Different School Shooting; Same Script

There was, as everyone knows by now, yet another school shooting this week. Two elementary school students at a Catholic school in Minneapolis were killed, with 18 others injured, by a shotgun-wielding assailant who then turned the gun on themself.

We don't like to ignore these stories, but we don't like to write about them, either, because what is there to say that hasn't already been said a million times? From the left, there were really just two basic responses: (1) How many more kids have to die before this country does something about gun violence? and (2) Take your empty "thoughts and prayers" and shove them.

From the right, which is obviously the more aggressively pro-gun faction, and so is put on its heels by tragedies like this, the responses were also predictable. Those responses change a little each time, to fit the particular circumstances, but it's nothing that even a beginning screenwriter couldn't knock out with, say, 2 minutes of typing time. As noted, the most common response was the religious stuff. Mostly that meant thoughts and prayers, though a few right-wingers went further. Former congressman and current Fox entertainer Trey Gowdy, for example, remarked that "the only thing that can give us any modicum of peace" is that the children are now with Jesus. This is all pretty tone-deaf. First, it makes it look like people are using the murder of innocent children to proselytize their religion. Second, if you're trying to emphasize the power of prayer and the love of Jesus, a circumstance in which religiously observant Christian children were killed while in the middle of prayer is probably not the best example to use.

Other folks on the right worked hard to pair their efforts at deflection with their own personal biases and pet issues. It is de rigueur, these days, for pro-gun folks to decree that the problem is mental illness and not guns. In this case, the shooter was someone who identified as trans, and their manifesto was full of angry words about trying to cope with that. Since gun violence is caused by "mental disorders," per many on the right, and since being trans is also a "mental disorder," according to many of those same individuals, the shooting incident was an opportunity to pair both things. For example, Scott Jennings, who is CNN's resident heel/right-wing reactionary, declared that the shooting happened because the shooter's mental illness (being trans) was encouraged, rather than being treated. What an absolutely vile thing to say. CNN should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to give him a platform.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tried a similar kind of maneuver, with his personal issues and pet biases. Also embracing the "mental illness" angle, RFK Jr. speculated that the shooter might have been triggered by taking serotonin reuptake inhibitors (in other words, antidepressants). The normally mild-mannered Sen. Tina Smith (DFL-MN) was infuriated by this, and got on eX-Twitter to post this PG-13 rated response:

I dare you to go to Annunciation School and tell our grieving community, in effect, guns don't kill kids, antidepressants do.

Just shut up. Stop peddling bullshit. You should be fired.

Hard to disagree with anything she wrote there.

There is, of course, no chance that the U.S. will ever become a gun-free country in the way that, say, the U.K. is. At least, not in the lifetime of anyone reading this. This being the case, the folks who would like to see the country do better have long ago accepted that the only possible change is greater restrictions on who can buy guns, how easily, and which guns they can buy. The pro-gun folks, by and large, have concluded that ANY limit on gun ownership, no matter how well justified, is the beginning of a slippery slope to a gunless society. So, they tend to resist any changes whatsoever. Indeed, after his "at least they're with Jesus" comment, Gowdy added this:

We're going to have a conversation of freedom versus protecting children. How many school shootings does it take before we're going to have a conversation about keeping firearms out of—it's always a young white male. Almost always.

It is instructive that he was excoriated on eX-Twitter by right-wingers for this, many of whom called for Fox to fire him.

In the end, the pro-gun forces are single-issue voters, and any Republican who dares support even the mildest gun-control puts their political future in peril. It wasn't always that way—the Brady Bill was the work of a Republican—but it's that way now. It would be nice, however, if Republicans would agree to keep their yaps shut after school shootings (and other mass shootings), instead of all this speculation and spin, as a kindness to the families of the victims.

Since repealing the Second Amendment is not in the cards, the only route we can even conceive of to end all these senseless killings is for the Democrats to expand the Supreme Court to 15 justices next time they get the trifecta (which means making the Republicans actually filibuster in July with the heat on until they drop). Then get some district judge to rule that the Second Amendment applies only to the muzzle-loading smooth-bore muskets available in 1789 and have the new Supreme Court uphold that. (Z)

The Trade Wars, Part I: A De Minimis Christmas?

Politically, the big questions about Donald Trump's Trade Wars are: (1) Who will feel the pinch?; (2) How soon? and (3) Will it affect their votes? Due to a Trump administration decision that looks, at least to us, to be pretty foolhardy, we may start to get answers more quickly than expected.

