Why Does Joe Ratzinger Still Have a Job? And His Freedom?

March 25, 2010

From the NY Times:

Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit.

The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.


Well, assuming he existed – and even indulging the fantasy that he was the son of a supreme being – I suspect that protecting child molesters is not WJWD.

In 1996, Cardinal Ratzinger failed to respond to two letters about the case from Rembert G. Weakland, Milwaukee’s archbishop at the time. After eight months, the second in command at the doctrinal office, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, now the Vatican’s secretary of state, instructed the Wisconsin bishops to begin a secret canonical trial that could lead to Father Murphy’s dismissal.

But Cardinal Bertone halted the process after Father Murphy personally wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger protesting that he should not be put on trial because he had already repented and was in poor health and that the case was beyond the church’s own statute of limitations.

I hereby inform the world that my household has a statute of limitations on armed robbery.  That statute of limitations is one day.


And, BTW, I robbed a dozen banks last month.

I know it was wrong.  I’ve repented.  And I’ll really, really think about how wrong it was while I’m living out the rest of my days in my brand new cabin up on the north shore of Lake Superior.

But don’t you nasty state and national authorities think about sending me to prison.

My own statute of limitations has run.

Okay, that’s all BS obviously.

But is it any more ridiculous than the reality of Joe Ratzinger and the rest of the international child molestation ring still walking around free…

and tax free?!?!?!?!?!

Father Murphy not only was never tried or disciplined by the church’s own justice system, but also got a pass from the police and prosecutors who ignored reports from his victims, according to the documents and interviews with victims. Three successive archbishops in Wisconsin were told that Father Murphy was sexually abusing children, the documents show, but never reported it to criminal or civil authorities.

And yet, I wonder how many people those same police and prosecutors sent to jail for possession of small amounts of drugs?  Or consensual sex acts between adults that those police and prosecutors felt were icky?

The Fakeness of Fake Savagery

March 24, 2010

You know…

Obviously fake comments that have no purpose other than to paint a fake picture of legitimacy for Joe Fudgepacker Dan Savage.

Like this:

I guess some serious stealth-editing must have gone on here. Just what the heck did Dan say to get y’all so riled up?

To give the impression that the words that were – and are – still up at SLOG couldn’t possibly have pissed off anyone.


Haha, I think it is hilarious. Some people need to find their sense of humor. I shared this on Facebook. Thanks Dan!

To create the fake image of an internet full of trans people with sticks up our asses.


I love you, Dan. Thanks for staying in Seattle and keeping these peeps on their toes.

For acting like there’s nothing wrong – and doing so with all the convincingness of John Boehner’s tan.


This outrage has made me really curious since I honestly do no see any trans bias with Dan’s post above. I’ve followed the Slog for a few years. But that has nothing to do with what Dan wrote here.

Here’s where I think there’s been a great misunderstanding by the readers:

according to critics on the right, will one day pay for “gruesome ‘sex change’ operations”—indeed some transsexuals are already getting government-funded sex-change operations.

“gruesome sex change” are highlighted to show a link to the a right wing homo and transphobe website.

If Dan is not quoting directly from the source, if they don’t actually say gruesome… it’s sort of implied that he’s paraphrasing what they say about people who have a sex change.

For attempting to paint a fake image of ‘confusion’ over the pasage that the ‘commenter’ quoted.

Fake, fake, fake, fake, fake, fake….

as fake as Dan Savage’s legitimacy to do anything except spew.

There is no ‘confusion’ over that passage.  No one – at least not specifically and solely because of the post in question – attributes that to him (but, of course, having said that, the real issue with Savage and this – and the 2004 – post should cause everyone to ask whether or not that actually is his view.)

But thats what fakery is about.

Republicans transformed fake umbrage from political shenanigan into high art.

Savage looks to be deploying fake commentary to muddy what should be his employment death sentence into confusion and potential points of false equivalency for whenever in the future he might find himself called on the carpet for his transphobia yet unable to hide behind The Stranger‘s firewall…

…and ‘comments’ like:

This was very funny. I think you already know that it is pointless to try to assuage the humorless and unbalanced PC crowd. If you started doing that, you would lose your cachet as a sex columnist.

