The consensus about Barack Obama’s inaugural address is right. It is the most fulsome presidential defense of liberalism we have heard since 1965, and the most programmatically specific inaugural speech since the thirties. This was also the rhetoric of a partisan who believes his opponents are losers and fools, who won’t have much threat left in them ten years from now.
But before liberals feel too deep a thrill, they should consider the following proposition: Obama’s words will be paired with a second term resume that could be the thinnest since Richard Nixon. Given the alignment in the House, and the number of Red State Democratic senators on the ballot in 2014, there is no viable chance Obama can actually enact a single item on the liberal wish list. Not one, from an assault weapons ban to an overhaul of corporate deductions, to cap and trade, to comprehensive immigration reform, to a government financed infrastructure plan, to a recalibrated war on poverty, to campaign finance reform.
So, Obama Part 2 is more about the tactical work of isolating conservatives than classic presidential legacy building: in other words, not so different from the stalemate of the second half of Obama’s first term. Of course, for liberals, the president’s middling results have had the perverse consequence of providing a rallying cry without a record of accomplishments that are susceptible to backfire (the backlash at Obamacare is a window into how vulnerable Obama might have been if he had managed to pass legislation on immigration or climate change).
This entirely unpredictable element–that gridlock has spared Democrats the consequences of their policies floundering–plus shifting demographics which Republicans have struggled to adjust to, have left an altered political landscape. If not quite the liberal dawn that some Democrats are prematurely celebrating (as they did four years ago), the terrain is changed enough that major stretches of Obama’s speech already seem more boilerplate than visionary.
Read the rest of… Artur Davis: Obama’s “Us Versus Them” Speech
Tim Scott’s appointment to represent South Carolina in the US Senate has been met with a notable skepticism from most African American commentators, with Adolph Reed’s essay in the New York Times and Jamelle Bouie’s column in the Washington Post providing articulate examples of a common theme: that Scott’s status as a strict fiscal and social conservative means that he will be an impediment to black economic interests as well as the socially liberal agenda that most African American intellectuals have embraced; and that the selection of Scott is an empty and false token meant to prove a Republican inclusiveness that does not exist.
To be sure, Scott’s ascension is the polar opposite of the kind of racial breakthrough that the same critics have fantasized about. When Scott stands for election in 2014, he will depend on the conventional alliance of white suburban and rural conservatives that sustains the GOP’s hold on the Deep South, as opposed to the coalition of blacks and metropolitan whites that liberals assume as a prescription for the election of a black candidate to statewide office. In blunter terms, Scott’s win would mean that he had reassured voters who hold the prevailing right-leaning views in his state that he is one of them, and of a piece with their vision of limited government and traditional cultural values, as opposed to the ideal progressive pathway of convincing those voters to rethink their mindset.
But regardless of the reservations on the left, Scott’s victory scenario is likely the only kind of African American electoral win in the Deep South that is conceivable at this point. In the parts of the region (Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi) where the Democratic share of white voters has slipped to the upper teens, and even in the slightly less polarized areas of Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee, not a single one of the seven black Democrats who hold congressional seats are regarded as plausible statewide figures. Only Atlanta’s Mayor Kasim Reed, a pro-business moderate, is regularly cited as a prospective black contender for a governorship or a Senate seat, and it is worth noting that the last two black Democrats nominated for Senate seats in Georgia have hovered around the 40 percent threshold.
With the recent release of the blockbuster, critically-acclaimed Lincoln, The Recovering Politician has asked Lincoln scholar, Matthew Pinsker — a professor at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania — to share some historical insights about our 16th President. Click here and here and here for his prior 3 pieces.
Here is the latest of his columns:
Here is a quick breakdown of the initial reaction from historians to Spielberg’s movie:
The leading academic critics so far have been Eric Foner from Columbia and Kate Masur from Northwestern. Foner, a Pulitzer Prize-winner and one of the most respected historians in the field, claims the movie “grossly exaggerates” its main point about the stark choices confronting the president at the end of the war over abolition or peace (Letter to the Editor, New York Times, November 26, 2012). Masur also accuses the film of oversimplifying the role of blacks in abolition and dismisses the effort as “an opportunity squandered” (Op-Ed, New York Times,November 12, 2012).
