Hitler? All He Had Was Goebbels. Bush? He Had Karl Rove and Fox ‘News.’ Any Surprises Regarding Which One ‘History’ is Being Kinder To?

September 24, 2010

Moreover, take a guess as to how little of this will ever make it into any Texas-approved textbook:

All of us knew it but couldn’t prove it. Now we can prove it. Newly declassified documents published at the National Security Archive prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the Bush administration planned to topple Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq as early as January, 2001, and were making strategic plans and resource allocations as early as November, 2001.

America has now reached the equilibrium of class insanity that England was wallowing in during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries: only the poor, politically-unconnected and without titles of nobility ever had to answer for their actions.  Theft of property valued at 12 pence (1/20 of a British Pound) was punishable by hanging – and almost always was so punished (the only other alternative besides a pardon resulted in Australia.)

Today in America?

Steal a loaf of bread to eat or make off with a gallon of gas so you can drive to an interview for a job (that you’re not going to get because the position you applied for was shipped to India even before the want-ad you answered was placed in the newspaper) or lie to an insurance company to get a life-saving medical procedure that the insurance company had lied to you in telling you that policy was going to cover and, while you can be assured that you won’t have to catch the next tumbrel cart to Tyburn, you can be assured that that the American Corporatist Criminal Justice(?) System will ensure that, for the rest of your life – even if it somehow manages not to include any actual time behind prison walls – you will be caste buddies with mother-rapers, father-stabbers, father-rapers and child-pimpers.


Arrange to steal an election, then lie to start not one but two wars, then subvert every statute and constitutional provision that you swore to uphold when you took the oath that you illegally put yourself in the place to take….?

If only Hitler had had Karl Rove, even if Germany had still lost the war Hitler could have spent the 1950s travelling throughout the U.S. giving speeches to local meetings of the John Birch Society proudly proclaiming that, “Hey, we had our differences back in the 1940s, but at least I’m not a Commie! And I’m damn sure not Kenyan!”

When Queer Channel Media Hits a Home Run, I Acknowledge it

August 26, 2010

And, with this observation about Larry Bud Ken Mehlman, Kevin Naff puts one over the center field wall:

Mehlman says he only recently realized he’s gay — an absurd claim — and insists that he worked behind the scenes to beat back efforts to attack same-sex marriage during the Bush years. That’s a staggering claim from someone who presided over a campaign that exploited homophobia to advance constitutional amendments in 11 states banning same-sex marriage.

Mehlman is the Roy Cohn of his generation, quietly enabling some of the most damaging attacks on LGBT people and our families.

Actually, this gives me a chance to nevertheless take a shot at QCM.

I think that that passage is an insult to Roy Cohn. 


Cohn never came out, but there is verifiable evidence that, at least once, he worked on behalf of at least one member of the LGBT community: Renee Richards.


…and that little boy…

…who nobody liked…

…grew up to be…

Ken Mehlman.


Re: Ken Mehlman

August 26, 2010

Question: If Nikki Araguz had been head of the Republican National Committee, would the media have continued to respect her privacy?


Go talk amongst yourselves.

Confessions of an ObamaBot

July 12, 2010

Perhaps the title is too declarative.  I’m still not sure.  

Perhaps this image is a bit too harsh.  


Again – I’m still not sure. 

What am I sure of?  

Its July 2010.  

Someone with less credibility than Joe Solmonese declared me to be an idiot some weeks back.  The orifice of origin of that declaration speaks for itself, so I’m not as concerned about it as I am about something else. 

Was I an ObamaBot? 

Why does that matter? 

Well, the recent anger – at Pam’s (here, here, here, here and here) and Bilerico – directed against pleas not to stop giving money to the DNC, not to mention the reality that, as I type, ENDA is like the four-headed, man-eating haddock fish-beast of Aberdeen, makes me wonder about what led to this reality. 

A comment on one of the threads at Pam’s: 

That might be a very solid case that people who supported Obama over CLINTON were wrong, but not that McCain/Palin would have been a better choice than Obama. 

Ah yes…Barack vs. Hilary. 

Remember that?  The question of which of the two was more LGB(T)-friendly? 

