Ace: aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck: buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD: cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix: mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum: petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton: sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022 Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022 OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published.
Contact OrangeEnt for info: maildrop62 at proton dot me
Washington Post Permits Cartoonist to Go After Ted Cruz's Five and Seven Year Old Daughters, Claiming That If They're In an Ad, They're "Fair Game" Now Pulled
Tell me, if Obama's daughters were, hypothetically, in his most famous campaign ad, the 30 minute ad he ran on most networks on the eve of the 2008 election, would they be "fair game" too?
Note, this is all entirely hypothetical, I'm sure.
But just check out Obama's Most Famous, Costliest Ad from minute 19 to 20.
Probably one of the most watched ads of all time.
You know what I see there?
"Fair game," according to the Washington Post. That's what I see there.
Pulled Down, Now With This Bullshit Explanation: "I Didn't Look At It."
Right, right, right.
I know you looked at it -- you seemed to have required her to write a defense of the cartoon in order to give it "context" and make it acceptable.
I am having a lot of trouble believing that a hot piece like this, so controversial the cartoonist had to pre-justify her own stupid doodle with a written explanation, gets past the editors without people taking a look-see.
I mean it's a frickin' cartoon. You know -- a scribbling for babies and illiterates. Who doesn't have the time to look at a doodle?
Editor’s note from Fred Hiatt: It's generally been the policy of our editorial section to leave children out of it. I failed to look at this cartoon before it was published. I understand why Ann thought an exception to the policy was warranted in this case, but I do not agree.
He seems to be saying there's a good reason for Ann to think this was an "exception" -- because Cruz' kids were in a ad.
Okay, well Obama's kids were also in an ad -- would the liberal Fred Hiatt agree, or at least "understand," why people might think that also serves as a "warranted" "exception" to justify an attack on his kids?
Note my point is not to go after Obama's kids. I never go after his kids. I have no reason to do so.
But this liberal game of piously claim Democrats' children are completely off-limits, while concocting "warranted exceptions" for Republicans' kids (every Republicans' kids, pretty much -- ask the Bush Twins and Palin Kids), is infuriating beyond my capacity to express.