With the ghosts of Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower looking down, President Bush finally admitted today that he has been touched by the true cost of war:
For the first time, Bush revealed a personal way in which he has tried to acknowledge the sacrifice of soldiers and their families: He has given up golf.
“I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf,” he said. “I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”
In unity and spirit with Americans who will never see a child or a parent again on account of his policies, George W. Bush made the heart-wrenching decision to take a five-year hiatus from the game. He chose to make this sacrifice several months after the invasion of Iraq.
Indeed. You can see why Jonah Goldberg was so taken with the Commander Decider all those many moons ago. In fact, I’d posit that Bush is the nation’s first-ever Doughy Pantload President. Because even though the Loadpants-in-Chief “sacrificed” playing golf, he still managed to set the all-time presidential record for vacations back in 2005. How long before some intrepid young whistle blower leaks pictures of the Prez gorging himself in Cheetos, I wonder?
You really have to hand it to the Doughy Pantload. If nothing else, he’s efficient:
What do Yucca Mountain and Guantanamo Bay have in common?
Well, there’s the obvious stuff. Both have Spanish names.
Actually, Jonah, “Yucca” is not a Spanish name. The Spanish name for that area would be “Yuca“. Thanks for playing, though; it’s good to know that the same dedication to fact-checking that made your book such a hit is still serving you well.
As for the speculation that Obama would convince Hillary’s supporters to vote for him if he picks another female VP candidate like Napolitano or McCaskill, I highly doubt it. There is only one Hillary Clinton. Women are not interchangeable. In fact, it would be rubbing salt in the wounds of her already disappointed supporters. Like showing off the new girlfriend to the jilted one. I think millions would stay home.
So now picking a woman as his vice-presidential candidate would apparently alienate millions of women voters. Why? Who knows! Jeralyn is still in Clinton Cuckoo Land, so this stuff apparently makes sense to her.
As I’ve said before, I can’t wait for this primary to be over just so a lot of people I like can become sane again.
Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas and defeated contender for the GOP presidential nomination, is currently at the top of John McCain’s short list for a running mate. At least that’s the word from a top McCain fundraiser and longtime Republican moneyman who has spoken to McCain’s inner circle.
All they need is sanctuary-friendly Rudy Giuliani as DHS Secretary, and the open-borders dream nightmare team will be complete.
Can someone please fast-forward to 2012? Please.
Nope, sorry dude. I’m having way too much fun enjoying the present. And besides, by 2012 the brown people will all have invaded and President Hussein Obama X will have confiscated your Blu-Ray player so it can be added to his $777 trillion Reparations Fund.
EAT IT, WHITE PEOPLE!!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!
Hooray! Roy has just landed a regular gig at the Village Voice! And you’ll be happy to know that working for the wicked Em Ess Em hasn’t dulled his edge:
Rightbloggers were not wholly devoted to electoral matters, though. On May 9, National Review Online’s Jonah Goldberg likened Congressional Democrats’ proposed windfall profits tax on oil companies — which have of late grown rich beyond the dreams of avarice — to a “vampiric lust for entrepreneurial blood” that would stifle the creation of better mousetraps by small businessmen. Goldberg anticipated objections: “That analogy is bogus. ExxonMobil isn’t some garage-workshop Horatio Alger.” To which he replied: “Exactly!” Because “Unlike the guy building the better mousetrap, oil companies aren’t in it for the glory, they’re in it for the money.” So they’ll stop looking for oil because there won’t be enough money in it, and presumably turn to more profitable trades, if such a thing can be imagined, or write that novel they’ve been kicking around since college. Better we should stick with the status quo and hope for the best, perhaps alternative energy — oops, Goldberg already denounced that as “buffoonery” (”the economic Shangri-La of ‘energy independence’ — whatever that is”). Well, live without hope, then, like your forefathers did.
Above: ‘May I PLEASE see the queer-positive guinea pig, Mr. Venkman?’
Humorless right-wing legacy/professional Walter Peck imitator Brent Bozell, as you probably know, is a very busy man. People are always trying to distract him from the vital issue of condemning gay pigeons by reminding him that there is a war on, and sometimes it’s just too hard to actually read the books that the demands be removed from our schools lest we go the way of Rome.
