LESSONS CONCERNING THE FALL: Hard to spot from outer space!


Part 3—In search of our missing IQs:
Janet Malcolm is enthralled by Rachel Maddow's storytelling.

We offer that, not as snark, but as a virtual quote. Malcolm's profile of Maddow in the October 9 New Yorker is entitled thusly: THE STORYTELLER. Throughout the piece, Malcolm enthuses about Maddow's "inimitable" storytelling.

Watching Maddow on TV is "an exhilirating experience," our nation's best magazine writer confesses at one point. Early on, she describes herself as "mesmerized" as she watches Maddow each night—though, it must be said, she also says, in a daft admission, that she's also "mesmerized" by the constipation and Cialis ads which pay the bills for Maddow's art, which she weirdly describes as "TV entertainment at its finest."

It's hard to know why a major journal would publish observations so daft that they're visible from space. That said, The New Yorker has chosen to do so—and all through her lengthy profile, Malcolm praises Maddow's storytelling transplendence.

She praises Maddow's "extraordinary storytelling," which is driven by the "acute storyteller's instincts" which let Maddow turn a New York Times report into "a lucid and enthralling set piece." According to Malcolm, Maddow "spins her elaborate tales out of the threads the news provides."

"Maddow's artistry is most conspicuous in her monologues, which can span as long as twenty-four uninterrupted minutes," the mesmerized magazine writer says, not just about those Cialis ads, but about Maddow herself.

In fairness, we ourselves have often said that Maddow's a skilled performer. We've offered that assessment as an offshoot of a larger critique, in which we've said that Maddow is exceptionally skilled at "selling the car," though she may not necessarily be obsessively honest.

We've sometimes praised Maddow for her "hand jive," the histrionic hand gestures she's developed over time. We've often mentioned the weird grinning in which she engages, along with the phony forced laughter.

We've assumed that these behavioral ticks, which apparently "sell" to the traumatized viewer, were the result of consultant training. It wasn't until this very week that we would have thought something like this:
MALCOLM (10/9/17): Maddow’s TV persona—the well-crafted character that appears on the nightly show—suggests experience in the theatre, but Maddow has had none. “I am a bad actor. I can be performative. But I can’t play any other character than the one who appears on the show. I can’t embody anyone else.” To keep herself in character, so to speak, Maddow marks up the text that she will read from a teleprompter with cues for gestures, pauses, smiles, laughs, frowns—all the body language that goes into her performance of the Rachel figure. “My scripts are like hieroglyphics,” she said. I asked her if I could see a page or two of these annotated texts. She consented, but then thought better of it.
Even with cues for frowns! Even we have never suggested that Maddow actually writes all that bullshit into the scripts she reads on the air. Mesmerized, Malcolm describes these "performative" affectations as "the body language that goes into her performance of the Rachel figure," "the well-crafted character that appears on the nightly show."

Is there something "wrong" with what Malcolm describes? Is there something wrong with performing a well-crafted character, in this case "the Rachel figure?"

Not necessarily, no! It all depends on the quality of the work which is being provided.

Malcolm, of course, has already said, perhaps a bit weirdly, that the work in question is actually "TV entertainment"—"a piece of sleight of hand disguised as a cable news program." She has already said that the work in question, this sleight of hand, is designed to let liberals "enjoy themselves" in this, our deeply dangerous hour of total political failure.

Mesmerized by the Cialis and constipation ads, Malcolm praises the sleight of hand. For some reason, her editors chose to publish these strange assessments in our nation's brainiest, and also dumbest, upper-class low-IQ journal.

How daft is our best magazine writer as she assesses Maddow's work? For today, lets consider her assessment of Maddow's first monologue of the year, the monologue which opened her program on January 2, the first Maddow Show of this deeply dangerous year, which is now being defined by the president's IQ wars.

How brilliant was Maddow that night? In paragraph 4 of her endless report, Malcolm begins to tell us, even revealing the segment's donnée:
MALCOLM: Maddow’s artistry is most conspicuously displayed in the long monologue—sometimes as long as twenty-four minutes, uninterrupted by commercials—with which her show usually begins. The monologue of January 2, 2017, is an especially vivid example of Maddow’s extraordinary storytelling. Its donnée was a Times article of December 31, 2016, with the headline “Trump’s Indonesia projects, still moving ahead, create potential conflicts.”
According to both Merriam and Webster, a donnée is "the set of assumptions on which a work of fiction or drama proceeds." In fairness, Maddow's 17-minute monologue wasn't a work of fiction this night, though at moments it came rather close.

