By Debbie Schlussel
I can’t determine whether this will spur a run on Yanni albums . . . or rope for self-nooses:

Parent-teacher conferences are a time-honored school tradition, but for many teachers they are also trying, emotionally wrought encounters. These days, the sessions are taking on a new look as schools contend with assertive or no-show parents as well as higher academic stakes that can cause tensions.
Some teachers are providing soft lighting and candles to set a friendly atmosphere. Students are being invited to lead sessions, in part to keep the adults in check. . . .

Christy Flynn, a fifth-grade teacher who is also a moderator at the website www.atozteacherstuff.com, plays soft music in the background (the songs of Harry Connick and Josh Groban are popular), lights a candle and sets out peppermints and chocolates for parents at her Louisiana grade school.
“When I have parents dealing with not-so-great news or more difficult issues, it does seem to take the wind out of their sails a bit,” Flynn said.

But apparently, all this softness doesn’t really have the desired effect:

There are also poignant miscommunications, like the time Jo Ann Sayers, who worked in the Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District, met the mother of a fourth-grader. The boy apparently was running a racket in which he convinced his classmates that if they didn’t hand over their lunch money in exchange for his protection, they’d be beaten up.
At the first parent-teacher conference, the 10-year-old boy offered to translate for his Pacific Islander mother, who apparently didn’t have a clue about his behavior.
“Remembering the directive to say something positive to begin a conference,” Sayers said, she started to say that the boy was good at sports. But before she got to the words “at sports,” the mother jumped up and hugged her son, thinking Sayers was praising the boy for being good.
“I just sat there in a state of shock,” Sayers said.

Where’s Joe Pesci when you need him? That’s what we need at parent-teacher conferences. Attention: Media Matters, I’m kidding. Half-kidding.

By Debbie Schlussel
Well, that paragon of class and virtue–Snoop Dogg a/k/a repeat-convict Calvin Broadus–is out with a new album, “Ego Trippin'”. No-one can accuse him of not believing in truth in advertising.
But while it’s more of the same, reading the USA Today review of it by music writer Elysa Gardner is a hilarious exercise in BS “literature.” Here it is with my commentary. Note the new phrases, er . . . oxymorons: “gangsta ethics” and “soberly misogynistic” (nice new high-brow term sanitizing despicable hate; hmmm, I’ll try this absurd tactic. . . “soberly Klannish”, “soberly necrophiliac”):

“A b- – -ch is a b- – -ch, and a ho is a ho,” Snoop declares on Never Have 2 Worry, the fifth track on Ego Trippin’ ‚Äî and he doesn’t seem to be joking. More than 16 years into his career, Snoop clearly isn’t interested in sensitivity training.

You don’t say?

What makes his latest effort at once fascinating and disturbing is his apparent inability to connect the dots between his personal struggles and the gangsta ethics he champions so artfully.

“Gangsta ethics” is a phony term in the first place, but putting the word “artful” next to it or anything about Snoop Dogg is even more absurd. You can just hear the smooch sound of Ms. Gardner’s lips to Mr. Dogg’s rear even while she’s declaring that she’s shocked–shocked!–that Dogg doesn’t connect the dots between his crime-filled life of hoodness and his “values,” er . . . “gangsta ethics.” This is news to her?

Musically, Trippin’ ranks with the rapper’s best work; he and his co-producers fold ’80s electro-funk into arrangements that feel at once nostalgic and bracingly fresh, from the shimmering single Sexual Seduction to the Princely Cool.

“Bracingly fresh”?! Is there anything fresh and new about “bitch” and “ho”? PUH-LEEZE. The only thing “fresh” about Snoop Dogg would be the latest flesh wound he’s administered to one of his “peeps.”

Snoop’s distinctly mellow rhyming shines brightest when he’s in a playful mood, as on the twangy My Medicine or Deez Hollywood Nights, where he boasts of being at a club “smoking with one of the Marleys – one love.”

“Distinctly mellow rhyming”? Bitch is a bitch, ho is a ho? Hello . . . .? “Playful”? “Shines Bright”? The farm called; it wants the cowchips back.

But the references to bad girls and fun drugs grow less amusing when considered alongside material that either is more soberly misogynistic or tries to trumpet family values.

Um, when were the references to “fun drugs” or the rest of it “amusing”? Just curious.

