Right Wing Nut House

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is starting to remind me of the orders General Grant gave to General Sheridan for the 1864 Shenandoah Valley campaign.

Angry that a confederate army led by Jubal Early had been able to use the Valley both as a granary for the southern armies and a sheltered invasion route of the north, Grant created the 40,000 man Army of the Shenandoah and put the bulldog Sheridan in command with two specific orders; kill Early’s army and “consume and destroy all forage and subsistence, burn all barns and mills and drive off all stock in the region.” Valley residents who complained about the wholesale destruction were told, per Sheridan’s instructions, “that they have furnished too many meals to guerrillas to expect much sympathy.”

Grant explained in a letter to Army Commander in Chief Henry Halleck that he wanted Sheridan to “eat out Virginia clear and clean as far as they go, so that crows flying over it for the balance of the season will have to carry their provender with them.” Grant got down to more specific details in his further instructions to Sheridan, saying that he “should make all the Valley south of the Baltimore and Ohio railroad a desert as high up as possible. I do not mean that houses should be burned, but all provisions and stock should be removed, and the people notified to get out.”

The Clinton campaign has declared total war - on Obama, on the party, on the media, on basically anyone who is in their way. It is a campaign quite unlike any the Democrats have seen since perhaps 1860 when Stephen Douglas refused to step aside for the good of the party and ended up driving the Dixiecrats out of the convention to put up their own candidate thus assuring the election of a Republican.

No one will walk out of this year’s Democratic convention (we think). But Hillary Clinton’s tactics from here on out are apparently designed to cleave the Democratic party in two and bulldoze her way to the nomination by any means necessary.

And just in case she falls short, she is going to damage Obama to the point that he will be “unelectable” in November.

Jonathon Chait:

As I said, Obama was running well ahead of Clinton in head-to-head matchups a few weeks ago, and now they’re tied. After several more weeks of Clinton reinforcing McCain’s message against Obama, Clinton will probably be performing better than Obama against McCain. This is the point I made in my TRB column. She needs to convince the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to split for her by about a 2-to-1 margin. The only way she can get a split like that is if she can persuasively argue that Obama is unelectable. And the only way she can do that is to make him unelectable. Some people have treated this as an unfortunate byproduct of Clinton’s decision to continue her campaign. It’s actually a central element of the strategy. Penn is already saying he’s unelectable. It’s not true, but by the time the convention rolls around, it may well be.

MyDD on Obama’s unelectability:

With this in mind, the most sensible conclusion I seem to be able to infer from Penn’s statements are that after the Clinton campaign gets done with Obama he won’t be able to win a national election — in other words a promise from the Clinton campaign to make Obama unelectable.

Don’t get me wrong, there is definitely room for the two campaigns to hit one another on legitimate bones of contention or to make the case that their candidate is relatively stronger. And both candidates should be and need to be scrutinized so that the Democrats can put their best foot forward in November. But when a campaign begins lashing out senselessly, as appears to be the case in this instance, it simply must be put to a stop — for the good of the party and for the good of the nation, which cannot afford to go through the third Bush term with a McCain presidency.

Would it be too much to read into this theme the unspoken reason for Obama’s unelectability? Is the Clinton campaign playing their final and most devastating race card by strongly hinting that America simply will not elect a black man president?

I don’t think it can be anything else. It goes hand in hand with the rest of the campaign’s tearing down of Obama, marginalizing him as being too inexperienced and not tough enough while Hillary’s surrogates do the dirty work. Was Geraldine Ferraro’s statement about Obama basically being an “affirmative action” presidential candidate so off the cuff or was it a deliberate, planned ploy using a liberal icon like Ferraro to raise perhaps the most devastating questions about Obama’s abilities? Can even the Clintons be that devious?

Logic would say no but the idea shouldn’t be dismissed entirely. Desperate people do desperate things and in order to stave off elimination, the Clintons are proving themselves as proficient as the Huns in laying waste to the political landscape.

Is this damaging what Andrew Sullivan calls Obama’s “post racial” appeal? In Mississippi, Obama received 90% of the black vote while Clinton got 75% of the white vote. That’s the white Democratic vote (with about 12% GOP crossovers). It remains to be seen what will happen in Pennsylvania on April 22 but with Governor “A black man can’t win in Pennsylvania” Rendel, you can bet that the Clinton campaign will bend every effort to portray Obama as a one trick pony - a candidate unable to win the white working class vote while gaining 90% majorities from a racial group the Democrats have in the bag already.

Obama’s dilemma is if he plays Hillary’s game by even acknowledging the charges of unelectability, he falls into the trap of joining the debate. For Obama, there can be no discussion of the matter. It is a ridiculous charge on its face and so far, his campaign is treating it as such.

But what happens if in the next three states - Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Indiana - Obama fails to win a majority of white votes? In Virginia, Obama won 52% of the white vote. But in the southeastern part of the state in counties bordering North Carolina, Hillary Clinton rolled up huge majorities. And Indiana could also prove difficult for Obama given the economic downturn in that state which lately seems to have favored Clinton.

By exacerbating the racial divide in the Democratic party, Hillary Clinton may indeed make Obama unelectable. And there’s no guarantee that the strategy will sway the Super Delegates and make her the nominee especially since she will probably be trailing in the delegate count and popular vote. But none of this seems to matter. As far as the Clinton campaign can see, this is their only avenue to the White House and by hook or by crook, whether they bring the Democratic party down or not, they’re going to take it.

For a United States Senator, Barack Obama has been doing a lot of explaining about the company he has kept for the last 17 years or so.

Take some Joe Blow Alderman off the streets of Chicago and examine his friends and acquaintances and you’re bound to come up with a couple of unsavory characters that straddle the line of legality with regard to city contracts or their business dealings.

But Obama is not some regular Machine pol juicing the way for his ward heeling friends so they can grow fat and rich at taxpayer expense. He is a United States Senator and the Democratic Party’s frontrunner for President of the United States. One would think a higher standard might be in order regarding such a man’s associates.

One would think.

The constant refrain of Obama defenders is that he is being unfairly criticized because his problematic friends and acquaintances represent nothing more than “guilt by association.” Taken on a case by case basis, such a defense might ring true. But Obama’s problem is that he has so many friends and associates where “guilt by association” is the explanation given by his campaign that one begins to wonder when we can declare the candidate just plain “guilty” of using horrendous judgment and question whether his connection to some of these characters actually goes beyond innocence of wrongdoing.

