A Suspect Is in Custody

We imagine that at least 99.99% of readers already know this, but right around the time our post went live yesterday, the White House announced that a suspect in the killing of Charlie Kirk has been arrested. He is Tyler Robinson, a 22-year-old Utah resident and a student (though not a student at the school where Kirk was shot).

There's a lot of information floating around out there, some of it very questionable, so we'll start with what we believe to be well-established facts. After the shooting, Robinson attempted to return to his normal life, as if nothing had happened. If he somehow hoped to evade detection, this was not the way to do it. Maybe, if he had fled the U.S. and then found his way to a non-extradition country, he might have gotten away. But remaining not only in the U.S., but in Utah, and in the same county? There was no way he was going to escape the kind of manhunt that both the state of Utah and the federal government were mounting. Though as it turns out, it was not law enforcement who found him. Robinson's father saw the "person of interest" pictures, and reportedly confronted his son and got a confession. Then, a relative contacted the authorities, who made the arrest.

Beyond that, it is also quite probable that Robinson's case will be handled, and tried, by the state of Utah. We would not be the least bit surprised if Donald Trump is in the White House, pushing for a federal trial. However, federal law only kicks in for certain kinds of murders, and this one does not appear to fit the bill. Further, someone will probably point out to Trump that: (1) Utah juries are far more likely to impose the death penalty than federal juries, and (2) Utah trials are generally televised, while federal trials are not. "Charlie Kirk was a martyr" has already taken hold on the right, and a Utah trial is going to do much more than a federal trial would to encourage that line of thinking.

And now, let's move onto some of the things that are still hazy. Anyone and everyone wants to know: (1) What Robinson's politics are, and (2) Why he killed Kirk. Those may, or may not, be distinct issues. Robinson spoke to law enforcement officials only briefly before securing counsel and going silent, so reporters have been working overtime to try to find out what they can. It's documented that: (1) Robinson comes from a gun-loving, Trump-loving, Christian conservative family; (2) Robinson himself was, at least at one time, MAGA himself, having dressed as Trump for a Halloween Party, and having donated money to a Trump-affiliated PAC; (3) Robinson was, however, a registered independent, and does not appear to have ever cast a ballot in an election. Obviously, he is not old enough to have voted for Trump in 2016 or 2020, but he could have done so in 2024, and did not.

To supplement the paper trail, reporters have been trying to find anyone and everyone who ever knew Robinson, spoke to Robinson, or so much as sneezed in Robinson's general direction. People's accounts are all over the place; some say he was converted into a radical lefty by Donald Trump, others say he was almost completely apolitical, still others he became radicalized in a far-right direction when he decided that Trump and MAGA weren't hardcore enough. On the whole, we would say these people should be ignored. They're getting their 15 minutes of fame, and some of them are going to squeeze that for all it's worth, even if they have to convey a much greater sense of familiarity than they actually have. Further, even if these people are remembering correctly, it sometimes happens that young men say wild things they don't really believe, just for attention, or to get a rise out of people. Bet you didn't know that.

The two things that come through in the various personal accounts of Robinson, and that ring true because they were repeated by so many different people, are: (1) He was a loner who largely kept to himself, and (2) He had expressed hatred for Kirk on multiple occasions. Based on what is currently known, several general possibilities suggest themselves here: (1) Robinson was a right-wing fanatic who grew angry at those he deemed insufficiently fanatical; (2) Robinson was a loner who decided to lash out at the world; (3) Robinson was a fellow whose life was not going according to plan (he washed out of Utah State, where he had a scholarship), and he decided to do something that would get him some attention and/or would make him "important"; and (4) Robinson was a lefty who decided to take down a prominent righty.

The latter possibility is the one that MAGA world would obviously prefer. However, it is probably the least likely of the four, at this point, because the weight of the evidence appears to point in other directions. And even if Robinson's motives were left-wing-political in nature, much of the MAGA insta-narrative has already fallen apart. Robinson is not brown, he's not an immigrant, he does not appear to be gay or trans, and he's not a member of some disfavored religion. He has no apparent connection to any group that might be scapegoated here, like the Democratic Socialists, or the ACLU or Greenpeace.

If you want a really good piece of evidence that the MAGA narrative looks to be fatally wounded, consider this, brought to our attention by reader D.E. in Lancaster, PA. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) is both a hothead and a loudmouth, and she's also running for governor of South Carolina. So, it was as predictable as can be that she was among the very loudest saber-rattlers on Thursday. Speaking to reporters, she declared: "Democrats owned what happened today. Just because you speak your mind doesn't mean you get shot." A reporter then asked if that meant Republicans owned the assassination of the two Democratic lawmakers in Minnesota, and Mace responded: "Are you kidding me? We don't know Charlie Kirk's condition right now and some raging leftist lunatic put a bullet through his neck and you want to talk about Republicans right now? No."

Compare that to what Mace posted on eX-Twitter, after the identity of the suspect was revealed, and details began to come out:

We know Charlie Kirk would want us to pray for such an evil, and lost individual like Tyler Robinson to find Jesus Christ.

We will try to do the same.

She's still villainizing the shooter, because that's how she rolls, but notice that all the references to liberals, Democrats, lefitst lunatics, etc. have vanished. They'll come back if it turns out that Robinson had a Bernie Sanders shrine in his apartment, or something like that, but for now, the Representative is playing the odds.

Another thing that is hazy is the story behind the engravings on the bullets. As we noted yesterday, the claim that there were anti-fascist and pro-trans messages engraved on the bullets was not something that could be taken at face value, for a number of reasons. But 24 hours later, much more is known. It is now beyond dispute that there was nothing engraved on the bullets that had anything to do with being trans. Where did that come from? The most popular theory on social media is that some dunderhead saw TRN stamped on the bullets, and reached a conclusion based on that. In fact, when a bullet is stamped with TRN, that means it was produced by armaments manufacturer Turan.

