The New York Times' sexual politics: It's the rare morning when we don't do it—when we don't wonder about the degree of cognition put on display within the upper-end press corps.
We had several such moments this morning, just scanning the New York Times Some questions:
Should "E for Effort" in a banner headline really be taken as a compliment? Should 40 percent of a population be described as "most?"
In fairness, the Times does tell us today that Donald J. Trump's Scottish resort is 25 miles away from that much-maligned Scottish airport. On September 6, Rachel and Brian each rattled off a different figure—they each said the distance was 50 miles, a figure they took, live and direct, from a report which Politico had apparently bungled.
This morning, we checked the 2018 study from which an opinion column in today's Times had taken that figure of 40 percent. Alas!
That study came from NPR and Harvard, but the cogitations within that study were enough to break human hearts. We'll cite just one example:
HARVARD/NPR (October 2018): Most rural Americans say that minority groups do not face discrimination in their local community, with the exception of three key groups: gays and lesbians, transgender people, and recent immigrants to the United States. Three in ten rural adults (30%) say that generally speaking, they think transgender people are discriminated against in their local community, while 29% of rural adults say they generally think recent immigrants to the U.S. are discriminated against. More than one-quarter (27%) of rural adults say that generally speaking, they think gays and lesbians are discriminated against in their local community.In that passage, journalistic and academic elites say that 27% is "most!" At such moments, we tend to think of Kevin Drum's reporting about the massive exposure to lead which was almost universal during the years when most current elites were children.
On line, that op-ed column in today's Times makes much more sense than it did in our print edition, where it seems to have suffered from ham-handed, slapdash editing. That said, hapless editing is standard at the Times, as we all learned this weekend in the case of the grotesquely bungled editing of the new Kavanaugh semi-accusation, in which an important disclaimer was removed during the editing process.
Make no mistake! We live in a world where 25 miles is actually 50 and 30% is most! We live in a world where some editor at the Times doesn't understand that "E for Effort" will sound like an insult to many people, not like an accolade.
More specifically, we enter that world when we peruse the puzzling work product of many people within our mainstream press. Our first such journey this morning occurred as we scanned the new contents at Slate. This entry appeared on that list:
CHRISTINA CAUTERUCCI / SEPT 18, 2019 / 8:18 PMSkillfully, we clicked. The report to which we were transported was headlined exactly like this:
"Go Home and Just Rest and Do Something Else”: Senior Citizens on Biden's Age
POLITICSWe were surprised to see that older voters were telling Biden to quit. As everyone knows, older voters have been Biden's strongest age cohort in primary polling to date.
“It’s Time for the Baby Boomers to Get Off the Stage”
People over 60 respond to concerns about Joe Biden’s age.
By CHRISTINA CAUTERUCCI
Personally, we think Biden is a terrible candidate within a field of terrible candidates. But if it's terrible you want, terrible is routinely present in the cogitations of those in our upper-end press.
In this case, the Slate report was a virtual parody of anything resembling serious journalistic practice. The analysts screamed and tore at their hair when they encountered this discourse on method:
CAUTERUCCI (9/18/19): With Biden, Trump, and Bernie Sanders all pushing back the outer limits of candidate age, and Elizabeth Warren not far behind them, I set out to ask people who have personally experienced the aging process what they thought about Biden, aging, and the presidency. I found some through Twitter and some hanging around tourist hotspots in D.C. All in all, I talked to more than a dozen Americans over 60, some of whom preferred to omit their last names while speaking frankly about politics.We didn't make that up! Indefatigably, Slate's scribe had spoken to more than a dozen people as she tried to learn what older people think about Biden's acuity. That struck us as a rather small (and rather imprecise) N.
Cauterucci had spoken to a comically small number of people. Some were concerned about Biden's age, others were not—but so what? Some editor selected the most negative quotes and placed them in Slate's two headlines. No one cared about the sheer absurdity of Cauterucci's basic method, a method we've persistently found in the New York Times during past elections.
So it goes when our journalistic elites attempt to create information.
Within this puzzling cognitive realm, an important new project has been announced. We refer to The 1619 Project, in which the same newspaper which massively bungled last Sunday's Kavanaugh report is going to reinvent the whole of American history.