Harold Holzer, co-chair of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Foundation and author of more than 40 books, served as a consultant to the film and praises it but also observes that there is “no shortage of small historical bloopers in the movie” in a lively piece for The Daily Beast (November 22, 2012).
Professor Matthew Pinsker
Other historian / fact-checkers have been more kind. Allen Guelzo, Gettysburg College, also writing for The Daily Beast has some plot criticism, but argues that, “The pains that have been taken in the name of historical authenticity in this movie are worth hailing just on their own terms” (November 27, 2012). David Stewart, independent historical author, writing for History News Network, describes Spielberg’s work as “reasonably solid history” and tells readers of HNN, “go see it with a clear conscience” (November 20, 2012). Lincoln Biographer Ronald White also admired the film, though he noted a few mistakes and pointed out in an interview with NPR, “Is every word true? No.” (November 23, 2012).
Historical author / blogger Kevin Levin finds the whole process of historical nitpicking and response to be more than a little aggravating. Writing for The Atlantic, he complains, “Historians Need To Give Steven Spielberg A Break” (November 26, 2012). I agreed with Levin in some ways, but for the opposite reason. I argued for Quora (and Huffington Post) that people should simply stop worrying about whether any movie which necessarily invents dialogue, characters and scenes should ever be considered as “historically accurate.” It’s a work of art –historical fiction—which we need to judge by other standards (November 27, 2012). That’s also the point, Spielberg himself made at the Dedication Day ceremonies at Gettysburg (November 19, 2012) when he called his effort a “dream” and made a careful distinction between his historically inspired movie and actual works of history.
“Yes, how did we get here? It behooves us to remember that others had to come before us slowly, slowly, slowly, each one living her life within the parameters of her era, painfully inching forward. “
I love the contribution of women in the arts! I watched an interview of Kerry Washington and Shanda Rhimes with Oprah yesterday, and I was inspired. What phenomenal women.
Kerry Washington is the first black woman to star in her own television drama in 40 years; only one other woman held this T.V-first before her. It was the 70’s in a show called, Get Christie Love!, starring Teresa Graves. This is surprising but as I think about all the shows I have loved, not one has featured an African American woman in a leading role.
In her ABC drama, Scandal, Kerry is a kick-ass “fixer”: part lawyer, part P.R expert, part White House crisis manager, and part clean-up-the-dead-bodies-mess go-to-person.
It turns out that art imitates life here fantastically! Finally, a black woman playing the dynamic role typically represented by men in our culture; but it’s Judy Smith, the real life former White House staffer on whom this character is based that makes this depiction special. Now in private practice, Smith is a crisis manager handling high profile cases that never seem to end. (see JudySmith.com and the recent Petraus case among many. She rocks.)
Struggling toward freedom in the movie Djengo Unchained, in theatres just this week, Kerry Washington takes women back a 150 years as she plays a supporting role as an American slave. While we might be used to the fact that actors have depicted the era of slavery for decades on the screen, what we tend to forget I think, is that African Americans were considered by constitutional standards at that time, to be just 3/5’s human.
Kerry Washington
This is a hard pill to swallow. And so, this historical truth juxtasposed with the accomplishments of North American women today, like Judy Smith, is astounding.
I was moved during Washington’s interview when she said that the character she plays in Scandal: respected, empowered, intuitive, brilliant, stands on the shoulders of the profoundly oppressed women who came before.
Yes, how did we get here? It behooves us to remember that others had to come before us slowly, slowly, slowly, each one living her life within the parameters of her era, painfully inching forward.
I think about this a lot, but I also forget this truth when I get wrapped up in all my first-world problems that seem so profound in the moment.
And of course I gain perspective as I think about what it means for my daughters to grow up with first-world problems. Compared to what our foremothers endured, and in the general context of how far women have come, I thank God for these first-world problems!
Finally, an additional snippet of conversation from this interview that resonates in my heart is about abundance. Oprah asked Kerry what it means to her to be one of the first to represent black women on network television in this way especially when so many others vied for the coveted role. Her answer: “If I succeed, I create the opportunity for more people to succeed. I am honored to rise to this challenge.” Her competitors’ responded, “Do us proud.”
I am white, educated, middle-aged, and this forward motion, shoulder-standing celebration represents me too—represents all of us.
Thank you grandmothers, great-grandmothers, great-great-great grandmothers, we are all honored and blessed that you have cleared a path for us.