Plenty of people insisted that the woman I referred to as HRC’s HRC was the only one who could be trusted.  Plenty of people said it was Obama.

How to decide?

Well, I focused on this, the trans-inclusive Illinois version of ENDA, which was passed early in 2005, during the final days of the 2003-04 legislativbe session: 

Public Act 093-1078 

SB3186 Enrolled     LRB093 20455 WGH 46241 b 

AN ACT concerning human rights.  

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly: 


(O-1) Sexual orientation. “Sexual orientation” means actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or gender-related identity, whether or not traditionally associated with the person's designated sex at birth. "Sexual orientation" does not include a physical or sexual attraction to a minor by an adult. 







Barack Obama was still in the Illinois Senate during that session. 

However, by the time that that bill took its whirlwing trip through the Illinois Senate and Illinois House – and on to the shadow of Rod Blagojevich’s hair – Obama had left the Illinois Senate for the U.S. Senate. 

So, that bill did not stand as evidence of his feelings about LGBT matters one way or the other.  However, earlier that same session there had been SB 101


                                     LRB093 04011 WGH 04050 b 

1        AN ACT concerning human rights. 

2        Be  it  enacted  by  the People of the State of Illinois,
3    represented in the General Assembly: 

4        Section 5.  The Illinois Human Rights Act is  amended  by
5    changing  Sections  1-102,  1-103,  3-103,  and 3-106 and the
6    heading of Article 1 and adding Section 1-101.1 as follows: 


 9        (O-1)  Sexual  orientation.   “Sexual  orientation” means
10    having or being perceived as having an  emotional,  physical,
11    or  sexual attraction to another person without regard to the
12    sex of that person or having or being perceived as having  an
13    orientation for such attraction, or having or being perceived
14    as   having   a   gender-related  self-identity,  appearance,
15    expression,  or  behavior,  whether  or   not   traditionally
16    associated with the person’s designated sex at birth. 

And, perhaps most importantly, there is that bill’s official history


Senator Obama did not cast a vote on SB 101, but he did sign on as a co-sponsor of it – which, for purposes of determining the gay-friendliness (not to mention the trans-friendliness) of presidential candidate Obama, should have been even better than a record vote. 

And it should have been indicative of the future.

Yet, here we are in July of 2010, and the federal ENDA still is like the four-headed, man-eating haddock fish-beast of Aberdeen

Is President Barack Obama the one to blame? 

I still can’t bring myself to heap upon him the derision that I rightfully direct at those such as the Rhode Island Avenue Cesspool, St. Barney, The John, Gramma Frumpp, The Shamvocate, the Luna-Tick, Queer Channel Media and the entirety of the overpaid, underworked transphobic gay mafia. 

I will, however, deride the term “fierce advocate,” because I simply do not see any fierce advocacy in favor of anything that will alter the legal status quo that allows this multiple-degreed, multiple-law-licensed, frequently-published-in-scholarly-journals, 45-year-old woman to be professionally marginalized into economic oblivion – and which allows me no legal recourse against those who take advantage of that status quo. 

And look, I get it – there are no absolute guarantees.  Moreover, we can’t say ‘our money bought ENDA.’  That would be, well… You know what that would be. 

But I do think that, even if there were no campaign dollars at issue, in light of just how much noxious shit that George W. Bush wanted and was able to ram through far-lesser-majority Republican Congresses than that which Obama saw on Capitol Hill in January 2009 (What did he not get?  The FMA and total privitization of Social Security, but what else?), I think all of us had a right to expect at least a vote – a committee vote – on a real ENDA (and I won’t even talk about DADT, DOMA, et. al.)  So I think we had a right to expect that our Democratic president – even taking into account that his name is Barack Obama and not Lyndon Johnson – could at least cause some movement on ENDA in Congress. 

Did Rahm – or someone else – convince him that that would be ‘spending political capital’, and too much of it? 

Well, I think  the votes of the LGBT  populace counts as ‘political capital.’ 

And I think that that ‘political capital’  has definitely been lost – not spent, but flushed. 

We have nothing to show for it – and congressional Democrats can’t expect to end up with anything to show for it in November. 

Can they? 

I hope not. 

