Another one bites the dust

From Queen, one of the greatest rock’n'roll bands ever!

Now, what brings that song to mind? From the Dallas Business Journal:

Charles Schwab sending San Francisco jobs to Texas, elsewhere
By Lance Murray, Digital Content Producer-Dallas Business Journal | Feb 4, 2014, 6:36am CST UPDATED: Feb 4, 2014, 11:31am CST

Charles Schwab will move a “significant number of San Francisco-based jobs” to Texas and other locations in the next three to five years, the company has told employees in San Francisco.

The San Francisco Business Times reported that the move isn’t sitting well with its California employees, who were told in December that they might have to pull of stakes and resettle to Texas and points east.

“Additionally, as has been our practice for the last number of years, future firm expansion will be concentrated in these centers,” said Schwab spokesman Greg Gable told the Business Times. Schwab wouldn’t say how many jobs would be leaving San Francisco.

“We expect to maintain a significant presence of employees here at headquarters,” Gable told the Business Times.

Gable did confirm that Texas was one of the prime spots for relocation.

More at the link. Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) tweeted:


I suppose that the title, Another One Bites the Dust, is a bit unfair, in that Charles Schwab isn’t leaving the Pyrite State entirely, but, once again, the handwriting is on the computer screen: the company is downsizing its presence in the high tax, business unfriendly state of California — not to mention the city of San Francisco — and moving some of its operations to places which are more business friendly, as well as having lower taxes.1

Moving isn’t free; to move some of its operations out of California has costs, both financial and human. Some employees will take the transfers offered, and Schwab will wind up paying some of their moving expenses. Others will be unable to make the move, and lose their jobs, and that entails unemployment compensation costs for the company, as well as whatever severance payments are made. Schwab will lose people it would prefer to retain. Decisions like this are not taken lightly, nor are they simple whims; a company like Schwab will have had analysts — and they have plenty of those — looking at the proposed moves and providing cost/benefit analyses. Schwab will probably be politically correct, and not offer those results to the public, but the answers are obvious: the corporate leadership believe that it will be better and more profitable for the company to make these moves than to stay in California.

I wonder: has anybody ever mentioned this kind of problem before?

  1. Editorial disclosure: your Editor does not own stock in Charles Schwab, nor is Schwab his broker.

The vulnerable Democrats

From The Wall Street Journal:

Fractures Emerge Between Obama, Congressional Democrats
Coming Midterms Complicate White House’s Agenda on Trade, Energy, Health Care
By Janet Hook and Peter Nicholas | Updated Feb. 3, 2014 8:01 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON—Democrats in Congress are parting ways with President Barack Obama on issues including trade, energy and health care as the gap widens between the political demands of keeping control of the Senate and advancing parts of the White House agenda.

A phalanx of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have announced opposition to the president’s top trade initiative. Many Democrats are clamoring for Mr. Obama to act soon to allow construction of the Keystone XL pipeline—a decision the White House is expected to make before midterm elections. Vulnerable Democrats are bluntly criticizing the rollout of the 2010 health-care law. Even an under-the-radar issue such as a flood-insurance bill has been a point of tension.

Against that backdrop, Mr. Reid met with the president in the Oval Office for about an hour Monday along with Sen. Michael Bennet (D., Colo.), who is chief strategist in his party’s drive to keep control of the Senate after November. The meeting was to review the political landscape of the crucial midterm-election year.

More at the link.

If the Democrats who are up for re-election this year are stressing their differences with President Obama on a few key issues, that raises three questions:

  1. Doesn’t this mean that the Democratic candidates realize that the President’s policies are unpopular on some things?
  2. If the Democratic candidates are separating themselves from the President on some issues, doesn’t this mean, nevertheless, that the President and his agenda will have more power rather than less if people vote for the Democrats taking those distinctions, due to Senate chamber control?
  3. While some Democratic candidates are separating themselves from some of President Obama’s policies before the election, can they really be trusted to oppose those policies once they are re-elected?

The answer to the first question is obvious: the President’s agenda is deeply unpopular, in some places, which is why people like Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) are running scared.

