By Nancy Slotnick, on Tue Mar 5, 2013 at 8:30 AM ET  Today I ordered my new drink at my new favorite coffee bar- Irving Farm. I keep wanting to call it Irving Farms, but that’s not the name. I discovered a few weeks ago that my drink is called a cortado. Thank G-d. I could never decide if I should order a wet macchiato or a dry cappuccino and I felt really stupid either way. Remember the old comic strip Family Circus? (I am dating myself now, and not in a good way.) There was one where the family was at a restaurant and the little girl asked her parents: “I want to get a burger and fries, but do I have to order the Little Miss Muffet?” That’s how I feel about contrived names.
Now when I order my coffee, I sound like a coffee snob. But that is appropriate, since I used to own a coffee bar. I usually get a wink from the barista and some beautiful latte art on my drink, as a nod to the coffee culture that we share. Or I just get a blank stare and an improvised macchiato (when I go to Indie in Lincoln Center.) Either way, there’s some comfort in finally discovering what I have been seeking.
On the opening day of my coffee bar, (that incidentally had a dating service for our customers,) May 29, 1996, it got a mention in Florence Fabricant’s column in the New York Times. She said that it takes a gutsy person to name a place Drip. That gutsy person was me!
The other day when I showed my business plan to a potential investor, who is also a creative type, he said: “The name is not very original, but I like the concept.” Actually, he wrote that in an email that was meant for his business partner and not for me to see. But in the flurry of the magic of Forwarding email trails, I got to find out what he really thinks. And I was totally proud. One of the problems with the name Drip was that people couldn’t figure out what the hell it was or what it meant. Doctors thought it was some twisted intravenous reference. It didn’t meet the Katie Couric 30-second test, but we were on the Today Show multiple times nonetheless.
So this time around I am trying to give my brand a name that explains what it is. There is so much marketing hype in today’s media world and so many ridiculously huge brands to compete with, that I try to keep it simple.
There’s just one thing. Matchmaker Café is an online dating site that sets up real dates in the real world through a real human. But we don’t have our own real café. Call me Miss Nomer. At least for now. But I have come to realize that the “Café” part of “Matchmaker Café” is actually my value added. In ’96 there was no online dating. There was no social media. There was just old-fashioned Café. And that worked.
So I am taking my show on the road. Looking for whatever homes will have my little café kiosk of love. Cafés, bars, retail stores, wineries, public plazas, Whole Foods? Just like Lucy from the Peanuts, I will be setting up shop to give out advice and to foster human connection in a new world where technology can be isolating.
I’m putting the Café back in Matchmaker Café. What’s the main reason? I’m lonely! I have a wonderful husband and son, and I spread love one client at a time right now. But I miss the serendipity of being “out there” where anything can happen. And I want to spread that magic to you.
So watch for me. Follow @MatchmakerCafe on Twitter and Like me on Facebook, and you will find out where I will be next. I could be coming to a neighborhood near you. If I do it right then a Café by any other name will smell as sweet. I hope as sweet as the Rice Krispy treats that we used to sell at Drip!
By Artur Davis, on Mon Mar 4, 2013 at 1:30 PM ET The Supreme Court may be on the verge of striking down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which mandates federal approval, or “pre-clearance”, of any changes to election procedures in states under the Act’s jurisdiction (mostly Southern, but some scattered northern jurisdictions, primarily in New York). It could be a mixed triumph for conservatives—a blow against a regionally discriminatory rule of law that limits Virginia and South Carolina from passing statutes that are perfectly legal in Kansas and Indiana—but a victory that will only fuel the impression that the political right is bent on suppressing minority voters.
Conservative legal activists would have been better advised to concentrate on doing away with or revamping the other elements of the Act that actually do much more damage to the proposition of a color-blind politics. Ending Section 5 would be explosive, and still won’t alter the Act’s evolution from an instrument of black voter participation in the South to a prescription for rigged districts that look exactly like spoils and quotas.
