WaPo and Newsweek columnist as well as MSNBC contributor Ezra Klein claims that it’s impossible to understand the US Constitution because it’s over 100 years old.

An effective argument, provided he’s lobbying to get a White House nomination for the next SCOTUS opening:

The Constitution is over 100 years and as such doesn’t make sense anymore? Saul Alinsky’s over 100 years old too but Klein doesn’t seem to have much trouble relating to him. It’s not the age the left fears, it’s the constraint of the content.

A breakdown of the indecipherable complexities of the Constitution from Stephen Gutowski:

But lets cut Ezra some slack. I mean just look at the first amendment. It’s confusing as hell:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

“Congress shall make no law”. What in the world could that mean?

Beware those who can make complete sense out of a 2500-page health care bill and bloated tax code but who say it’s impossible to decipher the massive six-page US Constitution.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Gee, when it’s something that might make me angry, I’m told that freedom of expression is the cornerstone of our great nation and to just put up with it, but some cornerstones obviously carry more weight than others:

“Non Sequitur” is a popular comic that runs daily in about 800 newspapers, including this one. But the “Non Sequitur” cartoon that appeared in last Sunday’s Post was not the one creator Wiley Miller drew for that day.

Editors at The Post and many other papers pulled the cartoon and replaced it with one that had appeared previously. They were concerned it might offend and provoke some Post readers, especially Muslims.
[...]
Still, Style editor Ned Martel said he decided to yank it, after conferring with others, including Executive Editor Marcus W. Brauchli, because “it seemed a deliberate provocation without a clear message.” He added that “the point of the joke was not immediately clear” and that readers might think that Muhammad was somewhere in the drawing.

Miller is fuming. The award-winning cartoonist, who lives in Maine, told me the cartoon was meant to satirize “the insanity of an entire group of people rioting and putting out a hit list over cartoons,” as well as “media cowering in fear of printing any cartoon that contains the word ‘Muhammad.’”

Here’s the cartoon — oh the horror:

Do you think the Post knows that they did nothing but help make the point? Wiley seems to understand that. The WaPo suits are probably still hunched over this cartoon trying to find Muhammad though.

If Wiley Miller wants to make sure the WaPo allows his cartoons to run in the future, he should start making light of disabled soldiers and Christianity more and never again mention the name… well… you know who.

(h/t ZIP)

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Funny. The Washington Post just recently ran a massive A1 story on the dangerous “incivility” of conservatives. Remember?

But their own reporters and editors can’t keep their own potty mouths and fists from flying when they disagree:

It’s come to this: The Washington Post Style section, for years known as “the sandbox” because it was a playground for sometimes immature writers, has turned into a boxing ring because one of the editors was revolted by a story that came across his desk on deadline.

Details are sketchy, but numerous witnesses report that veteran feature editor Henry Allen punched out feature writer Manuel Roig-Franzia on Friday. The fracas took place in sight of Post executive editor Marcus Brauchli’s office. Brauchli rushed to separate the two.

It should be noted that Allen is nearly seventy, but he served in the Marines in Vietnam. He also won a Pulitzer prize in 2000 for criticism. Both apparently came into play when Allen jumped Roig-Franzia.

According to many sources, the incident began when Style editor Ned Martel assigned a semi-political story to Monica Hesse and Roig-Franzia. Playing off of an inadvertent disclosure last week that many congressmen are being investigated for ethics violations, Martel asked the two Style writers to compile a list of similar disclosures in the past. They came up with a “charticle” with a dozen examples, starting with Robert E. Lee’s Civil War battle plans for Antietam showing up wrapped around cigars.

Allen took a look and didn’t like. He started ranting about the number of mistakes he had found.

Hesse at one point asked him to send the copy back to her. She got a bit teary at the verbal beatdown.

Allen, according to sources, said: “This is total crap. It’s the second worst story I have seen in Style in 43 years.”

Roig-Franzia then wandered into the newsroom. A veteran foreign correspondent, he has been turning out political features for Style. He heard Allen’s rant and stopped by his desk.