(To watch the performance, click here.)

At any rate, Malcolm feels that this first monologue put Maddow's artistry on display. As happens again and again in this piece, she notices things that we also noticed in real time. But she showers praise on these performances, while we saw them as points of concern:
MALCOLM: In Maddow’s hands, the Times story became a lucid and enthralling set piece. “This story is amazing and it starts with copper,” Maddow said at the beginning of the monologue, looking happy. She had already told us that she was glad to be back from her vacation and wasn’t disheartened by the election. People had approached her “with concern in their eyes” and asked how she felt about the coming year. “I found myself . . . saying, ‘I’m really excited for 2017.’ I am! My job is to explain stuff—and, oh my God, is that a good job to have this year!”
As usual, Maddow had started this monologue by talking about herself. To Malcolm, the artist was "looking happy" this night. We thought, and still think, that she looked perhaps a bit manic that night, an unfortunate condition which Malcolm discusses later in her profile.

Needless to say, we were also struck by the self-involvement, bordering on narcissism, which animates so much of Maddow's work.

As of today, the possibility that Donald J. Trump is taking us to World War III is being openly discussed on a wide range of major news shows. Finally, major players are willing to say that they're flatly scared by Trump's behavior.

To anyone with an ounce of sense, the danger involved in Trump's election was already apparent on January 2. To Maddow, though, inevitably, Trump's election was cause for elation this night—for the giddy air which Malcolm records as happiness.

Appallingly, Maddow began the year by announcing to us that she was "really excited" looking ahead, because Trump's election meant that this would be a good year for people with her particular job. What would make someone say that?

What would make a person react in so peculiar a way? We've sometimes suggested that Maddow's remarkable self-involvement resembles that of Donald J. Trump. In her introduction to the new year, she helped us form that assessment.

As she continues, Malcolm describes the happy/manic affect Maddow displayed this night. She says that, as Maddow proceeded with her monologue, she was soon "laughing, almost chortling," and was "looking enormously pleased with herself."

(That is almost always the case. Discouraged members of our liberal tribe seem to enjoy it.)

Along the way, Malcolm describes another excursion by Maddow into the realm of a few of her favorite things. "I love it when a story doesn't make sense for a year and then all of a sudden it does," the artist is quoted saying.

Maddow was talking about herself again, as she so constantly does. Eventually, Malcolm explains, perhaps a bit daftly, how this particular monologue displayed Maddow's brilliance:
MALCOLM: As Maddow nears the end of her monologue, she mentions the Times story from which she got most of her material: “Donald Trump’s new real-estate deals, that golf course he wants to build . . . the Indonesian resort deals that brought this politician to Trump Tower in the first place, the Trump Organization has just confirmed to the New York Times, those deals are on, those projects are moving forward.” The reader who has been following my own lesson in comparative narratology will notice that Maddow has been sparing in her use of the Times narrative. Many characters that figure in the Times story are missing from Maddow’s, most conspicuously Trump’s Indonesian business partner Hary Tanoesoedibjo. Apart from the not negligible problem of pronouncing his name, Maddow understands the importance in storytelling of not telling the same story twice. The story of Donald Trump and Setya Novanto is enough. You don’t need the additional story of Donald Trump and Hary Tanoesoedibjo to show that Trump’s business dealings are problematic; nor do you need quotations from experts on ethics (the Times cites Karen Hobart Flynn, the president of Common Cause, and Richard W. Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer) to convince us that they are. By reducing the story to its mythic fundamentals, Maddow creates the illusion of completeness that novels and short stories create. We feel that this is the story as we listen to and watch her tell it.
One part of that assessment is plainly daft. Will Malcolm's reader really "notice that Maddow has been sparing in her use of the Times narrative?" Will that reader notice that "many characters that figure in the Times story are missing from Maddow’s?"

Of course she won't! That reader doesn't have the Times report in front of her as she reads Malcolm's lengthy essay.

That reader will have no idea what has or hasn't been omitted from the original Times report. Everyone on earth will know this, except our nation's best magazine writer in our loftiest magazine.

No, this doesn't actually matter. But the manifest dumbness of that statement is a disastrous sign of the times.

