Nancy Pelosi Works With Terrorist Organization

Being terrorist's metaphorical friends is not the same thing as actively working against one's own government, but that's exactly what Nancy Pelosi has done. No doubt, being in bed with terrorist scum will endear her to her constituents, but will average voters like it?

And there's this: How will Barack Obama respond to the House Leader's actions? No doubt, he'd be thrilled to have a member of Congress actively undermining the United State's interests were he to be President. Of course, he'll probably be working to undermine America's interests, so they'd be working together.


Cross-posted at Right Wing News and Melissa Clouthier.com

Abortion As Social Injustice

Conservative groups begin highlighting one of Barack Obama's more extreme positions: his views on abortion. CBN reports this from the Christian Defense Coalition:

"Senator Obama talks about bringing hope, faith and change to American politics. We now see this is all just political 'doublespeak.' One of his top priorities as President would be protecting abortion rights and even expanding them. If elected, Senator Obama would become 'The Abortion President,' with the most extremist policies on abortion of any President in history.

"Senator Obama's views on abortion are so radical that he even wants American citizens to pay for them. This would include Catholics, Evangelicals and all people of faith. He would also expand abortion rights through his passionate support of The Freedom of Choice Act.

David Brody says:

This is Obama’s challenge with Evangelicals. He can talk about the social justice issues all he wants and yes, it resonates to a certain extent but unless he moves on abortion (not likely) he’ll have a problem. If he shows some support for parental notification laws or the annual fetal pain bill that moves through Congress then that will help insulate him to a degree on the extremist abortion tag.

Abortion as social injustice undermines a key Democratic tenet that matter to conservative Christians: taking care of the poor and neediest and being a voice for those who don't have one. All sorts of individuals find a home in the Democrat party because together, they have more power. But still, these people have voices and often loud mouths--which, in itself, calls into question how oppressed they truly are when everyone knows exactly what they think feel.

Still, Christians believe their mission includes clothing the poor, feeding the needy, tending the sick, visiting the imprisoned, caring for the widows and orphans, and on it goes. Jesus told his followers that "whatever you do to serve the least of these, you've done for me." To a conservative Christian, it doesn't get more "least" than a helpless unborn child.

Hope and changeyness sounds wonderful--even to evangelical ears, but upon closer inspection, it rings hollow. Democrats will find their social justice messages a tough sell when the greatest social injustice, abortion, is a central plank of their social platform. Their only hope is to try to deceive conservatives into believing that Obama really is against abortion. Which, of course, he isn't.

Cross posted at Right Wing News and Melissa Clouthier.com

Around The Web

British children are forced to bow to Allah. The two who didn't get detention.

And you thought Republicans were dumb. They have some wimpy competition.

Intelligent design stuff.

Greta Van Susteren smacks down Anderson Cooper. Anderson has a staff of 60. A couple are dedicated to peeling his grapes and fanning him no doubt.

James Lileks smacks down M. Night Shamalayan:

The trailer doesn’t spell out the message, but Gort – played by Keanu Reeves – says “if the earth dies, you die. If you die, the earth lives.” Well, there’s a message we can all get behind. And if the film flops, you get the Malibu beach house. Seems win-win for everyone except, well, the poison-belching peons who will queue up for another sermon. Gentle cautionary tales are one thing; this groveling self-hatred is another. Same with the M. Night film that has the trees emitting pollen that makes us all kill ourselves – apparently the trees took a big wait-and-see attitude towards deforestation in the late 19th century, and finally decided to kill people when we were just starting to get the point.

The taxing work of being rich and finding enlightenment. Sigh. Aimless and dough-filled make for such trying times. Via Alarming News

Barack Obama's pedigree includes forged papers? Is it possible he doesn't really exist?

Speaking of Obama, if he really is an American citizen, which is in question (see above), he's not patriotic. I question, very openly, his patriotism as does Jonah Goldberg. But the true believers question the questioners. It's amusing.

Tigerhawk on loving America....and those who hate it.

Patterico honors Jesse Helms and thanks the Left for their sympathy.

This is what the world is coming to and Rachel Lukas has a solution. She's going soft.

And on that outrageous note, I'm going for a walk, because my blood pressure is up again from watching the video at Rachel's link.

Democrats: A Blood Sugar Crisis At The Convention

No, no! You musn't touch the greasy food!

Eight years ago, or so, I went to a week-long retreat/seminar where all the food was "healthy". No sugar. No meat. Everything was vegetarian. Well. Let me tell you, by day three, people were getting hostile. There were some internationals there, and unused to the US they didn't have vehicles, so were stuck, helplessly enslaved to health.

Meanwhile, I had brought a stash. Plus, we had a car so we could replenish our naughty supplies which included everything from salted peanuts to Cokes to Twix bars and other forms of chocolaty goodness. Can you say cool kids? Yeah, for once in my nerdified life, I was a cool kid and I promise you, it is much more fun than being an orchestra geek.

