Mar
5

Thanks for publishing this moron, WaPo




Posted at 22:27 by Brad

Ugh. Charlotte Allen’s chat over at the WaPo is bloody painful:

charlotte_allen_140x140.jpg

Washington: You write that you doubt women’s representation in such fields as law (the Supreme Court) and medicine (brain surgeons) will rise much in the 21st century. However more women than men currently are graduating from law school and medical school. Could you please comment on this apparent contradiction?

Charlotte Allen: That’s absolutely true, but the proportion of women at the highest level of these fields is going to remain relatively small, I predict.

In other words: sure, more women are graduating from law school and medical school, but they’ll only comprise the stupid doctors and lawyers.

In other news, I hear that light-skinned black people are smarter than dark-skinned black people.

This is great stuff, WaPo. Let’s keep it going:

charlotte_allen_140x140.jpg

Silver Spring, Md.: Yes, women’s reasoning is sometimes clouded by emotion, but so is men’s. Why is “swooning” so much worse than murderous rage? How are “Eat, Love, Pray” and “Grey’s Anatomy” any more self-indulgent and fantastical than “On the Road” and James Bond movies? Are romance novels a less realistic picture of male-female relations than “Big Butt Sluts #23″? In short, why do you consider men’s irrational distortions forgiveable, while women’s are a sign of lower intelligence?

Charlotte Allen: I agree that men do many dumb things, and many men have dumb tastes.

*Blink*

*Blink*

Then… like… why did you write an entire article dedicated to the notion that women are stupid? If you think both sexes do dumb stuff then what was the point?

charlotte_allen_140x140.jpg

Washington: Why did you write this piece?

Charlotte Allen: Totally for fun.

And I’m sure her next piece talking about how silly black people are for wearing their pants too low and eating too much fried chicken will generate similar laughs.

And now for the real kicker:

charlotte_allen_140x140.jpg

New York: In addition to writing here that women are “dim,” at the Independent Women’s Forum you’ve written that Hurricane Katrina might have been “the best thing” to happen to New Orleans, which is full of “whiners … chiseling us taxpayers” out of money. Is that supposed to be satire too? Your sense of humor sure does seem hateful.

washingtonpost.com: What Really Happened After Hurricane Katrina (Independnet Women’s Forum, Oct. 11, 2005)

Charlotte Allen: I said Katrina was the best thing to happen to New Orleans because it finally opportunity to a huge number of New Orleans residents living in passive dependency on welfare to get out of New Orleans and change their lives for the better.

Holy crap.

She didn’t. No. No she did not. I refuse to believe she really said tha…

charlotte_allen_140x140.jpg

Charlotte Allen: I said Katrina was the best thing to happen to New Orleans because it finally opportunity to a huge number of New Orleans residents living in passive dependency on welfare to get out of New Orleans and change their lives for the better.

Sigh.

Well, WaPo, I’ve got to hand it to you. You’ve given voice to a complete lunatic who believes that having your life completely ruined is a tender act of mercy.

My God.

Thousands of them did exactly that–which is why there hasn’t exactly been a huge flood of those former residents flocking back to live in passive dependency and do just that. New Orleans itself now has a chance to change into a more self-reliant city.

I… ugh…

THEY CAN’T GO BACK TO LIVE IN NEW ORLEANS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO BLOODY HOMES!!!!!! WHAT IN GOD’S NAME IS WRONG WITH YOU?????!!!!!! THEY HAVE NO HOMES!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOO… HOOOOOOOOOOOOOMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT LIVING IN A FEMA SHACK OR WITH RELATIVES MAKES SOMEONE MORE “SELF-RELIANT?!?!?!?!” ARRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Another one:

charlotte_allen_140x140.jpg

East Bridgewater, Mass.: You seriously don’t even know what year women got the vote? Who on earth hired you to write about women’s issues?

Charlotte Allen: Why is the exact year germane to anything?

The best part about Charlotte Allen’s argument is that whenever someone calls her out for being stupid, she can respond by saying, “Hey, I’m just a stupid woman.” I use the same line of argument to explain to people why my honky ass will never win Dancing With the Stars.

Someone at the Post needs to be fired over this. Badly.

302 Comments »

  1. Snort said,

    March 5, 2008 at 22:31

    She’s the quicksand of stooopid.

  2. Proteus454 said,

    March 5, 2008 at 22:38

    *violent twitch*

  3. Hoosier X said,

    March 5, 2008 at 22:38

    Why is it relevant for anyone to know anything about the things they comment on? If you are called on your shit, just say you said it for fun and imply that anyone who questions your shit is a humorless dick or beholden to the politically correct crowd. If anyone asks what you mean by “the politically correct crowd,” just say you said it for fun and imply that anyone who questions your shit is a humorless dick or beholden to the politically correct crowd.

    Rinse and repeat. Season with circular logic, logical fallicies and heaping helpings of sophistry.

    You just can’t have enough sophistry!

  4. agc said,

    March 5, 2008 at 22:40

    I thought Butt Sluts #23-26 portrayed the relations accurately and with surprising sensitivity.

    Ms. Allen could learn a thing or two.

  5. Mr. Unhinged said,

    March 5, 2008 at 22:43

    Since she said bitchez were teh stupids in the first place, I feel comfortable saying that she’s one ugly, stupid bitch. What the fuck is wrong with her eyes?

  6. Legalize said,

    March 5, 2008 at 22:43

    “Why is the exact year germane to anything?”

    Wait. A. Second. Why does this sentence give me a severe headache? Never mind.

    *does a bong hit*

    Ahhhhhh, exactly, Charlotte. Having a functional knowledge of ANY topic upon which one wishes to expound is not germane to anything at all. In fact, having something intelligent to say about a topic is actually elitist and one of the many fascisms that liberals are known for – which I believe is central to your point.

  7. Nuff Ced MacGreavey said,

    March 5, 2008 at 22:44

    Lets just change the paper’s name to WhaaPooh

  8. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 5, 2008 at 22:44

    She would look better in pirate garb.

  9. donnah said,

    March 5, 2008 at 22:47

    When I read the crap that she writes, and then I read the stupid things she says to justify the crap that she writes, I want to scream. My son is a journalism student with the intention of writing for magazines. I know for a fact that not only is he a good writer, but he could write absolute rings around Allen. Yet she’s getting paid for this so-called writing and talented young writers are searching for a shot at writing professionally. Ye gods!

  10. Susan of Texas said,

    March 5, 2008 at 22:48

    Ooooh, the wingnuts got their talking points. This is Charlotte Allen on Univerities:

    At Occidental, for instance, it seems nearly impossible to study any field, save for the hard sciences, that doesn’t include “race, class and gender” among its topics. Even the Shakespeare course at Occidental this semester focuses on “cultural anxieties over authority, race, colonialism and religion” during the age of the Bard.

    The bigger problem is that too much of American higher education has lost any notion of what its students ought to know about the ideas and people and movements that created the civilization in which they live: Who Plato was or what happened at Appomattox.

    Sound familiar? She is an editor for BeliefNet and seems to be your garden-variety Jesus! nut. I guess the idea of women as human beings is ungodly.

  11. Blue Buddha said,

    March 5, 2008 at 22:49

    Is that seriously the picture she uses for her columns? (I can’t tell… need a subscription to look at original article) Because it really looks like shit. That’s the type of picture you use on photo IDs.

  12. El Cid said,

    March 5, 2008 at 22:49

    What if she had just said “the womenfolk of today” instead of saying “women” in order to be clear that today’s women couldn’t hold a candle to the mid-19th century women she grew up with out on the pioneer homesteads? Would that have helped?

  13. Susan of Texas said,

    March 5, 2008 at 22:49

    Or mug shots.

  14. Snort said,

    March 5, 2008 at 22:50

    What Hoosier X said. Bravo!

  15. PeeJ said,

    March 5, 2008 at 22:50

    She’s been hired to take Goeglein’s place at the WH. They figure she couldn’t possibly have plagairized that from anyone, anywhere, ever.

  16. J— said,

    March 5, 2008 at 22:52

    Her 3/2/08 Washington Post piece lists only her email address. Her Comment Is Free profile is more informative.

    Charlotte Allen edits the InkWell blog for the Independent Women’s Forum and writes regularly for the Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, and Weekly Standard. She is author of The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus.

  17. Susan of Texas said,

    March 5, 2008 at 22:53

    Did they find him?

  18. Blue Buddha said,

    March 5, 2008 at 22:54

    Susan of Texas said,

    March 5, 2008 at 22:49

    Or mug shots.

    I would’ve said that, but not that many people smile in their mug shots (the only ones I can think of is Bill Gates and Tom Delay).

  19. sophronia said,

    March 5, 2008 at 22:54

    Can we now officially say that journalism as a profession has reached its absolute nadir? I just don’t see how it can get much more inane and worthless than this, but I’ve thought that before, and they never cease to surprise me.

  20. ploeg said,

    March 5, 2008 at 22:55

    They figure she couldn’t possibly have plagairized that from anyone, anywhere, ever.

    Plus she reminds the boss of “his mom.

  21. foreigner said,

    March 5, 2008 at 22:59

    She is author of The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus.

    Which appears to be not a total lump of crap: http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/HumanChrist.htm — no, Susan, they didn’t find him.

  22. OTB said,

    March 5, 2008 at 22:59

    I don’t think it’s funny that you use a photo of a mentally ill homeless crackhead from COPS to make your point about charlotte allen. not funny at all.

  23. GSD said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:00

    I for one am very tired of these left wting politically correct people who are hypersensitive to everything and who just knee jerkily do whatever the liberal mainstream media asks them to do.

    -Proud Lapel Flag Pin Wearing Conservative Ditto-Head Fighting the War On Christmas and Defending Christians Who Are Under Attack

  24. Gundamhead said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:00

    As I asked in a previous thread: why are all the anti-feminist women such losers? I mean K-load, Pam Geller, this person. Don’t any half way smart and accomplished women want to move gender relations back to what they were in the eighteenth century? I’m gonna guess no. Wonder why not?

  25. PeeJ said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:00

    Mathematics has this mathy thing called the Hamming Distance. It’s a measure of how far it is from one place to another in an particular kind of abstract space.

    What the world needs is a Barking Moonbat Pundit Distance which measures the distance – number of pargraphs or words – between two contradictory claims.

    At Occidental, [...] impossible to study any field [...] that doesn’t include “race, class and gender” among its topics. Even the Shakespeare course at Occidental this semester focuses on “cultural anxieties over authority, race, colonialism and religion” during the age of the Bard.

    The bigger problem is that too much of American higher education has lost any notion of what its students ought to know about the ideas and people and movements that created the civilization in which they live: Who Plato was or what happened at Appomattox.,

    So the problem is that that people hafta talk about all this cultural context stuff.
    So the problem is that the big bad Unis don’t know there’s cultural context to be considered.

    Charlotte Allen Distance: one paragraph.

  26. Susan of Texas said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:00

    Foreigner–it has to be a lump of crap, It was written by a silly dumb woman!

  27. SenderC said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:00

    I don’t blame Allen. Like Coulter, she just wants to be famous and will say any inflammatory/stupid thing to get that fame. All the Washington Post had to do was ignore her submission and let her shop it to Townhall, World Net Daily, etc. But I guess they couldn’t let the opportunity to get their very own Ed Anger go by.

  28. ploeg said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:01

    That is to say, she reminds the boss of his mom.

  29. nick said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:01

    Another quote worthy of ridicule:

    Women fainting for Obama: People faint at huge rallies all the time. Usually it’s attributed to heat, fatigue, etc. You are the one who make this important by assuming it’s not heat exhaustion but “mass hysteria.”

    Charlotte Allen: Heat exhaustion? One of the faints occurred in Maryland in February.

    Yeah – because it never gets hot or stuffy in a crowded room in the winter.

    What a complete and utter pointy-headed nitwit.

  30. ploeg said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:01

    His mom!

  31. J— said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:02

    For those who might be curious:

    College Park, Md.: I’m interested to know how the piece ended up in The Post. Did they solicit it? Did Ms. Allen shop it around to different papers?

    Charlotte Allen: The piece wasn’t solicited. Ms. Allen shopped it to the Post alone.

    From today’s chat at the Post.

  32. gbear said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:03

    OTB, Right across from my office it a billboard about what crack can do to your looks. She does look a whole lot like the ‘before’ picture, but even that picture looks like someone who’s about to run off and do a lot of crack. Same smile and eyes.

  33. J— said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:05

    But I guess they couldn’t let the opportunity to get their very own Ed Anger go by.

    Ed Anger was funny.

  34. Think Progress » Allen: Katrina was ‘best thing to happen to New Orleans.’ said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:08

    [...] Sadly No)  4:08 pm | [...]

