And Someone Who Looks Like This is Legitimate……….Why?

January 31, 2010

The Boner:

Congressman Boehner is leading the drive for smaller, more accountable government and better solutions to the challenges facing our nation.

Let’s translate, shall we?

Congressman Boehner

Translation: The Boner

is leading the drive for smaller, more accountable government

Translation: is doing everything he can to ensure that every aspect of governmental authority to regulate criminalistic banking, insurance and other financial robber barons that was eviscerated from 1995-2009 never comes back to life

and better solutions to the challenges facing our nation

Translation: and is doing everything he can to ensure that a populace brain-softened by a steady diet of Hannity, Rush and Beck never have any comparable media antidote, thereby clearing the way for his party to eviscerate what governmental authority remains to regulate criminalistic banking, insurance and other financial robber barons once Party of the Feckless Democratic Party completes its political Pisarcik-to-Csonka maneuver and gives control of Congress to he and Mitch McConnell under a presidential administration of Sarah Palin.

Rostow: Die, You Working-Class Parasites (Especially Those Who Have the Nerve Not to Live in States That Already Have Gay Rights Laws)

January 30, 2010

Yes, it causes the blood to boil.

Yet, it is also nice when the professional gay elite lets down its guard and say what it really thinks.  Case in point: Ann Rostow, yammering in the SF Bay Times:

it is significant, since the topics in a State of the Union are carefully chosen. I’m encouraged that the President decided to focus on the military ban rather than the insipid Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which is now pending in both houses of Congress. When I say “pending,” I mean that the bill has been introduced and heard in some committees or something. I don’t mean that it is about to pass or even scheduled for a vote. ENDA has been kicking around since 1994, and it’s about as useful to 21st century gay rights as a Betamax player.

Here’s a little secret for the self-important, overpaid, underworked professional gay elite class: I actually still own a Betamax.

Yes, I also own a VHS, and 8mm handycam and even a DVD recorder.

However, the Betamax actually does still work – but that’s actually irrelevant because the most important fact is that, at least at some point in time, it did work: it functioned in the manner that it was supposed to, accomplishing the task of playing pre-recorded Beta videocassettes and recording onto blank ones.

It functioned in the manner that it was supposed to function.

Translation: It accomplished something.

Unlike the self-important, overpaid, underworked professional gay elite class who never actually needed a federal gay rights law even when the concept was a new as the U-Matic.

Thanks, though, for – yet again – showing us your true colors.

We’re All Malcolm Crowe Now

January 29, 2010

Well, maybe not allSome of us know what is and is not dead even without being dead ourselves:

A small corps of LGBT political insiders, speaking on condition that they not be identified, believe the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is headed for almost certain defeat this year because supporters can’t line up the 60 votes in the Senate needed to overcome a filibuster.

And then there’s Gramma Frump:

Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said securing enough U.S. Senate votes to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination act is ‘a challenge,’ but she remains ‘optimistic’ the bill will pass. (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)

Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said securing enough U.S. Senate votes to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination act is ‘a challenge,’ but she remains ‘optimistic’ the bill will pass.

Well, that’s all I can write at the moment.

Arte Johnson is at the door, and he’s mumbling something about the hereafter.  Who knew he was such a big fan of The Sixth Sense?

Should Alito Resign?

January 28, 2010

Eva Rodriguez at the WaPo:

You’re all wrong. And I mean those of you who claim that Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s “not true” during the State of the Union Wednesday night constitutes a “Joe Wilson moment.”

I actually agree.  There’s always some reaction by those in attendance at State of the Union addresses.  Personally, I find sitting one one’s hands and looking constipated to be the worst act of all – insulting and childish.  She goes on, though: blogger Glenn Greenwald is the most off-base when he argues that Alito’s behavior is worse — that’s right, worse — than the “you lie” outburst of South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson during the president’s address to a joint session of Congress last year. Wilson’s shocking breach of decorum interrupted the president mid-sentence and was clearly heard by most people in the chamber and watching on TV. Remember the death-ray glare shot by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi?

