Peace in Israel... Maybe?

Take a look at five selected front pages from various prominent websites, as of 9:30 p.m. PT Thursday night:

We tried to make the image as clear as we could, without it getting too large in terms of file size. Anyhow, hopefully readers can see clearly that four of the five outlets had the Letitia James indictment as their lead story, with three of those framing it as an abuse of power and an attempt to avenge Donald Trump, and Fox presenting James as a bad person who probably got what she deserved. The fifth outlet, Politico, was leading with an "exclusive" about a Trump administration staffer—Paul Ingrassia, the White House liaison for the Department of Homeland Security—who allegedly was on a work trip with several female staffers, and arranged for one of the staffers' hotel room reservations to be canceled, so she had to room with him.

Meanwhile, all five outlets had the news out of Israel in the 1B slot, not 1A. And that was true of many other outlets we looked at, including The Hill, USA Today, CBS News, ABC News, and the Drudge Report. In fact, the only major U.S. outlet we could find that had Gaza in 1A was NBC News. Oh, and The Los Angeles Times had neither Gaza nor Letitia James in 1A, preferring instead to give that real estate to the Dodgers' victory over the Phillies. Priorities!

We start with this information because it affirms our instinctive sense of the news out of Israel—it's substantive enough that it merits attention, but it's too squishy to fully commit to it. Put another way, "PEACE IN ISRAEL" is a 1A story. "PEACE IN ISRAEL... MAYBE?" is a 1B story. This is "PEACE IN ISRAEL... MAYBE?," as you can see above.

First up, a rundown of information that does not appear to be in dispute. Last week, Donald Trump unveiled a 20-point plan for peace in Gaza, and he backed that up with threats that if Hamas didn't take the deal, "all hell will break out" against them. A couple of days later, after U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner traveled to the Middle East for some quick and dirty diplomacy, Hamas accepted. Yesterday, the Israeli government also accepted. In theory, that means that "phase one" of the peace deal is in effect, and everyone has to stop shooting. Meanwhile, Hamas has to return all remaining hostages, both living and deceased, while Israel has to free a couple of thousand Palestinians taken prisoner, and allow aid to be distributed freely in Gaza. The U.S. is sending 200 troops to Gaza to "monitor" the ceasefire.

And now, some questions. First up: Is the ceasefire actually being observed? Presumably, it will be, especially once U.S. troops arrive on the scene. However, in roughly 100.0% of wars in human history that have ended with an armistice like this, the warring factions always make sure to get in as much shooting as they can before they can't shoot anymore. At least two dozen Palestinians died yesterday, and as of 8:00 p.m. PT, it could not be confirmed by international observers that the Israeli Defense Force had received and/or implemented an order to stop fighting. So, the violence might not be over quite yet.

Next question: What next? (Z) is no expert in the Middle East, but he does know a thing or two about military history. And any military historian would certainly affirm two things. First, once the shooting has stopped, that is a very, very good thing, because it's pretty hard to get it started again. After months or years, people get very sick of war, and they quickly become very enamored of peace. Second, the process of getting from "we're not shooting anymore" to "a full, formal and stable peace" can be very sticky and very, very difficult. Think, for example, of the Treaty of Versailles, which produced a peace, but not one that proved stable. Or think of the armistice that ended the Korean War in July of 1953. They never did figure out the next step after that one, which is why the two Koreas are now in the eighth decade of a cold war and the 38th parallel is the most heavily militarized border in the world.

There are already many, many pieces about the problems that need to be ironed out if this peace deal is going to go anywhere. You can read examples here, here, here, here and here, if you like to get weedy. For our part, we'll highlight just one issue, though one that seems the toughest nut to crack from where we sit. Pretty much everyone agrees that Hamas needs to go, and that governance of Gaza should become the responsibility of the international community. Under the Trump plan, that governance would be done by a "Board of Peace" co-chaired by Trump and former U.K. PM Tony Blair. The problem here is that the "pretty much everyone" who agrees does not include... Hamas. It also does not, apparently, include the Palestinians. Already Hamas has said that the governing organ, whatever it is, needs to be Palestinian, and not international. This will not be easy to resolve. And even if Hamas agrees to cede power (no guarantee), they are certainly not going to be willing to entrust their protection to the Israeli government. So, what happens then? If Trump agrees to provide some sort of permanent security for Hamas, of all people, or he allows them to flee to, say, Iran, many Republicans will scream bloody murder. Some Democrats, too.