  35. Robert M. said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:08

    Via Susan:

    At Occidental, for instance, it seems nearly impossible to study any field, save for the hard sciences, that doesn’t include “race, class and gender” among its topics. Even the Shakespeare course at Occidental this semester focuses on “cultural anxieties over authority, race, colonialism and religion” during the age of the Bard.

    The fact that Shakespeare wrote explicitly about conflicts of race (Othello), class (Julius Caesar), and gender (Taming of the Shrew) is probably central to her point. Those ivory-tower elite professors should stop forcing their students to understand the antecedents of modern Western policies and conflicts, and instead force them to memorize the number of Confederate soldiers that died in which battles on what date.

    So, again with the dilemma: is she so stupid that she actually believes this, or so malevolent that she doesn’t care about the consequences of dialing back women’s rights to the 19th century?

  36. PeeJ said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:08

    This blog is seriously deficient in wine/whisky/cuisine posts!

    A lovely slab of braunschweiger on a toasted english muffin slathered with mayo. Don’t forget to sprinkle on a good pinch of garlic powder. There, I feel so much better now. Dassa a good sammich, yessiree Bob!

  37. Sagra said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:10

    My son is a journalism student with the intention of writing for magazines. I know for a fact that not only is he a good writer, but he could write absolute rings around Allen.

    He should ask Mrs. Allen for a referral, since I’m sure she would agree that his maleness automatically makes him a much better writer than herself.

  38. PeeJ said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:10

    ‘Scuse while I make another. What whisky goes with braunschweiger? It’s lunchtime already.

  39. pedestrian said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:10

    By her own logic she is too dumb to write her own article. Or is that too dumb to understand it? Oh, now I get it.

    She should do a follow-up about how the ELF is doing all those rich people a favor by burning down their McMansions.

  40. javafascist said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:12

    I’d like to define the following unit of measure: a CA Unit

    A CA Unit is equal to the number of glasses of scotch it takes to raise your IQ to human being level after reading a column by the odious and thoroughly stupid Charlotte Allen.

    Going to take a lot of CA Units tonight…

  41. K. Ron Silkwood said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:13

    My violent fit of retching will end eventually.

  42. Batocchio said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:14

    They really need to can Outlook editor Pomfret. He’s been consistently godawful.

  43. SenderC said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:16

    Ed Anger was funny.

    Yeah, Allen is no Anger. But I think the Post felt that Allen could be their own lovable crank. Unfortunately, she’s not a parody of a lunatic (like Anger was), she’s the real deal.

  44. moondancer said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:18

    Looks like one of Nick Noltes DUI mugshots…

  45. Candy said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:19

    Brad owes me a new laptop. When I read the Katrina thing my jaw dropped off my face and smashed the little latch thingies that hold my notebook shut.

    Seriously, WTF IS WRONG WITH HER? I know Brad asked that question, and apparently a lot of commenters asked her that question, but I really want to know WTF IS WRONG WITH HER? I think we should keep loudly asking that question of the WaPo until we get a satisfactory response.

    Pass that bong, Legalize.

  46. Smut Clyde said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:19

    too much of American higher education has lost any notion of what its students ought to know about the ideas and people and movements that created the civilization in which they live:…

    So the problem is that the big bad Unis don’t know there’s cultural context to be considered.

    You have missed the point, PeeJ, which is that universities are teaching cultural context, but not the context that students ought to know.
    ————————
    She is author of The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus.
    Why is the exact year germane to anything?

  47. Snort said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:20

    I thought she looked familiar

  48. J— said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:21

    Yeah, Allen is no Anger. But I think the Post felt that Allen could be their own lovable crank. Unfortunately, she’s not a parody of a lunatic (like Anger was), she’s the real deal.

    Yes, this sounds right. A resident or at least visiting troll in the Outlook section. It certainly has generated attention. In instances like these, I, like you, get more frustrated with the editors and publishers. Kooks can write whatever they want to write, but that doesn’t mean they have to be published.

  49. Jay B. said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:23

    At Occidental, for instance, it seems nearly impossible to study any field, save for the hard sciences, that doesn’t include “race, class and gender” among its topics.

    Yeah I betcha “biology” never even touches gender issues.

  50. t4toby said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:23

    What we really need is a picture of GrandPaw next to this picture.

    Raving lunatics, unite!

    BTW- No one should get fired for this. This is way too much fun. I mean, look at her for G-d’s sake! (h/t Rottweiler)

    You can’t make things like her up. She looks like a cross between Jesus fever and a hefty dose of Zanex.

    Jesus feels like…pillows…

  51. J— said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:27

    For all of you interested in further right-wing reflections on What Is Wrong with Academia, she also has an essay on Antioch College, published last November by The Weekly Standard. I’m going to try to read it tonight.

  52. Jay B. said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:27

    And in an extra special double irony, an idiot who happens to be a woman writes about women being idiots and then complains that Universities include too much ‘race, class and gender‘ issues in their coursework.*

    * Since Bob Somerby complained that few mention the idiotic “women are fickle” companion piece, I’d also like to say that Lisa Hirshman is also an idiot who just happens to be a woman.

  53. Charlotte Bickle said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:29

    Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets.

  54. t4toby said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:30

    The ghost of Joe Strummer speaks!

  55. Professor Illuminata said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:34

    How do you construct a whole university-level class around who Plato was or the facts about what happened at Appomattox? How could that take up 15 weeks? I mean seriously — “I am supposed to teach you students who Plato was, and nothing else that might help you understand what he said. So… Plato’s just zis guy, you know?”

  56. pedestrian said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:34

    Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets.

    It’s true, a hard rain is gonna fall. If it is like most rains though, it will mostly just drown people who are poor, nonviolent, or have any sense of decency.

  57. Alec said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:38

    Anti-feminism is pretty consistently rooted in class warfare. A lot of its most visible figures have made a nice little cottage industry out of cranking out books and speaking deals for themselves doing it. For that matter, they take abundant advantage of the very things they stridently insist are Unwomanlike or Immoral – that is, they tend to be high-powered, independent professionals with strong family planning resources and skills. And they’ll get their own daughters birth control and abortions when it comes down to it, and won’t let some dumb-ass boy plant his flag on her virgin soil.

    Upper-class women chiding lower-class women for working (or, for that matter, for acquiring seniority – any woman who demands maternity leave or doesn’t have kids long enough to get benefits is some kindofa dyke) is pretty simple to the kintergarten Marxist in all of us – it all boils down to one small group of rich assholes trying to force the majority out of posing a threat. Dig through any woman screeding about ungodly pants-wearing Hitleryoids and you’ll find a GOP delegate with a 401K, a prenup, and not a skirt to her name. The difference, of course, is that the women she helps create a culture of contempt for would be competition if they were allowed to achieve what their abilities dictate.

  58. OB-GYN Kenobi said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:47

    Bring back the hawt-but-stoopid chix.

  59. Blue Buddha said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:48

    J— said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:27

    For all of you interested in further right-wing reflections on What Is Wrong with Academia, she also has an essay on Antioch College, published last November by The Weekly Standard. I’m going to try to read it tonight.

    I used to live 10 miles south of Yellow Springs, and that town is dying a slow death. Antioch shutting down might be the final nail in its coffin.

    Did PCness kill Antioch? Maybe… maybe not. But what definitely killed it was that the faculty got extremely lazy around ten years ago: they didn’t bother to do anything to draw in new students, and they started becoming no more than a degree mill by letting the students write their own curricula and grade themselves.

  60. We Love America More Than Anyone. » deep thinkers. said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:49

    [...] sadly no has more. and for disclosure, i wrote my “ugh” before reading theirs. Filed under: [...]

  61. PS said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:50

    If anyone does wade through the article on Antioch, which I just failed to do, instead skimming with some desperation to find the end, would you please explain the ending:

    “No, Antioch College certainly doesn’t need more political correctness du jour. What it needs, in order to save it from turning into the ghost campus of Yellow Springs that it nearly is today, is a few more liberals.”

    Since it’s in the Weekly Standard, I would have thought that libruls is bad. And libruls is PC, innit? But … this is too hard for me, clearly.

  62. Zuzu said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:51

    This is the hack whose last piece for the WaPo advised people to forgo advance directives because they were the product of a conspiracy of the “intellectual elite” to get us all to die when they “think it is appropriate for you to die.” A piece that was also full of misrepresentations of scientific studies and just plain bad information.

    Allen’s previous nutball rant

    Even though the piece got a similarly outraged response (if not in the 1000 comments range), the WaPo STILL decided to keep publishing her pap.

    And they act surprised?

  63. Blue Buddha said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:51

    Charlotte Bickle said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:29

    Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets.

    You talkin’ to me? Then who the hell else are you talking… you talking to me? Well I’m the only one here.

  64. Anne Laurie said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:52

    Shorter Allen: There’s always an easy dollar to be made slagging the Not-White-Males for being insufficiently Male and/or White. Sure, you might have to trade in your self-respect first, but I’ve got yeeeeaaars of pratice at that.

    Back in the 1970s, feminists tried to come up with a label equivalent to “Uncle Tom” or “house Negro”. Never did find one that worked, possibly because (it was suggested at the time) there was just too great a percentage of women with the power to spread such a meme who were already deeply committed to being “good and faithful servants” of the existing White-(Heterosexual)-Male-based power structures. After thirty years, there’s been some progress made — the number of people calling Allen on her shit proves that — but obviously the people writing the checks at the WaPo will never stop fighting a rearguard action.

  65. Southern Beale said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:52

    Isn’t Charlotte Allen the one who wrote an op-ed entitled “Why Are Flight Attendants So Ugly”?

    Why, yes she is.

    I’m working on an op-ed entitled “Why Does Charlotte Allen Hate Women?”

  66. MrWonderful said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:53

    “I used to live 10 miles south of Yellow Springs, and that town is dying a slow death. Antioch shutting down might be the final nail in its coffin.”

    Splendid! This will get the citizens of Yellow Springs off their passive dependency on Antioch and inspire them to change their lives for teh better.

  67. Zuzu said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:53

    Okay, trying the link again:

    Allen’s previous nutball rant

  68. Brandi said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:53

    I’d call her a cunt, but she lacks the depth and the charm. –William Styron.

  69. Girl from UNCLE said,

    March 5, 2008 at 23:59

    Why is “swooning” so much worse than murderous rage?

    At least I can get things done when I’m in a murderous rage, which I am in now because I’ve read more crap from Charlotte Adams.

    I usually believe in that “respect your elders” and “respect other viewpoints” stuff but lately I’ve been wanting to punch these wingnuts in the face.

  70. t4toby said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:01

    I didn’t think this issue was funny until I saw her picture.

  71. t4toby said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:07

    This is the face of the woman who wrote the article about flight attendants being ugly.

    LOLzers!!!1!

  72. social_invalid said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:08

    Just to lower the discourse a little bit lower…She is almost as stupid as she is ugly. There I said it; it had to be said.

  73. pedestrian said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:09

    Frankly, even as a woman, I miss the old sexist days, when stewardesses were stewardesses: pretty young things in cute mini-suits and little heels who oozed attention onto everyone–because who knew? They might end up marrying one of the passengers. Why does feminism have to mean the triumph of the ugly and the surly?

    She seems to think that she would have been a wealthy man in the old sexist days.

  74. sophie brown said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:14

    God, I remember a lot of these stupid and inflammatory pieces. Yet I never bothered to connect them with a writer. While it’s fun to take digs at Charlotte, and no one is more deserving, I am sorry that she has become a little less anonymous. She must be loving all this, because she’s finally succeeded in being outrageous enough to get on the rader. We need some Vulcan mind meld so we can erase her from memory when the ranting is done.

  75. SomeNYGuy said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:16

    t4toby said,
    March 6, 2008 at 0:07

    This is the face of the woman who wrote the article about flight attendants being ugly.

    Holy shit. I’m guessing her face was on fire, and some good samaritan tried to put it out with a baseball bat.

    She looks like what a flight attendant might dress as for Halloween.

  76. Susan of Texas said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:18

    The woman is a serious scholar when she feels like it, but is a “I’m just a little ol’ snow bunny” when she wants to make women seem stupid. She doesn’t mention her real point–women like obama, women are stupid, so liking obama is girly and weak and stupid. She makes no overt mention of religion or politics while trying to impose her religious and political beliefs on everyone else. A fake, a liar, a hypocrite, and a panderer.

  77. Zuzu said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:19

    Charlotte Allen: I said Katrina was the best thing to happen to New Orleans because it finally opportunity to a huge number of New Orleans residents living in passive dependency on welfare to get out of New Orleans and change their lives for the better.