For example, Bozell, whose idea of standing up for the great conservative principles of liberty and freedom is to stick up for censorship in America’s libraries, recently penned a column in which he expressed his usual nuanced view of the First Amendment:
Some have made the obvious point that challenging libraries to provide titles they’re not stocking would turn the tables and make people realize that librarians can also be censorious in the titles they choose not to display. The mere act of selecting some books and excluding others is a “censorious” act.
What censorship IS: not stocking every book that has ever been written.
In other words, the ALA doesn’t favor open discussion and debate with parents — which is what the “challenges” represent. Its idea of “freedom” is emboldening librarians to be brave enough to indoctrinate children with what they really need to know, whether their parents object or even know about it. If public debate follows, it’s viewed as a distasteful and unfortunate bump on the road to enlightenment.
What censorship IS NOT: demanding that books of which someone might disapprove are expunged from the library.
But, you see, Brent is so busy working himself into a moral tizzy over the possibility that homosexual rodents might weaken the moral fiber of our offspring, he doesn’t always have time to read the books he works so hard on behalf of America’s non-reading parents to condemn. Note, if you will, his blue-nosed chicken cluck over an obscure tome called Uncle Bobby’s Wedding:
Already we can predict how the ALA next year will complain about any objection to a book called “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” the story of a young guinea pig who worries that her Uncle Bobby won’t play with her anymore after he “marries” his boyfriend Jamie. The book ends at the “wedding,” with Chloe as the enthusiastic flower girl.
Note, if you further will, this review in a New England gay newspaper of the selfsame Uncle Bobby’s Wedding:
It tells the sweet story of Chloe, an anthropomorphic young guinea pig who worries that Uncle Bobby won’t keep having fun with her after he marries his boyfriend Jamie. Uncle Bobby explains that their special times together will not end; Chloe will not be losing an uncle, but gaining one. The book ends at the wedding, with Chloe as the enthusiastic flower girl.
Notice the similarity? The author of the review did. She seems bemused more than outraged, possibly because she is not familiar with Bozell’s status as a craven plagiarizing shitbag, but hey, at least there’s an upside: the right wing is finally starting to learn how to use Google!
About a month ago, I called Ramesh in a panic because I’d forgotten that I was slated to do a Close-Up Foundation interview on the Bush legacy and I hadn’t thought too much about it. Fortunately, not only did Ramesh have some great thoughts, but I was wrong about the date — by a month (I’d entered it into my PDA wrong). Anyway, I’m doing the interview this Thursday and while I have my thoughts far better organized, I thought it’d be interesting to know what NRO readers think Bush’s legacy will be. Please send thoughts — hopefully constructive — to JonahResearch@AOL.com.
I highly encourage you all to send Jonah your thoughts on this matter, be they constructive or otherwise.
For my part, I think pictures speak more than a trillion-kabillion words, so I’ll let them speak for me. Ladies and gentlemen, the Bush Legacy:
To sum up: Bush has been a smarmy, destructive asshole for the past eight years and he has left the next president with an extremely large pile of shit to deal with. And you, Jonah, dutifully enabled the stupid SOB for years until you realized that he was starting to cost the GOP votes. Lest we forget:
From tax cuts (and deficits, alas), to his personal conviction on aborrtion, to aligning America with the historical tide of liberty in the world, Georrge W. Bush has proved that he’s a Reaganite, not a “Bushie.” He may not be a natural heir to Reagan, but that’s the point. The party is all Reaganite now. What better sign that this is now truly and totally the Gipper’s Party than the obvious conversion of George Bush’s own son?
Why should anybody ask for your opinion on anything, dude? You have less credibility than a 9/11 Truther. Because say what you will about the Truthers, but at least they don’t abandon their crazy and insane delusions just because they suddenly become politically inconvenient.
What a pathetic fraud.
UPDATE: Here’s a more succinct version of the Bush Legacy:
One of my least-favorite journalistic conventions is when a reporter interviews one crazy bastard and decides to have him represent an entire demographic of people. Case in point is thisFinancial Times article:
Like most people in Mingo County, West Virginia, Leonard Simpson is a lifelong Democrat. But given a choice between Barack Obama and John McCain in November, the 67-year-old retired coalminer would vote Republican.
“I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife’s an atheist,” said Mr Simpson, drawing on a cigarette outside the fire station in Williamson, a coalmining town of 3,400 people surrounded by lush wooded hillsides.