By Jonathan Miller, on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 12:30 PM ET
Knew about the baseball and politics. Didn’t know he was a poker player, too. I’m sold.
An excerpt:
Of course, for a gay, half-Jewish geek from Michigan like Silver, the establishment, like the high school clique, is anathema—one you are wise to keep at arm’s distance. He’s more at home on the outside rattling the cage than on the inside playing with the monkeys. It’s why he admires Gawker founder Nick Denton, who threw a party for him in his SoHo apartment after the election. “He’s willing to be kind of destructive and path-breaking, and to challenge the status quo; in some ways, it’s kind of more my style,” he says. (Of Silver, Denton says, “He’s not necessarily the best statistician, but he might be the best stats geek who can also write—and perform on television. His steadiness under pundit fire before the election was something to witness.”) Although he wasn’t excessively bullied, Silver spent most of high school immersed either in fantasy baseball leagues or the debate program. “High school debate is a strange thing,” he concedes. “It’s very technical—you’re not up there giving some type of Abe Lincoln speech, you’re reading different types of evidence really fast.” He compares his delivery to the old Micro Machines ads, which may explain why he still talks in such a torrent, as well as his enviable ability to apply himself to the task at hand.
“I’m very conservative in some sense because I do believe that hard work is a huge part of the equation,” he says. “It’s often not sufficient to bring about success, but it’s very often necessary if you want to be really good at something. My team won the state title in my junior year, and we were first runners-up in my senior year—had one of the best records in the history of the state of Michigan.” He pauses to let this remarkable record sink in before adding, “I probably dedicated 60 hours a week to debate during debate season.” This staggering commitment brings to mind Gladwell’s thesis in Outliers: that genius is composed in large part of perspiration, or what he calls the “10,000 hour rule,” the amount of time, roughly, that you need to practice a specific task to become an expert.
When Silver was not debating, he was playing Scoresheet Baseball with his friend Ray. They applied a kind of Moneyball methodology based on player statistics, and very quickly amassed one of the best teams in the league. Many years later, Silver would channel this passion for baseball into Pecota, a website that specialized in calculating the prospects of Major League Baseball players and which subsequently inspired his move into politics. And then there was his brief-but-glorious career as an online poker shark, largely as a way to temper the boredom of a consultancy gig with accountancy firm KPMG.
“One of the KPMG buzz words at the time was boundarylessness—it was such a good distillation of a totally meaningless corporate-speak cliché,” Silver recalls. “When people ask for career advice, I try not to be specific. I just say, ‘Don’t let yourself get bored; if you’re getting bored, you’re probably doing something wrong.’ ”
Silver eventually quit his day job to focus on cards, making $400,000 in just over two years, before realizing that bad players were a nonrenewable resource. “If you’re a bad player, you either become a good player or you go broke, and either way you are no longer available for others to beat,” he says. “Once the pond dries up, even the sharks begin to starve.” So out of the pond he flopped, and into the sea of analysis he swam.
If these pastimes—poker, baseball, debating Chinese–U.S. relations—seem atypical of the average twentysomething gay guy, perhaps it’s because gay nerds have a low profile in our culture. “To my friends, I’m kind of sexually gay but ethnically straight,” explains Silver, who came out to his parents after spending a year in London studying economics—“I don’t know how I got any work done”—and considers gay conformity as perfidious as straight conformity. He supports marriage equality, but worries that growing acceptance of gays will dent our capacity to question broader injustice.
No American family embodies mainstream Republicanism more than the Bushes, noted a New York Times article this year.
For three generations, Bush men have occupied towering positions in the party pantheon, and the party’s demographic and ideological shifts can be traced through the branches of the Bush family tree: from Prescott, the blue-blooded Eisenhower Republican, and George H.W. Bush, the transitional figure who tried and failed to emulate the approach of the New Right, to George W. Bush, who embodied the new breed of tax-cutting, evangelical conservatism. Indeed, the Bushes’ metamorphosis from genial centrism to deep-fried conservatism has both anticipated and reflected the party’s trajectory.
But now, Jeb Bush, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, seems to be bucking the trend. He is seeking to return the party to its ideological moorings — toward the centrism of his grandfather. Even before the GOP’s ignominious defeat in November, Jeb was offering tough love to his party, suggesting that Republicans stand up to Grover Norquist and craft a bipartisan compromise to reduce the deficit significantly. But will Republicans listen? There are many reasons to believe they won’t.
