It's April 29, 2013.

No, he's awesome. I'm convinced he single handedly increased consumer confidence at the 2012 DNC.

Only four lawmakers attend a hearing on long-term unemployment.  Washington isn't even remotely worried about i,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/lawmaker-unemployment-hearing_n_3148362.html

And those four only came after a reporter tweeted about it. Originally the only lawmaker there was Amy Klobuchar, I am not sure if she was just there out of a sense of duty as vice chair or not. Suffice it to say, the elites don't really care about this issue so long as the stock market is going up.

As someone noted earlier these aren't entirely rare.  In fact, if you look at the Congressional Representation or the List of Governors for some states, it almost seems to be an established tradition.  Outside of presidential families, there are those families in various states that become state fixtures.  I'm thinking of families like the Frelinghuysens of New Jersey, the Bayards of Delaware, the Cabots and Lodges of Massachusetts, the Stevensons of Illinois, etc etc etc.  Fact is, a lot of politicians come from generations thereof, mostly raised from birth to take their (usually) father's shoes.

Americans in general are attracted to this sort of dichotomy, because they are dumb, stupid, and lazy.  Not because they hate freedom (though, a very good argument could be made for that).  In politics it's all about name recognition and appeal.  It's what I would consider to be the "I knew your father" effect, which is what it says on the tin can.

However, at the same time, being a part of a political dynasty doesn't guarantee success.  The Adams family stopped sending men to the White House in 1829, with Charles Francis Adams Sr. and Charles Francis Adams Jr. both achieving fame as third party VPs (Sr. was VP on the Free Soil ticket, Jr. in 1848 was VP on the "True Democrat" ticket in 1872) being the last evidence of their political prestige.  The Harrison family was surprisingly good at elections, electing Ol' Willy before waiting forty plus years to elect his grandson Benjamin.  They haven't been heard from since.  Which brings me to the Roosevelts. . . . lolboy.
You would think that the most popular name brand dynasty would've had much success after TR and FDR.  However, the continuation of the line has proven that if anything, politics is not a genetic gift.  Several of TR's sons, god bless them, took up the very deadly occupation of being in war.  I think several of them died, though one of them, Teddy Jr, did try to run for office.  However, he took a pretty high level step in running for Governor against Alfred E. Smith, who was considered to be a pretty danggum good Governor and had the "street touch" to connect with urban voters and even Republicans to win office repeatedly during the Republican 1920's.  The fact that Smith took Bryan establishment favorite William McAdoo to 100 plus ballots at the 1924 Democratic National Convention speaks is evident of how successful and popular he was perceived, despite being a papist alcoholic (imagine if Jesse Jackson became Governor of Illinois in 1978 and tied Mondale in the 1984 Democratic Primaries and the Convention turned into 1968.  Yeah, that was Smith in 1924).  But damn, enough about Smith, this is about political dynasties.
Anyway, back to the Roosevelt kids.  Oh wait. . . . . what did Teddy do?  All I heard about was how great Al Smith was from Teddy's cousin Franklin Roosevelt.  Wait. . . . what?
So in a freak circumstance of history, FDR succeeds Smith and goes onto become one of the most successful presidents in history.  A former petty Assistant Secretary of the Navy, disgraced by scandal and by a paralytic illness, manages to turn it around in the span of a decade and get to the office of President in a landslide victory over the sexy boy Herbert Hoover though to be fair by 1932 Hoover was far from sexy.  You would think with such an acclimated career that the Roosevelts would've been able to have a strong family dynasty lasting well to the present day.
You'd be wrong.
First there was the old boy James Roosevelt.  A former army general who had enough gravitas in 1948 to be considered a replacement for Harry Truman, Roosevelt ran for the US Congress in California.  He held office for a decade in a "safe" urban Democratic seat in California.  He was kept there pretty much as a reminder of the good ole days as well as his multitude of extramarital scandals that he publicly admitted time and again.  You see, unlike FDR, James wasn't a cool enough motha to brush off sex scandals and thus was relegated to being a Congressman and then a useless cabinet officer for the rest of his life.  Okay, not the rest of his life, he did retire and make a book or two and got married several hundred times.  But still, he was a man who fell woefully short of the expectations for him despite being set up for success by pretty much every higher up in the party to follow in Daddy's footsteps.
Younger brother FDR Jr. was pretty much the same story, minus the military career.  His later run as the Liberal candidate for New York City Governor in 1966, which siphoned off liberal Democratic votes from Frank O'Connor and led to four more years of Rockefeller, probably left a bad taste in the NY Democratic Party's mouth.  As well, he ratted out his own brother Elliott as some communist sympathizer.  A pretty dick move if you ask me.
FDR was truly one of a kind out of his family.  So was Teddy Roosevelt, if you believe the 1994 Massachusetts Gubernatorial Election.
I'll let CNN News tell you about the Kennedys the next time one of them drops dead or is elected.
As for the Bush and Clinton families, who knows?  Maybe they will end up being long lasting dynasties with competent politicians like the Adams family was.  Maybe the Clinton family, with Bill already elected, will wait fifty years before electing another one like the Harrison family was.  Really, I don't know.  But it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't, considering history.

