Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period.
That pimple cream con artist would also be the the guy who would never have had a career if not for the 1950s record industry practice bleaching ‘black music’ into nothingness (yes, Elvis also recorded plenty of stuff that non-whites should have become millionaires off of, but there is that little matter of Elvis actually having a bit of talent) and parlayed that undeserved career into a guest shot on the Beverly Hillbillies, tons of commercials hawking that pimple cream that he was later proven to know didn’t work, spawning a singer who infected the airwaves with “You Light Up My Life,” and being Ozzy Osbourne’s neighbor for a while.
Now, like all good treasonous, anti-constitutionist christianists are, he’s helping to dumb down the American psyche even more than it has been by Jersey Shore, Sarah Palin, American Idol, Glenn Beck, Deal or No Deal, the Bush junta, Friends and Debbie Gibson.
While the controversy still rises and rages on, around the proposed “Cordoba House” mosque and Muslim cultural center right on the edge of Ground Zero, where the World Trade Center stood till Sept. 11, 2001 – there is a world-famous building, dedicated by its current residents to similar purposes, in the middle of Washington, D.C.
We call it the White House.
Yes, Pimple Boy calls his piece: “The Mosque at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”
I’ll close by making an attempt to say something nice about a con artist who apparently thinks that the citizens of a constitutional democracy with an absolute prohibition on titles of nobility should give a shit that he claims to be a descendant of Daniel Boone.
Unlike WingNutSupremo Joseph Farah…
Boone apparently had enough sense to never attempt to grow a mustache.
PLANS to build a state-of-the-art library next to Republican catastrophe Sarah Palin are causing outrage across mainstream America.
Campaigners have described the project as insensitive and a deliberate act of provocation by people with brains.
…
President Obama has caused unease within his own Democratic party by endorsing the library and claiming that not everyone who reads books is responsible for calling Mrs Palin a fuckwit nutjob nightmare of a human being.
But Bill McKay, a leading member of the right-wing Teapot movement, said: “Sarah Palin is a hallowed place for Americans who can’t read.
I dunnow…
The pro-library people could be really insensitive and call it the Bill Hicks Memorial Waffle House.
Now, can someone be supportive of trans rights and be on one party’s side in a case to a degree that might seem at first glance to be anti-trans? Yes. Lawyers have to make tough choices sometimes and, like it or not, the mere fact that a transsexual is involved in a case does not mean that the transsexual is the party who deserves to prevail.
I was involved in one legal dispute where one trans person was going after another one (petty, small claims caliber of dispute, but a dispute nevertheless.)
I once interviewed a lawyer whose only visible connection to trans law was in representing a defendant in a case where the lawyer deployed a form of the trans-panic defense. In context (many, many years ago), that’s not as despicable as it is now. Moreover, the guy told me that subsequent to that he had represented a defendant who was transsexual; in it, the lawyer was successful in getting the judge to prohibit any reference to teh defendant’s being trans (a pretty damn good accomplishment.) I’m not mentioning the guy’s name because I don’t know if he would be comfortable being characterized as “pro-trans” or the like, but I do mention the two different cases he was involved in to point out the obvious.
In an April deposition of Nikki Araguz, Mann got her to admit that she was born Justin Graham Purdue; he also asked about her medical history. Mann then used the information in a May 6 e-mail titled “Public Information on Nikki Araguz who is running for Mayor of Wharton, Texas.”
He would not say how many people he sent the e-mail to, but it became public during Araguz’s race for Wharton mayor this spring
Mann’s e-mail kicks off with “Occasionally you get a case that makes the papers or Jerry Springer,” and just gets classier from there. “…I am sending this to you because you are a friend of mine and the deposition is public knowledge. I think the citizens of Wharton Texas should know this information….Nikki Purdue Araguz is the stepmother in a case of mine and she gave testimony that she is a transgender. She is a he. Her birth certificate states that she is male. She has multiple felony convictions in Harris County…and is on probation in Wharton County for possession of a controlled substance.”