We'll discuss the advisability of that undertaking tomorrow. For today, we'll only say this:
People who think that 40 percent is most; people who are inclined to tweet that “having a penis thrust in your face at a drunken dorm party may seem like harmless fun;"
People who let their best-known columnist write about Obambi's finicky eating habits all through Campaign 2008; people who go out and hire the fatuous Wall Street Journal writer who wrote an endless analysis piece questioning whether Candidate Obama was too skinny to be president:
People whose rather shaky cognition tends to lead them in such directions should perhaps be less self-assured as they undertake to intervene in so sweeping a way concerning so crucial a topic. On balance, the Times is not an impressive group. People who think Maureen Dowd is a genius might even do the world the favor of leaving such projects alone.
We'll assess that history project tomorrow. For today, we only want to call your attention to another mission on which this very strange upper-class newspaper seems to have embarked.
To us, this other project seems to be present each Sunday morning now. We find it in the Sunday Review, generally with a pair of essays which open like this trio of essays, all of which appeared on Sunday July 21:
The Ridiculous Fantasy of a ‘No Drama’ Relationship"Opinion columns" of this type have become a staple at the Sunday Review. With apologies, they make us think of the throwback sexual politics the New York Times has persistently put on display during the era of Dowd.
Online, that’s what men say they want from women. Do they know nothing about life?
By Laura Hilgers
Ms. Hilgers writes about addiction, love and other topics.
I was recently on the dating app Bumble when I came across the profile of an attractive middle-aged man, a few years younger than I am. He was born on the East Coast and had a big dog, which I liked. But then I read that he was “100 percent drama-free” and demanded that any dates be the same way. I thought, “Here’s somebody who probably won’t listen if I’m having a bad day” and swiped left to indicate my lack of interest...
FaceApp and the Savage Shock of Aging
In the mirror is someone we never thought we’d become.
By Nicci Gerrard
Ms. Gerrard is the author of the forthcoming book “The Last Ocean: A Journey Through Memory and Forgetting.”
Several years ago I was in a department store, frazzled and running late, looking for things I couldn’t find. As I was hastening along an aisle, a woman came toward me. She was quite a bit older than I was, and in a state of substantial disarray. As I drew closer I saw her shirt was wrongly buttoned. I put up a hand to prevent her bumping into me, and she put up a hand as well. I stopped. She stopped. We stared at each other with a kind of pity. And with a sudden rush of mortification, I understood that I was looking at myself in a mirror. Was I that tired and shambolic? Was I that old?...
Is there anything "wrong" with first-person, "human interest" submissions of this type, submissions which, in the Sunday Review, exclusively come from women? We'll agree that there's nothing evil about such submissions, but as American society slides toward the sea, we can't help wondering about a guild which continues with musings like this in its highest profile weekly ideas and analysis section:
In Praise of Online DatingThat return to the problems of online dating appeared on August 11. One Sunday later, on August 18, these ruminations appeared:
Yes, it can be demoralizing. It can also enlarge your world.
By Katharine Smyth
Ms. Smyth is a writer.
When I was in my early 30s, my husband of four years, partner of nine, left abruptly in the middle of the night. In the surreal weeks and months that followed, I grew increasingly apprehensive about the idea of online dating. I hadn’t been single in nearly a decade; I didn’t even have Facebook, let alone a stockpile of profile pictures or an irrepressible texting game...
Finding Myself in My Mother’s Calendars"I’m 57. Am I Grown Up?" Again and again, then again and again, this is the way this throwback newspaper has pictured the capability and agency of the people they think of as women.
We tend to think they are about keeping track of time. They are about much more.
By Carol J. Adams
Ms. Adams is an activist and author.
Among my mother’s legacies are four decades of yearly calendars. At the beginning of this year—a decade after her death—I resolved to read all 40. Could these appointment calendars, which she kept from 1965 through 2003, offer a window through which to glimpse my mother in the midst of living her life? Curious, I hoped that something as ordinary as her datebook might surprise me...
I’m 57. Am I Grown Up?
I’m childless, still trekking the path to self-realization, and always the first one on the dance floor.
By Erin Aubry Kaplan
Contributing Opinion Writer
Am I grown up? I have been asking myself this question for 40 years, since I was 17. At that very young age the question was mostly rhetorical—of course I was grown up: I had graduated from high school and was headed to a big university; I had a driver’s license and could navigate Los Angeles freeways; I wore makeup and high heels with regularity and reasonable sophistication; I had finally ditched the wash-and-set hairstyle preferred by my mother and let my hair curl at will. I was doing me by degrees, and every degree was thrilling, all I imagined grown up would be...
