We All Laugh at HRC’s Apologists…

December 16, 2011

…and rightly so.

Arlington, Va., gay activist Bob Mialovich, an HRC member and contributor who retired recently as a federal government official, called such criticism unfair.

“I can understand peoples’ frustration, but the reality is we don’t have a majority of support in Congress to pass the bills we need to pass,” he said. “If you are not directly involved, you may not be aware of what HRC is doing. What I know is they are doing a lot.”

…because those of us who are really aware have been seeing the same crap for a loooooooooooooooooooooong time now:

I think that the Human Rights Campaign has done as much if not more on transgender issues than most other national [ gay and lesbian ] organizations. If you really look at the actual work.

How about really looking at this:

With a staff of 150 full-time employees, the group’s revenue of close to $40 million makes HRC the largest national LGBT advocacy group.

1/4th of the letters…

1/150th of the paid workforce.

Should we thank Pee Wee for that being an increase over what the percentage was at the time of Queen Elizabeth III’s Outlines interview in 1999?

Your breath, do not hold (at least without washing your hands first.)

Cue the outraged, overly-privileged, detached-from-reality beneficiaries of HRC’s decades of fraud, misrepresentation and open hostility toward trans people and issues (sometimes referred to as ‘incremental progress’)….

A Serious Question: Are There ANY Male Republican Officeholders Who Aren’t Gay?

December 16, 2011

Well, other than David Vitter and Newt Gingrich that is.

Receipts from embattled Southaven Mayor Greg Davis reveal that he had the city pay for wide-ranging expenses including thousands of dollars worth of liquor, expensive dinners at a local restaurant and a visit to an adult store catering to gay men while on a recruitment trip to Canada.

As details emerged Thursday from the receipts, provided by state auditors to Southaven aldermen and subsequently obtained by The Commercial Appeal, Davis conceded publicly for the first time in an interview with The CA that he is gay and has struggled to keep the issue from affecting his public life as mayor of Mississippi’s third-largest city.

Oh yes I am SHOCKED!!! Shocked, I say!!!!!

You mean that neither Vicksburg nor Gulfport nor Biloxi is Mississippi’s third-largest city?!?!?!?!?

I am shocked at that!

But the existence of yet another Family Values Fag?

As for the receipts, Davis, a Republican who ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2008 on a conservative, family-values platform, said he couldn’t discuss specifics on the advice of his attorney.

Yawn.  (Having said that, though, I’m presuming that former openly gay Democratic Texas State Rep. Glen Maxey’s new book about Rick Perry will be an interesting read.)

Baby, If You’ve Ever Wondered, Wondered Whatever Became of Me, I’m Livin’ in the Pool in Cincinnati, Listening to WKKK

December 14, 2011

Other than apologies to everyone – living and dead – who had any connection whatsoever to the legendary TV series WKRP in Cincinnati, I’m really not sure what else I can say about this?

A landlord found to have discriminated against a black girl by posting a “White Only” sign at a swimming pool wants a state civil rights commission to reconsider its decision.

The Ohio Civil Rights Commission found on Sept. 29 that Jamie Hein, who’s white, violated the Ohio Civil Rights Act by posting the sign at a pool at the duplex where the teenage girl was visiting her parents. The parents filed a discrimination charge with the commission and moved out of the duplex in the racially diverse city to “avoid subjecting their family to further humiliating treatment,” the commission said in a release announcing its finding.

An investigation revealed that Hein in May posted on the gated entrance to the pool an iron sign that stated “Public Swimming Pool, White Only,” the commission statement said.

Several witnesses confirmed that the sign was posted, and the landlord indicated that she posted it because the girl used in her hair chemicals that would make the pool “cloudy,” according to the commission.

Cloudier than a summer’s worth of white people’s (and black people’s and Hispanic people’s and Asian peoples’, yadda yadda yadda…) urine?

As god as my witness, I thought racists could fly!!!!

We ALL Laugh at Mitt Romney’s Nonsense…

December 14, 2011

and rightly so.

In a 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts that was obtained way back when by the Boston Globe that has been mostly forgotten, then-Senate candidate Romney said:

As a result of our discussions and other interactions with gay and lesbian voters across the state, I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.

Yet only some of us laugh at this nonsense:

Outlines: The concept of trans issues … are they in partnership just like with Black issues might be, or are they integral to the agency? ENDA is just one example of how that manifests itself.