 The VRA is a textbook of generally worded terms that subsequent courts and career bureaucrats have reshaped. It’s entirely appropriate command that covered states refrain from passing election laws that discriminate against their minority citizens has been swollen into a requirement that minorities be aggregated into legislative and congressional districts that are overwhelmingly dominated by their race. Even a slight rollback of the percentages, say, from 65 percent to 58 percent is prohibited on the theory that such a contraction “dilutes” the minority vote.
The effect is that in the Deep South, black voters influence politics solely inside their centers of gerrymandered influence: the numbers that remain elsewhere are not substantial enough to create authentic swing districts where Republicans might have to seek black support to win. In the same vein, the nature of nearly seventy percent black districts is that their elected officials are just as un-tethered from the need to build coalitions with conservative white voters.
Not surprisingly, black Democrats and southern Republicans have not complained. The South that results is the single most racially polarized electorate in the country and its African American politicians are hemmed into a race-conscious liberalism that marginalizes them statewide. In addition, more conservative black Democrats and Black Republicans are rendered unelectable in minority districts that leave no room for a non-liberal brand of candidate.
Conservatives ought to recoil from an anti-discrimination principle shifting into a mini political apartheid. Rather than condone a de facto spoils system, they should be trying to undo an arrangement that is more bent on electing a certain kind of black politician than on empowering blacks to engage the democratic process.
This article originally appeared on ricochet.com on February 27, 2013.
By John Y. Brown III, on Mon Mar 4, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET So, is it better to grow up or stay a boy (or girl) forever?
Watching my daughter this weekend in the play Peter Pan made me a proud dad (so score one–a very big one–for growing up).
But focusing on the merits of the characters, Wendy vs Peter Pan, had me leaning ever-so-slightly in favor of Peter at the end of the play.
I mean, let’s look at their legacies. Wendy had a nice run for several decades when the play was first published and performed. She’s viewed today as a “good girl” and “model daughter.” More Jan than Marcia in Brady Bunch terms. But has she ever had a book written about her neurosis titled “The Wendy Syndrome”?
Nope.
Do we know who played Wendy opposite who played Peter Pan?
Nah. We just know Sandy Duncan played Peter.
 And what about having your own line of peanut butter?
Ever heard of Wendy’s peanut butter?
No. Never happened.
And don’t try slipping in Hamburgers. Different Wendy. Different family. I saw her father in the play this weekend and he looks nothing like Dave Thomas.
So, on balance, would the world be better off if Wendy caved and never grew up?
Who’s to say? We would at least probably have another pop-psychology book and additional brand of peanut butter. But as the Wendys of the world would quickly –and correctly–point out, we have plenty of pop-psych books and peanut butter as it is and don’t need more. And note that Wendy grew up to have a nice family in a middle upper class neighborhood.
That’s all true of course. But the Peter Pans of the world would quickly note, Peter has an entourage of lost boys –just like the awesome HBO series! And, of course, Peter is always the last one to bow and gets the most applause –after flying in for his final bow as he drops fairy dust on the audience who is cheering him on.
And you got to admit –even if you are a Wendy—that may not be very mature, but it is pretty cool.
By Erica and Matt Chua, on Mon Mar 4, 2013 at 10:00 AM ET Istanbul is a unique city where East meets West, Europe is connected to Asia by a bridge and the Middle East is just a short boat ride away. Nowhere is the cultural convergence of Turkey more evident than in their diverse and vibrant markets. The Grand Bazaar in the center of the old city and the spice market on the banks of the Bosphorous offer a glimpse into the past and the opportunity to travel without leaving the country.
Grand Bazaar
Construction of the Grand Bazaar started in 1455 and continued to grow as it first housed the textile trade, then included space for the slave trade within the area. As more shop owners set up their businesses an entire quarter dedicated to commerce was born. In the seventeenth century the area became the hub of Mediterranean trade, further proof of the power of the Ottoman Empire. It seems as if the history is still present within the vaulted chambers of the historic market, the diversity of vendors is incredible and the whole area has a wonderful old world charm.
