Dem
47
GOP
53
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."
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.
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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.