At any rate, Rachel Maddow understands that you don't tell the same story twice! On this basis, Malcolm tells us that Maddow has brilliantly "reduced the story [in the Times report] to its mythic fundamentals." Only in this age of IQ failure could a nation's brainiest magazine present so fatuous a point. But we live in a time of massive IQ failure—and this failure is very strong in the tents of our self-impressed, upper-class tribe.

According to Malcolm, Maddow "created the illusion of completeness that novels and short stories create" as she happily told her story this night. That strikes us as a silly assessment, but we let it stand.

That said, before we show you one of the ways Maddow achieved this sense of completeness, let's consider that magic word "happy," along with its evil twin "manic."

You'll have to watch the tape of that monologue
to see if you think Maddow looked "happy" that night as she laughed, almost chortling, where her script said she should. To our eye, Maddow looked manic that night, and she still looks that way on the videotape.

Here's what happened when Malcolm asked about that, later in the profile:

A few years back, Maddow told several interviewers that she has had a life-long problem with "cyclical depression." Assuming this statement is true, this is a very unfortunate fact. No one should have to deal with such a punishing condition.

At some point, Malcolm asked Maddow about this. We were struck by several things Maddow said:
MALCOLM: Maddow has suffered from depression since childhood, and a few years ago she decided to allow this affliction a place in her non-TV persona by speaking about it in interviews. “It was a hard call,” she said. “Because it is nobody’s business. But it had been helpful to me to learn about the people who were surviving, were leading good lives, even though they were dealing with depression. So I felt it was a bit of a responsibility to pay that back.”

The depression comes in cycles. She doesn’t know how long a bout of depression will last—it can be one day or three weeks. She takes no medication, but expects that one day she will have to—“I will not have a choice.” But she dreads the thought of “a change to the psyche.”

“Is there a manic side?” I asked.

“Yes, but much less than when I was young.
That has flattened a bit.”

“Have you had psychotherapy?”


“Are you afraid of changes to the psyche it might produce?”

“No. I’m just not interested. I’m happy to talk to you for this profile, because I’m interested in you and in this process. But, in general, talking about myself for an hour—it’s not something that I would pay for the privilege of. It just sounds like no fun.”
Maddow suffers from painful bouts of depression—but she doesn't take medication, and she's not interested in seeking therapy. We have no idea if she should seek therapy, but we were struck by her reasons for deferring.

First, a loyal viewer has to chuckle at Maddow's original statement. As we've often noted, "talking about herself for an hour" often seems to be very thing Rachel Maddow likes best.

We're not sure we've ever seen any news anchor talk about herself so much. Maddow loves talking about herself! That said, note her other statements in that exchange:

She thinks therapy would be "no fun." Also, she thinks this topic is nobody's business.

Radiation treatments are no fun, but people frequently take them. Maddow's emphasis on the concept of "having fun" has long been a puzzling part of her on-air persona, dating back to the time when she told David Frum that she didn't want a more grown-up public discussion.

That said, is this matter nobody's business? We'd tend to disagree with that, because of the way this unfortunate condition may affect Maddow's work.

Do Maddow's intermittent manic states perhaps affect her work? To our eye, she seemed a bit manic on this very first night of the year. This may have affected her work in a way our best magazine writer blew right past, without notice.

As Maddow discussed Indonesia that night, she mesmerized Malcolm with a reference the star writer cites three times. Mercifully, we'll only show you Malcolm's first citation:
MALCOLM: Maddow then explained the properties of copper. She showed pictures of the Statue of Liberty, pennies, and wires. She talked about the “massive global appetite” for copper electrical wiring, and about a mining company called Freeport, based in Arizona, which is the world’s second-largest producer of copper. One of Freeport’s operations is in Indonesia, where it extracts gold and silver, as well as copper, from a mine that covers almost half a million acres. Maddow showed arrestingly beautiful photographs of the mine’s crater—which is so huge that it is not just visible from space but “easily visible.”
Those photographs were arrestingly beautiful! Presumably, this added to the TV entertainment. Along with the constipation ads, the photos had Malcolm mesmerized.

That said, is that Indonesian copper mine really "so huge that it is not just visible from space but 'easily visible?' " Malcolm mentions this claim three separate times, partly because Maddow made it again and again in the course of the happy report, during which she laughed and almost chortled.

Maddow said it again and again, but is it actually true? In reality, as opposed to in Maddow's short story, is that copper mine "visible from space" at all, let alone "easily visible?"