WILLIAM AYERS, TERRORIST

Former Weather Underground member and unrepentant terrorist bomber William Ayers was one of Obama’s earliest political supporters. Neither Obama or Ayers will comment on the extent of their relationship but it is clear that they have had contact several times over many years. They have participated in several forums at the University of Chicago together where Ayers is a professor and even served on the same Board of Directors overseeing the far left Woods Fund.

“Guilt by association?” Some enterprising journalist might want to ask Obama what he was doing paling around with an unreconstructed radical who spent 10 years on the run from the FBI and whose views on America or so out of the mainstream as to make him a pariah even among liberals. He must have found something attractive about Ayers to continue what was described by a friend of both men as a “friendship.” He may disavow the tactics used by Ayers but how about his ideology?

A politician can grow and change their views on a variety of subjects. This may be what happened to Obama over the years as his radicalism may have been tempered by both the reality of running for office and a sincere re-examination of his worldview. But shouldn’t his long term relationship with this despicable character call into question at the very least Obama’s judgment?

When decent folk would never dream of associating in any way with such a man as Bill Ayers, what does that say about the candidate? He could have refused appearing in the same forums with him. He could have turned down the spot on the board of the Woods Fund. But he didn’t. And so far, no explanation has been given by the campaign beyond “guilt by association.”

REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT

An even stronger case can be made that Obama’s relationship with this anti-Semitic, Farrakhan supporting, race baiting preacher should be seen as beyond an innocent interpretation of the “guilt by association” theme. Wright heads up a church chosen by Obama after what he himself calls a long search specifically because of the preacher’s sermons and his beliefs.

What are those beliefs?

Sen. Barack Obama’s pastor says blacks should not sing “God Bless America” but “God damn America.”

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor for the last 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago’s south side, has a long history of what even Obama’s campaign aides concede is “inflammatory rhetoric,” including the assertion that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own “terrorism.”

In a campaign appearance earlier this month, Sen. Obama said, “I don’t think my church is actually particularly controversial.” He said Rev. Wright “is like an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with,” telling a Jewish group that everyone has someone like that in their family.

Let me ask you, gentle reader, does anyone in your family talk like this?

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” he told his congregation.

Now if you or I had heard our minister or priest utter sentiments like that, what would you have done? I believe it is not beyond imagining that most Americans would have gotten up from their seats and walked out of the church never to return.

And Obama’s reaction?

Sen. Obama told the New York Times he was not at the church on the day of Rev. Wright’s 9/11 sermon. “The violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification,” Obama said in a recent interview. “It sounds like he was trying to be provocative,” Obama told the paper.

Again the question must be raised. Rather than simply repudiating the comments, what is the front runner for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States doing attending this church? What in God’s name is Obama thinking when he hears this kind of rabid anti-Americanism spewing from the mouth of this racist demagogue?

“Guilt by association?” Or guilty of stupidity and arrogance? When an overwhelming majority of citizens would go far beyond “repudiating” Wright’s remarks and want nothing whatsoever to do with him, it calls into question Obama’s fitness for the office of President when he makes mealy mouthed explanations as he did to the Times. Can we afford someone as president who might actually sympathize, although not agree with the Ahmadinejad’s of the world when they start spouting their hateful rhetoric against America? Will he see them as simply trying to be “provocative?”

He’s heard it before and did nothing. Why would we expect him to stand up for America when his country is being trashed by the dictators of the world like Hugo Chavez?

TONY REZKO & ASSOCIATES

Here is where Obama’s relationships go far beyond “guilt by association” and enters the realm of deliberate obfuscation and perhaps even lying.

Obama’s ties to this scam artist and crook go far beyond what he told the New York Times - that he saw Rezko a couple of times a year and that he socialized with Rezko and his wife about 4 times a year.

Mr. Obama has portrayed Mr. Rezko as a one-time fund-raiser whom he had occasionally seen socially. But interviews with more than a dozen political and business associates suggest that the two men were closer than the senator has indicated.

The New York Times certainly has a gift for understatement. An FBI mole, John Thomas, who was working the Rezko case as a partner of one of Rezko’s associates had this to say about the extent of how many times the two men saw each other:

Sources said Thomas helped investigators build a record of repeat visits to the old offices of Rezko and former business partner Daniel Mahru’s Rezmar Corp., at 853 N. Elston, by Blagojevich and Obama during 2004 and 2005. …

Both politicians relied on Rezko for fund-raising connections. Obama was in the thick of his successful run for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Now in the glare of a presidential campaign, Obama has donated to charity $157,835 from contributions to his Senate campaign that he has linked to Rezko.

This is the kind of lie that will come back to haunt Obama as the Rezko trial proceeds. At every step Obama has sought to hide, to minimize, to dismiss his relationship with Rezko as a one sided affair - that of an eager Chicago fixer wanting to get close to an up and coming state senator. Instead, the picture that will almost certainly be revealed during Rezko’s trial is that Obama and Rezko were close associates with Rezko being a crucial part of Obama’s rise in politics while Obama for his part, aided Rezko in his business dealings.

How? By the time honored political tool known as “the drop by.”

Suppose you are a property developer meeting with foreign businessmen trying to convince them to invest in your plan. Suddenly, a United States senator shows up at your meeting to greet the foreigners, do a little backslapping, and thus give legitimacy and “juice” to the developer making it easier for the foreigners to trust him. The senator is in and out in just a few minutes. But the impact of his visit is not lost on the foreign businessmen.

This is exactly what Obama did for Rezko on several occassions:

While it is not clear what Mr. Rezko got from the relationship, he liked to display his alliances with politicians, including Mr. Obama.

In one instance, when he was running for the Senate, Mr. Obama stopped by to shake hands while Mr. Rezko, an immigrant from Syria, was entertaining Middle Eastern bankers considering an investment in one of his projects.”

The above via Rezko Watch who adds this:

This “dropping in” appears to be very much a part of a tit-for-tat, the exchanging of political favors between Rezko and Obama—Rezko raised funds and contributed to the political ascendance of Obama. In exchange, Obama obligingly “dropped in” while Rezko just happened to be entertaining Middle Eastern bankers whom he wanted to impress with his connections and that he’d like to have as investors in his real estate developments in Chicago.