A third question: How much credit does Donald Trump deserve? Maybe his diplomacy and/or his saber-rattling mattered, but maybe it didn't. It's actually not too surprising that the two sides were willing to stop shooting now, even when both rejected a similar plan from Joe Biden last year. It is none too easy to maintain a resistance, guerrilla-type war effort, and Hamas was/is clearly running low on supplies and internal support.

On the other side of the conflict, while there seems to be sufficient materiel and sufficient political support domestically, Israel's position within the international community has weakened substantially this year. A number of prominent organizations have declared that nation to be guilty of genocide and, of course, the ICC has indicted PM Benjamin Netanyahu. On top of that, a number of key Western nations, including France, Canada, the U.K., Portugal and Australia, have recognized Palestine as a state. And this week, for the first time, U.S. pollsters found that more Americans support Palestine than support Israel. The gap is slight (about 1 point), but that also represents a 49-point shift since the October 7 attacks. In short, both sides of this conflict had very strong motivations to get while the gettin' is still good. Or, put another way, while Trump might deserve some/a lot of credit, he might just be entering from stage right at a very opportune time. Undoubtedly, people who understand this subject much better than we do will share some intelligent opinions over the next few days and weeks, as the dust settles.

And a final question: Was this deal rushed, so Trump could make the "Nobel Peace Prize" deadline? Trump badly wants a Peace Prize, and the announcement of the 2025 prize will be made this morning. So, if he's going to score a 9th-inning-two-outs-count-is-full "win," then some sort of deal had to be in place by yesterday at the very latest. Most people would love to be recognized in this way, and so one can hardly begrudge Trump's interest in winning. The fact that a big part of his motivation is to "equal" Barack Obama is less than admirable, of course, and the open and aggressive campaigning for the award is just plain crass. The main reason that all of this matters is that creating a self-imposed deadline can certainly help to encourage progress. However, it can also encourage sloppy work, and leaving loose ends unresolved. We'll eventually see which of these it is. It is worth mentioning that Trump was in a meeting yesterday when Secretary of State Marco Rubio came in and yanked his boss out, telling him (it was written on a note captured by photographers) that it was necessary to send out a message on social media immediately, so Trump could be first to announce the deal. Clearly, whatever other motivations the administration has, the PR angle looms very large.

We are writing this part around 11:00 p.m. PT, and we already know that the most common question in the mailbag for this week is "Could Trump really win a Nobel Prize here?" It is probable that the answer to that question will be known by the time this post goes live, and it will certainly be known before the Q&A goes live on Saturday morning. So, we are going to give our answer right now. If we find out what actually happened before this post goes live, we will add that information (and we promise not to edit our guess, if we prove to be wrong).

Our guess, and we think we're on pretty firm ground here, is that Trump will not win the Nobel. We have three reasons for thinking this. The first is that there have previously been three major "breakthroughs" in this area that were brokered by U.S. presidents: The Camp David Accords (1978), the Oslo Accords (1993) and the Abraham Accords (2020). Two of those produced a Nobel—Camp David and Oslo—and even those didn't go to the president involved (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, respectively; instead the Committee recognized Egyptian president Anwar Sadat and Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin for the Camp David Accords and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat for the Oslo Accords). Further, the Oslo Accords obviously did not produce a lasting peace and, in fact, that is usually held out as one of the "embarrassing" Nobels (along with the one that went to Henry Kissinger for "ending" the war in Vietnam). Our conclusion is that the bar for winning a Nobel for this issue is pretty high, and "PEACE IN ISRAEL... MAYBE?" probably doesn't clear it.