At issue here is what is known as the de minimis exemption to tariffs. Under the terms of the exemption, a U.S. consumer can import up to $800 per day of goods without paying tariffs or administrative fees. The practical implication of this, for most people, is that if, say, someone in Iowa orders a book from a seller in the United Kingdom, the seller can just send it via regular post (assuming the book's value is less than $800). A substantial amount of commerce takes place in this manner.

The White House, for its part, is referring to this as the "de minimis loophole." This is messaging that some media outlets, even non-right-wing ones, have adopted, and it's very misleading. In fact, the de minimis exception is close to a century old, having been adopted in 1938. Since then, Congress has revisited it on occasion, to raise the daily limit (the $800 limit, for example, was established in 2016, by an overwhelming bipartisan majority). It's hardly a "loophole" if Congress has looked at the thing a dozen times and... expanded it each time. The obvious purpose here is to avoid involving multiple extra layers of red tape to relatively small-dollar transactions, where the cost of collection may well exceed the revenue that is realized.

As part of his Trade War(s), Trump has decided to bring an end to the de minimis exception. Claiming, yet again, that there is a "national emergency," he issued an executive order that kills the exception for most transactions, as of tomorrow. Here is Senior Counselor to the President for Trade and Manufacturing Peter Navarro, explaining the administration's position:

President Trump's ending of the deadly de minimis loophole will save thousands of American lives by restricting the flow of narcotics and other dangerous and prohibited items, add up to $10 billion a year in tariff revenues to our Treasury, create thousands of jobs, and defend against billions of dollars more in losses in counterfeiting, piracy, and intellectual property theft.

As with most things that come from this administration, and pretty much everything that comes from Navarro, this doesn't pass the smell test. For example, even if we assume drug cartels try to sneak their stuff into the U.S. via mail, why would a tariff help combat that? Do we really imagine that, in that scenario, they honestly and correctly identify their package as containing $10,000 worth of cocaine? Or that they would say "Well, if we have to pay a tariff, we're not going to make any money on that cocaine!"? Similarly, if such tariffs were to "create thousands of jobs," it would be by causing consumers to buy from Americans instead of foreigners. But if so, then there won't be tariff revenue. It's another example of "you can't have it both ways"—you can't have a tariff that is substantially revenue-generating AND protectionist at the same time.

And although the new rule hasn't quite kicked in yet, the effects are already coming home to roost. Consider, first of all, something like this ship:

We do not know too much about the inner workings of big-time international shipping. But we know enough to know that there's someone in the port of departure who is an expert in dealing with tariffs and customs. And there is someone on the ship who is an expert in dealing with tariffs and customs. And there is someone in the port(s) of arrival who is an expert in dealing with tariffs and customs. Probably many someones, in each case. And they are supported by some heavy-duty software. These folks are all professionals, and their skills are a necessity when you're dealing with cargo valued in the tens of millions of dollars (or more).

And now, the big problem with the new, de minimis-free era that is set to begin tomorrow. When Mr. John Bull in London mails out a book to his customer, Sam Uncle in Iowa, there's nobody in the chain who is an expert in tariffs, and there's no infrastructure for collecting such duties. Remember, the de minimis exception has been around in the U.S. for generations, and the same is true in most other countries.

We guess—though you never know with this White House—that the thinking was that the various foreign postal services and vendors would adapt, but that is not what is happening. Already, postal carriers in Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom have announced that they are stopping shipments to the United States for now. Some of them say they are going to try to retool their systems, others are not so sure. In addition, many businesses who ship products to the U.S. say they are going to stop entirely, either because they don't want to risk any sort of legal or economic peril, or because they cannot profitably sell their goods with an additional excise attached.

Time will tell if TACO as usual. However, if the White House stays the course, well, the Christmas shopping season is around the corner. Franklin D. Roosevelt knew full well that the Christmas shopping season does much to boost both morale and the economy. He would never have dared to do anything to derail it and, in fact, he tried to move the Thanksgiving holiday one week earlier, so as to maximize it. "Franksgiving," as it was called, was not well received, to say the least, and FDR had to switch it back. Trump may be about to learn a similar kind of lesson about what happens when you screw up the holidays. (Z)

The Trade Wars, Part II: Xi Extends Arm, Raises Middle Finger

As long as we are on the subject of the Trade War(s), Trump's biggest and most dangerous adversary is Xi Jinping. That is true, we would say, for four reasons: (1) the U.S. does vast amounts of trade with China, and often for key goods that cannot be acquired in any other way; (2) China has vast reserves of U.S. currency, and so the ability to wreak havoc, if it wants to; (3) China has more "options" when it comes to trade, and is in a better position to tell Trump to pound sand than, say, Mexico or Canada and (4) you don't get to be the leader of a billion-person nation without some serious political skills, and Xi is certainly a shrewd cookie.