That bit in ellipses? That’s where he disclosed a portion of her medical history. Hair Balls isn’t going to do that because we only act like assholes when it’s called for
The guy had a right to not support Nikki in her bid for the Wharton mayoralty. And, assuming he came upon the info about her criminal record outside the attorney-client relationship, I see no problem with him dishing that dirt. In fact, as much as I support Nikki’s posture in her case involving the estate of her late husband and in her ethics complaint against Mann, I think that her actual criminal record was relevant to her run for office.
In the span of just a few days, Sarah Palin has demonstrated that her ignorance of the First Amendment is total. One day after repeating her earlier call for Muslim Americans to “refudiate” their freedom of religion, Palin defended the disgraced Dr. Laura Schlessinger. But in tweeting that Dr. Laura’s “1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist,” Palin showed once again she has no idea what they are.
With no sense of irony, the former half-term Governor of Alaska and the same woman who once accused candidate Hillary Clinton of “whining” rushed to defend Dr. Laura not from government censorship, but from the “shackles” of public criticism:
Dr.Laura:don’t retreat…reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence”isn’t American,not fair”)
For her part, Dr. Laura told CNN’s Larry King the night before that she was quitting her radio show to “regain my First Amendment rights” supposedly lost after her staccato on-air use of the N-word:
“I want to be able to say what’s on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry or some special-interest group deciding this is a time to silence a voice of dissent.”
If that language of faux victimization sounds familiar, it should.
Yes, it sounds quite a bit like all of the whining by J. Michael Bailey and his one-shill Greek Chorus, The Dredge:
In June 2008, I found myself in Cincinnati for the National Women’s Studies Association (NWSA) conference….
…
I’d had to sit quietly and listen to this panel….
…
Rosa stood up and said:
Rosa Lee Klaneski, Trinity College. I cite Alice Dreger’s academically-rigorous work all the time in my own work. She doesn’t know who I am but I know who she is. And I am just wondering[...] – and I’m a transgender person myself – what gives any transgender person the right to abrogate someone else’s first amendment right to freedom of speech just because they hold an unpopular minority view? In my opinion [regarding] the person that you are arguing against [i.e., scientist Michael Bailey, my historical subject], I completely agree with you. Bunk. Ridiculous science. And should be classified as such. I got that. What gives us the right to censor [Dreger’s or Bailey’s work] just because we don’t like it?
The objection raised in return was that the panel didn’t constitute censorship. Technically this was true, but anyone with any background on this knew – as Rosa and I did – the intimidation tactics used to try to silence Bailey, me, and others.
No, it wasn’t just “technically” true.
It was true, period – just like it is true, period, that “Dr.” Laura has had her First Amendment rights violated to the same degree that Don Imus and Jimmy “The Greek” had theirs violated: Not at all.
I was the lawyer on that panel who had to waste the time of those non-Dregers and non-Klaneskis in the audience by pointing out that the First Amendment only applies as against government actors.
The Schless and The Dredge…………..
Con artists of a feather muddy public discourse together.
A commenter to the Houston Chronk item about the indictment – someone calling him/herself “RightWingNut” – said:
But it’s okay for Barney Frank and Pelosi to lie to us every day?
Uh….well….
You have heard of the Constitution, haven’t you?
Oh wait…’right wing’ and all – so, prolly not. So, I guess it falls to me to introduce you to the ‘speech or debate’ clause of the Constitution:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
No, its not absolute. They can get popped for perjury if they lie under oath outside of Congress – but they all learn pretty quickly how to avoid becoming unprotected by the ‘speech or debate’ clause.
Its called the Constitution, RightWingNut.
Try reading it instead of listening to what Lush, Dreck and Hammity say is in it.
