So?

That’s my response to this, and many similar headlines:

Internationally Renowned Human Rights Lawyer Marries Actor Who Played A Handyman On ‘Facts of Life’

I have as little use for unnecessary celebrity hype as anyone, but lets be fair.  George Clooney also played the title role in Michael Clayton, a movie that anyone even thinking about going to law school should be required to watch.

And actually pay attention to.

And sign a sworn statement attesting to having seen it and understanding that Michael Clayton is far closer to an accurate depiction of the legal profession than To Kill a Mockingbird.

Would the titterers prefer that Amal Alamuddin marry some scumbag, reverse-mortgage-pushing, part-time actor who happens to also actually be a lawyer?

Advertisements

How Can I Compromise Thee? Let Me Count the Ways

Absent a few stylistic edits that I’ve made, the following – which I re-present now to all of the St. Barney-defenders slithering out of the woodwork to cheer and defend his continued false claims that he was on the right side of, well…, anything in 2007 – appeared in the May 12, 2000 edition of the Texas Triangle.

I keep hearing how the exclusion of trans people from ENDA is oh so lamentable (such sentiments accented with equal sign-festooned, Caucasian, rich, straight-acting crocodile tears).

Ask yourself this, however:

If there was an attempted amendment to Barney Frank’s ENDA bill that would ‘clarify’ Title VII to ensure that it is never interpreted to protect transsexuals, would Frank and the HRC expend one ounce of political energy to kill it? Or, would it oh so lamentably be accepted as a compromise to get a homosexual-only bill passed?

How about an attempted amendment that would prohibit the federal government from recognizing gender transition (even though 20 states, D.C. and Guam explicitly do so recognize)?

Or an attempted amendment that would make it a federal crime to prescribe hormones for gender transition therapy or to perform sex reassignment surgery?

Or an attempted amendment that would make it a federal crime to send any information on transgender issues through the U.S. Mail?

Or….

Well, I’m sure that you can think of other possible compromises. Don’t think you can? Just think like Barney Frank.

How do you think like Barney Frank? Well, you just have to let your arrogance, self-importance and hypocrisy run wild. Not sure how? Try this quick-and-easy, decades-long ‘Be Like Barney’ program. You’ll get the hang of it.

(1) Hop into a closet. (2) Get elected to a state legislature. (3) Support the de-licensure of two gay bars in that state by a city licensing board which claimed that the de-licensure was “in the interest of  the public good” (as was noted in the August 13, 1975 issue of the Advocate) though allegedly solely because of a transgender sex-worker presence (as was speculated in an issue of Drag Magazine shortly  thereafter). (4) Chide a sitting Democratic President for having a “fundamental moral flaw” for not doing
anything to help the poorest and hungriest people in America, adding that “Life under the Democrats is like life under the Republicans except that [U.N. Ambassador] Andy Young’s indiscretions are morally  preferable to Pat Moynihan’s” (as Frank was quoted as saying in the July 11, 1977 issue of the Washington Post. FYI: though a Democratic Senator, Moynihan had held positions in the Nixon and Ford  Administrations). (5) Get elected to Congress and crow to the press “I think I could stay for the next 30
years and feel my life fulfilled.” (6) Five years later, rent a piece of ass from a nontrans male sex worker. (7) Come out of the closet. (8) When word of your use of a hooker bedbud gets out, blame it all on the fact that you were closeted at the time and whine things like, “Dealing with my being gay, while continuing to meet my public obligations, created tremendous internal pressures.” (9) When word gets out that said sex worker may have used your apartment to run a sex work operation, profess ignorance. (10) Count your lucky stars that your party controlled the House during the resulting ethics investigation of you. (11) Win re-election after the ethics investigation. (12) Start proposing employment anti-discrimination bills that protect homosexuals and bisexuals but not trans people. (13) Despite your own personal public life history, repeatedly claim that inclusion of trans people in such a bill, sponsored by you, is what would cause it to fail to become law.

Be honest, queer America – which picture do you really think that non-queer America is more repulsed by: Christie Lee Littleton in the ladies room? Or Barney Frank in the men’s room?

Trans people are the poorest and the hungriest contingent of the movement that started at Stonewall  in 1969. The use of the penis panic against trans people by a man who rented a piece of hustled ass while a member of Congress ultimately putting himself in the position of having to face seemingly believable (though ultimately not proven – at least not proven to the ethics committee’s satisfaction, unlike the allegations of fixing parking tickets and writing a misleading letter to his hustled piece of ass’s probation officer, both of which were) accusations that he and that rented piece of hustled ass did more with their penises in the House gymnasium’s locker room than any MTF transsexual (pre-op or post-op) has ever had any desire of doing in a ladies room or a communal shower facility to justify keeping that poorest and hungriest element out of the most fundamental of civil rights bills – and keeping us in the economic slavery of employment discrimination – is the most fundamental of moral flaws.

