Hi Jane.

I’m glad I didn’t read the piece. I’m getting phone calls about every hour exhorting me to go vote for x or y (or z) and enough is too much!

Tongue in cheek, eh? Must be why she cited research on driving and spatial skills. (Misinterpreted) research is always good for a laugh. Oh Charlotte, you arch little vixen!

oh you got it Ms Hamsher (natch!), actually trudged through a sampling of her ‘work’ available online –

“radical feminist ideology”
“poisonous feminist ideology”
“cultural elites”
“librul christian theology”

template city baby!

Oh, she’s with the IWF! I didn’t realize that until now. Is she the same African American woman who is always on MSNBC? They never properly identify the IWF for what it is.

I’m sure the Wapoo Ombudsperson is on the case!

I didn’t read the piece either but the few snippets I did read sounded like it came out of a 1950s better living column.

hiya Jane…*g*

Make those letters to the editor about Allen’s ties to the IWF, its role in denigrating women and diminishing their rights, and, above all, the Post’s hiding of those ties. Don’t make them about the subjective “debate” over how dumb broads are.

Back then women got recipes and tips on how to dust.

1950 or 1850?

Does anyone know anything about the “Mother/Son” relationship between Katharine and Donald. I read a while ago that after Katherine died, he had all of her rose gardens dug up. Now he has turned her newspaper into a rag. I see a pattern developing….

Jane, first sentence, should be “tongue IN cheek” not “tongue and cheek”

*shrug* had that rosy 50s sound to it to me.

OT for this post, but high-status blogger Glenn Greenwald, often approvingly linked to from frontpagers at FDL, had this to say today about the inevitable capitulation of Democratic representatives in Washington, about to grant retroactive immunity to the telecoms:

This is, of course, everything except surprising. No rational person who has watched Congressional Democrats since they took over Congress could possibly have expected them to do anything but what they always do: namely, whatever they’re told to do by the White House. The last thing they were ever going to do was stand their ground over Americans’ basic liberties and the rule of law, concepts about which they couldn’t possibly care less.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/g…..index.html

your Least Worst in action!

Laura, lol…”arch little vixen”!

Where are you?

Depends on what she meant:)

*blushing* I meant it tongue in cheek, of course.

I have to say, the attempt to shield her prior writing by fudging her byline name and abbreviating her bio to excerpt whose bread she was buttering from her public information credits was appallingly transparent. They must think we are all stupid — regardless of gender — if they thought that was going to hold up to any amount of public scrutiny.

Why not give Phyllis Schlaffley another bite at the “stay home, cook dinner, and greet your breadwinner with a smile and a Scotch” apple?

On linking to the article yesterday, I read the first few paragraphs, scanned the next few, saw there was a page two to it, and bailed. Whatever its intention it was a thoroughly bad peice of writing. If that is someone’s idea of wit, they seriously need a refresher course or a decent dictionary.

yup – happens to me all the time. I try to make a joke and, invariably, I sound like a misogynistic asshole. Doesn’t even matter what subject I’m trying to be cute about – it still comes out – misogynistic asshole. It could happen to anyone – really…

ok, so I’m lyin’ again…

Ohio.
Last week, in one day we had Mrs. Huckabee, Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton all in our town (population around 50,000). Would be nice if we weren’t ignored the rest of the decade.

These creeps need to be slammed repeatedly. In the old days a protest demonstration which would involve occupying the paper’s offices would have been the way to go. But they’ve got “security” now.

Perchance Ms. Allen could be approached personally, and told where to get off?

I’m still waiting for someone to sue Laura Schlessinger for waking up and finding they don’t have a retirement plan. She tells women to stay home, serve their husbands, do without. Some people have been listening to her for all of their adult lives, and will end up divorced or widowed. Many will have nothing. This is no longer a society where you trust someone to take care of you…

Be careful what you wish for. Think about having the circus in town all the time.

Tongue in between the lower cheeks of Kate O’Beirne.

Depends on what she meant:)

Um, yes, maybe. But it is a link, so I assumed it was a mistype.

I love that phrase. Has a “Pride and Prejudice” sound to it.

I read the WaPo this morning and I’m still seething. It took three cups of tea to calm me down.