It doesn't make any difference, of course, but no, it pretty much isn't. Unless we're talking about photographs taken with high-powered lenses!

Can we talk? Except in the realm of Cialis ads, Indonesia is barely visible from space, let alone easily so. Meanwhile, the NASA site which provided this arrestingly beautiful photograph is a NASA site, for crying out loud!

Using the tools of that NASA site, Janet Malcolm's backyard birdbath is "easily visible from space!" But so what? As she cited Maddow's claim three times, it didn't seem to occur to our best writer that she was citing a claim that pretty much didn't make sense.

That said, Maddow routinely makes inaccurate, doctored, massaged and misleading claims. It's just exactly as Malcolm said. Routinely, her program is a cable entertainment product, designed to make us liberals feel good, through use of the tools at hand.

It's hard to know what makes a person want to dissemble so much, but we wouldn't rule out the possibility that manic and depressive states are involved in the behavior. Also involved is the failing IQ of the famous magazine writer who keeps repeating a pleasing claim which is slightly absurd on its face.

In fairness, Janet Malcolm knew enough to disappear one of Maddow's statements. As the narcissistic entertainer finished her glorious segment that night, she returned to outer space for one final fly-by. She was speaking about Carl Icahn:
MADDOW (1/2/17): This new key member of the federal government, for whom they have invented a job without a formal portfolio, he is the single largest shareholder in that mining company, whose mines in Indonesia you can see from space.

The company that did not pay the $4 billion shakedown price to that politician who is personally helping Donald Trump get richer in Indonesia as president. And now that company will presumably be in an excellent position to do whatever needs to be done to benefit whoever needs to be benefitted. You scratch my back. I scratch a giant hole in the earth that can be viewed from Mars.
Maybe she was joking. But by now, you could see that giant huge mine from Mars! No, this possibly joking remark didn't make any difference. But even Malcolm knew enough to leave it out of her tale.

Maddow embellishes a fair amount of the time. In the broken liberal realm, we never fact-check her remarks. We just enjoy the ride.

Sometimes when she comes on the air, she looks, to us, a bit manic. Her judgment strikes us as rather poor a fair amount of the time.

None of this matters to someone like Malcolm, who's in it for "TV entertainment at its finest." In this age when we've come face to face with the dangerously low IQ of our failed elites, she is sitting in her home, mesmerized by a storyteller and by her Cialis ads.

Tomorrow: "Now she put it [the canister lid] on her head." Unvarnished praise for the stupidest show of the year


  1. How is it possible anyone alive is not yet clued in on the kike-dyke menace? Maddow needs to 'hit the showers,' so to speak.

    1. Take your ugly vocabulary somewhere else.


    2. Wow, thank goodness you're here to keep us clear on what counts as ugly vocabulary, since the significant range of what many would call ugly words that are predictably and consistently aimed at David in California and Mao here obviously don't make the official ugly list.

  2. "To anyone with an ounce of sense, the danger involved in Trump's election was already apparent on January 2."

    Actually, to anyone with an ounce of sense Trump's election was a great relief. Or, to be precise: Clinton losing the election was a relief; it brought the hope that WWIII could be avoided.

    1. Better trolling please

    2. Yes, but that's because your a racist psycho dunce, Mao boy.

    3. To people with more than an ounce, it was the opposite.

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. "Trolling" is a stupid and banal term that deserves to be retired, but long before that happy day arrives, maybe we could at least agree to retire the long-since cliched "better trolling please" response?

      But on the substance of what Mao says here, I have repeatedly heard it said by very militarily informed people, including retired military figures, themselves, that Hillary's stance on military intervention tends to be so strikingly hawkish as to make even them nervous. Doesn't that tend to help bolster Mao's point above? Or is such a reaction to anything he says even a live possibility here?

  3. 1. Somerby is not qualified to diagnose Maddow or Trump or anyone else. He doesn't have the training and no professional would do so without a proper assessment.

    2. Can't Somerby disagree with Malcolm without calling her names too?

    3. The use of stories to get across other points goes back to the Bible (parables) and the Greeks (Aesop's fables). There is no reason why Maddow must stick to a dry recitation of a string of facts Cronkite style.

