The Economist's Daily chart, Elizabeth II's record reign "September 9th 2015 is Queen Elizabeth II’s 23,226th day on the British throne, a landmark which sees her supersede Queen Victoria—her great-great grandmother—as the country's longest-serving monarch." A few interesting infographics.
Update: The Financial Times plots Queen Elizabeth vs Victoria: their reigns in numbers.
Vox explains What Mike Huckabee doesn't get about same-sex marriage and the Constitution
The 14th Amendment established that no group should be denied equal rights or protection under the law. So when it comes to marriage, same-sex couples can't be denied the same protections and rights guaranteed under federal and state marriage laws to other groups. This is the very foundation for the Supreme Court rulings that deemed federal and state bans on same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional. It is the statute that legalized same-sex marriages across the country.
'The authors of the 14th Amendment rejected drafts and proposals that would have limited the 14th Amendment just to racial discrimination,' Judith Schaeffer, vice president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, said in June. 'Instead, they put in language that protects any person — not just on the basis of race, but any person.'
The 14th Amendment has been used in marriage cases before: In Loving v. Virginia in 1967, the Supreme Court concluded that states' bans on interracial marriages discriminated against interracial couples and were therefore unconstitutional. Although Huckabee told Stephanopoulos that Loving v. Virginia was totally different, the legal rationale for it was the same as the decisions in the same-sex marriage cases: Just as interracial marriage bans violated interracial couples' rights under the 14th Amendment, so too did same-sex marriage bans violate same-sex couples' rights under the 14th Amendment.
Kottke found Donald Trump on Citizen Kane
Many years ago, Errol Morris interviewed Donald Trump about Citizen Kane as part of a project called The Movie Movie.
Trump acquits himself pretty well on Kane and its lessons -- although I would not characterize Kane's fall as 'modest' -- and his commentary about the film is probably the first actually interesting thing I have ever heard him say. But I watched all the way to the end and he shoots himself in the foot in the most Trumpian & misogynistic way -- it's actually perfect.
You *have° to watch til the end.
Just heard about this and it seems kind of interesting. Most programming languages just use plain ascii characters, particularly for operators. As a result, sequences such as ->, =>, >=, /= are commonly used. If you want better typography, apparently some fonts now use ligatures to make them display better. The nice thing about using ligatures is that nothing changes but the display, the number of characters is the same (unlike if you used Unicode characters).
I haven't tried these yet, but apparently the emacs mac port I use now has a mode that supports them.
Sometimes you have to appreciate Glenn Greenwald: NYT Claims U.S. Abides by Cluster Bomb Treaty: The Exact Opposite of Reality.
Now someone has to ask Obama about this, in detail, on camera.
Vox wrote, Hillary Clinton has one of the most progressive anti-drug plans in decades. It made me wonder about her other stated policies so far...
Hillary Clinton’s college affordability plan, explained. "Hillary Clinton is announcing her higher education plan today — a wide-ranging proposal that calls for lowering student loan interest rates, making it possible for students to avoid borrowing to pay tuition at public universities, and changing how students repay their loans."
Hillary Clinton is calling for a 700% increase in solar power by 2010.
Hillary Clinton wants to take on "quarterly capitalism" — here's what that means. "Things will get harder the deeper she delves into policy specifics, but as a broad campaign theme it's a tour de force. By embracing the quarterly capitalism critique, Clinton offers a more radical criticism of the status quo than we've ever heard from Barack Obama while also showing herself to be more sensitive to the concrete concerns of American executives."
Hillary Clinton's capital gains tax reform, explained. It seems to be similar to what we have in MA (which may be useful but is a pain in the ass for record keeping), "She wants to replace that with a different system, featuring a six-year sliding scale of rates to give genuinely long-term investors a leg up."
Then again, this is an interesting list and I'm not sure which way it sways me. The 5 biggest policy differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. I like most of Bernie's ideas, but Clinton's are more practical to pass. Then again, this isn't lost on me, Want to know what sets Bernie Sanders apart from Hillary Clinton? Look at their donors.
