Newsletter Subject

How “absurd legal maneuvering” protected the cops who killed Breonna Taylor

From

motherjones.com

Email Address

newsletters@motherjones.com

Sent On

Fri, Sep 25, 2020 08:11 PM

Email Preheader Text

September 25, 2020 It's Friday! Here's some good news: Indie superstar Sufjan Stevens released his e

[View in browser]( [Mother Jones Daily Newsletter]( September 25, 2020 It's Friday! Here's some good news: Indie superstar Sufjan Stevens released his eighth studio album, The Ascension, today. I have not yet listened to it, but I expect it to be a religious experience. I'm also obsessed with [this video]( of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's personal trainer doing pushups next to her coffin. That's all I've got. Enjoy your weekend! —Abigail Weinberg [Prescott College]( [Top Story] [Top Story]( [How “Absurd Legal Maneuvering” Protected the Cops Who Killed Breonna Taylor]( "He should have been charged with wanton murder and another count of wanton endangerment." BY NATHALIE BAPTISTE [Trending] [How Susan Collins' appeal to Maine's seniors grew old]( BY KARA VOGHT [Facebook is restricting its workers' political speech and they’re pissed]( BY ALI BRELAND [These five wildfire stats show just how devastating California's wildfires have been—so far]( BY WILL PEISCHEL [Court shoots down Trump's effort to end the census early, deadline extended to October 31]( BY ABIGAIL WEINBERG [Prescott College]( [Weekend Reads] [Special Feature]( [GreatSchools Wanted to Disrupt Online School Ratings. But Did It Make Neighborhood Segregation Worse?]( The website has become the go-to source for information on local schools, entwining itself in how people buy homes. STORY BY DANIEL C. VOCK · DATA ANALYSIS BY SINDUJA RANGARAJAN AND JULIA SMITH [Fiercely Independent] Support from readers allows Mother Jones to do journalism that doesn't just follow the pack. [Donate]( [Recharge] SOME GOOD NEWS, FOR ONCE [From Our Archives, the Signs of a Never-Ending Election]( Each week, we take a look at our archives for boosts to propel you into the weekend. In January 1992, [Frances Fox Piven]( and Barbara Ehrenreich sat in on a forum hosted by the Nation to hear Jerry Brown—then running for the Democratic presidential nomination against third-way Democrat Bill Clinton. “Strikingly,” Ehrenreich noted in her [essay]( for us on that campaign, “he was talking about class.” Piven and Ehrenreich nudged each other, raised eyebrows, and watched as “nearly five hundred hard-nosed New York leftists clapped till their hands were calloused.” It’s a tiny moment. But I spoke to [Piven]( for an article earlier this year, and Ehrenreich is a hero—so it is one of those small, fascinating, and accidental scenes that gives one a jolt. Whoa! They’re friends! I’ve found that happening often in the archives, especially in the 1990s and 2000s. You recognize the names (Gingrich, Clinton, Trump), but they come up in different contexts. I was speaking recently to a friend about how these decades almost feel further away. The fall of the utopian ’60s to the overdrive ’80s consumerism is well-trod territory; I can chat about the 1930s and 1940s with any white man over the age of 60, as it is law they must be obsessed with either World War II or socialism. But chatter about the Iraq War and Clinton’s business-friendly Democratic Party is relegated to broader strokes. (That’s my narrow experience, at least.) Reading Ehrenreich’s larger analysis of the 1992 campaign, I was surprised by the details; I was surprised to see her framing of Clinton’s rise generally. The press loved his white male fighting spirit, she writes. They enjoyed the gladiatorial nature of his quest. It was, she felt though, almost meaningless. It was a PR stunt and a sideshow. She remembers George H. W. Bush canceling a trip to Brazil on government business because he was too busy running for reelection. And it dawned on her: “Today, being president is really no different from running for president.” That sounds almost trite. But whereas we may fix that to political jostling or reality TV or 24-hour news, Ehrenreich has, I think, a better explanation. She notes there is no “tangible product” for many when they look at the government. We are glimpsing, in the constant election cycle, “that emptiness at the center of things.” The business of government has been completely subsumed by the act of electioneering because the business of government is, well, gone: erased by Reagan and then adopted by Democrats. “It is government-as-spectacle,” she writes, “and much of it has been a sorry spectacle indeed.” Before, “words like ‘policy’ and ‘programs’ meant something even to ordinary people, of the kind who do not reside in think tanks.” Think of “Medicare, Medicaid, Title VII, Title IX, OEO, OSHA…” If you’re looking for the start of the never-ending campaign, she posits, why not locate it in when the government stopped having anything else to do. Ehrenreich, in those early days, did see hope in the Brown campaign: a smattering of burnout kids, workers, union nurses, and Allen Ginsberg. She decided to root for him when she saw Brown joust with Clinton in a debate, and upon being prodded on how his health care plan would have the audacity to harm the bottom line of rich doctors, Brown said, with a grin, “I can’t wait.” The longtime California politician is an odd figure. The son of a previous governor, prone to late-night working, and a figure associated with the 1960s left despite being in Yale Law School at the time; his penchant for a certain spirituality (he was called Gov. Moonbeam, famously), and also for strict Catholic rules, caught many off guard. Gary Wills in a 1976 essay for the New York Review of Books compared him to Thoreau (unfavorably!). In vying for Brown, Ehrenreich predicted the new leftist turn a bit too early. She thought Brown’s ideas were simmering into a Democratic party less interested in cutting and gutting and more invested in a class-based approach. It didn’t happen in the 1990s. But it might be happening now. (Might, I stress.) For all the vapidity of the constant electioneering, policies and programs do matter to people again: Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, Social Security. I could be falling into the same hopeful trap here too. Ehrenreich ends on the right beat. We just don’t know: But the other great lesson of the last calendar year is: You never know. What began in a frenzy of jingoism ended in bitterness and economic collapse. Today’s defeat may be tomorrow’s opportunity, and opportunities evaporate even as they come into view. There is a wild churning force at work in our media-driven culture, driving us from “crisis” to “crisis,” from one mad, collective mood swing on to the next. Those who would win must learn how to ride along with this force, disdaining defeat, grasping every favorable current and eddy, trying and trying, getting the joke. There will be a next time, and this we know for sure: Next time is bound to be different. —Jacob Rosenberg Did you enjoy this newsletter? Help us out by [forwarding]( it to a friend or sharing it on [Facebook]( and [Twitter](. [Mother Jones]( [Donate]( [Subscribe]( This message was sent to {EMAIL}. To change the messages you receive from us, you can [edit your email preferences]( or [unsubscribe from all mailings.]( For advertising opportunities see our online [media kit.]( Were you forwarded this email? [Sign up for Mother Jones' newsletters today.]( [www.MotherJones.com]( PO Box 8539, Big Sandy, TX 75755