    Actually, she didn’t say anything of the sort in that article. In fact, the Michael Lewis excerpt she quoted says pretty much the opposite:

    “The waters did their worst but still left the old city intact. They did to the public schools and the public-housing projects what the government should have done long ago. They called forth tens of billions of dollars in aid, and the attention of energetic people, to a city long starved of capital and energy. For the first time in my life, outsiders are pouring into the city to do something other than drink. For the first time in my life, the city is alive with possibilities. For the first time in my life, it doesn’t matter one bit who is born to be a king. Whatever else New Orleans is right now, it isn’t stagnant. As I left, I thought about what an oddly characteristic thing it would be if it was a flood that saved New Orleans.”

    IWF article

  78. Susan of Texas said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:21

    “And it’s a nice riposte to all those Mainstream Media journos who were so busy congratulating themselves for working themselves into a moral lather of Bush-bashing over Katrina that they failed to get the story.”

    I don’t think anyone can honestly misinterpret her message.

  79. melpomenh said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:26

    A Vulcan mind meld? You seem to favor the methods of a more civilized species. But since this case seems to involve the honor of group identities, I would prefer a good old Klingon battle to the death. If, in fact, her rants are the result of a delusion mind, rearranging her personality subroutines might be in order. There’s also the option of throwing her out the air-lock, a la Battlestar Galactica.

  80. Sniper said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:31

    If you think both sexes do dumb stuff then what was the point?

    The point is that because some women do dumb stuff, all women should be barred from public life, but men can do dumb stuff because they’re human.

    As I left, I thought about what an oddly characteristic thing it would be if it was a flood that saved New Orleans.”

    Except for all the people it killed. And rendered homeless. And the buildings that were destroyed. Other than that, totally saved!

    Heartless. Idiotic. In a sane world she would be unemployable.

  81. Smut Clyde said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:31

    Why does feminism have to mean the triumph of the ugly and the surly?
    If it does, I’m all for feminism.

  82. PeeJ said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:33

    You have missed the point, PeeJ, which is that universities are teaching cultural context, but not the context that students ought to know.

    Au contraire mon ami! I saw that ought and gave it some thought. I stand by my analysis. As Susan (?) pointed out above, she complains about focusing on the cultural context that is part and parcel of the subject at hand. The context that She then says it is the cultural context, part and parcel, that ought to be the focus.

    ought to know about the ideas and people and movements that created the civilization in which they live.
    “Who was Plato?”

    Definitely self contradictory.

  83. Kathleen said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:34

    at first I was annoyed at the idea of the “Chat with Charlotte Allen” as it seemed to legitimize her piece (i.e., there was something to “chat” about.) But given her responses, it is just more extreme embarassment to the WAPO, and I can only be in support of that.

    fuckers.

  84. PeeJ said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:35

    I really really really want a do-over on that one.

    Mulligan!

  85. actor212 said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:36

    But you know, it’s all about the shoes.

  86. PeeJ said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:37

    You have missed the point, PeeJ, which is that universities are teaching cultural context, but not the context that students ought to know.

    Au contraire mon ami!

    I saw that ought and gave it some thought. I stand by my analysis. As Susan (?) pointed out above, she complains about focusing on the cultural context that is part and parcel of the subject at hand.

    She (Allen, that is) then says it is precisely the cultural context, part and parcel, that ought to be the focus.

    [...] ought to know about the ideas and people and movements that created the civilization in which they live. Who was Plato?

    Definitely self contradictory.

  87. Randy Owens said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:41

    Did PCness kill Antioch? Maybe… maybe not.

    I think that Holy Hand Grenade might have had something to do with it. Let’s ask the detectives investigating the death of A Famous Historian what they think….

  88. William Godwin said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:41

    I never hit a lady. So I’ll just introduce her to my radical socialist feminist Welsh mother and she can do it instead.

  89. melpomenh said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:44

    PeeJ.

    I was under the impression that you called mulligan for:

    “I saw that ought
    and gave it some thought.”

    …a sentence that I find at once delightful and retarded. :)
    Carry on.

  90. Anne Laurie said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:45

    If, in fact, her rants are the result of a delusion mind, rearranging her personality subroutines might be in order. There’s also the option of throwing her out the air-lock, a la Battlestar Galactica.

    Or into the jet intake, if you prefer Firefly. Or marmelade.

    Note to concern trolls: I did the serious, constructive comment already, back around 23:52.

  91. J. Hill said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:46

    This is the same hack that wrote a hit piece on the green movement published in the LA Times a few weeks back. Moaning about the changes the Democrats made to the Hill cafe, using it as a springboard to deride organic/sustainable farming.

  92. Marita said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:49

    I think we need to hook this lady up with Grampa Simpson Carey Roberts from RenewAmerica. Then they can spend all their time hating women together!

  93. PeeJ said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:51

    melpomenh,

    That’s exactly how I felt about the sentence. Go with what you got, I always say.

  94. melpomenh said,

    March 6, 2008 at 0:58

    I think Allen is actually just privileging one cultural context over others. Her concerns related to the perception of women begins and ends during a time when women in the West have already achieved their rights, and are already recognized as being equals (legally). Hence her underappreciation for any historical context or significance that are related to women’s plight. She also undervalues the significance of context within context; she seems to be ignorant of the possibility of women being exploited in localized situations, or that a perception of women as inferiors could exist even while the society formally accepts them as equals.

  95. Sniper said,

    March 6, 2008 at 1:18

    Her concerns related to the perception of women begins and ends during a time when women in the West have already achieved their rights, and are already recognized as being equals (legally).

    Tell that to rape victims who brave the court system or women who try to sue for sex discrimination in the workplace.

  96. another jim said,

    March 6, 2008 at 1:24

    Lovely unintended call-and-response between the last line of this Sadlyno article on the front page, before the jump:

    “If you think both sexes do dumb stuff then what was the point?”

    And the title of the next article:

    “To Get More Stupider.”

    :) :)

    It really does answer the question quite nicely.

  97. OneMan said,

    March 6, 2008 at 1:26

    She doesn’t mention her real point–women like obama, women are stupid, so liking obama is girly and weak and stupid. She makes no overt mention of religion or politics while trying to impose her religious and political beliefs on everyone else.

    Nice insight, Susan.

  98. Candy said,

    March 6, 2008 at 1:45

    I usually believe in that “respect your elders” and “respect other viewpoints” stuff but lately I’ve been wanting to punch these wingnuts in the face.

    Thanks. I thought it was just me.

    Isn’t Charlotte Allen the one who wrote an op-ed entitled “Why Are Flight Attendants So Ugly”?

    That’s a mighty thin-paned glass house you’re living in, Charlottle. Throw them stones, girl.

  99. Bill S said,

    March 6, 2008 at 1:50

    She complains that college students aren’t being properly educated, yet can’t remember a historical fact that every kid in grade school learns?
    And that’s the LEAST stupid thing from that chat.
    The rest just made me want to find a huge pot, slap it over her head (the better not to look at her), and just start banging it with a wooden spoon, Bugs Bunny style.

  100. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 1:51

    C’mon. Make her a pirate.

  101. melpomenh said,

    March 6, 2008 at 1:52

    Um…Sniper.

    Tell that to rape victims who brave the court system or women who try to sue for sex discrimination in the workplace.

    but I did say this:

    She [Allen] also undervalues the significance of context within context; she seems to be ignorant of the possibility of women being exploited in localized situations, or that a perception of women as inferiors could exist even while the society formally accepts them as equals.

    …which speaks to your point.

  102. Krassen said,

    March 6, 2008 at 1:57

    The story is so offensive and got so much publicity, I feel that it affected yesterday’s primaries. Both TX and OH had close to 60% female turnout, much higher than previous primaries. Many women got outraged and mobilized by Ms. Allen, and Sen Clinton benefited.

    When you couple this with the loud appeals by Limbaugh for people to vote for Hillary, one has to wonder if that piece was not a deliberate provocation to help Clinton.

    Whatever the case is, the end result is that the Dem race is going to go the distance, get even bitter and I fail to see any upside in that…

  103. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 1:57

    PIRATE!!!

  104. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:00

    She could say “Yo ho ho” and like mean it and stuff.

  105. Candy said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:02

    Whatever the case is, the end result is that the Dem race is going to go the distance, get even bitter and I fail to see any upside in that…

    I’m starting to get really worried about this fall. I really didn’t think there was any way the Dems could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, not this year . . . I should have known better. One thing’s for sure: If McCain is elected president because all the pissed off Clinton supporters refused to vote for nominee Obama, or vice versa, I am outta this country. I’m going to try to go to Europe. I don’t think Canada’s far enough away.

  106. John said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:03

    HAHAHA
    Why am I laughing?
    This is sick.
    Why isn’t she gone?

  107. Candy said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:04

    Righteous Bubba, I like to play pirate. Every time I pass a Menard’s, I say, “Aaaarrrrrrrrr, Me nards!” It’s fun.

  108. JoshA said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:05

    Charlotte Allen says women are stupid.
    Charlotte Allen is a woman.
    Hence, Charlotte Allen says she herself is stupid.

    I don’t agree with Charlotte Allen about women’s stupidity as a whole. I do, however, agree with Charlotte Allen that Charlotte Allen is stupid.

  109. Random Observer said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:05

    But guys, come on, she’s totally just kidding! Can’t you tell?

  110. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:10

    >>”Someone at the Post needs to be fired over this. Badly.”

    Firing a journalist because you don’t like what they published is censorship. Direct your wrath at Allen, not at the newspaper that exposed her crudities of thought.

  111. foreigner said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:11

    Pirate?
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3017/2312653397_cc2de6f502.jpg

  112. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:12

    Heh. It works perfectly.

  113. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:13

    Firing a journalist because you don’t like what they published is censorship.

    No it is not.

    Thus endeth the lesson.

  114. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:13

    “>>”Someone at the Post needs to be fired over this. Badly.”

    Firing a journalist because you don’t like what they published is censorship. Direct your wrath at Allen, not at the newspaper that exposed her crudities of thought.

    Fred Hiatt, for one, has given a plethora of reasons why he should be fired.

  115. fascistphil said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:14

    I knew I’d seen her before.

  116. Lakeesha Shaidle said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:18

    What is WaPo short for? Washington Pantload?

  117. Matt T. said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:22

    Firing a journalist because you don’t like what they published is censorship. Direct your wrath at Allen, not at the newspaper that exposed her crudities of thought.

    No, the government demanding a writer be fired because they didn’t like what s/he thought would be censorship. Demanding the Post remove this waste of space from their paper is the marketplace reacting to a pitifully poor product. The hell are we supposed to do with Allen, throw eggs at her house? You write for a living and you write mundane, insulting idiocy and then when you’re called, you pathetically try to pass it off as “Oh, just joking, bitches”, you have not earned a position with a prestigious newspaper, end of story.

  118. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:26

    You can legitimately question the editorial judgement behind the WaPo’s decision to publish this piece, but contending that Allen’s article shoud have been rejected because you disagree with her assertions is, in fact, censorship.

  119. PR said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:27

    When did the WaPo become a prestiious paper?

  120. American Street » Blog Archive » Jeebus H. Koresh On A Crutch said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:27

    [...] thing that Sadly, No! is on the case. The WaHoPo seems to have stepped in it this time. I wonder if there will be any [...]

  121. Daphne Chyprious said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:28

    That’s “seriously” a photo of Charlotte Allen? Looking, presumably, her BEST for the camera, if only to compensate for being inherently stupid? Then for God’s sake let’s pity her. She has much bigger problems than writing the most self-destructive essay of the century thus far.

  122. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:30

    contending that Allen’s article shoud have been rejected because you disagree with her assertions is, in fact, censorship.

    In fact, it is not.

  123. D. Sidhe said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:31

    But guys, come on, she’s totally just kidding! Can’t you tell?

    I’ve said it before. If you’re gonna try to get a laugh out of “Jane, you ignorant slut”, we need to actually believe that this isn’t the sort of thing you routinely say to every woman you meet. Charlotte’s “For fun”? Fail.

  124. J— said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:38

    I don’t think Doubleday should have published Liberal Fascism. Hey, I just censored Random House! I had no idea I had such powers!

  125. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:39

    >>”Demanding the Post remove this waste of space from their paper is the marketplace reacting to a pitifully poor product.”

    The way the marketplace deals with something it doesn’t like is not to buy it. When you stop buying the Post because you don’t like what they publish, that’s the marketplace. When you assert the right to tell the Post what they should and should not publish based on what you do not want other people to read, that is obviously censorship.

    Allen is obviously a fool, but people who want to control what people read are a threat.

  126. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:40

    I had no idea I had such powers!

    You are a veritable He-Man.