Charlotte Allen – In a nut shell, a whore for the males. They will love her for demeaning and hating her sisters. I read her piece and there was nothing, absolutely nothing, tongue in cheek about it. But little Charlotte did self-reveal. She is really threatened by women and see them all as competitors for male attention. Little Charlotte, me thinks thee protests too much!

She asks, What is it about women? Yes, Charlotte what is it about you that drove you to write these words? And as for her berating TV shows that depict women in unflattering roles, these are selected and driven by the male executives of the industry. Attack them dear Charlotte. She prefers to tickle their balls.

Here is an excerp:

“Hillary Clinton’s campaign: By all measure, she has rune one of the worst – and yes, stupidest – presidential races in recent history, married by every stereotypical flaw of the female sex.”

She also describes swooning silly women at the Obama rallies. One woman cried out, “I love you.” On that one, Charlotte reduced all the women who attended as one and the same.

Why did the Washington Post relish publishing this on the front page of their online paper?

O/T -

“…Frauleins und gentlemen, vee’d like to welcome du to Hamburg, and danke for flying vis us today. Vee know you have a choice of airlines, and danke du for choosing Lufthansa…”

Yikes.

Math is HARD!

Oh, I don’t want them to visit here, no no. I just want them to remember we exist, and shuffle some spare jobs/education/health care/affordable housing/etc. our way.

Seriously, is no one getting fired over this tripe? “It was just a joke” is Ann Coulter’s excuse, not an acceptable reason for publishing misogyny at WaPo or WPNI. Have they descended to Coulterian levels of discourse? Then we won’t take them seriously anymore, will we?

Can’t wait for Lovey’s defense of this. In about six weeks.

I couldn’t finish reading the drivel and think it could’ve been copied and pasted from a woman’s mag from the 50s. Sad. But does anyone read this paper anymore? This verbal puke seems to be happening in conjunction with a death rattle.

I still think the whole purpose of the article is to be a smoke screen, a red herring, a McGuffin. What else might demand our attention and letter writing skills now, eh? New sanctions coming out on Iran (today, see Laura Rozen). Iraq’s lovefest with Ahmadinijad (Pres. Talabani (”call me Uncle Jalal,” he said. Seriously!) told him he hoped he stayed “in Iraq a long time.” I’m sure that went over very well with Sunnis and secular Iraqis. War nearing in Latin America? Not to mention FISA (helloooo Congressman Reyes).

Jeebus – patients who are actively hallucinating have given me more coherent excuses.

The WaPo apparently finds decomposing wingnuttery intoxicating.

Blocked. How about an excerpt?

How’s that flu?

Ghastly. I’m smelly and grumpy, sitting in my bathrobe writing court reports with a headache. But. I’m good, thanks.

sorry to go OT,but why is Joe Wilson slamming Barak Obama in Huffpo today,man this pisses me off

Green Tea!!!

I was just looking at the article at the WaPo and didin’t see a bio on Ms. Allen. Who is she if you don’t mind enlightening me?

I thought I saw a piece on the “fainting at Obama rallies” that showed that any number of people, men or women, faint during large public events, often because they’ve been standing and it’s hot. Had nothing to do with Obama, swooning or anything…just standard stuff given the context. Where did I see that?

so much tripe,so little time

I still think the whole purpose of the article is to be a smoke screen, a red herring, a McGuffin.

So true but what they don’t get is unlike the Repug crowd, we can walk, talk and chew gum at the same time.

My focus this morning is also on the US sending missiles into Somalia to strike the terrorists but oops, hit a few civilians in the process. Bad intelligence, again. No one gave the blonde in the sunglasses asking villagers where the terrorists were hiding good information. Duh!

I was just looking at the article at the WaPo and didin’t see a bio on Ms. Allen. Who is she if you don’t mind enlightening me?

I googled her and came up with *very* little even when I put quotes around her name. No relevant images. Strange…

1,775 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN. GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

You go girl!!! The misogynists don’t all wear jeans and drool beer through their beards onta their T-shirts…go get ‘em and tatoo ‘em right to their continuin’ racism while yer at it. But I wonder if the time spent exposin’ the corporate media enablers isn’t beatin’ on the horse on the way ta the glue factory. These folks are really on the down side of the curve of influencing popular opinion on ANYthin’, even style fer Christ’s sake!

Keep up the great work, the women in my family are countin on ya (and so are us male human bein’s) and…

KEEP THE FAITH, THEY CAN’T HURTCHA IF THEY CAN’T CATCH YA!!