In fact, it’s downright obscene.

Some time back I chided Camille Paglia for referring to Barney Frank as an asexual blob. I’d now like to  apologize to Ms. Paglia in full. However, I can’t. I can only give her half of an apology – because Barney Frank is obviously not asexual.

Half an apology. That’s a compromise. ENDA minus trans people is not a compromise. It’s an atrocity.

Now ask yourself this: Might the purported need for a so-called compromise on ENDA be due to Barney Frank’s having called in too many markers during that ethics investigation a decade ago to save his political career so that he can realize that self-important dream of a thirty year career in Congress?

If so, then who is the so-called compromise designed to help? Homosexuals? Or one specific homosexual named Barney Frank?

At the time I wrote that, St. Barney had only managed 19 1/2 years of his goal of 30 years of life on the federal congressional dole. He not only made it to 30, but added two more beyond that.  But even after 32 years of St. Barney on the Potomac, there was no ENDA of any variety – ultimately proving an assertion I soon came to make: that there would never be any ENDA so long as St. Barney was in Congress.  Chad Griffin can make all of the apologies he wants – and even make all of the reparations that he organization does in fact owe to trans people (as an aside, in 2000 where were all of the trans employees he’s now touting?  On the field?  Or on the sidelines? Just curious.) – but it should be clear by now that there will never be an ENDA so long as HRC continues to exist.

Synonyms

“Murdoch” and “Poop”

If you disagree, then check out today’s actual front page of Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post:

MurdochIsPoop

Barney Stank

…and, clearly, he still does.

[Georgia Voice:] Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin just apologized at the transgender conference Southern Comfort for not including the transgender community in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in 2007 after former HRC President Joe Solmonese promised to do so. You eventually included them when the bill came back up in both 2011 and 2012 [the bills did not pass either year], but do you feel you have anything to say to the transgender community about that?

[St. Barney:] Chad Griffin’s one of those people whose political judgment seems to be off. The fact is that HRC and I and everybody else were for an inclusive bill in 2007. The issue was we did not have the votes for an inclusive bill. It wasn’t a failure of will. Then the question was, was something better than nothing? Was it better to pass a bill that was protective of lesbian, gay and bisexual people or pass nothing? We tried very hard.

The transgender community had this mistaken view that if Nancy Pelosi waved a magic wand, transgender would be included. And we were insisting to them that, look we don’t have the votes, help us lobby. Instead of trying to put pressure on the people who were against them, they thought they could just insist that we do it. We said, ‘We’re trying, but we need your help.’

It’s also the case that in 2007, transgender made people a lot of people nervous, they didn’t know about it. Since then there’s been a lot of success in educating the public in general, politicians in particular.

Now, lets go back to 1999, and an interview that St. Barney gave to Minnesota’s Lavender Magazine (specifically, in its Oct. 22nd issue), approximately 6 1/2 years after the state did what the gay-only rights crowd had maintained was not possible:

StBarney19991022

[Lavender:] It [trans issues] didn’t come up at all during the [successful 1993 trans-inclusive] bill’s debate.  The right-wing based their arguments completely on stereotypes of gay men’s sex lives.

[St. Barney:] That’s probably because the transgender community was not nearly as visible in 1993. The fact is, transgender issues would come up now. They were able to fly under the radar then. But, in the context we’re now in, transgender issues have gotten a lot more publicity….

So, there’s really just one question that needs to be asked of St. Barney:  If Minnesota’s trans-inclusive gay rights law was possible in 1993 because “the transgender community was not nearly as visible” as it was even by 1999, then why weren’t all federal and state gay rights bills (including the ones that you proposed while in the Massachusetts Legislature) and laws prior to 1993 trans-inclusive?

After all, I seem to recall that one of the big criticisms of trans people by the overpaid, underworked transphobes of Gay, Inc. is that we didn’t ‘show up’ until about five minutes before the 2007 ENDA battle.

We said, ‘We’re trying, but we need your help.’

A secondary question: Wouldn’t it have been wonderful if, in 2007, there had been a bunch of trans employees of HRC, NGLTF, etc. who could have provided some ‘help’ without having their first worry being a non-Gay, Inc. source of income?

Just a thought.

(Reparations, Chad!  Just another thought.)