Many of the comments above and on other blogs come from about 10-15 obsessed so-called “trans” activists, posting under various names, who feel it is their right and privilege to tell everyone else how to think and speak. These are hideous people in every sense of the word and it is a travesty that the gay movement ever thought it was a bright idea to attach itself to them. They have more in common with teabaggers, militia nuts, and freepers than they do with gay people.

Don’t give them a moment’s thought. Keep on jokin’.

And why am I being bold enough to call out these ‘comments’ as fake?

How many even attempt to address the substance of the controversy?  Yes, the “gruesome ‘sex change’ operations” one did, but in doing so was farther off the mark than that ball from Chuck Knoblauch that hit Keith Olbermann’s mother in the head.

But, there is this one:

so, is he a transguy? if so, then Dan is just outing him as a hypocritical pig.

And, as I’ve stated before, I agree.

So, if Seattle’s Savage Weiner-monger is privy information that would confirm this assertion (and his 2004 version of it), where’s the disclosure?

Put up, or shut up with the fake-Savage-worshipping, fake comments…

like this:

[T]he more one gets to know MTF trans activists, the more apparent it becomes that you are not really meek “girls” after all. You talk and act like – men. I give respect to whatever anyone identifies as, but that respect does not override reality. You talk and act like a male street thug. You threaten and bully and bluster like the best of them. You can put on makeup and dresses to alter your appearance, but in your heart and in your actions, you are still a macho bruiser.

Sadly, of course, that one probably isn’t fake per se – but it was probably the result of calling in pinch-transphobe-hitters from back east…

…like, perhaps, from inside Mary Daly’s grave.

Ultimately, though, the question remains for the management of The Stranger: Why does Dan Savage still have a job?

Here’s a Thought: Try the Same Experiment on LGB(T) Rights Organizations

March 24, 2010

From my buddy Monica of the Air, over at TransGriot:

A group called Make the Road New York filed a complaint with the NY State Attorney General’s office after testing 24 New York City retailers for discrimination.

The group sent a trans and cis person to each one of the targeted retailers to apply for jobs with matching resumes. The resumes matched in respects of age, race, and work experience.

42 percent net rate of discrimination for transgender job applicants… [and] 49 percent of transgender workers surveyed reported that they have never been offered a job in the time that they have lived openly as transgender.”

J. Crew was singled out for blatantly violating the New York City Human Rights Law. According to Make The Road NY spokesperson Irene Tung, one of the transgender employment testers, Julian Brolaski, applied at the 5th Avenue J. Crew store and “was treated brusquely, told to fill out an application and was never called.

His testing partner, Leigh Cambre, who entered the store a few minutes later, described a very different experience, ‘I filled out an application, was interviewed on the spot and offered a job soon after.’

A separate pair of testers also documented a similar situation.

Here is the data:


Wanna have some real fun?

Run the same experiment on HRC, NGLTF and every other organization that claims to speak for trans people along with non-trans gays and lesbians.

Why Does HRC Still Exist?

March 24, 2010

From Zackford Blogs:

[W]e have a problem if President Obama or anyone in Congress listens to the Human Rights Campaign and thinks they understand where the LGBTQ community stands. If HRC is saying, “It’s okay, we can wait as long as it means your support,” (i.e. applauding Obama just for showing up at their expensive exclusive gala) then they are not effectively speaking on our behalf. Slow posh lobbying might seem to indicate power and influence, but the rest of us are experiencing the tribulations of inequality in the meantime without the financial luxuries that allow us to continue taking the paths of least resistance.

[W]e get an email from Joe Solmonese reminding us exactly what HRC’s modus operandi is: apologizing for inaction and asking for money….

That almost sounds threatening. If they don’t get ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS within the next week, HRC will not be able to successfully get Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repealed.

What a load of horse shit. How many times have we heard claims like this? Psst… you haven’t made any progress with the money we’ve already given you.

It doesn’t matter if HRC is our most powerful lobbying effort, because it doesn’t seem like they’re overly concerned with lobbying on our behalf. We need to speak out against HRC and make it clear that they do not speak for us.