Prescott was a Manhattan investment banker who called himself a “moderate progressive.” In the 1952 primary between conservative presidential candidate Sen. Robert Taft and moderate Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Prescott chose Eisenhower — and became the president’s favorite golf partner. Prescott rode Eisenhower’s coattails into the Senate, where he focused on urban renewal, spearheading the 1954 Housing Act. An early proponent of the line-item veto, he received national recognition as an advocate of fiscal responsibility.
Prescott’s son George H.W. left for West Texas in 1948 when Texas was still a one-party state. But change was afoot in the South, and by the time H.W. ran for U.S. Senate in 1964, he encountered a flourishing Texas Republican Party that had recently elected its first U.S. senator by attracting hordes of conservative Democrats. But the new rank-and-file Republicans were nothing like the Connecticut Republicans he knew — or even like those in the Houston suburbs. Biographer Richard Ben Cramer imagined H.W.’s vexation at this new breed of Texas Republican:
“These … these nuts! They were coming out of the woodwork! They talked about blowing up the U.N., about armed revolt against the income tax. …The nuts hated him. They could smell Yale on him.”
Recognizing that his 1964 primary campaign would need to be more Goldwater than Rockefeller, he ignored the social problems Prescott had addressed. “Only unbridled free enterprise can cure unemployment,” H.W. asserted, contending that government bore no responsibility for alleviating poverty. Though he lost, he began the transition to Sunbelt conservatism that would make him (barely) acceptable to Ronald Reagan as a running mate. But he never fully evolved: He famously reneged on his “no new taxes” pledge. His son George W. would complete the transition.
George W.’s first major legislative accomplishment as president was the enactment of a massive $1.6 trillion tax cut. He rode roughshod over the green-eyeshade types to pass a massive tax cut. When it produced runaway deficits, he accepted Dick Cheney’s argument: “Reagan taught us that deficits don’t matter.”
In adopting Sun Belt conservatism — sometimes clumsily — George H.W. and George W. anticipated the Republican Party’s ideological shift. Hence, in evaluating Jeb’s prescriptions for fiscal responsibility, today’s Republicans should recall the Bushes’ past political palm reading.
Read the rest of… Jeff Smith: Can Jeb Bush sway the GOP on taxes, debt?
UPPER WEST SIDE — Nancy Slotnick has been setting people up in New York City for decades.
But now the longtime Upper West Side resident is bridging the gap between online dating and traditional matchmaking with a new concierge dating service called Matchmaker Cafe.
Slotnick has spent the last year building a database of single people, now 3,000 members strong, who can browse each other’s Facebook profiles before requesting a meeting that Slotnick and her team help orchestrate.
Matchmaker Cafe fights the inertia that Slotnick said usually accompanies online dating, where two people end up talking online for a while but never meet. Her service “cuts to the quick,” she said.
“People have more of a tendency to put [a meeting] off or to stand each other up without the matchmaker,” she said.
Slotnick picks what she calls “hot spots” that lend themselves to easy transitions from coffee to drinks or to a longer meal, or to meeting other singles if the date doesn’t go well. She then meets both parties at the arranged spot and introduces them. The meeting serves to reduce the anxiety and awkwardness of a blind date, she said.
“It adds the hand-holding through the process,” she said.
Matchmaker Cafe has been in beta mode since 2011, but this month Slotnick launched the paid model, in which clients pay $39.99 a month for the ability to request meetings with other members.
Women tend to be more passive on the site, creating a membership for free and then waiting for others to ask about them, Slotnick explained. However, she said that anyone serious about finding love should devote 15 hours a week to the search, which means going out to traditional dating spots like bars, but also becoming open to interactions at places like gyms, grocery stores or even the subway.
“With careers, people don’t have qualms about strategy, but with dating it’s supposed to magically happen,” she said. “You do have to have [finding love] on your radar screen as a goal.”
Behind the scenes, Slotnick makes herself available to customers with advice about how to make it work, an added service that she said distinguishes her model from existing online dating companies.
But, “I don’t believe you can outsource [the work of creating a relationship],” she said.
Slotnick spends part of her time moving around the city scouting new locations for dates. She said she hopes to eventually create partnerships with these dating hubs.