The second strike against Trump is that the committee just does not want to recognize him. In part, that is because he is the antithesis of the type of person the Norwegian Nobel Committee admires and supports. But the main problem—after all, they've recognized some pretty problematic people before—is that Trump has an overall record that does not say "peace," from scapegoating immigrants to sinking Venezuelan boats to pandering to Vladimir Putin to creating economic turmoil to cutting aid to those in need. It will not be easy for the Norwegians to swallow all of that. If the situation in Israel works out well, and if Trump is somehow able to bring peace to Ukraine next year, he might leave the committee with no choice. But his résumé is not there, not yet.

The third strike against Trump is logistics. The Nobel Committee is fairly secretive about their process, and we cannot find clear information as to exactly when it votes (only "usually in mid-September"), or whether there is any provision for them to "change their mind" at the last minute. We would imagine that the decision was made well before the last week's worth of developments in Israel. We would also imagine that once they vote, it's a done deal, and there are no takesie-backsies. In other words, it's probable that Trump's "deadline" was actually too late to matter.

Trump does have a couple of things operating in his favor. The Nobel Peace Prize betting odds suggest the field is fairly balkanized, which means anything could happen. That said, the favorite is Venezuelan opposition leader (and somewhat Trump nemesis) María Corina Machado; she's the person we'd bet on if we had such a severe gambling problem that we were betting on Nobel Peace Prizes. The other thing Trump has going for him is that the situation in Israel has rarely, if ever, gotten as ugly as what's happened in the last 2 years. So, there's certainly some bonus points available here, as opposed to what happened with the other presidential peace deals.

Still, we think the odds are strongly against him. And, we will note, the betting markets agree. Trump's odds of winning on Polymarket are actually just 1-in-30, which places him barely ahead of Elon Musk, Keir Starmer and Pope Leo, among others, and behind not only Machado, but also the relief teams in Sudan and Gaza, as well as wife-of-Alexei-Navalny Yulia Navalnaya (another Trump nemesis). Navalnaya is a leader of the anti-Putin resistance but, if chosen, she would basically just be a proxy for her husband, who cannot win himself because he is dead.

One other clue, which again will probably be moot by the time anyone reads this: The Norwegians are already making contingency plans for whatever punishments Trump might try to visit upon them if and when he doesn't get the prize.

We certainly hope that this breakthrough is real. And if you told us you'd gotten into the DeLorean and learned that Trump was the 2026 Nobel Peace laureate, that would be good news, because it would mean that the peace in Israel held (and probably that the war in Ukraine was finally over). But for the immediate future, it's hold-your-breath-and-hope-for-the-best time. (Z)

Update: The prize did indeed go to Machado.

Today in Corruption: Letitia James Indicted

We still have a long list of corruption-related items we want to write about, but for now, some news from yesterday has jumped right to the top of the list. A couple of weeks after former FBI Director James Comey was indicted, and a day after he was arraigned, the Trump administration has done exactly what everyone expected it would try to do, and has indicted New York AG Letitia James.

James' "crimes" against Trump are well known. She has overseen several investigations of him, his family, and his businesses, and she is part of the reason he is a 34-times-convicted felon. She is also a Black woman and a Democrat. Those latter factors likely loom larger than you might first think, because it was actually Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg who prosecuted the Trump case, and yet nobody has suggested he's in the White House's crosshairs. James was also personally responsible for the case in which Trump was hit with a nine-figure fine (a case still being litigated). We suppose it's possible that he dislikes being a felon, but he really hates losing money, and so that's why it's James and not Bragg.

The basis for the indictment is a home that James purchased in Virginia in 2020. When she purchased it, she represented it as a second residence. Since then, she has rented it out, which somewhat suggests that it's actually an investment property. That conclusion is not a slam dunk, mind you—people often buy a property for one reason, and then change their mind and use it for a different reason.

