Hosted by a Fail Whale statue.
This week's open threads have been brought to you by whales. Like owls, whales are awesome.
Open Thread
Hosted by a Fail Whale statue.
This week's open threads have been brought to you by whales. Like owls, whales are awesome.
Open Thread
Hosted by a papercraft whale bank. I'm pretty sure Tubby Eat Coin is one of Iain's nicknames for Liss. (Download the pattern here; bottom left under free downloads.)
The Virtual Pub Is Open
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]
TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!
Um.
[Trigger warning for rape culture; rape jokes.]
Did I seriously just read Ta-Nehisi Coates defend a rape joke by arguing that "Very few people would (publicly) claim that there are 'good reasons' for rape"...?
Good lord. That's the most depressing thing I've read in a very long time.
Ta-Nehisi, whom I respect very much, could not be more breathtakingly wrong here. There is, I'm afraid, no shortage of people who publicly claim there are "good reasons" for rape, from the trolls who tell me that my having been raped is the only purpose I've served in this world, to pop evo-psychers who claim our genes are the "good reason" for rape, to people who commit and endorse and defend and ignore or abet "corrective rape," in this country and abroad, to an international religious organization who defends their protected rapists by scapegoating homosexuality as the "good reason" for bad actions, to rape apologists whose victim-blaming retroactively argues there was some "good reason" for this rape or that rape, even if they will acquiesce that rape in general is wrong, to rapists themselves who actually say the stuff of Louis CK's joke, especially opportunistic rapists who take advantage of incapacitated victims: I wanted to get laid.
They say it in court, some variation that's more acceptable, like "it was consensual," they say it to the press, they say it to cops, they say it to their friends, and they say it to their victims.
I can't even begin to fathom how many female survivors of sexual assault—who are three times more likely to be raped by someone they know than a stranger, and nine times more likely to be raped in their home, the home of someone they know, or anywhere else than being raped on the street, making what we commonly refer to as "date rape" by far the most prevalent "type" of rape—have known their rapist, have looked into his eyes, pleadingly, for some explanation as to how he could have so profoundly betrayed her trust, only to be told there was a "good reason" for what happened.
The 87 million metric fucktons of victim-blaming rape apologia through which anti-rape advocates wade every day, the infinitesimally small conviction rate, the terribly high survivor rate, every ghastly little nuance of the rape culture...each piece of it is a part of the overwhelming message that there are "good reasons" for rape, which is why we needn't take stopping it very seriously.
Ta-Nehisi, I desperately hope you reconsider whether that joke is really as funny as you think.
[Related Reading: How Rape Jokes Perpetuate the Rape Culture; There is no neutral in the rape culture.]
Totally. Fucking. Clueless.
Via Jodi Jacobson, this clip, filmed at Netroots Nation earlier today, is of Daily Kos Associate Editor Kalli Joy Gray questioning White House Director of Communications Dan Pfeiffer about Obama's response, or lack thereof, to the legislative assault on women across the nation. And it is truly stunning.
I have been a political junkie since I was old enough to understand the democratic process, and never in my entire life have I seen a White House Communications Director be so clueless, so tone deaf, so wildly and hopelessly out of touch with the largest constituency of a sitting president.
And it's manifestly evident the problem isn't with Pfeiffer's competency. The problem is that the entire Obama administration is structurally and institutionally clueless, tone deaf, and wildly and hopelessly out of touch with their largest constituency, and Pfeiffer is just doing his job—communicating the White House's position.
This is the clip every progressive feminist will remember when they walk into a voting booth (or don't) in 2012. Absolutely breathtaking.
[Full transcript below.]
Daily Kos Associate Editor Kalli Joy Gray: I'd like to ask you about a different kind of war, and this is a war that I am particularly concerned about.
White House Director of Communications Dan Pfeiffer: Okay.
Gray: The war on women. [Audience applause.] We're seeing an unprecedented number of attacks on women at the state and federal level—everything from contraception to health care to food stamps, um, drug-testing of women receiving welfare in Florida. Women in Congress, including Nancy Pelosi, are talking openly about a war on women. So, I want to know if the president agrees with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and our new DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Shultz: Is there a war on women?