Slotnick once owned one of these hubs herself, when she started Drip Cafe on East 83rd Street and Amsterdam Avenue in 1996 as a place devoted to helping people find relationships. In the pre-internet, pre-online dating era, cafe customers could spend time flipping through binders of hand-written dating profiles, and then Slotnick would help them schedule a date at the cafe. She said that at any one time, 20 to 25 dates were happening at Drip.
During the cafe’s eight-year run, “we made hundreds of marriages,” Slotnick said.
Drip had a liquor license and offered counter service, which Slotnick believes are essential elements for creating the kind of freedom of movement that promotes interaction among guests.
Though Slotnick believes the Upper West Side went through a period when many of the neighborhood’s residents, and Drip’s customers, settled down and started having children, there has been a resurgence of singles in the area lately, she said.
“The Upper West Side is getting single again,” she said, noting the many singles moving to the Lincoln Center area.
One of her favorite places to arrange meetings is the lobby of the Empire Hotel. She said she also sees possibilities at the new restaurant The Smith in Lincoln Square.
Stoops, one of six children born to Ron and Evelyn “Dee Dee” Stoops, attended Cardinal Mooney High School in Youngstown, Ohio, where his father was an assistant coach and defensive coordinator.[1][2]
Mark’s brother Mike was hired as the head coach of the Arizona Wildcats for the 2004 season. Mike then hired Mark as part of his staff.[10]
On December 11, 2009, Mark Stoops accepted the job to be defensive coordinator at The Florida State University.[11]
From Seminoles.com:
The Stoops File Birthdate: July 9, 1967 Hometown:Youngstown, OH High School: Cardinal Mooney College: Iowa Family: wife, Chantel; sons, Will and Zack Coaching Background
• Mark Stoops is in his 23rd season of coaching and his third year as Florida State’s defensive coordinator and secondary coach. Hired by Jimbo Fisher in January of 2010 to replace the venerable Mickey Andrews, Stoops came to FSU from Arizona, where he spent six seasons serving the Wildcats in the same capacity under his brother head coach Mike Stoops. He is also the brother of Oklahoma head coach Bob Stoops.
• Stoops transformed Florida State’s defense into one of the nation’s best in 2011. FSU allowed its opponents to run for an average of just 2.35 yards per carry, which led the nation. The Seminoles ranked fourth nationally in total defense (275.0), second in rushing defense (82.69), fourth in scoring defense (15.1), eighth in tackles for loss (8.62) and tied for eighth in sacks (3.08 per game). His secondary ranked 20th in pass defense and 25th in pass efficiency defense. The Seminoles led the ACC in eight different defensive categories. Linebacker Nigel Bradham capped off his career leading the Seminoles in tackles for the third straight year – becoming the first Seminole since Marvin Jones to accomplish that feat. He ochestrated a defense that featured one of the deepest defensive line rotations highlighted by defensive ends Brandon Jenkins, Bjoern Werner and Cornellius Carradine who combined for 20.5 sacks, 31 tackles for loss, 14 quarterback hurries and nine pass breakups. The middle of the line featured stout tackles Everett Dawkins, Anthony McCloud and Freshman All-American Timmy Jernigan who combined for 14 tackles for loss, 6.5 sacks and a remarkable 80 tackles. With nine starters returning in 2012, the Seminole defense again figures to be among the nation’s best.
• Stoops is credited with overhauling the Seminoles’ defense in his first season as Florida State’s defensive coordinator in 2010. The `Noles yielded 19.6 points per game which was third best in the ACC and 20th in the nation. The Seminoles ranked 42nd nationally in total defense after ranking 108th in 2009 and ranked sixth in the ACC in 2010 after ranking last in the league in total defense in 2009. Florida State improved its overall defense by more than 80 total yards per game, mainly by limiting opponents to 75 less rushing yards per game. The Seminoles ranked third in the nation in quarterback sacks and 21st in tackles for loss led by second team All-American Brandon Jenkins who finished with 13.5 sacks (third-most in the ACC and sixth nationally) and 21.5 tackles for loss. FSU tied with Boise State for the national lead with 48 total sacks. In the secondary, he coached Xavier Rhodes to ACC Defensive Rookie of the Year honors and National Defensive Freshman of the Year honors.
• Stoops was instrumental in turning Arizona into one of the finest defensive units in the Pac-10 during his six-year stint. Arizona ranked 25th nationally in total defense in 2009 and was ranked among the top three in the conference in five statistical categories as the Wildcats finished with a second consecutive 8-5 season.
