The brilliant @AriBerman made a guest appearance in my seminar on the political history of civil rights, and I'm delighted to report that he *nailed* the dress code.
We look like the waitstaff at a restaurant that uses the phrase "farm-to-table" waaaaaaay too much.
We look like the backup singers to a Conway Twitty performance on "Hee Haw."
We look like a crew that's trying to rob a Restoration Hardware.
We look like a couple of youth pastors who just turned their chairs backwards to tell you about a *really* radical dude they know.
We look like we run the crisis hotline at L.L. Bean.
We look like we're at a casting call for Preppy Lumberjack #2.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
No noticeable side effects, except for having the chorus to “River Deep, Mountain High” stuck in my head, but that’s *probably* because we watched the Tina Turner documentary last night.
Update 2:
Other than a sore arm and a slightly pfoggy pfeeling, doing pfine.
This thread doesn't just show that the filibuster does, in fact, have a considerable "racial history" but that the argument of its defenders -- that it somehow promotes compromise -- is completely wrong.
When Southern Democrats filibustered anti-lynching bills in the 1930s, they walked away with a total victory. The bills never became law, and no compromise measures were passed.
The filibusterers won everything they wanted. Their opponents got nothing.