This is a favor done for a friend. It is not illegal. It is not even unethical - except it flies in the face of Mr. Obama’s contention that he “never did any favors” for Tony Rezko. That statement is at the very least a shading of the truth. And it was made to hide the extent of his relationship with a very unsavory character.

And it isn’t just Obama’s relationship with Rezko that is at issue. The candidate has yet to explain the extent of his relationship with several Rezko associates who donated money to his campaign - all at the behest of Rezko. One contribution had to be returned by Obama because Rezko reimbursed the donor out of his own pocket.

All of this, according to the Obama campaign and numerous apologists, is simple “guilt by association.” They claim that Obama has no connection to Rezko’s activities for which he has been indicted and is standing trial.

Except, of course, that Rezko was using the money he extorted from companies wanting to do business with the state and then turned around and made political contributions using that same money to Obama and other Illinois politicians.

In the government’s case against Rezko, prosecutors allege kickback payments were diverted to others to make campaign contributions to Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign because Rezko had already made the maximum federal contribution. Obama is not named in the government’s document but his campaign has not disputed that Obama is the politician who received the money from Rezko allies, something backed up by campaign disclosure records. Money linked to the straw donations has already been contributed to charity, Obama aides said.

Obama has returned more than $150,000 of that money. There is probably more but it is admittedly difficult to find given the lengths to which Rezko went to conceal his activities. And the ultimate question that hangs over Obama like the Sword of Damocles:

What did he know and when did he know it?

Rezko, Auchi, Alsammarae, Wright, Ayers - these are at least some of the shady and corrupt characters we know about who have had contact with both Obama and Rezko. The candidate refuses to address the extent of his relationship with any of them.

When do we get beyond “guilt by association” of these people with Obama and start to wonder about just who this man is who is marching toward the nomination and a better than even shot at the White House?

UPDATE

In an unbelievable example of serendipity, Bob Owens posted on the exact same subject at almost exactly the same time. The title of his post? “Guilt by Association.”

Great minds and all that…

I can’t tell you how proud I am of our media today.

With the world in its usual state of near hysteria over this or that problem dictator or American action, (or when Israel lifts a finger to defend itself), our media has chosen to initiate what can only be called the greatest quest/crusade in at least the last week. It is as fierce and as fervent as Ahab’s obsessive search for the Great White Whale - without the uplifting literary flair of a Melville.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you “The Question of the Hour:” WHO IS KRISTEN?

ABC is hot on the trail:

A voluptuous brunette escort named Kristen, who advertises her availability online “for discriminating gentlemen,” says she is not the “Kristen” linked to New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer.

The online ad for Kristen, featuring provocative semi-nude lingerie photos, includes an update, “I am not the person the Daily News has mentioned in relation to the Spitzer case.”

The online posting is one of thousands ABC News found online of young women of all types and races who offer themselves for “escort” and “tryst” services.

Now that’s a job I wouldn’t mind having. Going through “thousands” of online pictures of young women all offering to put that special smile on your face - for a nominal (or gargantuan) fee, of course.

Conversation heard around watercooler at ABC headquarters in New York:

EMPLOYEE #1: “Sheesh! What a day. Gibson’s been busting my balls about this Iraq story. He wants it “edgier.” How about you?”

EMPLOYEE #2: “Christ! I’m still stuck with that stupid ‘drugs in the water supply’ story.’ Talk about bor-ing. What about you kid?”

EMPLOYEE #3: “I just spent the entire morning going through thousands of online photos of half naked women in lingerie trying to set up dates just to find out if they’re the ones who played “Hide the Salami” with Governor Spitzer.”

EMPLOYEE #1:

EMPLOYEE #2

EMPLOYEE #1: “We’re in the wrong department.”

Alas, even if the charms of the young woman ABC contacted above have set your heart aflutter and male juices flowing, I hate to disappoint you but this particular “Kristen” is booked solid until the middle of the month:

E-mails sent to the Kristen site were returned with this message: “Thank you for contacting me. I am currently unavailable through mid-March. Please try me again after March 15th. I look forward to connecting with you then. Kristen.”

ABC can relax. As can every other major media outlet in the United States who almost certainly called every escort, hooker, prostitute, call girl, and crack whore in the state of New York looking for the Madonna of street walkers - the one, the only, the TRUE Kristen.

She was lost. And now she’s been found:

PageSix.com can reveal a portfolio description from the Emperors Club web site which could depict the “Kristen” mentioned in the Governor Eliot Spitzer prostitution case.

The 5-foot-5-inch brunette likes dining at fancy restaurants and will show up wearing very high heels.

The governor is expected to resign this morning.

Ah! Mystery solved. And such prose! Such inspired writing! Almost makes me want to take her around the world myself.

After seeing her picture, I see what’s to like. One can hardly blame Spitzer for falling head over heels for this Jezebel. If I had an extra $5 grand, I just might take a flyer on her. She could even ditch the high heels. Jeans and T-shirt is good enough for Bennigans.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to add up all the man hours spent by the media the last couple of days looking for this woman? I’ll bet the tab gets into the 7 figures. And all to interview the poor girl and ask the one burning question that everyone of us is on the edge of their seat waiting to hear answered by her:

What was it like doing the slap and tickle with the (former) Governor of the State of New York? What kinky stuff was he into? And please be specific.

The publication or news outlet that can answer those questions will increase their sales or viewership by 50%. What a coup. What an elevating example of the value and importance of our media. It makes us ask the question “What would America be like without a free press?”

Judging by the way most outlets are handling this story, we’re finding out quicker than we might like.

If you’re a Democrat, you should be absolutely outraged, incensed, and weeping with frustration at the prospect of tens of thousands of Republican voters entering your primaries in order to support the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

These GOP pranksters are not voting for Clinton because someone put something in the water thus turning them from being rabid dog Clinton haters into slavish Hillary bots. Rather they are trying to keep Barack Obama from winning the nomination believing that Hillary will be easier to beat than the charismatic Obama.

For myself, I’m not so sure. My own guess is that Obama is going to be damaged goods by the middle of summer thanks to his relationships with Tony Rezko and his crooked cronies. He would be a much easier general election target for McCain who will be seen as a paragon of virtue next to Obama.