Contrast that with Alito’s head shake and his mouthing of what appeared to be “not true” when Obama asserted that the Supreme Court had wiped away “a century of law” that “will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.” No one except those sitting immediately behind Alito likely would have been aware of the justice’s response had TV cameras not focused on him at that moment.

I do think that Greenwald also is on the mark, but for the wrong reason – not in that he quasi-excuses Wilson.  Here is a longer excerpt from his Salon piece:

There’s a reason that Supreme Court Justices — along with the Joint Chiefs of Staff — never applaud or otherwise express any reaction at a State of the Union address.  It’s vital — both as a matter of perception and reality — that those institutions remain apolitical, separate and detached from partisan wars.  The Court’s pronouncements on (and resolutions of) the most inflammatory and passionate political disputes retain legitimacy only if they possess a credible claim to being objectively grounded in law and the Constitution, not political considerations.  The Court’s credibility in this regard has — justifiably — declined substantially over the past decade….

Justice Alito’s flamboyantly insinuating himself into a pure political event, in a highly politicized manner, will only hasten that decline.  On a night when both tradition and the Court’s role dictate that he sit silent and inexpressive, he instead turned himself into a partisan sideshow — a conservative Republican judge departing from protocol to openly criticize a Democratic President — with Republicans predictably defending him and Democrats doing the opposite.  Alito is now a political (rather than judicial) hero to Republicans and a political enemy of Democrats, which is exactly the role a Supreme Court Justice should not occupy.

Greenwald is being a bit theoretical.

I say: Make that “should not occupy” observation a practical reality.

Alito, in essence, announced in advance – and, unlike when Scalia mouths off, Alito did so on a multi-networked national television broadcast so there’s some clear visual evidence, albeit accompanied by thin audio evidence – how he will rule on any and all future cases involving this issue.

It was clear from Sam Alito’s confirmation hearing and his record of appellate opinions that he is a dogmatic, state-revering, right-wing judge.  But last night, he unmasked himself as a politicized and intemperate Republican as well.  Much of the public will view his future “judicial” and “legal” conclusions — and those of his fellow Court members — with an even greater degree of cynicism.

Here’s a thought: How about ensuring – by legitimate means (a concept that really burns right-wing judicial activists) – that there aren’t any “future ‘judicial’ and ‘legal’ conclusions” from Samuel Alito?


Remember: The sole standard for removal from office for federal judges is not “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Rather…

The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour….

I’ve run across one theory positing that impeachment and conviction actually should not be necessary for removal of a federal judge who violates this standard – and I’d say that publicly announcing what your position is on cases that haven’t even been filed yet comes under the heading of not-so-good behaviour. 

But, then, I presumed that going on a hunting trip with someone who has a case before your court would at least merit consideration of impeachment.

Oh well….

What Do You Do When You’re Bored at an NCAA Men’s Basketball Game?

January 28, 2010

Why, you try to re-create  the opening credits to Doctor Who on an obsolte digital camera, that’s what!

Only at ENDABlog: A view of the Jan. 27, 2010, game between Iowa and Ohio State that neither the Big Ten Network nor the Columbus Dispatch could bring you.

Remember: Janice Raymond and Alice Dreger Bill Themselves as Ethicists Too

January 27, 2010

From the Houston Chronk:

‘Ethicists’: City voters are immoral

When Houstonian Ginny Camfield received a letter from the Texas Ethics Advisory Board two weeks ago, it took her a few minutes to figure it out.

The letter began by saying that the Texas Ethics Commission had “launched an official inquiry into the campaign financing activities of Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas Action Fund” based on a “sworn complaint.”

It enclosed of a copy of a page filed by the Planned Parenthood political action committee with the state Ethics Commission showing Camfield’s contribution of $75.

“If the record is not consistent with your knowledge of the facts or if you have any information relevant to the Texas Election Commission investigation, please send any applicable information to: (in large letters, centered on the page) Texas Ethics Advisory Board, 1016 Elkins Lake, Huntsville, TX 77340-8829.”