Pfeiffer: Well, what I can say is that there is no question that there is a sustained effort from Republicans at the federal and state level to, uh, undo a lot of the progress we've done. I think the most, uh, prominent example was the effort to defund Planned Parenthood, uh, during the government funding battle a few months ago, which the president, uh, at that point told the House Republicans that if they wanted to defund Planned Parenthood, that they were going to have to shut down the government over it. We see this in Indiana, where, uh, Governor Mitch Daniels signed into law an effort that would, uh, illegally defund Planned Parenthood, and the federal government is involved in a lawsuit to stop that. And so he, the president, is very concerned about all of these efforts, uh, and the ones on the federal level that we can play an active role to stop, including the use of the veto pen, uh, the president will do that.
[Note from Liss: Notice that Gray asked him a yes or no question: Does the president agree that there is a war on women? And instead of straightforwardly answering her question, Pfeiffer mansplains the problem to her, as if she and her audience are stupid and/or unaware of the issues affecting women. The thing is, he implicitly answers yes just by his reflexive defensiveness; there's no need to defend the president's record if you don't agree that there's a war on women—but he won't say it, because openly acknowledging there is a war on women is to then admit that the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Act ain't fucking enough. Gray, fortunately, zeroes in and does not let him off the hook.]
Gray: Yes, but we also saw during the healthcare debate that, when it comes down to it, women's issues take a back seat for the "larger" issues, so, for example, the president said that accepting the Hyde Amendment, which punishes poor women in this country, was an acceptable status quo and that we needed to put that aside for the bigger picture. So, I'll ask again: Is there a war on women?
Pfeiffer: [pause] Let's talk about healthcare for a second, which is— [Gray laughs mirthlessly at his obvious evasiveness; the audience laughs; Pfeiffer holds up his finger, gesturing to her to hold on and listen.] The, the, the Hyde Amendment— ["Just say yes!" someone shouts from the audience] The Hyde Amendment was, uh, was the law of the land, and so—
Gray: It's renewed every year. It is not the law of the land. It is renewed every year. [Audience applause.]
Pfeiffer: Right, and, and if we tried to repeal it in health reform, there would be no health reform. And that, that was, that was the choice. It was a very simple choice, and so—
Gray: It was a simple choice?
Pfeiffer: It was, well, it's, you have two options—it's simple in the fact that you have two options; it's not an easy choice! [He says this like Gray is being a jerk.] You have two choi—you have two options: And it was no health reform and make that attempt, which would've failed and would most certainly not have passed the United States Senate, so that's the choice you have to make.
[He says this in this really matter-of-fact way, as if anyone would question the decision is an asshole, and when he says "the choice you have to make," I wonder who that "you" is supposed to be, really, because it's definitely not the women who are left without any choice because of the Hyde Amendment.]
Gray: So—
Pfeiffer: And, like, to answer your other question about whether— The war on women is not a, a, a phrase the president has used, but, but—
Gray: Nancy Pelosi has.
Pfeiffer: Yes, she has. And, but, there is a—there is no question that this—that, uh— The very same things that concern Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, uhhhh, concern the president in the same way.
Gray: Well, he really hasn't said anything about it, so, is he planning to speak out on the issue?
Pfeiffer: He, I think he, he, he has talked a lot about, about the efforts around Planned Parenthood, uh, absolutely. And I'm sure, I'm sure he will speak about it as well.
Gray: Uhhh, okay, because, you know, in 2008, um, President Obama carried women by a 56 to 43 margin; in 2010, Democratic women, um, stayed home or voted Republican—and women in this country, Democratic women, who are the majority in the country and we're a majority of the party, we feel like we are under assault. You mentioned Lilly Ledbetter; frankly we're a little sick of hearing about that one. So, does the president think he can win reelection without those women who didn't show up for him, for the Democrats, in 2010?
Pfeiffer: Of course not.
Gray: So, is there anything more that he intends to do, any proactive steps he'll take, any legislation that he might endorse, to get the women in this room, me, the women in this country, who are concerned about the assault on us, to turn out in 2012?
Pfeiffer: [who kept trying to interrupt Gray the whole time she was speaking, without a trace of irony that NOT LISTENING IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM] Well, I'll give you one example, which is, I know you're sick of Lilly Ledbetter, but, uh, the Paycheck Fairness Act, which is the next level with Lilly Ledbetter, the president's a big supporter of, he made a push for in Congress last time, it did not pass, and he'll continue to make a push for it.
[The audience mumbles and groans. Gray looks at Pfeiffer and lets out a big sigh. The clip ends.]