Regardless, Rush Limbaugh has been pushing this campaign for Republicans to game the system and vote for Hillary in Democratic primaries. What’s even worse for Democrats is that it seems to be working:

I have to say, I’m mystified by the large number of Republicans turning up in the Mississippi Democratic primary to vote for Hillary. They more than doubled their share of the 2004 Democratic primary, up to 13%. They were among Clinton’s best demographics groups — she won 75% of Republicans — and made up a significant portion of her overall support.

Typically, it’s been the reverse: Republicans in the North turned out for Obama. And it’s certainly contrary to conventional wisdom that Southern Republicans bear special fondness for Hillary.

I’ll be interested in what the local press has to say about this. I don’t have a clear grasp of Mississippi’s traditions in crossing party lines, and there was no real GOP contest here, which may have increased the numbers.

There are smart people who think this is strategic voting, aimed at producing the weaker candidate — something Rush Limbaugh, in particular, has gleefully espoused.

This is a fun theory, but before it takes root, a couple of notes of skepticism. First, this is all based on quite small samples in exit polls.

Second, Rush wasn’t campaigning for Hillary in Mississippi.

Are you trying to tell me that 13% of Republicans in the state of Mississippi worship and adore Hillary Clinton? Are you nuts?

The Jed Report has an interesting breakdown showing the impact of GOP voters on Texas

As the number of Republicans in the primary has increased, Hillary Clinton’s share of the Republican vote has skyrocketed, going from a 69-31 deficit in January and February to a whopping 75-25 lead in Mississippi. Although Barack Obama’s share of the Republican vote declined, his absolute percentage did not change much, hovering around 3-4%. In other words, he was simply winning a smaller percentage of a larger pie.

In the abstract, there’s nothing wrong with receiving votes from Republicans in the Democratic primary — as long as those votes come from Republicans who are truly committed to a Democratic candidate. That appears to be the case with Barack Obama, who consistently does well among Republicans and independents in public opinion surveys.

Hillary Clinton’s support from Republicans, on the other hand, is coming from Republicans who will not support her in the general election. They are simply wreaking havoc in the Democratic primary, hoping to further divide an already divided party, and perhaps even help Hillary Clinton win the nomination.

How likely is it that these voters are Republican mischief makers and not true blue Hillaryites? Check the sun this evening. If it sets in the west, there’s a pretty good chance that there are tens of thousands of Republicans who are getting a huge kick out of throwing a monkey wrench into the Democratic primary process.

Dirty play? What, in this campaign? You’re kidding right? I give you Kos himself on the eve of the Michigan Republican primary:

Next Tuesday, January 15th, Michigan will hold its primary. Michigan Democrats should vote for Mitt Romney, because if Mitt wins, Democrats win. How so?

For Michigan Democrats, the Democratic primary is meaningless since the DNC stripped the state of all its delegates (at least temporarily) for violating party rules. Hillary Clinton is alone on the ballot.

But on the GOP side, this primary will be fiercely contested. John McCain is currently enjoying the afterglow of media love since his New Hamsphire victory, while Iowa winner Mike Huckabee is poised to do well in South Carolina.

Meanwhile, poor Mitt Romney, who’s suffered back-to-back losses in the last week, desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat. Bottom line, if Romney loses Michigan, he’s out. If he wins, he stays in.

And we want Romney in, because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us. We want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.

That hasn’t stopped some whiners on the left from complaining about GOP dirty tricks:

It’s only going to get worse — Republicans will change parties when there is closed primaries and in open primaries, they will cross-over and vote for Hillary Clinton in increasing numbers.

Effectively, this emerging pattern calls into question the validity of any voting from here on out, even in closed primaries. There’s just so much lead time before the next contests that Republicans have plenty of time to register as Democrats and monkey with our primary.

Imagine just how effin’ hard it will be to make sure revotes in Florida and Michigan don’t end becoming a huge clusterf**k…

The problem is that Republicans whose only goal is sabotage our nomination process are going to make this seem closer than it really is. And that’s going to embolden Hillary Clinton to continue to make more attacks on our eventual nominee. And it’s going to further divide the party. And maybe even cost us the election.

The Kos gambit proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that if the shoe were on the other foot, the netroots would be having a gay old time organizing and getting their minions to the polls to vote for one Republican or another. I hardly think the crocodile tears being shed here should make any Republican feel sorry for the Democrats and the pickle they are in - trouble entirely of their own making.

From their cockamamie caucuses to the perfidious proportional representation plans to the very idea of so many Super Delegates having the nomination in their hands not to mention the Michigan and Florida fiascos all point to a party besotted with political correctness, sacrificing winning on the altar of “fairness” and “diversity.” How “fair” is the caucus system really? And “diversity” is just another way to pander - again, at the expense of what elections are all about; winning.

We ain’t playing “Go Fish” here, folks. This race is for keeps. If the Democrats ever start acting like that is the case, Republicans will stay away and Democrats will come up with a viable nominee.

Otherwise, Democrats will continue to be toyed with while the GOP chortles with glee over what magic they have wrought.

Join me and my trusty sidekick Rich Baehr, Political Correspondent for The American Thinker, for a special primary night edition of The Rick Moran Show. We will go live beginning at 7:00 PM Central time and continue on the air until 8:00 PM Central.

Tonight, Rich and I will be watching Mississippi, a probable Obama win but there should be some interesting sidelights to talk about. We’ll also discuss the Spitzer situation and look over the horizon to the Pennsylvania primary 6 weeks from now on April 22.

For the best in political analysis, click on the button below and listen in. A podcast will be available for streaming or download around 15 minutes after the show ends.

The Chat Room will open around 15 minutes before the show opens,

Also, if you’d like to call in and put your two cents in, you can dial (718) 664-9764.

As political corruption goes, news that New York Governor Elliot Spitzer consorts with high class call girls is pretty low on the sin-o-meter. It was, however, a shock to learn a man mentioned in some circles as presidential material could have been so careless and stupid.

Just what possesses a man who has everything going for him to become enmeshed in such an embarrassing scandal?

We see it time and time again and ask the same questions over and over. The fact of the matter is, these politicians exist in a political (and social) system that makes them feel entitled to break the law, play around on their wives, and use their elected position to sate their appetites. In Spitzer’s case, we have no idea how long he has been visiting prostitutes. He may have been doing it all his married life.

As the product of a wealthy family that carries its own set of entitlements, Spitzer’s dalliances as governor might be explained as simply an extension of the entitlement he felt as a rich man’s son. And his hubris in believing no one would ever find out is part and parcel of a powerful politician’s sense of invulnerability - a fool’s belief in their own indestructibility.