It looked quite official — until Camfield focused on a disclaimer in small type at the bottom of the page saying the “Advisory Board” was a general-purpose political committee unaffiliated with the Ethics Commission. And on the enclosures.

One was a two-page presentation of “Arguments Against Abortion.”

Another was headed: “Who is Kathy Hubbard?”

Hubbard is treasurer of the Planned Parenthood PAC. But she has another role:

“Answer: Homosexual Partner of Annise Parker,” the enclosure advised.

It reprinted a couple of pictures, including “Parker with daughter Daniela, life partner Kathy, and daughter Marquitta at her victory party. No males in this picture.”

“Regrettably, voters have chosen her life partner Annise Parker for mayor of Houston, TX.,” the mailing continues. “Voters in so doing endorse both homosexuality AND baby killing.”

It also includes a photo of an aborted baby, and a three-page anti-gay screed.

“The material on abortion was so old,” Camfield said. “But I had to read the letter two or three times to figure out what was going on. They wanted you to think they were an official group.”

I called William Elmer, who signed the letter as a “member, Texas Ethics Advisory Board.”

Elmer turned out to be a jolly old (77) man who expressed delight at my call. The Ethics Advisory PAC is about a year old, he said, but descends from a group of “social conservatives” who have been active for years.

About as ethical as those brown envelopes you get occasionally, marked with designations like: ‘Department of Internal Revue, Bureau of Inquiry.’

Hiding behind the First Amendment, the perpetrators of such things know that they can’t be prosecuted for sending crap through the U.S. Mail that doesn’t actually say its government correspondence but will be presumed by the homeschooled, et. al., to be ‘official.’

Equally ethical.

You know – like the ‘ethical’ Alice Dreger and Janice Raymond?

And if a Democratic Criminal Had Been Arrested For Bugging the Office of a Republican Senator…?

January 26, 2010

A screen shot of the front page of the Houston Chronk‘s website from just a few minutes ago:

The lead item? An item praising a child molestation ringleader for telling his underlings to go forth and blog.

Next to that? Flowers.

Below Joe the Rat? Whining from Toyota and an anti-Obama hit piece about the stimulus.

Then a local Amber Alert and then an item about a local police shooting.


A hero of conservatives who bruised the liberal group ACORN by posing as a pimp on hidden camera is now accused in an attempt to tamper with phone lines at Democratic U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office inside a federal building.

I can already hear Faux News calling even that evidence that the (non-existent) lib-rul media is anti-Republican.

O’Keefe’s father, James O’Keefe, Jr., of Westwood, N.J., said he hasn’t spoken to his son in several days and didn’t know he traveled to New Orleans, let alone why he went to Landrieu’s office.

“That would not be something that I can even imagine him doing,” he said of the allegations against his son. “I think this is going to be blown out of proportion.”

O’Keefe said his son travels frequently for speaking engagements.

“He’s a good kid,” he said. “He’s a very talented, very creative creative guy.”

Arguably, so was G. Gordon Liddy…

…in that 1972 sort of way.

Now, yes, farther over to the right side was a link to the bugging a bit higher up the page, but still…

explain to me why, on a day when a story like the illegal infiltration of the office of a United States senator hits, Joe the Rat’s picture is visible at all on a legit news website?  (Yes, I suppose that if he suddenly went horizontal that would justify it – but, unless I missed something, that wasn’t what the top story was about because that hasn’t happened.)


Think I’m just picking on a paper from the Bush Junta’s (alleged) home state?  Try CNN:

Oh, its  there – but you might manage to find Waldo (or think you’ve done so) before you do find it.