So, I'm laughing about the suckahs who are going to the Democratic convention. It's going to be healthy, ya'll, and those Lefties will be even more angry than usual. Delicious!

Among them: No fried food. And, on the theory that nutritious food is more vibrant, each meal should include "at least three of the following colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and white." (Garnishes don't count.) At least 70% of ingredients should be organic or grown locally, to minimize emissions from fuel burned during transportation. "One would think," says Mr. Burns, "that the Democrats in Denver have bigger fish to bake -- they have ruled out frying already -- than mandating color-coordinated pretzel platters."

Democrats say the point is to build habits that will endure long after the convention. To that end, the city has staged "greening workshops" attended by hundreds of caterers, restaurant owners and hotel managers. "It's the new patriotism," Mayor Hickenlooper says.

I'm giggling. I'm a chiropractor and I'm all for healthy food. But a bigger principle to me is that people can eat what they dang well please and attempts by self-righteous do-gooders to impose their utopian food fantasies is just plain annoying. Which is what I explained to my co-conspirators at the well-intentioned seminar of yore. Sure, I believe that eating healthy is great, but imposed rules grate on me like carrots on a shredder. It makes me want to eat a steak, guzzle a beer, have a potato chip and chase it with some chocolate cake while singing the Star Spangled Banner at a million decibles.

The Dem Convention is just amusing though. This is self-flaggelation of the highest order. Already Hillary's people will be hating Barack's gloating hoards. Take away their sugar and caffiene and make them eat three colors and it will be colorful alright! There will be fireworks. I can't wait!

Summer Is Here And Let's Face It, We're Tired Of These Guys

This campaign season could not have been more fatiguing. As much fun as it was to watch the sissy fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, it's over now. As an aside, I've had to chuckle about the talk of the "brutal campaign season". What? The Democratic primary candidates hardly disagreed policy-wise and when things got to stressful, Hillary cried and Obama lamented the "distraction" and demanded an apology. What a bunch of weenies. It's not like we were watching Lincoln and Douglas or anything.

So now, we have what we have. Looking at the candidates, one can only sigh and ask, "Is this the best we could do?" Since the answer seems to be yes, and that in itself is depressing, might as well enjoy the lovely weather outside and ignore the bleak implications of either a McCain or Obama candidacy (and this post will make my friend mad who thinks everyone should be enthusiastically rallying to McCain's banner, to which I responded, "isn't it enough that I'm going to hold my nose and vote for this man?" Evidently not.).

I'm wondering about how you're spending your time these days.

Now that the Democratic primary is over, I'm spending .....
	more time looking at political blogs
	less time looking at politcal blogs
	about the same amount of time looking at political blogs
pollcode.com free polls

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Do Some'in

Is that how Brit Brit would spell it? I dunno. Anyway, this oil business can be solved. You can help. Go here and make a "bit" of a difference.

Shoot me now. I've employed way over the limit of puns today. Had to wedge that in there. Darn you, John NOT F. Kerry!

Democrats Just Say No To Drilling

Because it's a good thing to put $99 of gas in your truck (which I did yesterday). And Obama thinks a gradual increase would have been better. This is awesomeness! Speak it, Barry! High gas prices are just what the Dems want. If the economy can go in the shitter, more the better. If people are absolutely miserable, while the planet gets saved even better than better. And if people give up their modern way of life: Hallelujah! Praise Gaia!

Best of all: If America ceases to exist as a super power and the rest of the world crumbles because Americans stop consuming, heaven will have been created on earth. Thanks Democrats! Our lives suck shit but at least the barren tundra of Alaska is pristine.

Oh, and McCain is stupid about this, too.

Hell Hath No Fury....

.....like a woman scorned.

So what will the scorned Hillary Clinton do at the convention? Will she stand by submissively like she did for her husband? She has been well-schooled that way. Her supporters might not be too happy about seeing her docile this time around. Even a Vice Presidency is unlikely to appease them.

My guess is that she'll maintain her dignity, but her followers won't be so dignified.

It's amazing to me, really. This is how emotional the Democrats are all around: Hillary is the stronger candidate. Obama keeps revealing himself to be tone-deaf and rather dull-witted not to mention perniciously narcissistic and unqualified, but there is no way in hell that he's not going to be the candidate even though he polls weaker against McCain.

In this election year, almost any Democrat would have been stronger than almost any Republican and yet, the Democrats put up the one candidate who can be beat. I'm glad they aren't rational. It might spare the country some serious harm.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Hope! Change!

Ah, the good old days.

Jimmy Carter Needs To.....

Oh, I was going to say, shut up, but actually, that's not in the spirit of free speech. I think he needs to talk more. Just talk and talk and talk and talk. He is Barack Obama except, white and old. Every time he opens his yapper, people think, "Hey, that's what Democrats think and Barack Obama is a Democrat." I don't know if people think that, but I hope people think that. So keep on talking Jimmy. Your bitterness and loathing seep through every word and deed. I don't think Mr. Carter will ever forgive America for not loving him. We are just that stupid. It's a heavy burden he has to live with, no longer being able lead the dumbest people on the face of the planet.