James faces two charges, one count of bank fraud and one count of making false statements to a financial institution. If the prosecution gets this before a jury (no sure thing), and is able to get them to agree that James knowingly misrepresented her plans for the property (definitely no sure thing), then it would mean she got an interest rate of 3% rather than 3.815%. If so, then, per the indictment, James defrauded the bank for $18,933. Not chump change, but not an amount that would generally be worth making a federal case over.

Because the house is in Norfolk, VA, that means that it falls under the purview of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Eastern Virginia. And conveniently, that person happens to be Trump's unqualified lackey, Lindsey Halligan. As with the Comey indictment, Halligan is the only attorney who signed off on this one. We have now read many times that this is an indication that no other lawyer in that office believed in the charges being filed, and we have no reason to doubt that is the truth. It could also be that is part of the answer as to why the administration went after Comey and James and not Bragg—the former two committed "crimes" in Eastern Virginia, while the latter did not.

There are some pretty significant barriers to a successful prosecution here. As we note, it's going to be none too easy to prove that James intended to defraud the bank, especially for such a small difference in interest rates. On top of that, like Comey, James has a case for malicious prosecution—aided by all the social media messages from Trump in which he said he wanted to see her indicted. The statute of limitations is also a potential issue; in general, federal crimes have a 5-year window in which they can be charged. James bought the house in August of 2020 and signed the loan paperwork soon thereafter, which means the statute might already have run. The indictment tries to get around that by arguing that James committed a crime every time she made a payment on her mortgage, but a judge might not buy that argument.

And then, on top of all of this, Halligan's appointment may not be legal. If so, the indictment is no good, and the administration would have to start all over, including finding a person who: (1) can get through the Senate's approval process, and (2) would still be willing to do Trump's bidding and wage politically motivated prosecutions. This is clearly a tall order; if Trump could find such a person easily, he wouldn't be relying on Halligan right now. Recall that the basis for questioning her appointment is that Trump used up his one opportunity to appoint an acting U.S. Attorney with Erik Siebert, so he won't be able to get by with a different acting U.S. Attorney if Halligan is disqualified. He will only be able to get it done with the real, fully approved, article.

We don't pretend to understand the thought process here from a political standpoint. Is the base really excited when the administration tries to "punish" its enemies in this way? And does that benefit outweigh the embarrassment that will come when the administration (almost certainly) loses in court? Maybe Trump's personal need for revenge is so great that it's "politics be damned," especially since he will never personally be before voters again. That's our best guess, but we really just don't know. (Z)

Today in Crazy: The Dead Kennedys Must Be Rolling in Their Graves

The Kennedy officeholders of generations past—particularly John F., Robert Sr., and Teddy—were Harvard men and had a reputation for having some real brainpower and for following the evidence. On top of that, one of the main themes of Teddy's career in the Senate was healthcare for everyone, and evidence-based medicine. He served for many years on the Senate Health Committee, including more than a decade as chair, and was substantially responsible for the passage of the National Cancer Act of 1971, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Ryan White AIDS Care Act, the Mental Health Parity Act, the S-CHIP children's health program and the COBRA program.

We mention this because if the Kennedys of generations past are somehow able to be aware of what their progeny Robert Jr. is doing to the nation's health, they must be absolutely horrified. Yesterday, perhaps because Trump will be unavailable for some period of time (see next item), there was a meeting of the Cabinet. And the way these things generally go, at least under Trump, is that the various secretaries congratulate the President on how great he is, and the President responds by agreeing that he is indeed great.

So it was yesterday, when it was Bobby Jr.'s time to talk. He and Trump had a fairly long dialogue, which you can read here, if you wish, in which they congratulated each other on fighting autism with their anti-vaxx and anti-Tylenol campaign. And Trump himself certainly said some pretty crazypants stuff, like noting that he might not be a doctor, but he is a "man of common sense." Maybe that's the solution to the nation's shortage of doctors and surgeons. After all, it takes years and years to be properly trained as a physician but, in our experience, people who claim they have an abundance of "common sense," often earned at "Life U." or "The School Of Hard Knocks," can be found on every street corner.

