LESSONS CONCERNING THE FALL: Malcolm [HEART] "the Rachel figure!"


Part 6—The joy of performance art:
Janet Malcolm likes the Maddow Show. In fact, she likes it a lot.

Malcolm, "the nation's best magazine writer," penned an endless profile of Maddow for the October 9 New Yorker. She opened with gushing praise for Maddow, who she watches every night, by whose performance she's "mesmerized."

The key word may be "performance." According to Malcolm, she isn't mesmerized by Maddow herself, or by her the content of her reports; more accurately,she says she;s mesmerized by Maddow's performance.

Nor is she mesmerized by Maddow alone. She's also "mesmerized" by the Cialis and constipation ads she says she "stays and dumbly watches" each night as she waits for Maddow to come back from her commercial breaks.

In the second and third paragraphs of her endless profile, Malcolm describes this process of mesmerization. She also describes the Maddow Show as "a piece of sleight of hand presented as a cable news show." According to Malcolm, the show is "TV entertainment at its finest," designed to make liberals feel good.

We've already asked one basic question. How have we as a nation have reached the point where such transparently dotty nonsense can possibly appear in an upper-class, upper-end magazine like The New Yorker? That's a question for David Remnick, who put this manifest nonsense in print.

Based upon these opening paragraphs, we'd have to suggest that Malcolm, who is 83, may have lost a few steps. That said, she notices many things about the Maddow Show which we have also noticed down through the years. It's just that she approves of sleight of hand, while we've long complained about it.

Malcolm seems to be thrilled by the sleight of hand! Today, let's focus on the ways Malcolm claims that Maddow is staging some sort of nightly "performance."

As she opens her endless profile, Malcolm correcrly states that Maddow "is the current sweetheart of liberal cable TV." From there, she proceeds to her confession of mesmerization.

We've posted this remarkable confession several times. Today, as we endure it again, let's note the way Malcolm says that Maddow is staging a performance:
MALCOLM (10/9/17): Maddow is widely praised for the atmosphere of cheerful civility and accessible braininess that surrounds her stage persona. She is onstage, certainly, and makes no bones about being so. She regularly reminds us of the singularity of her show (“You will hear this nowhere else”; “Very important interview coming up, stay with us”; “Big show coming up tonight”). Like a carnival barker, she leads us on with tantalizing hints about what is inside the tent.

As I write this, I think of something that subliminally puzzles me as I watch the show. Why do I stay and dumbly watch the commercials instead of getting up to finish washing the dishes? By now, I know every one of the commercials as well as I know the national anthem: the Cialis ad with curtains blowing as the lovers phonily embrace, the ad with the guy who has opioid-induced . . . constipation (I love the delicacy-induced pause), the ad for Liberty Mutual Insurance in which the woman jeers at the coverage offered by a rival company: “What are you supposed to do, drive three-quarters of a car?” I sit there mesmerized because Maddow has already mesmerized me. Her performance and those of the actors in the commercials merge into one delicious experience of TV. “The Rachel Maddow Show” is a piece of sleight of hand presented as a cable news show. It is TV entertainment at its finest. It permits liberals to enjoy themselves during what may be the most thoroughly unenjoyable time of their political lives.
Try to ignore the embarrassing confession concerning the pleasures of the Cialis ads. Focus instead on the praise for Maddow's "performance," for the "sleight of hand" which turns an apparent cable news show into what it actually is: a "delicious experience of TV," "TV entertainment at its finest."

To us, the fact that the Maddow Show is actually "TV entertainment" explains why its host should be thrown down the stairs, out the door across the sidewalk and into the street. To Malcolm, this sleight of hand is a source of vast simple-minded pleasure.

That said, Malcolm expressly says that Maddow is staging a "performance." How many ways does Malcolm say this?

Let us count the ways:

Malcolm starts by referring to Maddow's "stage persona." She says that Maddow "is onstage" when she does her show, "and makes no bones about it."

She compares Maddow to "a carnival barker." In our view, this description more aptly fits the persona this channel's corporate suits have imposed upon Steve Kornacki, especially when he's perched before "the big board" and told to talk double-fast, hunched over, with sleeves rolled up, as he hands us repetitive reams of feel-good polling data.

That's feel-good entertainment for gobsmacked liberals too! Also, it's an imposition on Kornacki, who seems to be sane and is perfectly bright, well-informed.