It all caught up with the soon to be former New York governor yesterday:

The federal investigation of a New York prostitution ring was triggered by Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s suspicious money transfers, initially leading agents to believe Spitzer was hiding bribes, according to federal officials.

It was only months later that the IRS and the FBI determined that Spitzer wasn’t hiding bribes but payments to a company called QAT, what prosecutors say is a prostitution operation operating under the name of the Emperors Club.

As recently as this past Valentine’s Day, Feb. 13, Spitzer, who officials say is identified in a federal complaint as “Client 9,” arranged for a prostitute “Kristen” to meet him in Washington, D.C.

The woman met Client 9 at the Mayflower Hotel, room 871, “for her tryst,” according to the complaint. Client 9 also is alleged to have paid for the woman’s train tickets, cab fare, mini bar and room service, travel time and hotel.

The suspicious financial activity was initially reported by a bank to the IRS which, under direction from the Justice Department, brought kin the FBI’s Public Corruption Squad.

One of the more delicious ironies of this entire matter is the fact that Spitzer led the feds to the prostitution ring through his suspicious money transfers rather than the feds catching him as a result of any investigation into interstate prostitution. In short, Spitzer brought the world down on top of himself by his own actions - a truly biblical happenstance.

The comparisons to Republican politicians caught up in similar circumstances are being denied by liberals in the most uproariously amusing fashion imaginable. World Famous Sock Puppet Lambchop supplies the jaw dropping explanation:

But how can his alleged behavior — paying another adult roughly $1,000 per hour to travel from New York to Washington to meet him for sex — possibly justify resignation, let alone criminal prosecution, conviction and imprisonment? Independent of the issue of his hypocrisy — which is an issue meriting attention and political criticism but not criminal prosecution — what possible business is it of anyone’s, let alone the state’s, what he or anyone else does in their private lives with other consenting adults?

With all of the intense hand-wringing abounding, it’s very difficult to discern the standard being applied here. Are any public officials who commit adultery engaged in such morally intolerable behavior that they ought to resign, because that didn’t seem to be the standard back in the 1990s? Or is that any illegal behavior of any kind — no matter how serious or frivolous, whether victim-creating or victimless — merits resignation? If a political official smokes pot, or gambles in a poker game, or commits adultery in a state where adultery is a crime, are they now so morally beyond the pale that it is time for them to go? Is that the standard here?

Evidently, only Republicans who engage in these affairs are evil. Here’s Lambchop on Senator David Vitter after that hypocrite got outed:

So, to recap: in Louisiana, Vitter carried on a year-long affair with a prostitute in 1999. Then he ran for the House as a hard-core social conservative family values candidate, parading around his wife and kids as props and leading the public crusade in defense of traditional marriage.

Then, in Washington, he became a client of Deborah Palfrey’s. Then he announced that amending the Constitution to protect traditional marriage was the most important political priority the country faces. Rush Limbaugh, Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich supported the same amendment.

As always, it is so striking how many Defenders of Traditional Marriage have a record in their own broken lives of shattered marriages, multiple wives and serial adultery. And they never seek to protect the Sacred Institution of Traditional Marriage by banning the un-Christian and untraditional divorces they want for themselves when they are done with their wives and are ready to move on to the next, newer model. Instead, they only defend these Very Sacred Values by banning the same-sex marriages that they don’t want for themselves.

(HT: Reihl)

Lambchop is very careful in his dismissive piece on Spitzer to point out the hypocrisy (on one level) of the governor who prosecuted prostitution rings while US Attorney. That’s a pretty shallow analysis when you consider Spitzer’s entire campaign was based on his adherence to a higher ethical standard than his opponents as well fostering the belief that he was a dedicated family man. I guess just as long as you support gay marriage, you get a virtual pass from Mr. Lambchop who has had a change of heart about politicians and prostitutes now that a Democrat is in trouble.

What a tool.

In the end, the Vitters, the Foleys and the Spitzers of the world have one thing in common; an inability to resist the temptations that go with holding high office and a moral blind spot when it comes to justifying their own behavior. One might add that politicians who continue to abuse the public trust by not holding themselves to a higher personal standard than the rest of us must believe that they will never get caught. Perhaps many never do and the ones who make the front pages of newspapers are simply careless and stupid.

All the more reason to employ a healthy cynicism when supporting any politician - even one who claims to represent “change” and proclaims himself a new kind of politician practicing a new kind of politics. An informed citizenry in a democracy looks at its leaders with a jaundiced eye and sees beyond the claims of moral superiority to make a decision based on what they see of a candidate’s judgement and experience. Hero worship will only lead to bitter disappointment and the revelation that their man on a white horse has feet of clay.

They are, after all, human. And that might be the best reason to vote for them in the first place.

In Religion News today, we learn that there’s nothing we can do - except perhaps getting naked and dancing around an Oak tree worshipping Gaia - to save the planet from rapacious capitalists, gas hungry gear heads, electrical power gluttons, and lawnmower fanatics.

Basically, we’re toast:

The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades.

Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide.

Using advanced computer models to factor in deep-sea warming and other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon dioxide (CO2), the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further.

This is fantastic news - for those who consider industrialized civilization just a crazy interlude in human evolution and that our true calling is to root around with the pigs digging up truffles while at the same time, breaking our backs plowing the back forty with a horse drawn prairie sodbuster.

No, really, 19th century farming can be fun. And for those of you in industries that would be hard hit by this return to yesteryear - which includes just about everybody - have no fear. There will be work enough for all once we get into the spirit of the adventure.

Are you pretty good with animals and don’t mind getting scorched every once and a while? Blacksmithing is your trade then, my man.

I’ve got just two words for you: Wheel Wright. The future is yours. Grab it.

Do you like working with your hands and can lift several hundred pounds all day long? I’m sure there will be plenty of calls for Wagoneers.

Attention pizza delivery drivers. Take a correspondence course in how to drive a stagecoach.

Parents, enroll your child immediately in the Steamfitters Guild.

With trains about ready to make a comeback, lineman and gandy dancers will be in tremendous demand. Maybe we can even bring back the Non Partisan Anti-Chinese League.

Chim-Chiminey, Chim-Chiminey, Chim-Chim-Cheroo - If you need a good job, cleaning chimney’s for you.

