When They Go Low, Go Lower

"When they go low, we go high," Michelle Obama declared at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Campaigning three months later with Hillary Clinton

Our vote is the ultimate way we go high when they go low!” she announced. “Voting is our high!”
She updated the call-and-response, then, yelling, “How do we go high?”
“We vote!” came the answer.

Her presidential candidate won a plurality of votes but lost the election to Donald Trump, aided by Vladimir Putin and James Comey.  Still with no clue in January, Mrs. Obama in an interview with Oprah repeated "When they go low, we go high."

That's not the approach favored by The Rude Pundit, who argues

Forget about the odious cabinet picks, forget about the business conflicts, forget all that other shit that people either don't care about or don't understand so they don't care about it. Instead, hammer Trump and the Republicans on the one goddamned thing that is easy to understand: Was Trump elected because of the Russians? 

On every news show, in every appearance, in constant tweets and all over social media, demand, again and again, for an investigation into Russian hacks. Be as fucking hysterical and hyperbolic as needed. Go fucking nuts. When a Republican accuses Democrats of playing politics, respond with something like "Oh, so you're just fine with Russia electing the president of the United States?" And if they try to evade, push them to say "yes" or "no." Whose side are you on? Russia or the USA? And if you're on the side of the truth, then you should be demanding an independent investigation, no? 

Trump's loathsome idiot hordes will choke on their own troll phlegm in rage, but they're just cult members now,...

Less profanely, Dana Beyer of Gender Rights Maryland remarks

The government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” is perishing at the hands of a small proportion of its people, and the apathy of its majority. Drastic measures are needed. The Marquess of Queensberry Rules no longer apply.

Hit below the belt.

When you hit below the belt, do it repeatedly. Stressing the need of the Democratic Party establishment to frame its message more effectively, cognitive linguistics devotee and author George Lakoff explains

Repetition is a way of changing people’s brains. What Trump was doing all through the nomination campaign was that every day he managed to get on TV, and he would repeat different things that activated the same moral framework, and it really worked. In addition you have particular frames that were repeated: “Crooked Hillary,” “crooked Hillary,” “crooked Hillary,”  over and over. There wasn’t anything Hillary did that was crooked. But he kept saying it until people believed it. And they believed it because it was heard enough times to strengthen the neural circuitry in their brains. It wasn’t just stupidity. It’s simply the way brains work.

"Corrupt Donald" won't do because the adjective already has been practically trademarked by Trump.  "Devious Donald" is inadequate and "Terrible Trump" might only endear the President-elect further to his cultists. "Vladimir Putin" has the advantage of both linking Trump to the Russian despot and reminding voters that his election is tainted.

"When they go low, we plunge under the ground beneath them so that the earth swallows them," says Rude Pundit.  "Vladimir Trump wouldn't meet with the approval of Michelle Obama or even Barack Obama but, given the results of the last eight years (Congress in January 2009 below, Congress in January 2017, below that), that would be a good sign.

'




Share |

Bold And Perilous

As chairperson of the House Ethics Committee, Jason Chaffetz is an unparalleled expert on ethics, exquisitely able to avoid them himself, a man of whom Charlie Pierce this past week wrote 

If there is a more purely mendacious figure in our politics these days than Congressman Jason Chaffetz of Utah, I don't particularly want to meet that person without a team of lawyers and perhaps a cream pie. First, he promised to investigate a prospective President Hillary Clinton from hell to breakfast. Then, confronted with the fact that the president-elect has built a career on various grifts and scams and that he has no intention to stop now, Chaffetz urged prudence and caution in his oversight job.

Nonetheless, Walter Shaub Jr., director of the US Office of Government Ethics, on Wednesday

gave a speech at the Brookings Institution. Shaub — a political appointee of President Obama in his fourth of a five-year term and a career civil servant — described Trump's announced plans to turn over management of his businesses to his sons as "meaningless" as it relates to conflicts of interest.

The following day, the Utah Republican responded by sending, in the words of The New York Times,  "a stinging letter to Mr. Shaub raising the possibility of a congressional investigation." 