Jonathan Chait explains in New York Magazine that Cheney’s Iran Ideas As Sophisticated As Expected
"Bush and Cheney may have rhetorically opposed the Iranian nuclear program. In reality, they allowed it to blossom. As Marc Champion explained several months ago, ‘at the start of Bush's presidency, Iran had no operational centrifuge cascades and no stocks of enriched fuel, so it had no means of making a nuclear weapon.’ Then things got bad:
By the time Bush left office in January 2009, Iran had just under 4,000 working centrifuges and an additional 1,600 installed. These had, to that point, produced 171 kilos of low-enriched uranium. Oh, and Iran had covertly built a new enrichment facility under a mountain at Qom.
Measured by results, rather than sound bites, Cheney was the greatest thing that happened to the radical regime in Iran since it took power. Michael Rubin, a former Bush administration Middle East policy adviser, has attempted to defend the administration’s disastrous Iran policy by blaming the failure on our feckless European partners, who continued to trade with Iran, undermining our sanctions. Rubin insists, ‘the problem was not too little diplomacy, but rather too much trade.’ But why were sanctions so weak under Bush, and so much stronger under Obama? Because the Obama administration used the promise of negotiations to build strong support for sanctions. Without those negotiations, the sanctions regime would be just as weak as it was under the Bush administration. The notion that simply refusing to make any concessions whatsoever could prevent Iran from advancing its nuclear program is not a novel idea. Cheney’s administration tried it. It didn’t work."
it's astounding to me that anyone still listens to Cheney. Or that in the 3 interviews I've seen of him on his book tour no one brought up that Iran started enriching Uranium under his watch. Or for that matter that during the Bush-Cheney presidency India, Pakistan and North Korea acquired nuclear weapons (usually citing aggression from the US as a motivator) and under seven years of Obama no other nation has acquired them. Just STFU already Cheney.
Vox wonders Did AIPAC just waste tens of millions fighting the Iran deal? Not really. Here's what it got.
"The big mystery, then, is why the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spent between $20 million and $40 million on television ads opposing the deal, which aired in at least 23 states. Anybody with a basic understanding of party politics could see deal opponents would very likely lose. Why waste so much money on a long-shot fight? Doesn't that now make AIPAC look weak, having spent all this money and lost?"
And they start playing the cynical 11th dimensional chess game for answers:
"AIPAC now operates with a $110 million annual budget, and wants to double that budget over the next five years. To do that, it needs to raise considerable money. That means giving donors a strong reason to contribute."
"If AIPAC had decided to hold its lobbying fire, by contrast, it would have left itself open to charges that it had softened, that it wasn't a true supporter of Israel. If it abandoned the hard-line position, it's quite possible that some of its biggest donors would take their money to a new organization that promises to be that hard-line voice."
"Consider that national security groups that sprang up to oppose the Iraq War saw their giving tumble once Barack Obama was elected to end the war. By contrast, the Sandy Hook shootings — and the threat of gun control that they brought — were a great gift to the National Rifle Association's revenues, which increased almost 40 percent between 2012 and 2013."
Vox on the job numbers, Employers added 173,000 new jobs in August "Since January 2011, by which point the ups and downs of the stimulus and the decennial census were behind us, the economy has been adding jobs at a remarkably consistent 'slow and steady' pace."
The Boston Globe reports Pilgrim nuclear plant safety rating downgraded. It's the only nuclear power plant in Massachusetts.
The Tax Foundation is Comparing the 2016 Presidential Tax Reform Proposals "Tax policy is shaping up to be one of the major issues of the 2016 presidential campaign. Below, we’ve compiled every tax proposal that this season’s presidential candidates have offered during the campaign. This chart will be updated as candidates issue more detailed tax plans in the coming months."
Hillary Clinton Just Picked Sides With the Democrats’ Warren Wing Against the Rubin Wing "Hillary Clinton’s decision to endorse legislation to limit the revolving door between Washington and Wall Street, and ban ‘golden parachute’ payments for financial executives who rotate into government service, has shifted the balance of power in the most critical fight inside the Democratic Party."
On ‘Real Time’ Friday night, Bill Maher sat down with former Pennsylvania senator and current presidential hopeful Rick Santorum for a discussion that quickly devolved into yet another reminder of why this man will never hold the highest office in the land.