“Oh, Henry,” he supposedly said, “don’t be such a cocks—–.”

Allen lunged at Roig-Franzia, threw him to the newsroom floor, and started throwing punches. Roig-Franzia tried to fend him off. Brauchli and others pulled the two apart.

Paging the civility police…Emergency to report at 1150 15th St SW Washington, D.C…WaPo reporter/public discourse guardian Ann Gerhart, come in, please. Hello?

***

Heh: Treacher asks, “Which have seen more violence in 2009, tea parties or newsrooms?”

The introduction of the article spotlighted an e-mail from yours truly to Obama-philic author and Jamestown Project member Charisse Carney-Nunes.

Does the e-mail contain incivil rhetoric, profanity, or threats?

No.

My message contained….questions:

Late last month, Charisse Carney-Nunes fired up the computer at her home in Northeast Washington to check her e-mail. Her brain already was on morning drive time: breakfast for the kids, her day’s work at a government agency. She glanced down at her screen, then froze.

“Ms. Carney-Nunes,” began the e-mail from Michelle Malkin, a best-selling and often inflammatory conservative writer with a heavily trafficked Web site. “I understand that you uploaded the video of schoolchildren reciting a Barack Obama song/rap at Bernice Young elementary school in June. I have a few quick questions. Did you help write the song/rap and teach it to the children? Are you an educator/guest lecturer at the school? Did you teach about your book, ‘I am Barack Obama’ at the school? Your bio says you are a schoolmate of Obama. How well-acquainted are you with the president?”

Carney-Nunes looked at the time stamp — 6:47 a.m. — and closed the file without replying. She knew Malkin had driven criticism of President Obama’s back-to-school speech, streamed nationwide, as an attempt to indoctrinate students. Now Malkin was asking about a YouTube video of New Jersey public school children singing and enthusiastically chanting about Obama from a Black History Month presentation.

Here was the full message I sent:

Ms. Carney-Nunes,

I understand that you uploaded the video of schoolchildren reciting a Barack Obama song/rap at Bernice Young elementary school in June.

I have a few quick questions.

Did you help write the song/rap and teach it to the children? Are you an educator/guest lecturer at the school? Did you teach about your book, “I am Barack Obama” at the school? Your bio says you are a schoolmate of Obama. How well-acquainted are you with the president?

Thanks for your time.

I had also e-mailed the principal of the Burlington Township elementary school that hosted Carney-Nunes and prominently featured her “I Am Barack Obama” book at the school assembly where the kids sang. The principal did not respond. Neither did Carney-Nunes.

Instead of replying to me, Carney-Nunes ran to the Washington Post a month later to complain about angry e-mails she received in response to the now-infamous “Mmm, Mmm, Mmm” Obama praise video.

The Post dutifully extrapolated from the incident to invoke Rev. Charles Edward Coughlin, smear the Tea Party movement as racist, and deride conservative “ideologues [who] are the millionaire kings and queens of cable and radio ratings and book sales” (see Sweetness and Light for the screen cap).

The Post erroneously asserted that the video was “erroneously linked” to Carney-Nunes:

There was nothing “erroneous” about the link. The video was uploaded on the YouTube channel of Carney-Nunes. She now blames it on an “associate” in the Post article:

Carney-Nunes said an associate of hers videotaped the children’s performance and later uploaded it, along with video and photos from other of her readings, to Carney-Nunes’s YouTube account.

The Post sympathetically quoted Carney-Nunes as she pondered:

“How can I talk to those people?” she said. “These are people who persist in believing that Barack Obama is a Muslim, that he isn’t a citizen of this country. You tell me: Where is the beginning of that conversation?”

Carney-Nunes isn’t interested in talking to me. And she isn’t interested in talking to you. She is interested in promoting the cult of Obama in elementary schools and helping kids “find that inner Obama” without anyone criticizing her.

It’s a telling sign of the Post’s ideological agenda and its insufficient tuned-in-ness (to borrow the NYTimes’ phrase) that the paper doesn’t think parental concerns about left-wing radicalism in the schools are Page A1-newsworthy — but that the complaints of a social justice proselytizer are.

