Reality Has a Liberal Bias

October 30, 2008

Especially in Alaska.

From the proprietor of Mudflats, who was bitten by curiosity and went to a post-conviction ‘welcome home’ party for Republican sleazecicle Ted Stevens:

Our emcee was Rick Rydell, a long-time conservative radio talk show icon.  “I don’t know about you, but I don’t like outsiders telling me what to think!”  Wild cheering with a peppering of testosterone drenched ”YEAHH!”.  And if any of ‘em tries it, says Rydell, they can “kiss my moose-hunting behind.” I almost didn’t tell you that part, because it’s people like that that make me cringe as an Alaskan.  Then he went on to say that there were people that call his radio show all the time and say, “How can you not think Ted is guilty?” and then he says, “Why do you think he IS guilty?  And then they tell him, ‘I read it on the internet and the Anchorage Daily News.”  Laughter and scorn from the audience.  And finally he reminded the crowd that “the prosecutors don’t know Ted….I know Ted, and I choose to believe him.”  

Yes, apparently to Anchorage’s conservative radio audience, not only the Anchorage Daily News (Alaska’s only large newspaper), but the entire internet is a bogus source of information.  What the talk show guy “chooses to believe” is infinitely more reliable.

Oh, but some in the crowd topped that.  Truly choice is this photo:

Yup – vote for Ted…

so Diva McDumbass can appoint herself to the sleazecicle’s seat once he gets expelled from the Senate so he can spend his last, crooked days in prison.

Yup – even once we dispense with McBush on Nov. 4, I have a feeling that Diva McDumbass will find a way to keep slithering around in the spotlight.

Perhaps, if not as Senator Diva McDumbass, then as a doo-wah girl for Joe the Plumber.

You Can’t Make This Shit Up

October 30, 2008

And believe it or not, this has nothing to do with Barbie McMooseShit.

From MassInsanityResistance:

Senate – FIRST SUFFOLK (South Boston, Dorchester)

D – JACK HART, 62 G St., Boston [INCUMBENT]  *H*

R – ALTHEA GARRISON, 98 Howard Ave., Boston

Comment: Althea Garrison has supported MassResistance and collected hundreds of signatures for us, so we’re returning the favor, despite what people may say. Jack Hart is a disaster. Go Althea!

That’s MassResistance’s comment.

So – you’re wondering….So?

Who’s Jack Hart?

I don’t know.

Who’s Althea Garrison?  From TransAdvocate:

Running for office in 2003, Althea Garrison said that a:

most compelling reason why someone should vote for me is that I am different and unique from the other candidates, when candidates run and loose [sic] elections most of them goes back to their obscurity not me I continue to fight and bring issues to the limelight,

and of marriage equality in Massachusetts she said:

“Furthermore, to grant special benefits and privileges to a certain group of people is discriminatory toward heterosexual males and females. The issue of same sex marriage is not like race in which a person has no control over the color of his or her skin of which they were born, same sex is a matter of choice and lifestyle not to be confused or associated with class or race.

Garrison’s stance on marriage equality has gained her the support of the anti-gay rights group MassResistance :

“Althea Garrison has supported MassResistance and collected hundreds of signatures for us, so we’re returning the favor, despite what people may say. Jack Hart is a disaster. Go Althea!”

What makes this story unusual is that Garrison is transgender.

I’ll repeat: You can’t make this shit up.


October 30, 2008

Johnathan Rauch in the LA Times on the anti-Prop 8 campaign:

These days, it’s pretty hard to walk the streets of a California city without seeing same-sex couples — shopping, strolling, holding hands, sometimes accompanied by children. What used to be called, self-consciously, “public displays of affection” are now merely public displays of ordinary family life. For gay folks, then, it is all the more stinging an irony that the one place where same-sex couples are invisible is in the advertising war over Proposition 8.

OK – I’m actually not disputing Rauch’s observation about gay couples’ invisibility in the anti-Prop 8 ads (and he’s not the first to write about it.)  I would suggest that people dig into the history of the Anita Bryant-wave repeal of the original St. Paul, Minnesota gay rights ordinance.  One of the criticisms of the anti-repeal effort was the view that the ‘community’ essentialy invisibled itself (read: there was no room – or use – for those most ‘visible’, those who really needed the protections most.)

So, why am I saying anything about Rauch and his invisibility observation?  Well, beyond the rather disturbing declaration of same-sex marriage being the:

last and greatest step

for “gay culture,” I’m simply asking: Why is there not a similar amount of concern about how the gay rights industry invisibles trans people?