I wonder if burning whale oil gives off CO2? Probably a better alternative than burning wood. If I were a young, unattached man, I’d move to Nantucket a go a-whalin’. I’d even have a white whale to pursue.

Of course I’m being facetious. But what I was trying to do was show that there is indeed a sizable, vocal minority of climate change alarmists who are only using the issue of global warming to advance another agenda - political, economic, and social - that is inimical to the free market, injurious of human liberty, and desirous of controlling our lives in minute ways. And what they wish to accomplish is nothing less than the destruction of western industrialized civilization.

The study, which may or may not indicate that there is little we can do to stop from warming the planet, will be seized upon by those who wish to impose draconian “solutions” that would have the effect of severely curtailing industrial activity thus causing massive disruptions in our society. These are people who talk of “sustainable development” in a world with fewer people, fewer, opportunities, and fewer dreams.

They are not a majority of climate change advocates. But not acknowledging that they are present and working to achieve their goals is ignorant.

I don’t know the motives or the history of the scientists who completed the studies mentioned in the post article but I would think that, as with anything else, more study as well as careful peer review of these studies will be necessary before any action should be taken. That might be especially appropriate since one of the authors mentioned in the article - Andreas Schmittner - wrote a paper back in 1997 predicting rising CO2 levels would lead to global cooling in Europe.)

OFF TO THE DEATH CAMPS

We already knew the Chinese government were a bunch of freedom denying, liberty hating, collectivist scumbag Communist sons of bitches. But it is still shocking to realize how deep their cruelty truly goes.

For years, the Chinese government turned a blind eye to the infanticide of female children - a direct result of the forced “one child per family” (OCPF) that the benighted savages in Beijing forced upon the populace. A sample of “scientific socialism” at work:

The one-child policy is criticized as violating basic human rights. Many are concerned with the practices used to implement this policy. China has been meeting its population requirements through bribery, coercion, forced sterilization, forced abortion, and possibly infanticide, with most reports coming from rural areas.[attribution needed]

Some examples include:

1. a former administrator of a Chinese Planned Birth Control Office had stated his experience of execution forced abortion on a 9 month pregnant woman. [31]

2. A former Chinese population control administrator named Gao Xiao Duan testified before a United States House subcommittee in 1998, regarding her participation in forced sterilizations and abortions.[32]

3. A 2001 report exposed in Guangdong a quota of 20,000 abortions and sterilisations was set for Huaiji County in the same year due to reported disregard of the one-child policy. The effort included using portable ultrasound devices to identify abortion candidates in remote villages.

Earlier reports also show that women as far along as 8.5 months pregnant were forced to abort by injection of saline solution.[33] Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute announced that the One child policy is “an ongoing genocide”. He argued that free market capitalism will solve the overpopulation and overconsumption problems of developing nations. [34]

Whether Moore is correct is not the point. The problem is with an ideology that sees life as a statistic rather than a precious entity, born with the right to life, liberty, and other natural rights that the Chinese government neither celebrates nor acknowledges.

It is easy to oppress when you’ve lost your humanity.

So it should come as absolutely no surprise that this same government that sees nothing wrong with parents murdering their own children (until international pressure forced them to do something about it in 2001), should see the problem of controlling the feline population in such beastly and inhumane terms:

Thousands of pet cats in Beijing are being abandoned by their owners and sent to die in secretive government pounds as China mounts an aggressive drive to clean up the capital in preparation for the Olympic Games.

Hundreds of cats a day are being rounded and crammed into cages so small they cannot even turn around.

Then they are trucked to what animal welfare groups describe as death camps on the edges of the city.

The cull comes in the wake of a government campaign warning of the diseases cats carry and ordering residents to help clear the streets of them.

Cat owners, terrified by the disease warning, are dumping their pets in the streets to be picked up by special collection teams.

Paranoia is so intense that six stray cats -including two pregnant females - were beaten to death with sticks by teachers at a Beijing kindergarten, who feared they might pass illnesses to the children.

China’s leaders are convinced that animals pose a serious urban health risk and may have contributed to the outbreak of SARS - a deadly respiratory virus - in 2003.

Even if you despise cats - and I know that there are many of you out there - you cannot help but be struck dumb with outrage over this completely unnecessary, draconian, and positively medieval method of controlling the cat population. Any western nation could have helped the Chinese with this problem and it could have been done much more humanely and without the government using deliberate scare tactics to jack up the citizenry and turn them against cats.

When I wrote of the medieval methods used against cats by the Chinese I was not using allegory. Whipping up a frenzy of emotion against cats was a favorite ploy of the church in the middle ages. In something of a delicious irony (from the cat’s perspective) when our ancestors had killed off most of the cats in Europe, invading rats overran the continent. They bore fleas that carried bubonic plague that killed of a third of its population. In their frenzy to burn witches and murder their “familiars,” Europeans were unwittingly sealing their doom by eliminating their only salvation against the plague carrying rats - cats.

But the Chinese efforts at eliminating cats are not just being done for health reasons. These Communist bozos are so intent on making a good impression for the Olympics this year that they don’t want a bunch of stray cats wandering around the venues:

But the crackdown on cats is seen by animal campaigners as just one of a number of extreme measures being taken by communist leaders to ensure that its capital appears clean, green and welcoming during the Olympics.

Polluting factories in and around the city are being ordered to shut down or relocate during the Games to ease Beijing’s choking smog and drivers are allowed out on to the roads only three times a week.

Fares on the city’s underground network have been cut to just two yuan (14p) for any journey - a six-fold reduction on some routes - to keep people off buses, and beggars and street sleepers are being moved to out-of-town camps or given train fares back to their home provinces.

Meanwhile, taxi drivers have been made to attend lessons in how to greet passengers politely in English and a city-wide courtesy campaign has been launched to teach Beijing’s notoriously dour and grumpy citizens how to smile and be pleasant to foreigners.

The cull of Beijing’s estimated 500,000 cat population is certain to provoke international outrage as it comes just over a year after the Chinese were criticised for rounding up and killing stray dogs across the country.

I apologize to you dog lovers out there. If I had known of that barbarism, I would have been just as outraged I assure you.

You might ask are there no cat lovers in China? Of course there are. Here’s an example of what they are up against:

Animal welfare groups in China are already protesting, but their members fear punishment from the authorities.

Officials say people can adopt animals from the 12 cat pounds set up around the city, but welfare groups say they are almost impossible to get inside and believe few cats survive.