Democrats Admit To Lying About Iraq

It's kinda shocking since Democrats don't usually lie.

Hung From Their Own Rope

If the Right is apathetic, the Left is apoplectic. I've been ruminating on the implications for the country whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton get the nomination.

To me, Hillary Clinton is the harder candidate to beat in the general election. She is perceived as more centrist and has done a pretty good job casting herself as the working man's candidate. She is tough, competitive and hangs in there. This tenacity has impressed many people. Aside from her weeping episodes which came off as manipulative, she has been doggedly determined and come across as tough. She craves power and it's both terrifying and respect-inducing to behold.

The calls for Hillary to bow out when she is hanging so tough enrages feminists and the women who support her. It's the same old, same old from the patriarchy: take a back seat to a lesser man. Concede. Submit. Stand down to elevate him. Hillary has, of course, done this. She supported Bill for years, even through his infidelity and immaturity, in order to have the power. But she knows, as does everyone else, that is was his power. Now, it is her turn. This message resonates deeply with women. The feminists waited for this moment. It's the culmination of a lifetime of hopes and dreams and Hillary symbolizes the American Woman. Not getting the nomination is like orgasm-less sex. Women don't want to be left hanging. Again.

I think the Left, the Super-delegates, even average middle-American voters fear that Obama's newness, his lack of experience, his liberalness, his softness won't play in the general election. But everyone is stuck. If women have suffered lo, these many years in America, only blacks can claim more victimhood. Underneath the Obama candidacy is a threat and silent menace: nominate him, or else. Or else what? Will there be riots in the cities should Obama not get the nomination? Will delegates' lives be threatened? That's what some fear. And so, the renewed pleas for Hillary to "do the right thing" and quit.

The nomination of Barack Obama means "healing", "hope" and "change". What it means is that America, can, once and for all, put the taint of slavery behind them. The tide has turned and America, finally, in Michelle Obama's 44th year, is a place where even black citizens can be proud. As much as blacks want this, whites want this more. Many whites tire of the collective guilt and want to be shed of it. A black president would heal the country and change the future.

How will Obama's followers, including the 90% black voters, feel should they be denied? This moment seems historic and profound and necessary. The emotionalism, the attachment is as real as group adoration ever can be. Obama taps into a well of desire and fear that is almost irresistible. Life without him will be desolate, life will him will be infused with purpose and light.

For the Democrats making this decision, it's over. There can be no other candidate than Obama. He may lose in the general, but that will be a small price to pay. This candidacy matters more to elite Democrats than to the political realities of the general election. Hillary Clinton isn't making this decision easy, but, in the end, it won't matter. This is about history. This is about symbolism. This is about shiny ideals and a perfect vision.

Democrats will, without irony, savage John McCain--even his amazing military record. They will paint him as conservative (which conservatives will roll their eyes at). They will disparage his long record. Trying to fight Obama's record will be like shadow boxing. He doesn't have one. His list of accomplishments is anemic, but he's not running on what he's done but what what he represents.

The only result of this Democratic primary will be a new level of cynicism that can only come from identity politics. And while this is all inevitable and predictable, it's distressing at the same time. A fractured society doesn't last long.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

It's Okay To Be Racist, Sexist, Misogynist, Misandrist, Ageist or Mean Generally IF You're Liberal

Liberal commenters over at Cassy Fiano's blog felt free to spew hate toward her because shes conservative and female:

Grebrook:
Dude, she's fat. LOL. And she goes and gives this pathetically condescending interview about how she doesn't date liberal men, as if liberal men really care? It's kind of like a black guy telling the KKK "nah, you're not good enough for me to be a member". They're not exactly inviting him in.

Cassy, you're fat, seriously. Until you lose weight, I think it's safe to say that you don't have much room to talk about "liberal idiots" if you're not intelligent enough to stay healthy.

Grebrook:
Rofl, do you actually read this blog? This girl is a walking cliche. A fat, white angry Republican ...

Fat? A whale? Come on guys, couldn't you come up with anything better than that? I mean, really. That's like, the most boring, unoriginal insult in the book. Try a little harder next time. Please.

It isn't about lack of imagination, Cassy. It's about entitlement. Being liberal entitles a person to say and do anything because their motives are pure and their premise unquestionably correct.

So, Hillary can, with a straight face talk about her white people supporters. Obama can disparage "the other" because he's better, knows better. These are the leaders of the Left. The average Leftist blog commenter is just doing the same thing albeit on a less sophisticated level. The talk will denigrate into fat rolls and vaginas. My personal favorite sexist joke recently here:

What is the smartest thing to come out of a woman's mouth? Albert Einstein's cock.