But Shaub's thoughtful and balanced- he commended the responses of a few Trump Cabinet nominees to ethical concerns- speech may not be what most rankles the President-elect's inner circle because

Over the weekend, Senate Democrats released a letter Shaub sent raising alarms about nominees who hadn't complted their ethics reviews being scheduled for confirmation heaings.

The ethics agency director ended the letter, "For as long as I remain Director, OGE's staff and agency ethics officials will not succumb to pressure to cut corners and ignore conflicts of interest."

The last thing this Administration will tolerate is someone who "will not succumb to pressure to cut corners and ignore conflicts of interest." Distilled, that would be someone who will not "succumb pressure to cut corners"- or to Trump, someone who "will not succumb." Schaub's term does not end for a year but his office, subject to budgetary approval, may be imperiled because the GOP-dominated Congress the very first week of January

reinstated a procedural rule created in 1876 that allows lawmakers to cut the pay of individual federal workers down to $1, The Washington Post reported Thursday.

The Holman Rule allows members of Congress to propose amendments to appropriations bills that target specific government employees or programs in an effort to cut spending.

Under the rule passed this week in larger rules package, any such amendment that would target an employee or program would have to be passed by a majority of the House and Senate. That makes it unlikely, albeit possible, for lawmakers to reduce a federal worker’s pay. 

A professor of public service at New York University described here as having "worked on Capitol Hll as an adviser on transitions" argues of Schaub's speech"I don’t think it was particularly wise to do. It is a moment fraught with a great deal of controversy and partisan criticism, and I think it is best if you are in an investigatory organization to hold your fire, do your job and do the best you can. It’s just not the time for it.”

Admittedly, it wasn't a wise career move. However, he and others such as Representative John Lewis may have had in mind Edmund Burke's admonition " All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men/women do nothing." Or perhaps they remember the words of Lutheran minister Martin Niemoller, culled from lectures in the years following World War II:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.








Share |

Be Ready To Deal With It

Only a moment or two into President-elect Trump's news conference on Wednesday, we were told

.... the irresponsible decision of a few news organizations to run with a false and unsubstantiated report, when most news organizations resisted the temptation to propagate this fake news, can only be attributed to media bias and attempt to demean the president-elect and our incoming administration and the American people are sick and tired of it.





And that wasn't even the short-fingered vulgarian and vulgar talking yam Donald Trump. It was spoken by the alleged adult in the room, failed governor Mike Pence, our incoming Vice President. However, the report alleging attempts by the Russian government to recruit Donald Trump is not "fake news," which, as The Guardian explains, "is completely made up, manipulated to resemble credible journalism and attract maximum attention and, with it, advertising revenue."  It is not even clear that the intelligence is inaccurate- Pence himself refers to it, accurately, as "unsubstantiated," following the false accusation that it is "false."

Once he began to speak, President-elect Trump, more inclined to trust Vladimir Putin than US intelligence agencies, would claim "today, we’ll get back to real news, to real facts" in his ongoing effort to convince Americans that the mainstream media must always be doubted and he to be completely trusted.

Steve M., noting a New York Times' headline "Trump, in New Style of Fighter, Takes the Ring," recognized the inroads Trump is making with the media and will continue to make unless a backbone is grown. He commented

I understand the arguments against publishing the dossier. But if you're going to criticize BuzzFeed, remind your readers -- and yourselves -- that Trump is at war with you, and with all norms of responsible presidential conduct. Object to the publication of the dossier if you must, but couple that objection with a reassertion of the fact that the press has an obligation to hold Trump accountable, and to be very aggressive in that effort. Don't act like apple-polishing grade schoolers trying to rat out a misbehaving classmate to the teacher.

When Trump attacked Jim Acosta of CNN (which, of course, didn't publish the specific allegations in the dossier), it might have been a good idea for Acosta to walk out and for colleagues to join him in solidarity. Maybe the press should refuse to attend any future press conferences unless Trump vows to refrain from playground-bully abuse -- not that he'd keep that promise, but just getting him to make a small, phony concession would be a start. And if he refused and that meant no further press conferences, the hell with it. It seems obvious that Trump intends to use them as ego trips for Trump and opportunities for him to abuse his enemies in the media. Don't play along. Deny him that.

