Ana Visneski

I already pitched the houseboat idea and you said no. You know how much bigger a lift THIS is?

No.

Holy shit!

Have you seen that you can have your ashes mixed into reef restoration structures? It’s in my will that’s what I want to have done.

The Xbox 360 succeeded because we focused on what gamers and game developers wanted.

Not what publishers wanted. Not building a “something-else killer”. Not what Windows wanted. We enabled game developers to make great games people wanted to play.

So yes the CG put out a new policy but you know what’s still nagging me-

If they don’t revert the problematic one? It is written in a way where a command could decide your pride flag on your car is divisive and punish you for it.

The Coast Guard planned to change how it described swastikas and nooses. Then came the outcry and an updated policy The U.S. Coast Guard has released a new, firmer policy addressing the display of hate symbols like swastikas and nooses just hours after it was publicly revealed that it made plans to describe them as...

Another thing that concerns me too is how the CG is pushing that the whole issue was misinformation. (Aka fake news.) They even said the new policy is to combat the misinformation…gaslighting much?

www.pbs.org/newshour/pol...

When I was in the Coast Guard, I was working with some of the smartest people I have ever met. To this day, the smartest people I’ve ever met. So that is why I give very little to no leeway about “mistakes “

Folks I did Public Affairs for the CG. You can ask ANY of my clients how meticulous I am about language use.

Where do you think I learned that skill? Where do you think I learned how to look at something we were about to put out for every possible bad way it could be taken?

And they did this change now…under THIS administration.

I’ve seen some people say that we are all just reading too far into it and that it was just a mistake.

Of course the people who were saying the article is wrong…are going to use this as a “see that’s not what the CG did”

Sorry folks. They still changed the language in an existing policy in a way that changed swastikas and nooses to “divisive” instead of hate symbols.

20 Nov 2025 MEMORANDUM //S// From: Kevin E. Lunday, ADM CCG(a) To: All Coast Guard Subj: COAST GUARD POLICY AND LAWFUL ORDER PROHIBITING DIVISIVE OR HATE SYMBOLS AND FLAGS Ref; (a) Discipline and Conduct, COMDTINST 1600,2 (series) (b) Civilian Personnel Aotions: Disciplinary

Prohibition. a. Divisive or hate symbols and flags are prohibited. These symbols and flags include, but are not limited to, the following: a noose, a swastika, and any symbols or flags co-opted or adopted by hate-based groups as representations of supremacy, racial or religious intolerance, anti-semitism, or any other improper bias. b. The display of any divisive or hate symbol is prohibited and shall be removed from all Coast Guard workplaces, facilities, and assets. c. Display or depiction of the Confederate battle flag remains prohibited in all Coast Guard workplaces, facilities, and assets. This includes barracks and other quarters where the flag is readily visible, and the exterior of Coast Guard housing. This prohibition

(b) Civilian Personnel Actions: Disciplinary, Adverse, and Performance Based Actions, COMDTINST 12750,4 (series) 1. General. a. The Coast Guard does not tolerate the display of divisive or hate symbols and flags, including those identified with oppression or hatred. These symbols reflect hateful and prohibited conduct that undermines unit cohesion. b. A symbol or flag is prohibited as a reflection of hate if its display adversely affects good order and discipline, unit cohesion, command climate, morale, or mission effectiveness. c. This policy applies to all Coast Guard personnel.

So last night at 1824 PST an email went out to CG members.

I need to point out to be clear- this is a different policy than the one the one the news story was about.

A commandants letter is NOT policy and the way the policy was written would have given commands the leeway to tell someone who was reporting a swastika that they were just being sensitive.

Do you see the road that starts us down?

The letter created clear, cognitive dissonance between what the policy had been changed to say.

And you might think I’m being nitpicky because well of course it’s still a hate symbol. But when you start to loosen language in a policy document- you are opening the door for interpretation.

Yesterday I did a TT video reading the letter from the acting commandant to Coast Guard members that was sent early afternoon yesterday.

color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability (physical or mental), parental status, marital status, or genetic information (including family medical history)). c. Except in cases involving allegations of sexual harassment, reports must be made within forty-five (45) calendar days of an incident or in the case of a series of incidents, the most recent incident, with discretion for reports to be accepted beyond this time frame. d. Conduct previously handled as a potential hate incident, including those involving symbols widely identified with oppression or hatred, is processed as a report of harassment in cases with an identified aggrieved individual, or in accordance with Chapter 11 of this Instruction. The terminology "hate incident" is no longer present in policy. 2 COMDTINST 5350.6A e. District and area chiefs of staff are designated as convening authorities. District and area division chiefs and sector deputy commanders are designated as convening authorities, limited to reports involving subordinate unit command cadre. f. An investigating officer may be from the same unit where allegations arose except for cases involving allegations of sexual harassment when the investigating officer must be from a separate unit. Lieutenants (Junior Grade) may now serve as investigating officers. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT AND IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS. The Office of Environmental Management, Commandant (CG-SHORE-V) reviewed this Commandant Instruction and the general policies contained within and determined that this policy falls under DHS categorical exclusion A3. This CI will not result in any substantial change to existing environmental conditions or violation of any applicable federal, state, or local laws