But, back to the main issue: St. Barney, you’re a two-faced sack of Mass excrement.  A decade before 2007, you were hammered with a historical fact that you had no real answer for because it didn’t fit your own fake narrative, so you went to essentially the same canard that you spewed out now.  As a reminder, that was:

in 2007, transgender made people a lot of people nervous, they didn’t know about it

Essentially, in 1999 your argument was:

in 1993, transgender made people a lot of people nervous, but that lot of people didn’t realize it because I and HRC hadn’t yet moved the discussion away from what many gay men did (and still d0) in public restrooms and onto what no trans woman has ever done in a public restroom

And, just to recap…

You claim that in 2007 you were pissed off that trans people were visible yet, after decades of being systematically excluded from employment by from the Gay, Inc. organizations that did the ‘educating’ of Congress and state legislatures, somehow we hadn’t managed – on our own time and on our own dime – to successfully defeat your ‘penis panic’ and undo the 30+ years of ‘gay-only is the only possible way’ resulting from your (and other legislators’ and Gay, Inc-ers’) refusal to make trans-inclusion a reality when, in your own words, we were “not nearly as visible” and, in turn, were able to “fly under the radar.”

So, I go back to the first question: If Minnesota’s trans-inclusive gay rights law was possible in 1993 only because “the transgender community was not nearly as visible” as it was even by 1999, then why weren’t all federal and state gay rights bills (including the ones that you proposed while in the Massachusetts Legislature) and laws prior to 1993 trans-inclusive?

St. Barney….

proving Dan Savage wrong yet again.

It doesn’t get better.

It gets worse.

“The Ray Rice video for the financial sector has arrived”

That – Bloomberg View’s take – remains to be seen.

Crooks and Liars:

Congress gave the Federal Reserve even more oversight authority. And the New York Fed started hiring specialized examiners to station inside the too-big-to fail institutions, those that posed the most risk to the financial system.

One of the expert examiners it chose was Carmen Segarra.

Segarra appeared to be exactly what Beim ordered. Passionate and direct, schooled in the Ivy League and at the Sorbonne, she was a lawyer with more than 13 years of experience in compliance 2013 the specialty of helping banks satisfy rules and regulations. The New York Fed placed her inside one of the biggest and, at the time, most controversial banks in the country, Goldman Sachs.

It did not go well. She was fired after only seven months.

In her lawsuit over the firing, it was revealed that she recorded quite a lot of what happened over those seven months.

Audio recordings.

Segarra ultimately recorded about 46 hours of meetings and conversations with her colleagues. Many of these events document key moments leading to her firing. But against the backdrop of the Beim report, they also offer an intimate study of the New York Fed’s culture at a pivotal moment in its effort to become a more forceful financial supervisor. Fed deliberations, confidential by regulation, rarely become public.

The recordings make clear that some of the cultural obstacles [Professor David] Beim outlined in his report persisted almost three years after he handed his report to [New York Fed President William] Dudley. They portray a New York Fed that is at times reluctant to push hard against Goldman and struggling to define its authority while integrating Segarra and a new corps of expert examiners into a reorganized supervisory scheme.

This American Life has more.

Libertarianism – ‘Nuff Said

RandRandPaul

Ever Wonder Why It Wasn’t Just the King and Queen Who Were Beheaded During the French Revolution?

Because the rot of arrogance always goes right down to the lowest levels of government – and their spawn.

We now head back to Philly where the story of the obnoxious white gay-bashers is in progress – and getting worse:

[W]e’re learning a lot about the defendants, especially Bucks County’s Kathryn Knott, who, for whatever reason, still hasn’t deactivated her awful Twitter account.

Knott may have gotten special treatment in a 2012 road incident thanks to her dad, who just happens to be Chalfont Township Police Chief Karl Knott. (Note: At the time of the tweets, Knott was on the Abington Township police force.)

KnottHead2

She also says he let her kick down a door in a raid:

KnottHead3

I wonder if it was a no-knock warrant raid, eh?

You know…

The kind that apparently trump people’s right to stand their ground in their own homes when they see and hear what any rational person would believe is a home invasion?

On Friday, May 9, 2014, just after 5:30am in Killeen, Texas, Marvin Louis Guy was the target of a no knock raid.

The officers were looking for drugs, yet none were found in the home.  There was some questionable paraphernalia, but nothing indicative of drug dealing- or anything damning enough for a reasonable person to feel the need to take an officers life.

Unfortunately the danger of no-knock raids is real. just ask the parents of baby Bou or the family of Detective Dinwiddie.

Detective Dinwiddie was one of the SWAT officers who broke into Guy’s house on May 9th, based on a seemingly bogus informant tip off about drugs being dealt from the home.

Likely alarmed by the men climbing through his windows at 5:30 in the morning, Guy and his wife sought to protect themselves and their property and fired on the intruders- in self defense.

And I wonder if this photo that the obnoxious, special-rights-for-police-families-laden gay-basher posted was taken immediately after the raid that daddums let her play kop in?

KnottHead4

Or maybe before?

I know what my reaction would be if some overly-privileged, arrogant drunk was to kick down my front door – day or night.

Just sayin’….

And I wonder how much money that the hospital that she works for will spend on lawyers (instead of healthcare) to avoid paying damages to patients whose privacy she invaded and whose dignity she erased via many, many, many other tweets?