Think what would have happened at the Post if an African-American had gotten an article past the editors that carried such hateful stereotypes, condescension, and bigotry. Now imagine the writer was a Jew, or a gay, or a Muslim, or a Frenchman.

Hard to imagine that the Post’s editors would have anything to do with such a self-hating screed, isn’t it? It would be hard to see the point of devoting precious newsprint real estate to such a thing.

So why is it okay when it’s about women? Why is it funny when it’s about women?

People faint in crowds. They showed a woman who had fainted at an HRC event on the teevee this morning.

You get way more attention than Montana (I have peeps there) I’m sure that a few appearances will be made (maybe) but otherwise the state will be ignored as it usually is.

I lost all respect for him. Sad the ugliness, Have you seen Obamas new ad. Presidential and positive.

for jeeeeebus sake,aint we got 2 wars and a dismal recession to write about…empty vapid pun….ditzzzzz as in ditzbrain

It’s funny how wingnuts always give their organizations innocuous sounding names. Independent Women’s Forum my ass.

I read it. It’s a hardball piece, but fair criticism, I thought. Better that Obama address this stuff now, because he’ll sure have to address it in the general

He is a Hillary supporter and is voicing his opinion (trying really hard to be objective and nice…not to mention keeping my chakras in alignment)

Sadly: Thank you. I’ve put the kettle on and will give it a try.

Quaker Girl: Yes! I missed that one. I believe ALL the people killed were civilians, weren’t they.

Teddy: It was funny? Oh, that’s right. I’m a feminist: I have no sense of humor (SUCH an old canard, the poor duckie).

Charlotte Allen is a conservative something or other.

http://mainstusa.blogspot.com/…..-post.html

wtf,is his problem,leaning on Obama now,in that type of hit piece makes NO sense what so ever imo

In typical shoot-the-messenger fashion, the WaPo has now scrubbed the Charlotte Allen piece of the hundreds of negative comments.

Good thing they’re never heard of “The Google.”

for all you SICKOs

7 Reasons to Drink Green Tea
Posted Wed, Feb 20, 2008, 10:30 am PST
POST A COMMENT »
The steady stream of good news about green tea is getting so hard to ignore that even java junkies are beginning to sip mugs of the deceptively delicate brew. You’d think the daily dose of disease-fighting, inflammation-squelching antioxidants–long linked with heart protection–would be enough incentive, but wait, there’s more! Lots more.

CUT YOUR CANCER RISK
Several polyphenols – the potent antioxidants green tea’s famous for – seem to help keep cancer cells from gaining a foothold in the body, by discouraging their growth and then squelching the creation of new blood vessels that tumors need to thrive. Study after study has found that people who regularly drink green tea reduce their risk of breast, stomach, esophagus, colon, and/or prostate cancer.

SOOTHE YOUR SKIN
Got a cut, scrape, or bite, and a little leftover green tea? Soak a cotton pad in it. The tea is a natural antiseptic that relieves itching and swelling. Try it on inflamed breakouts and blemishes, sunburns, even puffy eyelids.

PROTECT YOUR SKIN
In the lab, green tea applied directly to the skin (or consumed) helps block sun-triggered skin cancer, which is why you’re seeing green tea in more and more sunscreens and moisturizers…

[Mod Note; Edited by Mod for length. To avoid any copyright issues, please do not post entire articles. — Include a link instead. Thank you. ]

I meant it was funny to the editor who now excuses it by saying it was “tongue-in-cheek.”

No, I don’t think it was funny. Not at all. It was damaging and corrosive.

OH! I’m sorry, Quaker Girl, not Valley Girl. Apologies for misattribution.

Seems this wasn’t the only piece of misogynistic mayhem in yesterdays’ Post:

“For Hillary’s Campaign, It’s Been a Class Struggle” (or “Women are fickle”)

For Bob Somerby’s take:

total waste of space…fishwrap,Canary liners indeed

Good thing they’re never heard of “The Google.”

Or “screenshot.”

(I was kidding. Sorry, I’m not good at being arch.)

You can still get it at the WaPo site by typing in Charlotte Allen under search. The piece comes up.

looks like all the great news about Green Tea has been vanquished

Hush! My steeping tea bag will hear you!

okeydokey

(((Laura Doty)))

get better soon…missed you at the meet-up….hope today’s sun drives the viruses away….

also news on NOT drinking water left in a hot car,breast cancer has been implicated,will post if mod lets

Thanks, Kirk. Between oscillicocium, homemade chicken soup and OJ, I figure I’ll beat it down!

