green bean casserole cupcakes today! (Some readers may not know or recall that I mentioned that green bean casserole cupcakes would be a fine thing, so I planned to make some. I didn’t get to it until today, but I did it! Just going to show pics and give an outline of their creation here, but I can expand upon the recipe if anyone cares for it. 🙂
So, last month, I was on Burr Deming’s blog, where he’d made a less-than-positive remark about green bean casserole. Being me, I couldn’t resist stating how much I enjoy it, and that I was thinking of doing it as cupcakes this year.
Well, what sounded like the right thing to do as to that was to use toasted cornbread crumbs seasoned with sage and whatever else you want; I used herbs to mimic poultry seasoning, with extra sage because I especially enjoy it. I mixed in some crushed french-fried onions (your choice of brand) and a T. of melted butter, thinking I’d make the crust similarly to cracker-crumb crusts. I lined (tried to line!) cupcake cups with the crust, trying to get it all the way up the sides, but it only went a part of the way; these crumbs are a bit heavy.
I baked the crusts for 10 min. at 350. Meanwhile, I made the mushroom sauce (I like to make my own so I can control fat and salt for myself) and since it would be ridiculous to try to layer these, I added the green beans right to the sauce.
After 15 min. (they didn’t look quite ready at 10,) I pulled the crusts and let them rest until cooled. Then I loaded the casserole, then put on the onions. Back into the 350 degree oven for 20 minutes. Then I turned the oven off, gave them 10 more because they looked as if they could use the time.
So, I think I could have baked the crusts 5-8 minutes more before filling. These aren’t truly cupcakes; the sides didn’t hold, though about a 1/4 inch in they were edible the way one eats a cupcake. Flavor-wise, if you enjoy holiday food flavors, holy cow they are awesome. Not tooting my horn, rather tooting the food’s horn. I may layer in seasoned cornbread crumbs in my casserole next year!
(Before trying to peel the paper off. And, yes, it’s on the kid’s old Poke’mon plate; it’s the perfect size for me.)
(Cupcake cup off; ready to eat. I ate the outside bits with a fork, then picked up the interior, and ate it like a cupcake. Mmm!)
Gay Pride Day on June 28, 1975 in downtown Minneapolis. Credit: Minnesota Historical Society/John Hustad Papers/Tretter Collection in GLBT Studies/University of Minnesota
It was likely one of the last pieces of city policy passed that winter, just before the New Year, a parting gift from a progressive city council.
On December 30, 1975, Minneapolis became the first city to adopt a trans-inclusive LGBTQ+ non-discrimination ordinance. Fifty years later, the United States still lacks similar protections on a federal level.
Minneapolis was special in that the right people were there at the right time, said Seth Goodspeed, director of development and communications at OutFront Minnesota, the state’s largest LGBTQ+ rights organization.
“Minneapolis, since the early ’70s, has really been a leader in the gay rights movement,” he said. “That comes out of a lot of the student organizing at the University of Minnesota in the late ’60s.”
It was home to Jack Baker and Michael McConnell, two men who, in 1971, figured out how to legally marry, the first recorded same-sex marriage in history. It was also the stomping ground of Steve Endean, who founded the nation’s largest LGBTQ+ rights organization, the Human Rights Campaign.
Endean started lobbying a city alderman, Earl Netwal, in 1973 to pass a gay rights ordinance. His timing was just right. In 1974 progressives won the mayoral race and the city council. That year they voted 10-0 to ban discrimination on the basis of “sexual preference.”
The next year, Tim Campbell, a local activist and publisher of the GLC Voice in Minneapolis, penned a trans-inclusive policy.
“I think it was a pendulum,” Goodspeed said. “The pendulum was sort of swinging back toward a more conservative mayor and a conservative city council.” (snip)
…
“You’re able to say, ‘We passed this two years ago, last year, in the past five years, and nothing’s really changed, there is no boogeyman under the bed,’” he said. “We’ve had these protections since the 1970s and all these fears that they might have … just never came to fruition.”
The public spaces in Nantes, a city along the Loire River in the west of France, might at first glance seem just like those in any other part of Europe. Across the city, there are numerous bike lanes, bustling fresh produce markets and pretty, historic squares.
But on closer inspection, there are signs of a profound attempt to make the city, its facilities and its built environment a more equitable place for women.
Hundreds of streets now bear the names of women, including Joséphine Baker, Frida Kahlo and Clémence Lefeuvre — the little-known creator of local specialty beurre blanc sauce. School yards, once dominated by soccer pitches, have been remodeled to incorporate spaces for calm and creativity. Stations for breastfeeding have been built in the city center to improve maternal comfort and visibly counter stigma. Free tampon dispensers have been installed in libraries, gyms and all kinds of other municipal buildings.