[Elizabeth] Birch: I think that the Human Rights Campaign has done as much if not more on transgender issues than most other national [ gay and lesbian ] organizations. If you really look at the actual work.

Yes, one was prospective and the other retrospective, but keep something else in mind: The Birch interview was published in September1999, less than five years after the Romney letter (which was dated Oct. 6, 1994.) 

I’m just remindin’….

Questions Regarding the Christianist Seeking Special Rights in San Antonio, Texas

December 13, 2011

First, one from Monica Roberts:

San Antonio Media-Why Haven’t You Interviewed The Transwoman In This Macy’s Story?

Valid, to be sure.

I have an even more fundamental one:  Has anyone actually seen the trans woman in question?

No, that’s not a jab at her looks – whatever they might be.  Rather, its a basic question about whether or not there actually was a trans woman and, in turn, whether there actually was an incident for the christianist Macy’s employee to be marketed as a ‘victim’ over.

Liberty Counsel chairman Mathew Staver appeared on In the Market with Janet Parshall to discuss the organization’s latest case against Macy’s, which terminated an employee, Natalie Johnson, for refusing to follow company policy regarding the rights of LGBT customers. Staver, who last week told Vic Eliason of VCY America that the case is a result of the “LGBT sexual anarchist agenda gone awry” and that adults will begin identifying as children so they “can go and use the little kiddies restroom,” contended that the trans-friendly policy could lead to an increase in rape and sexual assaults as women in fitting rooms now “may be watched by a peeping tom or even worse, sexually assaulted or raped.” He went on to say that people who are transgender are similar to anorexics and bulimics, and do not deserve legal rights.

Staver: But even if they bring Natalie back that fixes one problem, but the big problem and the major problem is this policy. As you mentioned before the break, this really puts every woman at risk. A father doesn’t want to take his twelve, thirteen year-old daughter there to go to Macy’s and let her go into a woman’s fitting room, not knowing whether there may be some pedophile, pervert, or some other kind of person who’s waiting to do a sexual assault on this young woman, or your wife. Any woman does not want to go into a men’s restroom, a men’s fitting room, or a woman’s fitting room, thinking that they may be watched by a peeping tom or even worse, sexually assaulted or raped, and in fact this is a liability waiting to happen and Macy’s needs to fix this problem.

We’re going to see this unless we ultimately wake up and stop this radical agenda, because what this so-called movement, they keep changing the alphabet around, now it’s LGBT and it’s LGBTQ, and now I just came across LGBTQQI, there’s all kinds of new alphabets to this, bottom line is this though: they believe that you should be able to be anyone you want to be in your mind. So, objective biology and physiology, how you’re actually born and how you look, really doesn’t make any difference. What makes a difference is what you think in your mind. It’s kind of like anorexic bulimia, obviously someone they believe they are overweight when they’re really not, here, if they believe that they are a woman and they’re really a man, well instead of addressing the issue, they want you to have some legal protection for it.

The trans woman in question might be wanting to eschew the spotlight – and that’s understandable (doubly so given the involvement of the disreputable whackjob Staver.)


How often is the media not able to track down people and ambush them when the media actually wants to track down people and ambush them?

And HRC’s New Head Will Be…

December 13, 2011

Current National Rifle Association head Wayne LaPierre!

Or maybe not.

Or…probably not.

He’s not gay – but then again why should that matter?  Heads of (alleged) non-profits are just like heads of (alleged job-creating) corporations: interchangeable blobs with no real substantive connection to anything that the org/corp does or claims to do and are at the apex of the lifeless entity to do one thing and one thing alone…

[T]he NRA hasn’t lived in the fact-based world for several decades now. Richard Feldman, former NRA lobbyist, is a public affairs lawyer who wrote “Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist”. He points out that the name of the game for NRA leadership is keeping themselves highly compensated:

Harlon B. Carter, who created the modern NRA in the 1970s, earned about $70,000 a year (about $200,000 in today’s dollars) as executive vice president and was driven to meetings in the company Chevrolet. Wayne LaPierre, who currently sits upon the executive vice president throne, pocketed about $950,000 in 2005. The parking lot at the association’s twin-glass-towered headquarters off Interstate 66 in Virginia is filled with shiny new BMWs and Mercedes-Benzes.