    4. There is no one who appears on air who isn't a constructed persona.

    I am noticing some patterns. Somerby doesn't like Maddow or Mika but apparently Joe is OK. Chris Matthews is horrible but he doesn't get half the abuse Maddow does from Somerby. So Somerby does seem to pick on women more than men. I wonder why that is. He couldn't bring himself to say anything nice about Hillary (except that Trump needed to be opposed). When was the last time Somerby said anything nice about any woman? I am having trouble recalling any time. He definitely dislikes women who write about philosophy and women who discuss relativity, and he doesn't like the women who write about education either. Who does he like?

    Maybe Somerby needs to see a therapist about that.

    1. Proof positive 2:02 PM doesn't incessantly play the race card.

    2. What does Bob on women have to do with his specific critique of Maddow?

  4. "Maybe she was joking. But by now, you could see that giant huge mine from Mars! No, this possibly joking remark didn't make any difference. But even Malcolm knew enough to leave it out of her tale.

    Maddow embellishes a fair amount of the time. In the broken liberal realm, we never fact-check her remarks. "

    How exactly does one fact check something like this?

    1. Go out and look at how large an arc Mars subtends in the sky when you look at it from the Earth when the two planets are closest, double that and you'll know how large the entire Earth could look to an observer on Mars when the light was right.

    2. Cmike - I'll smack you in the face. Wimp.

    3. Is this what you did, CMike? It is apparently what we are supposed to do in order to earn our liberal cred.

    4. The point is that earth would be very tiny because even a planet double the size of Mars would look very tiny to us. But Somerby is idiotically insisting we take literally something that Maddow said as hyperbole. And if Somerby cannot tell hyperbole (and other figurative language) from statements of fact (which definitely ought to be checked), something is majorly wrong with the man. I am 2:05 PM and I was being facetious. Somerby is playing us for idiots with today's rant.

    5. @6:58 PM asks

      Is this what you did, CMike?

      No. I had considered aspects of the question previously. Should you ever find yourself commenting on a subject that you've all ready given some thought to, you'll be amazed to find out how helpful that might be to you in finding something useful to say to others in the present.

    6. I am 2:05 PM and I was being facetious.

      Thanks to 7:04 PM for establishing their authority to make that clarification. If only there were some less cumbersome way of keeping track of which commenter is which.

    7. Would it help if I called myself Greg?

    8. To a Martian, Earth is a morning or evening star, as Venus is to us. When Earth is closest to Mars, it's hard to see, and would look, through a Martian telescope, like a thin crescent. When Earth is farther away, it looks, again through a telescope, like a disc.

      Without a telescope, it's just a bright star, though not twinkling, but shining steadily, as Venus shines steadily to us. Of course, Earth is blue, not white like Venus.

    9. @9:26 PM,

      "How stupid of me not to have thought of it!"

    10. Presumably the Martian telescopes in question were not the puny human backyard or even mountaintop telescopes, oh no, but the same mighty Martian technology that surveilled Earth back in the 19th century, according to H.G. Wells, "across the gulf of space, [for] minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic...."

  5. "Unvarnished praise for the stupidest show of the year"
    If he isn't referring to 'Fox & Friends', then it can't be the stupidest show of the year.

  6. "In the broken liberal realm, we never fact-check her remarks."
    I fact-check her remarks. She often gets it right.

  7. Somerby seems to think that people are more likely to watch Maddow than to read the NY Times. Is that true? I think it may be the opposite and that it is fair to assume that people watching Maddow have read that days NY Times. They are after all political junkies or they wouldn't be watching her at all, and the day starts with the news for such people.

    1. This is a hoot:
      "Maddow's artistry is most conspicuous in her monologues, which can span as long as twenty-four uninterrupted minutes," the mesmerized magazine writer says, not just about those Cialis ads, but about Maddow herself.

    2. Her mannerisms, even her fake laughter is scripted. Nothing genuine about her. It's all just show biz

    3. Waiting on Mao to call Maddow "Anti-establishment", like he does Trump. LOL.

  8. Even a cursory reading of the Malcolm piece will show it to be a takedown of Maddow's show. Faint praise for important things and ironic gushing over trivia. Somers by is like the critic who boasted that he didn't believe half the things he read in Gulliver's Travels.

