do. Consider as illustration the cavalier treatment still accorded to sacred spaces of Native Americans. One of the roles of government is - or, rather, should be - to protect the rights of those lacking the economic, social, or political power to protect them on their own. Which will of necessity at times involve a use of state power in a way that inconveniences the powerful or privileged.
==
2026-02-01
[A different comment from the same person on the same topic. He noted the case of Owen Shroyer, who “never entered the Capitol. He was there as a journalist. He got 60 days, fully supported by the Biden DOJ” so Lemon should get the same.]
I looked up Shroyer.
First, by trespassing he violated an earlier agreement he made after he disrupted an impeachment hearing.
He made speeches endorsing the claim the election was stolen.
On Jan 5, he put out a video saying “Are we just going to sit here or are we going to actually do something about this?”
On Jan 6, he joined a crowd in shouting “We aren’t going to accept it.”
While he could have had some claim to being a journalist (even if it was for Infowars), the fact is, he was not there as a journalist. He was there as an advocate and a participant.
Equating the two cases - Lemon and Shroyer - is flatly false.
==
2026-02-05
[Another case where I failed to note the source, but as I was only expanding on what was said, which was “if you can’t see a trans person without sexualizing them, that’s your sin,” I think it’s okay.]
Geez, how long have I been saying this? So much of the bigotry and social panic about trans folks is driven by our cultural discomfort with, our cultural immaturity about, anything in any way related to sex and for the transphobes, it’s all about sex. They can’t look at, hear about, or even consider a trans person without thinking about “how they ‘do it’” and “what’s in their pants” and desperately needing to reject the guilty fantasies such thoughts arouse.
==
2026-02-06
[The Orange Overlord says he’ll release the money for a major NJ-NY construction project if Penn Station and Dulles Airport are renamed for him.]
He is acting like an Egyptian pharaoh, building monuments to make himself appear greater than all who came before and so in a sense immortal. He should check out the poem “Ozymandias.”
==
2026-02-08
[A YouTube creator mentioned Martin Niemöller’s famous poem but added “But I just found out her was an antisemite, so, whatever….”]
It’s not proper to dismiss Niemöller as an antisemite; his story is much more complex than the single label.
He did indeed embrace that sort of presumptive antisemitism with which we are still afflicted but was even worse then - but he came to regret it and alter his views (while in a concentration camp for being insufficiently pro-Hitler) and the poem was intended not just as a warning but to express his own guilt and shame for his own silence in the face of oppression of others.