Maybe I was an ObamaBot, but I still don’t think so.  My support for him was based on a verifiable track record – a verifiable pro-LGBT history not then shared by either Bill or Hillary (she had been in the Senate for over a full term; where was the more-than-the-nothing-we-were-getting-from-Ted-Kennedy support for T-inclusion in ENDA?).  I stand by it: My support for him then was justified.  The next-to-nothing that has happened since then doesn’t change that. 

It does, however, make me very sad.

I assume we all remember Animal House?  And what happened to a certain car that Flounder was responsible for?

Otter: Flounder, you can’t spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You fucked up… you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it! Maybe we can help.
Flounder: [crying] That’s easy for you to say! What am I going to tell Fred?
Otter: I’ll tell you what. We’ll tell Fred you were doing a great job taking care of his car, but you parked it out back last night and this morning… it was gone. We report it as stolen to the police. D-Day takes care of the wreck. Your brother’s insurance company buys him a new car.
Flounder: Will that work?
Otter: Hey, it’s gotta work better than the truth.
Bluto: [thrusting six-pack into Flounder’s hands] My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.

The truth is that the Democratic control of Congress is only going to be less come January – if not completely gone, converted into a Boehner-orange blur of corporate-christianist psychosis (Majority Whip Michele Bachmann, anyone?).

The truth is that that Democrat fate was sealed the instant that Nancy Pelosi and/or Harry Reid and/or Barack Obama made the calculation to play nice with the radioactive sludge that calls itself the GOP – and the truth is that the point of no possible turnaround on that fate became clear when the DC Dems decided not to make hay while the Democratic sun was shining.  (The hate-crime law?  That’s not enough hay to keep even a single cow alive.)

Was trusting the Dems – whether led by Obama or Hillary – in 2008 a Flounder-esque fuck up?

No.  It was the choice we had against the specter of President Fakey McMaverick and V.P. Milfy McMooseburger.

However, believing any promise that Dem, Inc., makes to appease our anger between now and November would be the equivalent of giving the keys to our car not to Otter but to Bluto (John Belushi may have died, but never forget what became of John Blutarsky – and, likely, whatever trustworthiness he may have had.)

No ENDA, no support – of any kind.


‘Gender Sanity’ on the Right: Aravosisism’s Endgame?

June 2, 2010

A new post of note:

Why the T in GLBT?

From The John?  A re-post of his warm-n-fuzzy (in the cold-cuts-left-inside-a-refrigerator-that’s-been-unplugged-for-two-years-sense) 2007 screed?

How did the T get in LGBT?

It would be an easy assumption to make.  Still…no! 

Then who?  Right-wing psycho-talker Dennis Prager, shilling in the christianism-pandering National Review (all while, of course, wearing his Jewishness as an amulet, apparently expecting such to prevent criticism from those who live in reality), that’s who!

A lot of gays have been scratching their heads for 10 years trying to figure out what they have in common with transsexuals….

Hah! Fooled ya!

Or maybe not.

That quote was actually from The John.  Now, this is from Prager:

Interestingly, few people ever ask about the “T.” What do the transgendered have to do with gays?

Not cut-n-paste by the letter – but certainly in spirit.

And why should anyone be surprised?

Well, perhaps one should be surprised upon looking closer:

I fully recognize there have always been individuals who are no more capable of sexual attraction to the opposite sex than men like me are capable of being sexually aroused by the same sex. They should not be ridiculed, let alone persecuted, for their sexual orientation.

And few people, conservative or liberal, have any trouble accepting a transsexual, i.e., someone who has surgically changed his or her sex.

But what does any of this have to do with the transgendered, i.e., people who do not psychologically identify with their biological sex, who act as if they were a member of the opposite sex, and who have not changed their biology? Why does the Left include the transgendered in its activism on behalf of gays?



Or Ticked-off HBS-ers With Blogs?

Like most anti-T christanists (But he’s Jewish!  Well, remember, christianists believe that Jews can be ‘completed’ – and there will be as much room in America under a Palin Administration for Jews as there will be for Muslims, Wiccans, and gays and lesbians: none) Prager comes off as little more than a well-professed heterosexual male who, decades ago, masturbated to photos of Chrysis and has been Fergus-ing himself ever since after finding out that her measurements were, as someone in the documentary Split remarked, 36-24-9. 