The economic conversation has actually improved markedly in recent years. When the economic collapse happened, I thought it was the end of economic conservatism and was shocked to find the bookstore filled with books such as "the 5000 year leap", gold bugs, Ayn Rand and Amity Shlaes, which coincided with the rise of the tea party. But today I was at the book store and I saw a book attacking Austerians, ordoliberalism, Austrian economics and praising Paul Krugman! There was also a NY Times article on how European leaders are facing pressure against austerity. I think 4 more years of empirical evidence are slowly moving things in the right direction.

Option 1, but mostly because overwhelmingly, pro-choicers are open minded enough to support gay marriage easily, as well. As BRTD said, it's very rare where you'll find a pro-choicer who is *truly* opposed to SSM. So it only takes a few pro-lifers to be in favor of gay marriage to outnumber them.

S. Korea to pull workers from joint industrial complex following blockade by Pyongyang

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/s-korea-says-it-will-withdraw-final-workers-from-joint-industrial-complex/2013/04/26/e5dade9e-ae61-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_story.html

[my wing of]

Santorum: “Rand Paul’s brand doesn’t line up with all of what my wing of our party stands for—on national security, social values, the economy and the role of government in society. His message won’t ultimately lead us to be a more successful party.”

Corrected.

What about Wolfgang Schauble?

I'll admit that a big part of my Europhilia is just being in awe at how Cool the idea is. Just the sheer scale of the ambition, the pure audacity of it, is what attracts me. I mean, the notion of combining this region that has been torn by war for 1600 years into the world's most populous superpower... I admit that it seems outlandish and unrealistic, although I would argue that one of the most beautiful features about the Europhilic vision is how long-term it must necessarily be, talking about a process that will take well over a century. Most people these days do not think ahead 100 years or more; and if they do, they tend to think about it in terms of what technologies we will have, not how the socio-political landscape will look differently. A company that plans 20 years in advance is considered "long-term thinking". But regardless of whether it will actually happen, simply thinking about it makes living life a richer experience.

FF. She's wrong about the PATRIOT Act and the drug war (as are lots of Dems, sadly) but she absolutely nails it on guns. Guns are what makes Bloomberg a FF too, even though he's wrong about tons of other stuff.

In my opinion, these dynasties are one of the worst aspects of the American political process today.

"today" is a totally superfluous qualifier. Ever heard of John Quincy Adams? Political dynasties have been around for 200 years.

Two things distinguish Bill and Hillary Clinton from the typical "political dynasty."

First, they are both from the same generation. Typically, when we talk about political dynasties, or political families, we're referring to families that have held office across at least two generations. For instance, the Kennedy family held elected office across three generations (John F. Kennedy, Patrick J. Kennedy, and Joseph P. Kennedy IV) and political office across four generations. The Bushes have held political office across three generations (Prescott Bush, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush). This is significant because arguably the biggest reason dynasties are not meritocratic is that after the first generation, they tend to produce successors who were coddled and somewhat spoiled, but who were groomed for higher office and win on that basis alone. Neither of the two Clintons grew up in a dynastic environment, however.

Second, they are not related by blood. Usually, even when dynasties manifest horizontally (such as the Kennedy or Bush brothers) they are bound by blood relations. This is because dynasties are typically patriarchial and patrilineal; without that, it's harder to benefit from the "family name." Barbara and Laura Bush, or Jackie Kennedy, did not get into political office on account of being from "dynastic families"; only the men of the families benefited. Occasionally, the wives of dynastic figures are elected to office, but it is quite rare.

