To the extent that
Life is a parade of fools,
then Michelle is out front, twirling a baton.
then Michelle is out front, twirling a baton.
(I was going to put her in a clown suit, but the baton thing seems to go with her sometime effort to revive bouffant for the FOX demographic).
AS has a moment of schadenfreude. It reads like Captain Kirk, et. al., praising Kahn to Spock, who replied, "Gentlemen, let me remind you that ...".
I cannot, myself, figure out The Atlantic crews' fascination with Reihan - I keep trying, but first impressions are hard to shake. Is it the improbable genius of finding a way to put "Malkin" and "A.J. Ayer" in the same sentence? Clearly, it is not the description of Malkin's views as "conservative" (pfft!) or excusing the rancid and contrived nature of much of them under the rubric "unapologetic"?
Why does this just never get old (see below - the tears of laughter just won't stop: it's just over the top at so many levels ...)?
From the accusatory "introduction" for which the interviewee is expected to sit silently like a good boy, to the unabashedly assumed moral superiority of her racial detention polemic over Shabazz's own doctrines, to the sheer joy of watching her have to defend herself from the "unapologetic" counter-charge, "Will you apologize for being a political prostitute...?". All that, before one comes up to the recent acquittal of one of her own indicted-in-the-press objects of disaffection - if that's what Andrew wants to call "innovative", then ... well doesn't innovation imply some kind of mind over matters?
"You wanna call me a whore on National TV?" Touche. Touche.
AND ... she does all this, yet she is unwilling to "ape" for The New Yorker readership. Clearly, her explanation isn't to be taken at face value. Perhaps she knows that bringing her circus to The New Yorker would put money in their pockets and that's probably not something she wants to do.