Or, being Jewish, maybe he gets off to Dana International and can’t handle that she once had a…you know.  Who knows?  Who cares?

Well, he pecks in the National Review – you know, the publication that allowed professional homophobe John Derbyshire to give a handjob to his own publisher in the form of a allegedly-principled glorification of the fraudulent ‘science’ of J. Michael Bailey.

Bailey cared enough about policing the sexes to get the Joseph Henry Press to discredit itself by publishing a book claiming to be ‘science’ while being as devoid of science as a Sarah Palin wink.

Derbyshire cared enough about policing the sexes to give JHP that literary handjob.

NR cared enough about policing the sexes to let Derbyshire do it.

And NR cares enough about policing the sexes to let Prager…

Well, you judge for yourself what Prager is doing with the T.

But, wait…

Prager seems to ‘get’ transsexuals

But that’s part of the scam.  Its difficult now to find anyone on the christianist right – well, anyone who is allowed to speak in proper media – who will claim that government has any business telling gays and lesbians what they should be able to do in their bedrooms, yet how many of them ever lifted a finger to legislatively get rid of sodomy laws?

Yes, Prager seems to be okay with gays and lesbians per se.

Yes, Prager seems to be okay with transsexuals per se.

But he also seems to be a typical right-wing nut:

For those of us who believe that the male-female distinction is vital to civilization….

How?  Its damn sure vital to what the Taliban wants world civilization be, but to actual, reality-based civilization?  Where reality – not religion – matters?

Not so much.

For those of us who believe that the male-female distinction is vital to civilization….

Now we’re back to Lewis Black’s analysis of the anti-gay-marriage charade under the Bush junta. 

How is gay marriage a threat to…

anything?  At least, to anything other than the dwindling contents of the Republican corporatists’ bag-of-scary-tricks-to-get-the-working-class-to-vote-against-their-economic-interests?  Little Ricky Santorum could never articulate a rational reason why it was a threat.  Neither could Newt ‘Three Marriages For Me, But DOMA For Thee’ Gingrich.

And neither can Prager (or anyone else.)

But forget about marriage – for the moment.

How is the male-female distinction (at least as defined by Dennis Prager; again remember: he seems to ‘get’ transsexualism – so, will that, if not his Jewishness, get him onto Robert Knight‘s shit list?) more vital to civilization than the ability to earn a living?  Or to stop the Gulf of Mexico from becoming the backdrop if the Matt Smith-era Doctor Who wants to do an updated version of “Inferno“? 

Stahlman’s gas?  Oil? What’s the distinction?

Well – for forty years the distinction was that one was a fictional plot device in the final episode of Jon Pertwee’s first season as The Doctor and one was, well, oil.


You see, there’s that problem again – the problem of the publication that is giving Prager the platform from which to peck, a publication that, if it ever gave a damn about the ability of working-class people to earn a living (for argument’s sake, I’ll presume that it actually did at some point during William F. Buckley’s ownership of it), long ago ceased doing so with its promotion of economic treasonists and the party that they control.

There’s a distinction between officeholders/seekers who respect this nation, its citizens and their ability to exist – and officeholders/seekers who eagerly destroy all three by shipping America’s economy to Central America and the Indian subcontinent, all in the name of stock dividends.

That’s a distinction.

Now…as between males and females?

There are males and females (and, not surprisingly absent from the Prager prance through the tulip patch of nonsense, intersexuality) and there are differences – but they are internal and interpersonal differences that neither the law nor any of its pimps-of-convenience such as Prager (any calls from Prager for impeaching any of the Bush junta for any of its patently illegal activity?  any calls from Prager for using the law to wipe BP out of existence and to use its assets to make the true small businesses of the Gulf Coast whole?  I didn’t think so) have any more business taking note of than they ever had the moral right to regarding race and religion.


No legitimate government has the right to tell people of different races that they can’t be together (or have to be together; ever been fired or not promoted because you were single?) any more than it has the right to tell people of the same sex that they can’t be together or any more than it has the right to tell any individual that he or she cannot engage in certain activity solely because proscriptions against said activity happen to appear in certain tracts of mythology.