The joke was in reference to me being a stupid, entitled, fat, old bitch. It was a personal attack to demonstrate my abject stupidness. It was okay, though, because when you're smarter and liberal (read better) using a sexist attack is perfectly acceptable.

Today, James Kirchick writing in The Advocate highlights liberal homophobia:

If John McCain had confessed to being “not comfortable” around “those people,” handed a microphone over to the likes of Donnie McClurkin, cast aspersions about the sexuality of political opponents, or just openly called someone a “fruitcake,” the denunciations from liberals would be swift and unforgiving. Yet Democrats in particular and liberals more broadly always get a pass. Indeed, at the time of Stark’s outburst, the Human Rights Campaign defended the congressman by emphasizing that he "is one of the gay community's staunchest allies." Log Cabin Republicans president Patrick Sammon points to the example of the Democratic mayor of Fort Lauderdale, Jim Naugle, who has made a series of homophobic remarks about the many gay tourists who visit his Florida city. Rarely, however, do news stories ever mention that Naugle is a Democrat. “If he was a Republican, every single story about him would have ‘Republican’ before his name,” Sammon says.

The liberal journalist Eric Alterman, a columnist for The Nation and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress think tank, is a particularly nasty example of the liberal homophobe. Two years ago he challenged gay, HIV-positive journalist Andrew Sullivan to prove a claim Sullivan had made about Alterman regarding military action in Afghanistan, offering to pay “$10,000 to the AIDS charity of Sullivan’s choice.” He mocked Sullivan, “who is HIV positive and likes to discuss this fact with reporters,” for his “remodeled bathroom in P-town.” Alterman regularly refers to Sullivan as “little Roy,” after Roy Cohn, the gay aide to Sen. Joe McCarthy who died of AIDS complications. Following Ann Coulter’s labeling Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a “faggot” in 2007, Alterman said, “Look, the word 'faggot' ... is a word one hears in private conversation quite frequently; she just said it in public.” Makes one wonder what sort of company Alterman keeps.

Why do liberals get a pass when they are clearly hypocritical and would, themselves, skewer someone on the right who used the same rhetoric? Because, their ideology is pure. They have good intentions. Their motives are above question.

I'm not arguing for stifling free speech. As I wrote last week in "America Up!", there is far too much victim-claiming behavior by far too many people. The political correctness has stopped honest debate about real solutions and lead to absolutely insane actions. Political correctness has put the emphasis on the superficial rather than the substance. What I am arguing is that the liberals want and get to have it all ways. It is perfectly fine to play dirty, use nasty language, and hold discriminatory beliefs as long as they wear the right name and party.

Democrats and liberals always get a pass. It makes me think that they don't really believe their politically correct rhetoric and just spew it to obtain and retain power. Holding the Right to stringent speech standards restricts the debate and forces only certain kind of conversations with pre-determined outcomes. How convenient. Even better, liberals can attempt to restrict the speech of the opposition by using the very same offensive speech they claim is wrong. Wow, what a great deal.

Sacred Voting & Operation Chaos

Is mocking this ridiculous (worthy of ridicule) campaign season with Operation Chaos this:

I keep thinking about the Russian Immigrant who looked forward to his first chance to vote in America, and told Gerard Vanderleun, “I will vote always for best, always”…and about the people in Iraq who braved so much to hold their purple fingers in the air…and about the Iraqi and American dead who fought to give them that right.

And in thinking about them, I’m a bit ashamed of our three-ring circus and the casual menace which we are bringing to our own sacred process. They all deserve better than we’re giving them, right now.

What is your opinion? Is Limbaugh subverting a sacred trust, or is he - somehow - “saving” it?

Well, this election has been absurd. It's been too long. The Democrats are both certifiable liars. They are so extreme in their ideology that it's disturbing. The primary season has been like watching a girl fight. Tight lipped, pulled punches, low blows and bitch slapping. No arguing over substance, because there's no substance to argue over. It's been lame.

So does it matter who gets the nomination? The deal Clinton and Obama have made is to talk about nothing. They agree about everything, so what's to discuss? Basically, do you prefer vagina or mocha colored skin? The primary has been reduced to identity. How can anyone take it seriously? It has been completely UN-serious.

As for Limbaugh's entré into the big dance. Who cares? Is he making a bigger difference than the actual campaigns themselves? They too, are asking Republicans to defect and support them. And some are. Some women and Hispanics that voted for Bush are going for Clinton. And all the blacks that would have voted for Clinton are voting for Obama. This election is symbolic, don't ya know? There is no substance. How can Rush possibly make it worse?

Should we be embarrassed? Yes. But the candidates and those voting for them seem beyond irony.

Cults of Stupidity-UPDATED

It's intoxicating to be one of the few lucky souls spared from the end of the world. At any given time, there have been those who are absolutely convinced the world will end soon, if not now, and that they have special, secret knowledge that will save them, but more importantly, fry you because you do not believe and you will be left behind. You're an unbelieving stooge. Doomed.