Back to Maddow:

As she continues in that opening passage, Malcolm refers to "her performance," explicitly pairing it with the performance of the actors in the moronic TV ads she also thoroughly loves. In paragraph 4, she quickly refers to Maddow's "artistry."

That said, it isn't until a good deal later in her profile that Malcolm offers her most pregnant description of Maddow as something like a performance artist. Maddow seems to accept the framework. This is the intriguing passage to which we refer:
MALCOLM: 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.
Should we regard that as strange? Malcolm refers to Maddow's "TV persona," defining it as a "well-crafted character."

Maddow seems to accept this structure. She says that, unlike an actor, she can play no character other than "the one who appears on the show." As Malcolm describes the detailed ways Maddow preplans her trademark grinning, laughing, mugging and clowning to "keep herself in character," she issues her slightly puzzling, definitive statement:

This body language all goes into Maddow's "performance of the Rachel figure." Should that be seen as a strange description of a TV news program?

What does Malcolm mean when she refers to Maddow's "performance of the Rachel figure?" What does she mean when she refers to Maddow's "TV persona" as "a well-crafted character?" And whatever Malcolm might mean by these terms, is anything actually wrong with such a performance?

We'd be inclined to say the answer is no—unless the performance results in a "sleight of hand," a con in which a cable news program is turned into delicious "TV entertainment."

Make no mistake: we liberals are as dumb and ineffectual as any group who has ever drawn breath on the planet. In part for that reason, we've now been forced to notice the fact that Donald J. Trump is our president.

According to Malcolm, Maddow is staging a nightly sleight of hand. It's designed to make us liberals feel good at this horrific time. She's doing this, in large part, through her presentation of that "well-crafted character"—through "her [mesmerizing] performance of the Rachel figure."

What goes into the well-crafted character described as "the Rachel figure?" In the next few days, we'll ransack Malcolm's endless profile looking for nuggets and clues.

For today, we'll only say this: Malcolm seems to be describing the process we've long referred to as "selling the car." We've long suggested that Maddow is a highly skilled con man, a slippery salesman who's constantly selling the model known as The Maddow.

Malcolm seems to have noticed the same darn thing—but she seems to say that the con just feels so good. Like when Rachel put the lid of that baby-poop-colored canister right smack dab on her head!

What goes into "the Rachel figure," the well-crafted character you will encounter tonight? Tomorrow, we'll start to answer your question. On Friday, we'll wail and moan as Malcolm buys the latest con from this corporate TV star, a self-adoring figure who often makes us think of Donald J. Trump.

Tomorrow: Quite a bit more special than you


  1. Somerby sounds like a kid who has just discovered that Santa isn't real. Did he ever believe Maddow was genuine or that cable news shows weren't entertainment first and news second? Does Somerby think any of us don't know these facts?

    What a waste of time this daily exercise of Somerby's is. He could be using this space to write something helpful, something that might influence people or change the world for the better. Instead he writes about Maddow and baby poop (as if that titillated) and stupid shit like that. What is wrong with this man?

    Maddow is doing a job. She is paying her bills and building a pleasant life for herself. She is doing the same thing as Chris Matthews and any of the guys on her network. Is that what irks Somerby? Does he think she has some extra obligation beyond what the others have? Or is he perhaps upset because a girl is doing something he cannot do and getting paid a lot in the process? I don't understand the source of his ill will toward Maddow. She is no better and no worse than any other cable show host. Why is she being targeted like this? What did she every do to Somerby to cause this extreme vendetta against her?

  2. "her endless profile"
    Speaking of endless: How many more posts is Somerby going to devote to this one profile by an 80-year-old woman? Even the harshest Maddow critics are bored by it now.
    I wonder if any media people read Somerby's blog anymore and are persuaded by it, or do they see his venomous sarcasm and mocking tone and dismiss his blog as the work of a crank?

  3. "On Friday, we'll wail and moan as Malcolm buys the latest con from this corporate TV star, a self-adoring figure who often makes us think of Donald J. Trump."

