given that the daily mail almost EXCLUSIVELY pedals in a genre perhaps best described as News From Elsewhere (with the exception of their EXCLUSIVE EXCLUSIVES which always have EXCLUSIVE plastered all over them so they are adequately distinguished from the pack of unoriginal content), i don’t know why i always give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that their articles are doing something other than killing time.
sometimes i think 'ah, the 90s weren't so bad. why am i always writing about how news stories from the 90s screwed me up? what is wrong with me? why do i have this wholly unjustified personal vendetta against the 1990s?' YEAH. no. 😲 pic.twitter.com/V76hbV21jn
today, class, a close reading of the DM’s article of 16 february 2018, entitled: “Sisters who competed to snare the world’s richest men: Schooled by their mother to seek out power, a new book reveals the jealousy between Jackie O and sister Lee and how they both bedded JFK.”
the thing about presidential portraits is that they usually aren’t all that exciting. partly [SWEEPING GENERALIZATION] possibly perhaps because there haven’t really been presidents who were particularly interested in art or in portraiture as an art form.