Seven women left a cave in Russia today since the end of the world didn't come at the allotted time. Or was it they didn't have the patience to wait until the allotted time? Either way, the plan seemed to fail. It occurs to me that someone, eventually, is going to be right about the end of the world and have huge bragging rights.

Here's my question: Will the Obama believers come out of the cave before or after the election? For example, the Wright affair seems to have taken the blush off the rose for some, but others are too excited about being saved from the apocalypse to note that the savior might just be the dude hiding behind the curtains and not like, you know, a super awesome savior born of a virgin.

Obama feels a whole lot like Jimmy Carter. And I'm getting the shivers thinking about it.

Update: I forgot to tell you yahoos about this, but you might have already heard. There are huge perks for cult leaders, in case you didn't know. When not holed up in caves, they tend to have nicer digs--and their crazy uncles, too.

New New York Governor Has Female Problems, Too

The newly crowned Democrat New York governor has had multiple affairs and one as recent as this year. Does being a testosterone laden, wandering Type A male go with politics? It seems like politicians are a bit like rock stars. Their lifestyle means traveling away from home a lot. Their lifestyle means meeting lots of people. Their lifestyle means lots of people are hangers-on. They have power and wealth.

And, it seems, women.

Ahhh......

The balmy breeze and the sounds of Jimmy Buffet further calm my margarita soothed nerves. You know the nerves. The ones demyelinated by hot, impatient crowds at a theme park. Yeah, those ones. Took the kiddos swimming where my Little Toot is determined to drown because I. Can. Swim! No. He. Can't, but don't tell him. He actually enjoys swallowing half the pool in a gulp. No fear whatsoever. My older two, nervous nellies both, make up for his verve.

We rode one roller coaster today. I would have liked to take them all in, but I would have been riding alone and that's not much fun for me, or for the people waiting in the baking sun. It was one of those water coasters where you get soaked. It was tall. Dang, going up is scarier than going down. We could see for miles at the top, and then they turn you around backwards to go down a little dip at about 20 miles per hour backwards (this turned out to be the most anxiety-producing part) and then it turns you around to face your impending doom. My daughter and I got seated with another mom and daughter on the front row. What the hell? Four burly dudes sat behind us. It just didn't seem right. She clung to me up the thing, look like a frightened bulge-eyed monkey during the backwards part and screamed full throttle going down. I laughed all the way down the four or five story, maybe more, drop. It's exhilarating. What is it about them? Gets the juices flowing and you just feel more alive. Well, it feels like you just cheated death, albeit in a very controlled way. Still, it's fun and endorphin boosting. Would have liked to do them all, but my pint-sized adventurer had had enough. Next time.

Shamu was doing well, by the way, and told me to tell you all hello. What is Shamu, like 50? The killer whales were big to state the self-evident. They seem like huge St. Bernards. The big tongue and lazy attitude that comes from being the biggest mammal in the room. You know how huge basketball players or football players just seem more relaxed? And why not? They can smash everyone. That knowledge tends to make a dude be laid back. Shamu has the same je ne se quois.

We fed dolphins. They strike me as more like Labrador retrievers. Loyal, sweet, and generally fun to be around. The one we fed, talked to us, because we were a bit slow. Amazing animals. When I get rich and weird (weirder) like Michael Jackson, forget pet monkeys or a herd of llamas, I want a huge pond full of dolphins. They're cool.

Budweiser could have been free flowing all day, but you know, it's just not that appealing when you're already dehydrated to guzzle a brewsky. That, or I'm just getting old. It could be both. It could be neither. Fifty bucks for four little pizzas, a frozen lemonade and four waters. What a rip-off theme park food is. I know, I'm no fun. Do the kids get memorabilia, you ask? No, they do not. No stuffed Shamu. No dolphin clock. No T-shirt. Nothing. They don't even ask. I'm not a big fan of memorabilia. The big cups that won't fit on any shelves. The enormously large Super Grover that I saw someone stuck with after winning it at some game. No, thank you. What are you going to do with that shit two days from now? I generally operate under the belief that kids these days, hell, we adults, have too much shit. No need to buy more of it at astronomical prices.

An aside: If you want to boost your self-esteem, go to a theme park. People are disturbingly overweight. Lots of people. Far too many people. If I believed in government intrusion, I'd suggest a public service that included not renting these people little carts. They need to walk. Society is enabling people by renting them carts. Actual sign in the Shark House: People mobility challenged may not want to enter as the floor is sloped and uneven. Mobility challenged? Is this a new category of people I haven't known about til now? Evidently. And there were many mobility-challenged people. Sigh.