    Differences between Maddow and Trump:

    (1) Trump is a much bigger liar.
    (2) Trump has no empathy.
    (3) Trump has never worked for a living.
    (4) Trump doesn't understand how government works.
    (5) Trump has no taste, no culture, and no education.
    (6) Trump is a racist white nationalist who believes in genetic superiority of Germanic people with good blood.
    (7) Trump thinks he is smart, Maddow demonstrably is smart (whether she uses her brains to full potential or not).
    (8) Maddow doesn't play golf.
    (9) Maddow doesn't hang out with Russian oligarchs who fund her development projects as money laundering for Putin.
    (10) Maddow isn't besties with Howard Stern.
    (11) Maddow drinks cocktails and Trump is teetotal.
    (12) Maddow has a sense of humor.
    (13) Maddow has a loving relationship with another person.
    (14) Maddow doesn't obsessively watch Fox & Friends, although she would have more justification for doing so.
    (15) Maddow is probably not a Republican.
    (16) Maddow has enough self-awareness to be depressed occasionally.
    (17) Maddow doesn't require non-disclosure agreements of everyone she meets.
    (18) Maddow can read.
    (19) Trump will probably start WWIII
    (20) Maddow will probably not start WWIII.

    Somerby is such an ass.

    1. Re (19) - Trump just ended a war -- by winning it. See Trump Defeats ISIS In Months — After Years Of Excuses From Obama


    2. How many times do you like to be flimflammed, Comrade?

      Trump did nothing. The plan to take both Mosul and Raqqa was initiated under Obama, and Trump famously refused to approve a new plan for months because the military kept telling him that Obama’s approach was working. So he put them off and put them off until he finally approved a plan in August that was mostly the same as the plan we already had. And now he’s claiming that this new plan turned things around in eight weeks.


    3. Well, the Raqqa campaign, one of the latest in a series of campaigns against ISIS, began a year ago. The battle against ISIS, years before that. Of course Trump will take credit for the planning, blood, guts, courage and sacrifice of others to stroke his own ego. That's what he does. And if something goes awry, let's see how quickly he blames someone else.

    4. The four special forces soldiers who died in Niger were fighting terrorism. ISIS may be losing its strongholds but it has diffused to other parts of the world where it continues its terrorist activities, requiring a continued US effort against it.

      Trump may be pretending he defeated ISIS but those four men's deaths contradict that. This may be why he has been so silent about them and had to be forced to acknowledge them. It disrupts his personal fantasy and directly refutes his claim of victory over ISIS.

    5. Nope, Trump probably shouldn't get credit:

    6. David, here's another smartness test. Which US president won the Second World War?

      A: Franklin Roosevelt
      B: Harry Truman
      C: other (Please specify.)

    7. I think Trump does deserve the credit, because he changed the approach, as this article points out:

      Before dismissing this as typical Trump self-aggrandizement, consider that for several years Obama insisted that a quick and decisive victory against ISIS was all but impossible.

      After dismissing ISIS as a "JV" team and then being surprised by its advances, Obama finally got around to announcing a strategy to "degrade and ultimately destroy" the militant Islamic group.

      As his strategy dragged on and seemed to go nowhere, Obama kept telling the country that this was just the nature of the beast.

      "It will take time to eradicate a cancer like (ISIS). It will take time to root them out."

      "This is a long-term and extremely complex challenge."

      "This will not be quick."

      "There will be setbacks and there will be successes."

      "We must be patient and flexible in our efforts; this is a multiyear fight and there will be challenges along the way."

      And he kept insisting that winning the war against ISIS has as much to do with public relations as it did weapons. "This broader challenge of countering extremism is not simply a military effort. Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they are defeated by better ideas."

      What Obama didn't say is that reason defeating ISIS was taking so long was of how he was fighting it.

      A former senior military commander in the region told the Washington Examiner that the Obama White House was micromanaging the war "to the degree that it was just as bad, if not worse, than during the Johnson administration." Johnson, you will recall, once bragged that "they can't bomb an outhouse in Vietnam without my permission."

      Contrast this with Trump. Rather than talk endlessly about how long and hard the fight would be, Trump said during his campaign that, if elected, he would convene his "top generals and give them a simple instruction. They will have 30 days to submit to the Oval Office a plan for soundly and quickly defeating ISIS."

      Once in office, Trump made several changes in the way the war was fought, the most important of which were to loosen the rules of engagement and give more decision-making authority to battlefield commanders.


    8. BTW don't forget that Obama claimed credit ad nauseum for killing OBL, even though his only contribution was to grant permission to the American forces to kill OBL after they had located him.

    9. David, did you try reading another side of the story, like the Peter Bergen/CNN link I posted above? And your example of Obama/OBL undercuts the credit you'd like to give to Trump.