    1. No, you're giving it too much credit.

  9. The US has lowered the Russian flags at the San Francisco consulate. Russia is angry.


  10. Testimony On How To Get Urgent Real Love Spell Online That Work Fast..... Junia Noel by name and i am located in Usa ,I recently saw a testimony about a spell caster of some sort in a blog i visit for relationship and dating counseling problems because i had been having serious problems with my boyfriend and we had been dating for 2 year, he just suddenly changed, he wasn’t returning my calls, he started cheating, he was hurting me in so many ways i never thought possible and i just thought i should try this spell caster called Dr happy cos there are so many good comments about him on the website, but before i could read his post,i have already contacted many spell caster that cheated me out of my hard earned money without given me result.but when i meet this spell caster out of desperation of some sort.i decided to contact him to please render his help to me, i explained all the problems that i was going through to him and he told me all i needed to do to get this spell castes. at first everything felt dreamy and unbelievable, their consultations and solution was a little bit easy and strange and i was scared a little cos I had read and heard lots of stories of fake spell casters, scams and i never really believed in magic. i played along with a little hope and faith and i was sent some few stuffs after everything and it worked like a miracle, everything went to a whole new direction, it was and is amazing. i guess it was all good faith that made me read that particular post that faithful day.i hope he could help other people too like he did to me. i did a little and I got everything i wanted and wished for, my boyfriend, my family and my life back you can contact Dr happy at: happylovespell2@gmail.com because he changed my life call him or add him on whats-app +2348133873774

  11. The wheels of infotainment, like Show business, are greased with bullshit, so it goes with this piece on Maddow. The truth lies somewhere between this fawning and Bob's hateful obsessing.

    1. If anything qualifies as "hateful obsessing" on this blog, it's the "educated" and otherwise babble routinely loosed on Bob, not to mention that aimed at Mao, Dave, etc.

  12. Speaking of Maddow's storytelling, a couple of months ago she tried to relate a very old tale about when a radical protest group robbed a Brinks truck up in Mendocino County.

    One of the big parts of her story was that this group had hijacked the truck "right up there on 101, right below Ukiah." She repeated this fact at least four or five times. "Right on that highway. Right on that main highway up through Northern California!"

    "Right in front of everybody!"

    Having lived up there back then -- and not remembering this version at all, except for some Maoist group robbing a Brinks truck on some lonely road in the middle of nowhere -- we checked the Google machine.

    It took us about five seconds to discover the real story. The armored car robbery was nowhere near 101 and "right below Ukiah." It was on a stretch of two-lane Highway 120 between Ukiah and the Central Valley.

    Not a big deal, but why all the drama on her part? "Right on 101! Right on that main highway to the North!

    Since then I believe everything Bob has to say about this woman. She's kind of weird and kind of a fraud.

    1. Your last sentence above strikes me as a wonderful summary of exactly who and what Rachel is.

  13. Hi all,
    Read my testimony!
    Getting ex back after a breakup.
    My boyfriend of a 2 year just broke up with me and am 28 weeks pregnant. I have cried myself to sleep most of the nights and don’t seem to concentrate during lectures sometimes I stay awake almost all night thinking about him and start to cry all over again. Because of this I end up not having energy for my next day’s classes, my attendance has dropped and am always in uni and on time. Generally he is a very nice guy, he ended it because he said we were arguing a lot and not getting along. He is right we've been arguing during the pregnancy a lot. After the break up I kept ringing him and telling him I will change. I am in love with this guy and he is the best guy I have ever been with. I’m still hurt and in disbelief when he said he didn't have any romantic feelings towards me anymore that hurt me faster than a lethal syringe. He texts me once and then mainly to check up on how am doing with the pregnancy, he is supportive with it but it’s not fair on me, him texting me as I just want to grieve the pain and not have any stress due to the pregnancy. I was really upset and I needed help, so I searched for help online and I came across a website that suggested that Dr Ahmed can help solve marital problems, restore broken relationships and so on. So I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he told me what to do and I did it then he did a spell for me. 28 hours later, my boyfriend came to me and apologized for the wrongs he did and promise never to do it again. Ever since then, everything has returned back to normal. I and my boyfriend are living together happily again.. All thanks to Dr Ahmed. as it is a place to resolve marriage/relationship issues, do you want to be sure if your spouse is being faithful to you or Do you want your Ex to come back to you Contact.: E-mail: Ahmedutimate@gmail.com call/whatsapp: +2348160153829 save your crumbling home. I suggest you contact him. He will not disappoint you.

  14. What kind of idiot would expect the corporate-owned media to present a liberal journalist to their audience?

    1. Apparently innumerable liberals do, who take everything she says at face value and argue strenuously, both here and elsewhere, that she is credible.