The answer to the second question is also obvious: if the Democrats retain control of the Senate — something that the go-to political scientist on these issues, Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia, puts at a 50/50 chance — the President and all of his agenda is in a stronger position. If the Republicans gain the six seats needed to retake the majority, the President will get very little of his agenda passed.

But, to me, the real question is the third one: will the voters be able to trust that Democratic candidates who are running away from some of the unpopular parts of the President’s policies won’t knuckle under and vote for them anyway, once they no longer have to worry about the election? And the answer to that is not just no, but Hell no!

Quantum of Solace – Worst Bond movie EVER!

This may be my last movie review. I saw this in the theatre a few years ago when it came out, and the funny thing was, I couldn’t remember a thing about it. So, when it was on cable TV a couple nights ago, I decided to watch it again to see if it was any good.

It wasn’t. Indeed, I found out why I couldn’t remember anything about it the first time, because there was nothing worth remembering about it the second time, either.

It’s a given that most James Bond movies have plots that range from over-the-top to the downright preposterous, but nonetheless the plots are at least understandable. But Quantum of Solace has no plot at all, at least none that I could discern. It’s just a bunch of action and fight scenes and car chases strung together with no central story to make you care about any of them. But beyond that, what was lacking in this movie was any sense of fun or style, two things that could usually redeem even the worst of previous Bond efforts. Bond is grim throughout, and one gets the sense that neither he nor “M” (Judi Dench) particularly like or trust each other.

The whole point of the Bond series was that it was pure, escapist fantasy. It presented a world in which you got to drive fast cars, travel to exotic locales, and have sex with gorgeous women. The whole thing was about glamour and style, and reality be damned! But apparently the curent trend is to have Bond movies strive more for gritty realism. Well, I guess they got the “Grit” part right, but in the process tossed out all the fun and charm. In short, this movie fails as even good entertainment. Indeed, you would be much better served watching the silly Vin Diesel effort xXx, with Diesel playing the wise-cracking, tattooed anti-Bond and Samuel L Jackson having ten times as much fun as Judi Dench in the role of his “Boot to ass” boss.

Rule 5 Blogging: Российских женщин-полицейских

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as posting photos of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Jennifer Lawrence in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude.

The Olympic Winter Games begin in Sochi, Russia, later this week, and the police are on high alert for terrorist attacks. So, this week’s Rule 5 features Russian policewomen. I would guess that it would not be a good idea to mess with them.

The patch on this policewoman's shoulder is Россия Министерство внутренних дел, or Russia, at the top, and the initials for Ministry of Internal Affairs.

The patch on this policewoman’s shoulder is Россия Министерство внутренних дел, or Russia, at the top, and the initials for Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: Российских женщин-полицейских’ »

From Around the Blogroll

Donald Douglas asks if Israel (is) losing the propaganda war.

Several sites on our blogroll have been writing about the Republicans in Congress and their position on how we deal with the illegal immigration problem, including Jennifer Davis, My “Clash” with the GOP-Amnesty may be the last straw and Dejah Thoris, Spineless Crap Weasels, AKA House Leaders, Support Amnesty on the Victory Girls, The Pirate’s Cove, Anonymous Republican Sees Racism In Immigration Opposition, and Patterico, GOP Declaration of “Principles” Regarding Immigration. I’m as Republican as anyone, but we’re about to do with Hispanics just what was done with blacks: give the Democrats a lock on 90% of their votes. The Hispanics are here, and they are not going away, period, and anyone who thinks they are is obviously using the recreational pharmaceutical legalized in Colorado.

Even if we manage to find a way to keep the illegal immigrants themselves from ever voting, their children are here, they are being born here, as American citizens, and they will be able to vote. If the GOP ever wants anything more than 10% of their votes, the GOP has to get on board, now, on getting these people legal. Arguments that “illegal means illegal,” and that “we can’t reward criminals” sound great, but they are completely impractical here: we can argue and argue those points, right up until the Hispanic immigrants’ votes are locked up by the Democrats, at which point it won’t matter whether we are right or not; we’ll be so far out of power that our positions will be meaningless.

We’ve had many episodes of trying to exclude immigrants in our past, from “no Irish need apply” to restrictions on Chinese “coolies,” and none of them have ever worked; why should we think that trying to exclude Hispanic immigrants would work any better?