    10. AnonymousOctober 18, 2017 at 5:48 PM -- I have now read the CNN article. That suggests that the approach started under Obama was the one that eventually succeeded and that Trump's giving more discretion to military leaders also helped.

    11. David, I'm glad you read that. Bergen thinks Trump shouldn't get credit. If Obama did the planning, the strategizing, the commitment of troops and equipment, and the bulk of the hard fighting occurred under his term, not just in Raqqa, but throughout the whole campaign against ISIS, how is Trump justified in saying he "won the war against ISIS?" His "contributions" were minimal at best, and more than likely came from his generals. Trump doesn't get to claim credit by accidentally being in office when all of Obama's efforts paid off.

    12. Anon 8:48 Actually, I doubt that Obama did the planning, the strategizing, the commitment of troops and equipment. Nor did Trump do those things. Those things were done by military people.

    13. Obama WAS involved, but at any rate...then why give Trump any credit???

    14. Trump hates Obama almost as much as our wingnut bean counter.

    15. The source David falsely cites as an "article" is actually an editorial from little more than a tout sheet pimping a program stock trader who has been trolling Democrats since he was able to wipe himself and - to this day - still believes Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.


    16. Trump's contribution was giving the go ahead to not worrying about civilian deaths. The objective was going to be achieved. It was a fait accompli, however, it bugged the shit out of the orange abomination that they were being careful to avoid civilian deaths, because he is a vulgar offensive abominable human being.

      How's our mission in Niger going Comrade. Only tRump could wait 2 weeks before even mentioning the deaths of 4 Green Berets during which time he played golf 5 times, and got into a twitter war with the NFL. This man is an abomination.
      And only tRump could turn a phone call to the wife of one of the killed soldiers into a fucking national embarrassment.

      You have no shame David, same as the lying sack of shit whose boots you lick.

  4. If Malcolm had called herself the best magazine writer, I could see some basis for repeatedly mocking her. But she didn't do that. Somerby is picking on an 83 year old woman because someone else praised her writing. That seems cruel. It may be Malcolm was assigned to write this piece about Maddow and her over-the-top language is a not-so-subtle objection to having to fulfill that assignment, surely a comedown after a long, admirable career as a writer. But Somerby doesn't get the irony. He thinks she is being literal as she gushes over Cialis ads. No one in New York would miss such irony but Somerby is a provincial, I guess. What an ass.

  5. The title "Lessons Concerning the Fall" and content of this article doesn't have anything to do with "Legends of the Fall" or anything else about fall. So what does it actually mean? It sounds pseudo-clever because it evokes that famous book title, but it is an empty allusion.

    1. I assume Somerby is using "fall" in the sense of "fall from grace" or something like that. He's creating a pun...cute, isn't he?

    2. We all decline in old age. It isn’t a fall, it is a natural progression. It seems to scare the shit out of Somerby.

  6. Today, Kevin drum refers to cesspools of sexual harrassment. He doesn't understand how this works. If women cannot walk outdoors without men bothering them, then they will need male escorts to protect them from such experiences, much as occurred for Victorian women in the middle and upper classes. When women require male protection (or female chaperones), they will obviously not be free to pursue occupations or participate in politics and social causes or otherwise involve themselves in the world. The goal is to harrass women back into cloistered environments, back into their observer status when it comes to activity outside the home. Fathers, husbands, brothers, fiancees and beaus, footmen, ladies maids, companions, and so on. Women who are not safe on their own must go in pairs or stay home, as in Saudi Arabia and similar cultures where women who are on their own are attacked by men enforcing the social mores of their society. As in India where women riding street cars were being gang raped, since the only woman who would ride such a vehicle must be of easy virtue and thus any man's. This is what we are dealing with the US too.

    The solution is not for women to be careful. It is for men to stop harrassing them. That means that men must be held accountable for their attacks, and other men and boys must understand that women on their own are not fair game. The social rules need to change because women are not going back to Victorian times (which never applied to working class or poor women, who were fair game and had no recourse of any kind, other than to their equally powerless male relatives).

    We are better than this. We are more civilized. It is time for men to realize that and stop taking advantage of their situation to restrict female competition in the workplace.

    And Somerby needs to stop using his blog to harrass women who dare to work in occupations he considers his own territory.

    1. Women will always need to protect themselves from male predators while alone. If victimized they would and should have an uphill battle proving it in court because the presumption will lie with the accused. This will never change. Feminists do a disservice to women by not cautioning them about this reality and offering a useless platitude that they "should" be able to do it.