This upcoming Wednesday, China will commemorate the 80th anniversary of its victory over Japan in World War II. And the commemoration will feature a giant military parade, since Xi is an authoritarian, and that's what authoritarians do. Donald Trump loves military parades, since he is also an authoritarian, or at least a wannabe authoritarian. So, he would undoubtedly love an invite to the event. But he did not get one.

Who did get one? Well, Vladimir Putin, another authoritarian, did, and he's going to be there with колокольчики on. Kim Jong-Un, still another authoritarian, is also invited, and will also be there with 종 on. The general message of such a parade is: "Don't mess with China." The specific message of having Putin and Kim in attendance is "I can play this game better than you can, Donald" and also "You're not the only trade partner in the world." Undoubtedly, Xi has noted that Trump is getting nowhere in his efforts to talk turkey with Putin, and that Trump hasn't even been able to get Kim to commit to another meeting, even though Trump wants one.

There is some expectation that Trump will visit with Xi at some point in October or November. This kind of maneuvering is a reminder that, if they do meet, Xi is playing 4-D chess, while Trump is playing Candyland. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Mr. Churchill Says

We had a couple of hints for last week's headline theme. The first was "blood, toil, tears and sweat would be helpful in solving it," while the second was "having a Johnson would make things a far bit easier."

And here is the solution, courtesy of reader L.M. in Manchester, England, UK:

I believe today's theme is Prime Ministers of Britain—to wit:

• Legal News, Part I: Once Again, Donald Trump Is above the Law—Bonar Law, 1922-1923
• Legal News, Part II: Habba Suffers Major Setback—John Major, 1990-1997
• Today in Gerrymandering: The Redistricting Derby Is Officially Underway—Edward Smith-Stanley, styled as Lord Derby, 1834-1851
• Democratic Presidential Candidate of the Week, #29: Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)—Stanley Baldwin, 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Don't Forget to Buckle Your Truss—Liz "Lettuce" Truss, Sep.-Oct. 2022
• This Week in Schadenfreude: The British Know a Thing or Two about Petty Snubs—William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne, 1782-1783
• This Week in Freudenfreude: Solar May Make up Half of U.S.' New Capacity in 2025—Theresa May, 2016-2019

"Blood, toil, tears and sweat" is, of course, from Churchill's first speech to the House following his own appointment as Prime Minister during the war.

And the Johnson that would have been helpful to have is Boris, of course. We tried to make sure we used the names that the PMs were known by during their premiership; some are known more by their personal names, others by their titles. That said, we were relying on Oxford University as our source, and you know how these non-UC schools are kind of hit and miss.

Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:

K.G.W. in Lafayette, IN E.M. in Jersey City, NJ L.H. in Manchester N.H. in London, England, UK J.F. in Fayetteville, NC J.R. in Orlando, FL J.W. in York, England, UK S.K. in Ardmore, PA C.W. in Atlantic Beach, FL B.S. in Ottawa, ON, Canada T.J. in London, England, UK T.F. in Craftsbury Common, VT B.W. in Tyngsborough, MA P.M.G. in Denver, CO T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts N.C. in Columbus, MS T.K. in Manchester, MO S.G. in Durham, NC R.R. in Westborough, MA P.M. in Reading, England, UK G.W. in Avon, CT M.Z. in Sharon, MA J.N. in Zionsville, IN M.S. in Canton, NY B.J.L. in Ann Arbor, MI

J.C. in Daytona Beach, FL D.L. in Springfield, IL P.A. in Redwood City, CA M.B. in Menlo Park, CA M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada M.M. in Dunellen, NJ F.S. in Cologne, Germany M.S. in New York City, NY M.T. in Simpsonville, SC R.E. in Birmingham, AL D.D. in Carversville, PA M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO M.F. in Norwood, MA M.W. in Altea, Spain M.K. in Long Branch, NJ A.C. in Kingston, MA W.S. in Greenville, NC P.H. in Ft. Lauderdale, FL B.W.S. in Livingston, NJ S.W. in Corvallis, OR G.A. in North Bay, ON E.S. in Maine, NY E.B. in North Liberty, IA H.B. in Toronto, ON, Canada I.G. in New York, NY

The 50th correct response was received at 6:52 a.m. PT on Friday.