Again – I’m just askin’.

So Much For Any Neo-Legitimacy for the Scampaign

October 30, 2008

Kathy pointed me to a post on Donna Rose’s blog which contains a somewhat oblique comment about the Rhode Island Avenue Cesspoolof Transphobia‘s token transsexual woman.

The Human Rights Campaign has found a new role for  Associate Director of Diversity Allyson Robinson.  They’re using her as an interviewer in an effort to provide a more in-depth explanation/justification of HRC’s fatally compromised Congressional Scorecard.  I can think of a dozen tough questions that would have been far more informative (and fun) than the ones that were asked (read it here).


Here’s how the thing starts:

NOTE FROM CHRIS [JOHNSON]: Special thanks to Allyson Robinson, our associate director of diversity, for taking the lead on providing our readers with additional information on HRC’s latest congressional scorecard. She took time out from campaigning in Northern Virginia to catch up with Allison Herwitt, HRC’s legislative director, and ask her a few additional questions about the scorecard. Today she sent us the Q&A from the Allyson-Allison chat

As I said to Kathy, something tells me that whoever Allyson the Token was campaigning for should be pissed (or, perhaps, thankful; I haven’t figured out which.)  Here’s how the ‘interview’ went:

Given last year’s wrangling over the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) bills, I knew many in our community would be interested to know how we scored Members around those crucial pieces of legislation.  I recently sat down with HRC’s Legislative Director, Allison Herwitt, to ask her about that.

Allyson RobinsonHow are we scoring members of Congress around the ENDA bills?

Allison Herwitt:  For each two year session of Congress since 1989, the Human Rights Campaign has published a Congressional Scorecard.  That scorecard includes key Congressional votes and co-sponsorship of pro-LGBT legislation.  It is one of many educational tools to assist the LGBT community in assessing the relative support or non-support of Members of Congress.   Included in the 110th Scorecard (2007-2008) are the House vote on HR 3685, the sexual orientation-only Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the motion to recommit (a procedural motion to kill the bill), and cosponsorship of H.R. 2015, the fully-inclusive ENDA.

HRC routinely informs Members in advance of any votes or cosponsorships that may be included on the scorecard, and Members were notified in advance that H.R. 3685 and the motion to recommit would be a key votes, and that the cosponsorship of H.R. 2015 would also be scored.   HRC’s scorecard reflects a combination of votes and cosponsorships on key legislation.  Final passage votes and votes on amendments are given the most weight, with procedural votes and cosponsorships given less weight.  Because of the unique circumstances surrounding the Employment Non Discrimination Act, cosponsorship of the transgender-inclusive bill was double weighted.

And that’s how it went – a bland, uninquisitive-in-reality question followed by more of the Scampaign’s spin.  I won’t dignify any more of the spin, but here are the softer-than-softball questions:

A.R.:  Why did we decide to do it this way?

A.R.:  How do you think members feel about it?

A.R.:  What do we hope the impact will be?

Gee…no ‘Why did HRC lie to trans people about being willing to go to the mat on a trans-inclusive ENDA?’?  No ‘Why did HRC cook up a fraudulent survey to justify its lie?’?

A.R.:  Thanks so much for your time, Allison.

Thanks for nothing, Allyson.

You had that little use for your soul?

So Much for Campbell Brown’s Objectivity

October 29, 2008

Campbell Brown heads down the FOX rabbit hole over at CNN:

You may have heard that Wednesday night Barack Obama will be on five different TV networks speaking directly to the American people.

He bought 30 minutes of airtime from the different networks, a very expensive purchase. But hey, he can afford it. Barack Obama is loaded, way more loaded than John McCain, way more loaded than any presidential candidate has ever been at this stage of the campaign.

Just to throw a number out: He has raised well over $600 million since the start of his campaign, close to what George Bush and John Kerry raised combined in 2004.

Without question, Obama has set the bar at new height with a truly staggering sum of cash. And that is why as we approach this November, it is worth reminding ourselves what Barack Obama said last November.

One year ago, he made a promise. He pledged to accept public financing and to work with the Republican nominee to ensure that they both operated within those limits.

Then it became clear to Sen. Obama and his campaign that he was going to be able to raise on his own far more cash than he would get with public financing. So Obama went back on his word.

Here’s reality from one of those factinista outlets, the New York Times:

“Should John McCain win the Republican nomination, we will agree to accept public financing in the general election, if the Democratic nominee agrees to do the same,” Mr. Nelson said.