An aside to this aside: I remember 15 years ago, when the scores of handicap parking spots at a grocery store were open. It was just plain irritating to walk (in this case, in the slush, because it was NY or Michigan) from twenty spots back into the store. Now, those spots are all full. Even handicapped people have to circle the lot. Are the Baby Boomers aging that far that fast? Or is everyone disabled? Used to be, people would pridefully avoid the handicapped spots. Not today. Oh no. Today, people scam the system and carry the tags around so they can snag a close spot. So lame.

Speaking of lame, I've been following Obama's Pastor Wright dealido. What a mess. I knew it was going to be. Dick Morris was so wrong when he said that Obama just needed to focus on something else. Um, no, this is a big deal, Dick. When your life-long bud spews black supremist garbage, people will take note. And, say it isn't so, Oprah. She has listened to this guy's bilge for years, too. What is wrong with people? Maybe, it's just nice to get a break from the man after fighting him all week and hearing how bad you've had it and to fight on, soldier. Whatever. It makes me think less of all of them.

Now, the Anchoress makes an interesting point--she says the pastor is not the community. She says that she has stayed through some interesting preachers and she acknowledges that it could be different in Protestant denominations. I would say that it is different, to an extent. Down here, I've had Catholic friends change Catholic churches because the priest in one was too liberal or too whatever. (Speaking of, by the way, the bagpipes are going on the River Walk, it is St. Patty's day weekend after all, and the river is dyed a nice shade of kelly green. Fun!) So, I do think that it is fair to judge a person by the company they keep preacher-wise. When we protestants choose a church, we do choose a community but the community, especially in Congregational Churches (which is like a representative democracy, in a sense, unlike the Catholic church which is more of a benevolent dictatorship) is represented by the preacher. At least, that's my opinion. I have quit churches because the pastor has been a flaming asshole and wouldn't stay no matter how great the community was. The main reason I go to church is to be spiritually fed. That's the sermon. That's the music. That's the doctrinal focus. So, maybe it is different for us, than Catholics.

Here's another thing. While Obama can denounce Dr. Wright and has, there is just something so powerful about the words "God DAMN America". Words have power. They mean something. And while I'll agree that America is sin-sick place, I would rather beg God's infinite mercy than call down damnation. And yes, preachers use hyperbole, but words matter. And those are some terrifying words.

I'm too mellow to be too worried about Reverend Wright right now. Just thought I'd add my two cents.

Why Eliot's Wife Stood By Her Man

I have known more than one woman who married a man knowing full well he didn't love her. It was enough to just be with the man even though it meant, for the rest of his days, that he'd have a missing piece in his life. She didn't care. She wanted him. She used sex to manipulate him. If she could, she got pregnant to trap him.

In all but one case, the man eventually cheated on his wife. One lady just looks the other way as long as he comes home at night. Another lady played the victim and seemed dumb-founded about her sorry lot. Another lady hopes that maybe some day, he'll love her. One woman I know said to her husband,"I thought that once you married me and knew me better, you'd love me." She was partly right. His admiration of her has grown over the years, but there is still no love there. He languishes and she diminishes as time passes.

Anyone who is married knows that it is a mystery between two people. Families, friends, outsiders think they know what's going on behind the scenes but the people involved have a secret dance that only they share. Even in wildly uneven relationships where one partner is a certifiable psychopath, there was something, on some level, that meshed between the couple--a sympathy. They both know this.

When a woman stands by her man, as Eliot Spitzer's wife did literally, or countless of abused, neglected and cheated on women do metaphorically, they stand for themselves. In a sense, they are defending their decision to be with this man. Some women say that they were abused, in a bad mental state and almost fugue-like when in the presence of their man which is why they did something like standing supportive at a press conference. And that is partly true. Powerful guys like Eliot Spitzer hold sway in nearly every room they enter. It might hold for at home, too. Or maybe, home is the one place he feels small and helpless. Even still, the woman denies her power to choose when she plays the victim when making such an empowered choice to do something like stand in front of the world. That Eliot Spitzer or Bill Clinton or Jim McGreevy or any of these guys would be so callous to their wives in even asking that of them demonstrates their narcissism.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger incited the wrath of thousands for suggesting that women might play a part in their husband's cheating. Other women said, "that's like blaming the victim". Please. Are women going to hold forever this passive, babyish view of themselves? They are just along for the ride in their relationship, they have no power or say in how it goes?

I can count off five women I know, just off the top of my head, who might, just might, give their husband sex once a month, if he's lucky. And these same women, after years of this emptiness (for a man) will be able to play the victim when he goes out to fill a need? How is she absolved of responsibility for this act? And, he could divorce her, but often loves the kids. Loves the family life and doesn't want that to end. He just wants sex. Or affection. Or kind words.

Now, there are men, and I know them too, for whom no amount of "filling up" will make a difference. These bottomless wells seek affirmation everywhere and have a hole in their soul that is impossible to fill by anyone, no matter how hard a loving woman might try to fill it. These guys are like spirit-stealing predators conquering women and feeling more empty the longer they do it. They use women like drugs. They get a hit and a high and then crash and go for another one. Most men don't fall in this category but somewhere between neglect and narcissism.