He wrote that Thursday morning.  Media Matters' Matt Gertz found that several hours later, on Thursday night, Newt Gingrich appeared with Sean Hannity and

urged (incoming Press Secretary Sean) Spicer to learn “a couple of big lessons” from the incident. First and foremost, he suggested that Acosta be banned from reporting on Trump events for 60 days “as a signal, frankly, to all the other reporters that there are going to be real limits” for proper behavior...

Gingrich went on to explain his theory of the press under the Trump administration. “You don't have to think of The New York Times or CNN or any of these people as news organizations,” he explained. “They're mostly propaganda organizations. And they're going to be after Trump every single day of his presidency.”

“And he needs to understand that that's the case, and so does Sean Spicer in speaking for him. And they simply need to go out there and understand they have it in their power to set the terms of this dialogue.” He added, “They can close down the elite press.”

Whatever Gingrich believes constitutes the "elite press," we have a pretty good idea of Donald Trump's criteria. On November 22, ardent Trumpist Hannity, who never talks out of turn, remarked

So until members of the media come clean about colluding with the Clinton campaign and admit that they knowingly broke every ethical standard they are supposed to uphold, they should not have the privilege, they should not have the responsibility of covering the president on behalf of you, the American people.

As Jay Rosen puts it "In other words, the mainstream press should not be allowed to cover Trump." If you can't say anything good about Dear Leader, don't say anything at all.

Media organizations are businesses which traditionally compete against each other. But if there is no cooperation- or at least a common understanding- of the threat they are under, they will find that they are among the first casualties of an Administration which demands praise at every turn and equates dissent with disloyalty.








Share |

Grabbing That Low-Hanging Fruit

"Senator Sessions," Cory Booker of New Jersey intoned yesterday, "has not demonstrated a commitment to a central requirement of the job – to aggressively pursue the congressional mandate of civil rights, equal rights, and justice for all."

It is probably unfair to slam Senator Booker as hypocritical, as some conservatives have, for his criticism because he honored Senator Sessions at the Capitol Visitor Center in 2016 when they both recognized marchers who successfully pressed for what eventually became the Voting Rights Act of 1965. "I am humbled," Booker said at the time, "to be able to participate here in paying tribute to some of the extraordinary Americans whose footsteps paved the way for me and my generation. I feel blessed and honored to have partnered with Senator Sessions in being the Senate sponsors of this important award."





Honoring their colleagues is what Senators do. There is a political upside and no downside.

It also may even be unfair (barely) to draw parallels between the Cory Booker who on that day declared himself "humbled," as well as "blessed and honored" to the Booker who testified yesterday against the nomination of Senator Sessions to be Attorney General.   He proclaimed it "a blessing and honor" to have participated in the earlier event with Sessions and maintained "in the choice between standing with Senate norms or standing up for what my conscience tells me is best for our country, I will always choose conscience and country."

The United States Senate is a small, exclusive club whose members frequently testify to the importance of their conscience and love of country, as well as having been blessed by you-know-who.

More substantively, appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committe, Booker argued that Sessions'

record indicates that we cannot count on him to support state and national efforts toward bringing justice to a justice system that people on both sides of the aisle readily admit is biased against the poor, drug addicted, mentally ill, and people of color.

His record indicates that at a time when even the FBI director is speaking out about implicit racial bias in policing and the need to address it; at a time when the last two Attorneys General have taken steps to fix our broken criminal justice system; and at a time when the Justice Department he would lead has uncovered systemic abuses in police departments all over the United States including Ferguson, including Newark; Senator Sessions would not continue to lead urgently needed change.





The criticism is valid, as has been almost all of the criticism of the nomination of the Alabama Senator. However, it was celebrated as precedent because it was the first time a sitting United States Senator testified against the appointment of a sitting United States Senator for a cabinet position. And it was nothing more.

Of the three most pressing issues facing the judiciary (campaign finance reform being the third), Booker gave glancing reference to one when he stated "He will be expected to defend voting rights, but his record indicates that he won’t."