Marketing emails from motherjones.com

View More
Sent On

09/11/2024

Sent On

08/11/2024

Sent On

07/11/2024

Sent On

05/11/2024

Sent On

29/10/2024

Sent On

27/10/2024

Email Content Statistics

Subscribe Now

Subject Line Length

Data shows that subject lines with 6 to 10 words generated 21 percent higher open rate.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Number of Words

The more words in the content, the more time the user will need to spend reading. Get straight to the point with catchy short phrases and interesting photos and graphics.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Number of Images

More images or large images might cause the email to load slower. Aim for a balance of words and images.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Time to Read

Longer reading time requires more attention and patience from users. Aim for short phrases and catchy keywords.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Predicted open rate

Subscribe Now

Spam Score

Spam score is determined by a large number of checks performed on the content of the email. For the best delivery results, it is advised to lower your spam score as much as possible.

Subscribe Now

Flesch reading score

Flesch reading score measures how complex a text is. The lower the score, the more difficult the text is to read. The Flesch readability score uses the average length of your sentences (measured by the number of words) and the average number of syllables per word in an equation to calculate the reading ease. Text with a very high Flesch reading ease score (about 100) is straightforward and easy to read, with short sentences and no words of more than two syllables. Usually, a reading ease score of 60-70 is considered acceptable/normal for web copy.

Subscribe Now

Technologies

What powers this email? Every email we receive is parsed to determine the sending ESP and any additional email technologies used.

Subscribe Now

Email Size (not include images)

Font Used

No. Font Name
Subscribe Now

Copyright © 2019–2024 SimilarMail.