No legitimate government has any right to stand in the way when a sovereign, autonomous human being says that said sovereign, autonomous human being’s brain has always caused said sovereign, autonomous human being to feel different than people like Prager society expect said sovereign, autonomous human being based on what said sovereign, autonomous human being’s genitals look like.

And no right-wing peckster who whines about distinctions between males and females without acknowledging the undeniable biological reality of intersexuality and the increasing likelihood that (depending on what intra-T political position you want to take) transsexuality is part of that or otherwise biologically based is legitimate.

Transsexualism?  Biologically-based?  (Yes, Virginia, er…, Robert Knight, there is ‘science’ other than the fraud being peddled by the Family Research Council and Coral Ridge Ministries):

There is a likely genetic component to transsexualism, and genes involved in sex steroidogenesis are good candidates. We explored the specific hypothesis that male-to-female transsexualism is associated with gene variants responsible for undermasculinization and/or feminization. Specifically, we assessed the role of disease-associated repeat length polymorphisms in the androgen receptor (AR), estrogen receptor β (ERβ), and aromatase (CYP19) genes.

A significant association was identified between transsexualism and the AR allele, with transsexuals having longer AR repeat lengths than non-transsexual male control subjects (p = .04).

What is the male-female distinction vital to for me?  Well, somone decided to stick an ‘M’ on my birth certificate without ever asking me for my thoughts on the matter.  I never felt like an ‘M’.  I never wanted to be an ‘M’.  And, thanks to people like Prager – and his predecessors in bully-interest – there’s archipelago of legal bullshit and medico-psucho-pharmacological that someone who gets stuck with an ‘M’ against her will has to go through to get an ‘F’ and live as an ‘F’ generally unbothered….

Until, of course, someone with a Prageristic sense of entitlement to know that their personally-defined distinctions (well, if he can be taken at his word about being okay with us transsexuals, then his personal distinctions are vastly different than Coral Ridge con man Robert Knight’s) are being enforced against the masses decides to inquire about my ‘F’ and then subsequently enforce their personally-defined distinctions.

The last time it happened to me was in an interview for a law professorship – when an overly-entitled professor decided to distinguish me from herself and the other female professor conducting the interview by linguistically equating me biologically to the male professor interviewer by referring to me using male pronouns.

Was that professor straight or lesbian?  I don’t know – but I do have my suspicions.

Did that professor’s need for ‘distinction’ emanate from reading Janice Raymond? Or Norah Vincent? Or J. Michael Bailey?

Or Dennis Prager?

Does it matter?

Would one more than the other have changed the end result of the legal academy remaining trans woman-free?



They converge at the horizon line of insanity.

What is the male-female distinction actually vital to in the Pragerist sense?  The internal manhood of well-professed heterosexual males like Prager and Tim Pawlenty and Nahm Coleman and J. Michael Bailey?  The internal manhood of well-professed homosexual males like Barney Frank and John Aravosis and Chris Crain?  The ‘how dare you say we’re claiming biology is destiny even though, wink wink, that is what we’re saying’ patent claim to womanhood-determination of well-professed lesbians like Janice Raymond and Alix Dobkin and Lisa Vogel and Norah Vincent?

Aren’t ya mixing things up a bit there, Kat?

Not really.

And certainly not any more so than the mixing-up done by reasonable-because-they-say-they’re-reasonable-even-though-they’re-no-different-than-Fred-Phelps right, the gay transphobes and the people who get apoplectic over the conflation of TG and TS, get angry at the notion of anyone with a penis even thinking about asserting any claim to womanhood and who get even angrier when a lawyer (someone who looks, acts and writes a lot like me perhaps?) asks how anyone is ever supposed to approach the attaining of post-op nirvana while shackled with an ‘M’ on her driver’s license and a legal (and apparently a post-op-mindset-superiority) mandate to never go anywhere near a women’s public restroom until after SRS.

And there we have the Aravosisistic rub.

To read Prager’s pecking, you’d believe that he was fine-n-dandy with civil rights stuff – such as ENDA perhaps? – that was LGBT if only that nasty T stood only for transsexual and not transgender.