For this week's puzzle, we're going to try something a little different. Below are eight lists, each of them missing exactly one component of the list. For example, if the list was this:

• John, Paul, George

The missing item would be "Ringo."

Taken together, the eight missing components have something in common; that commonality is the theme for this week. As per usual, we can tell you what Trivial Pursuit category the theme fits in—Arts and Entertainment. And we'll add the hint that the correct answer is golden—or, at least it was last year.

Here are the eight lists:

• Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donder, Blitzen
• Knight, Reeve, Cook
• Seward, Cameron, Smith, Bates, Blair, Welles
• Lounge, Dining Room, Kitchen, Ballroom, Conservatory, Billiard Room, Library, Study
• Chamberlain, Gasol, Cooper, Baylor, Goodrich, Johnson, Abdul-Jabbar, O'Neal, Worthy, West, Wilkes, Mikan
• Newton, James, Virgil, Warren, Wyatt
• Scissors, Paper
• Armstrong, Aldrin, Conrad, Bean, Shepard, Michell, Scott, Irwin, Young, Cernan, Schmitt

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line August 29 Theme. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Another Sandwich Fail for Pirro

We hate to use the same cliché multiple times in the same week, but sometimes...

Earlier this week, we wrote:

The old saying, which we've repeated many times, is that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if they really want to. Well, it would seem that the grand juries of Washington are keeping kosher these days. Pirro's office went before one grand jury with the felony assault charge, and got the thumbs down. So, Pirro tried again, and yet again, and got two more rejections (proper term "no true bill"). That almost never happens, particularly three times on the same case. A prosecutor need only give evidence for the probable cause of a crime, with no arguments/pushback from the defense, and need only get the votes of a majority of the grand jurors. It's a low bar to clear, and Pirro and her team failed... three times.

As we noted in that item, Pirro's office eventually had to bow to reality, and pursue a lesser (and more reasonable) charge.

And now, it's happened again. As it turns out, Pirro's team can't get a jury to indict a ham sandwich, even if that sandwich is thrown at a law enforcement officer. The sandwich in question here was a Subway cold-cut combo (ham, salami, and bologna), and the thrower was Sean Charles Dunn, who hit a Customs and Border Protection officer on the night of August 10 in one of D.C.'s "nightlife" areas. Dunn lost his job working for the Department of Justice, and was arrested and jailed. It's the old story, you know: unlawful possession of an unlicensed hoagie.

Earlier this week, Pirro's office tried to return an indictment for felony assault of a law enforcement officer, but the grand jury was having none of it, and refused to approve the indictment. At least Pirro is able to learn from her mistakes, though. Instead of trying again and again, and ending up with egg on her face three times (enough for an omelet!), she gave up after the first fail, and reduced the charge to misdemeanor assault.

There are two things worth noting here, we think. The first is that a big part of the reason that grand juries almost always sign off on indictments is that they operate under the assumption that prosecutors are capable, have integrity, and are operating in good faith. Under those circumstances, a grand juror is going to be loath to substitute their own, amateur, judgment for that of the professionals. But if the grand jury believes that they cannot, in fact, put their faith in the prosecutors to play things straight, then all bets are off. Pirro, and other Trump prosecutors, could well be in for a long line of defeats of a sort that, until recently, were rare.

Second, whether Dunn does time or not, he's already become something of a folk hero. Copies of this Banksy-style image are popping up on walls in cities around the country:

There is very clearly a vocal, growing resistance to the Trump administration. And if he keeps going, it will keep growing. And motivated, angry, fed-up people are exactly the type who make sure to get themselves to the polls on (or before) Election Day. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: The First Lady Of Rhode Island Journalism

One of these days, hopefully soon, we are going to write another item about Donald Trump's efforts to de-"woke"-ify history, specifically at the Smithsonian Institution. What Trump and his ilk undoubtedly do not know is that people have been trying to diversify the story of America for a very, very long time—well before Trump was even born. It is true that such efforts were more limited 100 or 150 years ago, and also that they were prone to descend into tokenism and/or stereotyping. Still, the concern about a better-rounded historical record was there.