As to the anti-fascist stuff, that part is more true, but with one or two big asterisks. Several of the bullets were indeed inscribed with anti-fascist messages (or, at least, potential anti-fascist messages), but the inscriptions are ALSO video game references AND popular social media memes. For example, one of the bullets was inscribed "O bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao, ciao, ciao." That is from the Italian song "Bella Ciao," which was indeed used as an anti-fascist anthem. However, it also features prominently in the video game Far Cry 6, and is often used in memes associated with people committing acts of violence. For example:

For anyone who does not recognize that, it's The Godfather, Don Vito Corleone. And while the character is certainly Italian and violent, he is not left-wing, he is not fascist, and he's not obviously political at all (excepting all the politicians and judges he has in his pockets). There is also a version of "Bella Ciao" favored by Nick Fuentes and his far-right, Neo-Nazi followers. Anyhow, the upshot here is that there is no way to know the intent behind the bullet case engravings without an explanation from the person who made them.

Meanwhile, there is still plenty of misinformation floating around out there. To take one example, one story that we saw a lot was the claim that Paul McCartney paused his concert in New York on Thursday night to offer a message of condolence/support for Kirk:

RIP Charlie Kirk. It's unimaginable that disagreement could end a life. Taking someone's voice like this... it shakes you to your core. We are all different, yet one people. His passing leaves a wound we cannot ignore.

It's not surprising this would attach itself to McCartney. After all, he's a lefty and a foreigner, and so it potentially makes it more meaningful that if he was (subtly) sympathetic to Kirk. Further, McCartney lost his good friend and songwriting partner to a gun-wielding assassin, so he "knows what it's like." However, the story doesn't pass the smell test. This does not much sound like how McCartney would express himself. And, beyond that, he did not do a concert in New York this week because he's not on tour right now. He doesn't hit the road again until the end of this month (and he's starting in California).

And that's the latest. Things appear to be calming down a bit, which is good news. Beyond that, this story is probably going to develop very slowly from here on out, because most of what can be uncovered has been, and the shooter is not talking. Be very leery of any "shocking" new developments or claims, unless they come from a very reliable source. (Z)

Saturday Q&A

Given the kind of week it's been, our gut tells us to do 10 questions about Charlie Kirk and 10 fun questions. An odd mix, but that feels like the right balance.

Also, it would seem that this week's headline theme was much harder than we thought. Here is a really helpful hint (seriously): "Shaken, not stirred."

The Death of Charlie Kirk

J.H. in El Segundo, CA, asks: What do you think about the coverage of the Charlie Kirk incident so far? It seems to me that the centrist and left-leaning media are feeding into the right-wing talking points and not really questioning some of the very unnormal aspects of how this is being covered or treated.

(Z) answers: I actually think it's been OK. I once worked in a newsroom, and breaking news of this sort is really tough because there's a lot of interest and there are a lot of questions, and solid information is hard to come by. It does not help, in this case, that the Trump administration (ahem, Kash Patel) put out several things that proved to be completely wrong, nor that Kirk's story was a complicated and controversial one that demanded some very careful verbiage.

In the end, the major outlets largely did not run with anything factually before it was rock-solid, and did not perpetuate the "martyr" bit that many on the right did.

---

A.J. in Ames, IA, asks: The fallout from the Charlie Kirk assassination is happening quickly in Iowa. MAGA is going after public school teachers who made unpleasant social media posts, and already some are attempting to fire teachers for their postings. They may even go after some university personnel; the code of conduct is being cited as "just cause." I know its a complicated process with public schools/universities, but does the 1968 Supreme Court Pickering case come anywhere near this? I'm guessing this isn't happening just in Iowa, and it does seem to directly contradict some of Kirk's freedom of speech arguments. I think we are entering a very scary moment for our nation.

(Z) answers: This is exactly what Pickering v. Board of Education was about. Because (public) schools are part of the government, they have to observe their employees' First Amendment rights in a way that private employers (including private schools) do not. If you work for IBM, or Sidwell Friends School, or any other private concern, and they fire you for badmouthing Donald Trump, or wearing a MAGA hat, or saying something snarky about Kirk's death, or saying something laudatory about Kirk, or whatever, they can get away with it since "people who hold [X] political views" do not constitute a protected class. But a public entity, including a public school, does not have that liberty, because to do so (absent additional issues) amounts to the government suppressing free speech.

Violating the code of conduct is a pretty shaky cause of action, unless the person in question wrote something really, really bad. Either the administrators are operating on emotion, and will think better of their response, or they are just hoping the targeted employees will decide it's not worth it to fight back. If those employees are non-union, they might indeed yield, because legal cases are expensive and take a lot of time. On the other hand, if the employees' labor is covered by a union contract, then they will just turn it over to the union, and if the schools don't back down, there will be a grievance, which the school will lose.

---

M.L. in Havertown, PA, asks: As I sit here in the stands of the local high school football field in my liberal-leaning Philadelphia suburb, I noticed that the American flag is flying at half staff. I could only think of one prominent person, someone who I didn't even know who he was before he was killed, who recently died. My first thought was that surely this school district would not make such a lopsided choice in this situation, but then I was told that the traitor-in-chief ordered it. So now I'm wondering, does the school district have the right to give TCF the raised flagpole salute, or are they compelled to lower the American flag?

(Z) answers: The U.S. Flag Code decrees that the sitting president is empowered to make decisions about the display of the flag, and that government employees are bound to honor his decisions. However, the flag code contains no penalties for breaking the rules and, even if it did, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Eichman that such penalties would be an unconstitutional infringement on people's First Amendment rights.

So, if a school district says "Thanks, but no thanks, Mr. President," there isn't much he can do, unless it's a federally operated school (e.g., on a military base) that answers to him and his underlings.

---

P.R. in Arvada, CO, asks: Today I learned something. Apparently there is a subgroup of MAGA known as groypers. Do you think there is anything to these theories that the shooter was one of these people, and what are on earth are they?

(Z) answers: That's the allegedly Christian, neo-Nazi/White Supremacist, mostly incel wing of MAGA, led by Nick Fuentes. They are named after a version of Pepe the Frog, the cartoon character that has been appropriated by many different far-right groups.