To us, these musings seem to come straight from the old "women's pages" of newspapers from the past mid-century, or perhaps from the pages of the Redbook of some era. There's nothing "evil" about these musings, but no similar musings are published by men, and the musings seem to create a somewhat peculiar picture of the capabilities of women.
By August 25, we'd actually proceeded to "Dating While Dying/I found myself terminally ill and unexpectedly single at 40." Last Sunday, we were asked to muse about this:
How My Boyfriend Made Me Fall in Love With GamingIs the modern subscriber permitted to ask if these regular Sunday submissions might not constitute a new form of Standardized New York Times All-Around Dumbness? Just so you'll know, the Times appended this pathetic "human interest" request to the end of last Sunday's column:
It became a form of bonding for us, not a source of strain.
By Eve Peyser
Ms. Peyser writes about culture and politics.
When my boyfriend moved into my shoe-box one-bedroom apartment in Brooklyn, he brought along three uninvited friends: his Xbox 360, his PlayStation 4 and the Nintendo Wii. Within a week, he insisted on buying a second television in order to game at his leisure, and avoid badgering from me. In fairness, I was the stereotypical video game-phobic girlfriend.
Growing up in an all-female household, I never owned a gaming console and never yearned for one. Whenever I did play a console game, always at the house of a male friend, I would quickly grow frustrated because I didn’t know how to use the controller...
Did a loved one help you appreciate video games? Do you think being a gamer is worthwhile or problematic? Let us know in the comments.
How far is it from that silly request to yesterday's "Here to Help" feature, in which a very young woman told us that, in recent months, she has queued up a routine with a few simple, inexpensive ways to nurture herself in as little as 15 minutes a day, so that she can feel steady even during life’s droughts and downpours?
Alas! Among the ways this young woman said she now nurtures herself, she didn't fail to list this:
Effortless toothbrushingShe has also started going to therapy, because although she finds these self-nurturing tools helpful, they can’t replace professional medical help.
I sometimes yearn to skip this step in my nightly routine so I can just get to bed already. Since getting an electric toothbrush, though, I’ve found that persuading myself to brush is easier.
Needless to say, that young woman deserves all the help she can get; we'd suggest a one-way ticket away from the Times. That said, who will save us from the throwback culture so persistent at that peculiar newspaper?
Dating from the ascension of Dowd and the full-blown investment in "Creeping Dowdism," the Times has persistently projected a very strange picture of the capabilities of women. Without attempting to denigrate the young women who wrote it, yesterday's Here to Help feature—and those now routine, two-per-week Sunday "human interest" submissions—seem to have taken us back to the time when people socially defined as women need the constant assistance of stronger people just to get through the day, then to jump into bed at night with teeth successfully brushed.
Can this still be the way anyone pictures the world of women? Apparently, yes it can, at the persistently fatuous Times.
Like other upper-class institutions, the New York Times is almost impossibly daft on a regular basis. It's stunning to think that a flyweight gang like this has decided that they should be the ones who "finally" craft The One Absolute Truth about American history.
WE'll start tomorrow with Biden's cognition, move on to that of the Times. But we often think of Kevin Drum when we peruse the upper-end press, and major expert anthropologists just won't stop telling us this:
You simply can't be this stupid this long without ending up with a Trump.
Tomorrow: What was Biden talking about? The Times meets American history
"Some were concerned about Biden's age, others were not—but so what?"
ReplyDeleteYour zombie-cult high priests want Pocahontas. It's clear, it's everywhere, see this, for example.
Obviously she promised them better behavior than the rest, stricter obedience, and then her history (her-story) of marketing herself as "the first woman of color in Harvard Law School" is very, very impressive.
Still butt-hurt that Warren wants to hold your pals in the establishment accountable for their crimes, I see.
DeleteDon't ever change, demote zombie.
Shouldn't someone like Mao, who cares so much about women of color at Harvard Law, be concerned that the best they could come up with was Elizabeth Warren? The fault is with Harvard's admission and hiring practices, not the woman who turns out to be not "of color" after all.
DeleteWhoa, another word-salad dembot. Welcome. Scanning for the word 'Pocahontas', are we?
Delete"word-salad"? That's it?
DeleteRussia, if you're listening, please don't pay Mao for such lazy work.
Somerby is confused today. He complains that the report says Most do not think minorities are discriminated against, then he cites the stats who DO think there is discrimination and complains that these are "most". He has mixed up his Do Nots with his Dos. If 27% think there is discrimination then 73% think there is not discrimination.