Tea cups and tea sets for sale in the Grand Bazaar
Read the rest of…
Erica and Matt Chua: Istanbul Markets
By Garrett Renfro, RP Staff, on Fri Mar 1, 2013 at 1:30 PM ET The Politics of Sequestration
It is now March 1 and no deal to avert the $85 Billion across the board spending cuts has yet been passed by Congress. There were two last gasp efforts on the part of the Senate to pass a bill last night, however both the Republican and Democratic sponsored measures went down in defeat. Jonathan Weisman explains how both bills were essentially doomed from the start, perhaps even designed to fail. [NYT]
As the sequester draws nearer, lawmakers are further away, not only from striking a deal but from The Capitol itself. Many members of the House of Representatives and the Senate have already left town for the weekend and many have resigned themselves to leaving the sequester cuts in place for months to come. House Republicans are reportedly looking toward the next deadline (March 27) and drafting legislation which would avoid a government shutdown. Such legislation would likely keep the sequester cuts in place through September of this year. [WP]
This morning, the Congressional leadership arrived at The White House to meet with President Obama and try to cut through the gridlock before the cuts officially begin later tonight. The meeting is currently in a standoff, with both sides admitting that little progress has been made. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has stated that if there is any deal to be reached, it will absolutely not include tax increases. [Politico]
By John Y. Brown III, on Fri Mar 1, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET The conventional wisdom is that as you age (into your middle years) you first become mellower but as you age beyond, shall we say, the middle years midpoint, you become less patient and more irritable (some might charitably call it more assertive).
So, is that all true?
I have decided only partially. I like a good deal of the impatient “assertiveness” (aka irritability) comes from realizing the backlog of years and years of not being assertive enough—-and trying to catch up and clean the slate before we run out of time.
And maybe even get in the last word. With that rude sales clerk, or call center “relationship manager” or waiter who always seems to give us short shrift.
And who, if we had an 18 year old’s body and a 70 year old’s temperament, would try to stare them down before inviting them outside.
But since we have a 49 year old’s temperament and 49 year old’s body, resort to much subtler passive-aggressive tactics, albeit still tougher than ever before. And tip them only 13%. Instead of the standard 15%.
I can’t wait to see them again when I’m 55 –and even more “assertive.” That petulant boy is only getting 11% tip when age 55 rolls around!See More
By Jeff Smith, on Fri Mar 1, 2013 at 9:30 AM ET In one exemplary scene in Beau Willimon’s highly addictive ‘House of Cards’ series, House Majority Whip Frank Underwood visits his sometime paramour, ambitious reporter Zoe Barnes. Within 20 seconds of his climax, she demands the vote count on a pending bill. Frank resists, and a mild disagreement ensues during which he asserts that, despite being twice her age, she “always seems to leave satisfied.”
“How do you know I’m not faking it?” asks Zoe. “Are you?” he asks.
“Doesn’t it say a lot that you can’t tell?” she replies.
Several ‘House of Cards’ reviewers have alluded to the show’s verisimilitude. And the New York Times just started a series about the realism (or not) of the show’s portrayal of journalism. But I haven’t seen any current or ex-legislator analyze its depiction of legislative life – the hits and the misses. As with sex, it’s not always easy to know what’s real and what isn’t.
As a former lawmaker and Missouri Congressional candidate, I’m somewhat acquainted with this world. Let me try to clear some of this up.
Here’s what the show gets right
There’s a thin line between transactional sex and actual prostitution.
In the culmination of a first season theme, an impassive Zoe tells post-coital Frank, “As long as we’re clear about what this is, I can play the whore. Now pay me” (with information). Although I doubt the terms of most arrangements are quite that explicit, I saw transactional sex as a legislator. However, the journalist/legislator pair strikes me as unlikely; legislator/staff and legislator/lobbyist were more frequent pairings, and you could often see the dividends it paid for both parties.
District life and legislative life occupy parallel universes – but when problems arise, district issues come first.
