You know what would be a great way for an outfit like @Slate to write about romance? Pair a romance reader with a romance skeptic, have the reader curate a novel for the skeptic to read, and run the conversation that ensues.
I've read a lot of romance novels for work and a fair number for fun, and you know what? The genre is VAST.
My favorite romance writer mostly sold her books to male-oriented pulp imprints, but the majority of them were lesbian romances set in the world of publishing and the arts in early-1960s Manhattan. And they're AMAZING.
(The writer in the above tweet is Sally Singer. She wrote under a bunch of names, but her lesbian pulp was mostly published as March Hastings.)
Be warned, though: Not every March Hastings novel is a Sally Singer novel—the publishers recycled the nom de plume. At least I assume so, on the basis of the very het pulp book published under her name that takes place in the world of amateur dirtbike racing.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you're teaching college during the pandemic, it's really important to remember that some of your students may be in this situation, and that it's your job to lighten their load. nytimes.com/interactive/20…
And being there for students with childcare issues doesn't just mean responding well when they bring them up, because they may not trust you enough to bring them up. It means saying—and showing!—that you can be trusted to work with them from Day One.
It means telling them it's okay to leave their video cameras off. It means telling them they won't be penalized if they have to dip out of class. It means making class audio available. It means making it clear that you're not going to be upset if you hear a kid in the background.
We are witnessing the "I supported Dr. King" rewriting of history in real time.
BTW, I'm not arguing that Brooks is entirely wrong about opening schools here. (You can tell, because if I were making that argument, I'd be making it.) There ARE real costs to keeping schools closed—as many educators, parents, and advocates for kids have noted.
Specifically, it would raise the minimum wage to $9.50 on the day of passage, then by $1.50 one year later, increasing by $1.50 each year until it reached $15 in 2025.
One other detail that the NBC screenshots leave out: After 2025, this bill would index the minimum wage to median wages, raising it automatically every year.
This all makes a lot of sense. My only question is whether the Dems currently have 50 votes for doing what @joshtpm urges them to do here, and if not, whether grinding along the way they're currently going for a little longer is likely to get them to 50.
You've got to make a deal with McConnell, or you've got to get Manchin on board, or you've got to find somebody on the other side of the aisle to get you to 50 without Manchin. (My read of the current situation is that Manchin isn't yet ready to jump).
And as Josh notes, the "jump" Manchin (and Sinema) would need to make here isn't an "axe the filibuster" jump. It's just a "tell McConnell to pound sand on the rules vote" jump.
Yep. And the more gerrymandered and otherwise rigged the system is, the more they'll sway to the most motivated, loudest voters on ON THEIR SIDE OF THE AISLE.
Most Republicans don't have to win a majority to stay in power, and they don't even have to win a majority of Republicans. They just have to pander to the most aggressive slice of the party.
What that slice looks like right now is a reflection of how badly broken our country and our political system is, but it also provides people working in electoral politics with an opening, because it ties the hands of the national GOP, opening up new avenues for the Dems.
Yeah, there's quite a bit of disinformation being pushed about the gender identity discrimination executive order the Biden admin issued yesterday. It's far less dramatic than its opponents are claiming.
In a nutshell, the EO says that the Biden administration intends to act against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's Bostock ruling, and instructs federal agencies to develop plans to do so. whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/…
What that means specifically for, say, school and college sports teams remains to be seen, since the admin just directed agencies to develop such policies, rather than dictating the particulars of what they should be.