A spokesman for Mr. Obama, Bill Burton, said, “We hope that each of the Republican candidates pledges to do the same.”

Mr. Burton added that if nominated Mr. Obama would “aggressively pursue an agreement” with whoever was his opponent.

That was in 2007.  Fast-forward to 2008, and CBS:

Last March, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the candidate would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

Doesn’t sound like much changed over the course of that year, eh?  Pursuing and actually inking an agreement are a weeeeeeeeeeeeeee bit different – and I don’t think you need a law degree to grasp that concept.

Obama also told the Midwest Democracy Network, in a questionnaire, that he would participate in the system, writing that he had proposed a system in which “both major party candidates…agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.”

The Obama campaign has since suggested that Obama never vowed to take public financing, with Burton stating on Feb. 17 of this year that “there is no pledge.”

Well, where’s the actual quote where he actually says that he’ll actually participate in public financing irrespective of what McBush does?

McCain has hammered Obama for what he says is a clear case of the senator potentially breaking his promise.

“We both made a commitment to take public financing. There’s nothing to talk about. We either keep our word or we don’t keep our word,” McCain said

I don’t see it there.  How ’bout over at ABC?

“It was very clear to me that Senator Obama had agreed to having public financing of the general election campaign if I did the same thing,” McCain told a crowd in Oshkosh, Wisconsin Friday morning, “I made the commitment to the American people that if I were the nominee of my party, I would go the route of public financing. I expect Senator Obama to keep his word to the American people as well.”

Obama responded to McCain’s comments in the nearby city of Milwaukee, saying the jury is still out on his commitment. Obama explained that it would be something he’d have to talk over with McCain if they both were their respective party’s nominees, but indicated the discussion is premature at this point.

“If I am the nominee, then I will make sure that our people talk to John McCain’s people to find out if we’re willing to abide by the same rules and regulations with respect to the general election going forward. But it would be presumptuous of me to say now that I’m locking myself into something when I don’t even know if the other side is going to agree to it.”

McBush saw it clearly, eh?

Would that be with the same clarity by which you saw Bible Spice as being not ethically challenged?  And not someone who has consorted with witchdoctors?  And actually being competent to be president?

Do Some Research, You Swastika-Addled Moron

October 29, 2008

Nope – I’m not violating Godwin’s Law.  I’m simply spotlighting someone who did – and who clearly has some other serious issues to boot.

From RSSBinghamton, which is billed as “A blog about politics, business, faith and life in and around Greater Binghamton, NY”:

A Binghamton City Councilman (Sean Massey, pictured right), from the district I moved from when I left Binghamton, is proposing legislation that would re-label screwballs as “normal” inside the city limits. The headline in today’s Press & Sun-Bulletin says this: City councilman proposed panel on human rights: Commission would fight discrimination. Sounds so wholesome and warm and fuzzy, doesn’t it? Here’s how the article begins:

BINGHAMTON – Adopting a child, using a public restroom, even obtaining a passport can be more difficult for people who don’t present themselves as their born gender.

Despite state laws banning discrimination based on sex, gender, race and religion, there are no such protections for transgender New Yorkers.

A Binghamton councilman is looking to change that for residents of his city.

“This community prides itself on being fair and just,” said Sean Massey, D-5th District, “and if there are people that are being left out of that, then we need to provide them with protections.”

The council is considering a comprehensive human rights law, guarding residents against discrimination in employment, housing, credit, education and public accommodations. The law would add protections for transgender residents, who are not mentioned in state or federal anti-discrimination laws. So far, similar laws have been passed in New York City, Albany, Rochester, Ithaca, Buffalo, Suffolk County and Tompkins County.

The Binghamton Human Rights Act also would create a city human rights commission, which would oversee discrimination cases.

This new so-called human rights commission (let’s call it what it is: the transgender gestapo) would unconstitutionally be empowered to hear cases and make binding decisions with the full power of a court.

Even without looking at the specific proposal, I feel comfortable in assuming that there would be a right of appeal from any decision of  such administrative panel.

Now, here’s what this clown bragged about leaving as a comment on a newspaper’s website:

No longer is wrong wrong and right right. Now the most extreme perversions are relabled as a “rights” and “choices”. And if you disagree with said rights? They’re going to “refer aggrieved parties to the proper state and federal agencies.” Translation: They’ll throw you in jail if you dare to disagree with them. Welcome to the Obamanation. And get used to it.

My take: If you’re a MAN, go to the gents. If you’re a WOMAN, go to the ladies room. And if you’re so screwed up you don’t know what you are: DON’T ADOPT a kid and screw them up too.