As we note in the item above, there is SOME evidence that the assassin might be a Groyper, and might have been acting on that viewpoint. But it's only one possibility among any, and there's not enough evidence to reach any firm conclusions.

---

C.H. Sacramento, CA, asks: You referenced the Profiles of Individual Radicalization. I can't find the years they looked at to compile the 3,528 offenders. Did you see anything? I found a reference to 1970, but they include designations that happened before that year.

(Z) answers: The information in the database starts in 1948, and comes from "public sources." I once worked on longitudinal study very much like this one, and in this context, "public sources" basically means newspapers and some law-enforcement databases.

---

J.S. in Houston, TX, asks: I have been wondering who among the people I know would have called the authorities if they spotted someone that matched the description and circumstances of the suspect in the killing of Charlie Kirk.

My question is: Would a substantial fraction of the population NOT report a suspected murderer in a case like this? And does that number tell us something?

(Z) answers: The rather broad phrase "substantial fraction" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. That could mean "20%," it could mean "90%."

It is nearly impossible to draw generalizations, because each case is different. A person might choose not to report because they want to protect a family member or friend. They might choose not to report because they just aren't sure, and don't want to bear the burden of being wrong. They might choose not to report because they and/or their community have had bad experiences with the legal system, and they don't believe justice will be done. And so forth.

That said, helping to cover up a crime is seen by most people as an offense against morality. Further, a person who does that runs the risk of becoming an accessory, and thus a criminal themselves. Between those two things, we think it's fair to guess that the substantial majority of people would make a report. After all, the suspect that is in custody was turned in by his own family. Same thing with the Unabomber, the BTK Killer, and a bunch of others.

---

K.E. in Newport RI, asks: What do you think it will take to break the cycle of political violence in this country? I am not convinced the solution from Republicans (everyone being armed) will work because Utah is an open carry state and having a campus awash in guns wouldn't have stopped a sniper.

(Z) answers: We are not optimistic. The United States is a nation founded in an act of violence, and one that has viewed violence as a positive good for much of the time since (note how long Westerns were THE most popular genre of film and TV show, for example). The nation also has a deeply embedded gun culture that is not likely to change in the lifetimes of anyone reading this. And, quite frankly, the country is home to a lot of religious believers who take the Bible literally. And the Bible has a whole bunch of content that can be read as endorsing acts of violence against enemies/the unrighteous/etc.

If anything is going to change, the first thing that has to happen is that Donald Trump has to go, and there can be no more presidents like him. He is a huge, huge, huge part of the problem; first because he is unable and unwilling to help the nation heal when it needs healing, and second because his ego/low self-esteem/temper/whatever cause him to regularly indulge in calls for violence against those he dislikes. You cannot have Attila or Genghis Khan or Mussolini or Saddam Hussein in charge and expect to have a peaceful country—it just doesn't work.

Next, the next president (and, ideally, the next five or six presidents) would have to be unusually empathetic, and able to really convince people that violence is rarely a solution. Ideally that president would not undermine his or her message by doing things like ordering drone strikes on faraway civilians.

In addition, as many people as possible (ideally, everyone) would have to decide that the embrace of violence is a deal-breaker for them. That's not going to happen, although at least those who do oppose all the violence could get in the habit of saying things like "I won't watch that channel; they are too comfortable promoting violence and division." Or "I will not vote for that candidate, because they encourage violence against other Americans."

Again, we're not optimistic.

---

J.B. Radnor, PA, asks: Your item on the events of the day following Charlie Kirk's murder noted how this could militarize MAGA types. You mentioned the Reichstag Fire. But I also thought of the April 6, 1994 assassination of Rwanda President Juvénal Habyarimana, which set off the subsequent Rwandan Genocide.

My question is: How likely do you think this event is to ignite something like that? Do we have to worry about MAGA militants going into Black, LGBTQ, and other communities hostile to them and committing mass murder in retaliation?

(Z) answers: It is concerning that one of the people who might indulge in violent tendencies happens to control the most powerful law enforcement and military establishments in the world. Were Donald Trump to use this as pretext to wage war on Democratic cities, it could get ugly.

However, even he seems to be backing down (he said yesterday that he's not going to undertake "operations" in Chicago after all, at least not right now). The United States is a large country with a lot of people, and a full-scale campaign of violence and mass murder would spread the government's forces very thin in very short order (especially since many soldiers, and probably most, would refuse to participate). It would probably also lead to Trump being impeached, and probably imprisoned (there are some bridges that are too far, even for pliant Republican members of Congress).

And as to private citizens, the MAGA types who take AK-47s to Walmart, and who play soldier on the weekends, are generally incompetent cowards. If they tried to raid, say, Los Angeles or Portland, OR, or Boston, they would quickly be neutralized by local law enforcement and/or by residents who aren't cowards and who actually do know what they are doing. There are many, many, many veterans out there, for example, and we know what side 99% of them (if not more) would come down on.

---

D.K. in Iowa City, IA, asks: Do you think an attorney could defend the assassin on the basis of justifiable homicide since Kirk was anti-vaxx, anti-foreign aid, supported the 1/6 insurrection, ruined people's careers with false accusations, supported all of Trump's actions, etc.?

(Z) answers: Nope. That basic line of defense has been tried many times before, and the courts have established very clearly that for homicide to be justified, the target not only has to be a threat, but the threat they pose has to be imminent. If someone, say, pulls a gun on you, that's an imminent threat. If they give a speech calling for an end to vaccination, that might ultimately harm or kill you, but the threat is not imminent, and so is not legal justification for homicide.

---

D.S in Davis, CA, asks: Is the assassination of Charlie Kirk going to be seen as the future as the right-wing version of the assassinations of either Martin Luther King Jr. or John F. Kennedy?

(Z) answers: Well, the response to those assassinations was very different. Starting with the King assassination, his death lit the fuse on resentments that had been building for years, and so there was much rioting after his death. For all the angry words that have come from the people who liked/loved Kirk, there has been no rioting, and none appears imminent. And these things do not generally happen on a delay—either the rioting is immediate, or it doesn't happen at all.