While stoutly defending gay rights, the New Jerseyan completely ignored another right, which is threatened by.... let's have the American Civil Liberties Union, as it appears on its website, explain:

With increasing frequency, we are seeing individuals and institutions claiming a right to discriminate – by refusing to provide services to women and LGBT people – based on religious objections. The discrimination takes many forms, including:


Religiously affiliated schools firing women because they became pregnant while not married;                  
Business owners refusing to provide insurance coverage for contraception for their employees;

Graduate students, training to be social workers, refusing to counsel gay people;

Pharmacies turning away women seeking to fill birth control prescriptions;

Bridal salons, photo studios, and reception halls closing their doors to same-sex couples planning their weddings.


While circumstances differ, one thing remains the same: religion is being used as an excuse to discriminate against and harm others.


There is some, limite, risk in pointing to "uncovered systemic abuses in police department" and none asserting the need to protect "the equal rights of gay and lesbian Americans."

But woe be to the man or woman who vigorously denies there is a constitutional, let alone ethical, right to discriminate on the basis of religious belief.  HB 2 in North Carolina has been dubbed by opponents as "the bathroom bill" because it disadvantages gay, bisexual, or transgender individuals by requiring them in government buildings to use only bathrooms corresponding to the gender listed on their birth certificate.

HB2 and similar bills which advocates refer to as "religious freedom" initiatives protect discrimination also on the basis of color, gender, national origin, ethnicity, or religious belief.  There are people- most prominently the incoming Vice President of the United States- who have tried, and will continue to try, to memorialize discrimination on the basis of the euphemistically-termed "faith."
Bob Jones University "had justified its ban" on interracial dating which lasted half a century "by saying that God created people differently for a reason." The college dropped its prohibition only after its tax exemption was withdrawn by the Internal Revenue Service- whose commissioner is appointed, with consent of the Senate, by the President of the United States.

Prohibition of interracial dating won't come into vogue.  However, Donald Trump has interviewed possible nominees for the US Supreme Court from a list given him by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. With the possibility that he or President Pence might nominate as many as four Justices, the GOP effort to codify discrimination on the basis of religion or "faith" presents a real and serious threat to freedom of religion and to the United States of Constitution.

Senator Booker chose to downplay the critical issue of voting rights and ignore that of the wall of separation between church and state. The failure lays bare his testimony as sound and fury, signifiying nothing of substance.








Share |

All Aboard To Moscow

We may no know for awhile whether the latest speculation about Donald Trump's connection to the Kremlin is valid.   Similarly, we presently cannot be certain whether Hillary Clinton will be able to claim the distinction of being the first U.S.A. candidate ever to lose a presidential election to a foreign agent.

But we do know two things: Trump likes Putin and the Russian government is very, very fond of the President-elect. Politico had reported

The state duma, Russia’s lower house of parliament, erupted in applause Wednesday as Republican Donald Trump was declared the winner of the U.S. election.

“Hillary Clinton has admitted defeat in the U.S. presidential election, and a second ago Trump began his speech as president-elect of the United States of America, and I congratulate you all,” said Vyacheslav Nikonov, a state duma member, as the house applauded.

Trump returns the adulation.  We know not only from his kind words for strongman Vladimir Putin.  Nor can we be absolutely certain (nearly, not absolutely) that Kellyanne Conway doesn't speak only for herself when she professes to be unconcerned that the President-elect isn't displeased that Russia tried to upend the presidential election.

The real tip-off comes from radio host Sean Hannity.  Immediately after Mitt Romney conceded the presidential election in 2008, the GOP turned its attention to consideration of how to appeal to hispanics, whose votes played a major role in the Party's failure at the polls.   In his own election post-mortem- both a portent of the GOP "autopsy" and a reflection of its mood at the moment- Hannity stated

.... it’s gotta be resolved. The majority of people here—if some people have criminal records you can send’ em home—but if people are here, law-abiding, participating, four years, their kids are born here... first secure the border, pathway to citizenship.

Time went on, the GOP started to move back to its anti-immigration/illegal immigration stance, Donald Trump rose up, and Hannity consequently reversed his support for comprehensive immigration reform.

On Sunday, however, Hannity made known his views, which are those of his Party, currently headed by Donald Trump.  He responded to the satirical tweet "YES! All Americans must join together to MAKE RUSSIA GREAT AGAIN. Teamwork!! #MRGA" with his own "Amen!!"

