Don’t Pretend its Just HRC

When they say strong…


…they must mean strong odor.


One rule of life is: If you ever find yourself about to say “Do you know who I am?”, don’t.  You’re probably not as important as you think you are.

But as with all rules there are exceptions that prove it.

I thought the only exception to this was when Jerry Seinfeld was on Larry King Live a few years back and had to genuinely ask King if he knew who Seinfeld was because, based on some of the things King was saying, it really seemed as it King didn’t.  (Yes, Seinfeld has been a jerk lately re: PC-ness, but c’mon.  Everyone does know who he is.)

Now we have another exception.

Sure some people somewhere might now know who Mia Macy is and that’s fine – but some people aren’t the people who put on Portland, Oregon’s Pride festival, using Mia Macy in advertising such.

And now, the seemingly unrelated – yet ever-so-relevant – money shot:


Yes, the sockpuppet lives…

and just as cluelessly as ever.

D’Souza? Ind’icted? D’oh!

laughing out loud photo: lullz LULZ.gif

It couldn’t have happened to a smarmier, more hypocritical piece of slime.  (Okay, I guess it could have happened to Mitt Romney, but the propaganda-mongering liar who made the sub-Willie-Horton-ad, anti-Obama crockumentary to attempt to aid Mittens is something of a start.)

From DKos:

Federal prosecutors in New York indicted conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza on Thursday, on charges that he funnelled contributions to a Senate candidate in 2012 and then reimbursed the donors—a practice that is very, very illegal. D’Souza’s also charged with “causing false statements to be made to the FEC” in connection with these donations, by which the U.S. Attorney’s office means that D’Souza caused the campaign in question to mis-report the money it received (since it didn’t actually belong to the named donors).

So just which campaign is it? Well, last cycle, the only contribution D’Souza appears to have made is $5,000—the legal limit, for the primary and the general election combined—to Republican Wendy [] Long, who ran a hopeless campaign for Senate in New York and got obliterated by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. D’Souza’s wife (or possibly ex-wife) Dixie D’Souza also contributed the same amount on the same day[.]

Of course, it could have been some other campaign, but if it was Long, that would explain why the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (based in Manhattan) is investigating. D’Souza also lives (or at least, recently lived) in New York, where he used to be president of a tiny Christian school called King’s College, before he was forced to step down in 2012 after revelations that he was having an affair with another woman.

Sockpuppet Alert

In the comments section at a Baltimore Sun piece on the possibility in 2014 of rectifying Maryland’s 2001 law giving non-trans people the special right to discriminate against trans people:


I encourage ENDABlog 2.0 readers to think about whether or not that wording seems more likely to have actually come from a ‘Patrick’ or from a vomitous bug

or perhaps an alleged gay man allegedly named “Vic”

or perhaps even from an alleged 70-year-old woman who allegedly lives in North York, Ontario and allegedly had an encounter with a trans woman at a Toronto-area Y some unspecified number of years ago.

Toronto’s Scar

Cristan Williams at TransAdvocate, detailing how the Toronto Star is doing the work of right-wing radphlegms for them by employing the American gay male blog ‘its not my job’ mindset when it comes to giving a damn about whether the transphobic defamation it spews has even the slightest grounding in reality:

I want to introduce a debate tactic well-known to the Internet, but perhaps not so well known to print media: Strawman Sockpuppetry. That’s when one inserts an inept voice into a debate to argue against one’s own position. This false flag tactic creates the illusion that the debate position held by one’s opponent is ridiculous.

After Gallinger’s problematic story was printed, those who stand against trans equality came out of the woodwork to publicly gnash their teeth at the supposed absurdity of trans equality… With the help of the Star’s own editorial staff. After the Star was notified that Gallinger’s story was predicated upon a hoax, the Star nevertheless published a letter to the editor decrying the absurdity of trans equality as evidenced by Gallinger’s story. The Star editorial staff made no mention that the entire story was fake. Instead, they printed a letter titled “Trans rights trump women’s rights” using the original title of Gallinger’s article:



Gee – where have I heard that term before?

Oh yeh…


Meanwhile, back at the Canadian ranch:

The Toronto Star has published this claim – without noting that the claim is a hoax, or at the very least is an anonymous and unverified claim – twice now. Twice the editorial staff saw fit to proffer – as plausible – the highly questionable, anonymous, unsubstantiated and contested claim that sex crimes are taking place at the YMCA. In what other context would such editorial behavior be tolerated? In what way does this behavior resemble the professional standard the Star publicly professes?

Does the Toronto Star have a bug infestation?

And, if so, does the Star even realize it?