Sorry I missed the meet-up. I hope there’s a next time!

oscillicocium,…that worked for me once

Bwahahaha! loved the barbie quote WT. I remember!

1,775 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen RonD and the firepup Freedom Fighters:

“Better that Obama address this stuff now, because he’ll sure have to address it in the general.”

No dear, better that Mr. Wilson make his points positively in support of Mrs. Clinton on this issue and not attack Obama because that is precisely what is goin’ ta show up in the general election: “Even Joe Wilson, Democrat, is afraid of Obama…” But I’m not certain that that is not now what Mrs. Clinton’s corporate sponsors have instructed her and her surrogates ta do, undermine Obama especially in the old red rust bucket areas like Ohio and set up a situation like we faced in the fall of 2000.

In my opinion, how Mrs. Clinton and those who speak for her and her corporate masters proceed from here on out will tell us whether the Norske has been right all along about her: that Mrs. Clinton is NOT a Democrat but a 1950’s corporate Republican and a wholly owned subsidiary of Rupert Murdock.

KEEP THE FAITH AND ALL WILL BE REVEALED TO YOU!!

That’s all she’s got, that Obama is the second coming of the Beatles to half the population?

The right is desperate.

In a similar vein, is this hit piece on Michelle Obama from “Spengler”, in the Asia Times online.
http://atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC04Aa01.html

Commenting on her Princeton, thesis, c. 1985, that is, in the midst of Ronald Reagan and Gordon Gekko’s “Greed is Good” America, Spengler writes:

“Princeton both humiliated her and corrupted her, Michelle Vaughn Robinson complains in an undergraduate prose that is all the more touching for its clumsiness. By condescending to the young black woman from a Chicago working-class family, the liberal [sic] university made Michelle feel like an outsider. Worse, by giving her a ticket to financial success, Princeton caused her to feel that she was selling out to the institutions she most despised.”

Never mind that Spengler’s “novel” observation fits thousands of bright, twenty year-old, over-achieving scholarship students over the last four decades who were granted “access” to but not “membership” in the elite personified by the Ivy League (and their foreign counterparts, eg, Oxbridge, the elite French professional schools). For many, it was a kind of platform ticket that allowed them to see the fast trains coming through the station, but disallowed their actually boarding any of them.

Nevertheless, that access was an important but limited attempt at democratization; it remains even more so today, thanks in part to the restricted budgets and financial aid allowed by George Bush and like-minded GOP-controlled state legislators, who are limiting access even to traditionally open state universities. Legacy George always despised those kids; they earned their place, but “ruined” the atmosphere of institutions the elite regard as their own.

Spengler’s Schadenfreude is palpable when s/he uses that shop worn “discovery” to conclude that Michelle Obama’s “profound rage, amplified by guilt” from having suffered through four years at Princeton could prove a legacy that might “topple” Obama’s campaign. How sad, that the neocons have to invade Asia in order to publish this drivel.

Pomfret’s “didn’t mean it” is as convincing as Alberto Gonzales saying he did the best he could to manage the Justice Department in “the public’s” interest.

If the WaPo didn’t mean it, let’s see the follow-on articles that accurately assess women and politics in America. Jane, please let us know when they call, won’t you?

We’ve got PICTURES!!!
http://commentisfree.guardian&…..tte_allen/
http://www.godspy.com/members/contributors/
AND BACKGROUND CHECKS!!
It says here she is “a graduate of Stanford and Harvard, where she held a Woodrow Wilson fellowship.”
http://www.writersreps.com/author.cfm?AuthorID=26

On this wingnut campus watch blog it not only refers readers to her “Death by Political Correctness” article with a link but claims she is “finishing a doctorate in medieval studies at the Catholic University of America.”
http://www.mindingthecampus.co…..nding.html