To read Aravosis’s ahistorical nonsense, you’d never believe that transsexuals or trans-anyone had ever been part of the gay rights movement prior to 2007 (much less prior to the combo platter of purges in 1973: we were too freaky for the assimilationist gay males and too assimilationist – allegedly – for the lesbian separatists who worshipped androgynousness yet nevertheless wanted to police who could and cound not claim to be a woman.)

To read much of the HBS histrionics, you’d think that its possible to put the ‘umbrella term’ aspect of ‘T’ back into the bottle.

To read much of the ‘post-op MTFs are no longer transsexuals, we’re women’ denialism, you’ll still never find much, or anything, about how pre-ops are actually supposed to navigate the legal dichotomy of life up until the scalpel hits the phallus.

To read HRC’s website, you’d believe that it actually gives a damn about whether trans people live or die.

In the trans history class that I teach, my students get to peruse plenty of the transphobic hatred that has been unleashed by gays and lesbians over the years.  One thing that I always send my students away with – particularly in the spring semester – is that there is something in life that is certain other than death and taxes.  Its a certainty that every year, as Pride time approaches, some gay publication somewhere will unleash an op-ed either lamenting the ‘good old days’ of a trans-free gay rights movement or, as Norah Vincent was allowed to do a decade ago in the Shamvocate, double down on Janice Raymond-ism and stop just microns short of calling for the actual extermination of trans people.


National Review….

We pretty much have gotten to the point where we can presume (even under an English libel law standard) any – and I mean any – ‘family values’-oid Republican to be a closeted homosexual (the ‘pretty much’ has to be tossed in because there are a few that are ‘just’ heterosexual adulterers and prostitute-mongers.)

Can we then declare Dennis Prager’s National Review whinefest, “Why the T in GLBT?,” to be this year’s model?  After all, it was a gay paper’s good job of dissecting him that alerted me to the article’s existence.

No – its only June 2nd.

We’re barely into Pride month.

There are still plenty of Michigan Transphobia Festival-defenders and Luna-ticks out there – and, of course, there’s the re-animated Queer Channel Media.

Plus, there is the substantive timebomb of ENDA.

Rememer the aforementioned ‘rub’?

Is Prager’s piece just another – albeit more cleverly disguised – embodiment of the typical anonymous (wink, wink) Jonathan Capehart editoral attack on an inclusive ENDA? 

Is Prager’s peckfest a sign that the Aravosisism endgame is at hand?  Creation of more gay-pure ‘reality’ that makes the Frankrainvosists’ real goal – a trans-free ENDA – seem more and more and more reasonable?

We’re already dealing with the fake reality of the 2009-10 ENDA’s political petri dish, a fake reality constantly defended by our Chosen-Ones-who-were-chosen-for-us-by-people-whose-interests-are-much-more-aligned-with-the-Aravosisists-than-with-real-trans-people – a fake reality in which a fake compromise which, even if yields an actual erasure of DADT, puts the career-specific desires of an infinitessimal percentage of the LGBT community above the desperate need for meaningful equality by the LGBT community as a whole and is going to be sold to that sold-out community as a victory…

Incremental progress it will be called (though, unless the drunk gay millionaires are already dancing on the posh tables by then, another, more marketable phrase will be substituted.)

Who’s doing the selling out and who’s doing the defending?

Frank or Aravosis? Aravosis Prager?  Prager or Capehart?  Capehart or Tyler?  Tyler or Solmonese?  Solmonese or Keisling?  Keisling or Luna? Luna or Frank?  Frick or frack?  Life or death?

Who knows?

Who cares?

Win or lose,  progress or regress, incrementalism or reality – they all collect their paychecks and live happily and comfortably while those of us in the real world wonder who will actually be the first up against the wall: the transgender people who Prager seems to hate or the transsexual people who openly gay men (as well as well-professed heterosexuals) have constructed the freedom to demonize?

Kill Baby Kill! (Birds Can’t Vote, After All)

April 30, 2010

From the Houston Chronk:

Where are those imaginary human-animal hybrids when we need them (to go after St. Sarah of Stupidity)?

Why America is Dead – Pt. 24: Facts? What are Those?

April 8, 2010

From Feministe:

Middle and lower-income families pay less in income taxes under Obama than they did under Bush. Why haven’t I seen that sign at a Tea Party rally?

Just askin’….