  127. Johnny Coelacanth said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:42

    Is that really Charlotte Allen in the pictures? Mein Gott in Himmel. Talk about poor bilateral symmetry.

  128. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:44

    When you assert the right to tell the Post what they should and should not publish based on what you do not want other people to read, that is obviously censorship.

    You really need to work on constructing sentences that say what you mean. Also, sentences that aren’t stupid. Why I would go so far as to say that you shouldn’t have clicked that submit button.

  129. Snorghagen said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:45

    … contending that Allen’s article shoud have been rejected because you disagree with her assertions is, in fact, censorship.

    Contending that you have a clue what you’re talking about is, in fact, stumphumping buttdrizzle.

  130. tb said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:46

    Guys, it’s really not cool to post the picture of some random, obviously-mad old hag and claim that it’s Ms. Allen.

    And yes, you have to publish every wingnut in the world and pay them a lot of money or it’s censorship.

  131. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:48

    That sentence says exactly what I want it to say. The Post is free to print whatever it wants to print. You are free to stop buying the Post if you don’t like what it prints.

  132. another jim said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:48

    “…people who want to control what people read are a threat.”

    I disagree that wanting this woman fired is censorship. She can write or say anything she wants. I think wanting her fired is more like wanting accountability. She has said some ridiculous, baseless things from what is actually (somehow) still a prestigious soapbox. Wanting her removed from that soapbox is a legitimate desire. She can still find a crappier soapbox (i.e. Fox, National Review), or build her own by boiling the blood and flesh of the innocent (i.e. Coulter).

  133. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:51

    >>”…you have to publish every wingnut in the world and pay them a lot of money or it’s censorship”

    Wrong. Deciding an article doesn’t merit being published is an editorial decision. Deciding an artcle should not be published because you disagree with its politics is censorship.

    People who want to tell newspapers they can’t publish articles I think are rubbish are much greater threats than the articles.

  134. Matt T. said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:51

    justcorbly,
    No, it is not censorship in any form or fashion. It’s not because, frankly, the Post doesn’t have to listen to anyone with regards to how much they pay Allen. Now, if the Post’s editors and publishers demand the silencing of Allen for whatever reason or if the U.S. government tries to silence her, that is censorship. A bunch of yay-hoos ranting about how the silly jackass should be canned for writing such drivel isn’t. Nobody’s advocating “controlling what you read”. The’re just wondering why this obvious hack and pitiful excuse for a thinker has this sweet gig.

    Actual censorship against media voices from actual entities of power is an actually serious business, even here in the U.S. of good ol’ A. It’s far too serious to be wasted with the trivial definition you seem to want to give it.

  135. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:53

    Censor
    1. forbid the public distribution of ( a movie or a newspaper) [syn: ban]
    2. subject to political, religious, or moral censorship; “This magazine is censored by the government”

    Censure
    1. strong or vehement expression of disapproval: The newspapers were unanimous in their censure of the tax proposal.
    2. an official reprimand, as by a legislative body of one of its members.
    3. to criticize or reproach in a harsh or vehement manner: She is more to be pitied than censured.
    4. to give censure, adverse criticism, disapproval, or blame.

    There’s going to be a quiz on this stuff, kids, so take notes.

  136. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:55

    That sentence says exactly what I want it to say.

    Then you’re a dope.

    When you assert

    First of all an assertion is an assertion and nothing more. If you believe that saying something is in itself censorship then STOP CENSORING MEEEEEE!!!

    the right to tell the Post what they should and should not publish

    Yes, Virginia, you do have the right to tell the Post what they should and should not publish. This is called an “opinion” and you can find many of them on the intertubes. The Post need not pay attention, although sometimes they publish controversial documents demanding they not publish X or Y such as – you may have heard of these – LETTERS TO THE EDITOR – which – and get this – THEY ENCOURAGE!!!

    based on what you do not want other people to read,

    Nobody has said people should not be able to read Charlotte Allen. She is widely published.

    that is obviously censorship.

    Oh obviously.

  137. Fingal said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:55

    All this brouhaha is kind of silly. We’re talking about an article in a newspaper, as a result of which nobody has died, or is likely to. Your emotional hot buttons are being pushed, Dave — why don’t you take a stress pill and like down for a while…

    I don’t recall any similar attacks of the vapors in response to Richard Pryor’s or Eddie Murphy’s riffs on blacks, largely because it’s OK to make fun of a group of which you are yourself a member.

    Why does this particular one bother folks so F’ng much? It’s not as if women were right now being lynched at the rate of one a week, the way blacks were down South in the early 20th century. It’s not as if Ms. Allen were denying the Nazi holocaust.

    I think it’s highly unlikely that someone writing a similar article about how stupid men are, however much it might exaggerate and overgeneralize, would be able to trigger such a storm of pissing and moaning.

  138. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:55

    >>”I disagree that wanting this woman fired is censorship…”

    That is not censorship. Every newspaper has a right to hire and fire employees and puboish or not publish articles. But, when someone insists that a newspaper should not have published an article because they disagree with it, that’s advocating censorship.

  139. Fingal said,

    March 6, 2008 at 2:58

    …take a stress pill and lie down for a while… (HAL 9000)

  140. Smut Clyde said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:01

    Pirate?
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3017/2312653397_cc2de6f502.jpg

    Arrr, me thinks she needs morre Parrrot.

    Today I have learned that if I stop buying a newspaper on account of its shite correspondent, that would amount to putting pressure on the editors to fire the correspondent, which is c*ns*rsh*p.
    How about if I send the newspaper an anonymous donation, to compensate them for the drop in income? Would that make it OK?

    People who live in glass houses should not smoke rock. That is all.

  141. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:01

    >>”It’s far too serious to be wasted with the trivial definition you seem to want to give it…”

    No, it isn’t, Matt. Venting is one thing, telling a newspaper that they should not have published an article that expressed opinions you don’t like is wrong. The press is free to print what they wish and any assertion to the contrary is morally invalid. Those in this thread who argue that the Post should not have run the Allen piece because they don’t want other people reading it are advocating censorship.

  142. tb said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:01

    Deciding an article doesn’t merit being published is an editorial decision. Deciding an artcle should not be published because you disagree with its politics is censorship.

    What about if I decide an article shouldn’t be published because it’s a fucking bilious insult to my intelligence?

  143. another jim said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:03

    Well in all fairness justcorbly, I really think that’s not actually censorship.

    I mean, if we think a reality TV show sucks so bad it shouldn’t have been released, is that censorship? If we think a movie, such as oh I don’t know any goddamn romantic comedy released in the past year, is so egregiously bad that every person involved should be fired, is that censorship?

    I disagree.

    Now if what you’re saying is that’s *wanting censorship*, that’s different from *committing censorship*. I still don’t think it’s wanting censorship, even; I still think it’s just wanting accountability. No one’s saying *all people* should be prevented from making crappy reality TV shows or stupid-ass romantic comedies.

  144. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:03

    People who live in glass houses should not smoke rock.

    Stop censoring me.

  145. Matt T. said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:03

    Fingal,
    Question. Were Eddie Murphy’s and Richard Pryor’s riffs funny? This is an important distinction I think you’re missing, especially if the defense of jackassery is “Hey, folks, it’s just jokes!” Also, I think you need to relisten to at least Pryor’s older stuff, because I think his point is evading you.

    Also, if people are not allowed to get irritated at obvious, blatant mysoginy, from a woman or no, in a major newspaper, what are they allowed to get miffed at? Should stuff like that just be allowed without comment? What’s the limit, then? What’d make you go, “Hey,wait…”?

  146. tb said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:04

    Why does this particular one bother folks so F’ng much? It’s not as if women were right now being lynched at the rate of one a week, the way blacks were down South in the early 20th century. It’s not as if Ms. Allen were denying the Nazi holocaust.

    Yeah, what is the big deal? It’s just about bitches.

  147. Snorghagen said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:04

    People who want to tell newspapers they can’t publish articles I think are rubbish are much greater threats than the articles.

    I am indeed a powerful threat to the freedom of ugly wingnut journalists everywhere.

    …telling a newspaper that they should not have published an article that expressed opinions you don’t like is wrong.

    God, you’re a fucking idiot.

  148. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:05

    telling a newspaper that they should not have published an article that expressed opinions you don’t like is wrong.

    It’s so wrong that newspapers…hire people to be wrong at them.

  149. another jim said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:05

    I mean really, justcorbly, that’s like saying that telling someone they said something wrong and stupid and they shouldn’t have said it, is violating their free speech rights.

    It’s not. They can still say whatever they want, just like the person who told them to shut up.

  150. Matt T. said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:07

    justcorbly,
    Okay, I give up. I’m not engaging you after this because it’s obvious you have absolutely no clue as to what censorship – real, honest censorship – actually means to a thriving press. I also don’t think you have any clue as to how the newspaper business works. So good luck to ya. This is not an “agree to disagree” sort of thing, mind; you are objectively wrong and, thus, arguing from a imaginary position. I’m just too tired to go around with someone who will obviously not listen. My advice is to read up on actual censorship cases in the media. FAIR’s a good place to start, so’s the Censored List put out every year.

  151. tb said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:08

    Stop censoring me.

    At the risk of censoring you again, I like the first way better:

    STOP CENSORING MEEEEEE!!!

  152. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:10

    >>”What about if I decide an article shouldn’t be published because it’s a fucking bilious insult to my intelligence?”

    Well, obviously, that’s an editorial decision.

    As I’ve said, if you decide not to print an article for the sole reason that you don’t want other people to read the political opinions it expresses, that’s advocating censorship.Deciding not to published something you think insults the readers’ intelligence is one thing. Deciding not to publish something only because you don’t want your readers exposed to its opinion is another,

    Allen’s opinions are ludicrous and insulting, and hardly a threat, but anyone who would claim the right to decide what a newspaper can and cannot publish is a real threat.

  153. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:12

    I am getting censored all over the goddamned place here. Look, a nipple at the Super Bowl is just not that big a deal!

  154. thepoliticalcat said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:13

    Hey, Nuff Said McGreavey,

    Wouldju just not steal my lines? Thank you.

    This has been your satirical comment for the day.

  155. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:13

    Justcorbly is justconfused, which is justfine unless justcorbly has any sort of position that requires knowledge of laws or rules or definitions. That would be justafuckingshame.

  156. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:14

    anyone who would claim the right to decide what a newspaper can and cannot publish

    Ooo, a sentence that comes close to what censorship might actually be. Keep working on that. Oh wait, didn’t finish it:

    anyone who would claim the right to decide what a newspaper can and cannot publish is a real threat.

    Self implosion.

  157. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:16

    Matt, all I know is that some people on this thread say the Post should not have published an article because they disagree with it. I hope they never run a newspaper.

    Arguing that a article didn’t merit publication because it is specious, or poorly researched, or factually incorrect, is fair game. Arguing that other people should be prevented from reading an article only because you disagree with it is wrong.

  158. El Cid said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:17

    All of you doing all this expression of opinions which are not mine is exactly like 4,000 Hitlers sending all of us to the gas chambers while making young children read over megaphones that free speech is wrong.

    And I don’t like to engage in any hyperbole, either.

  159. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:19

    justcorbly said,
    March 6, 2008 at 3:16 (kill)
    Matt, all I know

    Quite possible.

  160. Sniper said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:22

    …which speaks to your point.

    Yeah. I wasn’t so much arguing with you as pointing out that technical equality before the law doesn’t mean a damned thing in many cases. Black people have had the vote for decades – doesn’t stop disenfranchisement efforts.

    But, when someone insists that a newspaper should not have published an article because they disagree with it, that’s advocating censorship.

    Censorship is done by institutions – governments, churches, and the like. Calling someone an idiot who shouldn’t be published is not censorship. Nobody has the right to be paid for their opinions… or you owe everyone here $10.

  161. Heretic said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:23

    Um.

    Charlotte Allen: I said Katrina was the best thing to happen to New Orleans because it finally opportunity to a huge number of New Orleans residents living in passive dependency on welfare to get out of New Orleans and change their lives for the better.

    Am I the only one who thinks that this was originally written in Chinese, and then run through BabelFish or something? It ‘finally opportunity to?’ That’s worse than ‘Pimp Stick, Wet Goods,’ as the name of a tobacco and liquor store, and even approaches ‘Make the pie higher!’

  162. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:24

    So nice to know, Bubba, et al, that you’re all so smart that you can decide what the rest of us should read.

  163. PeeJ said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:24

    I just want to say censored and what’s more, censored further fnord

  164. Matt T. said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:25

    RB,
    Maybe I’m reading that wrong, but I don’t think I’m comfortable with the idea of being the complete sum of someone’s knowledge, much less when that someone isn’t fucking paying attention. You ever argue with someone convinced that evolution/atheism/science is a religion? That shit drives me slap up the wall.