On the subject of anthropogenic climate change, for example, Santorum quoted a study in which 57 percent of 1,800 scientists allegedly claimed that human activity isn’t responsible for fundamentally altering the world’s weather patterns.
‘I don’t know what ass you’re pulling that out of,’ a bemused Maher replied. ‘But that is not — you know that is not true.’
‘I’ll send you the survery!’ Santorum replied. He then proceeded to ‘debunk’ the claim that 97 percent of scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change, saying that that number was ‘pulled out of thin air,’ and that not even 97 scientists responded to the survey from which that conclusion was drawn. Because, of course, it didn’t occur to Santorum that sequentially claiming that a statistic was invented and following it with a complaint about the sample size used to derive is a good way to win an argument.
I watched this and was kind of infuriated. Santorum's claims are hardly original or new. First off, the 97% number is from this study Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. "We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'."
"Among [the ~34% of] abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." In a second phase of the study, "Among [the ~65% of] self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus." And "Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."
James Powell did a similar search in 2012, Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart. "I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.” The search produced 13,950 articles...By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming."
See more here, The 97% consensus on global warming. Here's a recent denier commentary published on FoxNews against this study, Climate change: Mr. Obama, 97 percent of experts is a bogus number. It's just FUD. Wikipedia has a good article on the Scientific opinion on climate change.
On Santorum's study of 1800 scientists, I couldn't find what he's talking about. The closest I came to such a study was this, Survey confirms scientific consensus on human-caused global warming. "A survey among more than 1800 climate scientists confirms that there is widespread agreement that global warming is predominantly caused by human greenhouse gases."
PolitiFact (not always my favorite) looked into Santorum's claim and concludes Santorum cites flawed climate change figure, and misquotes it.
So here's the thing, by now anyone interviewing a climate denialist (or any Republican) on the subject has to be able to cite a few key numbers and studies by heart. When you say 97% of scientists agree, you have to expect them to say that's false and you have to be able to cite the study and the supporting numbers. And then you have to ask them to do the same. And you should know the standard crap numbers they usually cite and be able to dispute them. Or you know what, have someone bring out a laptop, on the spot and google it in front of their faces and make them respond.
Of course I don't think that would do much good, other than to make an enemy and give one more reason for Republicans to not go on any show that's not on Fox. Here's another route to rationality. Ask them how they form their opinions. What sources do they look at? When they see conflicting information, how do they sort through it? This is the whole basis for the scientific method, it's the best that humanity has come with to solve this problem. In fact I agree it's probably The one scientific statement to reboot civilization.
I wonder what someone like Santorum would say? Would he bail and say he trusts the Bible? I'd ask him how that would help him understand the germ theory of disease? Would he say he looks at the sources and determines if he can trust them? I'd respond how do know if you can trust the source? If that fails I'd cite a bunch of old wives tales about how to ensure a child is a boy by using various sexual positions. At some point you have to come up with experiments and data to test hypotheses. From there you get to publishing and then what's apparently the hard part, listening to the published and repeatable data.
Google tweaked their logo. It's nice. But it's not just a logo it's a design system or something. Here's more than you ever wanted to know about it, Evolving the Google Identity.
If this fascinates you, then you might want to back this Kickstarter campaign to Reissue the 1975 NASA Graphics Standards Manual. $79 will get you a hardbound copy of the 200 page document that introduced the "worm" logo, ahem, design system.
The Washington Post reports How Americans actually feel about stronger gun laws "Background checks for all gun sales, not just those sold in stores, are supported by 85 percent of respondents, Pew’s poll found. Laws meant to stop mentally ill people from buying guns have support from 79 percent, while 70 percent support a federal database tracking gun sales. A fourth proposal — banning assault-style firearms — is supported by a majority of Americans (57 percent), but the margin is slimmer."
The Kansas City Star describes Kansas jobs plummet in latest disaster for Sam Brownback’s tax-cut strategy.
The Sunflower State now has 1,700 fewer jobs than it did at the start of 2015.
Kansas has added a puny 5,600 total jobs in the last year — from July 2014 to July 2015.