Headline
[Trigger warning for sexual harassment]
NPR: "Anthony Weiner's Political Sin: Picked Bad Time To Be Big Distraction"
I don't know what to be more appalled by, the assumption that there's a good time to sexually harass women, or the stark accuracy of the assumption that violating women's personal boundaries isn't necessarily bad for men's political influence.
See also: Liss on the framing of Weiner's resignation.
Women2Drive, Part 3: Women behind the Wheel
by Shaker Moderator Aphra_Behn. Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here.
[Trigger warning for misogyny, religious oppression, rape, violence.]
Today, women are driving to grocery stores. They're driving to work. In some cases, they are simply driving around the block.
This would be unremarkable, were it not for the fact that this is happening in Saudi Arabia. One verb—"driving"—sets these actions apart as the start of a peaceful protest in support of Saudi women's basic rights.
You may recall this story broke in the Western media with the arrest of Manal Al-Sharif, the Saudi computer security expert and activist who uploaded pictures of herself driving onto YouTube. She was later released, after signing a written pledge not to drive any more. Hala Al-Dosari, a Saudi writer and activist who has been involved with the story since the arrest of Ms. Al-Sharif, has a summary, with updates. Her discussion also delves into some of the politics involved, including the way Ms. Al-Sharif's father used the support of his tribe to petition King Abdullah for Ms. Al-Sharif's freedom.
After Ms. Al-Sharif's release, the planned June 17 protest remained a hot topic in Saudi Arabia. It gained new media attention when popular actress Wajnat Al-Rahbini was arrested after driving herself to the passport office. She was released after promising never to drive again, but noted that she had driven her late husband when he was alive, due to his poor health. Six more women were arrested for driving on June 9th.
Other media attention related to the issue focused on the grim fact that Saudi women under the current system are very vulnerable to violence from their hired drivers. An unnamed Saudi business woman was raped at gunpoint by her driver in early June. Rape is little-discussed in Saudi Arabia; that the survivor and her friends were willing to leak this difficult story to the press speaks volumes about what is at stake for Saudi women in the right to drive campaign. Meanwhile, the Shura (advisory government council) recommend that women be permitted to vote in future municipal elections, but failed to address the topic of women's driving, despite petitions to do so.
And today, the protest has gone forward as planned; you can get a pretty extensive picture of the situation as of this morning from this CBC Radio story, which includes an interview with Eman Al Nafjan, of the fabulous Saudi Woman blog. Over at Foreign Policy, Ellen Knickmeyer profiles Maha Al-Qahtani, who, accompanied by her husband and carrying an overnight and prayer rug in case of arrest, took to the streets in her Hummer this morning. (As of this writing, Ms. Al-Qahtani has been ticketed, but not arrested.)
Calling today's action a protest is a little misleading; it would be illegal in Saudi Arabia for anyone to lead a mass demonstration. Thus, the women involved are not meeting any one place, nor trying to intentionally snarl traffic, nor disrupt businesses. In fact, the political genius of what they are doing is that they demonstrate women driving would really not be disruptive at all. That's an important point in a conservative kingdom whose government takes pride in its stability in these months of "Arab Spring" protests. Supporters of the protest, like Samar Fatany writing in Arab News, paint it in fully Islamic, fully Saudi terms. There are male supporters speaking out as well: On June 4, commentator Tariq A. Al-Meena decried the reluctance of the Shura Council to resolve the issue. Today, Dr. Mohammad al-Qahtani, head of the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association in Riyadh, called on political leadership and intellectuals to "fully resolve this issue so women are not deprived of their natural rights."
Organizers continue to use social media to organize and confound their opponents. Of course, those who would continue to oppress them are using Facebook as well, in hostile groups where members decry the protests. Thus far, there have been no reports of violence against women drivers, but considering the threats made previously, anything could happen. As of this moment, it seems that the women involved plan to continue driving beyond today.
Teaspooning: This is a developing situation, and while there is not a lot that can be done outside Saudi Arabia, you can certainly show support on Twitter and Facebook if you wish to and are able to do so. "Honk for Saudi Women Drivers," launched by U.S. writer Trisha Calvarese, is soliciting people to load videos to YouTube of themselves honking their car horns in support. You can send links to your video to honkforsaudiwomen@change.org.
You can also follow developments on Twitter with the #Woman2Drive hashtag, or via Facebook groups like Support Women2Drive or We Are Supporting Manal Al-Sharif, where women are currently sharing YouTube videos of themselves driving. Links to other means of support and solidarity are welcomed in comments.