    2. Men are not animals. They have self control. It remains for our society to demand them to control themselves in this way, just as they must control other aggressive urges. If you were talking about bears, you might have a point.

    3. "the presumption will lie with the accused."
      If you mean the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, that is true. However, the outcry against sexual harassment, particularly in the workplace, is a reaction to the prevailing culture, where men were rarely if ever prosecuted and women were rarely if ever believed. This led to women simply shutting up and taking the abuse. That is what needs to change. And this isn't coming from just "feminists", the word you chose to use, but from women of all political persuasions.

    4. Yes, men are animals, will always make war, and will always attack women for sex when there is an opportunity to do it without getting caught. This is reality.

    5. Such men need to be identified as criminals and prosecuted by the men who don’t think of themselves as animals treating women as prey.

  7. Six parts on this topic is five parts too many.

  8. Again, Bob's takedown of Maddow is not real quality, but it's the quantity that has become the problem.....

  9. Malcolm's article is a take down of Maddow. Malcolm's conscious irony went right over Somerby's head, for 6 posts in a row.

  10. If Somerby wants to blame someone for the kind of entertainment Maddow provides, it should be John Stewart. He and his protegees (Steven Colbert, Larry Wilmore, John Oliver, Samantha Bee) explicitly merged news reporting with humor. Maddow has stated that they are her role models. Yet I've never heard Somerby speak one ill word against these other pseudo-journalist celebrities, even though many young people said they got their news exclusively from the Daily Show. Now Somerby thinks it is horrible when Maddow simplifies or glosses details for the sake of narrative. Stewart and Oliver do the same thing.

    Somerby comes from Irish culture, so he surely understands that truth is often sacrificed in the telling of a good story. Maybe his con artist grandpa makes him queasy about that tradition. The entertainment value of the story is paramount, not reporting of some detail that only Somerby would consider more than a triviality. It is sad to find that Somerby is in his heart a self-loathing Irishman.

    1. Those are comedians. Maddow is not a comedian. Stewart explicitly tried to explain the difference to her once. Bob briefly mentioned their fascinating exchange a few times. She can simplify or gloss details for the sake of a joke if she enters the ring as a comedian! But she has a role of a reporter or journalist or serious commentator who even represents liberal views on shows like Meet the Press and simplifying or glossing details in that role for the sake of narrative may be a bad idea and harmful to liberal interests in the same way Hannity, who does the same, will be shown to be harmful to conservative interests ultimately.

      I get that you don't get it though. We all are getting what we deserve.

      Have a nice day.

    2. Comedy can be a very effective weapon for social critique and in telling truth to power, something the ancient Greeks first recognized. I wouldn't underestimate the power of comedians like Stewart to shape our discourse. And Somerby sometimes used comic techniques in his blog. Somerby used to do stand-up comedy, by the way.

    3. Freud wrote about it in Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious as a method employed to more gently approach difficult subjects.

    4. Maddow has described herself as an entertainer. What more does she have to do to be considered one. She is not aspiring to be Walter Cronkite. She considers herself a colleague of John Stewart. You can then say she isn't funny or isn't entertaining, but you cannot say that isn't her goal, when she has herself stated her intentions.

      John Stewart is better at this stuff than any of the others. Would it be fair for him to tell his competitors to give it up and report the news straight? Somerby doesn't have that right either. He may want Maddow to play it straight but she hasn't defined her job that way. He can say she isn't amusing, but he cannot tell her to get out of the business.

    5. People have told Samantha Bee to lay off the feminist stuff. I'm glad she didn't listen to them.

    6. She's not a comedian and she's not an entertainer. Her site describes her show as news. And describes what she does as reporting. That's why Stewart and others were and are critical of her. And it's true, if she was a comedian, she would be a extremely shitty one and deserving of criticism on those grounds as well but she is not a comedian. She is a news reporter. Cable news. Not cable entertainment.

      I get that you don't get that and you like what she does.

    7. I also get that she feels like she is an entertainer and a comedian and the same as Stewart etc.

      That's one of the reasons some people look at what she does as being extremely fucked up and wrong.

      I get that you disagree and agree with her.

    8. This from her show's website:
      "The Rachel Maddow Show” features Maddow’s take on the biggest stories of the day, political and otherwise"
      It's her 'take'. That implies view, opinion, interpretation.

