Wednesday Open Thread

Filed in National by on December 8, 2010

Welcome to your Wednesday open thread. It’s Wednesday so I guess this means it’s emo day. Why don’t we try to talk about something other than tax cuts. You can do it, I know you can.

One race that is still left undone from November is the Minnesota governor’s race. Democrat Mark Dayton leads Republican Tom Emmer by almost 9000 votes. The state did an automatic recount and it looked like Emmer was going to keep challenging so that Tim Pawlenty could stay governor and do mischief with the new Republican assembly. Emmer lost a court challenge and it appears that he will concede today.

Republican Tom Emmer will concede the 2010 Minnesota governor’s race this morning to Democrat Mark Dayton, a Republican source with direct knowledge confirmed to the Pioneer Press.

Emmer’s 10:30 a.m. concession means he will not contest the election in court — thus averting a scenario that could have kept Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty in office past the scheduled Jan. 3 swearing-in of the next governor, the source said.

Emmer’s announcement will take place at his Delano home, multiple sources said. Emmer couldn’t be immediately reached for comment.

The Dayton campaign had received no official word of the news as it was breaking late Tuesday night and had no immediate comment.

Emmer’s concession will put a final punctuation mark on what had become the inevitable truth: Dayton received more votes — perhaps about 9,000 more votes — on Nov. 2, as tallied on that night and recounted the past week.

Apparently Democrats have not held the governor’s mansion in Minnesota in 24 years. Dayton’s win means that Republicans hold 29 governorships and Democrats hold 21.

PZ Myers has a challenge for you:

just finished off one big chunk of grading, and on this exam, as is my custom, I give students a few bonus points with an easy question at the end. It is also my custom every year to have one of those easy questions be, “Name a scientist, any scientist, who also happens to be a woman,” just to see if they’ve been paying attention.

About 10% of the class leave it blank. C’mon, it’s a free 2 points on a 100 point exam! Over half the time, I get the same mysterious answer: Marie Curie. We do not talk about Marie Curie in this class at all, and it’s always a bit strange that they have to cast their minds back over a century to come up with a woman scientist. Next year, I should change the question to “Name a scientist, any scientist, who also happens to be a woman, and isn’t named Marie Curie,” just to screw with their heads. They won’t be able to think of anyone but Marie Curie.

Second runner up is Jane Goodall. Again, we don’t talk about her, but I guess she is well known.

Try it. Try more than one, and just to make it harder don’t name Marie Curie, Jane Goodall or Unstable Isotope.

Tags:

About the Author ()

Opinionated chemist, troublemaker, blogger on national and Delaware politics.

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. anon says:

    The funny thing is, with all the lawmakers coming out against the tax deal (“triple-digit opposition” @ChuckTodd), I haven’t heard anyone give the reason, “Because ending the upper class tax cuts is the top priority and this is our last chance.”

    Instead they all have some trivial or selfish bullshit reason why they oppose it.

    Nancy Pelosi’s objection is because it makes the estate tax 35% instead of 55%. Now that blood is in the water, a few Dems are coming out of the woodwork to hold out for more spending on their own pet issues.

    DeMint opposes it because it doesn’t make the upper income cuts permanent (thanks, Jim!)

    It is now a clusterf**k of wheelings and dealings too numerous to count. Congress should just go home.

  2. Another Mike says:

    In the car around lunchtime I was listening to Pierre Robert’s tribute to John Lennon on the 30th(!) anniversary of his murder. His music and message are still relevant today.

  3. liberalgeek says:

    Well, I have two female friends (not counting UI) that are scientists. I shan’t name them, but I can’t seem to name one that is famous and contemporary. I suspect that is due to a general dearth of female scientists in the media, which is a shame.

    re: John Lennon, my son was just watching ESPN in the other room and they are covering it from the standpoint of the Monday Night Football crew that broke the story on the air. Apparently Cosell was friends with Lennon and it was quite a hard thing for him to do.

  4. anon says:

    I can’t name female scientists, but I am aware there are a lot of them, just not in the press.

  5. socialistic ben says:

    here’s a thought
    the new congress comes in and extends UI, they also repeal DADT, get to work on the START treaty and begins immigration reform…. all populist causes, all blocked by the shit-stains (GOP)
    they then take credit for it and use it in the next election how Democrats dont do anything any republicans will get stuff done.

    Im not asking if they will try that… because they will. anyone else think the MOB will buy it?

  6. socialistic ben says:

    it depends if you consider historians scientists.
    if you do, Doris Kearns Goodwin in the hizzy

  7. Auntie Dem says:

    Does my 9th Grade science teacher count? She was absolutely amazing and I never look up at the night sky without thinking of her.

  8. This is both funny and sad at the same time.. The Daily Caller does “investigative” journalism and finds that you can buy really expensive food with food stamps if you wanted. Wow, food stamps buy food! Scandal.

  9. liberalgeek says:

    Fixed your link UI. The guy is an aspiring Breitbart.

  10. Jason330 says:

    Christine’s whole NOVA teabagz speech is up on YouTube. Warning, your IQ will go down if you watch it. Very high income people create wealth by having charachter and putting every dollar not spent on taxes into job creation. Also, poor people suck because they don’t have charachter.

    Sorry I can’t link to it.

  11. Joanne Christian says:

    Dr. Victoria Hale….and does Jane Goodall count as a scientist? Wasn’t that more social sciences?