Film Corner!
[Possibly NSFW image of tighty-whitey clad bum below.]
Well, it's been practically tens of minutes since we last had the opportunity to get excited about a film about white people in love (or ARE they?!), so I bring you the trailer for Larry Crowne, the latest Tom Hanks-Julia Roberts vehicle named after Tom Hanks' character. I'm pretty sure it's a sequel to Charlie Wilson's War. Whatever.
Universal Pictures describes this movie as the story of "how the hard knocks from today's recession inspire one everyday guy to undergo a personal reinvention." Topical! Also: Fun escapism. I like watching a multimillionaire play an "affable, amiable…superstar team leader at the big-box company where he's worked since his time in the Navy" who gets "downsized" and is "underwater on his mortgage," so he "heads to his local college to start over" where he "becomes part of a colorful community of outcasts, also-rans and the overlooked all trying to find a better future for themselves" almost as much as I like watching a multimillionaire joke about being unemployed.
I know, I know—it's acting, and who's going to play a financially struggling downsized big-box company man if Tom Hanks doesn't? Well, off the top of my head, maybe one of the thousands of financially struggling actors whose work doesn't get filtered through images of them pulling up to red carpet events in their custom-made electric moon cars.
But that's my problem, not multimillionaire Tom Hanks' problem! Dude already got my Forrest Gump money.
Anyway, let's get to the trailer and meet this aforementioned "colorful community of outcasts," who I'm sure won't be a collection of half-baked, one-dimensional, stereotypical anachronisms played by talented but unknown actors barely given the opportunity to breathe life into their affectedly quirky characters in just enough screen-time to give the thin veneer of diversity, but not so much screen-time that there's a risk of thunder-stealing from any aging white people coasting on former glories who might happen to be phoning it in.
Oscar Winner Tom Hanks is Larry Crowne, a stupidly happy employee of Wev-Mart, where he exchanges good-natured banter with his Asian-American coworker. He gets called to see the boss, and he and his coworker expect it will be so he gets his ninth Employee of the Month award. He is a good worker! And he loves his job!
"Nine times!"
So you can imagine what a SHOCKING REVERSAL it is when he is not awarded another laminated Word-template certificate and gift card to Applebee's (or whatever they give to Employees of the Month at Wev-Mart), but instead is shit-canned "because [he] didn't go to college." Sure. Because what big-box stores like Wev-Mart are totally known for is firing competent, reliable, enthusiastic, experienced straight white men whose lack of college experience does not actually make them unfit for management but does make them super-exploitable salary-wise.
Larry Hanks does not consult immediately with an attorney to begin a wrongful termination suit, but does consult with his wise friends of color, Cedric the Entertainer and Taraji P. Henson, who tell him, "Get you some knowledge and you'll be fire-proof," and "You're never too old to learn."
Cedric the Entertainer doesn't know what he's talking about, but Taraji P. Henson makes a good point: You are, in fact, never too old to learn. Here's a good lesson, for example: Movies that fill the world of a straight white man with idiosyncratic people from marginalized communities are garbage.
Cedric the Entertainer fixes a scooter for Larry Hanks. Neat! If there's one thing I know for sure, it is easy and affordable to become a scooter aficionado. If there is a second thing I know for sure, it is that real-life scooter aficionado Paul T. Spud will barf at this movie.
Gugu Mbatha-Raw tells Larry Hanks he looks like an ex-cop because he wears a polo shirt. (Whut?)
Professor Julia Roberts walks into her classroom, where she is scheduled to teach public speaking, and finds only nine students. Relieved, because no doy professors at community colleges are happy when their classes are under-attended and get canceled and they don't get paid, she tells them there is no class because there aren't the minimum 10 students. Whoooooooooooops! Larry Hanks comes running in. Classic Hanks. Foiled again, Professor Roberts!
Scenes from class. They are SO boring. If this stuff in the trailer is the best stuff from the movie, this movie is THE WORST. Listen up, Hollywood: If you're going to make a low-rent garbage disaster of a film, you've got to at least make it so bad I want to laugh at it, not so bad I want to take a nap forever.
Professor Julia Roberts makes herself a mixed drink and gets brain freeze. She is having a vocational crisis and wonders if she makes a difference to anyone. I BET SHE'LL MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO LARRY HANKS! What do you guys think?