***

Tim Graham at Newsbusters spotlights WaPo priorities: “WaPo Puts Michelle Malkin Attack on Page 1 – ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ Repeal on Page 3.” Make sure to click on Tim’s link for some trademark Berkeley incivility — a teeny, tiny taste of left-wing incivility that never makes it onto the front pages of any newspaper.

Tim also notes some WaPo historical revisionism:

In a nod to reality, the Post acknowledges – at this late date – that this wasn’t exactly different than the Bush years:

It has been nearly a year since Barack Obama, running as a uniter and not a divider, was elected president by the largest margin in 20 years. The loop on cable news of thousands of beaming faces in Chicago’s Grant Park has given way to a summer and fall of thousands of other faces contorting in defiance and fear. A congressman yelled “You lie!” at the president on national TV. A liberal it off the finger of a conservative during a confrontation over public health insurance. On Friday, just hours after Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Republicans and Democrats were at their battle stations again.

The nation’s political discourse seems sour, angry, even dangerous; “uglier than it’s ever been” is a phrase often volunteered — as if President George W. Bush had never been depicted as Hitler, declared a dunce and heckled by Code Pink during his second inaugural address.

But the Post didn’t find that “dangerous” during those years. They wrote syrupy Style section profiles of Code Pink, like this one, headlined “Protesting for Peace With A Vivid Hue and Cry / Code Pink’s Tactics: Often Theatrical, Always Colorful.”

Bingo.

***

WaPo reporter Ann Gerhart writes near the very end of her opus that “An e-mail to Malkin Saturday seeking comment was not answered.” I was offline most of the weekend and didn’t see her e-mail — sent Saturday October 10 at 11:50am — until the article ran. But it’s obvious her hit piece was well in the bag and that any comment I would have provided would have been buried and incidental. Here is Gerhart’s message. Note especially the word “briefly.”

from Ann Gerhart
to writemalkin@gmail.com
date Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 11:50 AM
subject re: washpost reporter interview request
mailed-by washpost.com

Dear Ms. Malkin,

For a piece that is running in tomorrow’s Washington Post, I am hoping to speak with you briefly this afternoon. The piece is an exploration of civility in the public political discourse, or lack thereof — some historical context, some examples, the role of the Internet, the right to free speech and right to engage as a citizen, fairly wide-ranging.

Part of the piece concerns thhe experiences of Charisse Carney-Nunes, after the video of New Jersey schoolchildren singing about Barack Obama was linked to her.

I wanted to confirm that you had attempted to contact her via email and get some questions answered. And more broadly, I wanted to ask you for some reaction and hear from you what you think the current tenor of the discourse is.

Thank you very much for your time,

Ann Gerhart

And here are just a few e-mails that came in after the WaPo article ran:

Priscilla Cortez
to writemalkin@gmail.com
date Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 1:40 PM
subject TIP

I reviewed your image this am and I noticed your thick lips. Please tell me you’re not BLACK. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE.

Really.

Just arrived in my e-mailbox:

Aspiring pundits across the country have the chance to be “America’s Next Great Pundit” by entering The Washington Post’s political columnist competition.

Starting today The Washington Post opinions section is asking people around the country to tell us why they deserve to publish their opinions in The Washington Post and be the next Dana Milbank or Eugene Robinson. Ten contestants will be picked from among all the entrants, and then the field will by narrowed down by rounds of challenges testing the skills a modern pundit must possess. They’ll have to write on deadline, hold their own on video, and field questions from Post readers. After each round, a panel of Post personalities and reader votes will help determine who gets another chance at a byline and who has to shut down their laptop. The ultimate winner will get the opportunity to write a 13-week column that may appear in the print and/or online editions of The Washington Post.

Follow the competition or launch your career by entering online at www.washingtonpost.com/pundit.

The prizes?