Back in 1992, Sharron Angle waged her very first public campaign — against black football jerseys. After the local favorites had been defeated by an upstart team of newbies from a neighboring county in 1991, the coach came up with this for the following year:
Springing ahead, Jones came up with an innovative idea to fire up his charges for their 1992 homecoming game against Laughlin. Utilizing the “darkest day” theme, he suggested the Muckers could wear black jerseys to remember the previous year’s debacle.
All politics is local, and nothing ratchets up the heat faster than high school sports, schools, and religious zealots. There were two factions opposing the coach’s idea. Those who objected to any color but school colors on the field, and Sharron Angle’s group, who objected on these grounds:
Also opposing the black jerseys was another group including Angle, a member, if not its leader.
They argued against our charges wearing black on religious grounds.
…
Angle’s weird and extreme position comes from the theology of light and dark articulated throughout the Bible….
…
And in the end, they didn’t wear the black jerseys, the school administration kept them, and the students were not reimbursed for their own out-of-pocket costs to buy them.
It matters. It matters, because…
Nevada voters who did not know so before now are learning that religion is a big part of any Angle campaign, just as it was so many years ago.
[...]
But in a Las Vegas R-J story last week, an Angle campaign spokesman insisted the candidate is tolerant of others’ views. That was not the case 18 years ago when her religious preference was displayed during a campaign for the county school board.
Yes, Angle was – and is – polluting Nevada, which is a long way from Atlanta. However, I have to wonder what she had to say about the changes that Jerry Glanville made to the Atlanta Falcons’ uniforms when he became head coach in 1990 (and, for that matter, what she had to say about the Elvis-meister’s own taste in sideline attire.)
And gender has always been accepted - what we are born with. When that child comes out – we’ve been blessed with six of them – we don’t have to have a committee and a study on what that is. We say its a boy or its a girl.
Just so folks who aren’t as inclined to legal and/or historical geek-ery as I am are aware, Welch’s comment wasn’t just moronic.
It was about 750 years behind English Common Law.
From a fellow named Bracton, an early English jurist who historians believe died around the year 1268 (and, as an aside, Interstate 45 from Houston down to Galveston was under construction back then as well, and had been for a few decades already; sorry, the Texas expat has to slam I-45 when she can), some thoughts about the subject that Welch made a fool of himself over this evening:
Who may and may not be called children and be reckoned as such
Those born of unlawful intercourse, as out of adultery and the like, are not reckoned among children, nor those procreated perversely, against the way of human kind, as where a woman brings forth a monster or a prodigy. But an offspring who has a larger number of members, as one who has six fingers, or if he has but four, [or only one,] will be included among children.
Another classification of men.
Mankind may also be classified in another way: male, female or hermaphrodite. Women differ from men in many respects, for their position is inferior to that of men.
Of the hermaphrodite
A hermaphrodite is classed with male or female according to the predominance of the sexual organs
Oh by the way…
Bracton was not just a judge; he was also a member of the clergy (remember: no separation of you know what back then.)
Now, as for the text itself – not something I pulled out of my ass but, rather, from his well-known pre-Blackstone treatise on the Common Law (which you can find in most law libraries) – there are some problematic aspects to it, though what I’m sure you’re all thinking is the most problematic is actually the least.
The bit about “monsters”? That generally referred to conjoined twins.
No, I’m not saying its a nice way to treat conjoined twins under the law; rather, I’m just saying that Bracton didn’t write this thing after downing a 12-pack of mead and staying up all night watching Ye Olde X-Parchments, er…, Files, so don’t go thinking that the part about “hermaphrodites” is on par with Legal Remedies for When Witches and Unicorns Crash Your Michelmas Hoedown and Tie Your Cat to the Maypole and then Fart in Your General Direction.
That rather harsh status of out-of-wedlock children? That’s called filius nilius – literally, the child of no one – and, as doctrine, remained in force for a looooooong time after Bracton.
As for the legal inferiority of women? Uhhhh…we are talking about the year 1268. That kinda, sorta does speak for itself.
Now…
Hermaphrodites?
Yes – hermaphrodites.
Being spoken of by a top English judge 750 years ago.