    Jesus, people. Books are your friends. Read up on shit before you start running your damn fool mouth.

  165. PeeJ said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:25

    Nah, I didn’t think the blink tag would actually work.

  166. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:26

    So nice to know, Bubba, et al, that you’re all so smart that you can decide what the rest of us should read.

    You are forbidden to read the internets as of April 1 2008. Thus saith the Grand Censor of Censure.

  167. El Cid said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:26

    The Washington Post‘s failure to publish this very comments page is proof of their anti-free speech censorship. We all have an innate human right to have our columns prominently published in the Washington Post whenever we want, that’s why each issue each day is 300 million pages long.

  168. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:27

    Maybe I’m reading that wrong, but I don’t think I’m comfortable with the idea of being the complete sum of someone’s knowledge, much less when that someone isn’t fucking paying attention.

    There is so much fucking censorship going on on this thread that my pet may die.

  169. Jay B. said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:28

    Allen’s opinions are ludicrous and insulting, and hardly a threat, but anyone who would claim the right to decide what a newspaper can and cannot publish is a real threat.

    So the editors and the publishers are the real threat then, eh champ?

    By the way, here’s how your “if you don’t like it, don’t buy it” theory would work — by avoiding purchase you are hoping to object to its content through market means (a boycott, say) and, hopefully, inflict damage on the paper, which will make it change its idiotic behavior in the first place — which is just a longer, more convoluted way of saying “don’t publish this”!

    I know this is tough because you probably have to finish a midterm, or crayon in your Happy Meal map or something, but opining about the fitness of what is in a newspaper (threat or no) is also called “criticism”. You don’t need a license to practice it. Nor is criticism particularly in line with censorship.

    By coming down against pap and stupidity in a newspaper, you are NOT engaging in censorship — they can, after all, try and get their piece published somewhere else, or even self-publish it on the Internet — you are engaging in criticism and imploring the newspaper to take responsibility in what they publish. This is what’s called a “dialog”, or responding to what is published.

    Or do you think the Post puts out stupid and inflammatory articles for the sole reason to scream into a void? If no, then, realistically, the only thing you’re engaged in is trying to silence one side of this ‘debate’. And that, by your own definition is censorship.

  170. Silver Owl said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:28

    At her age the fact that her only achievement is being a fucking non-thinking piss poor excuse of a human being is the definition of waste of a lifetime.

  171. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:29

    >>”Calling someone an idiot who shouldn’t be published is not censorship.”

    No, it isn’t. But arguing that newspapers should not publish an article only because you do not want others exposed to the opinions it expresses is, in fact, expressing a desire to censor.

  172. Sniper said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:30

    So nice to know, Bubba, et al, that you’re all so smart that you can decide what the rest of us should read.

    Jesus tapdancing Christ. Do you really think that saying someone is an asshole who should be fired is the same as firing that person?

    A demonstration:

    Justcorbly should get the fuck off this thread and read something about what censorship really is.

    Have you done that? No? Then what the hell are you complaining about?

  173. Matt T. said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:31

    RB,
    Well, look on the bright side. Dead pet = new recipe.

  174. Snorghagen said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:33

    So nice to know, Bubba, et al, that you’re all so smart that you can decide what the rest of us should read.

    No, that’s Fred Hiatt’s job. And insects like myself dare not object to his decisions.

  175. Zuzu said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:36

    A first-rate smackdown, in the WaPo of all places:

    It’s hard to know what side Charlotte Allen was arguing for in her March 2 piece, “We Scream, We Swoon. How Dumb Can We Get?” Her thesis seems to be that “women are dumb,” which is certainly provocative, but the article is so illogical and incoherent that it more forcefully argues that women who think women are dumb are dumb.

    Women are silly for a variety of reasons, according to Allen, starting with the way they gush and swoon over politicians who inspire them. Barack Obama, Allen points out, is responsible for a grand total of five women fainting in the past six months. Without granting legitimacy to this pointless observation, let it be noted that there’s no way to determine exactly why these women fainted. Perhaps they hadn’t eaten, or locked their knees, or were overwhelmed by their own feeble-mindedness. But we can at least be reasonably sure that they didn’t pass out because, say, they were so intent on watching football on TV that they forgot how to chew a pretzel.

    . . .

    Allen’s most effective argument — that women’s opinions are meaningless and should not be listened to — is buttressed beautifully by her inability to support her own arguments, even that one. She allows that there are some women fighter pilots, and good for them. It’s just that the rest of us, who are not fighter pilots, probably shouldn’t be. Because women are bad at that, unless they are not. Ah, logic. She compares a ratio of women who have car accidents per miles driven to a ratio of men who do so, “even though” men drive more, which actually does prove that at least one woman doesn’t know how statistics work. She continues her immaterial rambling with declarations like, “No man contracts nebulous diseases — such as Morgellons.” Even the inaccuracy of this blanket statement is irrelevant, as Allen presents not so much an argument as a puzzle. What is she trying to prove?

    . . .

    The more profound question underlying Allen’s piece is this: What is it? We know what it isn’t — skillful or comprehensible, for starters. It isn’t satire, because there is no indication in tone or substance that she doesn’t really mean what she says. It isn’t humor, because, to be blunt, it’s just not funny. The only possibility is that this is social commentary — a plea to women to stop acting like ninnies. But she is delivering it with such lack of intelligence, it almost seems self parody. . . .

    A Dumb Argument

  176. Jay B. said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:37

    But arguing that newspapers should not publish an article only because you do not want others exposed to the opinions it expresses is, in fact, expressing a desire to censor.

    So brave, sticking up for the right for some idiot to be paid to express the forbidden “women are stupid” sentiment.

    Say goodnight Gracie.

  177. Snorghagen said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:37

    But arguing that newspapers should not publish an article only because you do not want others exposed to the opinions it expresses is, in fact, expressing a desire to censor.

    Arguing that newspapers should not publish crap is, in fact, crazed monkey ultra-Nazism.

  178. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:37

    Read what I say, Jay. I think Allen’s piece is idiocy. I also think that’s merely my opinion, because I dont agree with the political opinions as expressed in the piece. However, I don’t think I, or anyone else, have a right to mandate for others that Allen’s opinions amount to idiocy and that mine are rational. That’s waht free speech and a free press are about. If the Post wants to publish what I think is rubbish, more power to them.

    I;m noit objecting to anyone criticizing the Post. I’m objecting to people asserting the right to decide what other people read based solely on their political stance.

  179. El Cid said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:39

    Let me be very, very clear: I am hereby endorsing a request for the Washington Post and every single newspaper in the country to engage in blatant, brutal, and systematic censorship.

    That’s right — I don’t admit it: I embrace the notion.

    They are private publications. Their space is limited. I hereby engage in the seditious and evil notion that the well-funded and rich corporation of the Washington Post practice routine self-censorship and select those authors and columns and editorials and essays which meet some set of standards based on subject matter, quality of argument, substantialness of evidence, and quality of writing.

    There. I’ve said it.

    And no — I don’t feel ashamed. I feel liberated. Free. Free to censor.

  180. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:44

    >>”So brave, sticking up for the right for some idiot to be paid to express the forbidden “women are stupid” sentiment.”

    Absolutely, And, who says any sentiment is “forbidden”? Is someone out there making rules we’re all supposed to obey?

    BTW, I’m not sticking up for the right of idiots to be paid. I’m sticking up against the right of arrogant fools to decide what I can and cannot read. Telling newpapers that they can’t publish articles that express certain opinions — even if you label it idiocy — is morally offensive. The Post has a right to publish anything it wants to publish.

  181. Smut Clyde said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:48

    Dead pet = new recipe
    My hobby horse just died. Meat fondue time!

  182. Snorghagen said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:48

    justcorbly wrote:
    Read what I say… I;m noit objecting to anyone criticizing the Post.

    justcorbly wrote, a few minutes earlier:
    …telling a newspaper that they should not have published an article that expressed opinions you don’t like is wrong.

    It’s perfectly okay to criticize a newspaper, unless you object to what they wrote.

  183. Silver Owl said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:49

    The best thing to do is since the Washington Post enjoys such writers is to not read the Washington Post. When readers reject what the Washington Post offers they will either change or be replaced.

    To be honest the older establishments have outlived their usefulness and it’s time for better and more aware talent to replace them. Once their less than bright and not very aware management team either die or get replaced than readers can reevaluate their progress.

    Washington Post should be allowed to die by it’s own hand. With the likes of Charlotte Allen being published it won’t take long.

  184. El Cid said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:50

    What does this guy mean by “can’t”? Is he or she thinking that “can’t” is the same as “shouldn’t”?

    I can trot off to the local grocery store, buy 20 pounds of chocolate bars, and eat it all as rapidly as I can until I experience severe gastrointestinal issues or worse and am stopped by biological rather than willpower related factors.

    No one is telling me I “can’t”.

    On the other hand, someone witnessing the grim affair might suggest that I not do so, at which time I am also free to scream at them from my sugar and cocoa fat covered mouth and waving my chocolaty hands that “y’all ain’t gonna tell me what I ‘can’ and ‘cain’t’ do, this still a damn free country and I got tha 1st amendment.”

  185. Jay B. said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:52

    Read what I say, Jay.
    I am.

    You say “But arguing that newspapers should not publish an article only because you do not want others exposed to the opinions it expresses is, in fact, expressing a desire to censor.” I don’t give a shit what your opinion is, I’m only responded to what you wrote. And what you wrote is decidedly stupid, saying, in effect that “women are stupid” is legitimately being underrepresented in the media and, regardless of merit, deserves airing and the author to be paid for it — your logic being to do otherwise is censorship. Except if “editorial judgement” decides that it shouldn’t be published, in which case it’s not censorship because…???

    However, I don’t think I, or anyone else, have a right to mandate for others that Allen’s opinions amount to idiocy and that mine are rational.

    Well, anyone else but John Pomfret, who either chooses or rejects what will actually be published in his section. He can censor because he is infallible, obviously. And yes, you moron, someone’s opinion can be objectively ‘idiotic’ and ‘wrong’.

    That’s waht free speech and a free press are about.

    No. It’s not. Really. We can say they shouldn’t publish it. We can organize a nationwide boycott against the Post and its advertisers until they fire that worthless asshole Pomfret. We can denouce, renounce and reject to our hearts content and AT NO POINT are we infringing on free speech or the free press. Really. That would only happen if we tried to get Congress to pass a law mandating what is or is not permissible to print in a newspaper. The First Amendment. Read it!

    If the Post wants to publish what I think is rubbish, more power to them.

    Slander? Libel? What’s that?

  186. Susan of Texas said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:52

    Arrogant fools decide what you can’t and can read all the time. The only issue is the identity of the arrogant fool–the readers or the editors. Supposedly the free hand of the marketplace takes care of this. We tell WaPo that their article(s) are full of shit and they’d better find better writers or we’ll stop buying/reading the paper.

    Let the free hand of the marketplace whack them upside the head.

  187. The dude abides said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:53

    Justcorby, please try to get this through your noggin. The point being made here is that her writing is not just disagreeable, it is dreadfully stupid, misinformed, and bigoted. No one, that I can find in the thread or original post, said people should be prohibited from reading the article because they simply disagree with the assertions made by the author. The writing is bad, the logic deeply flawed, filled with unsubstantiated anecdotes, and totally bereft of material facts. She is totally incompetent as a writer whether her intent was inform, persuade, or entertain. THAT is why the editor should be fired and Ms. Allen’s future income be derived from some alternative occupation to “professional writer.”

  188. tb said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:56

    I’m sticking up against the right of arrogant fools to decide what I can and cannot read.

    Trust me, nobody gives a shit what you read.

  189. Ben said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:57

    Actually, the real moron is the author of this “rebuttal”. The original article was both very funny and very true. Idiotic retorts like this just go to prove that the vast majority of women are as devoid of humor as they are of reason!

  190. Sniper said,

    March 6, 2008 at 3:59

    It’s past your bedtime, Shapiro.

  191. Anne Laurie said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:00

    Does anybody else suspect that Charlotte Allen and Megan McArdle might be related? For that matter, has anyone ever seen the two of them in the same room at the same time?…

    I don’t think I, or anyone else, have a right to mandate for others that Allen’s opinions amount to idiocy and that mine are rational. That’s waht free speech and a free press are about. If the Post wants to publish what I think is rubbish, more power to them… I;m noit objecting to anyone criticizing the Post. I’m objecting to people asserting the right to decide what other people read based solely on their political stance.