Once a twit noted he had not "read carefully," Hannity deleted his tweet in favor of  "Guilty. And you are 100% correct. My mistake and I erased it and humbly apologize."

The original tweet came from a "Donnie L'il Hands" and put "make Russia great again" in all caps, Yet, Hannity claims his agreement with the message was a "mistake."

His original tweet was a "mistake"- because his hand was caught in the cookie jar, and he made Trump's preferences clear. Once a fierce critic, during the campaign he became a born-again defender of Julian Assange as the latter leaked emails in his (successful) effort to elect Trump. Now Hannity, once a Repeal and Replace Obamacare Yesterday advocate, tweets 'I happen to agree with President-Elect Trump, they should be repealing Obamacare piece by piece as they find replacement."

But he needn't have used nearly all of his 140-word allotment. He could have begun and ended it with "I happen to agree with President-Elect Trump." He's going to do what he believes he must as a loyal Republican. He will follow Dear Leader wherever he goes. And whatever the veracity of the most current intelligence revealed, Dear Leader's loyalties clearly lie somewhere east of Poland..

Share |

Partisan Politics, Indeed

There she goes again. Interviewed Friday by Chris Cuomo, Kellyanne Fitzpatrick Conway argued

Hey, Chris. We had a president in the United States in October who cold have, when Mr. Clapper said what he said, pushed back harder but did not because what was he doing? He and Hillary Clinton were out there with their teams absolutely believeing he was going to be the President so let's not... so they politicized it because they didn't understand in America what was going to happen in the election.

She certainly stays on message. On Monday, USA Today reported

"I predict that President Trump will want to make sure that our actions are proportionate to what occurred, based on what we know," she told Capital Download. She said the steps Obama took, including ejecting 35 alleged Russian spies, were harsher than those he ordered after reported hacking by China and North Korea and suggested the reason for the difference was political.

Conway ridiculed a proposal by House and Senate Democrats on Monday to establish a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate the allegations against Russia. U.S. intelligence agencies last week reported that Moscow, under the direction of President Vladimir Putin, hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, then leaked them in an effort to defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton and elect Trump. Trump has supported investigations by the House and Senate.

"It's curious and a little bit humorous that Democrats would talk about anything bipartisan ... given how they have vowed to obstruct everything we do," she said, saying there already was "a great deal of information out there" about the hacking. "I do find it to be very ironic that the uptick and the hue-and-cry of 'investigation' and 'information' has occurred after the election results are in. ...

"The fact is, the Democrats became super-duper interested in this entire issue after the election did not go the way they, quote, wanted and the way they expected."

There was no "hue and cry" precisely because of partisan politics- played by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Three Washington Post reporters learned that by mid-September, White House officials had decided to blame the Russians publicly for hacking computer servers.  However

they worried that doing so unilaterally and without bipartisan congressional backing just weeks before the election would make Obama vulnerable to charges that he was using intelligence for political purposes.

Instead, officials devised a plan to seek bipartisan support from top lawmakers and set up a secret meeting with the Gang of 12 — a group that includes House and Senate leaders, as well as the chairmen and ranking members of both chambers’ committees on intelligence and homeland security.

Obama dispatched Monaco, FBI Director James B. Comey and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to make the pitch for a “show of solidarity and bipartisan unity” against Russian interference in the election, according to a senior administration official.

Specifically, the White House wanted congressional leaders to sign off on a bipartisan statement urging state and local officials to take federal help in protecting their voting-registration and balloting machines from Russian cyber-intrusions.

Though U.S. intelligence agencies were skeptical that hackers would be able to manipulate the election results in a systematic way, the White House feared that Russia would attempt to do so, sowing doubt about the fundamental mechanisms of democracy and potentially forcing a more dangerous confrontation between Washington and Moscow.

In a secure room in the Capitol used for briefings involving classified information, administration officials broadly laid out the evidence U.S. spy agencies had collected, showing Russia’s role in cyber-intrusions in at least two states and in hacking the emails of the Democratic organizations and individuals.

And they made a case for a united, bipartisan front in response to what one official described as “the threat posed by unprecedented meddling by a foreign power in our election process.”

The Democratic leaders in the room unanimously agreed on the need to take the threat seriously. Republicans, however, were divided, with at least two GOP lawmakers reluctant to accede to the White House requests.