The ultimate winner will get the opportunity to write a weekly column that may appear in the print and/or online editions of The Washington Post, paid at a rate of $200 per column, for a total of 13 weeks and $2,600. Our Opinions lineup includes a dozen Pulitzer Prize winners, regulars on the national political talk shows and some of the most influential players inside the Beltway. We’ll set our promising pundit on a path to become the next byline in demand, the talking head every show wants to book, the voice that helps the country figure out what’s really going on.

So what are you waiting for?

Fifteen years ago, this might have been an enticing idea for “aspiring pundits.”

Now, the barriers to entry into the opinion journalism market are zero. Gatekeepers have been rendered obsolete by blogs, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook. And the allure of a “mainstream” media affiliation has fallen exponentially in value.

Who wants to be “the next Dana Milbank or Eugene Robinson?”

My prediction: Not many.

The Washington Post says its newsroom didn’t know about the pimp deal its business/marketing side was making. The flyer advertising pay-per-view meetings with Washington Post reporters and editors and Obama officials wasn’t properly “vetted,” the paper tells Politico.

Uh-huh:

Post spokesperson Kris Coratti has now sent the following statement to POLITICO:

The flier circulated this morning came out of a business division for conferences and events, and the newsroom was unaware of such communication. It went out before it was properly vetted, and this draft does not represent what the company’s vision for these dinners are, which is meant to be an independent, policy-oriented event for newsmakers.

The statement goes on to say that WaPo is still interested in convening the conferences and charging admission while “maintaining journalistic integrity.”

So: We are supposed to believe that WaPo chief and publisher Katharine Weymouth did not know that her business division was planning to use her home to hold lucrative salons cashing in on her connections and and celebrity.

Ouch, stop, stop. Sides. Splitting.

Weymouth recently appeared on a panel on how to save journalism:

“At any given moment, there is a panel taking place somewhere in the world discussing the future of journalism,” Aspen Institute president and longtime journalist Walter Isaacson said at the end of Tuesday night’s panel discussion titled, “What’s the News Worth to You?”

Isaacson’s panel at the Institute’s Ideas Festival in Colorado was just the latest example of such a discussion and featured Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth, ABC News’s David Westin, Bloomberg L.P.’s Norman Pearlstine, Time’s Josh Tyrangiel and Journalism Online’s Steven Brill.

As is usually the case with such discussions, the group didn’t break any serious ground in determining how to save a troubled journalism industry. In fact, many had to admit that they had no idea what to do.

“We will look at anything and are taking a wait-and-see approach,” said Weymouth. “We think about a ton of things. Everything is open.” When asked whether print papers will always be around, Weymouth said, “I don’t know. I don’t predict. Nobody knows.”

“Everything is open” — including her dining and living rooms!

On Twitter, folks on both the left and right are having a field day proposing their own #WaPodeals:

drjjoyner: RT @TeresaKopec: For $10,000 George Will will wear jeans for a day. #WapoDeals

***

Update: WaPo climbs down. The “salons” are closed:

Washington Post Publisher Katharine Weymouth today canceled plans for a series of policy dinners at her home after learning that marketing fliers offered lobbyists access to Obama administration officials, members of Congress and Post journalists in exchange for payments as high as $250,000.

“Absolutely, I’m disappointed,” Weymouth, the chief executive of Washington Post Media, said in an interview. “This should never have happened. The fliers got out and weren’t vetted. They didn’t represent at all what we were attempting to do. We’re not going to do any dinners that would impugn the integrity of the newsroom.”

Moments earlier, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said in a separate interview that he was “appalled” by the plan and had insisted before the cancellation that the newsroom would not participate.

“It suggests that access to Washington Post journalists was available for purchase,” Brauchli said. The proposal “promises we would suspend our usual skeptical questioning because it appears to offer, in exchange for sponsorships, the good name of The Washington Post.

I half-joked grimly the other day on Twitter that Joe Jackson was so crass he’d charge admission to his son’s funeral.

And now this:

Fans who wish to attend Michael Jackson’s star-studded memorial service at Staples Center will have to shell out $25 to sit in the stands, RadarOnline.com has learned exclusively.

Family, friends and VIPS will have seats on the main floor for The Tuesday, July 7th Staples service, first reported by RadarOnline.com, while the general public will be plucking down $25 to sit in the stands.