I don't know what kind of man Eliot Spitzer is in his marriage. Is he a psychopathic bottomless well? Maybe. That would fit the profile of most politicians, wouldn't it? Born in privilege and weened on power, Eliot Spitzer believed, somehow, that he was above the law. He can make the law. He can enforce the law. But the law doesn't apply to him. He would be in good company. Bill Clinton went one further than old Eliot, as Dr. Santy notes, and abused his power while impugning the character of his victims. No wonder some Democrats want this whole sordid mess over with.

And what about politician's wives. They are often as smart, dedicated and willing to work for long years waiting for a pay-off for their husband. Far from stupid and weak, these women often demonstrate formidable intelligence and strength. They also seem to share their husband's jaundiced view of things. They are "realistic". It is understood that compromise is a part of life. Maybe some compromises build up and end up crossing a line somewhere. Well, obviously they do. And maybe, Spitzer's wife believed in his mission so much, she was willing to trade his indiscretions for the greater good he'd do.

I don't know Spitzer's wife. We can only surmise by actions what sort of people the Spitzers might be. Right now, she is publicly humiliated and embarrassed. And Spitzer has three daughters who will have a perspective on men formed by this revelation. Although, I'm guessing they've had a idea formed by now, already.

All I'm suggesting here, is that marriage is a complicated mystery. Marriages are contracts between two people and while many of the expectations aren't explicit, they are often understood. Deals are made. Ideals traded for other needs. Is this a bad thing? I don't know. These factors, though, might explain why Ms. Spitzer stood by her man.

Eliot Spitzer, Democrats & Dumb Criminals--UPDATED

So a big, powerful, pompous, vindictive DEMOCRAT politician transfers money to pay his high-priced whore. Big whup, right? Oh wait, hold on a minute. Did you say that the politician was a Democrat? In fact, did you say that this hypocritical rat bastard put the squeeze on anyone, namely business people paying the fat taxes that pay his bills, he could get his prosecutorial vice grip on? Is that what you say? Well, even smarty-pants lawyers think they're above the law, I guess, and makes them dumb like every other criminal:

He must have been withdrawing cash and depositing cash to some account. The charge of structuring comes about when someone is deliberately moving chunks of money under the trigger points for automatic reporting. The assumption is that when you try to evade reporting you are hiding something. So his bank correctly filed a SAR; not to have done so would have been an offense on their part.

Don't ever think your bank records are private, because they aren't. Not in any way. If any law enforcement official wants to find info on you they can file ONE request and get every bank to look up and report your dealings with them over years. They get the info, and then they get the subpoenas.

So, not only did he pay for a hooker, he paid for a high priced hooker, and he sent money around that made it look like he was paying someone off. Criminals are stooooooopid. Fausta says this:

Mind you, Spitzer prosecuted enough prostitution rings to KNOW that would be the sure way to get found out:

Spitzer, who made his name by bringing high-profile cases against many of New York's financial giants, is likely to be prosecuted under a relatively obscure statute called "structuring," according to a Justice Department official.

Structuring involves creating a series of financial movements designed to obscure the true purpose of the payments.

Prosecutors reportedly have a series of e-mails and wiretapped phone conversations of Spitzer.

In a interview two years ago, Spitzer, then-attorney general, told ABC News he had some advice for people who break the law. "Never talk when you can nod, and never nod when you can wink, and never write an e-mail because it's death. You're giving prosecutors all the evidence we need," he said.

He winked, he nodded, he email.

Ha! So, he's an arrogant criminal. Is there any other kind? Don Surber notes the self-love:

Spitzer apologizes to himself. Amazing.

The statement by Eliot Spitzer after being caught with a hooker was more Napoleonic than anything Napoleon could have come up with:

“I have disappointed and failed to live up to the standard I expected of myself. I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family.”

Summary: “I have disappointed … myself.”

Mrs. Spitzer stood tall next to him, looking like Jennifer Aniston and feeling like hell. Harvard lawyer. Mother of 3 girls. How could he do that to her?

Easy.

It’s all about him.

Oh yes, it is ALL about him. Spitzer lives up to The Anchoress's expectations: He's a punk. He's a punk criminal who happens to be Governor of New York.

Will he resign? I predict: NO. Gateway Pundit says he'll stay, too and runs through the list of other criminal Democrats still chugging along. He's an arrogant asshole Democrat. They don't resign. They wear their criminal street cred like a badge of honor. They are never prosecuted, they are persecuted by a conspiracy of right-wingers just waiting for them--you know the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Probably the best thing, the just thing that will come out of all this, is the skanky ho will end up in prison....or resigning. It's only right. Iowahawk, my blog affair (we've never met, except in my dreams) has the dirt:

The embattled prostitute did not mention Spitzer by name, and stopped short of offering an official resignation. But longtime sex industry insiders say that it will be difficult for Kristen to return to her post in light of mounting federal wiretap evidence that she had sexually serviced the Governor on at least two occasions.