What King's assassination did not have, in any identifiable way, was a long term impact on national affairs. His main political project (eliminating state-sanctioned de jure racism) was effectively complete by the mid-1960s, and his movement had lost some focus, and was struggling to find an agreed upon plan for moving forward. By contrast, Kennedy's assassination, while it did not trigger mass riots, most certainly did have a long-term impact on national affairs. Lyndon B. Johnson used JFK's legacy, and his late-in-life-but-still-noticeable support for civil rights legislation, to rally support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and several other Great Society initiatives.

It is possible that Republicans will turn Charlie Kirk into a rallying point, and will try to pass legislation, using his name and legacy to rally support. The problem here is that Kirk's legacy isn't going to motivate anyone who isn't already voting with the Republicans in Congress. Another problem is that the Republicans do not have someone with Lyndon B. Johnson's vote-whipping skills, nor a sizable partisan majority in both chambers, as was the case in the 1960s.

Let's put it this way. John Lewis is a much less divisive figure than Charlie Kirk. And the Democrats, with their fairly-good-at-vote-whipping presidents, and their narrow majorties in Congress, have tried to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act at least four times, and it hasn't gone anywhere. Hard to see how the Charlie Kirk Christian Rights Act might produce a different outcome.

Fun Stuff

R.M.S. in Lebanon CT, asks: Tennis has switched to 100% electronic calls at Grand Slams. I feel this has greatly benefited the sport. It eliminated subjective judgments about calls, reduced human errors, and made players much less likely to get angry over calls. Why haven't most other sports done this? Baseball would become much more enjoyable because I think the sport has a lot of questionable umpiring, especially at home plate.

(Z) answers: Well, Major League Baseball is going to switch to electronically called strikes next season, so there's that. Similarly, the National Football League is getting close to letting computers decide if there was a first down or not.

What these things, and the tennis calls, have in common is that they're very objective, and they all involve measurements that a computer can be set to judge with a high level of accuracy. It's pretty easy to tell the computer where the strike zone is, or where the first down line is, or where out-of-bounds is.

For most other officiating decisions, however, there are too many moving parts, and there's often a need for some amount of subjective judgment. It's hard to see how a computer could be programmed to handle holding calls in the NFL, for example, since there are 22 players on the field, who could be anywhere on the field at any time, and who could all commit a holding penalty in a 360-degree field of motion. Even if the computers could be programmed to watch 22 different players for holding penalties, calling the fouls by the letter of the rules would result in nearly every play getting called back. That would be very boring, and so there's a lot of judgment as to when a line has actually been crossed, not unlike how far above the speed limit you actually have to go to get a ticket.

Consequently, computers will take over some officiating functions, but we cannot imagine they'll ever take over all of them.

---

C.P. in Silver Spring, MD, asks: Since (Z) is an Angels fan, I wanted to ask: Did you get to see Mike Trout live much during his prime years (2011-18)? Did you see any particularly noteworthy plays live? Relatedly, do you think he'll have any trouble getting elected to the Hall of Fame given some of his recent injury history?

For V, did you watch baseball much growing up and, if so, were there any particular players you followed?

(Z) answers: I saw Trout in person dozens of times during his prime years. There is no play that stands out, however, as that's not really his bag. He wasn't a highlight-reel defensive player, nor a swing wildly and maybe something amazing happens kind of hitter. He was a guy who was very good at all phases of the game, and was very consistent and mechanically sound. So, he produced a great deal of value, but not too many eye-popping highlights.

Assuming there is no complicating factor (a gambling scandal, a positive steroid test, etc.), Trout will sail into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. For old-school types, he is a three-time MVP who also finished second four times, an 11-time All-Star, a 9-time Silver Slugger winner, and a fellow who is just about to hit his 400th home run at the age of 34, and who will almost certainly clear 500 home runs before he's done. For new-school types, he is a three-time MVP who also finished second four times, an 11-time All-Star, and a fellow who will finish well north of 80 WAR. That is the résumé of a slam-dunk HoF candidate.

(V) answers: The only sports team I ever followed was the New York Yankees. My favorite player was Mickey Mantle.

Only much later did I discover that when you take a 19-year-old kid from a town of 500 people in rural Oklahoma and suddenly make him one of the most famous and best-paid people in the country, well, what could possibly go wrong? He's kind of a tragic figure. Big contrast with teammate Yogi Berra.

---

D.S. in Layton, UH, asks: Tomorrow a stunned world awakens to discover that Kirsty Coventry is producing Electoral-Vote.com and the IOC is now being headed by (V) and (Z). Which events are you 86-ing and what new ones are you introducing to the Olympics?

(Z) answers: I will start by accepting your implied constraint, as well as the apparent reality, that there is a limited amount of "space" at the Olympic games, and that the addition of a sport requires the subtraction of a sport.

Starting with sports I would subtract, I'm personally not a fan of sports where winners are determined by judging, especially since most spectators can't really understand the factors that go into the judging. That said, I also recognize that the Olympics are the one time that the top athletes in these sports get to be "stars." And, there are obviously a lot of fans who enjoy gymnastics, or diving, or ice skating, or whatever. So, I would ultimately come down on the side of keeping those sports, even if they're not my thing.

In terms of sports that I WOULD get rid of, the three that immediately leap to mind are golf, tennis and association football. For most Olympic sports, the Olympics are the only event that gets worldwide exposure and coverage. For tennis/golf/association football, however, there are plenty of events that get that kind of exposure and coverage. Indeed, for those sports, the Olympics are something of a second-tier event, not as important as the majors in tennis or golf, or the World Cup in association football. Heck, FIFA doesn't even allow the best pro men to play in the Olympics.

The new sports I would introduce to replace those three? First is parkour, which is a great display of athleticism, and would also be forward-looking, as opposed to very-old-school sports like Greco-Roman wrestling. Second is dodgeball, which would be very entertaining, and would certainly draw viewers. And third is chess, which is more cerebral than athletic, but is surely as much a sport as, say, golf is. And while chess is a major activity worldwide, it doesn't have an event that gets the kind of worldwide exposure as, say, the Masters or Wimbledon. Do they even televise the World Chess Championships in the United States?