Anyhow, while Trump was plenty nutty yesterday, Bobby Jr. managed to out-crazy him, which is no small feat. And so, it was the Secretary who got all the headlines. Here's the specific portion of Kennedy's remarks that had people's heads exploding:

There's two studies that show children who are circumcised early have double the rate of autism. It's highly likely because they're given Tylenol. So none of this is dispositive, but all of it is stuff that we should be paying attention to.

We presumably don't need to say it, but in medical research, two studies is nothing. Further, we again run into the problem that correlation does not equal causation. Assuming the correlation actually exists, the obvious explanation is not the Tylenol, it's that circumcision correlates with higher economic status, which in turn correlates to access to doctors and other medical professionals. It's pretty hard to be diagnosed with autism if you don't have access to healthcare. Note that the larger and better-known study that notes the possible circumcision/autism correlation specifically points out that more study is needed before any conclusions can be reached.

Let us also reiterate an observation made by reader J.G. in San Diego just a few weeks ago when the Tylenol announcement was first made. If you're going to offer up a conspiratorial explanation for some condition or disease, then it has to be both plausible and not really falsifiable. For example, if you want to blame sunspots for autism, then that's pretty wacky, but it's also nearly impossible to disprove.

On the other hand, people are going to notice things like: (1) circumcision rates have dropped at the same time autism rates have risen, (2) many people have been circumcised without becoming autistic, and many people have become autistic without being circumcised, (3) there is plenty of autism in places that have no tradition of circumcision at all. Or, to quote a message we got from reader A.G. in Scranton, PA: "My autism did appear only after I converted....there might be something to this! I'm suing the Jewish people. As a Jew, I feel it is my duty." (Actually, that's the part of the conspiracy theory that works best; many of the people who embrace conspiratorial thinking really, really love to find a way to blame [THING X] on the Jews.)

So, that's this week's lunacy. Who knows what Mr. Brain Worm will crap out next week. (Z)

Today in Presidential Health: Longing for that Reagan Youth?

There are some downsides to being an elderly president. Ronald Reagan, of course, had memory issues that either began during or immediately after his presidency. Joe Biden, who was even older than St. Ronnie when he left the White House, also had memory issues, not to mention cancer. Donald Trump—stop us if you have heard this before—also appears to have memory issues, along with... who knows? Trump's even older than the Gipper was (79 years, 118 days at the moment, as compared to 77 years, 349 days when Reagan left office in 1989), and there has been enough evidence of problematic symptoms (pale complexion, sweating, drooping face, cankles, bruises on hands, etc.) to launch a cottage industry in Trump health speculation.

Generally, we ignore those stories because we have not examined Trump, and we are not doctors. However, things are a little different today. This morning, Trump will address yet another group of generals, presumably giving them another rendition of his stump speech. Then, he will head to Walter Reed for a physical. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt explained that the physical is his "routine yearly check up." There is one small problem here, and many readers presumably know what it is: Trump had a "routine yearly check up" just 6 months ago.

It is entirely understandable that a president would choose to be circumspect about their healthcare. First of all, a president must project strength, both domestically and abroad, and being mentally or physically infirm does not advance that goal. Further, it's entirely possible that the problem or problems being addressed are personal and/or embarrassing. What if he has, say, anal fissures or lice or a scorching case of herpes? Probably don't want that to become a topic of national conversation.

However, telling such an obvious lie ("Normal physical! Nothing to see here!") is not going to achieve whatever it is that the administration wants to achieve. Trump has lied so frequently, and so blatantly, about his health that absent some pretty good alternate explanation (even if that explanation is not truthful), the unscheduled "annual physical" is just going to add to the speculation that something is really wrong. And again, a belief that he is in poor health, accurate or not, runs entirely counter to a belief that he's strong and has a firm hand on the steering wheel of the ship of state. That's bad news for any president, but especially for a president whose image is based on how powerful and macho he is. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Does Megan Thee Stallion Admire Crazy Horse?