"It will be hard for her to spin her way out of this," said Destinee Rizzo, editor of the trade journal Executive Concubine."After taking on clients like that, her days as a five diamond, high-roller suite call girl are over. Frankly, with all the press coverage she'll be lucky to get a job as a $5 truck stop lot lizard in Kentucky."

"The big problem now is to keep this incident from threatening the whole expensive whore industry," added Rizzo.

The revelation brought an immediate and angry reaction from Greymont Preston IV, spokesman for the powerful consumer watchdog group Profligate Wastrels United. "For that kind of money, there's an expectation that these girls have been with Snoop Dogg or Charlie Sheen," said Preston. "But please -- Eliot Spitzer? When our members are spending five thousand dollars to snort cocaine off an ass, they want to know that ass has some standards."

So, at least the world will be cleaned up of the filthy filth. Phew. What a relief. This thing could have been a whole lot worse. Poor Elliot. Poor, poor Elliot.

UPDATE:

New reports this morning, Wednesday, that Spitzer will indeed step down.

Black Is Better II: "Identity Politics Is Rational"

Sunday I wrote about Frank Rich's racist and cynical views. First, he is viewing the world through a color prism. Second, he believes all Americans are as racist as he is racist.

Evidently, Rich is in good company at The New York Times. Today it's another white male, Stanley Fish, opining about how identity politics can be a good thing. Well, at least these guys are coming out of the racist closet and airing their views instead of pretending at fairness. Fish says:

We should distinguish, I think, between two forms of identity politics. The first I have already named “tribal”; it is the politics based on who a candidate is rather than on what he or she believes or argues for. And that, I agree, is usually a bad idea. (I say “usually” because it is possible to argue that the election of a black or female president, no matter what his or positions happen to be, will be more than a symbolic correction of the errors that have marred the country’s history, and an important international statement as well.) The second form of identity politics is what I call “interest” identity politics. It is based on the assumption (itself resting on history and observation) that because of his or her race or ethnicity or gender a candidate might pursue an agenda that would advance the interests a voter is committed to. Not only is there nothing wrong with such a calculation – it is both rational and considered – I don’t see that there is an alternative to voting on the basis of interest.

A commenter made the point that on the Right Christians voted based on a candidate's specific religion and that too, was a form of identity politics, yet no one criticizes that. Well, I happen to believe that voting that way is also wrong and foolish. It is nice when one finds a candidate whose personal beliefs mirror one's own, but please, if his policies are repugnant, who gives a flip if he thumps his Bible on Sundays ala Mike Huckabee?

The Right screwed themselves over, as others have noted, because they held on to identity politics of just this sort. Religious prejudice harmed Romney's chances as much as anything. I know this because I had more than one shock-inducing conversation with religious conservatives around Houston. They were voting Huckabee because Huckabee was a good Christian man. To which I responded, "Who raises taxes."

My philosophy in politics is the same as in medicine: Are you the best? Do you want a surgeon who prays but can't cut his way out of a paper bag? Or do you want a surgeon who can cut, and worships Abraham Maslow? I'll take the latter, thank you. My preference would be a world-class surgeon who also prays, but you know what, sometimes we don't get what we want.

This political season has been all about not getting exactly what we want. And both the Right and Left are making moronic choices in candidates because they're choosing form over substance. Black skin is form. Ovaries is form. Bible beating Baptist is form. The substance is symbolic, but politicians will be making real decisions that affect real lives. Christopher Hitchens says:

People who think with their epidermis or their genitalia or their clan are the problem to begin with. One does not banish this specter by invoking it. If I would not vote against someone on the grounds of "race" or "gender" alone, then by the exact same token I would not cast a vote in his or her favor for the identical reason. Yet see how this obvious question makes fairly intelligent people say the most alarmingly stupid things.

Madeleine Albright has said that there is "a special place in hell for women who don't help each other." What are the implications of this statement? Would it be an argument in favor of the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton? Would this mean that Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama don't deserve the help of fellow females? If the Republicans nominated a woman would Ms. Albright instantly switch parties out of sheer sisterhood? Of course not. (And this wearisome tripe from someone who was once our secretary of state . . .)

On Day 1 in office, Obama or Clinton will cease to be symbols and become the leader of the free world. Mocha skin tone and female gonads mean little in the face of real challenges--except that in both of these cases, these candidates are weak and will project American weakness--and not because of their color or reproductive organs, either. They will project weakness because their policy positions are weak and because they believe America is weak and flawed. Suddenly, their policies matter.

Well, policies matter now. Character matters now. And these should be the determining factors in this election. But with guys like Rich and Fish extolling identity politics for its own sake, we can be sure they represent a considerable number of people who feel just the same.