    9. @4:07 I don’t like her. I never watch her show. I turn MSNBC off after Chris Hayes. I just think Somerby is being unfair to her and especially to Malcolm.

    10. 4:22 Copy that.

      4:20 I get that you think is she is not in the news or reporting business and more of an entertainer and comedian like Jon Stewart.

    11. @4:54:
      "4:20 I get that you think is she is not in the news or reporting business and more of an entertainer and comedian like Jon Stewart."
      No, you don't "get" it at all. It isn't about what I "think." Her show is clearly described as her 'take', i.e. her opinion. Whether you like it or not.

    12. Yes, opinion. Like Hannity right? Where simplifying or glossing details for the sake of narrative is OK. I get that you don't see a problem with it. Nor does she. I get it.

    13. "Where simplifying or glossing details for the sake of narrative is OK."
      That's your opinion of her, not mine. She's far better than Hannity.
      Besides, I'm only responding to the claim made by some commenter above that she claims her show is straight news reporting, and that is demonstrably false.
      Who do you listen to and respect in the news media? Care to be brave and share that with us?

    14. Hey, I get it. She's not news. She shouldn't be held to any journalistic standards. What she says, goes. After all, it's just her opinion. we anything goes man!

      Maddow. She's just a hilarious comedian entertainer. It's a show. It's an orchestration. Like a dance or a play. Everybody has a role. It's fun. Everybody has fun during the entertaining, funny show. It's not news. There are no standards. I totally get it man.

    15. I totally feel what you're saying brother or sister. She's better than Hannity. Far better! Her hilarious show of fun entertainment is better than Hannity's. Thanks for pointing that out. Her entertaining show of hilarious Stewart-like opinion is better than Hannity's. I get that as well. Better than Hannity's. Copy that.

    16. Maddow: the cable news show that is not news. I get it. It totally makes sense. It's fun. There's fun nightly.

    17. "Care to be brave and share that with us?"
      Yep, didn't think you would. Ass.

    18. Why? Why is that relevant? I don't get it.

    19. "I don't get it." Thanks for admitting that. My mission is accomplished.

    20. Re: Like Hannity.
      Maddow's a race-baiter for white people?

    21. It's remarkable how 6:05 so handily won the exchange above, while 6:00, like Bush, just declared Mission Accomplished and wandered aimlessly away, still fluffing himself as he went.

  11. To Somerby and all the blockheaded anti-Maddow commenters here: You have turned a non-viewer into a viewer of Maddow. I'm sure she thanks each and every one of you.

    1. Many, many people love her show. She's very, very popular and successful.

    2. Many, many more people love Hannity, Limbaugh, et al. They are very, very successful. Why don't we try to dethrone those turds?

    3. Why doesn't Rachael try to dethrone those turds? She never even mentions their nefariousness during her hilarious opinion based comedy show. One wonders why. Don't you?

    4. How would you know?

    5. You sound dumb enough to be a Maddow viewer.

    6. Enjoying yourself? Why don't you come back when you're ready to have an honest discussion. You don't realize how foolish and immature you look.

    7. I think the whole "it's all just show biz" excuse is a cop out. It confirms that she's a lightweight.

  12. Simply below the file-edit menu by default, the itunes shop usually itunesappdownload.com such as productivity apps or games Just like the Application Store on

  13. The Sign in web page will certainly come up, then you enter your Apple ID. iTunes Login It will certainly bring you to the iTunes shop, click Continue. Read and Accept the regards.

  14. Lowest cost Newports Cigarettes

    The new unique 'bosphorus' green of the house jersey has become welcomed by IRFU organization and players and may just be a big success with fans Cheap Marlboro 100'S Cigarettes Online. Over that point, we have been fortunate in order to produce partnerships based at trust and shared respect. The spirit in togetherness is in the centre of our effort Cheap Cigarettes Online USA.

    "The new model pays tribute with the rich heritage in rugby in Ireland and will eventually hopefully resonate through fans. We wish the nation coming together for Ireland after the team take at South Africa on November. "

    Louis Magee, President belonging to the IRFU, commented: "The IRFU can be delighted to welcome Canterbury back up the Irish rugby family unit.

    "Canterbury has an extensive and successful union with Irish rugby in the slightest degree levels of the video game and we watch for working once again with the leading kit retailers in world rugby Buy Cheap Newport Menthol Cigarettes Online. inch.