To help jog your memory, we’ve put together a list of the 19 most important things that happened during New York Fashion Week. Happy end of Fashion Week, y’all! 1. Kenneth Cole is still insensitive. The designer sent out a tweet at the beginning of Fashion Week making light of possible military action in Syria by mocking the phrase “boots on the ground,” (which has been used by President Barack Obama with regard to sending in ground troops). Sadly, this is not the first time the designer has gotten into hot water using conflicts in other parts of the world to sell clothes — we all remember the Cairo incident . “Boots on the ground” or not, let’s not forget about sandals, pumps and loafers. #Footwear Kenneth Cole (@KennethCole) September 5, 2013 2. Naomi Campbell is still on top of her game. The famous ’90s supermodel closed the show at Diane von Furstenberg. 3. The Jonas brothers are into fashion now?
“With a team like they have, when you get behind and in a hitter’s count, you’re going to give up some hard-hit balls.” Will Middlebrooks’ run-scoring grounder gave Boston a 1-0 edge in the second. Napoli singled before moving up on a walk and sacrifice. In the third, David Ortiz had an RBI double and Gomes added a run-scoring single. Sabathia then fanned the next two hitters with runners on first and third. Lester breezed through the first nine batters, holding the Yankees hitless before Curtis Granderson tripled off the center field wall leading off the fourth. He scored on Robinson Cano’s bouncer to first to make it 3-1. But Victorino had a two-out RBI single in the bottom half. Sabathia went six innings, allowing five runs on nine hits, walking four and striking out five. He’s 4-6 with a 6.48 ERA in his last three seasons against the Red Sox. Daniel Nava’s sacrifice fly increased it to it 5-1. Notes Yankees OF Alfonso Soriano was a late scratch with a sprained right thumb and is listed as day to day. He was scheduled to bat cleanup, so Alex Rodriguez was dropped from second to fourth and Vernon Wells moved from right field to left.
New York’s election suggests the waning of identity politics
More broadly, the election could be seen as a referendum on ending three terms of Bloombergs mayoralty, and therefore de Blasios emphasis on inequality he spoke repeatedly of a tale of two cities and taxing the citys wealthy forced voters to elevate economic concerns over demographic ones. Assuming that the 2013 results do represent a waning of the influence of identity politics, what does that suggest for future campaigns in New York City (and possibly elsewhere)? While identity politics have been important for representing minority voices, they can also obviously disappoint. In part this is because they encourage voters and candidates to view policy choices through a distorting lens. In so many areas of city life, once a basic level of racial or gender inclusion has been achieved, identity is present but not paramount; there isnt a solution to traffic problems that can be better done by a lesbian, or a Latino solution for park expansion, etc. And in those areas where policies will benefit groups unequally, identity politics risks pitting populations against one another to the point of losing any sense of a common good. In theory, candidates in the future will not as easily assume automatic support from those they most closely represent. It has been too tempting in the past for candidates with scarce resources to largely write off entire constituencies out of the belief that an opponent had captured the bloc. If more New Yorkers votes are genuinely up for grabs, then increased competition for them ought to increase chances for voters voices to be heard. There are some possible shortcomings and objections to this analysis, starting with the fact that there is still a general election in November, and if de Blasio manages to lose that in a city where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by more than 6-to-1, we shouldnt read much into his primary results. Secondly, some may point to the candidates themselves, arguing that Thompson, Quinn and Liu were simply not very good examples of leaders for their communities and thus couldnt command their votes in the way that, say, Dinkins did with the black vote in 1989 or Ed Koch with the Jewish vote in 1977.