    Also, what right to we have to insist that downer cows shouldn’t be used in school lunches, or that Chinese factories shouldn’t put melamine in toothpaste or pet food intended for American consumption? After all, we have no *proof* that any of those cows were actually suffering from zoonoses! And insisting that our global allies produce non-kidney-destroying products for us is just imposing our squeamish first-world standards (about products for mere pets & nonproductive human larvae) on the proud market-oriented ChiCon factory workers who can’t even afford school lunches, much less pets! Not to mention that poor Americans shopping in dollar stores should not be prevented by our nanny-state desire to squash the free market from buying cheap toothpaste just because it *might* damage their kidneys years and years and years from now…

  192. Silver Owl said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:00

    Ben,

    You’re definitely a Charlotte Allen. LOL!

  193. Matt T. said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:01

    Don’t get many dates, do ya, Ben? And a dude wrote this particular post. Hell, “Brad” almost means “just a dude” in certain circles, none of which have anything to do with how the vast majority of women think or the state of their invidiual senses of humor. I may be speaking out of bounds here, but I don’t think Bradrocket will say I’m too far off.

    Hell, no wonder you thought Allen’s gibberish was crackerjack stuff. It was written for guys like you, I think.

  194. Susan of Texas said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:01

    Ben, Ben, Ben. (If that is your real name.) Do you actually think you can get into a fight with women and call them names and have all sorts of jolly, passive-aggressive fun? Because I’m sorry, but you’re just not up to it.

    Let’s just say you come up a little short.

  195. Jay B. said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:02

    Absolutely, And, who says any sentiment is “forbidden”? Is someone out there making rules we’re all supposed to obey?

    It’s irony, champ. I’m saying, you simpleton, that the idea that “women are stupid” is not only not nearly as rare as you seem to think, but it’s not particularly difficult to read about (thus negating the idea that we’re ‘censoring’ the idea). Larry Summers, who headed up Harvard, said a version of it. “Say goodnight Gracie” is a sly example too (which is why I included it, genius). the notion of dumb blondes can’t have escaped your experience to date. you could go to any comedy club in any city in the country and hear some variation on the theme.

    the worth, however, of including it in one of the prime pieces of real estate in one of the nation’s important papers is one worth questioning (and yes, “women are dumb” is objectively wrong. they have the right to publish it, of course, they also have the responsibility to prove or distance themselves from the thesis, or is free speech actually a removal of responsibility?).

  196. Snorghagen said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:05

    Does anybody else suspect that Charlotte Allen and Megan McArdle might be related? For that matter, has anyone ever seen the two of them in the same room at the same time?

    Charlotte Allen is Megan McArdle’s Dorian Gray image.

  197. Silver Owl said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:07

    Maybe we can do with Allen what Israel did with Condi and create a new slang term.

    A colleague at work was telling me about this today. I just freaking laughed.

    It seems there is ‘a new Israeli verb, lecondel—in Hebrew, “to Condel,” short for “to Condoleezza”—meaning to come and go for meetings that produce few results.’

  198. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:09

    >>…saying, in effect that “women are stupid” is legitimately being underrepresented in the media …”

    I said no such thing. For that matter, what is or is not published in “the media” is not a matter of what is or is not underrepresented. Why? Because people have a right to publish what they want to publish. Because “the media” doesn’t exist. Because arguing that something is “underrepresented” or “overrespresented” gives someone else the right to decide what the proper degree of representation is, and I am not willing to do that.

    “”…We can say they shouldn’t publish it….” and yada yada yada.

    Absolutely. Nothing I said runs counter to that. In fact, everything I said agrees with it. What I disagreed with is the opinion expressed by some people in this thread that the Post should not have published the piece because they don’t agree with it. It may have been idiocy, but so what? Are they afraid of idiocy? The test of a belief in a free press is defending the right of anyone to publish anything. When you decide that someone can’t publish because you label their words “idiocy”, then you give them the same power to silence you.

  199. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:10

    My latest camel just died ritualistically and with all the tan shit going on in the world an optimistic camel story would make my week. What she had was an censored throat and if I had the money she would have lived many more hours. I’m sure you know a camel requires betrayal but I had no betrayal left.

  200. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:11

    What I disagreed with is the opinion expressed by some people

    CENSOR!!!

  201. Djur said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:13

    I can’t wait until I get my well-researched article on how black people smell and eat too much fried chicken into the WaPo and justcorbly is angrily beating back the demented hordes who suggest that, perhaps, some random idiot’s bigoted ramblings don’t meet the minimum level of quality we expect from a national newspaper of record.

  202. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:13

    >>”the idea that “women are stupid”…”

    Of course, I think it is objectively wrong, but that doesn’t give me the right to keep that opinion out of print. If I did, then, by the same line of reason, someone who said ” women are not stupid” could be labeled an “idiot” and blocked from publishing.

  203. El Cid said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:20

    Djur said, March 6, 2008 at 4:13

    I can’t wait until I get my well-researched article on how black people smell and eat too much fried chicken into the WaPo and justcorbly is angrily beating back the demented hordes who suggest that, perhaps, some random idiot’s bigoted ramblings don’t meet the minimum level of quality we expect from a national newspaper of record.

    The fact that you’re saying this sarcastically implies that you will not write this article and that it will not be published, which I find to be unacceptable censorship.

  204. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:21

    Djur, when someone decides not to print an article because it is factually wrong, that’s editorial judgment. When someone decides not to publish an article for the sole reason that it expresses opinions they don’t want others to read, then that’s something else entirely, even if those opinions are odious. It’s obvious to me that many posters in this thread think it is more important to keep people from reading an odious article that claims “women are stupid” than it is to defend the right to say and print whatever we wish.

  205. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:22

    the right to keep that opinion out of print.

    I don’t think you understand what a right is. Possibly a wrong as well.

  206. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:23

    When someone decides not to publish an article

    I have written the Acme Corporation and I am waiting for my Time Machine and Blue Pencil kit.

  207. Susan of Texas said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:25

    Who are your “he”s and “someone”s? Who actually decides what goes in a newspaper? On what basis do they make this decision?

    Think about it for a while, ‘kay?

    HINT: Use “money” and “customer choice” in your answer.

  208. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:26

    If Bubba will post his home address, I will send him my morning newspaper so he can cut out the articles he thinks I ought not to read.

  209. Snorghagen said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:26

    “…We can say they shouldn’t publish it….” and yada yada yada.

    Absolutely. Nothing I said runs counter to that. In fact, everything I said agrees with it. What I disagreed with is the opinion expressed by some people in this thread that the Post should not have published the piece because they don’t agree with it.

    I take this to mean that it’s all right to say that the Post should not have published the article, but it’s not all right to say that the Post should not have published the article if you disagree with the article.

    We seem to be moving beyond mere stupidity into some sort of twilight zone constructed on the basis of surreal anti-logic that turns in on itself and leads to a strange new dimension beyond space and time.

  210. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:28

    We seem to be moving beyond mere stupidity into some sort of twilight zone constructed on the basis of surreal anti-logic that turns in on itself and leads to a strange new dimension beyond space and time.

    Dude, I just toldja the Time Machine was on its way. First we censor Charlotte Allen, then we shoot Woodrow Wilson.

  211. Susan of Texas said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:29

    It’s a Moebius Strip of stupidity.

  212. Sniper said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:29

    If Bubba will post his home address, I will send him my morning newspaper so he can cut out the articles he thinks I ought not to read.

    If you post your home address, maybe some of us will send you stuff we think you should read.

  213. Brad said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:30

    When someone decides not to publish an article for the sole reason that it expresses opinions they don’t want others to read, then that’s something else entirely, even if those opinions are odious.

    No, no and no.

    Free speech means that you have the right to say whatever the hell you want and you can’t be arrested or fined for it.

    It does not guarantee you the right to be paid to publish your views. Newspapers and magazines are private institutions. They are not, repeat NOT, obligated to publish anyone [Troll repellent: I oppose the Fairness Doctrine and I oppose hate speech laws. Those are examples of the government imposing values upon others' speech.]

    When I say that someone “needs” to be fired over this debacle, I don’t literally mean that the government should force them to be fired – THAT, my friend WOULD be censorship. I mean that if the Washington Post wants to keep some kind of reputation as a serious news organization, rather than a clown show, someone should be bloody fired for publishing something so ludicrous and stupid.

    Again, if the Post doesn’t want to hold anyone accountable for this nonsense, that’s fine. But they will be viewed in the eyes of many as the equivalent of the New York Post.

  214. Snorghagen said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:34

    …then we shoot Woodrow Wilson.

    It’s okay to shoot him, but not if you disagree with him.

  215. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:35

    >>”Who are your “he”s and “someone”s? Who actually decides what goes in a newspaper? On what basis do they make this decision??

    That’s a rhetorical question, unless you’re of a conspiratorial bent.

    Look, this is easy: Blocking the publication of something s-o-l-e-l-y because you disagree with the opinions it expresses is wrong. You can argue that the Allen piece was sloppy, beneath editorial standards, not newsworthy, whatever. That’s fine with me. I would not have published it for those reasons. Note, however, that those critieria have nothing to do with the opinions Allen expressed. The right of a free press cannot be measured against someone else’s opinion about what is or is not “odious”.

    If you ran a newspaper, would you want an editor who trashcanned articles he/she didn’t agree with?

  216. Sniper said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:37

    If you ran a newspaper, would you want an editor who trashcanned articles he/she didn’t agree with?

    Good grief. Editors do that all the time. Publishers also. Sometimes they pull a column or article because someone wholly unconnected with the newspaper is miffed.

    Apparently, you have never worked in a newsroom. I’ve worked in many. Editors are no more courageous or principled, as a group, than any other sort of manager.

  217. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:38

    >>”I take this to mean that it’s all right to say that the Post should not have published the article, but it’s not all right to say that the Post should not have published the article if you disagree with the article.”

    No. Please pay attention. It is not all right to say that the Post should not have published the article o-n-l-y because t-h-e-y disgreed with it.

  218. El Cid said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:39

    If you ran a newspaper, would you want an editor who trashcanned articles he/she didn’t agree with?

    Not only would I want that, I would demand it. I would go on to demand that the editor trashcan articles and essays he or she did agree with.

    In fact, it would perhaps be financially impossible for a newspaper to survive if an editor did not, because each opinion section would be obligated to print each and every column submitted to it, running to thousands of pages, maybe tens of thousands of pages, each and every day.

    The question is the criteria and processes by which such decisions are made.

  219. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:40

    It is not all right to say that the Post should not have published the article o-n-l-y because t-h-e-y disgreed with it.

    Well, yes it is. I’ve done it. And will continue to do it. And the post may publish some of these sayings as L-E-T-T-E-R-S T-O T-H-E E-D-I-T-O-R.

  220. Brad said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:40

    If you ran a newspaper, would you want an editor who trashcanned articles he/she didn’t agree with?

    Oh. My. God.

    Believe it or not, this happens all the time. Especially when the articles are poorly reasoned, poorly written and insulting to their readers’ intelligence. So yes, the WaPo should have trashcanned Charlotte’s article. The reason? BECAUSE IT SUCKED. If I sent the WaPo an article that consisted of three pages of me going “FARRRRRRT, FAAAAAAARRRRRT, FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT!!!!” would they be obligated to publish me? Or would their trashcanning of my esteemed work be another example of censorship?

  221. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:40

    >>” Editors do that all the time.”

    Does that make it right? Is frequency of occurrence the criterion of ethical rectitude?

  222. Confused Ninny said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:41

    And the post may publish some of these sayings as L-E-T-T-E-R-S T-O T-H-E E-D-I-T-O-R.

    That would be wrong!

  223. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:42

    I must congratulate corbly for sticking with it. It’s an evening’s entertainment.

  224. El Cid said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:42

    I demand the Washington Post print this comment too. Otherwise it is just censorship of things s-o-l-e-l-y because they don’t agree with i-t.

  225. Brad said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:44

    Does that make it right? Is frequency of occurrence the criterion of ethical rectitude?

    Wasn’t my point. My point was that they do it all the time AND THAT THEY’RE COMPLETELY RIGHT TO DO SO.

    I repeat: newspapers and magazines are private institutions. They are not obligated to publish anything they don’t like.

  226. Sniper said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:45

    Does that make it right? Is frequency of occurrence the criterion of ethical rectitude?

    Jesus god. One more and I’m done. Editors are hired, in part, for their judgement and point of view. That’s why they write editorials. That’s why the kill or commission stories. That’s why they select – yes, select! – columns.

    Ah, what’s the point? We’re in whale sandwich territory here.

  227. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:45

    Brad, poor reasoning, poor writing, etc., have nothing to do with the opinions an article expresses, only how they are expressed. If you had botherd to read, and think about, what I’ve acually written, you would know that I framed by point with the condition that the rejecting an article was objectionable if the only reason was a disgreement with its opinions. There is no necessary equivalency of poor writing and poor reasoning with “I disagree:.