---

F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: Which rules of the game would you change in the NFL, the MLB, the NBA and the NHL?

(Z) answers: I am going to limit myself to one each.

In the NFL, the onside kick is basically dead. Now that teams have to announce their intention to kick onsides, they almost never recover (something like 3% of the time). This makes desperate, last-minute comebacks very difficult, unless a team has the good fortune to be playing the Ravens. So, I would implement the idea that's been bandied about, that a team can have a 4th-and-20 at, say, their own 40-yard-line instead of kicking off. That's a tough conversion, but at least they'd have a chance, and it would be far more exciting than onside kicks are these days.

For MLB, I would impose some sort of limit on how many relievers a team can have on their rosters. Maybe five. It's too easy, and too antithetical to offensive production, to be able to yank the starter after two times through the opposing lineup.

In the NBA, I really dislike it that, in many games, committing a foul goes from being a bad thing to being a good thing. All obviously deliberate fouls should be treated as such—the team that is targeted should get two shots and the ball. Fouls should not be a tool that a trailing team uses to preserve the clock and to try to get back into the game. If they want to get back in the game, they should use a little something we call "defense."

And for the NHL, I would make it a lot harder to be called offsides. Maybe you have to be TWO lines ahead of the person with the puck. Seeing a promising attack on the net come to a premature end because one guy was one foot out of position takes some of the excitement away.

---

M.D., San Tan Valley, AZ, asks: As a 20+ reading fan of your site, It's obvious you both are highly educated and very informative. My question is: What common truth is shared by millions of people that either (V) or (Z) does not share to be factual?

(Z) answers: Neither of us believe in any popular conspiracy theories, if that is what you mean. However, there are plenty of things where we know the truth about something, and we know the more common false version of something, and we often know why the false version caught on. Indeed, just this week, (Z) did an exercise with his students where he asked them to guess whether 10 famous historical facts are true or false (it was a trick; they were all false), and then he discussed how the false version of events took hold. Among the items in that exercise: Washington did not chop down a cherry tree, Columbus did not prove the earth was round, Marie Antoinette did not say "let them eat cake," Napoleon was not short, Vikings did not wear horned helmets, and Paul Revere did not ride alone.

There are also things where one or both of us strongly suspects that "the conventional wisdom" is probably off. To give a politics example, many people operate under the belief that if Kamala Harris had a longer time to campaign, or if the Democrats had been able to stage a proper primary process, then Donald Trump certainly would not have won the 2024 election. I think that's highly speculative at best, and almost certainly incorrect, given the worldwide trends we saw in 2024. Leaders were swept out of power during and by the pandemic, and then their replacements were swept out of power 2-4 years later by the after-effects of the pandemic.

---

G.G. in Shreveport, LA, asks: When The Beatles sang "goo-goo-ga-joob," just what were they trying to say?

(Z) answers: Absolutely nothing; conveying as little meaning as possible was the goal. John Lennon found out his old school was analyzing Beatles songs in English courses. Either because he was annoyed by his experience at the school, or because he was annoyed at the pretension of treating rock songs as literature, or because he just wanted to amuse himself (accounts vary as to which it was), he set out to write a song where the lyrics had absolutely no meaning.

Note that, although Lennon did not conceive of it in this way, such an exercise is VERY postmodern.

---

K.C. in McKinleyville, CA, asks: Not sure if you've had the chance to rank your favorite Star Trek series and reasons why, I guess now is as good a time as any. Yes, I know this particular question has the potential to be VERY long.

But it's Trek. That's not a bad thing...

(A) answers: Rather than rank only my favorite Star Trek series, I went ahead and ranked all the series (excluding Short Treks).

1. The Original Series (TOS): I know, sacrilege. I respect TOS. Without it, naturally, we would not have any of the Star Trek series that followed. It set a new standard for science fiction and inspired multiple generations of scientists along with many new technologies. I've even heard the argument that Kirk was portrayed as a lothario so the show would be more appealing to women. Ultimately, to this modern viewer's eye (I watched TOS for the first time just a few years ago), it's a slog. There are only about four different plots the show rotates through and I find the pacing excruciatingly slow.
   
   
2. Picard (PIC): Uneven, a mess. Season 3 was the best but it's a low bar, and not good enough to make the first two seasons worth sitting through. It's too bad; I loved the crossover teaming of Picard with Seven of Nine, given their shared history of being enslaved by, and eventually breaking away from, the Borg.
   
   
3. Enterprise (ENT): Also uneven, but sometimes it gets it right. Worth watching to further establish the historical ST universe. Like the modern Trek series that came before it (TNG, DS9 and VOY), it needed one to two seasons to find its footing. And T'Pol is the worst Vulcan.
   
   
4. The Animated Series (TAS): Disclaimer: This is the only series I haven't finished watching (of those that are no longer in production). I'm a handful of episodes into the first season. Right away, I preferred it over TOS. As a Saturday morning cartoon, the episodes are half the length of TOS episodes, so the pacing is necessarily tighter. The animated format gave the show the freedom to explore wilder species, environments, and plots than they were able to have on TOS. For the first time, the Enterprise feels like a truly cross-species ship, with a triped (Lieutenant Arex) and a feline humanoid (Lieutenant M'Ress) on the bridge. The animation is amusingly archaic, but all of the positives more than make up for that.
   
   
5. Discovery (DIS): Some people really hate Discovery, as if the spore drive is infectious or something. Like Picard, DIS is uneven; however, unlike Picard, the occasionally stupid plot points lead to great arcs. A Starfleet officer convicted of mutiny manages to become a captain? Ridiculous. But if you can make it past that, I think Michael Burnham is a great captain. Another example is the Discovery's much-maligned escape to the future. I agree that it was a silly solution. But I loved seeing the Federation in the 32nd century, first as one man, sitting alone in a space station, then the gradual rebuilding of a new United Federation of Planets. At this point, Star Trek is best when exploring... strange... new... characters and plots, as opposed to rehashing characters who were introduced almost 60 years ago.
   