One cat lovers’ group negotiated the release of 30 pets from one of the compounds in Shahe, north-west Beijing, but said they were in such a pitiful condition that half of them died within days of their release.

“These cats are being left to die. It is very

It gets worse.

“People don’t want to keep cats in Beijing any more so they abandon them or send them to the compounds.

“When we went inside, we saw about 70 cats being kept in cages stacked one on top of the other in two tiny rooms.

“Disease spreads quickly among them and they die slowly in agony and distress. The government won’t even do the cats the kindness of giving them lethal injections when they become sick. They just wait for them to die.

“It is the abandoned pets that suffer the most and die the soonest. They relied so much on their owners that they can’t cope with the new environment.

“Most refuse to eat or drink and get sick more quickly than the feral cats.”

Ms Yan’s group has now been denied access to the pounds. “We do not believe any of the cats that go in there survive,” she said. “They are like death camps.”

If you are a cat lover, the more you read of this article in the Daily Mail the more you will feel like organizing a military expedition to free the animals from their confinement.

The cat lovers are up against the cruelest of human institutions; dead ass communist bureaucracy. They have begged the government to offer cut rate spaying and neutering all to no avail. Indeed, the government has mandated spaying and neutering but few can afford the 200 yuan pricetag. (Most American cities and towns also require spaying and neutering but with many clinics offering cut rate or installment payment plans it is relatively easy to comply with the laws.) Couple that with a dearth of no-kill shelters or shelters of any kind and you have the makings of this man made holocaust.

I do not dispute the necessity to control the feline and canine populations - especially in big cities. And I might point out that our own efforts in this regard are not always the model of humane behavior. But we have made a vast improvement from even just 10 years ago. Controlling the feral cat population in US big cities now includes a wide range of actions including “trap, neuter, and release” as opposed to simply trapping and killing the animals.

Feral cats tend to congregate in the same area when the food supply is reliable. These “colonies” are made possible by legions of cat lovers across the country who volunteer to watch and care for their charges. New arrivals are immediately caught and, usually in cooperation with a kindly vet, fixed for free or a nominal cost. The colony manager also watches for outbreaks of disease and tries and keep track of any predations the cats might engage in - especially against birds. Kittens are removed from the colony and sent to adoption centers.

Such managed colonies could never occur in China, however. The movement began at the grass roots and demanded that government support them. If you start demanding anything from government in China, you will most likely end up in prison.

No matter. There are more humane ways to kill the animals than simply not feeding them and allowing them to die horribly. But to the Chinese bureaucrats intent on projecting a squeaky clean image to the rest of the world for the olympics, there is only a problem that needs to be solved as quickly and cheaply as possible.

May they rot and then burn in hell.

This is another in a series of stories that received some play in Chicago at the time it occurred but never made it past the state line for some reason.

It is especially curious that this story never took off nationally because far more than most people realize, Mayor Richard M. Daley is a player in national Democratic politics - perhaps not as powerful as his father but almost certainly the current Mayor Daley has more clout than any other big city Democratic mayor in the country.

The current mayor has fewer congressmen that he can whip into line for the party thanks to Chicago’s shrinking population and a welcome sense of independence among some minority legislators. But the Machine built by the Democratic party prior World War II can still flex its muscles when called upon. It may not be as monolithic as it once was. But thanks to people like the Mayor’s brother Bill Daley - who served as Secretary of Commerce for Clinton and ran Al Gore’s 2000 campaign - as well as some important money men in the party, the Machine’s reach is indeed considerable.

But what led Mayor Daley, normally reluctant to endorse a presidential candidate in the primaries, to give the nod to Obama?

Apparently, the Mayor was looking at his own electoral problems in 2007 with what was promising to be a very tough re-election campaign. Until early November, 2006, Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr - son of the Democratic party activist and former presidential candidate - was planning his own run for Mayor as was powerful Hispanic Congressman Luis Gutierrez. Fortune favored Daley in this case when Democrats swept the mid terms and brought both Congressmen the opportunity to chair powerful subcommittees. Suddenly, Mayor of Chicago didn’t look quite as attractive. Both men dropped out of the Mayor’s race later that month.

The prospect of running against a three term incumbent probably played an equally large role in dissuading both men from running as well.

The problem for the Mayor’s opponents was finding a candidate who could unite the fractious west and south side African Americans while pulling in a substantial number of Hispanic voters along with white, reform minded liberals along the lakefront. Such a coalition would have a chance against the Mayor’s powerbase on the southwest side where he routinely racked up 90% majorities in some wards.

With Jackson and Gutierrez out of the picture, the Mayor’s main challenger was Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Cook County Circuit Court. Brown was an attractive candidate out of the reform mold, beloved of white liberals and just the sort of citywide office holder that might be able to bridge the gap between the south and west side black communities.

To be sure, Brown had an uphill battle against Daley’s huge advantage in infrastructure and fund raising. What she really needed to give her campaign a rocket powered boost was an endorsement from a major black politician being mentioned as a possible presidential candidate.

Taking no chances, Daley called Obama in for a series of meetings that lasted two months. Obama’s major problem with Daley was that he was a corrupt sonnovabith, having just seen 4 of his top aides convicted in the city’s largest patronage scandal. It seemed a given that the squeaky clean Obama would endorse the candidate promising to clean up city hall.

Then, in late December of 2007, the tumblers all clicked into place and Daley made his nearly unprecedented endorsement of Obama for president. About the same time, it was announced that his brother Bill would be going to work for the Obama campaign.

As Chicago Sun-Times columnist Michael Sneed reported this week, Bill Daley has signed on as a senior adviser to Obama, who is expected to formally enter the presidential race next month.

Sources said the mayor’s decision to embrace Obama was made before his brother reserved a seat on the senator’s bandwagon. The mayor and Obama have been meeting about the subject for months, huddling for 2½ hours at City Hall as recently as last week.

It is hard to overstate the coup Obama pulled off by getting both Daleys on his side. Bill Daley has a rolodex of Democratic contributors that could rival Hillary and Bill’s. It would be an interesting counterfactual to imagine the Obama campaign’s finances without the younger Daley.

So what did Obama promise in return?

In effect, Obama surrendered to the Machine by promising to endorse its corrupt mayor rather than his reform minded challenger (commentary in parenthesis):

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama today endorsed Mayor Daley’s re-election bid, asserting that City Hall corruption is being cleaned up and that Chicago has “blossomed” under the mayor’s “innovative” and decisive leadership.