If anyone has any doubts about what a hoot her views on gender, race, and politics are, here’s a few samples
–A compassion piece about Larry Summers on gender difference that gives the lie to the WaPost’s attempt to market the 2 March 08 piece as comedy. Do they think we can’t google?
http://www.dallasnews.com/shar…..35261.html
–from the Weekly Standard on the Jena Six (incendiary opinion suggesting among other things, that the white students who hung nooses in the trees outside a school, had no clue that they might have had anything to do with lynching, racism, or vigilante-ism, nope they were just trying to poke fun at a “rival school’s Western-themed football team.” RRRRRight!)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/…..9bfhgz.asp
There’s more if you can stomach it…
–attacks on “liberal Christianity” with another PHOTO!!
http://commentisfree.guardian&…..pal_r.html
–a charming article on Planned Parenthood with an agenda that is even worse than the Wapo article on 2 March 08
http://www.weeklystandard.com/…..3livny.asp
–a piece that shows she’s about as tolerant of differences in sexual orientation as she is of prochoice activists–brought to you by a pseudoacademic disperser of Business Articles that reprints “Women’s Quarterly” pieces as if they are from serious scholarly journals: http://findarticles.com/p/arti…..i_90305253
–and the piece that seems to have gotten her the buzz as a vamp to hire to spout antifeminist drivel, “Return of the Guy” from 2002’s fake women’s journal again, http://findarticles.com/p/arti…..i_82802439
which contains shocking smears of pathbreaking FDNY Lt. Brenda Berkman. If you want to know more about Berkman, read about the PBS film that features her here: http://www.pbs.org/independent…..renda.html
(undoubtedly one of the things that burns Allen, no pun intended, is that Berkman said no to the morons who said women couldn’t)

What is it that entitles Allen to say this in women’s place again?

And what was it that the Washington Post editor said about satire one more time?

Knee-slapping comedy, that Allen.

As someone said earlier, why that “arch little vixen”!

But what kind of arch fiend–or craven clod–is Pomfret that he is trying to pass her wingnut drivel off–without details of her credentials or lack of them–as all in good fun.

I’m shocked, shocked!

Wapo’s own neocon plant, Ombudsman Deb Howell, must be enjoying this today.

How many fewer GOTV calls did we make the past two days for Obama (or even for Hillary) because we were trying to figure out what that Johns Hopkins study actually said or who was the so-called U. of London researcher who proved women and gay men had substandard spatial skills.

Has anyone had a chance to look to see if the Agence france Presse story is for real? It doesn’t turn up in English or French in any Google function or on-line Archive I can find. What if it wasn’t there at all or if AFP was just quoting the WSJ oped guy who generalized five isolated anecdotes into an attack on Obama’s mad crowds??? Maybe the article came from Rush-wannabe talkradio host Jim Vicevich (one of Allen’s sources of research by the way: check him out if you want to see what a dumb man sounds like!). Even if it’s for real, it sure is hard to find.

Does the Wapost not believe in fact checkers either?

[Mod Note; Please note that adding too many links to a comment will cause it to automatically be held in moderation.]

Wow, m’selle. You have run the fox down to earth. KUDOS! (or, perhaps, YOICKS!)

Well, at least WoPo didn’t get into Gender IQ Studies.

What would we do without you Jane. Our sentry and inspiration.

I just came from the deep within the comments that followed a post by Rebecca Walker at Huffington Post. I found myself in the middle of a boatload of people who were utterly clueless about feminism.

Getting back to FDL feels like getting back out into the sunshine.

My letter, outlook@washpost.com, ombudsman@washpost.com & letters@washpost.com:

Hackneyed dichotomies, stereotyping, argument by anecdote and pseudo-science aside, why did the Post give Charlotte Allen a platform for anything without revealing her political resume (”We Scream, We Swoon…”)? Readers should know, for example, that Allen is a contributor to the right-wing “Independent Women’s Forum”, whose directors have included Lynne Cheney and Katie O’Bierne. The author’s curdled misogyny is offensive and her seemingly incidental mockery of the Democratic candidates is devious, but it might have at least been illuminating if the Post had made the Republican Party’s implicit approval of this reactionary sexism clear.

Ridiculous commentary by Ms. Allen. I’m not sure if the following superb piece by Christine Craft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Craft) in the SF Chronicle got much publicity:

The hidden ‘ism’

Christine Craft

Friday, February 29, 2008

America feigns pride these days as it prepares to ditch sexism and racism by nominating a woman or a black man as a serious contender for the presidency. Pundits on the left predict that, finally, in 2008 voters will vitalize the constitutional dream that any American can achieve the top office. From the right, we hear, “Just not these two!”

