Originally Posted by Mellowicious
I would agree with you, Schlack,but we're not talking blogs here, we're talking a major American newspaper. And this article isn't controversial - it's the sexist, print equivalent of Amos 'n' Andy.

If they wanted controversy, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of topics they might have selected simply from the area of "women's issues." They could even do it in a way that was both informative and entertaining. This article is neither.

And someone just reminded me - would anyone care to "compare and contrast" this supposed swooning over Obama with the wolf whistles and general "va-va-voom" silliness on this site whenever Elizabeth Kucinich is pictured/mentioned?
well, she is pretty. look, the whole column is absurd. and while she does make a point, she certainly loses credibility at the same time. but i want to point something out. when an opinion is squashed, the outrage is deafening. sometimes the whole point of publishing an opinion such as this, speaking as an editor, is to allow the absurdity to flourish. while i cannot pretend to read the mind of the opinion editor at the post, i would venture a guess that this well could be the case.

sure, you can talk to god, but if you don't listen then what's the use? so, onward through the fog!