Along with most reality-based trans people, I’m about fifteen years ahead of you.

As far as I’m concerned, HRC is just as liable for our persistent inequality as the government themselves. Just like the government, they use our own money to delay our inequality, except that HRC actually duped us into trusting them with that money. I don’t think there’s any room for those kinds of scoundrels in our movement. As long as they continue to claim to lobby for us, they’re the ones keeping us chained to the fence of inequality.

That’s a nice start – but I would suggest one correction.  Try this:

HRC is MORE liable for our persistent inequality than the government themselves.

Why Does Dan Savage Still Have a Job?

March 24, 2010

Well, in your heart, you know why. 

He used trans-existence as just another tool to quasi-journalistically play with himself in public.

Had he done so with any racial – or even religious – category, he’d have been fired before his finger left the ‘enter’ key after submitting the thing for publication.

But trans-existence is fair game to play with.

Again, I”m in no way defending his actual target, Rob McKenna – though, I am amazed that almost no one seems to be able to step back and fully analyze what (as I understand it) is the key component of what he and the other teabag AGs are suing about, namely, the mandate for individuals to buy a corporation’s ‘product’ as a condition of American existence, the one aspect of the teabagger ire that would seem to have merit (sorry, but that is not analogous to car insurance; no one has to have a car) but which, if things worked as they should, would force the hand of Congress into creating a legit (read: single-payer) system and would, hopefully, cause the enirety of the Faux ‘News’ staff to drop dead simultaneously.

In fact, I’m not sure I’d ever even heard the name Rob McKenna prior to Savage’s latest transphobic ejaculation.

But other people apparently had, such as these commenters at Queerty.



Even a Savage-esque transphobe, ‘Mike’, who, even in pointing out factual accuracy about McKenna is nevertheless defending Savage and other gay male transphobes:

I’ll ask again: Would anyone believe that ‘Mike’ could honestly, fairly and non-discriminatorily evaluate any trans person – paryicularly any trans woman – for anything? (And, in a more practical corporate sense, why would anyone believe that a business that would employ someone such as Savage would honestly, fairly and non-discriminatorily evaluate any trans person – paryicularly any trans woman – for anything?  I hope that civil rights attorneys in Washington State are paying attention.)

In your heart, you know what the answer is.

Legit, full trans-inclusion in ENDA, or no ENDA.


Lynn writes:

Actually, it is his employer that should know better.

It should know better than to keep giving voice to – I’ll say it more succinctly than Lynn – a transphobic gay Michael Savage d/b/a/ Dan.

Why Does Dan Savage Still Have a Job?

Because its still okay for gay men to abuse trans people for fun, profit – and to sufficiently poison the cultural well so as to ensure that people like Dan Savage never have to compete with trans people on a level playing field.

Tell The Stranger to join the real world and to flush its savage turd.

Here’s an e-mail: editor@thestranger.com

Here’s a phone number: (206) 323-7101

The rest is up to you.

Gohmert’s Pile

March 23, 2010

of internally (within the neo-Teabag Republican Party anyway) inconsistent political poop.

From Media Matters:

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) suggested another response to the passage of health reform: eliminating the right of American citizens to elect U.S. Senators.  According to a press release from Gohmert’s office:

Rep. Gohmert stated,The usurpation of the rights of the states and of the people perpetrated by the U.S. House last night is blatant, arrogant, and cries out for action. A potentially bankrupting ‘mother of all unfunded mandates’ needs to be stopped. The courts may or may not do it, but the states are not helpless. Article V of our U.S. Constitution anticipates a time when states perceive a looming crisis and provides an avenue for amending the Constitution. It makes clear that if two-thirds of the states are fed up with the federal government’s abusive action, then they simply apply for a convention, and the Congress SHALL call such a convention for proposing an amendment.”

Ever since the safeguard of State legislatures electing U.S. Senators was removed by the 17th Amendment in 1913, there has been no check or balance on the Federal power grab for the last 97 years. Article V requires a minimum of 34 states to request a Convention which in this case, would be an Amendment Convention for only ONE amendment.