According to several officials, McConnell raised doubts about the underlying intelligence and made clear to the administration that he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.

Some of the Republicans in the briefing also seemed opposed to the idea of going public with such explosive allegations in the final stages of an election, a move that they argued would only rattle public confidence and play into Moscow’s hands.

Democratic officials were "super-duper interested in this issue"- but were effectively blocked by Republican McConnell, who determined partisan politics were more important than national security. Other Republicans focused on policy because they believed an announcement "would rattle public confidence and play into Moscow's hands."  President Obama was ready to act, but those tough guy Republicans got cold feet and decided to appease Moscow.

Continuing (at approximately 7:45), Conway remarked

In the last couple of days of Obama's eight years in office, President Obama's eight years of his presidency, all of a sudden he's going to be tough on Russia. Seriously? I can't even say it without laughing.... It doesn't make it OK that we've been so weak on Russia for eight years.

Seriously, Kellyanne?  President Obama wanted to take action- but was stymied by congressional Republicans scared of Russia and by McConnell, who would attack any statement or action taken by Obama as an effort to boost Democratic electoral fortunes.

Democrats should heed the record and notice they will be attacked by the GOP for any action they take or fail to take. The election is over, they will say, get over it, and did we mention the election is over?   They will realize, too, that Kellyanne Conway will say whatever Donald Trump wants her to say, whatever the facts or her personal beliefs.

She may not know of the President's meeting with congressional leaders in October. Surely, however, she knew months ago about an e-mail/Russia nexus, when in July a candidate urged "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you'll be able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you'll probably be rewarded mightily by our press."









Share |

Streep Is Not A Creep

Meghan McCain has famously tweeted "This Meryl Streep speech is why Trump won. And if people in Hollywood don't start recognizing why and how- you will help him get re-elected."

McCain doesn't indicate how a speech made on January 6, 2017 elected someone on November 9, 2016. but never mind. She explains little, perhaps because she would seem to be the hypocrite she apparently believes Hollywood stars are. However, we don't know, because McCain did not mention why she believes Streep's speech will be so helpful to Trump politically.

It may have been wise to avoid facts, to which conservatives are often allergic, or the Arizona senator's daughter may realize that an individual living in a figurative glass house shouldn't throw stones.

Responding to McCain's tweet in a (mostly) righteous rant of his own, Charles Clymer says he "grew up in white poverty in central Texas" with a father "who is a lifelong car mechanic," a "mother (who has worked minimum wage jobs all her life," and a stepfather who "was junior enlisted in the Army." He warns "these folks- my people- don't need your condescending conservative asses speaking for our 'values.'"

Clymer slams McCain for pretending to care about the working class while she is "a privileged white daughter of a U.S. senator who used her dady's connections to get this far ahead."  Evidently, McCain did not graduate from Podunk High School in Flyover Country, Kansas or Working Class U. in Oklahoma, Alabama, or Idaho. Wikipedia helpfully informs us she "attended Phoenix Country Day School and Xavier College Preparatory, an all-girl Catholic high school. She attended Columbia University, where she earned her bachelor's degree in art history."

That doesn't preclude Ms. McCain from speaking on behalf of the average Joe and Jane (or if younger, Joshua and Jessica).  However, it doesn't give her the street credibility that she understands Meryl Streep lacks- but in fact never claimed.

McCain may have been motivated by outrage that political commentary would be offered by an elite actress or because she now has obtained a fine gig at Fox News.  She may be unnacustomed to the humility demonstrated when Street approvingly recalled "Tommie Lee Jones said to me 'isn't it such a privilege, Meryl, to be an actor?'" Streep didn't claim it to be an "honor" nor pretend to be "humbled," instead recognizing it as a privilege.

Or there may be something more serious, more disturbing, more dangerous involved. Before endorsing the Committee to Protect Journalists, Streep explained "we need the principled press- to hold power to account, to call them on the carpet, be outraged."  There is probably nothing Donald Trump, nor his supporters, hate and fear more than a free press. For one night at least, an actress reminded us of the danger ahead, and if it happens to be an extremely privileged, wealthy celebrity, someone had to do it.












Share |