Mr Simpson’s remarks help explain why Mr Obama is trailing Hillary Clinton, his Democratic rival, by 40 percentage points ahead of Tuesday’s primary election in the heavily white and rural state, according to recent opinion polls.
Well no, dude, they really don’t.
Only 10% of voters think that Obama is a Muslim. And unless they all happen to be West Virginia Democratic primary voters, I don’t think that Mr. Simpson’s remarks explain anything other than his own psychosis.
Sadly, Oliver Willis takes the bait on this nonsense:
It’s the sentiment of one voter in West Virginia. And I know I’m in many ways the stereotypical coastal elitist here, but I don’t I’m crazy to think that a party absolves itself of morality by pandering to that kind of thing, always afraid of taking a step forward because it might offend some whose thinking is backwards (ie “That Martin King is kind of radical, shouldn’t we just bide our time rather than upsetting the apple cart? People in the deep south aren’t ready for big change just yet”).
I don’t believe in supporting candidates far outside of the mainstream of thought but at the same time that road goes both ways. I don’t believe in not supporting a candidate because of the opinion of a voting bloc outside of the realm of common sense.
Of course, at the same time, this shows the world of difference between Virginia and West Virginia.
See, here’s the thing: the reasons that Republicans have been winning elections in rural southern and midwestern states is because they’ve become extremely adept at exploiting cultural differences between small-town Americans and big-city Americans. We’re all familiar by with what this entails: portraying Democrats as Starbucks pastry-buggering windsurfing Yanni fans.
Now it’s true that there are real cultural differences between people who live in cities and people who live in small towns. It’s also true that these differences are present in just every country that’s ever existed. City life and country life are different from one another, and thus it’s perfectly natural that people who live in fundamentally different environments would adopt different cultural norms and mores.
What’s more, I think these cultural differences are relatively small. Yes, cities have a smaller percentage of people who attend church every week, but atheists like me are still way, way outnumbered by people with religious beliefs. For instance, even though Boston has a reputation as a den of atheistic eeeeeeeeevil, it has like a gajillion Catholics living in it. Let’s face it: the cultural differences between rural and urban Americans pale in significance to our similarities.
And this brings me back to why Oliver’s take on this is so stupid. Dude, we’re trying to convince people to support Team Blue in the fall. Stereotyping everyone in West Virginia as a brain-dead goober is a poor strategy for getting them to vote for our candidate. Instead of simply dismissing all Clinton supporters as bigoted hicks, folks in the Obama camp should examine how her emphasis on progressive domestic policy issues such as implementing universal health care and placing a temporary freeze on subprime foreclosures has helped her win over white blue-collar Democrats. And while I’m sure there will be a small, insignificant minority of Clinton supporters who won’t vote for Obama because he’s black, I think the vast majority of them will be receptive to him if he can make his case.
A rash of illnesses and a pretty severe work overload brought on by the joys of teaching at a failing school in a state that does high-stakes testing (more on that later) have stolen every quantum of spare time I’ve had in months, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t missed you guys something terrible.
Apparently, not having time to do much more than shower and work in the last four months means I’ve missed some stuff in the news…anybody wanna fill me in?
While I’m getting caught up with the rest of the world, I thought I’d share with you some secret footage that someone managed to smuggle out of Clinton’s campaign headquarters. Enjoy (NSFW subtitles - or language, if anyone around you speaks German)!
Update: Apologies to any Hillary Clinton supporters whom I may have offended with my intemperate posting. Perhaps this will make you feel better.
Sorry this one isn’t as funny as the other one is - I can try to offend equally, but I can’t make up for the fact that non-Obama supporters are just not as funny as non-Clinton supporters. If you can hook me up with something better, leave a message in the comments and I’ll edit this.
One of the more tiresome arguments to come out during the primary battle is whenever someone says that “so-and-so can’t win against McCain in the fall.” Uh, people, look at this:
At the polls, it has been a massacre. In recent weeks, Republicans have lost a Louisiana House seat they had held for more than two decades and an Illinois House seat they had held for more than three. Internal polls show that next week they could lose a Mississippi House seat that they have held for 13 years.