ReplyDeleteHe says: "In that passage, journalistic and academic elites say that 27% is "most!"
No, he is wrong. The 27% say that there is discrimination. The remainder, 73% say there is no discrimination. The highlighted first sentence says most say there is not discrimination. Most in that case is 73% not 27%.
This is Somerby's error.
Read it again. Sound out the big words if you have to.
DeleteThe first highlighted sentence says that most rural Americans say minority groups do not face discrimination, except when it comes to gay people, transgender people and recent immigrants.
In other words, most rural people would say that gay people do (or DO, if that helps you) face discrimination.
The last highlighted sentence says that the actual figure for rural adults who think gays experience discrimination is 27%.
Somerby is wrong and your gymnastics don't rescue him.
Delete"But if it's terrible you want, terrible is routinely present in the cogitations of those in our upper-end press."
ReplyDeleteSomerby has started using the terms "cognition" and "cogitation" instead of his tired anthropology tropes. He has been consistently using those terms wrong, in ways that make no sense. To see this, substitute the word "thought" for either of them.
I don't know whether this is Somerby's way of mocking the fields that use such terms, in this case neuroscience and psychology, but it is offensive. It is another bit of anti-intellectualism to borrow words that have specific meanings and deliberately overuse and misuse them, as if there were not meanings that are being trampled upon.
"but it is offensive"
DeleteCrawl into your safe-space dembot! Quickly.
There's still a small chance you won't suffer any further damage.
Somerby has started using the terms "cognition" and "cogitation" instead of his tired anthropology tropes.
DeleteIsn’t that a good thing?
He has been consistently using those terms wrong, in ways that make no sense. To see this, substitute the word "thought" for either of them.
Why would anyone do that? They mean different things. Cognition is broader than thought, including all the mental processes that lead to understanding. Cogitation is deeper than thought, including the characteristics of reflection or immersion.
I don't know
The rest is talking past the close, Sparky.
whether this is Somerby's way of mocking the fields that use such terms, in this case neuroscience and psychology, but it is offensive.
Taking offense is your particular field of expertise. I’ll be you got straight A’s in all the courses required for your Grievance Studies major in college.
It is another bit of anti-intellectualism to borrow words that have specific meanings and deliberately overuse and misuse them, as if there were not meanings that are being trampled upon.
Does cogitation have a special use in neuroscience or psychology? Please enlighten me. Cognition certainly does, lending itself to the subspecialty known as cognitive psychology, which studies various mental processes (perception, memory, language, etc.) and how they affect people’s behavior as they attempt to understand the world.
Both these words have vernacular uses that predate their use in psychology by hundreds of years. Cognition found previous uses in philosophy. Think (pun intended) René Descartes. And I notice that you’re not heading to your fainting couch over that bit of "borrowing."
deadrat, you’re wasting your obviously large intellect responding to anonymous commenters on a blog that nobody reads. You should be out curing cancer or saving the country from Trump. Instead, here you are, hanging on every word the commenters say, acting as Somerby’s little helper. We assume you are doing it for free, and that all of this work at Somerby’s blog leaves you little time for anything else actually worthwhile.
DeleteAlso, at 5:08 pm, you say:
“I’ll be you got straight A’s...”
Not to be pedantic (you wouldn’t, would you?), but we *assume* you meant “bet.” That’s b-e-t.
Alas, my intellect is obviously large only in comparison to the Anonymous commenters here. I have no talents or capacities that would lead anyone in the real world to believe that I could help in curing Trump or defeating cancer.
DeleteI do waste some time commenting on commenters, but it is my time to use as I wish.
We assume you are doing it for free, and that all of this work at Somerby’s blog leaves you little time for anything else actually worthwhile.
“We,” Sparky? Is that the editorial or imperial first person plural? Or are you speaking for the gaggle that hasn’t figured out that it doesn’t matter that they dare not speak their nyms? Yes, your (sing. or pl.) assumption is correct, but you are under the misapprehension that writing comments takes much time. It doesn’t. I have plenty of time left over from my non-duties here, but neither do I spend that on anything actually worthwhile.
Ooh! You caught a typo that introduced no ambiguity! Well played.
Now, what were you saying about spending time on the actually worthwhile?
"That struck us as a rather small (and rather imprecise) N"
ReplyDeleteWhat is N? In research, it stands for population size, lower case n is sample size.