On Why Did You Leave Me, he asks why a true love “had to go away.” Well, duh.

No, actually, “duh” (however ’80s and passe that word is) is hardly you should be uttering after this clueless “review,” Ms. Gardner.
More like “D’oh.”

By Debbie Schlussel
Don’t forget that PETA a/k/a PUTAh (People for the Unethical Treatment of Animals and humans) contributed money to this terrorist group:

Four people, including three from Detroit and all connected to a radical environmental group linked to similar attacks, have been indicted on federal felony arson charges in connection with the attacks on an agricultural building at Michigan State University and logging equipment in northern Michigan in late 1999 and early 2000.
Officials said at a 2 p.m. news conference today that the four are linked to the radical environmental group Earth Liberation Front, a loosely organized movement of environmental extremists with a history of destroying property, often by arson, to intimidate and coerce communities, businesses and governments to abandoning activities that ELF considers harmful to the environment.

The Dec. 31, 1999, attack at MSU destroyed a genetic engineering laboratory. A day later, fire destroyed commercial logging equipment near Mesick.
“This was more than an attack on a building and the destruction of valuable property. It was an assault on a core value of free and open inquiry at a research university,” said Lou Anna Simon, president of Michigan State University.
The four indicted are Marie Mason, 46, of Cincinnati; Frank Ambrose, 33, of Detroit; Aren Burthwick, 27, of Detroit; and Stephanie Fultz, 27, of Detroit.

These terrorists deserve the book thrown at them. If you support ELF’s goals, you should be forced to limit your food and produce intake to that which is not a result of agricultural research (which excludes almost all produce, today–even “organic” crops). And you should be forced to live in a mud hovel, since otherwise, your home hurts the “environment.”
But, also, even if you aren’t an animal rights terrorist, if you believe in animal rights you should not be allowed to use any medicines that were tested on animals or which contain animal products. Period.
How many poor people lost out on food because advances in crop-growing were delayed years by this terrorist activity?
This time it was agricultural research, but at far too many other times, it’s animal research that’s targeted by this group’s allies. How many important breakthroughs in cancer research or cures for other illnesses were delayed for years through such repeated acts of terrorism on animal research labs? Far too many. How many people died because of such delays in cures? Again, far too many.

By Debbie Schlussel
Interesting. A new poster for the latest Indiana Jones installment shows a skull of an outer space creature. Apparently, the movie is not just about fighting Soviet Union Communists, but also explores the myths of Roswell, New Mexico:

The new poster for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull confirms something alien is afoot.
The first poster for the film (due May 22) featured part of the title relic, but there was always something odd about the eye socket. In the follow-up, also by sci-fi/fantasy movie artist Drew Struzan, it’s clear the skull is not at all human. Add to that the recent trailer, with its shot of a crate labeled “Roswell, New Mexico 1947,” and you don’t need to be a professor of archaeology to put the pieces together.

Other clues: Looks as if our hero will face his least-favorite animal and the locals at some Maya ruins. Karen Allen (who also was in 1981’s original) seems to be enjoying herself, though.

The movie is predicted to be the only big hit of the summer. But it’s, sadly, easy to forget what a hypocrite Harrison Ford is on the topic of the Cold War. Previously, he portrayed a “nice” Communist Soviet submarine commander against the “evil” Americans in a big bomb of a movie. Remember “K-19: The Widowmaker“? In promoting it, he espoused this view of Communists versus America. I remember how upset my late father was by absurd statements Ford made on TV about what nice people the Soviets were and how bad we evil Westerners were.
And don’t forget, he’s portraying ICE agents in a bad light, this summer, in “Crossing Over” a/k/a “ICE, The Movie.” Stay tuned for more on that, very soon.