The memorial service will feel like a concert production featuring guest speakers, a lot of music and video screens inside and outside of Staples, a source close to the planning tells RadarOnline.com.

While we’re on the subject of pimps, how about those Washington Post mack daddies?

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post is offering lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to “those powerful few” — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer is detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he feels it’s a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff.”

The offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters — is a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.

And it’s a turn of the times that a lobbyist is scolding The Washington Post for its ethical practices.

“Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate,” says the one-page flier. “Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. … Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders …

***

Twitter quip of the morning from Lindsay Janeway: “[T]he Washington Compost = presstitutes – Now we know the real reason their papers are sold on the corner.”

No reports of fainting, ogling, or drooling yet, but I will bet you there are cheering followers in the WaPo building who will not wash their hands for a week after greeting the Savior-in-Chief.

Howard Kurtz *Correction: David Nakamura* breathlessly reports:

Staff writers, photographers, editors and employees from other departments lined the hallway after word spread that the President-elect would be walking through the newroom.

At about 3:15 p.m., Obama entered through a back hallway and began shaking hands, as professional newsmen and women reached over to shake his hand and take pictures…

…Obama left the newsroom around 3:30 p.m.

“There goes our journalistic objectivity,” one reporter quipped, as people traded stories and pictures.

Oh, don’t worry, WaPo. Your “journalistic objectivity” went out the window a long, long time ago.

Mark this down as the first notorious Obamedia moment of 2009.

***

Flashback: Notorious Obamedia moments of 2008

Flashback: Seattle Times news editors cheered Rove resignation news

Reader Daniel G. points to this photo of the working media. He e-mails: “While this is a good story on the media defensiveness over Palin, I couldn’t help notice that the attached photo illustrates that the MSM is the LAST group that should be tut-tutting the GOP on its alleged lack of racial diversity!!! Why, they look just like the GOP!”

Snort:

Yes, the leftists want to see more minorities in the Republican Party — so they can immediately proceed to tear them apart as race traitors and sellouts who are acting, you know, “white.”

The piece is here if you must read it.

Funny, I haven’t seen any 2,000-word stories on how white the convention protest population is (a phenomenon I witnessed and reported on first-hand in Denver and which holds in the Twin Cities.)

And as is usually the case with liberals moaning about how colorless the GOP and conservative movement are, the diversity-mongers are better at preaching than practicing.

Flashback: “Diversity” in Howard Dean’s Democrat Party

Flashback: Racial bean-counting at the NYTimes

***

Commenter BayStateRepublican: “Why should they bother counting when the ones they do see ‘don’t count’?”

Well put.

If it’s tens of thousands of pro-illegal alien marchers, they get front-page, banner headline-plus-multimedia bonanza, panoramic coverage gushing over their ability to “flood the Mall” with “passion” and “pride.” Remember?

If it’s Cindy Sheehan and her anti-war rabble, they get frenzied breaking-news, gaggle-crammed, hagiographic coverage:

But if it’s tens of thousands of pro-life marchers? You’d hardly know they overwhelmed the National Mall yesterday. The story made A10 in the Washington Post under the blah-blah headline, “Abortion Foes to Renew Efforts.”

The stingy photo gallery on the WaPo’s website had just 8 photos–3 of which were of a tiny counter-protest by pro-abortion demonstrators and only 1 of which was a medium-wide shot of the Mall showing the pro-life crowd. Tim Graham noticed the same bias:

The story was illustrated by color photos, but in a far too common tactic, the Post balanced a picture of four pro-life demonstrators with “Defend Life” signs in daylight against a photo of four or five feminists with “Keep Abortion Legal” signs at an evening Supreme Court vigil. One side turns out tens of thousands, and the other turned out tens. The Post didn’t exactly balance its photos when it came to illegal-alien rallies, not to mention the number of column inches was vastly larger.