Somerby complains that too few people were interviewed. Not having taken any courses in social science research, he doesn't know that qualitative research often involves a small sample, but each person is interviewed at length. The goal is to study each person in depth, in a structured interview in which the same set of questions is given to each informant. Questions are open-ended and responses are then analyzed for content and patterns are sought. This type of research isn't the same as a survey, in which random selection is important, thousands of people may be surveyed, and questions are closed-ended with answers constrained (Yes/No, fill in some number, use a rating scale, multiple choice options). Somerby is confusing the techniques for survey research with those for qualitative interviewing.
Somerby's understanding of research is limited to bigger sample sizes are better and you can't get good answers from a handful of subjects. He would be right if he were talking about a survey, but he is wrong about qualitative research of the kind described in this study, where the goal is to elicit information about aging.
Once again, Somerby's hubris leads him to believe that someone else is wrong when he is the one who is mistaken. His bias toward finding fault with the media misleads him and he is unaware of the depth of his own ignorance.
"qualitative research"
DeleteGood one, dembot.
I agree: clearly, "I found some through Twitter and some hanging around tourist hotspots in D.C. All in all, I talked to more than a dozen Americans over 60" is not "a virtual parody", but in fact an exemplar of the most perfect qualitative dembot-research.
"We refer to The 1619 Project, in which the same newspaper which massively bungled last Sunday's Kavanaugh report is going to reinvent the whole of American history."
ReplyDeleteIt seems likely that the 1619 report will be written by someone different than the person who wrote the Kavanaugh report, and that it may appear in a different section, supervised by a different editor.
Is it good cogitation to generalize from one instance of a bad report to the entire paper and then assume that everything that comes from that paper will be similarly flawed? I cogitate that this is terrible cognition.
"Is it good cogitation to generalize from one instance of a bad report to the entire paper"
DeleteYou might want to read a few other TDH posts, dear dembot.
"Is there anything "wrong" with first-person, "human interest" submissions of this type, submissions which, in the Sunday Review, exclusively come from women? "
ReplyDeleteSomerby says there is nothing wrong with this kind of article, but then he HAS included it in a list of bad things, and he goes on to complain about more stuff afterward. I'd say his assertion that there is nothing wrong is not truthful. He clearly wants us to find this stuff wrong. And why does he attribute it to women? And the no-drama to the guy he quotes? Is this supposed to be taken as an example of female drama? Then he calls such articles an example of "dumbness". Seems to me he is thereby calling the drama that women write, examples of dumbness too. Then he mocks self-help and then circles back to Dowd, who is after all, female. And he asks whether the NY Times considers women this dumb.
I have to ask whether Somerby considers women dumb himself. He is the one doing the labeling. Dowd, like it or not, won a Pulitzer prize. I am female and I dislike her style intensely. How does that fit Somerby's paradigm? Do women really write all the first-person articles? What % of total articles are they, and what % of submissions are from women?
If Somerby had ever taken a Women's Studies class in college (yes, they existed back then), he might understand gender role assignment in our society, how women get assigned the emotional work in both relationships and in organizations. What happens when you label emotion-work "dumb" and treat it with contempt? Does this make women dumb too? How might Somerby have rephrased this critique to avoid drawing that conclusion, and does he want to? Maybe the whole point here is to call women dumb, in advance of an election in which a highly accomplished, not-dumb woman is our likely nominee. If Somerby can remind everyone that women are dumb, maybe Bernie or even Trump might have more of a chance at the polls.
In some other cultures, emotion work is assigned based on social status, not gender. People with high social status are expected to show less emotion and they hire lower-status underlings to interpret and display emotional states for them: "My boss is angry about this." So emotional expression isn't only assigned by gender but by class and along other lines, which undermines the argument that women are naturally more interested in "drama" than men are. Lots of examples in the paper below:
Deletehttp://pacific.socsci.uva.nl/besnier/pub/Language_and_Affect.pdf
"Then he calls such articles an example of "dumbness"."
DeleteIs it not, dear dembot?
Well, compared to your own comments... Yeah, I suppose you have a point...
The whining begins:
DeleteSomerby says there is nothing wrong with this kind of article, but then he HAS included it in a list of bad things,….
Here’s what TDH actually writes:
Is there anything "wrong" with first-person, "human interest" submissions of this type, submissions which, in the Sunday Review, exclusively come from women? We'll agree that there's nothing evil about such submissions, but as American society slides toward the sea, we can't help wondering about a guild which continues with musings like this [whereupon follows an example]
TDH doesn’t say the stories are wrong; for him they’re in the wrong place (a newspaper) at the wrong time (in a dire era when good reporting is critical).