• Stoops built an impressive resume by developing nationally elite units, especially in the secondary. Prior to his six-year run at Arizona, he spent three seasons at the University of Miami as the secondary coach. His 2002 and 2003 units led the nation in pass defense, while the 2001 Hurricanes – which won the national championship – led the nation in pass efficiency defense, scoring defense and turnover margin.
• He spent the 2000 season as co-defensive coordinator at Houston, following a three-year run at Wyoming as the secondary coach. His first full-time college job came in 1996 when he was hired by USF to help with the start-up of the program.
• A proponent of zone schemes, Stoops’ pass defenses have been especially proficient and extraordinary at takeaways. The 2001 Miami team established a single-season school record with 27 interceptions and 45 takeaways. Miami’s 2002 secondary tied an NCAA record by allowing just 9.5 yards per completion. The 2003 Hurricanes were second in total defense and fourth in scoring defense and pass efficiency defense. The 1997 Wyoming secondary contributed significantly to its school-record 24 interceptions.
• Stoops recruited and developed some of the finest defensive backs in the nation over the past decade, many of who have gone on to enjoy outstanding NFL careers. Among the notable are Arizona’s Antoine Cason and Michael Johnson, Miami’s Philip Buchanon, Kelly Jennings, Brandon Merriweather, Ed Reed, Antrel Rolle, Mike Rumph, Sean Taylor, and Wyoming’s Brian Lee.
• Like his brothers, Stoops played collegiately in the secondary at Iowa for Hall of Fame coach Hayden Fry. Fry hired Stoops as a graduate assistant for the 1990 and 1991 seasons. The Hawkeyes won the 1990 Big Ten title and played in the Rose Bowl; duplicating feats Stoops also achieved as a player during a four-year career.
• As a player and a coach, he has taken part in 12 bowls, including his first season at Florida State and both of his final two seasons at Arizona.
• Before launching his collegiate coaching career, Stoops followed in his father’s footsteps as a high school football coach. He spent four years at Ohio’s Nordonia Hills as an assistant and the school’s athletic director.
• Raised in Youngstown, Ohio, Stoops played high school football at Cardinal Mooney.
Stoops’ Coaching Ledger
Year
School
Position
W-L
Postseason
1990
Iowa
GA
8-4
Rose
1991
Iowa
GA
10-1-1
Holiday
1992
Nordonia Hills
DB
1993
Nordonia Hills
DB
1994
Nordonia Hills
DB
1995
Nordonia Hills
DB
1996
USF
DB
0-0
1997
Wyoming
DB
7-6
1998
Wyoming
DB
8-3
1999
Wyoming
DB
7-4
2000
Houston
CODC/DB
3-8
2001
Miami (Fla.)
DB
12-0
Rose
2002
Miami (Fla.)
DB
12-1
Fiesta
2003
Miami (Fla.)
DB
11-2
Orange
2004
Arizona
DC/DB
3-8
2005
Arizona
DC/DB
3-8
2006
Arizona
DC/DB
6-6
2007
Arizona
DC/DB
5-7
2008
Arizona
DC/DB
8-5
Las Vegas
2009
Arizona
DC/DB
8-5
Holiday
2010
Florida State
DC
10-4
Chick-fil-A
2011
Florida State
DC
9-4
Champs Sports
Read the rest of… Meet Mark Stoops, New University of Kentucky Football Coach
By Jonathan Miller, on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 8:35 AM ET
Last night, I had the incredible opportunity of playing straight man to The Daily Show‘s hilarious Al Madrigal in a segment of the Comedy Channel’s most popular franchise — and one of my all-time favorite shows.
As Madrigal exposed, No Labels — the national grassroots movement I co-founded, that involves 600,000 Democrats, Republican, and Independents in efforts to promote problem-solving to replace hyper-partisanship — is really a front group for immigrant harassment, forced Chick-fil-a feeding, and spinning in circles.
Or something like that.
When the show was first run, I tweeted my commentary simultaneously. You can read my wacky insights by clicking here.
So if you missed it last night; now, here’s my moment of zen:
It turns out that art imitates life here fantastically!
And of course I gain perspective as I think about what it means for my daughters to grow up with first-world problems. Compared to what our foremothers endured, and in the general context of how far women have come, I thank God for these first-world problems!