From The Pirate’s Cove:

Strange: Study Finds That Liberals Drink Lots More Alcohol
By William Teach February 1, 2014 – 10:51 am

This probably has something to do with all the studies that find, again and again and again, that liberals are less happy than Conservatives.

More at the link. I’d add that while it’s true that conservatives are happier than liberals — knowing that we are responsible for our own lives, and not always blaming someone else for our problems means that we believe we can fix our own problems, and aren’t being held down by others — liberal “thinking” shows clear signs of alcohol incapacitation.1

Donald Douglas pointed to an article which utterly devastates MSNBC’s (since retracted) tweet about evil right-wingers hating a commercial, because it included a bi-racial family.

MSNBC hates this: More conservatives than liberals belong to biracial families

Maybe MSNBC will hate this, but everyone else will go aww. More conservatives belong to biracial families than do progressive liberals according to left wing biased Washington Post. Even more painful for the race hustling left is that it was revealed by the replacement of far left nutjob Ezra Klein who leftists adored so much while at the Post.

Indeed, among families with step-children or adopted children, 11 percent of conservatives were living in mixed race households compared to 10 percent of liberals living in mixed-race households.

Similarly, 9.4 percent of Republicans living in step- or adopted families were in mixed-race households, compared to only 8.8 percent of Democrats in such families. (Again, this small advantage for Republicans is not large enough to be statistically significant).

An even bigger gut punch to MSNBC and race hustling progressive liberals is that most biracial families are in red, conservative states. Leftist, Northeastern states are more likely to be have lower rates of interracial marriages. I guess that’s just progressive liberal Democrats keeping alive those old KKK days. Not all Democrats were KKK, but all KKK were/are Democrats you know.

More at the link. But, just in our too-small readership at The First Street Journal, your Editor’s father was Portuguese while his mother was as lily-white English as you can get (that would qualify as an Hispanic/white marriage, which would make me bi-racial if I really cared about such things, Yorkshire has an Asian (adopted) granddaughter, and Hoagie’s wife is Korean, and none of us care in the slightest!2

Karen, the Lonely Conservative, noted a poll which has NBC News and the MSNBC cable network as the least trusted source of information. Given MSNBC’s recent gaffes, that result is hardly surprising.

From Sister Toldjah:

#PPACT condom billboard at school crosswalk riles Memphis residents
Posted by: ST on February 1, 2014 at 11:34 am

The dodo birds at Planned Parenthood are at it again, taking their “message” too far by placing a condom billboard at an elementary school crosswalk in Memphis (hat tip):

(Memphis) A Planned Parenthood billboard has only been up a week in one South Memphis neighborhood, but some people there already want it to come down.

They say the billboard, which includes the message “Getting It On Is Free” and a picture of a condom, is too graphic.

“I was shocked. I was appalled that anyone would put up a picture of condom,” said Karen Wallace.

Karen Wallace works at a church nearby and has to drive by the billboard every day.

She said what is worse it’s right next to an elementary school cross walk.

“The graphic was not necessary the message was enough,” said Wallace.

A dad who saw the sign for the first time Thursday agreed and said it’s not something he wants his children to see.

“No! It ain’t nothing to send out to my kids,” said Rickey Munn.

You’d think Planned Parenthood would take into consideration community concerns, right? Wrong:

“A condom is not an explicit image it’s just a piece of latex and children see explicit images all the time on the internet, in commercials and in the movies. We are trying to promote healthy relationships and save lives,” said Ashley Coffield, CEO of Planned Parenthood Memphis.


It plans to put some more billboards in the spring.

A few of things here: First, if you think there’s no way in the world Planned Parenthood (and other “progressive types) would target kids in their approach to so-called “safe sex” information, read here , here, and here for your wake-up call. Second, for “enlightened” types who think this is much ado about nothing, y’all do know this is a bit different than just demanding that someone who is offended change the channel, right? Thirdly, consider the “Getting It On” Planned Parenthood campaign, the “Brosurance” campaign put on by left wing activists that basically portrayed women as sex addicts who should sign up for Obamacare, and then review Mike Huckabee’s “controversial” comments from a couple of weeks ago about how Democrats view women:

More at the link. At first this might seem like nothing, but Robert Stacey Stacy McCain has been all over the stories concerning how the left are tying to beak down barriers and sexualize children.

Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA)

Darleen Click noted the story that the lovely Sandra Fluke is considering running for the congressional seat that the little troll, Henry Waxman, is vacating, and she came up with the best line of the day:

Oh goody, the headlines for elections to watch are to be dominated by two women, Fluke and Davis, who have nothing to run on but their vaginas.

The photo is from Patterico, and while some insist that the picture has been photoshopped, I think it just means he has thick fingers. :)

The final report on the environmental impact of the proposed Keystone Pipeline project has been released, and it states that any environmental damage is expected to be very minimal. One would think that President Obama would finally approve it, and the thousands of jobs it would create. L D Jackson noted that the President, who tells us that job creation is his most important objective, is in no hurry.

The left don’t want the pipeline built, because they are just overwrought that the Canadian tar sands oil will lead to more carbon emissions, but the State Department report noted that the tar sands project will go forward, and the oil produced would be used, by someone, somewhere, so those concerns are meaningless. Right now, the real concern is just who makes money off of it, and where will the jobs created be. A smart American3 would prefer that those jobs be created in the United States, and filled by American workers.4

You know, it would be absolutely great if we had a completely independent, totally pollution-free, source of power we could use. Trouble is, we do not have such, in quantities which are able to generate more than a small fraction of the electricity we need. Our greatest resources are coal, petroleum and natural gas, and we have enough here, in the United States, to supply all of our needs, for decades, if we are allowed to develop them. Perhaps, decades from now, our ingenuity and engineering expertise will have allowed us to develop some great, future power source which will enable us to stop using combustibles for power, but we still need to get from where we are now, to that future.

From Hube:

I was rereading the comment section of this post yesterday whilst adding it to this one regarding comics writer Mark Millar being a socialist. Keep in mind the first link is from 2006, a little over seven years ago, to be more specific. One of things I complained about in the post was how Millar had Captain America kill his opponent, Colonel Abdul al-Rahman, who’s basically an Iranian counterpart to Cap. (In my original post, I referred to al-Rahman as the “MCA,” or “Muslim Country Analogue.”) And who commented about this? None other than Delaware Liberal’s Jason “Trust Fund” Scott:

A lot more at the link; this is a longer article than usual from Hube. Hube doesn’t seem to have much respect for Jason330, as he styles himself on his site. Mr 330′s standard response to disagreement is to call others names, which is fine — he can write an way he wishes — but he does seem to have a shortage of logic based arguments when challenged.

At any rate, that’s it for this week!

  1. Or outright stupidity.
  2. My first cousin, as white as white can be, is married to a Vietnamese woman; guess what that makes their children. He’s also as conservative Republican as they come.
  3. A term which would exclude most liberals.
  4. Some might even think it rather racist of the left to prefer that those polluting processes take place in countries populated by darker-skinned people, but we know, of course, that the left are incapable of racism. dripping with sarcasm

Economics 101: The myRA accounts

George Bush wanted to partially privatize Social Security, by allowing people younger than 55 to divert 2 percentage points of the 6.2% taken in FICA taxes, and put it in private accounts, and he was absolutely excoriated by the Democrats. This plan wouldn’t touch that 6.2%, but “allow” you to pay even more into the federal government, to get that private account.

From CNNMoney:

What you need to know about Obama’s ‘myRA’ retirement accounts
By Melanie Hicken | January 30, 2014: 4:11 PM ET

In his State of the Union address, President Obama announced plans to create a new ‘myRA’ retirement account aimed at helping millions of Americans to start building a nest egg.

On Wednesday, Obama signed a presidential memo directing the Department of Treasury to create the government-backed retirement accounts.

Here’s a look at how myRAs will work, according to the White House:

Who can open a myRA? The accounts are targeted at the millions of low- and middle-income Americans who don’t have access to employer-sponsored retirement plans. That includes roughly half of all workers and 75% of part-time workers.