   
6. Deep Space Nine (DS9): Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek, famously had a "no interpersonal conflicts" rule for the main characters of any Star Trek property of which he was in control. He believed that humanity, and in particular the Federation, would have moved past conflict by the 23rd century (when TOS was set). Roddenberry passed away while TNG was still going strong, so the series that followed TNG, DS9, was the first ST series created without the restriction of Roddenberry's "no conflicts" rule. I resisted watching DS9 for a long time. No matter how good I heard it was, I couldn't muster any excitement for a series that, as I complained before seeing it, "... just sits there, they don't GO anywhere, boldly or otherwise?!?" Once I was finally forced to give it a chance (because I set out to watch all the ST series), I liked it more than I thought I would. However, I still couldn't care about it as much as, say, Voyager, whose run mostly overlapped with DS9 and was exploring the mysteries of the Delta Quadrant, albeit involuntarily. Besides the notable lack of trekking, DS9 also felt a little soapy at times (after all, Star Trek writers had been saving up all that interpersonal conflict for over 25 years by the time DS9 premiered) and I struggled to adequately suspend my disbelief for the series' conclusion.
   
   
7. Prodigy (PRO): I know a lot of Star Trek fans who haven't yet given Prodigy a chance because it's "the one for kids." It may be made for kids, but it clearly isn't targeted at little kids. The show never talks down to the audience, and it sometimes surprised me with how dark it went (torture and death). At first, my main complaint wasn't that it was a kids' show, it was that it felt more Star Wars than Star Trek. That initial impression faded away as the show found its footing.
   
   
8. Strange New Worlds (SNW): Disclaimer: I have yet to start season 3 (the current season). This one is about Captain Christopher Pike, helming what will eventually be Kirk's Enterprise, the NCC-1701 ("no bloody A, B, C or D"). The first season was a spin-off of DIS, as Captain Pike took temporary command of the USS Discovery when the Enterprise was out of commission. SNW is meant to be more of a classic, TOS-style series with episodes that are, for the most part, unconnected to each other. But it also connects Pike's first Star Trek appearance, in the original TOS pilot episode "The Cage" (which aired for the first time in 1988) with his ultimate fate, as seen in the TOS episode "The Menagerie." There are young versions of some TOS characters, such as Spock and Uhura, mixed with new characters. Ortegas and Dr. M'Benga are stand-out additions. See season 2, episode 8, "Under the Cloak of War," for the best of Dr. M'Benga and the best example of the first two seasons. However, be warned: I have never served in the military nor spent any time in a war zone, but I found "Under the Cloak of War" traumatizing. It haunted me for weeks.
   
   
9. The Next Generation (TNG): This was the first series I watched, the one that made me fall in love with Star Trek, so it will always hold a special place in my heart. I've probably rewatched the whole series more than any other ST (with Voyager a close second). Across all of the ST series, Data is my favorite character (The Doctor from Voyager is a close second; the two are practically the same character).
   
   
10. Voyager (VOY): The first trekking Trek (see DS9 above) created after Roddenberry's death, Voyager had an all-new crew on a unique mission. Stranded in the Delta Quadrant, they must settle in for what is supposed to be a journey of over 70 years. They trade and scavenge for food and supplies along the way, and turn a ship that was only meant for a journey of a few weeks into a generational ship, ironically more like the Enterprise-D (NCC 1701-D) in TNG. It's an environment ripe for interpersonal conflict, and it gets dark. See "Year of Hell" parts I and II in season 4, and the infamous "Tuvix" in season 2 as examples (a friend of mine once summarized "Tuvix" as "Jesus, they just kept turning off more and more lights"). Also, Tuvok is the best Vulcan.
    
    
11. Lower Decks (LD): I could watch all five seasons on an endless loop and still find it entertaining (and still find more "easter eggs" on each viewing). Yes, Lower Decks makes a mockery of Star Trek. It very clearly does so with nothing but love in its heart. Why did Nick Locarno (TNG episode "The First Duty") look exactly like Lieutenant Tom Paris (VOY)? Are all Orion women "slave girls?" What were the consequences of bringing whales to the future in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home? What would really happen in a universe with no interpersonal conflict? Lower Decks answers all the pressing questions that have accrued over the decades. It's fan service (which some people seem to consider intrinsically negative), but it's also hilarious, heartwarming, full of joy and overflowing with love for its source material. Lower Decks adores Star Trek, and I adore Lower Decks.

---

B.M. in Chico, CA, asks: (Z) has mentioned that his favorite Star Trek series is Deep Space Nine (or, at least, that Sisko is his favorite captain). In the Muppet recasting of the show, which muppets will play which roles and which actor will remain as the token human celebrity in the cast?

(Z) answers: Well, the easiest role to cast is Worf, who will be played by Oscar the Grouch. They're both cranky all the time. (And yes, the Sesame Street characters were created by Jim Henson, and are considered muppets, though we'll try to avoid going to that well too much.)

Next up, Jadzia is attractive and talented, but sometimes has diva-like tendencies. So, Miss Piggy. When Miss Piggy is killed off at the end of the sixth season, she'll be replaced by Annie Sue.

Sisko is the leader, and he knows how to handle Jadzia, when it's needed. He's also sensitive to his culture's history of racial oppression. Paging Kermit the Frog, who knows it's not easy being green.

For obvious reasons, Dr. Julian Bashir will be played by Dr. Bunsen Honeydew.

Miles O'Brien is curly-haired and upbeat, and is always the one who gets kicked in the testicles when it's needed for entertainment purposes. Sounds like Fozzie Bear.

Nobody quite knows what Garak's story is. Sounds like Gonzo, who we always suspected had a dark past.

Gul Dukat is clearly mentally imbalanced, certainly by the show's end. So is Crazy Harry.

Rom is very amiable and seems simple-minded, but is actually multi-talented. Sounds like Big Bird.

Morn never speaks on camera. Beaker almost never speaks on camera.

Quark has distinctive ears, and sharp teeth, and mostly cares about crunching numbers, just like Count von Count.

