Wasn't going to say much about this, but the tweet is getting QT ratioed as it spreads. Since this is my business, here goes: People are dunking on a tech bro saying tea is gendered. I'm seeing lots of women, immigrants and non-Americans express particular dismay. 🧵
2. Tea itself is not gendered, and tea culture, outside the U.S. is not gendered. For example, my introduction to tea came from guys draped in 7.62 rounds carrying AKs. But for whatever reason, in the U.S., tea is marketed primarily to women. Look at the colors and imagery.
3. It's feminine, not masculine. I don't know if they're marketing to women because men (more specifically white men) don't drink tea as much, or if men don't drink tea as much BECAUSE they're not being marketed to. But you see this everywhere in the U.S.
4. So when a white American man says he wants to free tea from "femininity," this is, presumably, what he means. My first problem is he seems to be implying that tea shouldn't be associated with women. Because tea should be for everyone.
5. More importantly, the tech bros reinventing tea haven't said a word about why their tea is different. Where are they sourcing it? Under what conditions? Who are their farmers? Do they know? Or are they buying from a bulk distributor and just repackaging it as "tea for dudes."
6. If you're a tea enthusiast, this is the stuff you should be looking for with your tea seller. If you need one, I know a guy ;)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Some thoughts: I suspect a small, but not insignificant, part of Biden's falling numbers has to do with his administration's less-than-ideal handling of what the public administration world calls "street level bureaucracy." That is, agencies that deal directly with voters. 🧵
2. Unlike, say, Defense, State or the Treasury, the Postal Service, Small Business Administration, VA and CDC all interact with voters directly. And with exception of VA, USPS, SBA and the CDC have all flopped in the last year.
3. This is a departure from past Democratic administrations. Effective governance is the primary job of the White House and President, not passing legislation. Previous administrations took that charge seriously.
This idea probably sounds good to people who don't know anything about the military. First, 80% of military officers don't attend a service academy. Second, there's no data suggesting service academies produce better officers. 🧵
Third, military leadership is underpinned by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and years-long contracts. Unless cops are willing to adhere to legally binding higher standards and employment contracts, then it wouldn't *really* be a service academy and would likely waste money.
People praise military leadership, but here's the dirty little secret about it: Military leadership is effective because everyone, at every level, has been through the same standardized training and subordinates can't quit. Leading soldiers is much easier than leading civilians.
Trumpists attacking school board meetings is really important.
Stay with me here: While Democrats have historically focused on House, Senate and presidential races, Republicans have built electoral power nationally through relentless focus on state and local races.
But free and fair elections have lost favor with most Republicans. So back in January, they stormed the U.S. Capitol. This was a bad idea and ended in embarrassing defeat. It was much too early, too national and the majority of Republicans weren't ready to support open rebellion.
Not criticizing Walter here, but yes, I can imagine what will happen. Fascism will reign (not historically unusual) or widespread civil conflict will break up the country (which has already happened twice). We should stop dancing around the possibility and address it directly.
If Trumpists take control of the government through voter suppression, I would predict the fascism option if the economy stays strong. If the pandemic sticks around and the economy remains sluggish or takes a dive, then we'll have open conflict.
What has always made America exceptional, the thing that has kept us together when other similarly diverse countries would have broken up, is our wealth. As long as the economy stays strong and employment stays high, we'll only have sporadic conflict.
One thing that would help veterans not feel so sad about our failing wars is if we didn't constantly tell them they were heroes fighting for freedom. It sets the bar way too high relative to what the actual job was.
🧵
Sure, many performed heroically, but troops are basically plumbers: Someone highly trained to solve an important problem. You got a busted, corrupt government allowing terrorism to fester? Call these guys. Problem solved.
Asking them to do more than that, and worse, putting them on a pedestal as being more virtuous than everyone else is a real mismanagement of expectations. So when the freedom and democracy doesn't materialize, vets feel like they failed, or worse, that their job was pointless.
Back in 2013, during Chuck Hagel's Senate confirmation hearing, hardly anyone asked the incoming Defense Secretary about Afghanistan, even though 66,000 U.S. troops were at war there. They only wanted to talk about Israel. Afghanistan was an afterthought. nation.time.com/2013/02/04/jus…
Ted Cruz, for example, had the opportunity to question Hagel about U.S. plans for Afghanistan. He never brought it up. He didn't care. Instead, he mentioned Israel 10 times. But today, he's VERY ANGRY about how Afghanistan is being handled.
Utah Senator Mike Lee is calling the withdrawal a "historic failure." But when given the opportunity to question an incoming Defense Secretary about what 66K troops were doing in Afghanistan in 2013, he never brought it up. He mentioned Israel 16 times.