Obama said he decided to support Daley and the mayor’s revamped “rainbow ticket” long before deciding to enter the presidential sweepstakes. (Pure BS)

Daley plans to abandon his longstanding tradition of remaining neutral in Democratic primaries to endorse Obama over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential race. But Obama said his endorsement of Daley was earned and not part of any quid pro quo. (Liar)

“Even his detractors acknowledge that the city has been well-managed and has performed in all respects in ways that are the envy of a lot of other cities across the country,” (and the envy of corrupt politicians as well) Obama said at a news conference at the mayor’s Loop campaign headquarters.

“I don’t think there’s a city in America that has blossomed as much over the last couple of decades than Chicago — and a lot of that has to do with our mayor. He has a national reputation that’s well-deserved . . . as somebody’s who’s innovative, as somebody who’s tough, as somebody who’s willing to make the hard the decisions, as somebody who is constantly thinking about how to make the city better.” (and someone who can help get me elected president despite him being a crook.)

That’s not all. A couple of months later, Obama endorsed another crook from the Machine:

Though it didn’t make national news, Obama inflamed many residents in his old state Senate district last March when he endorsed controversial Chicago alderman Dorothy Tillman in a runoff election.

Flamboyant and unpredictable, Tillman is perhaps best known for once pulling a pistol from her purse and brandishing it around at a city council meeting. The ward she represented for 22 years, which included historic Bronzeville, comprised the city’s largest concentration of vacant lots.

Just three months before Obama made his endorsement, the Lakefront Outlook community newspaper ran a three-part investigative series exposing flagrant cronyism and possible tax-law violations that centered on Tillman and her biggest pet project, a taxpayer-funded cultural center built across the street from her ward office that had been hemorrhaging money since its inception.

In the end, Tillman lost the election despite Obama’s endorsement, which critics said countered his calls for clean government. Obama told the Chicago Tribune that he had backed Tillman because she was an early supporter of his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign.

Many speculate Obama only bothered to weigh in on a paltry city council election during his presidential campaign as a gesture to Chicago’s powerful Mayor Richard M. Daley, a Tillman supporter.

This behavior is not unusual for Obama if you examine the record. To wit:

1. His very first race for state senate, he used the time honored Machine tactic of challenging the nominating petitions of every other candidate, getting all 4 of them removed from the ballot.

2. He cultivated a relationship with the ancient President of the Illinois State Senate Emil Jones who told a colleague in 2002 after the Democrats swept into office “I’m gonna make me a senator.” Jones then proceeded to give Obama credit on the passage of 26 key legislative measures - almost all of which had been pushed by other state senators for years - thus giving Obama a record of sorts to go with all that charisma. Obama calls Jones his “political godfather.”

3. While in the Senate, Obama has had numerous opportunities to live up to his promised “post partisan” reforms and has never - repeat never - participated in any bi-partisan agreement reached by Democrats and Republicans on any issue. He has gone so far as to reject the outcomes of those compromises on immigration reform and an agreement on confirming federal judges.

4. When faced with a choice between supporting a mayoral candidate who stood for clean government and the corruption of the Chicago Machine, Obama chose old fashioned power politics.

Obama’s political career is replete with examples of opportunism, cynical deal making, hack politics, and business as usual relationships with crooks and scam artists like Tony Rezko. His entire presidential campaign is built on a lie; that he is a different kind of politician and will be able to change the way business is done in Washington.

When given the opportunity in the past, Obama has usually chosen doing things the old fashioned way. Why in God’s name should we believe him now? Did he try and “reform” Chicago politics? Did he try and “reform” the Senate while his colleagues worked on bi-partisan agreements on vital issues?

You can support the man’s policies without holding him up (and throwing in our faces) the idea he is some kind of “new” politician who will change everyone’s lives. And if he keeps pushing that meme, he will look like the emperor with no clothes as facts about his relationships with various shady Chicago characters come to light, giving the lie to his grandiose claims like “We are the change that we are seeking.”

Conversation overheard this morning while Zsu-Zsu and I were drinking coffee and reading the paper.

ME: Hey! Looks like we missed “International Womens Day” yesterday.

SHE: (Sniffs) Didn’t miss anything.

ME: Really? Aren’t you even the least bit interested in the worldwide struggle for women’s rights?

SHE: I’m much more interested in you taking out the garbage this morning.

ME: But don’t you realize that billions of women around the world are being oppressed?

SHE: I’d settle for you making me dinner every once and a while.

ME: Are you telling me you feel no solidarity with your sisters who marched in the streets yesterday to improve the lot of women the world over?

SHE: Nope. Too busy shaving my legs.

ME: I’m surprised at you. This is a day that’s been celebrated since 1908. According to the IWD website: “IWD is now an official holiday in Armenia, Russia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. The tradition sees men honouring their mothers, wives, girlfriends, colleagues, etc with flowers and small gifts. In some countries IWD has the equivalent status of Mother’s Day where children give small presents to their mothers and grandmothers.”

SHE: Heh. Just what we need. Another day that you forget to give me a card and flowers.

ME: No, you don’t get it. This is serious stuff. IWD could be called “Feminists Day.” Many from a younger generation feel that ‘all the battles have been won for women’ while many feminists from the 1970’s know only too well the longevity and ingrained complexity of patriarchy. With more women in the boardroom, greater equality in legislative rights, and an increased critical mass of women’s visibility as impressive role models in every aspect of life, one could think that women have gained true equality. The unfortunate fact is that women are still not paid equally to that of their male counterparts, women still are not present in equal numbers in business or politics, and globally women’s education, health and the violence against them is worse than that of men.

SHE: Pass the sugar, would ya?

ME: Doesn’t it concern you that the battle isn’t over, that the dominant white patriarchy is still oppressing your sisters here in the United States.

SHE: If you knew my sisters, you’d agree they need a little oppressing. Seriously, Ricky, what the hell brought on all this nonsense?

HE: I thought it would be an interesting way to introduce this hilarious video.

SHE: You and that blog, Rick…TO THE MOON…

UPDATE

Mostly unrelated to International Womens Day but perhaps one of the best sketches in years by Saturday Night Live, this video of the “3:00 AM Phone Call” is destined to be a classic.