Often legislators face simultaneous crises in parallel spheres – one policy-oriented, one constituent-related. Successful legislators – no matter how high-ranking – address district crises first. An example came in Episode 3 when a young constituent of Frank’s dies in a car accident after being distracted by a phallic roadside sculpture whose erection Frank had supported. A local official who covets Frank’s seat pushes the girl’s parents to sue, dragging Frank into the mess. Despite being deep in Hill negotiations on a critical bill, Frank spends two days back home negotiating a settlement. The untimely death of a constituent may not seem capable of bringing the nation’s business to a halt. But savvy legislators understand that absent re-election, no other goal can be fulfilled.
 Being a legislator requires extraordinary multitasking skills.
These days, everyone multitasks. But legislators are often required to multitask on a more emotionally and/or intellectually demanding level. Viewers saw a dramatic example of this during the above storyline, when Frank negotiates with the chief lobbyist for the teachers’ unions while making a tray of sandwiches he was about to share with the bereaved parents. He threads the needle, giving just enough ground to keep the negotiations alive, while maintaining focus on his distraught guests.
Constituents do not mince words.
After Rep. Peter Russo takes a dive and allows a military base in his district to close without putting up a fight, he returns to his office to find a deluge of hate email, with constituents calling him, for instance, a traitorous piece of shit. I can promise that I was called that and far worse by constituents, as were many of my close colleagues. Indeed, a bitter enemy of mine only wrote me one pleasant email in my career – the day I resigned.
Like golf, politics is a game of inches.
The shift of just two votes on Russo’s job creation bill leads to a series of events which spiral out of control, leading to tragedy. Had those two fence-sitting votes gone the other way, the bill would’ve passed and Russo would’ve been a hero back in his district, rather than an embarrassment. I can think of several presidents – or near-presidents – who could confirm this. Kennedy beat Nixon by less than one vote per precinct. George W. Bush beat Al Gore by a butterfly ballot. And Clinton was impeached because of a dress that wasn’t laundered in a timely fashion.
Here’s what they get wrong
Except in very intimate settings, legislators do not tie campaign donations to pending legislation in such bald terms.
As Episode 9 opens, Frank convenes 15 to 20 legislators – along with a dozen staffers – to push Russo’s job creation bill. When asked to explain their apprehensions, one legislator says, “I’ve already been approached by Sancorp with re-election funds.” Another chimes in: “They offered me a donation package with eight different drilling companies.”
Any legislator who said something like this would appear to be for sale – and could be risking serious legal trouble if they ultimately voted with the company in question. With few exceptions, legislators publicly pride themselves on their inability to be bought, and would not – especially in a room of 30 people, including others’ staff – blurt out links between campaign donations and specific legislation, even if they know such links exist. A legislator would either say it privately to another trusted legislator or aide or, in a larger group, would couch it in acceptable terms, code language such as “Sancorp approached me as well, and made it clear that this bill is extremely important to them.” Pork-barrel bills that reach the floor offer funds to at least 218 districts.
Read the rest of…
Jeff Smith: What “House Of Cards” Gets Right — And What It Doesn’t
By Julie Rath, on Fri Mar 1, 2013 at 8:30 AM ET
I’m loving this black and white striped Ralph Lauren tie that I got on sale for a client at Bergdorf Goodman. Originally $150, it rang up as $69. The deals these days are out of control.
Read the rest of…
Julie Rath: Show Your Stripes
|
The Recovering Politician Bookstore
|
Today I ordered my new drink at my new favorite coffee bar- Irving Farm. I keep wanting to call it Irving Farms, but that’s not the name. I discovered a few weeks ago that my drink is called a cortado. Thank G-d. I could never decide if I should order a wet macchiato or a dry cappuccino and I felt really stupid either way. Remember the old comic strip Family Circus? (I am dating myself now, and not in a good way.) There was one where the family was at a restaurant and the little girl asked her parents: “I want to get a burger and fries, but do I have to order the Little Miss Muffet?” That’s how I feel about contrived names.