The Washington Times had better coverage, but no pics [clarificaton - no pics on the website. WashTimes editor Robert Stacy McCain notes that the paper carried two large photos of the march prominently in the print edition]. I was at Union Station yesterday as marchers streamed in after the event. The place was absolutely packed–wall-to-wall with families, babies, toddlers, teens, and college undergrads. I wish I had my camera, because the vast number of young people really struck me. Throngs and throngs of ordinary kids who came from all across the country to express their pro-life views in the bitter cold. You never see them on the nightly news or the front page of the major newspapers.

Fortunately, pro-life blogger Barbara at Mommy Life brought her camera. Check out her photo gallery for the scenes missing from the national papers’ front pages.

What liberal media?

Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank turned up on an MSNBC show to talk about the Cheney accidental hunting trip shooting wearing this costume:

Download and watch the video (Windows Media .wmv file).

Hat tip: Tom Elia at The New Editor, who rightly raises his eyebrow at Milbank’s display of less-than-objective journalism.

What does the Post have to say about Milbank’s stunt?

Write the ombudsman: ombudsman@washpost.com.

***

Now, imagine the MSM uproar if a reporter showed up for an interview with this bumper sticker (via Expose the Left) on his/her chest:

The Smoking Gun has the official Texas Parks and Wildlife Department report on the incident.

More reaction:

Scott E. writes, “I wondered why Keith Olberman was interviewing a parking lot
attendant. Turns out Dana Milbank had just finished up and forgot
to change. A clown indeed.”

Newsbusters’ Dave Pierre, “Think back to 1998. Imagine a female newspaper reporter (not an opinion columnist, but a reporter, mind you) showing up for a television interview dressed in a beret and looking like Monica Lewinsky. Or a male columnist wearing a Clinton wig and holding a cigar.”

ABP jibes, “I had no idea they were making tin foil hats in orange these days.”

Ed Morrissey:

No, this isn’t a tryout for America’s Worst-Dressed Nerds; it’s Milbank trying to be funny and only succeeding at being funny-looking. Since when do serious journalists pull stunts like this? Heck, most bloggers I know wouldn’t be dumb enough to dress like this on national TV even as a joke, not if they wanted to maintain any credibility.

***

Update: The new guys at Wonkette make a Capitol Fashion Police arrest.

***

Flashback: John Miller on Milbank’s opinion journalism.

Flashback: Oh, That Liberal Media on Milbank’s whining.

Flashback: MRC on Milbank and “the facts”

Flashback: Professor Bainbridge on Milbank’s tripe.

Well, today’s conservative-bashing Style commentary sinks to the lowest low. The piece, “An Image A Little Too Carefully Coordinated,” attacks the wife and children of SCOTUS nominee John Roberts for the neatness of their clothes:

It has been a long time since so much syrupy nostalgia has been in evidence at the White House. But Tuesday night, when President Bush announced his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court, it was hard not to marvel at the 1950s-style tableau vivant that was John Roberts and his family.

There they were — John, Jane, Josie and Jack — standing with the president and before the entire country. The nominee was in a sober suit with the expected white shirt and red tie. His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues — like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers…

For God’s sake, a mother and her children just wanted to look nice for the most historic moment in her husband and their daddy’s life–and the Style attack dogs turn it into an opportunity to sneer at and dump on a loving family. Read the whole thing if you can stomach it.

I guess Givhan and her Style editors would have been happier if Mrs. Roberts dressed more like Alexandra Kerry and the children were outfitted in more modern-day wear.

Jerks.

Want to give your two cents to the Post’s ombudsman?

E-mail ombudsman@washpost.com or phone 202-334-7582.

Update: Captain Ed agrees.

Meanwhile, Charmaine Yoest looks at the latest attack on SCOTUS nominee John Roberts’ sexuality. (Update: The “closet gay” meme is spreading in the swamps.)

And related: The Anchoress and Betsy Newmark double-team against liberal slime.

Update: Dirty Harry wades into the New York Times’ slime.

And Mary Katherine Ham is fired up.

John at Wuzzadem spoofs: The latest in liberal fashion

More! Matthew Hoy takes on Robin Givhan’s fashion (non)sense–illustrated.

***
Previous:

The son, the smirk, the sickos