Last week, we hinted that: (1) "There is one headline that actually has two correct answers, one obvious, one not," and "we really wanted to use 'Kurupt' in a headline." That second one should really have been a dead giveaway (in the event that Ol' Dirty Bastard wasn't already enough).

And here is the solution, courtesy of reader D.D. in Bucks County, PA:

Each headline contains the name of a rapper:

• Shutdown: Nobody Knows What the Future Holds
• Legal News: Is the Supreme Court Getting Ready to Give Trump a Big L?
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Julius Caesar Was a Prodigy
• This Week in Schadenfreude: Superintendent Steps Down, Presumably Because He's an Ol' Dirty Bastard
• This Week in Freudenfreude: Bad Bunny Knows How to Play The Game

Put an Ice Cube in your beverage to Usher in the Weeknd! (And of course I couldn't respond without a Big Pun. It's my Method, Man.) Hope you're Gunna have a Fabulous day!

We forgot to note that the abortion item last week was not part of the game, although that should have nonetheless been clear, as only the words to the right of the colon count, and that headline had no colon. Kurupt, from the Saturday hint, is also a rapper, of course, as is Megan Thee Stallion from this headline.

Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:

N.S. in Fayetteville, NY G.W. in Avon, CT K.F. in Berea, KY M.Y. in San Jose, CA J.N. in Zionsville, IN S.L. in St. Louis, MO P.Q. in Metuchen, NJ R.D. in Cheshire, CT C.B. in Lakeville, MN M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO D.B. in Pittsboro, NC T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts S.K. in Ardmore, PA J.F. in Fayetteville, NC M.S. in Canton, NY R.S. in Pittsgrove, NJ M.K. in Long Branch, NJ K.H. in Maryville, TN D.D. in Highland Park, IL R.N. in Cleveland, OH M.W. in Altea, Spain A.G. in Plano, TX M.B. in Albany, NY J.H. in Flint, MI P.L. in Skövde, Sweden

E.S. in Providence RI A.D. in Gaithersburg, MD M.J.S. in Gig Harbor, WA J.C. in Keene, NH R.K. in Bel Air, MD M.T. in Simpsonville, SC M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada D.D. in Bucks County E.K. in Arlington, MA H.B. in Toronto, ON, Canada A.C. in Kingston, MA A.J. in Moorhead, MN D.M. in Oakland, CA T.T. in Conway, AR M.W. in Frederick, MD G.K. in Blue Island, IL W.M. in Livonia, MI W.M.H.B. in London, England, UK E.W. in Skaneateles, NY R.S. in Milan, OH S.H. in College Park, MD K.R. in Austin, TX B.E. in Brooklyn, NY M.D. in Wakefield, MA Z.K. in Albany, NY

The 50th correct response was received at 10:09 a.m. PT on Friday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one or more words per headline, and it's in the category Entertainment (we didn't realize, until it was too late, that we were repeating categories). For a hint, we'll say that we originally had a headline comparing J.D. Vance to Franz Ferdinand.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line October 10 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Lee Greenwood? Heck, How about the Glenn Miller Orchestra?

Conservatives are not happy about Bad Bunny being chosen as the performer for this year's halftime show. That includes Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA). He was asked about the pick, and this is how he responded:

I didn't even know who Bad Bunny was. But it sounds like a terrible decision, in my view, from what I'm hearing. It sounds like he's not someone who appeals to a broader audience. And there are so many eyes on the Super Bowl—a lot of young, impressionable children. And, in my view, you would have Lee Greenwood, or role models, doing that. Not somebody like this.

This has produced much derision directed in the Speaker's direction, as well it should, as there are only a few possibilities here. The first is that he's grossly out of touch. Bad Bunny is 31 years old and appeals to young people, many of whom might not otherwise tune into the Super Bowl. Lee Greenwood is 82 years old and the Venn diagram of "people who like his cheesy, two-chord music" and "people who watch NFL football" looks something like this:

The NFL is a business, and it is not going to attract many new viewers (i.e., customers) by giving over the stage to Greenwood. Johnson is a leader of the ostensibly pro-business party. Does he not understand this?