But hold the cuddly feeling.

While sexism hasn’t had the same hideous history of lynchings as its companion “ism,” the case can be made that gender bias is even more prevalent, more accepted, more insidious and more likely to die a drawn-out death. The presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton is this thesis writ large.

It goes way beyond the insults about Hillary’s un-anorectic ankles if she wears skirts and guffaws when she favors pantsuits. It goes beyond Chris Matthews’ open misogyny on the aptly named “Hardball” when he claims Hillary owes her Senate elections to her husband’s womanizing. He says it accusingly as if Hillary had been the one on her knees. I don’t know what it means when Matthews claims to get “tingling” up his leg when he hears Obama speak.

It goes beyond the criticism leveled at Hillary when her talk turns tough and passionate. That’s the cue to decry her “shrillness,” a polite wink-wink way of saying she is a shrew and a bitch. If she gets a watery eye, it’s either phony or a sign of weakness, not just being human. She is amazingly controlled as a top executive should be, but that’s “coldness.” When her desire to win is the topic, she is sneeringly called “ambitious” as if a would-be president could be anything but.

The debate this week in Cleveland contained examples of the hidden “ism.” Hillary took just umbrage at Obama’s characterization of her supposed cheerleading for NAFTA, a cruel policy for Ohio. On CNN, when former Reagan and Clinton communications director David Gergen defended her as being part of the internal debate he observed at the White House and said she had been a strong voice warning of its potential dangers, the rest of the media and Obama paid no attention. What? Do we expect that the then first lady should have called a press conference to denounce her husband’s NAFTA advocacy? What would she have been called then? Uppity? Obama is of course no fool in any of this. If the hidden, insidious “ism” benefits him, he won’t be objecting.

The next day, I watched a quartet of Fox News women in their stilettos and push-up bras pretend to be enraged feminists when discussing Hillary’s “whining” to NBC’s Brian Williams about always being asked the first question. The Fox anchor-ettes said it was an insult to their hard-won position as professional women. They missed the point that those hosting presidential debates have always varied the order of questions to male contenders out of fundamental journalistic fairness.

It is further alarming when the hidden “ism” flourishes in the voice of a female national radio host. Randi Rhodes of “progressive” Air America blithely jokes about Hillary’s reproductive equipment and the size of her necklace beads. I see also the faux outrage over superdelegates because this long tradition may benefit Sen. Clinton. Time to change the rules. Then there’s the age thing. The early 60s have long been thought to be the perfect age for an American president, not too old, not too young. Suddenly we have to change the rules. Hillary is too old.

History will record whether American women seize their moment or not. But no one should pretend that gender bias isn’t alive and well. Hillary’s campaign has shown it, and I salute her resilience, knowing as she must that many who would reject any scintilla of overt racism would and do easily accommodate the other hidden “ism.”

I was taken aback years ago when I had a conversation with Anita Hill. She told me the most disheartening turn of her righteous objection to the coronation of Clarence Thomas had been the attacks she bore from women. She saw all too clearly then that women were the last n-words, conditioned to denigrate their own kind.

A Hillary presidency could vaporize much of that inequity.

It was vastly underreported when she kicked butt in California by more than nine percentage points. Right now she leads in Ohio, but you’d never know it. Are you ready to HOPE for a CHANGE? My hand across my ample bosom, I’ll settle for a miracle.

Would it be strange to suggest that it’s possible Charlotte Allen wears a strap-on to work. Just saying…

I didn’t find the sexism as offensive as I found her general mindlessness depressing (because it’s so common). I’m pretty sure she thought she was clever in offending as many groups as she could. Most her her sexism is just run of the mill stuff that people think is cute. She probably fancies herself Paglia-esque.

But she sure is an embarrassment to her gender (not to mention carbon based lifeforms everywhere).

Reread the piece, if you dare. This witless, reactionary shit is also cover for mocking the two Democratic candidates. It’s not meant to “offend everyone.”

There’s a lot more a “Hillary” presidency could “vaporize”.

Thank her for the war for me.

Given the ridiculous assertions made by Allen in her last WaPo article, wherein she discouraged people from completing advance directives because they were the product of the “intellectual elite” and we should damn well die the old fashioned way…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01882.html

Pomfret is either ignorant or dishonest when he claims he had no idea she was so controversial.