Larry Hanks has a crush on Professor Julia Roberts. But he is, as has been established, an ex-cop looking dipfuck. LUCKILY he has friends of color who can help him! Gugu Mbatha-Raw brings him to her lorry of used clothes (?) and tells him to pick out some new outfits. Her boyfriend rides a scooter, too. He sees Larry Hanks in his underwear. My fingers are considering going on strike, because they do not consider writing about this movie worth the increased risk of arthritis.
Larry Hanks sees Professor Julia Roberts waiting for a bus. He offers her a ride on his scooter. She says haughtily, "Fine, but I will not wear that bucket on my head." Cut to:
I feel your pain, sister.
Music. Montage. Gee, community college with a cast of colorful characters looks fun! Scooter parade! It's very cool that this awkward white man has a lot of people of color around to help him get his life in shape. Professor Julia Roberts wants to kiss Larry Hanks. Oooooo! He does, because he's hot for teacher.
She catches him through the peephole dancing asininely, as if he's just scored a touchdown. "I can see you!" He covers the peephole.
Oof, Tom Hanks. Oof.
NY Marriage Update
According to the Albany Times-Union, Republican Senators in New York State are seriously considering the option of not bringing a bill creating marriage equality to the floor for a vote. They're concerned that the people of New York want the bill passed.
More to the point:
Sen. John DeFrancisco of Syracuse said he was urging cohesion among Republican members because a vote might hurt their razor-thin 32-30 majority...Here's the situation: New York is one of the most solidly Democratic states in the nation. Through a excruciating process of Gerrymandering, Republicans have been able to maintain a majority in the State Senate.
"A team that operates cohesively with this particular governor ... has to make sure that the Republican team is here next year helping to run the state in a very productive way," DeFrancisco said. "That's why you have to keep the team together on all issues -- that's what we're trying to do."
I know that Upstate New York is generally more conservative than New York City, but that's not the whole story. Buffalo, Rochester, and to a lesser extent, Syracuse, are all rust-belt cities with decidedly liberal cores.
And yet, what do we get? Well, I live pretty close to downtown Syracuse, and I'm represented by a blue dog from the next county over. My urban neighborhood is in a mostly rural and suburban district.
Even with all this fuckery, the Republicans know that a lot of voters want marriage equality. The Republicans are afraid they'll have to publicly take an unpopular stance. They can do the right thing, which would involve angering some of the bigots who elected them, or they can expect to face a backlash for doing the indefensible.
The Republicans' position is a losing one, so they're trying to hold on to power by pretending not to have a position at all. Shameful.
Not the Right Guy
Former Democratic Senator and all-around good-guy progressive Russ Feingold gave what sounds like a very compelling keynote speech at the Netroots Nation conference yesterday. It's no secret that corporate personhood is a particular bailiwick of mine, and Feingold speaks clearly, compellingly, and passionately on the issue. One of the most bitter ironies I have ever had to regretfully report in this space was Feingold's loss during the last election, as one of the authors of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation was defeated by a Republican opponent on whose behalf outside groups spent nearly $3 million, after the dreadful Citizens United decision.
Anyway, this excerpt from Feingold's speech, in which he "ripped Priorities USA, a super political action committee started last spring by former White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton," was of particular interest to me:
"I think it's a mistake for us to take the argument that they like to make that, 'Well, what we're going to do now is, we're going to take the corporate money like the Republicans do and then after we win, we'll change it.' When's the last time anyone did that? Most people don't change the rules after they win by them. It doesn't usually happen. It never happens," Feingold said. "You know what? I think we'll lose anyway if we do this. We'll lose our soul when it comes to the issue of corporate domination. People will see us as weak. People will see us as corporate-lite. We'll gut our message. I think it's not just wrong, I think it's a dumb strategy. It's dumb because people will not believe us if we do this, so I strongly disagree with those who are trying to create these PACs. I know people want to win. I understand that. I like to win, too. And I know that today's Republican party has found more ways to play dirty, so I empathize with the desire to fight fire with fire, but Democrats should just never be in the business of taking unlimited corporate contributions. It's dancing with the devil and it's a game that we will never win."Needless to say, I agree.
"It's not just campaigns and contributions," Feingold noted. "We have to say to the president, 'Mr. President, Jeff Immelt is not the right guy – the CEO of GE is not the right guy to be running your Jobs & Competitiveness Council, not when your company doubled its profits, increased his compensation, and asked its workers to take huge pay and benefits cuts.'"