The second possibility is that Johnson pretends to know things when he's actually operating from a position of ignorance. It is hard to imagine that he really and truly thinks that Greenwood is somehow more popular than Bad Bunny. However, just in case, we'll point out that Bad Bunny has been the most streamed artist on Spotify for each of the last 3 years. He's also third of all time, with 107.6 billion streams (behind only Taylor Swift and Drake). Also in the top 3,000 are Green Day (#169), Mrs. Green Apple (#648), CeeLo Green (#832), Riley Green (#1,234) and Al Green (#1,893). But no Lee Greenwood.

The third possibility is that Johnson is a racist. He admits that he doesn't know Bad Bunny or his music. And yet, Johnson concludes that Bad Bunny is a poor role model, and Lee Greenwood is not. What could be his basis for that conclusion? Perhaps that Bad Bunny is Latino and brown-skinned and speaks primarily Spanish, and Greenwood is caucasian and white-skinned and speaks only English? If so, that's pretty much the textbook definition of racism.

Whatever explanation we go with, it's not a good look for someone who is ostensibly supposed to be a leader of his party and, at least to some extent, a representative of the American people. Remember, he's second in line to succeed to the presidency.

For a pretty long time, nobody outside of politics junkies knew who Johnson was. Now, a lot of people still don't know who he is (about 30%). However, his prominent role in passing the BBB and, in particular, in the shutdown, has introduced him to a lot of casual politics-watchers, and... they largely don't like what they see. Beyond the fact that Johnson was absolutely scorched on social media this week (admittedly, social media users are a demographic that skews much more Bad Bunny than Lee Greenwood), his approval rating is slipping and sliding downward. His net, across all polls since August 1, is 4.8 points underwater (30.2% favorable, 35% unfavorable). And if you drop a couple of very friendly polls from Republican houses, he slips to almost 10 points underwater.

Johnson is not as far underwater as his colleague Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) across the hall, but Schumer has been aggravating people for more than two decades. Johnson is practically savant-like in his race to the bottom. It would seem that many voters don't like it when you look right at the camera, and say things so dishonest that even Pinocchio would blush. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Who Needs Tesla?

We take the position that, of all the challenges that face the world today, none is greater than global warming. That one pretty much subsumes all the other bad things, as unchecked global warming is going to lead to war, famine, economic upheaval, social strife, population dislocations, large-scale death, etc. This is why we often give over this space to good news on the environmental front. Perhaps you think that makes us wide-eyed pinko commies. To that, we say: Nyet!

Earlier this week, Ember, a think tank devoted to studying global energy trends, issued its semi-annual report, and it contains something pretty big: For the first time, renewable sources are the planet's #1 source of electricity. Renewables—predominantly solar, wind and hydro—were responsible for 34.3% of all global electricity produced in the first 6 months of this year. That means that coal, which fell to 33.1%, has been knocked out of the top spot after more than a century as king of the (very polluted) hill.

The additional good news is that the world's second-worst polluter, China, is taking the lead in growing its renewable energy use. That nation alone accounted for 55% of the expansion of solar energy worldwide. Solar is the most important renewable source, as it can be utilized in many more places than the alternatives. Much of the available hydro power is already being utilized, and wind has much more exacting requirements.

It's not all sunshine and... more sunshine, of course. The U.S., which is the world's worst polluter, lags behind its industrial peers. Part of that is due to a lack of investment (thanks, Big Beautiful Bill), and part of it is due to a lack of vision. The Chinese, as the Ember report notes, foresaw the need for renewables many generations ago, and have been working on the problem ever since. The Americans did not, which is a little ironic, because the technology that became the basis for Chinese renewable production was developed at Bell Labs, in New Jersey, in the 1950s.

Still, progress is progress. And one can hope that the day will soon arrive that the U.S. becomes willing to invest more substantively in renewables, and to learn from nations who have taken the lead in this area.

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