  228. Brad said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:45

    RB- yes, he’s very dedicated to completely missing the point of everything. That’s not easy to do.

  229. GSD said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:47

    First they came for Charlotte Allen.

    Then they came for a bunch of other dumb broads.

    -GSD

  230. El Cid said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:49

    But I didn’t object, because I wasn’t a dumb broad, and I wasn’t Charlotte Allen either. I don’t think. Am I censoring myself?

  231. melpomenh said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:50

    justcorbly…

    you have a brain. I have a brain. If you were to come up to me and say:

    “Hey…IMHO, this person is an (offensive expletive)”

    and I respond by saying:

    “Hey. IMHO, that is wrong. You shouldn’t say that.”

    I am not saying that you don’t have a right to say what you want. I am suggesting that your brain, the center of judgement and information processing, has screwed up (made a mistake, falsely concluded, etc), and that some form of reconsideration might be in order. Similarly, If I were responding to Allen, I wouldn’t be denying her of her right to present her thoughts. I am suggesting that the organization that employs these ideas and distributes thoughts and opinions has made a error in judgement.

    Any publishing organization ultimately decides upon internal and external considerations what it prints. You and I, ultimately do exactly the same thing. There has been no transgressions upon anybody’s rights.

  232. Silver Owl said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:50

    The editor was not all that bright. Washington Post is concerned about the lack of women readers. Publishing a column that calls women stupid, dim was actually quite fucking stupid. Allen’s track record is a poor one, so why was the editor so stupid?

    It is along the same lines as a marketing director publishing an ad that says, “Customers who use our product are stupid dim motherfuckers.” The customers write, call and air their anger. Since the company wants their customers to generate revenue so they can stay in business they fire the fucking stupid marketing director and he can still say what he wants on all his new found personal time.

    The Washington Post is going to have to make a choice. Keep the Charlotte Allen that loses them readers and the fucking idiot editor or lose readers.

  233. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:50

    Well, I have better things to do. Lots of people here obviously think they’re smart enough to have the right to keep the rest of us poor proles from reading bad things. I feel so much safer now.

    Now, please turn your attention to Fox.

  234. Brad said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:51

    There is no necessary equivalency of poor writing and poor reasoning with “I disagree

    Holy cow! WTF, man. You’re trying to drive me to suicide.

    The entire point of my post was exposing the ludicrously shitty reasoning of Allen. Read the whole thing. She actually said that the devastation of Hurricane Katrina was a blessing for the people of New Orleans. If that isn’t the most insane, illogical and faulty reasoning in the entire godless world, I don’t know what is.

    Now: I have no objections to someone saying shit like this. They can rant outside my local 7-11 and I won’t complain. What I do object to is an allegedly prestigious newspaper paying money for the views of a certifiable idiot. I’m not arguing that the government should force the Post to not publish this shit. I’m arguing that the Post’s reputation will be destroyed among non-insane people if they continue to publish this shit. Ergo, someone should be fired or the Post will have as much credibility as the Weekly World News.

    OK, I’ve wasted way too many damn pixels here. The Celtics are playing a hell of a game against the Pistons and I gotta catch the fourth quarter. Night, all.

  235. El Cid said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:52

    Now that I have the right and the power to decide what the Washington Post can and cannot print, will I use it for good? Or evil???

  236. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:55

    melpomenh:

    Yes, error of judgement. However, what some in this thread have done is to argue that anything they don’t agree with constitutes an error of judgement.

  237. Sniper said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:55

    I’m arguing that the Post’s reputation will be destroyed among non-insane people if they continue to publish this shit. Ergo, someone should be fired or the Post will have as much credibility as the Weekly World News.

    Don’t worry. Everyone who isn’t an idiotic literalist got that.

  238. El Cid said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:58

    Anything I don’t agree with constitutes an error of judgement.

  239. tb said,

    March 6, 2008 at 4:58

    I’m arguing that the Post’s reputation will be destroyed among non-insane people if they continue to publish this shit.

    That in itself is censorship.

  240. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:00

    >>”She actually said that the devastation of Hurricane Katrina was a blessing for the people of New Orleans. If that isn’t the most insane, illogical and faulty reasoning in the entire godless world, I don’t know what is.”

    Of course it is obvious nonsense. It’s also an opinion. I don’t agree with it, but I don’t make the case that the post was wrong to publish it solely because I don’t agree with it. Do you?

    People don’t need other people to protecct them from reading “bad” opinions. If I give you the right to say Allen’s opinions should not be printed, then I also give myself the right to keep your opinions out of print.

  241. PeeJ said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:02

    Cid, that’s a serious error of judgement you just made. You should have censored yourself.

  242. Snorghagen said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:02

    Well, I have better things to do.

    What could be better than informing the public on your bold new interpretation of… whatever the fuck it is that you’ve been babbling about.

  243. PeeJ said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:03

    Channeling Tony Montana… No Frank, djoo fucked up mang.

  244. El Cid said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:05

    PeeJ said, March 6, 2008 at 5:02

    Cid, that’s a serious error of judgement you just made. You should have censored yourself.

    Never. You can have my opinion when you pry it from my cold, dead, HANDS!!!!!

  245. tb said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:07

    Hey, idiot- who here is arguing in favor of “protecting people from reading bad opinions”?

  246. El Cid said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:07

    Hey — can Charlotte Allen create an opinion so stupid that even she cannot express it?

  247. melpomenh said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:09

    justcorbly:

    You have it the other way around. When people think others have made an error in judgement, they disagree with them. We make observations before we interpret. We interpret before we make judgements.

  248. Snorghagen said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:13

    Hey — can Charlotte Allen create an opinion so stupid that even she cannot express it?

    Even if it can’t be expressed, it must be published.

  249. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:15

    I don’t agree with the opinions Snorghagen has expressed here.

    Therefore, everything he’s written is odious idiocy.

    Therefore, this site should delete all his comments.

    Sound familiar?

  250. tb said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:16

    who here is arguing in favor of “protecting people from reading bad opinions”?

    I’ll take jc’s silence to mean “buh-buh-buh- nobody, I guess. I must be arguing with the phantom opponents in my head again.”

  251. JGabriel said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:21

    Charlotte Allen: “Why does feminism have to mean the triumph of the ugly and the surly?”

    Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Allen’s thesis here is correct, then shouldn’t she show a little more gratitude?

    .

  252. El Cid said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:21

    Sound familiar?

    No, but if you don’t sing a few bars, I’ll try not to recognize it.

  253. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:21

    TB, the entire premise of this thread was a blog post attacking the WaPo for publishing an article the writer didn’t agree with. My point is simply that the writer’s wrath is misdirected. It’s more commonly phrased as “Don’t Shoot the Messanger.” I’d think we’d all welcome the exposure of opinions like Allen’s as a chance for everyone to recognize their vileness.

  254. Susan of Texas said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:23

    Jc, you are calling for censership. You are not actually censoring anybody. You can’t, because this isn’t your site.

    I can say your posts are too stupid to print, but that doesn’t actually do anything. You are not actually being censored.

    See, this cow is near, and this cow is far away….

  255. g said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:24

    which is why there hasn’t exactly been a huge flood of those former residents flocking back to live in passive dependency

    Um, where’s the sense of this? What she says is specious, but even if it werent’ it doesn’t make any goddam sense.

    First, why would she think that after the hurricane a infrastructure of “passive dependency” would exist for people to choose to reject? Isn’t that the first thing that would disappear? and wouldn’t it make sense that if they WERE “passively dependent” they would be too passive to flock back to another location from where they were? So how would the lack of people returning to New Orleans say ANYTHING about the supposed passive dependency of the city’s residents?

    Second – and going off your point that they didn’t return because they didn’t have homes – so many of the people who lost everything in New Orleans weren’t passively dependent anyway – they were homeowners who were poor, yes, but who worked. And many were elderly – I suppose its cool for Charlotte to call retirees “passively dependent” – but I guess, so’s her mom.

  256. Snorghagen said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:28

    I don’t agree with the opinions Snorghagen has expressed here.
    Therefore, everything he’s written is odious idiocy.
    Therefore, this site should delete all his comments.
    Sound familiar?

    I fucking totally agree.

  257. anthony said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:36

    I’d think we’d all welcome the exposure of opinions like Allen’s as a chance for everyone to recognize their vileness.

    It’s the parable of the broken window.

    Meanwhile in Deltoid; Help! A poorly done survey is being suppressed

    (nice Father Ted reference there, Susan)

  258. J— said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:38

    All I know is that if Sniper doesn’t pay me my $10.00, I’m taking her or him to court for violating my First Amendment right to remunerated free speech.

  259. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:44

    Susan. my reading of the post above is that it argues the WaPo was wrong to publish the Allen piece because the post writer doesn’t agree with it. Well, I don’t agree with the Allen piece, either, but I do not think my opinion has any bearing on whether or not the WaPo has a right to print it.

    Should they have printed it? Who knows? But “should” has nothing to do with their right to print it.

    Arguing that certain articles should not be printed because certain people disagree with them is the fundamental premise of censorship. It’s the belief in such an assertion that’s dangerous. While it’s true that you have no power to keep my posts from being published even if you think they’re stupid, any intimation on your part that you’d block the posts if you had that power is scary.

  260. billy pilgrim said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:47

    let’s see….

    The WaPo, as a private institution, is entitled to publish Allen’s dreck if they so choose. It is her right to have those odious opinions.

    It is also quite proper for the public, in the form of Brad and the denizens of Sadly, to mock her for the fallacies inherent in her opinions, and to criticize the Post for broadcasting the wrongness so enthusiastically. If they make a compelling enough case, the Post may experience enough pressure to actually take meaningful action, even- dare I say?- to firing her. Her position as a prominent pundit is NOT a right, and if she expresses opinions that are repugnant to enough Post readers, it is entirely proper that she be released to pursue her career at more focused outlets like Clownhall.

    Her silly and specious blathering is free speech, and the right of folks hereabouts to disagree vehemently, even criticize her thinking processes for arriving at said opiinions, is also free speech.

    And for my money, Brad anf the guys here write, and think better than any dozen pundits currently gracing national newspapers, except maybe for Krugman.

    So the papers publish crap, and then wonder why people are turning away from newspapers. So they publish more crap. sounds to me like the decline in readership is the marketplace actually working, and the publishers are unlikely to catch on until they become Winchells, reduced to handing out crudely printed copies on streetcorners.

    serves ‘em right, says I, and nobody around here is getting censored.

    well, back to poop jokes and looksism now. Wonder what mikey’s cookin tonight?

  261. Lawnguylander said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:53

    While it’s true that you have no power to keep my posts from being published even if you think they’re stupid, any intimation on your part that you’d block the posts if you had that power is scary.

    Oh yeah?

    justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:44 (unkill) (autopsy)

    Boo.

  262. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 5:54

    Billy, that’s a post I do agree with.

    Being new here, I won’t comment on the wisdom of any pundits, but will simply assert that I’ve long since decided they’re all irrelevant, unless you need to fill airtime or column inches to keep the ad revenue coming in.

  263. Tehanu said,

    March 6, 2008 at 6:00

    East Bridgewater, Mass.: You seriously don’t even know what year women got the vote? Who on earth hired you to write about women’s issues?

    Charlotte Allen: Why is the exact year germane to anything?

    And thanks to Susan of Texas, who said:
    This is Charlotte Allen on Univerities:

    At Occidental, for instance, it seems nearly impossible to study any field, save for the hard sciences, that doesn’t include “race, class and gender” among its topics…. The bigger problem is that too much of American higher education has lost any notion of what its students ought to know about the ideas and people and movements that created the civilization in which they live: Who Plato was or what happened at Appomattox.

    So let me get this straight: actual details of what happened to Plato or at Appomattox, good; actual details of women’s getting the vote, unimportant. Well, at least she’s consistently stupid.

  264. melpomenh said,

    March 6, 2008 at 6:00

    justcorbly,

    censorship relies on a censor that is powerful enough to enact serious retribution upon an entity or institution that does not conform with that censor’s wishes. Sadly, No is a blog. A BLOG.

  265. melpomenh said,

    March 6, 2008 at 6:08

    Anybody want a beer?

  266. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 6:23

    French Nosy Platypus with Lacy Salted Berries

    Ingredients:
    7 jiggers barren platypus, stuffed
    4 jiggers berry, long-sufferingly strained
    1 enigmatic soybean
    7 tablespoons contemporary tiger whisker
    2 jiggers fat
    7 sticks butter

    Pre-heat your oven to 303 Farenheit. Horrifically grease a cookie sheet. Separate platypus mandible from throat. Discard throat. Use a food processor to combine the soybean with the berry. Pour resulting concoction over the platypus. Toss the tiger, fat, and the butter. Spread the latter combination on to the former. Bake for 46 minutes. Serves 10.