Why I Shall Continue to Dance on Mary Daly’s Grave

January 26, 2010

In the May 31, 1979, issue of Off Our Backs (sorry, no link), Mary Daly belched forth:

Dionysius was this character in Greek mythology who was very feminine. He drove women mad with his femininity. There’s this seductiveness about men who appear to be feminine. Sometimes gay men can be allies, but women can be duped by gay men, who are in a much better situation in patriarchy. They are males, after all. Lesbians often get used and scapegoated in gay liberation. Sometimes it’s okay, it’s wise to bond with them in a limited way.The Dionysius myth has taken various forms. The creation of this bizarre phenomenon of transexuals — who go from being men to constructed females who claim to be lesbian feminists. These men — who are in fact still men — they’re eunuchs — who have to have constant hormone fixes — are invading our private spaces. Jan Raymond’s The Transexual Empire: The Making of the She-male is important. Transexualism isn’t a kooky or minor phenomenon, it’s paradigmatic of the ways in which patriarchy can cook up distractions for us. Eunuchs have always had access to women’s private spaces. They fucked over women. These men have no penises, but their whole body, their whole mind is still a penis. Their eyes are penises, their hands are penises.

They’re causing great divisiveness among women. Wherever they go, they play upon the sympathies of women, the more oppressed than thou mentality. As if they’ve made the ultimate sacrifice, as Jan Raymond said, “they’ve sacrificed their balls for feminism.” I suggest that is really a crock, and that it is important for women not to be sidetracked. Of course if men can’t seduce women by being macho, there’s another way they can do it by driving women m.a.d. with male approval desire. I’m not saying there aren’t some sensitive males, it’s just that I’m not interested in that right now and I don’t think that that’s where our main interest should be.

Jan’s book is important in focusing not on transexuals themselves but on the industry that creates them, the therapists who are into it, the doctors who are making money. It’s extremely manipulative.

Now as a result of this you have these gender identity clinics. It horrifies me to think of how they’re going to use them. There was a transexual on a talk show in Boston and people were calling in with questions like, “My nine-year-old daughter likes baseball. Should I take her to a gender identity clinic?” It’s going to have widespread effects. Nine-year-old girls who are strong will be named as deviants.

There’s a gender identity clinic in Los Angeles for little boys and their mothers. They use behavior modification. The mother trains the boy. If he plays with dolls, she frowns. If he plays with guns, she smiles. She’s taught to do this. These kids are encouraged to be very aggressive and even violent with their mothers. The mothers are supposed to let them hit them. This sets the stage for an incredible oppression of women.

It’s interesting that the Jesuits at Boston College who were so upset about feminism and lesbiansim were not at all upset about having a transexual student. They laughed that off, because that reinforces the stereo-types — it doesn’t challenge them.

Don’t tell me that the person who wrought this exterminationist hatred ever changed in the slightest.

The Solution to All of Our Problems is to Repeat Everything That We Know is an Abject Failure

January 26, 2010

You know…

like privitization?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Obama Will Propose Outsourcing for Some NASA Programs

Stating the obvious:

What a great idea. What could possibly go wrong? Because the private sector never, ever cuts corners to save a buck!

Should Paul Scott Be Expelled From the University of Michigan Law School?

January 26, 2010

[UPDATED BELOW with ‘before’ and ‘after’ screen snaps of Paul Scott’s legislative bio page]

I’m actually ashamed to say that this just occurred to me.  You do, of course, recall Half-Term Paul Scott, the clown who – in the state with the worst economic situation in the nation – is running for Secretary of State on an anti-transsexual platform?

State Rep. Paul Scott, (R-Grand Blanc), announced his candidacy for the GOP nomination for Secretary of State just five days ago, but he’s already caused a shock wave.

Scott, who just completed the first year of his first two-year term in the state House [says his anti-transsexual platform]

was about “values.”“It’s a social values issue. If you are born a male, you should be known as a male. Same as with a female, she should be known as a female,” he said.

When asked to explain how such a mandate from the Secretary of State would benefit Michigan, he said it was about “preventing people who are males genetically from dressing as a woman and going into female bathrooms.”

While Scott is aware that federal courts have ruled that gender dysphoria, the medical diagnosis for transgender persons, was a disability, he said he did not think he would run afoul of discrimination laws. For the 27-year-old state representative, the issue is about biological gender.

He said his mandate would be in place even for those who had completely undergone sex reassignment surgeries.

And then it hit me.