By Debbie Schlussel
It’s hard to add more to the Eliot Spitzer story. A thug–who terrorized corporate America and Wall Street for no apparent legitimate reason–is finally feeling what those he went after felt. Sadly, they didn’t commit the multiple crimes he apparently did. Will he get the misery-filled “justice” they got, but–in their case–didn’t deserve? The liberal Democrat epitomized the oft-used quote that “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
I love the way he started his non-speech, yesterday, talking about how he’s always fought for progressive stuff and making things better. Who the heck cares? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? So, his agenda makes his behavior as simultaneously a bully, lawbreaker, and john okay? Since he didn’t immediately resign, he must apparently believe so.
Here are excerpts from a front-pager and, following that, an editorial, both from today’s Wall Street Journal, which I think tell it best about this white collar thug and his politics-of-envy victims:

It’s Schadenfreude time on Wall Street.
Eliot Spitzer, the New York governor who made his name taking on the titans of finance, apologized yesterday in vague terms following reports that he used the services of a prostitute in a case being investigated by federal prosecutors.
The news stunned traders on Wall Street, where Mr. Spitzer long has been viewed with fear and contempt. Some view the revelations as a huge hypocrisy for a man, who as New York’s attorney general, had aggressively pushed for ethics and fair play on Wall Street earlier this decade. People who clashed hardest with Mr. Spitzer are among those crowing the loudest.
“He actually believes he’s above the law,” said Ken Langone, a former New York Stock Exchange director who now heads a small investment-banking firm. In his role as prosecutor, Mr. Spitzer sued Mr. Langone for his role in doling out the large pay package of former New York Stock Exchange CEO Dick Grasso. “I have never had any doubt about his lack of character and integrity — and he’s proven me correct.”
“This is not a victimless crime,” said U.S. Rep. Peter King, Republican of Long Island. “I’ve never known anyone who was more self-righteous and unforgiving than Eliot Spitzer.” . . .
Mr. Spitzer brought fines against some of America’s largest companies for industry practices that were routine, if not accepted. . . .
Critics said he bullied opponents, threatening to publicly reveal embarrassing details of a company’s business or an executive’s conduct to force management changes or headline-grabbing fines. In the case against Mr. Grasso, lawyers working for Mr. Spitzer asked the former Big Board chairman in a deposition about personal relationships and collected information about Mr. Grasso’s spending habits and his family’s travel.
After the news broke yesterday, Andrew Sabin, a friend of Mr. Grasso’s who lives near him on Long Island, said he spoke briefly with Mr. Grasso’s wife, Lori. “I said I’d buy Dick some champagne,” said Mr. Sabin, owner of precious-metals firm Sabin Commodities. “I’m sure he’s happy. I’m sure everybody on Wall Street is happy.”
Mr. Sabin described Mr. Spitzer’s alleged conduct as “the most hypocritical thing in the world.”
As attorney general, Mr. Spitzer prosecuted cases far afield from Wall Street, including prostitution. In 2004, Mr. Spitzer indicted 18 people associated with popular “escort services” operating in New York City and its suburbs for promoting prostitution and related charges. That same year, he prosecuted individuals who promoted prostitution through tours in Asia, known as “sex tourism.”
Last year, as governor, Mr. Spitzer helped pass legislation that toughened penalties for “sex tourism” operations and “sex traffickers” who bring foreigners into the U.S. and force them into prostitution.

***

One might call it Shakespearian if there were a shred of nobleness in the story of Eliot Spitzer’s fall. There is none. Governor Spitzer, who made his career by specializing in not just the prosecution, but the ruin, of other men, is himself almost certainly ruined. . . .
In our system, citizens agree to invest one of their own with the power of public prosecution. We call this a public trust. The ability to bring the full weight of state power against private individuals or entities has been recognized since the Magna Carta as a power with limits. At nearly every turn, Eliot Spitzer has refused to admit that he was subject to those limits.
The stupendously deluded belief that the sitting Governor of New York could purchase the services of prostitutes was merely the last act of a man unable to admit either the existence of, or need for, limits. At the least, he put himself at risk of blackmail, and in turn the possible distortion of his public duties. Mr. Spitzer’s recklessness with the state’s highest elected office, though, is of a piece with his consistent excesses as Attorney General from 1999 to 2006.
He routinely used the extraordinary threat of indicting entire firms, a financial death sentence, to force the dismissal of executives, such as AIG’s Maurice “Hank” Greenberg. He routinely leaked to the press emails obtained with subpoena power to build public animosity against companies and executives. In the case of Mr. Greenberg, he went on national television to accuse the AIG founder of “illegal” behavior. Within the confines of the law itself, though, he never indicted Mr. Greenberg. Nor did he apologize.
In perhaps the incident most suggestive of Mr. Spitzer’s lack of self-restraint, the then-Attorney General personally threatened John Whitehead after the former Goldman Sachs chief published an article on this page defending Mr. Greenberg. “I will be coming after you,” Mr. Spitzer said, according to Mr. Whitehead’s account. “You will pay the price. This is only the beginning, and you will pay dearly for what you have done.”
Jack Welch, the former head of GE, said he was told to tell Ken Langone — embroiled in Mr. Spitzer’s investigation of former NYSE chairman Dick Grasso — that the AG would “put a spike through Langone’s heart.” . . .
These are not merely acts of routine political rough-and-tumble. They were threats — some rhetorical, some acted upon — by one man with virtually unchecked legal powers.
Eliot Spitzer’s self-destructive inability to recognize any limit on his compulsions was never more evident than his staff’s enlistment of the New York State Police in a campaign to discredit the state’s Senate Majority Leader, Joseph Bruno. . . .
Where were the media before this? With a few exceptions, the media were happy to prosper from his leaks and even applaud, rather than temper, the manifestly abusive instincts of a public official. . . .
He came to embody a system that revels in the entertainment value of roguish figures who rise to power by destroying the careers of others, many of them innocent. Better still, when the targets are as presumably unsympathetic as Wall Street bankers and brokers.
Acts of crime deserve prosecution by the state. The people, in turn, deserve prosecutors and officials who understand the difference between the needs of the public good and the needs of unrestrained personalities who are given the honor of high office.

How do you spell “hypocrite”? E-L-I-O-T–S-P-I-T-Z-E-R. You can spell hubris that way, too.

By Debbie Schlussel
Well, it’s not just PETA a/k/a PUTAh (People for the Unethical Treatment of Animals and humans). It’s the whole animal rights and global warming crowds in the U.S. and Canada. They’re all threatening the Eskimos of North America and their way of life, by trying to designate their food, clothing, etc.–polar bears–as an endangered species.
This is interesting to watch, since the animal rights crowd likes to think of itself and an ally of the “indigenous peoples” and a return to a “natural” life “of the earth.” In their zeal to protect animals, they’re actually opposing all of that. And it’s interesting to note that the polar bear population has actually increased exponentially, not decreased as all of the environmental horror films tell us. It’s also interesting because the story provides a nice contrast to the unrepresentative Eskimo mom whom Oprah presented to the world as a global warming zealot.:

Eskimos in Alaska and Canada have joined to stop polar bears from being designated as an endangered species, saying the move threatens their culture and livelihoods by relying on sketchy science for animals that are thriving.
Although they say sea ice has melted, some Natives question the accuracy of the most dire predictions of a warming climate in the Northern Hemisphere, and members of the Inuit Circumpolar Council seek evidence that a change would seriously harm the bears.
Their stance has put them at loggerheads with a usual ally: environmentalists who say the bears need protection now to survive a warmer climate in the future.
“It would have a really big effect on us Inuit, because we go by dog team to traditionally hunt polar bears,” said Jamie Kablutsiak, who guides U.S. trophy hunters for big money onto the ice on Canada’s Hudson Bay. As for the bears, “I don’t think they’re decreasing because there’s usually lots, even in summer time,” he said.
A decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will come soon, spokesman Bruce Woods said.
The petition marks the first time a healthy species would be considered at risk under the Endangered Species Act and the first time global warming would be officially labeled a species’ main threat.
Polar bears have increased from a population of 5,000 in 1972 to between 20,000 and 25,000 today.
The Center for Biological Diversity submitted a petition in 2005 for endangered species protection based on projected habitat loss due to global warming.
The petition resulted in a 2007 report by the U.S. Geological Survey, which predicted a loss of two-thirds of the world’s polar bear population by 2050, based on a projected 42% summertime loss of “optimal polar bear habitat” such as shallow-water sea ice.
Some scientists, however, question predictions that sea ice will disappear, and even that polar bears would disappear if it did.
Richard Glenn, an Alaskan Inuit hunter and ice researcher, told U.S. senators in January that “marginal ice,” which freezes in winter and melts in summer, will grow as multiyear ice disappears.
“Even the Fish and Wildlife Service study acknowledges that ‚Ķ may be beneficial to ice seals and polar bears,” he said.
The aim of the environmentalists is to use the Endangered Species Act to force the U.S. government to take action on global warming, said Kassie Siegel, a lawyer for the Center for Biological Diversity. It would require federal agencies “to look at the cumulative effect of greenhouse gases on polar bears” and limit emissions by cars and power plants, Siegel said. . . .
To the Inuit, the polar bear has been a source of food, clothing and income for millennia, said Duane Smith, president of the Inuit Circumpolar Council in Canada, which represents Inuit across Canada.
The Inuit Circumpolar Council, which represents Native communities in Greenland, Canada, Alaska and Russia, wants Fish & Wildlife not to make a decision until Natives have a greater role, Chairwoman Patricia Cochran said. Any decision should be based on “sound science,” which includes traditional knowledge, Cochran said.
Big money is at stake. Sport hunters pay between $25,000 and $30,000 each to bag a polar bear. . . .
Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said far too few data were used to make predictions about both climate change and polar bear behavior and populations.
“We looked at historical studies. The first thing you notice is the whole climatic system undergoes huge fluctuation,” Soon said.
Over the possibly 200,000 years the polar bear has existed as a species, it has survived “very harsh conditions” of extreme cold, such as ice ages, and warmth, such as the last interglacial period, 100,000 to 110,000 years ago, Soon said.

What I would propose is that we force leading global warming and animal rights activists to live with the Inuit–and live the Inuit lifestyle–for a year without using any polar bear products or products paid for with profits from polar bear sales. After a year, see how many survive.

By Debbie Schlussel
One question arises from this story:
Why did they wait so long to ask for the moolah?
Oh, and one other thing. Here’s an obvious tip: Any time someone asks for money and says it’s about “honor, not about money,” guess what? It’s about the money.

Nearly 85 years after he was killed in an ambush, Francisco “Pancho” Villa is remembered in this border town as both a revolutionary hero and the man who invaded the United States on a March morning 92 years ago today.
A statue of him riding his horse Рgun drawn, hat pulled back – romanticizes his exploits.

But for the family of Jose Saenz Pardo, one of Villa’s assassins, the statue is a reminder of a $50,000 reward he never received, a bounty reportedly offered by Uncle Sam for Villa’s capture or death.
“At this stage, it’s a question of honor, not about money,” said Maria Fernanda Carrillo Saenz Pardo, 28, Mr. Saenz Pardo’s granddaughter, who lives in Ciudad Juarez and works in El Paso. “We want the United States to make good on its word. They wanted Villa, dead or alive. We fulfilled our end of the bargain.”
Although historians have noted the reward in accounts of the time, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City said the U.S. government offered no reward. She said a resolution authorizing a $50,000 bounty was introduced in Congress but apparently never passed.
In 1916, no one was more hunted than Villa.
On March 9 of that year, he and 500 of his men crossed from Palomas and launched an early-morning raid on Columbus, N.M.
They killed 18 Americans, including eight soldiers. Outraged, President Woodrow Wilson sent Gen. John “Black Jack” Pershing to hunt down Villa.
Villa’s motives for the invasion remain a topic of debate, although one theme remains constant: Villa felt betrayed by the Americans, who had once befriended him. Two years before, Gen. Pershing had posed for a photo with Villa at Fort Bliss, outside El Paso.
But the Americans later aligned themselves with Villa’s hated foe and political rival, Venustiano Carranza, who became president. The Columbus raid was Villa’s revenge, according to historian Friedrich Katz, author of The Life and Times of Pancho Villa.
Even today, zeroing in on Villa’s legacy is no easy task. He is both revered as a hero of the revolution launched in 1910 and remembered as a notorious border bandit and killer. He was a leader in toppling Mexico’s dictator, Porfirio D??az, and was later named provisional governor of the northern state of Chihuahua. Many still view him as a defender of the people.
The Saenz Pardo family is among those who see Villa as a hardened criminal who made enemies throughout Mexico. This is particularly true in Chihuahua, they say, where he seized some of the most prized haciendas from wealthy families for his personal use.
He and his gunmen also angered many by killing their loved ones, including several family members of Mr. Saenz Pardo. That bad blood, not a reward, is the reason Jose Saenz Pardo helped kill Villa, they say.

Yeah, but, um, now, they want money.