In the polls, they are setting records (and not the good kind). The most recent Gallup Poll has 67 percent of voters disapproving of President Bush; those numbers are worse than Richard Nixon’s on the eve of his resignation. A CBS News poll taken at the end of April found only 33 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the GOP — the lowest since CBS started asking the question more than two decades ago. By comparison, 52 percent of the public has a favorable view of the Democratic Party.
The Democrats could run a Pauly Shore/Gallagher ticket and still crush the GOP. Either Clinton or Obama will run roughshod over St. BBQ, peeps. Mark me words.
Well, Power Tool regular Paul (”Deacon”) Mirengoff has decided to emulate his fellow Power Tool blogger Ass Rocket by bending over, grabbing his ankles, pointing his butt towards the heavens and launching another projectile of teh stupid into the blogosphere:
I wrote here about Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, “a former Guantanamo detainee who carried out a recent suicide bombing in Mosul.” There are two main theories as to why he did this: (1) he was a terrorist all along and naturally reverted to terrorism upon his release or (2) he was not a terrorist before and conditions at Gitmo drove him into being one.
A Kuwaiti man who complained about maltreatment during a three-year stay in the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was involved in a deadly suicide bombing in northern Iraq last month, the U.S. military confirmed yesterday.
In the Post’s telling, the man’s complaint gets first billing. In fact, he’s not even referred to as a detainee … he’s just a Kuwaiti man on a “stay.”
So you won’t have to click through the link to the WaPo story, here is where Ajmi is “not even referred to as a detainee”:
Ex-Guantanamo Detainee Joined Iraq Suicide Attack
That would be just the headline of the story. And here they don’t call him a detainee again:
The suicide bombing is the first such attack in Iraq linked to a former Guantanamo detainee.
Go to the article yourself and count the number of times it uses the word “detainee,” and you’ll discover that Mirengoff apparently can’t read, or count, or both.
But the stupidity has only started:
The thesis that abusive conditions at Gitmo are turning peaceable men into suicide bombers strikes me as dubious. But suppose conditions there really have been that bad. In that scenario, if we’re still serious about fighting terrorism and saving innocent lives we’d be crazy to release any of the detainees, regardless of whether we have evidence of prior involvement with terrorism … .
If someone was a terrorist before he went into Gitmo, we can’t release him. And if he wasn’t, he still can’t be released because, well, we’ve probably turned him into one. Heads we win; tails they lose — the perfect wingnut wager.
Even the American homeless emit twice as much carbon dioxide as the world average, the wastrels. That’s the finding of a new report from MIT:
[T]he “floor” below which nobody in the U.S. can reach, no matter a person’s energy choices, turned out to be 8.5 tons, the class found. That was the emissions calculated for a homeless person who ate in soup kitchens and slept in homeless shelters.
As our own Steve Hayward pointed out in his recent WSJ piece, to reduce American emissions by 80 percent by 2050 with a reasonable guess at population of 400 million, that would mean an individual emission limit of 2.5 tons. And you know what? Switching over to twisty lightbulbs and driving Priuses isn’t likely to acheive [sic] that for the homeless…
Effing homeless. If I’d known they were causing so much global warming, I’d stop giving them my spare quarters!
Of course, 8.5 tons per homeless person does seem like a figure that’s, well, a teensy bit large. After all, if you live in an average size apartment in California and drive around a mid-size car, you would be emitting 7.22 tons of carbon annually. (Calculate that here). Or perhaps the average homeless guy has a better lifestyle than any of us knew about. The reason that we aren’t seeing a line of Hummers parked in front of the Central Union Mission is apparently because the homeless are smart enough to park their gas-guzzlers several blocks away and then walk to the soup kitchen.
Let’s just follow Murray’s link and find out what’s really up with all those megatons of carbon dioxide being spewed out of soup kitchens. First, we have the issue of a “report from MIT.” Er, no:
A Massachusetts Institute of Technology class has studied the carbon emissions of Americans in a wide variety of lifestyles and estimated that people in the United States contribute much more than the global average.
Not to be overly critical of undergraduates or anything but a class project isn’t really conclusive of much of anything other than the grades that the students received.
Not only isn’t this really an MIT report but also it wasn’t really a study of what homeless people actually “emit” but rather what they emit plus an allocation of a large part of the carbon output of state, federal and local governments:
While it may seem surprising that even people whose lifestyles don’t appear extravagant–the homeless, monks, children–are responsible for significant greenhouse gas emissions, one major factor is the array of government services that are available to everyone in the United States. These basic services–including police, roads, libraries, the court system and the military–were allocated equally to everyone in the country in this study.
