At the Gayfeather Café...

... you can write about anything you want.

"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 75% of American Adults think the term 'racism' refers to any discrimination by people of one race against another."

"Just 15% say it refers only to discrimination by white people against minorities. These findings have changed little in surveys for the past several years.... Eighteen percent (18%) say most white Americans are racist. But 25% believe most black Americans are racist. Fifteen percent (15%) think most Hispanic-Americans are racist, while nearly as many (13%) say the same of most Asian-Americans.... Blacks see themselves, whites, Hispanics and Asians as equally racist. Whites consider themselves more racist than Hispanics and Asians in this country but less racist than blacks."

Rasmussen reports.

"She was wearing a head piece made of Vantablack, the blackest black that anything could be."

"There was only one person who noticed and that was Stephen Colbert. On the back of my tuxedo jacket — which was sort of like an inverted priest jacket with the jacket being white and the collar being black — I had in big, black, gothic script, 'Novus ordo seclorum.'"

Said Elon Musk, describing how he met Grimes, the mother of his newest baby. He's quoted in "Elon Musk, Blasting Off in Domestic Bliss/The billionaire space oddity on life with Grimes and Baby X, Trump, Tesla, tunnels, short shorts, stock surges, Facebook fumbles and everything else under the sun" by Maureen Dowd (NYT).

BLM describes itself as explicitly atheist?

You can’t be a Christian and an atheist at the same time. BLM describes itself as explicitly atheist (and neo-Marxist). Fundamentally incompatible world views. https://t.co/4ZjT0vcy4s

— Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) July 25, 2020

I googled my question Does BLM describe itself as explicitly atheist? I'm not seeing that. Is this just an inference from the idea that it's Marxist? The phrase "explicitly atheist" should be based on more than an inference. And it's an inference on an inference on an inference if we have to infer that Black Lives Matter is Marxist and to be Marxist is to be an atheist.

I googled Is Black Lives Matter explicitly Marxist and I'm not getting a clear answer that it's Marxist, so my working assumption is that the group is not explicitly Marxist.

It does seem to be the case that 2 of the founders have described themselves as "trained Marxists." Here's an editorial from a month ago in The Washington Times, "The matter of Marxism: Black Lives Matter is rooted in a soulless ideology" that reports the quotes and makes some inferences:

"[Igor] Danchenko’s identity is noteworthy because it further calls into question the credibility of the [Steele] dossier."

"By turning to Mr. Danchenko as his primary source to gather possible dirt on Mr. Trump involving Russia, Mr. Steele was relying not on someone with a history of working with Russian intelligence operatives or bringing to light their covert activities but instead a researcher focused on analyzing business and political risks in Russia.... Born in Ukraine, Mr. Danchenko, 42, [a resident of the United States] is a Russian-trained lawyer who earned degrees at the University of Louisville and Georgetown University.... He was a senior research analyst from 2005 to 2010 at the Brookings Institution....

5:44 a.m.

"Local TV stations across the country set to air discredited 'Plandemic' researcher's conspiracy theory about Fauci."

CNN reports.

In this week's episode of "America This Week," [Eric] Bolling spoke with Judy Mikovits, the medical researcher featured in the discredited "Plandemic" video that went viral earlier this year and which was banned from platforms such as Facebook and YouTube. Throughout the segment, the on-screen graphic read, "DID DR. FAUCI CREATE COVID-19?"...

During the interview Mikovitz told Bolling that Fauci had over the past decade "manufactured" and shipped coronaviruses to Wuhan, China, which became the original epicenter of the current outbreak. Bolling noted that this was a "hefty claim," but did not meaningfully challenge Mikovits and allowed her to continue making her case....

But Bolling, a former Fox News host, told CNN Business in a series of text messages that he invited Mikovits onto his show to "question and challenge her beliefs." Bolling also said he does not control the on-screen graphics that appear during his show.

"I did challenge her," Bolling said, noting he called her claim "hefty."

When pressed over whether calling a claim "hefty" constituted effectively challenging the conspiracy theory Mikovits pushed, Bolling said that he did believe he challenged her.

Interesting debate over the meaning of "hefty." He's saying calling it "hefty" was like saying, That's a mighty big claim you're making, so you'd better have some very substantial evidence. CNN is  saying — more believably — that calling a claim "hefty" is saying it has weight, so it seems as though it's substantial on its own, without evidence.

I was motivated to look up the word "hefty" in the OED. "Heft" means weight, and "hefty," meaning weighty, is originally U.S. dialect. Early examples all sound like rural Americans talking:

1867 F. H. Ludlow Little Brother 167 I reckon I could forgive him..but I'm afeard it'd come hefty on me.
1871 N.Y. Tribune 21 Jan. He is, as a Yankee would say, a little hefty for the ideal lover.
1873 ‘Josiah Allen's Wife’ My Opinions & Betsey Bobbet's 372 I never looked well in the saddle any way bein’ so hefty.

Ha ha. It seems to have been a way to call someone fat.