What’s unseemly about the stratospheric six-figure salaries flowing into NRA leadership wallets is that the cash comes from hundreds of thousands of members who are hard pressed to write $35 annual membership renewal checks or send an extra $10 or $20 to the NRA Political Victory Fund to protect their guns.



Where have I seen that figure before?

I wonder if the NRA also determines its overall membership totals by counting anyone who has ever given it $1.00?

When the Human Rights Campaign claims to act on behalf of 650,000 members, the nation’s largest gay rights lobby is hoping people take notice. But the Washington, D.C. based group is probably hoping people don’t take notice of just how those “members” are counted.

Under the decade-long leadership of Elizabeth Birch, HRC’s membership numbers always climbed year-to-year.

Membership figures provided by HRC indicate rapid growth. In 1990, there were only 20,000 members; five years later there were 100,000.

By 2000, 20 years after being founded, HRC had 360,000 members. By 2003, the year Birch left, there were 500,000. Today, under new director Joe Solmonese, HRC claims 650,000 members.

In fact, those totals were guaranteed always to escalate impressively, and never to decline. That’s because HRC counts “members” in a way that will strike many as curious.

HRC membership numbers include the name of every person who has ever once given at least the minimum amount — currently $1 — and provided an address, said spokesperson Steven Fisher this week.

“The GLBT movement is unique. When we come out of the closet, we commit for life,” said Fisher, defending the membership count.

Well, when I think HRC, I do think ‘committed’, but likely not in the way that he did.  He likely would put “are” in front of it.

I would think “should be” would be more appropriate – except that we all know that the money-mongerers of Rhode Island Avenue know precisely what they’re doing.

And what have we learned, class? Don’t expect the truth from a man whose paychecks depend on a lie.

Look no further for your proof that gays are truly no different than straights.

Worth Remembering

December 12, 2011

John Aravosis is a Disingenuous Transphobic Shyster

December 10, 2011

But we already knew that, didn’t we? 

Well, if there were any doubts, take a look at a paragraph of prototypical gay-primacy legal ‘analysis’ three-card monte that he slipped into a post about Frankenphobe’s year-in-advance exit interview with Queer Channel Media:

As for the [Massachusetts] trans bill, they got a lot more protections at the local level than we have at the national level, so it’s hardly “nothing.” And even the bill that’s a “sell out” offers a lot more protections than ENDA would offer us – so would passage of ENDA at the national level be a sell out too?

This is both the disease and the result of having the disease.

It is the disease in that this compact, seemingly-inoccuous, gay-male-with-money-approved nugget of anti-knowledge can be tramsmitted as easily as a virus – often without evil intent even if there was evil intent with the transmission of it in that AmericaBlah post.  People eager to believe it will think its true – the way that people are willing to believe that anyone eager to hop in the sack with them is safe. 

And we know how that usually turns out, eh?

Even people who have no eagerness to believe bullshit will believe it because, to anyone with anything else also on their minds, it sounds reasonable.

You know…

Muslim terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center, so we have to go to war against Saddam Hussein…

Lowering taxes on the job-creators will cause them to be more willing to create jobs…

HRC hring one trans woman actually means something…

Just like the swisscheeseification of the American collective brain that Fox ‘News’ has worked upon America, this latest fit of Aravosisism is the result in that previous generations of gay-rights-industry transphobic circle-jerkery has not only unleashed people who actually believe this insanity but has actually unleashed some people who not only believe it but think that they’re really, really, really, really, really doing right by trans people when they re-ejaculate it into the civil rights discourse.  (I hereby refer thee to the comments to a posting about the St. Barney interview over at Towleroad.)

Lets parse John Aravosis’s disingenuous bullshit (and in doing so, decide for yourselves if he’s worthy of any benefit of any doubt as to where he fits into that dichotomy) shall we? 

Okay, step one:

they got a lot more protections at the local level than we have at the national level


This is one really industrial-strength-ugly hydra. 

Well, here goes…

  1. “they” got a lot less protections at the local level than you
  2. “you” (standing in for all of you through the ages) have had that superiority of protection for over 22 years now at that local level
  3. “they” have no more protections at the national level than you
  4. for quite some time (the era of the “sexual orientation”-only executive order), “they” had less protections than you at the national level

Moving on…

so it’s hardly “nothing.”