Take, for example, the story of women in Revolutionary-era America. For several generations, the go-to "person" used to get women into the story was Molly Pitcher, who ostensibly aided artillerymen at the Battle of Monmouth by bringing them drinking water, despite the obvious peril to herself. She became enough of a hero that there are still numerous streets, rest stops and other landmarks named for her. What was lost over the years, for many people, was that "Molly Pitcher" wasn't an actual person, it was a nickname for all the women who contributed to the war effort, very much along the same lines as the name "Rosie the Riveter." Such a thing does not work especially well for most kinds of narrative history, which tend to focus on specific people doing specific things at specific times. So, as people became aware that there was no Molly Pitcher, as such, she faded from the textbooks, and she doesn't get stuff named after her anymore.

Taking Molly's place, to a greater or lesser extent, was Betsy Ross. We imagine that everyone reading this knows about her, and how George Washington commissioned her to sew the first American flag. It's a fine, uplifting story, and there are many paintings and drawings and postage stamps commemorating that event. The story caught on to such an extent that, in a survey conducted for the Journal of American History a few years back, Ross was the most recognizable woman in American history among high schoolers (and one of only two women in the Top 20, along with Harriet Tubman). The good news is that Ross, unlike Pitcher, was a real person. And it is also true that she did sometimes sew flags. But the story about Washington and the first (or, sometimes, second) flag ever created is entirely unsupported by evidence, and was not mentioned by anyone until a century after Ross died.

It's something of a shame that so much attention was directed toward figures who probably didn't warrant it, as there were actually plenty of real women of real achievement in that era who could have (more justly) filled the same purpose. One such woman, and we've been intending to write about her for quite a while, for reasons that will soon become evident, is Ann Smith Franklin.

Even if readers do not recognize her, they undoubtedly recognize the last name, and so would probably guess that she was related to Founding Parent Benjamin Franklin. Indeed, she was; she was wife to Ben's older brother James, and was therefore Ben's sister-in-law. Many readers may know Ben's story well enough to know that he learned the printing trade as an apprentice to James, and then ran away to Philadelphia before his term of indenture was legally concluded. While in the City of Brotherly Love, Ben founded his own, wildly successful, printing operation, and became America's first media tycoon.

James was certainly a capable tradesman, and he was no slouch as a businessman. However, there was a marked difference between the brothers when it came to their political instincts. Ben certainly had strong ideas, but he was careful to read the room, as it were, and not to step on the wrong toes at the wrong time. James was, uh... more outspoken. Truth be told, he was basically his era's version of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. James was prone to conspiratorial thinking, and used his newspaper to rail against the alleged collusion going on between the Massachusetts legislature and pirates lurking around Newport, RI. He was also anti-vaxx, and said that smallpox inoculation was the work of Satan (no mention of it causing autism... but only because that condition was not yet known).

There was no guarantee of freedom of the press back then, so James' strong words caused him to be jailed for a while. Thereafter, it was made clear that Boston was not the place for him, if he wanted to stay out of jail. So, he and Ann fled to Rhode Island, where they set up the first printing press, and therefore the first publishing outfit, in the state. Back then, printers generally had to be jacks-of-all-trades to keep the business going. So, James and Ann took in jobs from private businesses (handbills, advertising posters, etc.). They published a newspaper, the Rhode Island Gazette. And they also published A Perpetual Almanac.

Identifying Ann's exact contributions to these projects is a tricky business. First, things like staff boxes and bylines were still many decades in the future, and to the extent that anything WAS signed, pseudonyms were generally used (e.g., Ben's "Poor Richard"). Further, because Newport was on the smaller side, population-wise (about 5,000 people), and because James and Ann did not achieve the level of historical notoriety that Ben did, many fewer of their publications have survived to the present day. For example, there is only one known copy of A Perpetual Almanac in existence.

It is beyond all doubt, however, that Ann helped with sales and editing. Further, because printing was done with small, individual, lead-type letters, typesetting was nearly always done by women or children because of their smaller hands. When A Perpetual Almanac was printed, the Franklins did not have children old enough for that task, so Ann certainly did the work, while also maintaining a household (a monumental task, in those pre-modern-convenience times).

James died in 1735, leaving Ann with little in the way of money, and four children under the age of 10 to support. She did have the printing press, which was still the only one in all of Rhode Island, so she just kept going as she had while her husband was alive. She managed to secure the contract to handle all the printing needed by the Rhode Island legislature. She published American editions of popular novels from England, such as Fair Rosamond (1746). She also revived the second almanac that she and her husband had founded, Rhode Island Almanac. These things made her the first woman printer in America; she was even listed as "printer" in the membership list of her congregation (it was VERY unusual at that time for a woman to be listed as anything unrelated to her domestic status).