  267. billy pilgrim said,

    March 6, 2008 at 6:29

    just to be clear, nobody at Sadly is endorsing censorship of Charlotte Allen. Sadly is such a bastion of free speech that they tolerate Kevin/SaulBooger and have even adopted multiple Garys. Annoying sometimes, yes, but laudable.

    But mocking her, certainly, ridiculing her writing and reasoning, and encouraging her to find a new career talking to herself on streetcorners, you bet. If we had a better press, repulsive loons like her wouldn’t have prime distribution and the support of a publishing company.

    Put it simply, she’s either a mindless, moral free shill or a free-floating idiot, and either way she should be ejected like a twenty year old Motorhead cassette that is all stretched and warbly, and thrown out the window.

    The poop jokes are two threads over.

  268. billy pilgrim said,

    March 6, 2008 at 6:30

    except Righteous Bubba. He’s censoring the shit out of that platypus.

  269. Susan of Texas said,

    March 6, 2008 at 6:37

    Cj you are confusing a business decision with a legal right. It was “wrong,” that is, a bad business decision, to insult half of the newspaper’s readership. The paper had the legal right to publish the material and they did. Legal rights are not the issue.

  270. PeeJ said,

    March 6, 2008 at 6:46

    Eh? Which way to the poop jokes? I ask because, poop is funny, you know? This crap is just crap.

    This message was not approved by the anti-censorship council.
    Or anyone else. Except me. And that’s all that matters. Cid is error prone. Whatcha makin mikey? I made gravlax from some fresh King salmon and with that I’ll pair scrambled eggs with chives. Toasted ciabatta. Finish off that pinot noir swill I bought down in Newberg.

  271. Jim said,

    March 6, 2008 at 6:50

    all I know is that some people on this thread say the Post should not have published an article because they disagree with it. I hope they never run a newspaper.

    Whywhywhy – that would be a complete disaster, if someone owned a newspaper or magazine, and only published articles that espoused a viewpoint they did NOT disagree with.
    It would be censorship!

  272. D. Sidhe said,

    March 6, 2008 at 6:50

    What kind of berries?

  273. PeeJ said,

    March 6, 2008 at 6:52

    Lacy Salted Berries. Cancha read?

    Criminy.

  274. Snorghagen said,

    March 6, 2008 at 6:54

    This thread is growing old and gray, but before it dies completely I’ll mention that Laura Rozen at War and Piece has some worthwhile comments on the Charlotte Allen mess.

  275. Girl from UNCLE said,

    March 6, 2008 at 7:06

    Why does this particular one bother folks so F’ng much? It’s not as if women were right now being lynched at the rate of one a week, the way blacks were down South in the early 20th century.

    567 women were killed by their husbands in 2006, that comes out to more than 10 a week.

    Yeah, we bitches are touchy.

    http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_09.html

  276. billy pilgrim said,

    March 6, 2008 at 7:08

    well said, Girl.

  277. PeeJ said,

    March 6, 2008 at 7:17

    Ten lousy bitches a week? Aw sheet girl, that aint nothin.

    So whattaya cryin about already. Just STFU and be happy you aint one of em.

    Sadly, I suspect (without looking at the data, I don’t want to get all depressed) that’s 10 per week in the US alone. Where wife killing is probably less frequent than most of the rest ot the world. Aw fuck, now you’ve gone and gotten me depressed. No wonder I’m a preferred customer at Tanqueray.

  278. D. Sidhe said,

    March 6, 2008 at 7:47

    Lacy Salted Berries. Cancha read?

    Of course not. I’m a dumb wimmins. Also, I have a migraine, one of those silly, nebulously psychosomatic problems men are too busy being responsible and smart to get.

  279. PeeJ said,

    March 6, 2008 at 7:57

    Oh. Yer a womb-man? Never mind.

  280. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 8:11

    Jellied Awe-inspiring Ass with Alternative Toasted Arugulas

    Ingredients:
    3 pounds nutty ass, sugared
    1 arugula
    1 xenophobic almond
    5 pounds lacy aoudad colon, French
    3 jiggers pepper
    4 tablespoons unsweeted chocolate

    Pre-heat your oven to 167 Celsius. Apathetically grease a cookie sheet. Place the ass into a large saucepan. Combine the arugula with the almond over medium heat in a pot. Stuff the resulting goo into the ass. Toss the aoudad colon, pepper, and the unsweeted chocolate threateningly. Dab the latter combination on to the former. Bake for 38 hours. Serves 8.

  281. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 8:12

    That alliteration button can really fuck things up.

  282. PeeJ said,

    March 6, 2008 at 8:23

    Alliteration schmiteration. That last recipe is a keeper.

    Best yet.

  283. cowalker said,

    March 6, 2008 at 8:53

    I look forward to having my op-ed on the uselessness of educating blondes (natural or bottle) published in the Washington Post. It may be idiocy, but if it is then it’s a joke–a blonde joke! I’m a bit more radical than some. I don’t believe that the test of a belief in a free press is defending the right of anyone to publish anything. The test of a belief in a free press is insisting on the duty of everyone to publish everything.

    Sadly, No! is a sterling example of allowing everyone to publish everything and letting the Goddess sort it out. I believe that with the publication of Allen’s op-ed in the Wa Po and the hiring of Bill Kristol as an NY Times columnist, the big newspapers are beginning to come around to my point of view.

  284. Famous Soviet Athlete said,

    March 6, 2008 at 8:56

    It’s the belief in such an assertion that’s dangerous.

    A belief in an assertion just exploded outside of my building!

  285. RobW said,

    March 6, 2008 at 10:37

    What the hell is a “self reliant city” anyway? Didn’t those end with the ancient Greeks?

  286. Strangefate said,

    March 6, 2008 at 10:49

    She is, indeed, her own best proof.

  287. RobW said,

    March 6, 2008 at 12:03

    However, what some in this thread have done is to argue that anything they don’t agree with constitutes an error of judgement.

    Name one. Besides El Cid, whom I suspect of sarcasm. And censorship.

  288. javafascist said,

    March 6, 2008 at 15:09

    Help, help, I’m being repressed!

  289. justcorbly said,

    March 6, 2008 at 16:26

    melpomenh: I never said this blog is censoring anyone.

    jim: the sources you mention are, first, not newspapers, and, two, you’ve reversed the logic of my argument. Nothing is wrong when a journal of opinion chooses not to run pieces it doesn’t agree with. That’s not what I’ve been talking about.

    Susan: Of couorse it was a bad business move. It will drive readers away. That’s not my point. Some posts here wren’t talking about the business angle. Rather, they don’t want anyone reading something they think is offensive. They apparently think protecting people from whatever they decide is “bad” is more important that protecting our right to read whatver we want and to print whatever we want.

  290. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 6, 2008 at 16:56

    melpomenh: I never said this blog is censoring anyone.

    Attention dumbass:

    contending that Allen’s article shoud have been rejected because you disagree with her assertions is, in fact, censorship.

  291. Susan of Texas said,

    March 6, 2008 at 16:58

    Your point is wrong. Abandon your point. Set it on fire and push it out to sea. Your point is point-less.

    There is a difference between saying “nobody should have to read this crap” and “I have declared nobody is allowed to read this crap.” This means that saying nobody would want to read crap is not the same as saying nobody is allowed to read certain things, for whatever reason.

    Which means:

    I don’t like your article. It’s crap.

    is not the same as

    You can’t write your article.

    See, “want” is not the same thing as “allow.”

    Saying “I want you to stop talking” is not the same thing as saying “You are forbidden to talk.”

    “Want” is not the same thing as “demand” (and able to enforce that demand.)

    Okey-dokey?

  292. Sniper said,

    March 6, 2008 at 17:53

    I’m taking her or him to court for violating my First Amendment right to remunerated free speech.

    Okay, but remember – you also owe me $10.

  293. Dreamweasel said,

    March 6, 2008 at 18:05

    Christ, JC, you’re a stubborn one. Since you don’t appear to fundamentally disgree with anybody about the merits of the editorial itself, it does lead me to wonder why you cling to your solitary point with such vehemence. Do you seriously believe the opinions cited here are at odds with the notion of freedom of speech?

    The Post chose to publish an insulting and poorly-reasoned opinion piece, and readers chose to voice their disapproval. That’s the First Amendment flowing both ways.

    Many of these readers are also subscribers, some of whch have stated that they will rescind their support of the Post if they continue to publish opinions of this nature in the future. This is the free market at play; the final decision remains with the Post.

    The Post has the right to publish whatever opinions they choose. They only need weigh the potential consequences of their actions if they are to remain a viable business and a credible source of information.

    Readers do not have the direct power to “censor”. Editors do, but (as has been stated here many times) this is not at all the same thing as government censorship. It is merely a matter of the Post deciding what content is appropriate for their own publication. And yes, it is entirely fair to compare an opinion journal with the opinion page of a newspaper.

  294. Sniper said,

    March 6, 2008 at 19:08

    Do you seriously believe the opinions cited here are at odds with the notion of freedom of speech?

    Of course he does. And if this had been an opinion piece explaining how black people are too stupid to vote, I’m sure he would have defended its publication just as vociferously.

    Ow! I hurt myself rolling my eyes too hard.

  295. J— said,

    March 6, 2008 at 19:14

    Okay, but remember – you also owe me $10.

    Now that’s racketeering!

  296. Mojo Jackson said,

    March 6, 2008 at 19:34

    What the fuck is wrong with this bitches EYES!

  297. Interrobang said,

    March 6, 2008 at 19:50

    The funniest thing about this thread is definitely “lecondel.” Does that conjugate like “ledaber,” or what? My imperfect metacognitive awareness of The Holy Tongue is insisting it simply must be so.

    That said, Allen can go lehizdayen herself.

    For what it’s worth the feminist equivalent of “house Negro” is “tool of the patriarchy.” Me, I’d just omit the second through fourth words in this case…

  298. Ginger Yellow said,

    March 7, 2008 at 1:13

    Susan. my reading of the post above is that it argues the WaPo was wrong to publish the Allen piece because the post writer doesn’t agree with it. Well, I don’t agree with the Allen piece, either, but I do not think my opinion has any bearing on whether or not the WaPo has a right to print it.

    Should they have printed it? Who knows?

    For Christ’s sake.

    1) The post isn’t about the writer disagreeing with Allen’s piece. It’s about Allen’s defence of her piece being utterly incoherent, and undermining the very arguments (I hesitate to dignify them with the term) she was using.

    2) Of course the WaPo has a right to print it. Nobody here would disagree with that. But having a right to do something doesn’t mean you should do it. I have the right to call my best friend a lying cocksucker, but it’s probably best if I don’t, and he would be justified in calling me out on it.

    But “should” has nothing to do with their right to print it.

    Indeed. This is the very point we’ve been trying to get through your thick skull. You’re the one conflating them. The Post is a serious newspaper which fancies itself as a leader of intellectual opinion. As such it purports to have higher editorial standards than, say, Ann Coulter’s publisher. Yet it went ahead and published an incoherent, self-negating and bigoted article, which rightly pissed off a significant section of its readership and greatly reduced the paper’s credibility. It then went on to defend the piece as a joke, when in fact the author meant it perfectly seriously. That’s the sort of editorial misstep that does and should get people fired.

  299. wordyeti said,

    March 7, 2008 at 6:04

    I tried to comment in this thread earlier, but my computer crashed and censored me. Damn Bill Gates!

    ejected like a twenty year old Motorhead cassette that is all stretched and warbly, and thrown out the window.

    But, but, the warbly part is the only thing that makes Wurtzel’s interminable solos bearable…

  300. Duros62 said,

    March 8, 2008 at 0:26

    #

    What the hell is a “self reliant city” anyway? Didn’t those end with the ancient Greeks?
    #

    She means more white people.

  301. thymiane3000 said,

    March 8, 2008 at 6:22

    She doesn’t know what year women got the vote??? How is that even possible? And the comments on New Orleans reveal more than stupidity, but a wide, gaping black hole of stupidity. Unbelievable.

  302. KKB said,

    March 8, 2008 at 23:01

    What I hate is how this is totally going to get her notoriety (power) and read & discussed on shitload of blogs, emailed stories, links, etc (more power – - surely more columns).

    How can we make it stop?!

    She says she wrote this piece on her own, and then SHOPPED IT AROUND and the f-ing WaPo picked it up I’m sure because they thought – - rightly – - that it would “generate controversy” and get them read.

    I say let’s go Anonymous on their asses. WaPo could use some black pages faxed over.

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()