A hermaphrodite is classed with male or female according to the predominance of the sexual organs.
Hmmmmmm….
I wonder who made the call about predominance when the issue arose?
Might it have been…………
A COMMITTEE?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Or a medieval barber doctor…
Or a judge or….
Well, you know…
Pretty much anyone other than Sir Dave of Welch, First Baronet of the Bleached Caverns of Phosgene-Soaked Tele-Ineptitude, Dung Gatherer for the Castle Wingnuttia, and Keeper of the Book of Eternal Ignorance.
The Faux affiliate in Houston is currently running a poll about trans marriage: “Should transgender or transsexual people be allowed to legally marry?”. At 10:47, CDT, it was flowing as such:
Lets make sure it keeps flowing in the proper direction.
You simply let him hang himself by publicly denying biological reality and, then, by letting him add that even if biology is reality, if there’s not enough of you who have a particular life experience – you know, like one that throws a monkey wrench into that whole ‘chromosomes = sex, period!’ wish of the christianist right – to prevail at the polls, then you still don’t exist.
Tonight on the 9 PM news broadcast of Houston’s Faux affiliate, Ch. 26, Cristan Williams did a pretty good job of letting a plastic-smiled turd rhetorically shoot himself in the part of the body where most people have brains.
Now, to set the scene, we’re talking about a local Fox affiliate’s newscast – and a ‘debate’, replete with the mandatory equal-status-to-a-right-wing-christianist false equivalency that, sadly, all corporate media is known for.
And, of course, the context is the ongoing Nikki Araguz case.
Cristan Williams of the Transgender Foundation in Houston is the representative of reality in this rigged (prior to airtime, Cristan posted on facebook: “a fox anchorman just called me a “he” LOL!”) ‘debate’. As for treasonous, christianist anti-constitutionism? That’s being represented by some clown named Dave Welch (I didn’t catch the beginning of the segment, so I don’t know if he’s related to the late former Houston Mayor, Louie ‘Shoot the Queers’ Welch or not), who – I doubt this will shock anyone – writes frequently for Wing Nut Daily.
What I’ve transcribed here is the last portion of the segment:
Local Faux ‘News’ Actress: There is an argument out there: Some critics say that the government should not be involved in regulating relationships at all. What do you say about that Dave?
Christianist talking-point spewer Dave Welch: Well that’s been an issue that has come up frequently during the debate over the definition of marriage. And of course we believe that the state has a compelling interest in what marriage is, because children raised in a marriage relationship with a male and a female as it should be are happier, healthier – its the foundation of our society. So, when marriage breaks down, and, then the society breaks down. And gender has always been accepted - what we are born with. When that child comes out – we’ve been blessed with six of them – we don’t have to have a committee and a study on what that is. We say its a boy or its a girl.
Cristan Williams: Unless one of them happens to be intersexed.
Welch: Well you can’t legislate and have public policy around a fractional percentage of a population.
Williams: Yes, but whenever that population has a basis in biology, we have to recognize that and we have to deal with that.
Welch: We can’t undefine an institution at the foundation of our society over a fraction of one percent. That’s pretty clear at this point, and we have to defend what marriage is.
Williams: So your argument is majority rules and those people who are born this way – they’re just out of luck?
Welch: No we have to legislate on what is right.
Actress: Well, clearly you are both at odds. It is certainly an issue with lots of complexities and, like I said earlier, there’s no way that we’re going to get through it all today….
And, yes, I know that the phrase “plastic-smiled turd” is pretty inflammatory.
However…
Whenever the video becomes available, watch it. Judge for yourself if my description isn’t accurate (or, at the very least, too charitable to Welch.) The clown sits there - not only spewing some of the most conclusively-disproven anti-same-sex marriage talking points but also denying the biological reality that intersex people live with every day – and the smile never breaks. (I wonder if it would have if a real journalist had immediately thrown to some background footage about hospital intersex baby committees?)
Posted by Katrina Rose 