The new Boulevard Gisèle Halimi, named after the feminist lawyer (1927-2020), is located in the Prairie-au-Duc district on the Île de Nantes. Credit: Patrick Garcon / Nantes Métropole.
These initiatives form part of mayor Johanna Rolland’s bold plan to make Nantes, which is home to around 700,000 people and is the sixth largest city in France, a ville non-sexiste, or non-sexist city. From redesigning public areas to reallocating spending and inaugurating France’s leading center to counter gender-based violence, Nantes is trailblazing the way to safer, less discriminatory urban life.
“We couldn’t wait for change anymore, we had to take action,” says Mahaut Bertu, the deputy mayor of Nantes in charge of equality, the fight against discrimination and the non-sexist city project. “Femicides continue every year. Women suffer harassment every day. [To make change], we had to take a hold of the problem ourselves.”
Shortly after taking power in 2014, Rolland and her team set about carrying out research and compiling statistics on the extent of inequality in Nantes, since at that point limited information existed.
The findings of the research, which included income, violence and public spaces, were striking. Analysis found, for example, that of the 3,000 streets in Nantes, fewer than four percent of them were named after women compared with more than 36 percent bearing men’s names. More broadly, it found that, in 2014, 58 percent of women aged 15 to 64 were employed, compared to 63 percent of men. And women represented 70 percent of the so-called “working poor” — those in employment but below the poverty line.
From that understanding, city authorities went about introducing women-centered policy and ramping up investment. One of the most pressing issues was responding to gender-based violence.
In France, 99 percent of women have been victims of a sexist comment or act at least once in their lives, according to the French High Council for Equality, an independent advisory body. “Far from declining, sexism is becoming entrenched, even increasing,” its 2024 report concluded.
In November 2019, following years of consultation with residents, women’s rights groups and nonprofits, the city opened Citad’elles, a shelter for women victims of violence that provides free, centralized support 24/7 — something that to this day does not exist anywhere else in France. (snip)
…
This year, a pilot study is taking place in four of the schools to assess the impact of the new playgrounds. Fischer’s team is also working with school employees to help promote fairer use of the spaces.
At the same time, Nantes has an initiative to fight “period poverty” and to help reduce the costly burden of women’s sanitary products.
ne of the best-kept secrets about DEI is that it helps men—that includes white men—get into college. If you do not work in admissions, you are likely unaware of this fact, and that’s by design; one admissions officer even told The Wall Street Journal it’s “higher education’s dirty little secret.” But it’s been true for decades. Women’s college enrollment surpassed men’s all the way back in 1979, and the gender gap has only widened in the interim. Over just the last five years, as college enrollment numbers plunged by roughly 1.5 million students, men have accounted for more than 70 percent of that decline. In an increasingly difficult effort to maintain something approximating gender parity, admissions officers at private universities have for years used “gender balancing,” accepting male applicants at higher rates than female applicants. The Supreme Court ruled that race-consciousness in college admissions is unconstitutional in 2023. That means affirmative action is technically illegal, just not if it benefits men.
Under the Trump administration’s anti-DEI directives, schools would be forced to abandon gender balancing, leaving fewer men in college. More specifically, fewer white men, since they make up the majority of male applicants.
And the most precipitous drops would happen at America’s elite institutions of higher education. Private schools are the only colleges allowed to practice gender discrimination, which has been legally banned at public colleges since 1971’s Title IX passed. But the Trump administration, using federal funding as a bargaining chip, is pushing colleges to sign its Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education. The plan specifically names “gender identity” as one of many traits that cannot be “considered, explicitly or implicitly, in any decision related to undergraduate or graduate student admissions.” And while there have been few signatories to that plan, the administration has succeeded in having Brown, Columbia and Northwestern sign agreements that state students will be accepted “solely on their merits, not their race or sex.”
Even as they use that language, which is deliberately crafted to imply unqualified women are getting away with something, right-wingers are well aware that men are increasingly turning away from college. Anti-anti-racist activists including Christopher Rufo have groused for years about the “feminization” of higher education, a complaint that makes sense only if said complainer understands that men are the ones quietly being advantaged. Their endless chatter about ending gender DEI in education is just right-wing PR—a way to keep grievances simmering instead of acknowledging who’s actually being given a hand up.