The White House says it will “aggressively” encourage employers to offer the program, noting that they won’t have to administer or contribute to the accounts. myRAs will initially be offered through a pilot program to workers whose employers sign on by the end of the year.

Once the program reaches full implementation, anyone who has direct deposit for their paycheck will be eligible to sign up, Treasury said.

More at the link. The main points:

  • All workers may invest in the accounts, as long as they are paid via direct deposit, including those who already have an employer-provided 401(k) plan, as long as their household income falls below $191,000 a year.
  • The account will function as a Roth IRA rather than a traditional IRA. This means that participants will not be able to deduct the savings from their income at tax time, but will may no taxes on the principle or investment earnings upon qualified withdrawal. Anyone who withdraws the interest earned in the account before age 59½ will get hit with taxes and a possible penalty, just like a Roth IRA.
  • The myRA accounts will solely invest in government savings bonds. They will also be backed by the U.S. government, meaning that savers can never lose their principal investment.
  • Unlike IRAs at private investment firms or banks, the myRA accounts will have no administrative fees.
  • Once the account reaches $15,000, it must be transferred to a private Roth IRA; it can be transferred at any time before it reaches the threshold.

Again, more at the link.

This is not a terrible proposal, in that it could encourage savings, but it isn’t a great one, either. Workers can open such accounts with a very minimal investment, just $25, and contribute as little as $5 a week. For workers who can only save at the very lowest levels, the lack of administrative fees could outweigh the low rates of return.

However, your Editor, who has exactly zero trust for President Obama’s motives, notes that the money the workers would save goes directly to the United States Treasury, for investment in government securities, and that means the money would be doing exactly one thing: helping to finance the deficit! More, if the myRA were to result in significant worker investment, it could reduce the amount of money that the government has to borrow on the open market to a level which might depress interest rates a bit . . . which would have the effect of lowering the rate of return workers would see in their myRAs! The more successful the program is in attracting workers to sign up, the less successful the workers will be in realizing returns on investment. That said, your Editor doubts that it will be successful enough to make any appreciable dent in interest rates.

Since the program will be restricted to those workers who have direct deposit for their paychecks,1 everyone who could participate in the program already has his paycheck going to a bank, and that means everyone who could participate could also simply start an IRA, Roth or traditional, at the bank he used, and have a far wider choice of investment options. Since the myRA could be transferred to a private IRA at any time, it could make sense for someone who just can’t come up with a decent amount of money for an initial opening of the account, but when I checked with the bank I use, the website stated that there was no minimum amount required to open a Roth IRA; other banks could be different.

Despite my lack of trust for anything that comes from the Obama Administration, I don’t see anything bad enough in this proposal to oppose it, but I also don’t see enough good in it to make it worthwhile. The myRA might help a few people, and I’m perfectly willing to let other people decide how they wish to invest their money, but it really seems like an almost nothing program to me.

  1. This seems like a strange restriction to me; the federal government does not have to have direct deposit on paychecks to collect Social Security taxes.

An unintentional telling of the truth about capital punishment

From The Philadelphia Inquirer:

D.A. to appeal vacating death sentence for cop-killer
By Mike Newall, Inquirer Staff Writer | Print Edition, Thursday, January 30, 2014, p. B-1 | Posted: January 30, 2014

A Philadelphia judge, citing a constitutional restriction against executing people defined as mentally retarded, has vacated the death sentence of Edward Bracey, who was convicted of killing 1-year-old Officer Danny Boyle in 1991. (Click to enlarge)

PHILADELPHIA: The District Attorney’s Office will appeal a Philadelphia judge’s decision this month to vacate the death sentence of convicted cop-killer Edward Bracey.

A jury sentenced Bracey, now 50, to death in 1992 for shooting and killing rookie patrol officer Danny Boyle after a traffic pursuit in North Philadelphia. Bracey, a paroled felon, told police at the time that he shot Boyle to keep from going back to prison.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has twice affirmed Bracey’s death sentence, rejecting claims that he had ineffective counsel. The appeal will send the case to the high court for a third time.

While endless appeals would likely prevent Bracey from ever being executed anyway, Boyle’s family feels Bracey is angling for the chance to live his life in the less rigid confines of the general prison population.