Only a bunch of engineering students could imagine that military carbon emissions should be allocated to the homeless, I suppose because the homeless are so grateful for having their way of life preserved by our troops. And only America’s Shittiest Global Warming Denier™ could think that this undergraduate class project proves anything at all.
Mr. Murray, there’s a call on line 3. Exxon-Mobil wants its money back.
I think I pissed off Lambert and the Corrente crowd over the Ramengate post. I’m pretty sure I made my new pal Shystee uncomfortable. For that I apologize - it’s just that all the stuff about Obama supporters being the ‘creative class’ and ‘Obama fan boys’ and ‘elitists’ who don’t care about poor people started getting under my skin. Plus Lambert’s whole re-enactment of the Four Yorkshiremen sketch was funny to me. And the latte-sipping insults were very much an outing into wingnut territory.
I also want to thank Leah and Shystee for sticking up for S,N! over at Corrente. I tried to register to comment over there, but it didn’t take.
I do support Obama, as I’ve said before. Just not very zealously — I would very-very-with-a-grin-on-my-face-happy-happy-fun-time pull the lever for Clinton if she gets the nomination. As I’ve also said before. I literally made my choice for Obama on the morning of the California primary. Not because I’m an out-of-touch idiot who didn’t do his homework, although I am often that. Rather, it was because I liked both of them enough against the Rethugs in the general election that I couldn’t pick between them. Also, I had a good friend who I knew was voting for Hillary, so I figured I’d toss my vote Barack’s way to even things out.
Amazingly, my opinion back then hasn’t really changed much. I like Obama’s chances against McCain a little better, but I think both could clean the floor with him. I would be happy to have either as president.
This blog, unlike Corrente, has not been particularly fervent in its partisanship for either candidate, although my guess is the majority of the regular posters support Obama. I actually don’t know who Clif or Jillian or Travis endorses. Seb supports the Oktoberfest Party for all I know. HTML Mencken could be writing in Gore Vidal. Sadly, No! Research Labs is for a straight falsifiability ticket, barring the unlikely appearance on the national scene of a strong anti-kerning crusader. The point being, primary stumping is not precisely our preferred wicket in these parts, though comment threads do tilt very strongly, almost exclusively to Obama.
We have two very strong candidates to end the nightmare of the Bush years. And that makes me happy. At the same time, I have no illusions that either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is a particularly progressive candidate. I’m not such a naif that I think most of the policies I would prefer under either of them wouldn’t get watered down and centrist-ized to the point where I would grumble and moan and start attacking them from the left. I have no doubt, for instance, that either Obama or Clinton would find some way to drag us into a new war. It’s what American presidents do and it ain’t gonna change. Their main advantage over McCain is that he would drag us into two wars.
As HTML Mencken says, ‘both candidates are corporate whores.’ That’s just the facts. On the other hand, I’m getting too old and tired, and I’ve been around the election block enough times, to really put a whole lot of energy into trumpeting that depressing reality to the high heavens anymore. We’re getting a centrist who tacks to the right as our presidential nominee. It’s just the way this country works. The progressive, game-changing stuff will trickle up to the political class from the grassroots, not the other way around. I no longer think that’s as terrible a thing as I used to, because the stuff worth doing gets means-tested at the local level, in the neighborhoods and towns and cities, weeding out the crap and bringing the cream to the national theater. It could be worse. We could live under the Burmese junta.
The other point worth noting is that the Dems may give us a centrist waffler, but the GOP will give us an insane person with one hand on the lever to the bomb bay doors and the other jamming the maxed-out credit card of our national debt into Corporate America slots that give worse odds than an arcade claw machine and charge a thousand-point vig.
There are areas where I think Clinton and Obama have advantages over the other. I like Hillary’s health care plan. I like Barack’s pledge of $10 billion a year for five years to bring the health care information systems and records in line with existing standards. I like Hillary’s plans to expand National Science Foundation funding and grants. I like Barack’s commitment to network neutrality and ideas for transparent government. I like Hillary’s toughness and practical nature. I like Barack’s charisma and ability to bring new voters into the process. I like Clinton’s experience and I like Obama’s freshness.