Not that any of them are shouting about this from the rooftops—and to be fair, admissions is opaque on every front. So how do we actually know men are being given an advantage—and not that, say, “women are more willing to apply to long-shot schools than men are,” as libertarian outlet Reason posits? There are clues. We know that women earn higher GPAs in high school, are almost twice as likely to graduate within the top 5 percent of their class, and are more likely to take AP courses—all things schools take into consideration. In addition, admissions officers sometimes just come right out and tell us. Shayna Medley, a former Brandeis University admissions officer who penned a 2016 Harvard legal paper on gender balancing, told The Hechinger Report that “standards were certainly lower for male students.” An ex-Wesleyan admissions officer told The New York Times that gender balancing required being “more forgiving and lenient” with male applicants, adding, “You’d be like, ‘I’m kind of on the fence about this one, but—we need boys.’” (“The process sometimes pained him,” the article notes, “especially when he saw an outstanding young woman from a disadvantaged background losing out to a young man who came from privilege.”) ”Probably nobody will admit it,” the former president of a small liberal arts college confessed in a 1998 Times piece, “but I know that lots of places try to get some gender balance by having easier admissions standards for boys than for girls.” (snip-MORE on the page)
And, I saw a comment on the YT page under the video that leads me to believe he will drop another set tonight (Wed., 12/24.) So, there may be a Merry Josh Johnson post on Christmas morning!
It is a .pdf. I was going to say, if you don’t want to read it top to bottom, go to the last (25th) page, but Justice Alito’s dissent is lengthy and verbose. (Yes, maybe worse than I, so I’ve given pages of particular pertinence here.) Justice Thomas joined him in that, then Justice Gorsuch also dissented on his own. Justice Kavanaugh concurred with the decision on page 2, denying the Petitioner, and in favor of The State Of Illinois. There is language there to read, as the scope was kept narrow by the Court: no stay, and as to various statements or defenses of Petitioner no finding of good application to the case. The concurrence (by Kavanaugh) agreed but named a circumstance in which he would have ruled to issue the stay. It’s a page and a half. I suggest reading it all, but I’m a nerd that way. This is a win, as long as protestors stay well-behaved, as we do.
A little tougher than much of what I usually post, though I always enjoy Evan Hurst’s work personally, and highly recommend everyone to do so, as well. Anyway, this is share worthy.
I had a whole other thing to finish writing for y’all this week, a Christmas/holiday post about the kinds of awful conservative Christians whose faith is based on God building a wall around heaven to keep out those they view as irredeemable sinners — you know, LGBTQ+ people, women who think freely, people who aren’t Nazis. I’ll finish writing it next week, or something.
But right now I am too busy laughing at this story Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal published and promoted on its socials this week:
screengrab, WSJ tweet 12/17/25
I did not know what I wanted for Christmas — you know, besides for every ICE agent in the country to stub their toe — but now I know that what my heart desires most is to witness a Religious Right meltdown over RUPERT MURDOCH’S WALL STREET JOURNALpublishing the story of “Chad, Brad and Thad couldn’t figure out how to make Chad’s mid-century modern go with Thad’s medieval sex swing and Brad’s collection of giant English settees. But they did it, and it’s FABULOUS.”
And praise Jesus, for Santa has brought it to me!
Y’all, sometimes the Moral High Ground is a very serious newsletter about serious subjects. Other times it is just about laughing at these motherfuckers and their small, sad brains and fears and prejudices and general status as the planet’s biggest losers. On December 19, 2025, as we head into the heaviest part of the holiday week, the Moral High Ground is the second thing.
The article is super fun, if you like real estate/interior design features, especially ones that are super-gay. Chad, Brad and Thad are actually David Gobberdiel, Ryan Tungate, and Michael Cowell, and they have a fabulous 4,000-square-foot duplex in Northalsted in Chicago. The Wall Street Journal helpfully explains terms for its readers who might not know:
The throuple, which is a committed romantic or sexual relationship between three people, took things slow at first.
David and Ryan didn’t live with Michael at first. (They were the original couple, as is often the case with throuples, two become three.) But then blah blah blah pandemic Michael didn’t leave, etc.
But $1.71 million later, they had a house, all three of ‘em!
The end result really is gorgeous, and despite how the WSJ helpfully explains certain things for people, it treats all of it is completely jejune, which is AS IT SHOULD BE. If Chad, Brad and Thad are happy, who the fuck should care?
For instance:
Real-estate agents are noticing more throuples and polycules buying homes together, often with everyone’s name on the deed. “Monogamy in this economy?” says Kathy “Kiki” Sloan, an employing broker with Property Dominator in Denver.
A polycule is bigger than a throuple, it’s more like a rhombus on top of a Venn diagram on top of a buncha wingdings. See? I am helpful like the Wall Street Journal, which explains it like this:
Designers are taking note, creating homes that balance privacy and togetherness for throuples and polycules, a group of people involved in consensual, interconnected, non-monogamous relationships.
Just as I said.
Anyway, the WSJ explains how Dane, Blaine and Shane spent $405,000 — must be nice, guys — to interior design their place up all-fancy-like and in a way that incorporated all their styles. “Designing for a couple is tricky enough. Add a third partner, and it is like a high-stakes game of design Tetris.” Did WSJ have to go with that exact visual? Oh hell yeah they did, and I recommend themfor a Pulitzer, or at the very least a FIFA Pulitzer.