COMDTINST 5350.6A CHAPTER 11. PUBLIC DISPLAY OF DIVISIVE SYMBOLS AND FLAGS A. General. 1. The public display of divisive symbols and flags, including those widely identified with oppression or hatred, can undermine unit cohesion and marginalize segments of our workforce. 2. A display is considered public when viewing is unavoidable by others in Coast Guard workplaces, common access areas, public areas, or operating facilities. This includes barracks and other quarters where readily visible, the exterior of Coast Guard housing, clothing and other apparel, bumper stickers and other vehicle adornments, and when displayed inside a vehicle in plain view. This does not include private spaces outside of public view, such as family housing. 3. A symbol or flag is divisive if its public display adversely affects good order and discipline, unit cohesion, command climate, morale, or mission effectiveness. B. Potentially Divisive Symbols and Flags. 1. Potentially divisive symbols and flags include, but are not limited to, the following: a noose, a swastika, and any symbols or flags co-opted or adopted by hate-based groups as representations of supremacy, racial or religious intolerance, or other bias. C. Removal of Divisive Symbols and Flags. 1. The public display of the Confederate battle flag is prohibited and shall be removed from all Coast Guard workplaces, common access areas, public areas, or operating facilities. Commanders, commanding officers, officers-in-charge, and supervisors shall inquire into public displays of other potentially divisive symbols or flags and, in consultation with their servicing legal office, may order or direct the removal of those determined to adversely affect good order and discipline, unit cohesion, command climate, morale, or mission effectiveness. 2. Displays that exist for an unquestionably legitimate purpose should not be subject to removal. Examples include state-sanctioned items or when the symbol or flag is only an incidental or minor …

People claiming that the article was inaccurate are trying to play a shell game of semantics.

But here the policy literally says “hate incident” is no longer in the policy and shows the language change to “potentially divisive”

Excerpt from February 2023 U.S. Coast Guard policy document, Page 21 The following is a non-exhaustive list of symbols whose display, presentation, creation, or depiction would constitute a potential hate incident: a noose, a swastika, supremacist symbols, Confederate symbols or flags, and anti-Semitic symbols. The display of these types of symbols constitutes a potential hate incident because hatebased groups have co-opted or adopted them as symbols of supremacy, racial or religious intolerance, or other bias.

Excerpt from November 2025 U.S. Coast Guard policy document, Page 36 Potentially divisive symbols and flags include, but are not limited to, the following: a noose, a swastika, and any symbols or flags co-opted or adopted by hate-based groups as representations of supremacy, racial or religious intolerance, or other bias.

Of course a bunch of folks, including USCG leadership were quick to say fake news and that’s not what the policy said.

While it did not LITERALLY say “these things are no longer hate symbols” the changes in documentation DID downgrade them.

As posted by the WP

Mp EXCLUSIVE U.S. Coast Guard will no longer classily swastikas, nooses as hate symbols The military service, which falls under the Department of Homeland Security, has drafted a new policy that classifies such items "potentially divisive." Updated November 20, 2025 at 4:03 p.m. EST

Allllrighty so the Coast Guard swastika situation. Buckle up for a thread.

Yesterday it broke in the news that a USCG policy was being updated and that swastikas and nooses were no longer classified as hate symbols.

Or anyone’s

My thoughts can be summed up thusly

AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHWHAAAAAATHEEEEEFUUUUUCK

So this is true- this spheal was a gift from @thevowel.bsky.social and was not supposed to be a dog bed.

At some point the three house gremlins claimed it and no matter how many times I took it away it was the only bed they wanted.

It no longer re fluffs to a remotely round shape 🤣😭

Yeaaaah so IT WASN’T SUPPOSED to be a dog bed.

Echem. They commandeered it and no matter how many times I tried to reclaim it, that is the ONLY bed the three dogs all wanted 😭😭

The blep at the end kills me

The softest of tummies to boot

This dog…🤣

It’s if it shows up before my laser cutter is set up and running we are gonna have trouble 🤣

My main question after reading this is what's the process for stripping tenure at Harvard?

In hecklevision no less

You knew what you were starting 😂

Reminder: Neither Whiskey Pete nor Trump have the authority to change the name of a department created by Congress.

It's still "Department of Defense" and his title is "Secretary of Defense", not "War".

He doesn't need your help to change all the signs and paperwork.