Yo, dude.  How do you feel about the adopting of children by people who are so screwed up that they believe literally in books of mythology?  In exorcisms?  In the casting-out of alleged-witches?  That being found to have violated state ethics laws means that you have been vindicated? Something tells me that you wouldn’t have any problem with Barbie McMooseShit adopting a kid.

Oh, but we haven’t yet come across Jimbo’s inability to grasp history:

Think this kind of garbage will only happen in “the liberal northeast”? When/if Obama is elected, this kind of extreme social engineering will spread over the entire country as these vermin come out of the woodwork.

Yo, dude – the first such city ordinance and the first such state law emerged in the nice, (allegedly-)christian Midwest.

And both can be attributed to a Republican – a Republican who, in 2008, is supporting Obama.

Oh – and lets not forget that other states that now have such laws include those evil secular humanist strongholds of Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa.

Jimbo, get thee to a Barbie McMooseShittery.

Think About It

October 28, 2008

Miracles Happen – Really

October 27, 2008

No, not a McBush victory or a coherent thought from Barbie McMooseShit.

Then what?

Me saying that I like Duran Duran.

No – not the cheezy 1980s group that would not have existed but for early MTV.

Then who?

Apparently, someone named Duran Duran – who lives in Albuquerque, New Mexico.  His relevance to the Republican fake-Dem-‘scandal’-du-jour – ‘voter fraud’ – can be found at Daily Kos, where Jed L points out how a clown over at the National Rotting Corpse of William Buckley Review took offense to Adam Serwer of the American Prospect, declaring that unless Serwer thinks

there is actually a registered voter named “Duran Duran” in New Mexico, he ought to refrain from sputtering that those who disagree with him are ‘racist’ and ‘paranoid.’

The person who is “Duran Duran” almost certainly voted under their real name, and thus got two votes in the primary.

Well, conceivably that could be possible.  The problem is that the NR clown wasn’t expecting this part of it to be possible:

I am floored by the fact that the white pages for Albuquereque, New Mexico has a listing for “Duran Duran.”

What about a listing for Barbarella?

As for Trans-Friendliness?

October 27, 2008

Deb Price on the Northeast:

With the exception of Pennsylvania, the region’s nine states have painted themselves gay-friendly lavender by protecting and nurturing gay couples

Yep – its all about marriage.

Nothing else.

In how many of those states in the Northeast can each half of a couple who feels ‘nurtured’ and ‘protected’ also freely and openly – with impunity – discriminate against trans people in employment?

Lets see…

Maine?  No – Maine got it right (the only state in the Northeast to get it right in the first instance; Pennsylvania too, though, if you count the hate crime law that was recently overturned.)

Rhode Island?  No – it took a while, but the state eventually took away the special right of gays and lesbians to discriminate against trans people.

New Jersey?  No – it just took a bit longer than Rhode Island.

Vermont?  No – a lil’ while after New Jersey.

Massachusetts?  Yep – gay couples can be legal at work, preventing trans people from earning a living, and then be legal at home.

Connecticut?  You betcha.

New Hampshire.  Oh yah!

New York?  Fuck yeh!

Nurture this, Deb.


October 27, 2008

From an EDGE piece on the protest against the Boston shindig for the Rhode Island Avenue Cesspool of Transphobia:

Diego Sanchez, a trans activist who serves as the director of public relations at AIDS Action Committee, praised HRC’s stance on transgender issues.

The HRC is very supportive of trans activism,” said Sanchez

Bullshit.  His ‘proof’?  The Cesspool gave $50,000 to the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition.


Let’s see…

Let’s say that I beat the shit out ot you, chain you up and lock you in a cellar for 20 years, preventing you from, among other things, doing anything to stop my preventing a proper cultivation and investment of your assets while you’re imprisoned in the cellar.

When you escape after 19 years – and are righteously pissed off, angry and any other adjective that one can imagine – I bet I’d try to buy you off to keep you from pressing charges and/or beating the shit out of me (or worse.)

1989: Massachusetts law enacted allowing gays and lesbians to discriminate against trans people; 2008: Massachusetts law still allows gays and lesbians to discriminate against trans people.

1974: Federal bills introduced to allow gays and lesbians to discriminate against trans people; 2008: Federal bills to allow gays and lesbians to discriminate against trans people are still acceptable.

Defending HRC and its philosophy of trans-extermination-acceptability in 2008?

Screw those who do – and the $50,000 they ride everywhere on.