You see, in addition to being a Sarah Palin of the Michigan Legislature, he’s also a law student at the University of Michigan Law School.

Presumably, he’s actually intending to become an attorney – which means, again presumably (based on similar administrative garbage I had to deal with whilst a law student in Texas aiming to practice law in Texas), that he has already filed some sort of paperwork with the Michigan Bar.

And, even if not, if he’s simply still in school, he’s subject to academic honesty and other ethical standards.


Act 368 of 1978

333.2831 New certificate of birth; establishment; requirements.  Sec. 2831.

The state registrar shall establish a new certificate of birth for an individual born in this state when the registrar receives the following:

(c) A request that a new certificate be established to show a sex designation other than that designated at birth. The request shall be accompanied by an affidavit of a physician certifying that sex-reassignment surgery has been performed.

If I’m interpreting Michigan’t power structure correctly, the Registrar is not under the control of the Secretary of State.  Nevertheless, Paul Scott is essentially announcing beforehand that, if elected, he will refuse to abide by Michigan statute section 333.2831(c), a valid enactment by the elected representatives of the people of the State of Michigan; he is saying that he will not allow a Michigan driver’s license to reflect the information contained on a transsexual’s birth certificate if it isn’t the information that he personally thinks should be there – even if the elected representatives of the people of the State of Michigan, 32 years ago, recognized the reality of transsexualism and, in turn, decided that a person’s primary piece of identification documentation should reflect the reality of a transition from male to female or female to male.

Interestingly enough,  the oath of office of Michigan Secretary of State contains no command to obey the statutory law of the state.

All officers, legislative, executive and judicial, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of [Secretary of State] according to the best of my ability. No other oath, affirmation, or any religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust.

Consequently, it may actually not a slam dunk that such a pre-refusal to obey Michigan statutory law equates to a before-the-fact admission that his taking the oath of office would be fraudulent.

But don’tcha think it smells?

And that it smells really bad?

Perhaps bad enough to be viewed by a law school and/or a professional licensure authority as being unethical?  Perhaps evidencing a sufficient lack of character either to be a lawyer or even to be in law school?

But, alas, look at what has been going on recently at the Wolverine Tech Lawyer Factory:

In 2007, Professor Peter Hammer filed suit against the University of Michigan Law School for unlawfully denying him tenure based on his sexual orientation. Professor Hammer alleged that he was the first openly gay professor to be considered for tenure at the University of Michigan Law School, and the first man in the history of that institution to be denied tenure. Hammer was denied tenure by a faculty vote, which at 18-12 in favor of tenure, fell two votes short of the 2/3 majority required by the school’s rules.
Hammer had been recommended for tenure with a 4-1 vote from the tenure committee. The complaint alleges breach of contract, predicated on representations of nondiscrimination during pre-employment negotiations, as well as University policies and by-laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual-orientation. Rather than building an affirmative case that no discrimination took place, the University’s initial stance was to maintain that its by-laws and non-discrimination policies had no legal meaning and created no rights.
The Law School filed two Motions for Summary Disposition that were denied. The trial court ruled that Hammer had established a legitimate claim of discrimination and that a trial on the merits was warranted.


Oh well, it sounds like Paul Scott is at home in Ann Arbor (BTW – if you want to have some fun, ask an Iowa student – during football season – who Ann Arbor is.)

But, still, it might be worthwhile to let the law school know what’s up with one of their students.

Who knows?

Perhaps the same people don’t serve on both the tenure and expulsion committees.

UPDATE – 2/15/2010

A commenter below asserted that Scott has actually graduated from the U of Michigan Law School.

As I responded, when I referenced it the page did indeed say that he was still a student.  Being paranoid a citizen of the U.S. under the Patriot Act, I covered my butt and dumped a PDF of that page – and here is a snip of the relevant section as it appeared live on Jan. 21, 2010:  

Now, here is that same section as it is this evening:  

Is there any significance to the change? 

Was it a feeble attempt at a cyber rope-a-dope?

I dunnow.

However, I do know what that page looked like when first I encountered it – and now you all do as well.