The new information shows that the tax cuts that have drained the Kansas treasury of hundreds of millions of dollars the past two years are not working to attract employers and jobs.
Meanwhile, Missouri celebrated much better news in the latest BLS report. The Show-Me State gained 11,900 jobs in July, and now has added 30,900 for 2015.
Kansas lost 39,000 manufacturing jobs during the recession but has added just 4,000 since it ended.
David Atkins points out in Sam Brownback’s Kansas Disaster is Getting Even Worse, "But it’s important to remember that it’s not just about empathy and ethics. It’s about what works and what doesn’t. And every day in every way, we are learning that conservative approaches simply don’t work—not in terms of social policy, and certainly not in terms of economic policy."
And then with, Conservative Policies Just Don’t Work: Immigration Edition.
He pointed to this Washington Post story, Alabama tried a Donald Trump-style immigration law. It failed in a big way.
Alabama, which hosted the largest rally of Trump’s presidential campaign Friday night, had been a test kitchen for Trump-style crackdowns on undocumented workers — and it had not gone well.
In 2011, a new Republican legislature and governor enacted HB 56, the Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act. Chief sponsor Micky Hammon warned the undocumented population that he would “make it difficult for them to live here, so they will deport themselves.” Renting a house or giving a job to an “illegal” became a crime. Police were empowered to demand proof of citizenship from anyone who looked as if he or she might lack it. School administrators were instructed to do the same to children.
Asked about the law, Alabama voters rarely say that it worked. Large farms spent millions training new workers. The Byrds conceded that the agriculture sector suffered after some immigrants fled the state. “Most of them left and didn’t come back,” said Terry Darring-Rogers, who works at a Mobile law firm specializing in immigration.
So Atkins concludes:
Some people will never learn, no matter how much self-inflicted failure they endure. When Josh Duggar and countless similar self-righteous conservatives are exposed as cheating molesters, it doesn’t cause conservatives to question whether their belief system might be causing those problems. They just double down. When abstinence education causes more teen pregnancy than responsible sex education, conservatives double down on the slut shaming. When tax cuts on the rich and wage cuts to government workers lead to economic recession, Republicans don’t question their core economic beliefs; they just claim they weren’t allowed to go far enough.
That inability to come to grips with failure and adjust course, and that insistence on doubling down in the face of adverse results, is part of why many consider modern conservatism to be an almost cultic movement. Its adherents long since stopped caring about the evidence or empirical results. It’s all about who can prove truest to the faith, and maximally annoy and rebel against the evil liberal heathens. Policies and results are really beside the point.
Update: Here's a bonus one, Peter Beinart writes in September's Atlantic, Republicans Don't Understand the Lessons of the Iraq War
Today, hawkishness is the hottest thing on the American right. With the exception of Rand Paul, the GOP presidential contenders are vying to take the most aggressive stance against Iran and the Islamic State, or ISIS. The most celebrated freshman Republican senator is Tom Cotton, who gained fame with a letter to Iran’s leaders warning that the United States might not abide by a nuclear deal. According to recent polls, GOP voters now see national security as more important than either cultural issues or the economy. More than three-quarters of Republicans want American ground troops to fight ISIS in Iraq, and a plurality says that stopping Iran’s nuclear program requires an immediate military strike.
What explains the change? Above all, it’s the legend of the surge. The legend goes something like this: By sending more troops to Iraq in 2007, George W. Bush finally won the Iraq War. Then Barack Obama, by withdrawing U.S. troops, lost it. Because of Obama’s troop withdrawal, and his general refusal to exercise American power, Iraq collapsed, ISIS rose, and the Middle East fell apart. “We had it won, thanks to the surge,” Senator John McCain declared last September. “The problems we face in Iraq today,” Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal argued in May, “I don’t think were because of President Bush’s strength, but rather have come about because of President Obama’s weakness.”
He describes some of the history, the extra troops, the emphasis on to protecting civilians rather than fighting, the shifts in Sunni/Shia balances and the bribes to get Sunnis to stop fighting. This all led to a real decline in the violence which Republicans today remember.