It’s like an old politician once asked me, ‘Why do I have to pick between the Israelis and the Palestinians? I like them both. I want them both to have peace.’
I want peace, or a relative facsimile thereof, for our country. I want a competent technocrat as president who will appoint Roe-supporting justices, fill the bureaucracy with competent people who never had Bob Jones University as their first, second, third or 10,000th college choice, who will not shit on the Constitution too runnily or gather Straussians in underground star chambers to trade the latest torture porn hot off the presses. Obama and Clinton are our sole shots at that.
Have Obama and his supporters fucked up and been nasty and divisive and shitty at times? Yeah. So has she and so have hers. Both deserve to be raked over the coals when they sling Rovian mud at each other or blatantly and unconstructively break the 11th commandment or fling race and gender cards around or talk about obliterating Iran or invading Pakistan.
But here’s what I don’t get and maybe Lambert et. al. can help me out. On the one hand, you guys notice every wart on Obama’s face, which, again, is perfectly fine. And yet you are stunningly blind to any on Hillary’s. And really, they’re not hard to miss.
It’s like you project the entire long history of progressive discontent with centrist, party hack Democrats onto Barack Obama, again, fine, but then you turn around and somehow project Dennis Kucinich onto your own candidate. Who is Hillary Clinton. I repeat, Hillary-fucking-Clinton. Who is a real person, with a real legislative record, not some doll you can put overalls on and call Working Class Hero Hills! Now with Gas Tax Holiday Grip!
So I have to ask: why are you doing this? And really, I want to know, because it looks very much like Obama is going to be the nominee and I hope you all come home to support him. Or to turn things out and attempt to be a little more gracious, what do Obama and his supporters need to do today to get you into this car?
UPDATE: I’m glad I got most of the above stuff off my chest. But I also think my apology to Lambert and Corrente will be read as more than a little back-handed, and they’d be right. It’s hard to completely unsnark oneself. But I really do want to mend fences and I want to be clearer about this, so I’ll just ask: What is it about Barack Obama that is such a deal-breaker for so many of you? I honestly want to know, because I just don’t get it.
Clif adds: For the record, I am for the candidate that has the best chance of beating St. Bar-BQ. At times the polls have given that edge to Hillary; at times, to Obama. One thing, however, is certain: I will be voting for the Democratic nominee in the November elections. I have, it seems, posted more things here ridiculing attacks on Obama than on Clinton, but that is only because Obama seems to have the wingnut-o-sphere so exercised that every time you turn around somebody is saying something preposterous about Obama. It’s hard not to take a hit on that “comedy crack” pipe as somebody said over at Corrente.
I’m really busy corrupting the morals of our once-great nation as Niko Bellic, but the right-wing blogosphere never stops being stupid, so here’s a few fool du fa fas from some of our favorite gasbags:
***
Over at The Darkies Are Coming, Lady Lymph Node provides us with this awesome map of what Europe will look like 50 years from now after the moon-worshiping dusk-devils take over her beloved Europe:
I’m sure we can all agree that’s very useful and sensible, but unfortunately, it neglects to inform us as to which territories will be held by the Eastasians, the Klingons and the Latverian Doombots.
Downbeat, resentful, insular, tone-deaf and peevish
Oddly, he is describing Michelle Obama, not James Lileks.
***
Ramesh Punani over at the Corner says that Obama is positioning himself as the candidate of optimism vs. McCain’s Gloomy Grandpa image. Well, two can play that game:
McCain says we should empower patients with free-market health care. Obama says it’s a pipe dream.
“Gosh! As dictated by free market principles, I cannot afford quality health care and am thus suffering horribly from a number of treatable diseases! I feel so…empowered!”
So get over yourself already, haughty spirit. Pride doesn’t photograph well. And bitterness leaves frown lines. Which means Botox bills. Which “struggling folks” like you and your husband simply cannot afford. Try smiling for once. It’s cheaper.
So, to recap, Michelle Malkin, the world’s angriest anchor baby, who is literally professionally outraged, a woman whose natural state is somewhere between indignant and incensed, who takes offense if she wakes up laying on her left side, is counseling someone else to relax, stop frowning, get over herself, and smile. RHETORICIAN HEAL THYSELF!