But as I read Feingold's words—not the right guy—a not fully formed thought that has been hanging around the edges of my consciousness suddenly came sharply into focus: Obama is not the right guy.
It's not (just) that his policies are insufficiently progressive, or even insufficiently Democratic, and it's not (just) the arrogance, the hippie-punching, the bipartisan blah blah, the 12-dimensional chess, and it's not (just) his tepid, half-assed, pusillanimous governance and his catastrophic ally fail. All of these things are just symptoms of this basic truth: Obama's not up to the job.
I don't mean he's not up the job of being president; I mean he's not up to the job of being president right now. I'm sure he'd have made a fine president some other time, some decade of relative peace and prosperity, where the biggest demand on his capacity was "don't fuck it up."
But that is not the time in which we live.
We live in a time of crumbling empire and crumbling sidewalks, of failed wars and a failing economy, of social conservatives versus social justice, of a race between the middle class and the ozone layer to oblivion. We balance precariously on the brink of America and America 2.0, where hard decisions must be made about whether we are going to use our resources to keep giving gold-plated bootstraps to the already-privileged or start reinvesting in our fraying social safety net and brittle bridges.
We don't need a steward; we need a leader. Not just any leader, either. We need the second coming of FDR. And Obama just isn't the right guy.
I don't pretend to know who the right guy, or gal, is—but I know with a clarity that rings like churchbells that it ain't Obama.
And, you know, I kind of think Obama knows that, too.
He doesn't speak about the presidency, about this presidency at this time, with the sort of comprehensive urgency that the state of the union currently demands. I don't believe Obama to be a stupid man nor a callous one, and so I can only conclude that the void of visionary, risky, and bold leadership so desperately needed by this nation is owed, simply, to his inability to deliver it.
This is what I always feared about Obama—that he could conjure sweeping rhetoric, but not the grand leadership that needed to follow. He is failing to deliver us from our predicament, our many predicaments.
It's not even a criticism, really. There's no shame in not being the mortal equivalent of a superhero, in only being a competent president of the world's most influential nation. It's just an observation: Obama's not the right guy.
What criticism I do have, however, is this: He had to know he was not up to this task when he was running, and, if he didn't, he has to know now. But he's the guy with the job, and there are only two ways to get where we need to be—he either steps aside to let the right one in, or he steps up to be the right one.
Neither one's going to happen.
We're stuck with the wrong guy (or if he loses, an even worse guy), who keeps filling his administration with more wrong guys, and playing the foolish and short-sighted corporate-cozy game of wrong guys, and we're going to wrong guy our way right into catastrophe.
Because the wrong guy with the job now is more interested in getting reelected than he is about making sure the right gal/guy gets elected someday.
I can forgive Obama for failing to live up to the extraordinary requirements of what we need of our president right now. I cannot forgive him for overseeing, for abetting out of self-interest, the corporate coup that will allow Big Business to make sure, once and for all, that the Right Person, the one we need, will never be elected in this country, never again.
Breaking Election News
Some Republican is leading some other Republican in some poll somewhere! Pundits are shocked that another Republican is not doing as well as expected in some state that has been given disproportionate influence over national elections! Yet another Republican is outpolling this other Republican, who was expected to be outpolling everyone! Meanwhile, another Republican from a southern state is considering running, but has to talk with his family about it! Also: Republican leaders are unhappy with the field and are trying to encourage another Republican from a northern state, who could never get elected, to run, because he's polling very well in some poll somewhere.
Question of the Day
What is your favorite fruit?
(You thought I was going to say vegetable, didn't you? Cheeky!)
I absolutely love nothing more than a big, fat, ripe, juicy navel orange. Failing that: Raspberries.
Number of the Day
Zero: The number of reasons to not pass marriage equality in New York (and everywhere else), and even Republicans are starting to agree.
Two Americas News
There's a ton of things to unpack and debate in this article on education I grabbed out of the Syracuse paper. The piece reports the percentage of high school freshman that are "college or career ready" within 6 years, based on test scores.
Here's a table some statistics comparing two municipalities in Onondaga County, New York:
Skaneateles (Syracuse)
Median Family Income
$69,000 ($33,000)
Households in Poverty (%)
3% (27%)
White Residents (%)
99% (64%)
"College or Career Ready" Students
in Local Public School District (%)
79% (9%)
I'm not saying that correlation equals causation, or that standardized tests are incredibly useful. What I am saying, however, is that 79 is a much, much bigger number than 9.