Aside from the obvious problem of taking away the American people’s ability to choose their own leaders, Gohmert’s proposal conflicts with GOP’s closing argument against health care reform.  Remember that conservatives, including Gohmert, argued that the election of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) signaled the public’s rejection of the president’s plan.  Yet, while Tea Party activists flooded Massachusetts and pushed Brown to victory, Gohmert’s proposal would have made that effort impossible. The state’s overwhelmingly Democratic legislature could have simply appointed a Democrat.

Forget the realities of what a pre-17th Amendment post-Teddy seat-filling would have looked like in Massachusetts.  Just dig the abstract point/anti-point insanity.

Memo to Gohmert: Perhaps you should watch the 1966 Batman movie to get a referesher on matter and anti-matter.

I’m just sayin’….

Why There Can Be No Compromise On Inclusion of Trans People in ENDA: Gay Men [UPDATED]

March 23, 2010

And I won’t mention Joe Fudgepacker Dan Savage by name, specfically

Really, I won’t.

For me the most distressing thing—for me personally—about Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna joining with the attorneys general of states like Virginia (!) and Mississippi (!) in suing to block health care reform is this: Rob McKenna doesn’t make a big deal about it, but he is the only prominent Republican LGBT elected official in the country. And yet Rob is attempting to ingratiate himself with openly homophobic teabaggers and Washington state Republican primary voters by blocking the implementation of a health care reform law that, according to critics on the right, will one day pay for “gruesome ‘sex change’ operations“—indeed some transsexuals are already getting government-funded sex-change operations. It’s staggering that Rob McKenna, a female-to-male transsexual, is making it harder for other FTMs (and MTFs) to access the life savng sex-reassignment surgery that allowed Rob to become the man he is today. Rob had the resources to finance his own sex-reassigment surgery—presumably—but that doesn’t excuse Rob’s cruel disregard for his low-income transgendered brothers and sisters or his making common cause with anti-trans bigots in states like Virginia and Mississippi.For shame, Rob.

UPDATE: I’m getting some very angry emails about this post. What can I say? I’m so sorry. I wrote the post in a hurry but that’s really no excuse. But I promise that in all future posts about Rob McKenna I will not fail to include a link to the Facebook page “Washington Tax Payers OPT OUT of Rob McKenna’s Lawsuit.”

Now, we all know that the Rhode Island Avenue Cesspool of Solmonesian Style digs up trans people from out of nowhere to create insta-trans-employees – but, HRC has a clear, albeit unstated (and, in fact, repeatedly denied), goal: total destruction of trans political viability.

(Yes, we do all know that; whether one is capable of admitting it is a different matter.)

But Dan Savage is a different creature.

He’s not a self-important, Wal-Mart-esque corporation. 

He’s an individual – albeit one with a platform.  And, I can’t say that don’t find a lot of his stuff interesting, funny, etc.

Of course, on a point of similarity with HRC, I can’t say I have the impression that he particularly gives a damn about whether trans people live or die.  Honestly, I don’t know if he’s actually transphobic or not – or that he actually works to actively undermine trans rights.

However, the above-quoted piece from SLOG, would legitimize any opinion that anyone might form of him in that direction.


Well, it certainly appears that the person he’s referring to is NOT and FTM.


Now, by “appears,” I’m not talking about visually.  Might someone be forgiven for, on one’s own mind, making an assumption that McKenna is FTM? 


A gay man?

Also perhaps.

But, Savage pulled the FTM card.

And if you read the comments to the SLOG piece, that ‘revelation’ seems pretty damn surprising to just about everyone.

Dan Savage, stop it with the FTM shit. You’re doing it wrong. First of all, he’s not transgendered. Second of all, you’re insulting transgendered people by making something like this up out of nowhere. I’m ashamed of you for this. Really, if you would stop stuff like this, you’d be okay.


C’mon Dan, can you give us more? Google searches all point back to you. What’s your source?

Well, someone at some point did point to a source – from 2004:

Attorney General

Deborah SennDeborah Senn served two terms as state insurance commissioner. She is on the left of the political spectrum, a populist who built a strong reputation as a crusading consumer advocate, which won her the enduring enmity of the state’s business establishment.