Much more at the link.1

It was the last quoted paragraph in which the truth was unintentionally(?) told: we sentence people to death all the time in Pennsylvania, four more in 2013 alone, and currently have 194 men and 4 women on death row.

However, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has actually carried out the death sentence on just three men since the reinstatement of capital punishment in 1976,2 and all three men “volunteered” for execution, by dropping their appeals.3

Seth Williams, District Attorney for Philadelphia

Prosecutors know that, and Seth Williams, the District Attorney for Philadelphia, who has prosecuted several death penalty cases, knows that as well as anyone else. We have had Republican governors and we have had Democratic governors since 1976, we’ve had “law and order” governors and strict attorneys general, but no one has actually been put to death against his will in all of that time.

But, the prosecutors in the Keystone State, including Mr Williams, keep pushing capital cases, keep trying to add people to death row, and adding millions and millions of dollars in extra expenses to the obligations of their cities and the Commonwealth, despite knowing that nobody against whom they win a capital sentence will be executed anyway.

And now, we have the admission, though somewhat on the back end, from the family of slain police officer Danny Boyle, that the goal isn’t to actually have Mr Bracey executed — they know that it won’t ever happen as long as he resists — but to keep him under the greater restrictions of death row, rather than to live in “general population.”

It’s understandable that Officer Boyle’s family would want Mr Williams to appeal this, and want the harshest possible conditions imposed on Mr Bracey, but their position is one of emotional attachment. Mr Williams’ position, on the other hand, is not so easily understandable. He is costing his city more money, by having to, yet again, appeal the judge’s decision,4 when he knows that even a successful appeal will not result in the death sentence being carried out, and that if he is successful, all he will succeed in doing is costing the Commonwealth more money to keep Mr Bracey incarcerated under death row conditions.

Your Editor has stated, several times, that he is opposed to capital punishment, period, but he understands the beliefs of those who support the death penalty as a requirement of justice in some cases. However, what we have in Pennsylvania is the worst of both worlds: we have a death penalty which is never actually executed — sick pun intended — and thus provides no actual justice for those who believe it is necessary for justice, yet we have all of the additional expenses of a capital punishment system, and a stable of prosecutors who want to add people to a system that they know will never execute anyone. That set-up makes no sense at all, and we might as well take the tax dollars collected from Pennsylvanians used for the capital punishment system and just set them on fire.

  1. Articles in The Philadelphia Inquirer are not always maintained on the server. This article also appeared in the print edition on Thursday, January 30, 2014, p. B-1.
  2. Pennsylvania passed a new capital punishment law on March 26, 1974, but 1976 is normally given as the date for reinstitution, because that was when the first actual execution occurred in the United States following the moratorium.
  3. Gary Heidnick in 1999, and Keith Zettlemoyer and Leon Moser in 1995.
  4. Common Pleas Court Judge M Teresa Sarmina, whose ruling Mr Williams is appealing, also botched the case against Monsignor William Lynn by misapplying the law.

The New York Times and Wendy Davis

Remember the commercial for Pace Picante Sauce, mocking a (fictitious) competitor made in New York City?

Pace is made in San Antonio, so you are supposed to realize that it’s better. Well, that commercial came to mind when I saw this article from The New York Times:

Why Are We Talking About Wendy Davis’s Choices?
By KJ Dell’Antonia | January 29, 2014, 5:47 pm

Wendy Davis, a Texas state senator and Democratic candidate in the race to become governor of Texas in 2015, has been under attack for blurring and misstating details of her story as a single mother. If Wendy Davis were Henry Davis, would the national media — including The New York Times (Texas Democrat Defends Back Story Under Criticism) — be covering the attacks on her as she and her opponents battle to define her personal and family history?

We would. That doesn’t mean the furor surrounding Ms. Davis’s choices as a parent has nothing to do with gender. Ms Davis, though, is a Democrat running for governor in Texas, and what’s more, she may be able to mount a credible challenge in a state that’s been governed by Republicans since 1995 — Republicans who have used the office as an entry into national politics. Even though neither party has yet held its primary, there are frontrunners on each side (Greg Abbott, the attorney general in Texas, is considered likely to run on behalf of the Republicans). The race, and even the most remote possibility that a Democrat could be elected governor of the most populous red state, would be national news no matter who was running. Attacking a candidate’s family life is, by now, simply the way it’s done.