But they forget something crucial. The surge was not intended merely to reduce violence. Reducing violence was a means to a larger goal: political reconciliation. Only when Iraq’s Sunni and Shia Arabs and its Kurds all felt represented by the government would the country be safe from civil war. As a senior administration official told journalists the day Bush announced the surge, “The purpose of all this is to get the violence in Baghdad down, get control of the situation and the sectarian violence, because now, without it, the reconciliation that everybody knows in the long term is the key to getting security in the country—the reconciliation will not happen.”
But although the violence went down, the reconciliation never occurred. According to the legend of the surge, Iraq’s collapse stems from Obama’s decision to withdraw all U.S. troops at the end of 2011. “If we’d had a residual force of 10,000 to 12,000,” Senator Lindsey Graham said last year, “I am totally convinced there would not have been a rise of al-Qaeda.” In reality, the prime minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki, began persecuting the Sunnis—thus laying the groundwork for their embrace of ISIS—long before American troops departed the country. As early as 2007, writes Emma Sky, who advised both Petraeus and his successor, General Ray Odierno, “the U.S. military was frustrated by what they viewed as the schemes of Maliki and his inner circle to actively sabotage our efforts to draw Sunnis out of the insurgency.”
The problem with the legend of the surge is that it reproduces the very hubris that led America into Iraq in the first place. In 2003, the Bush administration believed it could shatter the Iraqi state and then quickly and cheaply construct a new one that was stable, liberal, democratic, and loyal to the United States. By 2006, many conservatives had realized that was a fantasy. They had massively overestimated America’s wisdom and power, and so they began groping for a new approach to the world. But then, in 2007 and 2008, through a series of bold innovations, the United States military bribed, cajoled, and bludgeoned Iraqis into multiple cease-fires. The Iraqi state was still broken; its new ruling elite showed little of the political magnanimity necessary to reconstruct it in an inclusive fashion. And the Band-Aids that Petraeus and his troops had courageously affixed began peeling off almost immediately. Nonetheless, Republicans today say the Iraq War was won, and would have remained won, had the U.S. left 10,000 troops in the country after 2011.
But this line of thinking is troubling nonetheless, because the same wild overestimation of American power that fueled the war in Iraq now fuels the right’s opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran. To hear hawks tell it, the United States can scuttle the current deal, intensify sanctions, threaten war, and—presto—Tehran will capitulate. But Iranians have been living under the threat of attacks from America or Israel for more than a decade now. And British and German diplomats have warned that if the U.S. Congress torpedoes the agreement, sanctions pressure on Iran will go not up but down, as countries that have lost billions by limiting their trade with Tehran stop doing so.
A week ago Vox showed that Carly Fiorina did a 4-minute riff on climate change. Everything she said was wrong. It's a pretty entertaining and enlightening refutation.
Patrick Ruffini wrote on Medium, Who Do Polls Say Will Win the GOP Nomination? Check Back in November. He goes through the 2004, 2008 and 2012 races and concludes:
"In no case did the eventual Republican or Democratic nominee exhibit strong momentum in the spring and summer the year before the election. In most cases, they lost support, and were either written off completely or had serious doubts raised about their ability to win. Candidates who appeared strong early in the process (Dean, Clark, Giuliani, Fred Thompson) only began losing support in the late fall or winter.
Crucially, the nominees’ turnarounds came as little as 30 days before the first nominating contests, and even then, these gains could have appeared uncertain and fleeting. But their gains in December were predictive of victories in January and February. Their numbers before November and December? Not as much."
David Roberts wrote in Vox Tech nerds are smart. But they can't seem to get their heads around politics. I thought it would be about tech companies lobbying efforts but it's more about misunderstandings about the polarization of the parties.
He also pointed me at Wait But Why which seems like something I should have heard of previously.
This sounds promising, U.S. scientists successfully turn human cancer cells back to normal in process that could ‘switch off’ disease
"The scientists discovered that the glue which holds cells together is regulated by biological microprocessors called microRNAs. When everything is working normally, the microRNAs instruct the cells to stop dividing when they have replicated sufficiently. They do this by triggering production of a protein called PLEKHA7 which breaks the cell bonds. But in cancer that process does not work.