Also they have a 96” x 96” mattress. For all the Tetris.
So as I was saying, the article is great, but what I really wanted to see was the religious right meltdown. While there’s not much yet in the way of organized hate groups or right-wing podcasters bitching, there’s some good clean fun from Twitter, like this weenus who writes for the right-wing Western Journal, who provided the headline for today’s newsletter:
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha, I am so happy right now.
That tweet has one reply, which simply says:
AT@j2tiger
@Josh_Manning@WSJ Three people can’t sodomize each other simultaneously. Someone’s gotta be at the end of the train. Learn math.
4:43 PM · Dec 18, 2025
LEARN MATH.
I am dying laughing.
Queerty found some loser on Facebook whining that “Why do publications like the WSJ prominently run stories about fringe subjects?” and “How many of your readers actually have a problem with their design tastes conflicting in their ‘throuple’?” As we are always discussing here, the Main Character Syndrome of these assholes is immense, the way they think their totally boring lives should be the center of attention in every story.
They found another who bellyached, “Everybody understands that this post is about promoting the far-left agenda, not about design tastes, right?” And here they thought Trump had made that illegal!
And it just gets more fun from there.
Oh no, not a rebuke!
Poor Jordan also whined in the comments that “It is shameful to normalize and celebrate what is degeneracy in the eyes of God. You should repent.” Boo hoo.
Now meet “Butthurt,” who is, well, butthurt:
Sorry, “Butthurt,” but there’s just not as much demand in the interior design journalism space for full-length features on Southern Baptist Becky who found the cutest “As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” wallpaper to go with their “Bless this mess!” dish towels.
Oh, the fundamentalists and Nazis of Twitter are losing it.
“It’s way past pride month for this crap,” whined “Grover Dill.” So … he wouldn’t bitch had they published this in June? Please advise.
This person writes about with about as much fluency as the president:
Catronwalk@catalewalk
@WSJ a “throuple”!!!?! This is “immorality” “blasphemy” personified as stated in scripture! Trash. Makes you feel magnanimous WSJ!?!?!?
1:54 PM · Dec 17, 2025
4 Likes
MAKES YOU FEEL MAGNANIMOUS WSJ!?!?!?
(By the way, not gonna go down a theological rabbithole here, but there is no Bible verse that says throuples are bad. In fact — IN FUCKING FACT — the Bible is absolutely full of polygamous arrangements. It’s just that most of them involve men having multiple wives and concubines. I’d argue that today’s throuples and polycules are far more nurturing, loving and egalitarian. Of course, the religious right hates things that are nurturing, loving and egalitarian.)
This jerkoff either asked AI or a thesaurus to write their comment:
A flagship paper treating interior design friction by a socially marginal polyamorous throuple ‘feature-worthy’ reveals metastatic cultural rot, and an abdication of moral and editorial restraint.
Forsooth and herewith!
This person is very upset because WHAT ABOUT TRADITIONAL-HETEROSEXUAL-PENIS-IN-VAGINA-THROUPLINGS?
Leonardo Danger@300aacblackout
@WSJ Now do a feel-good story about two women and one guy. Oh wait, you would never do that because gay is best.
4:30 PM · Dec 17, 2025
1 Like
Would Leonardo cry so much if WSJ had written an article about a white fundamentalist Christian man with a bunch of underage sister-wives? Just curious.
Finally, this guy is just repulsed, I tell you, repulsed, with British spellings!
John DiCarlo@JohnDicarlo20
@WSJ This article is a new low for the WSJ. Promoting deviant sexual behaviour. Welcome to the bottom of the slippery slope. I am repulsed, and I can see why you turned off the comments on your digital paper. I am disgusted.
1:17 PM · Dec 17, 2025
8 Likes
Oh, bless their hearts.
What’s fun about this is that these people are genuinely upset, and they think they’re upset about something that matters. They think there’s a God in the sky who actually is as small-minded as they are, a God who would truly be upset about Kevin, Devin and Tevin living in whatever kind of joyful matrimony they all choose to as consenting adults.
As usual, these people are creating God in their own tiny, hateful loser image, and you can tell, because of how God has all the same fears and insecurities they have.
Let’s not forget jealousy either.
Because again, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’s house is faaaaabulous.
Ain’t ONE heterosexually-yoked fundamentalist Christian couple on earth whose tacky-ass McMansion in the suburbs looks that good.
And they know it.
What if these guys are also happier than every heterosexually-yoked fundamentalist Christian couple on earth?
Oh fuuuuuuuck.
Hope all your weeks are merry merry, whatever you are or are not celebrating at the moment!
Earlier (yesterday by now,) I told Scottie I’m taking some time off posting because it’s become busy at my place, but I can’t not post Josh Day! Enjoy, and all keyboard protection protocols should be in place. 🤣
Scottie's Playtime 