That actually remains to be seen.  Once entities that, at first glance, appear to be covered by the bill realize the true significance of clear legislative history of public accommodations being purposely and deliberatively excluded from the bill, most if not all employment protections will, in practice, be erased (and, with no job, renting much less buying some form of housing becomes just another illusion – you know, like trans employees at NGLTF.)  Moreover, that same clear legislative history of public accommodations being purposely and deliberatively excluded from the bill will at some point be used by some court in Massachusetts to declare that all of the amorphous decisional law-based “sex” decisions that we were supposed to bend over and say ‘thank you’ for and be satisfied with were overturned as to public accommodations.  In short, it may well not be hardly nothing; it quite possibly may be worse than nothing.

even the bill that’s a “sell out” offers a lot more protections than ENDA would offer us

Refer back to the little fact that in the relevant jurisdiction – Massachusetts, not the federal level – that means that some people (care to guess who?) have more than rights than others.  If the Massachusetts trans bill had included employment discrimination protections and, say, a handful of puppy treats, then that would indeed be broader in scope for trans people than even a legitimate version of the federal ENDA would be and if the 1989 Massachusetts gay-only rights law had not provided for puppy treats then we’d even have something under Massachusetts state anti-discrimination law that you don’t. 

But my dogs – who tell me that they’re licensed to practice law in Massachusetts (though I have my doubts; I think they’re just trying to impress me to get some puppy treats) – tell me that not only did gays not get any puppy treats in 1989 but, after a thorough reading of the 2011 trans bill, it appears that trans people didn’t get any either.

Of course, if the Massachusetts trans bill had included employment discrimination protections as well as all other protections that gays and lesbians grabbed for themselves and themselves alone back in 1989 – thereby making gays and lesbians in Massachusetts live with the painful indignity of knowing that trans people are actually fully equal to them – then that would be broader in scope for trans people as well as gays and lesbians than the federal ENDA would be. 

No puppy treats for you John.

Now, in addition…

You don’t really want me to continue the above analysis via comparison to the sort of federal ENDA that you were trying to ramrod into federal law back in 2007, do you John?

so would passage of ENDA at the national level be a sell out too?

I’ll ask again: You don’t really want me to continue that analysis via comparison to the sort of federal ENDA that you were trying to ramrod into federal law back in 2007, do you John?

Well, screw you.  I’m going to.

If it is a legitimate version of ENDA, then yes it is indeed a sell-out – but (1) a sell-out that was engineered by St. Barney, et. al. back in the early 1990s by deciding to go for employment only, and (2), by virtue of it being a legitimate version of ENDA, a sell-out of not just LGBs but also of Ts – but it would be a sell-out that would result in all LGBTs having the sole nugget of employment anti-discrimination protections.

On the other hand…

If it is the type of ENDA bill that you championed – just as disingenuously as you’re doing now – right along with St. Barney of Strife, the, once again, it is indeed a sell-out – but (1) a sell-out that was engineered by St. Barney, et. al. back in the early 1990s by deciding to go for employment only, but (2), by virtue of it being an illegitimate version of ENDA, an additional level of sell-out – of Ts – resulting in all LGBs having a federal, statutory right to discriminate against trans people in any private employment context given that any relevance that the Vandy Beth Glenn decision might have to Title VII sex discrimination law would be wiped out via Congress knowingly, purposefully and openly ejecting trans coverage from ENDA’s scope.

December 2011…

Its the new October 2007.

Where Black is the Color, None is the Number, and the Trend is Dirty Hungry Bugs

December 10, 2011

As Opposed to Corporations?

December 10, 2011

What’s in Newt’s snoot tonight

Meth?  Heroin?  Pulverized mushrooms?

The Jewish Channel, a U.S. cable TV network, released excerpts of the interview on Friday in which the former House speaker said Palestinians were not a people because they never had a state and because they were part of the Ottoman Empire before the British mandate and Israel’s creation.

“Remember, there was no Palestine as a state — (it was) part of the Ottoman Empire. I think we have an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and historically part of the Arab community and they had the chance to go many places,” Gingrich said, according to a video excerpt posted online.

You mean as opposed to corporations?  Whose status as people was invented – at the behest of Republicans – by five criminals who occupy seats on the U.S. Supreme Court?


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers