Since the answer is not immediately apparent, everyone jumps to the same conclusion, but sad to say, they are wrong; being one is not the same as having one.

But please, do not think that I am with Gatemouth because of a mental deficiency; there are other reasons as well. Though I may be appear to be a simple agrarian working on my second graduate degree, I assure you that I am not a country pumpkin; I am witty and irrelevant. Yes, English is not my first language, only my fifth, but do not underestimate me . While it is true that I am beautiful and stylish, I am also very smart. I do have my reasons, even if I’ve long ago forgotten them. Besides, Gatemouth is a person of unparalleled generosity--when he has an opinion, he always makes sure to share it with everyone.

One day, as is his wont, Gatemouth said something obnoxious and I told him "Stop being supercilious."

He responded, "excuse me, but unlike you, I didn’t learn English in a classroom, I learned it in the street; use a smaller word."

So, I said "OK, stop being a prick."

I do not mind the things Gatemouth has to say about other people, although they are often mean, petty and boorish. But, then again, his subjects are local politicians, who are, by nature, mean, petty and boring. No one cares about the peculiarities of such pathetic losers and gonovim. Reading Gatemouth writing about them is like coming across one of “Herzog‘s” letters ranting about the rats in Florida. Talk about “Him with his Foot in His Mouth.“ Why can he not aspire to something more lucrative? And if not more lucrative, at least more lofty; my own personal ambition is to sit at home all day and read Proust.

I don’t even mind that Gatemouth’s blogs, unlike some of his other attributes, are too fucking long. It is almost like being forced to repeatedly re-read “War and Peace,” except that Tolstoy is easier to follow and had better jokes.

What I do mind is Gatemouth’s apparently uncontrollable compulsion to put his thoughts into print and publish them. If Gatemouth is wrong about such people, then they do not deserve to be his targets. And, if he is actually right about them, why does he want to want to pish them off by denouncing them?

If I wanted to be targeted for a purge by the political class, I would have stayed in Eastern Europe, where I could eat my native food without sitting in restaurants full of hipsters and poseurs.

I am sick of the crank calls from the likes Fat Ugly Smelly Toothless Bastard, and the complaints to Gatemouth’s employer from the likes of Emeraldstein. And don't get me stated about that homunculus, Curly Kugel. Genug icht genug.

Gatemouth is on notice–no more blogging about local politics; If he continues to do so, I would not want to be him.

Having recently experienced some stress on the domestic front, it is hard not to sympathize with those whose issues within their households occasionally impact upon their lives in the outside world.

Thus, Mrs. Edwards is old news.

But family members of those in the political world can be inconvenient in other ways as well.

Take the household of City Councilman Charles Barron and his wife, Assemblywoman Inez.

Councilman Barron has long lusted after higher office, and will surely run for Borough President or try again to attain the seat in Congress currently held by Ed Towns, should one of those positions ever become vacant.

Yet, it is rare for someone in the "Progressive" community ever to actually question whether Councilman Barron is "Progressive" on the issues. The consensus seems to be that if not for his reverse racism, he would qualify with flying colors.

A recent Google search revealed that "Charles Barron" + "Progressive" attracted 6,470 hits. Contrast this with the results for WFP-endorsed Comptroller candidate John Liu (3540), WFP-endorsed Public Advocate candidate Bill DeBlasio (852), enrolled WFP member Leticia James (1,790, plus 284 if you search her as "Tish"), and such other left-liberal favorites as Rosie Mendez (713), Gail Brewer (205), Annabel Palma (147) and Melissa Mark Viverito (429).

And, in fact, at the far left end of the "Progressive" spectrum, groups like the International Action Center and ANSWER consider Charles Barron the epitome of political correctness. As they put it:

Who cares where a potential member of Congress stands on Robert Mugabe or the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, when he opposes Atlantic Yards?

By contrast, "Progressives," even those suspicious of Barron, largely despise poor Ed Towns. In 2008, Towns was rated a “Liberal Hero” by the American for Democratic Action, and has garnered consistently high rating from the ADA and other liberal groups. And yet, local "Progressives" consider Towns a reactionary.

As a result, "Progressives" have attacked Towns even when he’s walked the extra mile on their behalf. Last year, Daily Gotham blogger Michael Bouldin castigated Towns for voting against the Employment Non-Discrimination act (ENDA), a bill banning employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  

Here's what Brooklyn Teacher wrote on Bouldin's thread: "Ed Towns didn’t vote against ENDA because he's anti-gay rights, he voted as a protest vote because that version of the law didn't include protections for transgendered people. It was in fact a MORE progressive vote, and this was recognized by Melissa Sklarz, a leader in the transgender rights movement active with the Stonewall Democrats who was disappointed in their decision to endorse Towns' opponent. DO YOUR RESEARCH!!"

I'd assumed Towns had followed Barney Frank's lead and voted for an ENDA which failed to cover the transgendered. Frank thought it was the only bill he could pass, and that passing such a bill was the path to further progress. But, I was wrong, Town had not voted for that bill. 

Towns was not going to let anyone get to his left on an issue involving an interest group with members in his district, and therefore took the loony-left position of making the good the enemy of the perfect. It was almost as if he was morphing into Charles Barron or Kevin Powell. As such, the heat Towns took for his ENDA vote was that rarity in politics--both an unfair slander and still well-deserved.

By contrast, how can one question Charles Barron on the matter of Human Rights?

The ultra-"Progressive" Urban Justice Center (UJC) recently rated the entire City Council on the matter of Human Rights and ranked Councilman Barron second out of 51.

According to UJC, "Our work represents a unique and creative attempt to push for a higher standard of government accountability than U.S. legislation typically allows. For example, the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a host of international treaties articulate the right to basic necessities such as food, housing, health, and employment. However, U.S. safety net programs and laws do not clearly acknowledge these rights, and often circumvent or disregard them."

A salient point, though UJC’s actual application of it may be worthy of some reconsideration.

UJC includes in its Human Rights ratings such concerns as term limits, the recycling of electronics, street vendor permits and the Willets Point Development plan. Under such a standard, articulating support for as Mr. Barron does for violators (like Mr. Mugabe) of what are thought of as more traditionally defined "Human Rights," including those of homosexuals (who Mr. Mugabe compares unfavorably to dogs) does not bar one from being a UJC "Human Rights" hero.

A contrasting view is of “Human Rights” is held by the premier national lobby for the LGBT community, which calls itself the "Human Rights Campaign (HRC)." It should be noted that, though HRC concentrates on issues of concern to its specific constituency, it has consistently supported traditionally defined "Human Rights" across the board.

In New York, the local equivalent of the HRC is the Empire State Pride Agenda, and it’s primary focus is currently same sex marriage. I think it is safe to say that, in the "Progressive" precincts of New York, it is no longer considered good enough to be right on all other matters if one opposes same sex marriage.

Those unfortunate enough to be living in communities like East New York cannot be blamed if they decide to derive their entertainment through their elected officials, whether it be Councilman Chuckles Barron or their former Assemblywoman, Diane "House of the Rising Sum" Gordon. When Christine Quinn forced the firing of Councilman Barron’s Chief of Staff, Viola Plummer, for advocating an attempt on the life of another Council Member, I was shocked and bothered.

Voters who chose Barron as their Councilman knew what they were getting; and they had a right to a Councilman with a staff dedicated to implementing his agenda, whether it be telling tall-tales about Mr. Charlie or assassinating Leroy Comrie.

Luckily, with the judicially ordained replacement of Ms. Gordon by Mrs. Barron, democracy has been allowed to prevail, and Ms. Plummer has once again been restored to her rightful place as a parasite at the public teat, this time through Assemblywoman Barron’s not-so-good offices.

No one can say that, as an elected official, Ms. Barron has not lived up to expectations.

Except in one matter.

Unexpectedly, Mrs. Barron has followed the lead of the reactionary, Bible-thumping criminal who proceeded her in the Assembly (a women who used to have the guests at her fundraisers write the checks out to her personally) and has voted against same sex marriage.

Like Charles Barron, Ed Towns also has a family member serving in the New York State Assembly. Can you imagine the uproar on the left if Darryl Towns, the Congressman’s son, had voted against the right of same-sex couples to marry? ET would surely not hear the end of it. Like everything else Ed Towns does, right or wrong, in the "Progressive" community this would have stuck to ET like Velcro.

But, on the matter of Mrs. Barron’s vote, the politically correct left has so-far been silent.

Where is the statement of outrage from CBID President Lucy Koteen, a outspoken supporter of Charles Barron’s Congressional race?

I myself sympathize with Chuckles here. I cannot control my spouse. Why should Barron be able to control his? The fact that Chuckles sold Inez to the voters as more of the same in a prettier package does not empower him with the means to deliver what he promised.

So, I am not blaming Chuck for his wife’s vote (as opposed to his wife’s election); I am merely asking that he publicly repudiate that vote.

Will "Progressives" ask the same?

And what will Mr. Barron say?