Years later, Mr. Saenz Pardo did find Villa. Said to be motivated by the deaths of his two brothers-in-law, an uncle and two cousins, he joined his cousin Militon Lozoya and five other men and planned Villa’s assassination. . . .
The gunmen rode into the desert and hid out. Two of them later served months in jail. Others, including Mr. Saenz Pardo, were commissioned into the military. He later received a military pension, underscoring suspicion by historians that the men had a deal with President ?Ålvaro Obreg??n that they wouldn’t be punished for assassinating Villa.
“My father-in-law made it clear that President Obregon knew about their plan and supported them,” said Jose Carrillo, Mar??a Fernanda Carrillo’s father. “That’s why he had military status and military escort for many years.”

Then git yer money from Mexico. We’re only supporting their whole economy with our jobs and welfare benefits going to that country’s people. Time for Mexico to contribute something. Here’s a great opportunity.
Sadly, Villa is remembered as a hero, not just as an anti-American terrorist.

Today, Columbus will observe the 92nd anniversary of Villa’s raid, still a source of local debate. For example, a decision by the state of New Mexico to name a local park Pancho Villa State Park is something that many locals, including historian and archivist Richard Dean, want reversed.
“There’s an awful lot of people who want to change that, given that he was a terrorist,” said Mr. Dean, 75, whose great-grandfather James Dean died in the raid. “That group came in and killed my grandfather. The name has to change.”

The man who assassinated Villa, whose descendant is now demanding money, clearly did so out of a vendetta motivation and a deal with the Mexican government. This is not our responsibility. The interest on this money would be enormous. But we are already paying billions more than that to Mexico’s citizens in the form of jobs, benefits, and other things they steal from America by virtue of being here illegally.
That’s enough. Let Mexico pay this woman.

By Debbie Schlussel
It used to be that hate-mail I received could be generally divided into three categories: Muslims, Leftists, and Leftist Muslims/Muslim Leftists. Now, a fourth group has emerged: those afflicted with one form of pop culture derangement syndrome or another.
Last year, I got hate-mail from someone afflicted by Simpsons Derangement Syndrome, when I wrote that “The Simpsons Movie” was basically a 1.5 hour long substandard version of the animated TV show that I like.
Now, it’s from a fan of “Dexter,” the gruesome, depraved Showtime series about a serial killer, now showing (in edited version) on CBS, who is mad that I panned the series and decried its arrival on broadcast network TV. The person apparently doesn’t just like this snuff film series, but wants to snuff me, too:

From: p p p60@seznam.cz
Date: 2008/3/10
To: writedebbie@gmail.com
Die Bitch! Dexter will be forever wherever…and u can¬¥t do nothing with that…. xD Sirecely your biggest fan Muck

By Debbie Schlussel
Hmmm . . . Methinks this guy would never ever make it, today. His videos are chock-full of un-PC. In this first video, you’ve got a fat chick, a Hispanic couple, an “immigrant grocer” who appears to be Indian but looks Middle Eastern, women in bikinis, etc. In the second video, a cover which I like better than the original (but in which The Beach Boys do sing back-up), you have not just one Arab Muslim, but TWO(!), leering at women in bikinis. Uh-oh. Can you imagine the whining we’d hear from CAIR–and all other PC speech-stifling groups–from these videos today? Today, the only place these videos would be tolerated would be at a Julie Myers Halloween costume party.
My personal fave of his songs is the last video (but it, sadly, comes without the un-PC stuff). Looking back on these vids, you gotta admit he was quite the showman and more talented than that for which he gets cred. Lots of acrobatics, the usual body-hugging loud clothes, and great jumps and splits. He was in great shape then.

By Debbie Schlussel
. . . That the feminist movement in America started out as a racist, Whites-only group?
I’d heard that before, but now there’s more evidence in a new book, “Ida: A Sword Among Lions,” by Paula Giddings. The book, about late Black journalist Ida B. Wells, mentions how Wells–who reported on and spoke out against lynchings–was excluded by feminists in the last century. From a Wall Street Journal book review by Mark Bauerlein:

To some, she was a brave crusader for a variety of reform movements –Wells was a staunch suffragist, for instance — but to others she was just a quarrelsome agitator. Still, Ida Wells Clubs opened in cities across the country, and benefactors sent money to her causes. She also made enemies and never understood the internal jockeying of political organizations. Despite her support, the women’s suffrage movement generally avoided Wells because its leaders didn’t want to alienate Southern women.

Yup, the next time you hear bra-burners like Gloria Steinem and Martha Burk yelling and screaming about equality, ask them why their movement started out as hardly the paragon of virtue in that department.