Scientists discovered they could switch on cancer in cells by removing the microRNAs from cells and preventing them from producing the protein. And, crucially, they found that they could reverse the process, switching the brakes back on and stopping cancer."
Kevin Drum posts the Chart of the Day: Here's Why the Recovery Has Been So Weak "Instead of responding to a historically bad recession with a historically strong stimulus, we responded with the weakest stimulus ever. Government spending is now more than 25 percentage points lower than normal. If you want to know why the recovery has been so feeble and unsteady, this is it. Republican presidential candidates, please take note."
Bonus chart to dispute the GOP notions that we need to spend more on defense and that our navy has fewer ships than anytime since 1915.
The image seems to be from 2013. The counts for 2015 are only a little different.
Kottke wrote: "2153! I had no idea there had been that much testing. According to Wikipedia, the number is 2119 tests, with most of those coming from the US (1032) and the USSR (727). The largest device ever detonated was Tsar Bomba, a 50-megaton hydrogen bomb set off in the atmosphere above an island in the Barents Sea in 1961. Tsar Bomba had more than three times the yield of the largest bomb tested by the US. The result was spectacular."
Orbital Mechanics made this:
Here's an article on Medium, I watched 14 police officers take down a one-legged homeless Black man outside Twitter HQ.
I recorded the incident August 4th 2015 during the lunch hour. It involves a Black man who was taken down by police in the mid-Market area of San Francisco, between 7th and 8th streets. Though the takedown didn’t occur directly outside of the Twitter building on 9th street, I began to see outlines of the incident unfold from there; a limping Black figure, wearing black, increasingly cornered by a wall of blue. By the time I had crossed 8th street, I was pulling out my phone as fast as I could.
Witnesses said there had been a call about somebody waving sticks around. No one, at least no one that I stayed long enough after the filming, could say for sure where the call came from. One woman said that she heard someone say that one of the deli managers called. By the time I arrived where Joe Bland was (as we’ll call him), several officers had arrived on the scene, and forced this man to the ground, which is where this footage begins. And they held him down, much of the time half-naked, for at least half an hour on one of San Francisco’s busiest streets.
The sticks? They were his crutches. You can hear people in the background around say so much. From my vantage point on the shore of 8th street, I could see the man reluctantly hand over his crutches. The man, it turned out, only had one leg; the other was a prosthetic. It is often twisted and backwards in the video. And this was the crux of the heightened tension between the police and Joe Bland; they wanted his crutches and he did not want to give them away. “What are you doing this for?” he asked so many times. “These are my crutches. I use these to walk.” He repeats this throughout the footage. An officer can be seen at the 5 second time-mark stomping on the man’s prosthetic leg. In further efforts to subdue a man already on the ground with four people on top of him, they stood on his leg, held it, and twisted it around even after they had cuffed him and pinned him to the piss-stained concrete.
Even when restrained and clearly unable to walk, several officers continued to hold him down to the ground.
It does seem pretty ridiculous. I'm not sure why they're arresting him, they might have a good reason (he could be drunk or high) but I don't understand the tactics. Sure the police have to ensure their own safety, but it should be the case that only a minute or two into this incident they should have realized that he had no weapons (I'm assuming but from the video there's no indication of any) and isn't a flight risk (he's got a prosthetic leg and they had taken the crutches he was using to walk). At the end of the video (which is just a portion of the incident) they sit him up, with his hands tied behind his back, why couldn't they have done that 10 minutes prior? I'm guessing if they had, they would have needed 10 or so officers surrounding the other officers to perform crowd control.
Also I learned recently that if you report a car accident and call the police that it's San Francisco Police policy to not send any officers unless someone is injured. They claim they don't have the man power. Given the above where it takes 14 of them to arrest a man on crutches I can understand why that is.
Democracy in Action's P2016 site charts the Ages of Potential 2016 Presidential Candidates on Inauguration Day Jan. 2017 "Ages of Declared and Potential 2016 Presidential Candidates on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 2017."
Cute little chart. I knew Rubio was young. I didn't realize that Jindal was slightly younger and Cruz was only slightly older. I didn't realize Rick Perry was 65 or that Trump was 70; both look good for their age.