If Chelsea Clinton were elected to political office, then a Clinton dynasty would be established.

But I am not convinced that the combination of Bill and Hillary Clintons' careers by themselves can be said to establish a dynasty rather than simply a "dynamic duo": two people who both happen to be both politically talented and ambitious who happened to come together in wedded union. Just as in any other profession, a husband and wife may both be practicing in the same field and both be successful. That does not necessarily constitute a dynasty or family tradition. In fact, that they both had similar interests and personalities may be why they were attracted to one another to begin with. We know that even before they were married, both were extraordinarily accomplished, ambitious and political.

This is not surprising. She's leading by 22 points, so it'd be almost absurd not to get in. Until she has a formal announcement and a website though she's not in.

He was a very nice, knowledgeable guy. Of course, what I remember the most about him is how much he loved a certain President from West Branch, Iowa.

Depends on what you mean by "the world." The people actually living in the eastern bloc would have clearly been worse off. On the other hand, dozens tinpot dictators (and a few democratic third world nations) would have been better off because they would be able to play off the superpowers against one another for military and economic aid. But the direct effects on the people living under the regime would overwhelm any international effects, so those must be considered first. All in all, no.

A fascinating map of livestock densities in East and South Asia. This gives us a pretty good idea of why H5N1, SARS, and H7N9 all broke out in China. This is a country that deeply loves its animal meat.

"H7N9 cases to 16 April 2013 (red circles), and population densities of humans (A; density in 2010), pigs (B), chickens (C) and ducks (D) in China and Asia in general. (Livestock densities are modelled numbers of animals per square kilometre standardized to 2006 national totals. Note different scale for pigs.) "

http://www.nature.com/news/mapping-the-h7n9-avian-flu-outbreaks-1.12863

No one ever denied that we're in a crisis. So was George Washington at Valley Forge. The question is, will it break apart, or will it bend but not break? The latter scenario is still a possibility; note I did not say likelihood, I said possibility.

Apparently they tweeted there were explosions at the WH and Obama was injured. The stock market apparently believed it for awhile:

Bad decision. We should be lowering the drinking age, not raising the smoking one. Also, we should be legalizing pot so they have something less harmful to smoke.

^^^

I'll believe it when I see it; she could have run for Governor or Senate in 2010 from equally strong positions and passed.

A lot better than Charlie Crist!

Long commute?

Dazzleman? He was great.

Markdel, I didn't know him too well, all I really remember is that he was really passionate, and he was more accurate than the New York Post....

http://news.yahoo.com/north-korea-moves-two-more-missile-launchers-report-035049930.html

Please, Beet, continue to enlighten us ignoramuses through your information about this election apparently solely derived from online commenters to the Daily News.

Reading online comments are what allowed me to see the Tea Party coming as early as November 2008. If you read the online comments from early 2008 in the Democratic primary (pre-February), it was actually a good indication of the Obama surge that month coming. The thing with online comments is that they can be an indication of where the passion is in the race, and an indication of what those who are following it more closely are thinking. These passionate and informed people also, often, have a tendency to set the narrative of a campaign. And the narrative, in turn, then influences lower-information and more persuadable voters (not to mention, journalists!)

In this case though, my post wasn't *solely* deriving from online comments. If you noticed, I led with the story from the Daily News itself, which supports the same narrative as the online comments do.

The polls, while still showing Quinn ahead, shows big increases in her negatives and drops in her top-line numbers. I'm not the type of guy who doesn't believe in polls (re: the whole 'unskewed' debate), but polls are just numbers. There also is a story that goes along with those numbers. If you look not just at the number, but try to look at the story behind it, you'll get a better understanding of things. Quinn reminds me a lot of Hillary Clinton in early 2008. An early (but not prohibitive) female frontrunner, who was an activist early in her career but became more mainstream as she gained success; an accusation of being a lackey for a more powerful man who helped her career; accusations of being selfish and manipulative; an extremely passionate opposition coming from the left, and a similar tone in online comments. Only there's no Barack Obama in this race.

Because the Chinese government makes them. I think my dad learned Russian when he was a kid, fwiw.

The Chinese governments reasoning is probably what Ernest said: English is lingua Franca. It's the privileged language of the privileged culture.