Jake and Rom are an odd-couple style duo, where one is tall and the other... much less so. Bert and Ernie can take those parts.

And that leaves us with just one major role uncast. The "human" who will stand around among all these puppets, probably "harumph"-ing most of the time, is Odo.

---

F.C. in Sequim, WA, asks: While living in Idaho for a few years and getting to know lots of people in Montana. I heard several stories as to why the State of Idaho has the weird panhandle shape. One story was a poker party with big-time gamblers from both states, and the winner got to help decide the border. Another has members of Congress being bribed with gold nuggets. So the gold mines stayed in Montana. And another says the surveyors took the wrong mountain range/trail. An offshoot with the surveyor story involved says, you guessed it, gold nuggets were also involved. There is even a version that involves the Earp brothers, Wyatt and Morgan, and the Idaho silver mines. What does history say?

(Z) answers: There are many fanciful stories, but the truth is that Idaho's borders were changed half a dozen times over the years, always at the end of a boring negotiating process that invovled people in suits sitting in a room somewhere. The "handle" up north was a compromise with Montana, so residents of both states would have access to the Bitterroot Mountains, where gold was discovered in the 1860s.

Anyone who is interested in this general subject should pick up a copy of How the States Got Their Shapes, by Mark Stein.

---

P.F. in Goldvein, VA, asks: Across various media (music, plays, movies, literature, and more) people express the idea that New York City is exceptional! Amazing! That the Big Apple is the best City in the world! One doesn't have to look very hard before seeing evidence that other folks think that actually Los Angeles is the most amazing place ever. Looking at other U.S. cities, I haven't seen the same levels of belief or expressions of their exceptionalism. Generally it seems to me that folks from other cities might love their towns, but they don't elicit the same levels of devotion. I have seen feelings for Chicago come the closest, and maybe Las Vegas after that.

So, is this caused primarily because New York City and Los Angeles have driven so much of American culture in the last century or so (Broadway, Radio, book publishing, Newspapers, TV, and Hollywood) or is there more history going back further? Are there any other cities in the U.S. that have similarly overinflated egos?

What about outside the U.S.: Do cities like London, Tokyo, Paris, Shanghai, Sydney, Bangkok, Rio de Janeiro, Jakarta, or any others that think New York City is overrated and that they ought to be the center of the universe?

(Z) answers: It is very much due to the fact that New York and Los Angeles produce most of the mass entertainment, particularly movies and TV shows, and they set a disproportionate number of those movies/shows within their cities, either as a cost-saving measure, or because of municipal pride. It also helps that both cities are populous enough, and varied enough, to have a complex, multi-layered culture. In many places, it's state identity that is a source of pride, because the cities aren't really large enough or economically/culturally diverse enough to build an identity around.

Whatever is going on, it is certainly not a matter of "history," at least not substantially, as Los Angeles has only been a major urban center for maybe 80 years. Nearly all of the United States' large cities, outside of the ones in Arizona and maybe a couple in Texas, have been major urban centers for much longer than that.

I do not believe that any cities think more highly of themselves than New York and Los Angeles. That said, Boston, and then Philadelphia, are not TOO far behind on the list, and then Chicago, and then maybe New Orleans and San Francisco. I would not put Las Vegas all that high, as the city is too transient.

I am not in a position to comment on the self-image of city-dwellers outside the U.S., but am happy to hear from people who ARE able to comment.

Reader Question of the Week: Teaching Assistance, Part II

Here is the question we put before readers two weeks ago:

M.R. in Lowell, MA, asks: I am going to start teaching full time at a university this fall. Any suggestions?

And here some more of the answers we got in response:

C.S. (husband, student affairs administrator) and B.S. (wife, adjunct faculty) in Philadelphia, PA: Two responses from us:

C.S.: Get to know your colleagues who provide student support. Students are coming in with more and more mental health concerns and unmet needs (financial, food, housing). If you connect with your students, they will open up to you. You are not expected to solve their issues; however, referring them to the right people can. Also understand campus policies regarding academic dishonesty and disruptive classroom behavior and seek appropriate support from those staff. The student and institutional culture may be significantly different from where and when you went to school. Take time to learn it.

B.S.: Have good shoes and stay hydrated. Walking to and from classrooms and offices takes more time than you think. Learn the classroom technology (your online learning management software, for example) and use free resources that are available through your institution and on the Internet. Be prepared to be inundated with trainings and information and expect to be busy. Walk through the school to get a feel of things outside of your class and department. Despite being a reading instructor, I use the art gallery regularly in my assignments.

---

K.G. in Columbus, OH: A professor for 39 years now, I have taught at a big university, a couple of small colleges, and a law school. I have taught everything from remedial courses of a dozen undergrads to large lecture sections of law students in arena-style classrooms. And, for what it's worth, I have won a couple of teaching and advising awards. My biggest piece of advice: Assert your authority early. This advice does not mean that one should be a dictatorial jerk; quite the contrary, one can—and should—conduct a class in a good-humored, respectful, and enthusiastic way. But I always think of that "here's a dime" scene in The Paper Chase. I know it's an exaggerated fictional situation, but there is no doubt that John Houseman's character, Professor Kingsfield, is the expert, and he is the one running the show. Ultimately, students respect and admire him. And they learn.

So many administrators (many of whom are failed teachers) spew out bromides about faculty being mere "co-learners" or "facilitators" who "learn just as much from their students as they do from them." Don't listen. You are there because you know your stuff better than any other person in that room, and you have the rare privilege of sharing all you know with a receptive audience. Enjoy every minute of it.

---

M.G. in Boulder, CO: When I was going to start teaching, one of my favorite teachers advised, "Learn their names. Then they think you know them." It works like magic. Students feel acknowledged, and when you know which name goes with which face, you can attach the name and face to whatever they say or write, and you do begin to know them. It also means that you can grade more fairly because you are seeing a whole picture, rather than just averaging numbers. In addition, students are more comfortable in class because they feel they know their classmates. One student said, "This is my favorite class, and it's NOT my favorite subject." (By the way, this also works with hospital personnel if you are ever a patient. Everyone appreciates being acknowledged as a human being.)