For close to 15 years, Ann ran the print shop, aided by her daughters. James Jr., her only son, was sent to Philadelphia to finish his schooling, and then to apprentice with Uncle Ben (Franklin, not the racially tinged rice mascot). When James Jr. finally returned to Newport, he and his mother entered into a partnership, under the name "James and Ann Franklin." Together, they founded the Newport Mercury, which is still being published today. This probably made Ann the first woman newspaper publisher in American history, and it definitely made her the first woman newspaper editor. On top of that, the Mercury did not discriminate on the basis of race, and so became the first publication in America to feature verse from a Black, female poet (Phillis Wheatley).

As she reached her mid-fifties, which is AARP-eligibility age even now, and was quite old back then, Ann handed off many of the responsibilities of the business to her son (though she remained active in editing the Mercury). When James Jr. passed in 1762, however, Ann returned to full-time work, eventually taking on Samuel Hall (who may, or may not, have been her son-in-law) as a partner. It was Samuel who wrote and published Ann's obituary when she passed away on April 16, 1763:

The 19th Instant departed this life, Mrs. ANN FRANKLIN, in the 68th year of her Life. She had a fine Constitution, firm and strong; was never sick, nor ailing, scarcely in the whole Course of her Life, 'till a few Months before her Dissolution; nor did she ever take any sort of Medicine in all that long Space of Time, 'till that Sickness seized her, which brought her down to the Grave. When she reflected, in Health, on the Goodness of her Constitution, she was at a Loss to guess what Part would be attack'd by Sickness in order to bring on her Dissolution. But in her we see an Instance of the Truth of that Word, "The strong Men shall bow themselves." She was a Widow about 29 years. And tho' she had little to depend upon for a Living, yet by her Economy and Industry in carrying on the Printing Business, supported herself and Family, and brought up her Children in a genteel Manner; all of whom she bury'd sometime before her Death. She was a Woman of great Integrity and Uprightness in her Station and Conversation, and was well beloved in the Town. She was a faithful Friend, and a compassionate Benefactor to the Poor (beyond many of great Estates) and often reliev'd them in the Extremity of Winter. And, she was a constant and seasonable Attendant on public Worship, and would not suffer herself to be detain'd by trivial Family Concerns: Herein she excell'd most of her Sex.

She enter'd into the Christian Life in her early Youth, and has, ever since, adorn'd her Profession by an exemplary Conversation. And, under all the varying Scenes of Life, and some shocking Trials laid on her in the Wisdom of divine Providence, she maintain'd a noble Fortitude of Mind, mixt with Patience and Submission to the Will of God; though not without Imperfection.

Ann did not live to see this, of course, but during the Revolutionary War, British soldiers targeted the printing press that was being used to print the Mercury, which was the same one that both Ann and James had used through their entire career as printers (it was bought by James, in London, in 1717). So, the redcoats disassembled it and buried it. After the war, it was dug up, and put back to work printing the Mercury. Today, along with nearly everything else extant that relates to the life of the "First Lady of Rhode Island Journalism," the press is in the collection of the Rhode Island Historical Society.

Anyhow, this is a good time to write about something like this, because Donald Trump can try to rewrite the past as feel-good, white man history, but he will fail, sooner or later (almost certainly sooner). The past is a vast and complicated tapestry, and just as you cannot successfully display only, say, the red threads in an actual tapestry, you cannot successfully display only the white, male, straight, Protestant threads in the historical tapestry.

We know, of course, that we just did Learned Hand a couple of weeks ago. And it is not our intent to turn this feature into Profiles in Courage, the sequel. However, as we note above, we've been intending to write this item for a pretty long time, and just didn't have the chance. You know, the best laid plans of mice and men, and all that.

Why did we intend to write this item? Well, for the last couple of years (roughly), we have turned over most of the daily error-correcting, as well as a few other tasks along those lines, to a very capable former student of (Z)'s (a student from many years ago, mind you) named Sari Kaufman. Note that she is NOT the Sari Kaufman who went to high school in Florida, was part of the Parkland mass shooting, and is now a gun control activist. Our Sari Kaufman is, like (Z), a California native.

When Sari first joined the team, we told her to sign e-mails from (V) and (Z), since she was acting on our behalf anyhow. The idea was that she would eventually choose a nom de plume, and we would formally introduce her, and then she could sign as herself. She made her pick, but until today, we didn't take care of our part of the plan. Now, however, when folks who send corrections get a response signed (A), they will know who that is (both as a staffer of our site, and as a historical figure). (A) will also answer the occasional Saturday question once in a while, including one tomorrow.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

---

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