Far from thinking that women are “dumb,” TDH writes
There's nothing "evil" about these musings, but no similar musings are published by men, and the musings seem to create a somewhat peculiar picture of the capabilities of women.
Later on he continues
Can this still be the way anyone pictures the world of women? Apparently, yes it can, at the persistently fatuous Times.
You ask
What happens when you label emotion-work "dumb" and treat it with contempt? Does this make women dumb too?
Nope. Just you.
Remember that the stories that TDH objects to are generally assigned to women by men and put into print by men.
I am giving some serious consideration toward getting that toothbrush.
Delete"You simply can't be this stupid this long without ending up with a Trump."
ReplyDeleteSomerby's goal here lately seems to be to model stupidity in service of re-electing Trump. Somerby has the same aversion to reading anything new that Trump has. Maybe Somerby discovered he had a learning disability while at Harvard and has been seeking revenge ever since. That would be very Trumpian.
Actually, the stupid, the target audience of the zombie media, they all, without a doubt, voted for the psycho-witch. Indeed, Bob got confused when he typed that sentence.
DeleteMao,
DeleteYou're pretty clever for a 5-year old.
Mao,
DeleteThe grown-ups are discussing things.
Run along and cheer on Trump giving his Establishment buddies a gigantic tax break.
Somerby says:
ReplyDelete“In fairness, the Times does tell us today that Donald J. Trump's Scottish resort is 25 miles away from that much-maligned Scottish airport. On September 6, Rachel and Brian each rattled off a different figure—they each said the distance was 50 miles, a figure they took, live and direct, from a report which Politico had apparently bungled.”
I decided to check the transcript of Rachel’s show from September 6, link: http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2019-09-06
Here is what Maddow says, quoting from the transcript:
“They stopped at President Trump’s Turnberry resort, about 50 miles outside Glasgow, Scotland.”
Somerby implies that she said the distance *from the airport* was 50 miles. That isn’t what she said. And guess what: here is the description of Turnberry from Wikipedia:
“The resort is 50 miles (80 km) south of Glasgow,”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnberry_(golf_course)
Now, we can’t say if Somerby deliberately misrepresented what Rachel said. Surely he wouldn’t do a thing like that. But his lack of a link caused us to search this little nit-pick and discover Somerby’s (ahem) “mistake.”
Perhaps his own cognition is failing.
That would be the charitable explanation here.
Somerby is just lying, as usual.
DeleteAm so happy to share this testimony thank you Dr Oduku i never believed i will be herpes negative again despite all i passed through Dr Oduku you are truly sent by God and you can also place your order for Dr Oduku roots and herbs medicine email odukuherbalremediess@gmail.com or what-app number +2347067706774.
ReplyDeleteHello everyone out there, help me Thank Dr UGO! My name is MRS LINDA from Netherlands. I am here to give testimony on how I got my ex husband back, my husband left me for no reason 6 Months. He moved in with another woman, I felt like killing myself, my life became very bitter and sorrowful. Then 1 day, a friend of mine told me about a great spell caster that is very good and she said that he told her all about her life history and the problem she is facing, I didn't believe it because I've worked with so many of them and it didn't work. She begged me further so I decided to try this great spell caster called Great Dr UGO. I still didn't believe, but inside me I wanted to give a try and as God will have it, I used the spell solution he gave me and the next day I received a call from my darling husband Romero last month. He apologized and came back to me. I'm very happy now with my family it worked for me and I believe it will work for you too just give him a try and follow up this is a clear truth from a testifier. Thank you Dr UGO once again, if you want to reach him via email:(dr.ugo.temple@gmail.com)
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteLOTTO, lottery,jackpot.
Hello all my viewers, I am very happy for sharing this great testimonies,The best thing that has ever happened in my life is how I win the lottery euro million mega jackpot. I am a Woman who believe that one day I will win the lottery. finally my dreams came through when I email believelovespelltemple@gmail.com and tell him I need the lottery numbers. I have spend so much money on ticket just to make sure I win. But I never know that winning was so easy until the day I meant the spell caster online which so many people has talked about that he is very great in casting lottery spell, . so I decide to give it a try.I contacted this great Dr Believe and he did a spell and he gave me the winning lottery numbers. But believe me when the draws were out I was among winners. I win 30,000 million Dollar. Dr Believe truly you are the best, all thanks to you forever