Unfortunately, Senn gave conservatives ammunition by crusading a bit too hard as insurance commissioner. But it is time for Democrats to unite behind her. A main role of the AG’s office is consumer protection, and we expect Senn will excel at that task. Senn talks (with credibility) about the AG as “the people’s lawyer,” and advocates investigating rising gas prices, going after identity theft, and policing predatory lending–music to our ears.

Compare that to her Republican opponent, King County Council member Rob McKenna, who adheres to the Republican mantra that government is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. McKenna, a female-to-male transsexual, is the FTM community’s own Mary Cheney. When will McKenna address the needs of the FTM community? We expect more from one of our own, “Robin.” There’s also a Green and a Libertarian in this race, but forget about them. Polls show Senn leading by only a narrow margin over McKenna. Vote Senn.

The source?

The 2004 election endorsement (“The Stranger Department of Homeland Security Endorsements”) page of The Stranger – the parent of SLOG.

In case you’re thinking I’m reaching on this, try:

 The Stranger Department of Homeland Security does not make endorsements in uncontested races. The Dept. is Erica C. Barnett, Josh Feit, Amy Jenniges, Sandeep Kaushik, Tim Keck, Dan Savage, Annie Wagner, and Mason Bryant.


What a wonderful tool…

of right-wing nutcases (yes, I self-referenced on the Joe Fudgepacker thing, but its still a reference back to Bill Maher.)

What is this post if it’s not an example of the worst the Teabaggers would offer?

A good question.

As is this one: Is McKenna actually FTM?  Now, the guy does indeed also appear to be cut from the worst breed of political vermin out there.  I have no use for him, FTM or not.

But gay male Dan Savage has made a factual assertion about him – at least once, and probably twice.*

IF Savage has accurate info about him, then I’d be hard-pressed to find fault with what he’s written; McKenna being an FTM would only prove him to be even lower on the evolitionary scale than he would be otherwise.

However, Savage does not come to this dispute with an unblemished reputation – hence the title of this post.  (Seriously – would any trans person trust Dan Savage to evaluate him/her fairly?  Or trust any gay man?  Sorry if that’s offensive – but, even though I know several personally who I would trust, when taken in the abstract, the answer is no.  Sorry, but you have HRC, John Aravosis, Chris Crain and their adherents and financiers to thank for that now-permanently-jaundiced view.)  [SEE UPDATE BELOW]


AGO Header Image

That’s another image of him.  Honestly, he doesn’t look like an FTM there – just another weasely member of the new breed of devoid-of-masculinity men (including one that I have, and will again, assert is homosexual; sorry, but I don’t believe that any rational human being can come to any other conclusion about Eric Cantor) that, for some bizarre reason, Larry-the-Cable-Guy-esque men have no problem with their heterosexual-or-else sons following politically.


Think about it…

A right-wing Republican lunatic in his second term as a state attorney general…

is a trans man…

and no one – even the corporate, supplicant media – has ever said anything about it?

Savage not only does not come to this dispute with an unblemished reputation – he lacks a credible scenario.

And, as of right now, he should lack a job.

Enough is enough.

No more gay men making a living off of trans-anything.

Its time for a double ultimatum:

(1) Dan Savage should lay everything on the table regarding how he comes to justify USING trans existence (namely: PROVE what he’s said about McKenna) or he should be fired.

(2) Every LGB(T) rights organization that wants to be taken seriously as having anything credible to say about trans-anything (this means you, GLAAD; HRC?  don’t even bother) must get behind the first prong of this ultimatum.

If Savage makes his case – that McKenna actually is a self-loathing FTM who is working to undermine trans people’s (and LGBs) ability to exist – I’ll be the first to apologize to him and I’ll hop on Savage’s anti-McKenna, fudgepackin’ train.

If Savage doesn’t?

He must go.


Re: employment based concerns?  Try this comment to the SLOG piece:

You know, I just remembered the reasons I avoided Dan and wasn’t out as Trans when I used to work at the Stranger. Ouch, Dan. This REALLY SUCKS.

For some reason, I think there may be more of this to come.