Oddly enough, it also meant (in the U.S.) "Easy to lift or handle": "It should be hefty, light and of a form that can be easily held in the hand" (1885). That makes sense because "heft," the verb, means (in U.S. dialect) "to lift."

1932 W. Faulkner Light in August xiv. 308 He was hefting the bench leg.

So even if something had heft — in that it was weighty — it could be hefty — if it was liftable. That's why "Hefty" is good branding for trash bags. The bags themselves aren't heavy, but they make what might be heavy relatively easy to lift.

"Yesterday, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stood up and gave one of the finest speeches recently heard on the House floor, calling out not just Florida representative Ted Yoho..."

"... for having called her 'disgusting,' 'out of your freaking mind,' and a 'fucking bitch' on the steps of the Capitol in front of reporters on Tuesday, but also elucidating how that kind of language is normalized and deployed against all kinds of women, on all kinds of days. It was a remarkable piece of oratory, clear and thoughtful about some of the knottiest dynamics of gendered power imbalance in political, public, and personal life.... [Yoho] had offered up a floor speech purported to be apology, though it was actually far closer to pallid self-justification. 'Having been married for 45 years with two daughters, I’m very cognizant of my language,' Yoho had said, in a speech in which he did not mention Ocasio-Cortez’s name, and in which he nonsensically refused to 'apologize for my passion, or for loving my God, my family, and my country.' It was this non-apology and not his original outburst, Ocasio-Cortez said on Thursday, that led her to make her own speech, in which she eviscerated Yoho’s use of familial pablum and domestic association with women as evidence of his respect for them. Ocasio-Cortez pointed out that she, too, was someone’s daughter, and that that did not in any way insulate her or other women, also daughters and wives, from the impact of degrading and sexist diminution."

Writes Rebecca Traister in "The Poison of Male Incivility/When a woman dares respond to it, she’s seen as 'disruptive'" (The Cut).

Why did Yoho defend himself like that? He could have said he was just doing equality, and behind the scenes this is how the men talk to other men, using strong language. His apology was sexist, and it, ironically, cast the original remark as sexist. And now Traister can feed us civility bullshit.

And if Donald Trump wins in the fall, will the first week of June have marked the beginning of the victory?"

"If Donald Trump loses in the fall, the first week of June might have marked the beginning of the end. On June 1, with the country consumed by historic protests against racism and police brutality, some of them violent, Trump decided to position himself as the 'law-and-order' president, made clear by his tweets and his now infamous march that evening across Lafayette Square, outside the White House. His path cleared by the National Guard and D.C. police who used chemical agents on lawfully assembled protesters and roughed up journalists, Trump walked across the street to stand in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church for an inscrutable and buffoonish photo op, in which he held up a Bible and said nothing much at all about the cities on fire and the country’s dismal legacy of racism. 'We have a great country,' Trump said. 'That’s my thoughts.' The moment was an emblem of Trump’s presidency: attention-seeking, bereft of empathy, gut over strategy. It was so embarrassing and borderline anti-American that one of his generals, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Mark Milley, apologized for participating in the walk and reportedly considered resigning. Like so many of Trump’s decisions, it was a sugar-high tactic designed to please his base and get TV ratings, with almost no thought about the larger sweep of American history, let alone his reelection campaign. Politically, it was a disaster."

Or was it?

The quoted paragraph is the beginning of a Vanity Fair article by Peter Hamby — "'TRUMP COULD NOT BE MORE ON THE WRONG SIDE': NEW POLL SHOWS TRUMP’S BLACK LIVES MATTER PROTEST RESPONSE COULD COST HIM 2020/Exclusive polling suggests the protests changed Americans’ minds so quickly, and so profoundly, that Trump planted himself even further on the wrong side of public opinion than previously understood."

Trump is even more wrong than anyone could possibly even ever imagined. Imagine all the journalists straining to imagine even more dire visions of defeat for Donald Trump. One thing you don't need to imagine is the past, and I remember 2016, and all this histrionic talk about the magnitude of Trump's looming loss is just too reminiscent of the lead-up to his mind-blowing victory.

Now, to be fair to Vanity Fair, there is some elaborate polling behind that headline:

"A&E Has Lost Half Its Viewers Since Dropping ‘Live PD’/Network’s prime-time viewership was up 4% this year before it canceled its hit police reality show..."

"... Nielsen data show.... The show, which follows police on their rounds in multiple cities simultaneously, averaged about 1.9 million viewers for its Friday and Saturday night episodes, repeatedly re-aired on other days. It spawned several successful spinoff shows, also canceled. A&E, co-owned by the Walt Disney Co. DIS -0.43% and Hearst Corp., dropped 'Live PD' in the wake of the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer.... The network said it has always been able to 'find new hits and reinvent ourselves.... In the entertainment industry, Mr. Floyd’s death has led to discussions about the role television and movies play in shaping perceptions of law enforcement and whether portrayals of police have been too one-sided and have failed to address concerns about excessive force and bad policing.... The franchise’s fan base—the self-dubbed “Live PD Nation”—has been very active on social media, encouraging a boycott of the network until the programs are returned, which A&E hasn’t ruled out."

The WSJ reports (and I didn't hit a paywall).

Here's a crazy idea for A&E: Arts & Entertainment. I remember when it would air entire ballets and operas and only go as low as to show British mystery shows like "Agatha Christie's Poirot" and "Sherlock Holmes," its own documentary series "Biography," and "An Evening at the Improv."

The top-rated comment at the Wall Street Journal is: "Go Woke, Go Broke. Enough Said. Back the Blue." Second highest-rated: "The poor things at A&E have lost money because they decided to virtue signal? Somehow, I don't feel sorry for them."

Here's an article from Vulture, last June: "Cops and Live PD Are Finally Gone. What Took So Long?"

At the Sunrise Café...

... you can write about anything you want.

"The 'Wall of Moms,' while perhaps well-intentioned, ends up redirecting attention away from the urgent issue of murdered black bodies."

"This might ease the consciences of white, affluent women who have previously been silent in the face of black oppression, but it’s fair to ask: Are they really furthering the cause of justice, or is this another example of white co-optation?... The president and his allies want spectacle.... What is happening in Portland is the fuse of a great, racist backlash that the Trump administration is baiting us to light. We cannot fall for their deception.... This is a moment for serious action... We welcome our white brothers and sisters in this struggle. In fact, we need them. But I must ask them to remain humbly attuned to the opportunity of this moment — and to reflect on whether any actions they take will truly help establish justice, or whether they are simply for show."

Writes E.D. Mondainé, president of the Portland branch of the NAACP, in "Portland’s protests were supposed to be about black lives. Now, they’re white spectacle" (WaPo).

ADDED: In case you haven't heard of the "Wall of Moms," there's a link to "‘What choice do we have?’: Portland’s ‘Wall of Moms’ faces off with federal officers at tense protests" (WaPo).

"Like most baby boomers, I’ve been a hope junkie most of my life. I rejected the Vietnam War and materialistic values..."

"... and worked for peace, civil rights and environmental protections. I believed that we were living at the dawn of a new age and that the world was getting more democratic, just and free through the power of love.... But at some point, boomers lost their way.... We bought into a system that we knew was wrong.... There’s no particular moment when I gave up hope; it’s been a gradual, inexorable process.... Some 25 years ago, a Tibetan friend told me his spiritual practice involved pondering death every day. This struck me as somewhat morbid at the time, but not so anymore. Now I, too, live with the thought of death daily.... I think we may even be on a path toward rapid economic collapse, climate chaos, social unrest, famine and near-term human extinction.... Life gets more precious when you live with the presence of death. Giving up hope, and facing my imminent demise, has been a kind of liberation. I’m now more alert for ways to love my loved ones, and everyone else, with as much grace and beauty as I can. I’m noticing the needs that arise around me.... I’m deep in the 'don’t know' phase about what’s next in life. But I feel strangely calm, more curious and interested than anxious. I find myself paying attention to synchronicities, to song fragments and random comments that move me and to my memories and dreams. I’m listening for what is needed and wanted, and what is mine to do. And I know that the joy and sense of purpose I feel now would not be possible without first experiencing hopelessness."

From "Feeling Hopeless? Embrace It. And then take action" by Eric Utne (NYT).

"Joe Rogan and guest Abigail Shrier equate being trans to having anorexia, joining a cult, and 'demonic possession.'"

"Rogan's podcast is available on YouTube, which has removed other content for equating being trans to having a mental disorder." That's the headline at Media Matters, and it's woefully inaccurate. I can say that because I've listened to the entire Rogan/Shrier discussion, and they are clearly supportive of transgender people but are focusing on a set of young girls who say they are transgender (and who can quickly get drugs and surgery) when there is reason to think they are mistaken.

Once you get beyond the headline, the Media Matters article gets into the details with lots of quotes and clips, and yet it ends by characterizing the interview as hate speech and arguing that it should be removed from YouTube, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify.

Please understand what is being talked about here before commenting. This should be a new discussion.

"8 Big Reasons Election Day 2020 Could Be a Disaster/You may think you know how bad Nov. 3 will be. But all signs point to something far, far worse."

At Politico.

The reasons (each with a long explanation at the link):

1. An Uncontrolled Pandemic
2. New Technology and New Processes
3. A Drought of Funding
4. Dislocated Voters
5. A Storm of Foreign Attacks
6. Misinformation and Disinformation
7. A Famine of Voter Protections
8. A Volcano in the Oval Office

A "volcano," you say?

Sure, incumbents enjoy the advantage of campaigning from Air Force One, and may try to goose the economy to curry votes, but they’ve mostly abided by America’s strong democratic norms and traditions of not weaponizing the office’s powers against your opponent. Trump is different....

It's not easy being the mayor of Portland.

Liberals riding this tiger are beginning to realize it's getting hungrier. https://t.co/mVVgMYJeka

— Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) July 23, 2020

You give and give and it's never enough.