What stands out here is the narrative that underlies the attacks. Ms. Davis unquestionably spent time as a single mother. She married at 18, had her first daughter at 19, and was divorced at 21. Along the way, she and her young daughter lived in a mobile home, then an apartment. Even in an article about the “blurred” facts of her story, Wayne Slater of The Dallas Morning News describes her as a “single mother working two jobs” when she met and married her second husband.

As of 2009, more than half of all children born to women under 30 in the United States were born to unmarried women. The story of the single mother is fast becoming the story that defines our country. According to the United States Census, there were 10 million single mothers living with children under 18 in 2011. One in four of every household with children under 18 is headed by a single mother. Although many politicians have defined themselves in part as raised by a single mother, relatively few have been that mother. Not every single mother struggles to find child care, works low wage jobs to support a family and hovers just one piece of bad luck away from catastrophe. But few single mothers have any difficulty understanding that life.

More at the link. But it’s pretty much what you would expect: Mrs Dell’Antonia spends her time defending State Senator Wendy Davis (D-TX), trying to tell readers that Mrs Davis is just like everyone else, but ignoring the fact that she isn’t; very few women are fortunate to find sugar daddies second husbands who will put them through Harvard Law School, and very few women choose to simply give custody of their children to their husbands in divorces . . . especially when one of the children isn’t the husband’s child. Mrs Dell’Antonia can’t seem to grasp the fact that Mrs Davis’ problems stem from having not told the complete truth in her own campaign materials, something which even Mrs Davis admits is the case.

Of course, Mrs Dell’Antonia is a mommy-blogger from the northeast,1 having worked at The Washington Post and Slate before catching on with the Times, and her experiences are just as different from most Texans as are Mrs Davis’. Like the creators of the Pace commercial, I’m guessing that most Texans won’t be all that thrilled with a candidacy that is so valued in New York City.

Found on Facebook

I have a Master of Arts degree in Womens Studies. However, the only job I can find is as a bartender at a local restaurant. I owe over 60K in Student unintelligible loans. I am forced to rely on foodstamps and W.I.C to support my son. Is this the “American Dream’ I worked so hard for? I am the 99 percent

Now, setting aside the fact that she ought to have known that a Master of Arts in Women’s Studies qualifies you for very, very little — I don’t think that the universities can support as many Women’s Studies professorships as they have Women’s Studies graduates — the fact is that she has found a job. It’s obviously not the job that she wanted, but it’s a job.

Well, guess what? I didn’t get the job that I wanted coming out of college, either! I never anticipated that I’d wind up running concrete plants. But I am successful today because I don’t mope about the fact that I don’t have that dream job I figured I’d get. I show up for work, on time — early, actually — every day. I have survived the bad times in this industry, survived periods when other people, some of them senior to me, were getting laid off, because there was never any doubt that I would show up for work the next morning, and that I’d do my job, and do it well.

Now, I don’t know why the young lady in the picture hasn’t been able to get a better job. Perhaps she doesn’t really present herself well in interviews — at least this photograph doesn’t cast her in the best light — or perhaps she is whiny, or perhaps she really doesn’t try hard enough in interviews for jobs that aren’t her dream job. But she does have a job now, and every day you are on the job is the interview for the next job! If she’s “just” a bartender now, well the restaurant business is a pretty transient one, and the odds are that first-level management jobs will open up. Can she help with scheduling? Can she manage other people? Can she do the books? She has a Masters degree, so she can’t be stupid; it’s a question of being willing to apply yourself.

However, there is one point to be made. If you ran a business, and were looking to hire someone, and an applicant put on her résumé that she had a Master of Arts in Women’s Studies, would you ever consider hiring her if the position didn’t require that type of degree? To me, I’d see an applicant like that as trouble on two legs, someone who would look at everything as a possibly sexist situation, and be looking to file labor board or EEOC complaints. An application like hers would go straight in the trash can, because there are always other qualified applicants who wouldn’t reek of trouble.