I taught at a university originally built to serve non-traditional students. They were encouraged to use our first names and we did the same, which encouraged a non-threatening atmosphere, something those students needed. At the school for young men where I first taught, students were made to use our titles and last names, while teachers referred to students by last name only. I used Mr. and last name and had many fewer discipline problems.

Something else that can be useful: Get to know your library and the librarian who specializes in your subject area. Many libraries have librarians for specialized areas (bibliographers), and they choose the books the library holds on each subject. If your bibliographer knows you, you'll have a greater influence on the book collection in your areas of interest.

Some libraries have library instruction programs. If not (or even if so), you can work out a tour of the library for your students. Check the library literature for some older articles (now classics) on instruction by Lori Arp and Betsy Wilson. They divide libraries into three main departments: (1) Reference (encyclopedias, dictionaries, fact books) for short, fast information; (2) regular check-out books (for in depth, detailed information); and periodicals (newspapers, magazines, and journals) for current or time-of-the-action information. It's useful for students to know that reference books include general encyclopedias (e.g., World Book) and specialized encyclopedias (e.g., The Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Take your students to those areas so they know where to go. Also explain why the library is different than the Internet (library material is carefully chosen to be the best available). When my library began our Arp/Wilson-based instruction, we were startled by the reactions of the professors—they'd never put this information together for themselves and clearly wished someone had done it for them.

One last thing: If you don't know where to go in a library, find the Reference desk. That's where they keep librarians (people with degrees in library science), whose expertise is in finding information.

---

R.A.G. in Seattle, WA: Decide now what brought you to teaching, and why it gives you joy. Write it down. Remember it in the classroom every class. Say it to yourself before each time you interact with a student. Do that every time you interact with a colleague, administrator, or dean.

---

J.P. in Horsham, PA: In your syllabus, put in a comment that is in the greater headers but not really visible to human readers, that will make Large Language Models (like ChatGPT) say something completely ridiculous and not related to any specific assignments, so you can know whether or not your students aren't doing the actual work.

---

D.A. in Brooklyn, NY: I've been a full-time computer science professor for 45 years. Two pieces of advice: (1) Have high goals but expect to fail. Make sure your failures are glorious, ones that you can be proud of. I've never taught a class the same way twice. I keep searching for that elusive success; (2) Remember that your class is just a small part of the life of each of your students. Give as much as you can to them, but realize that what they can put into the class will vary, and never take it personally.

---

A.C. in Kingston, MA: I'd like to welcome M.R. in Lowell to the teaching ranks.

So much teaching advice is specific to the subject area, the age/grade level, and/or the teacher's own experience in the field. But the number one hallmark of a great teacher is their ability to be reflective and willing to adjust.

First, ask yourself throughout the semester, how did it go today/this week/this month? What went well? What didn't, and how could I change to make it go better?

Second, establish and maintain a climate of respectful and open communication with your students. Be open to feedback when they tell you they're not understanding something, or that an assignment is unreasonable.

Third, find colleagues who will support you and help you improve your teaching practice. Good teachers steal ideas from other teachers all the time! (In fact, I'm happy to let colleagues steal my ideas—what's good for my students is good for their students.)

And, a classic for any new teacher: Think back to your experiences as a student. Who were your favorite/best teachers and why? Who were your least favorite teachers and why? My first years teaching, I was inspired more by my least favorite teacher: I'd always ask myself what he did, and then resolve to do the opposite. It seems to have worked, as I'm starting my twenty-fifth year of K-12 teaching and my fifth year as an adjunct college instructor.

---

P.B. in Redwood City, CA: Watch the movie Stand and Deliver.

---

A.L. in Montreal, QC, Canada: I've going into my seventh year teaching as a university professor, and my advice is that it's both easier and harder than people think. It's easier because so much of good teaching has nothing to do with fancy techniques or creative methods; instead, by far the biggest determinant of quality is the amount of effort that one puts into one's teaching. This is also why it's harder than people think—most people underestimate the sheer amount of effort it takes to plan a good class. When new faculty members in our department ask for advice, I always tell them that their first year is going to feel terrible. No matter how qualified someone is, it's just a lot of work to teach a course for the first time. There's no two ways about it. But it gets better.

To make things marginally easier, I strongly recommend asking older colleagues for their materials. The vast majority of people remember how hard it was when they first started, and are more than happy to pay it forward. I wouldn't lecture off their notes verbatim, but it's a tremendous help to have a starting point that you know is at least passable. (And if you're in a department where senior colleagues don't want to help out, polish up your CV and get out of there as soon as you can!)

Finally, treat your students with respect. While there are certainly some bad actors, most students are interested in learning. I'm often surprised by the number of my colleagues that aren't able to empathetically remember what it was like to struggle as a student. Be upfront with students and transparently explain pedagogical choices. Some choices that you make will be unpopular, but usually at the university level the students are mature enough that they appreciate statements like "I know you suggested X, but I'm going to do Y, and Z is the reason I'm doing it."

Good luck! Be kind to yourself and treat yourself to something nice when it gets stressful!

---

C.S. in Lake Elmo, MN: Define your job. I suggest the correct answer is "to energize and inspire."

---

B.D.M. in Tempe, AZ: For university teaching, I think a key is to communicate with your departmental colleagues who teach the same course, and work together on as many consensus policies as possible for your syllabus. It saves a lot of discussion when you can explain to a student that your policies are not arbitrary, but are a departmental policy or consensus. Then the student won't waste time complaining about rules and might then focus more on the subject matter.

---

S.H. in Duluth, MN: As a current undergraduate student who started this fall, I wanted to tell M.R. in Lowell that if they wanted to be popular with the students, one thing they could do is have the weekly homework due on a Sunday rather than on a Friday. I think I speak for my fellow college students well when I say that we generally like it when we are granted the weekend as extra time to do work.

We got so many good responses, we're going to do one more week of this. Then we will follow that with a VERY appropriate follow-up question.

There's still time for other respondents to weigh in. Submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Teaching Assistance"!

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger