Sunday Mailbag

Every reader knew 3 days ago what subject was going to dominate this week's mailbag.

Politics: The Death of Charlie Kirk

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I'm trying to find some silver lining in the horrible events of this past week and I think I've found it. After years of wailing and moaning by the Republicans about how personally onerous it is to have to deal with people's preferred pronouns, they seem to have en masse become just fine with it. Minutes after the release of Charlie Kirk's killer's photos, the Internet comments were brimming with the use of the word "they" when referring to the shooter. Commenters point to the bulge in the back of the accused's baseball cap as a sign "they had swept their blond long hair up in a bun under their hat to hide their transitioning." In-depth analysis on the smooth, blemish-free skin of the suspect was done to show "they were wearing makeup"—forgetting the fact of their Dear Leader's strange orange complexion or that their own Secretary of Defense, er, I meant War, spent between $10-15,000 on building a makeup room at the Pentagon. In one photo, the light gleams just a bit more from the suspect's fingernail, so MAGA world responds, "Proof that they are wearing fingernail polish"—which I find hysterical because, working in semi-rural Pennsylvania, I see so many men who are neither gay nor transitioning wearing mostly black fingernail polish.

Then, it turns out it's just your average white kid from a Trump loving suburban religious family that fully embraced the gun culture. Funny, how those things work out. Isn't there a saying about horses and carts that applies to this situation?

Sadly, the Republican Outrage Machine will never let the facts get in the way of a good narrative. I never expect The New York Post to be a bastion of journalistic integrity, but what they published on Saturday amounts to wilful malpractice. They have a headline that blares that Tyler Robinson, the suspected gunman, had a roommate who he was a romantic partner with, and who was transitioning. Even knowing the source, I still had to click on it—which I know is what they want—to see where they are getting that claim from. Here, in a few lines, is the entirety of their evidence:

A family member of [the housemate—although the Post has no qualms with naming this young man, I do] confirmed to the Post Saturday that yes they were housemates. The family member, who asked not to be identified, said (the housemate) was the "black sheep" of their St. George, UT, family, but decline to speculate on a romantic relationship between the two men. She said she didn't know her relative's politics or whether (the housemate) was transitioning to become a woman, but added that it wouldn't surprise her.

Really, that's the evidence. Oh, I forgot, they include a whole bunch of pictures of this guy wearing a light lavender sweat shirt—oh heavens, clutch the pearls—and in several wearing those furry animal hats with the long ears that people his age love—oh, Lyndsey, grab me my smelling salts, I feel faint. Nothing but innuendos and stereotypes. My first thought is that I hope this young man gets a good lawyer and sues the Post for everything they have. My second thought is that every one of us should be asking ourselves why it is so important to the Republicans that certain individuals be blamed for this tragedy?

Just like I don't expect the Post to have journalistic standards, I also don't expect Donald Trump to do anything to temper the riled-up emotions he has been so eager to cultivate. Call me naive, but I really expect to hear a more rational approach from the local leaders, namely Gov. Spencer Cox (R-UT). It was so incredibly frustrating to hear him say something reasonable and unifying but then the next second say something so gross and perverted that you have to wonder how can someone be so warped. After he announced the suspect had turned himself in after being confronted by his father, Cox couldn't leave a decent enough performance alone, he had to whip out the lighter fluid and squirt it about in all directions. He talked with a fake catch in his voice about how he prayed during the course of the events that whoever did this would have come from out of state or from out of the country. For one thing that is one strange-ass prayer, and also, why should it matter to you? If I was praying about this event, which I was not, I would have prayed that the shooter be located quickly and without further loss of life. Instead, Cox is hoping the shooter came another state—and he probably means the blue Colorado, New Mexico or California and not the Ruby Red Idaho or Wyoming (but maybe the purplish Arizona or Nevada would have sufficed) or another country. Something is telling me he means South of the border and not North, but these days he might take either.

After spreading his flammable liquid about willy-nilly by praying that a radical leftist from another state or a immigrant did the killing, he then had to take out his gasoline can and splash its contents around to make sure every spot was well-soaked, by saying that even though the killer was from Utah, he (Cox) was so proud that there were no riots, no protests and no cars on fire as a reaction. Hmm, I don't remember riots and cars burning when Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) husband was attacked by a nut with a hammer, or when Democratic Minnesota state Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed and Democratic State Senator John Hoffman and his wife were shot in their homes by a madman carrying a hit list of political targets. What the Governor forgot to mention is that there was a gathering of Neo-Nazis, complete with Tiki torches, who gathered to mourn Kirk at the spot of his murder, because well, Nazis just love to exploit situations for their own cynical goals; but that's not something Cox is familiar with at all, now is it?

I started this letter with a tongue-in-cheek reference to a bright spot about this whole ugly affair, but I don't want to falsely advertise because there is one thing we did learn. It seems that the MAGA types really, really dislike being called Nazis. This was the one thing they pointed to over and over in the enraged screams about starting a war and executing people based on their political beliefs, because there's nothing fascist about those acts at all, nosiree. Being called a Nazi seemed to especially get under Dear Leader's thin orange skin. Maybe it was the fact he ventured outside his bubble this week and went to a restaurant less than a block away from the White House, where a group of women heckled him by calling him a Nazi. Look, I get why some people would get upset being called a Nazi. They are the Super Villain of the past century. There are in countless films and stories where they are not just the villain but a symbol of evil incarnate. Shoot, just in the Indiana Jones films alone, every Nazi meets a gruesome and terrifyingly painful death—the face melting of Nazi Major Toth still haunts my nightmares. I certainly wouldn't want to be called a Nazi.

So, I would say to Trump, his administration, his lackeys in Congress all the way down to the MAGA shock jocks, provocateurs and TikTok influencers, "I'll stop calling you a Nazi the minute you stop acting like one." Stop with the pulling people from cars; making individuals disappear without due process; building prison camps; the vendettas and extortion; sending armed troops into cities; the flagrant lies and propaganda; the threats of violence and intimidation; grift and corruption; and flouting of our laws and Constitution all for the sake of keeping power. Until that time, I will continue to call you a Nazi, but maybe this time louder and more frequently, because Donald, darling, the armband fits you so well.

---

C.F. in Waltham, MA, writes: I'm simply appalled at the insanely overt racism of MAGA. When the murderer's skin color was assumed to be dark: death penalty. Oh he was a white, troubled kid? I'll pray for him. Just like the J6 insurrectionists: They're white, so they must be the good guys, or maybe just misunderstood. Trump's cabinet has the most incompetent people in any cabinet ever, chosen for something other than merit, and yet someone with dark skin, no matter the circumstances, must be a DEI hire, because Trump knows, all darker skinned people are less qualified. A Black woman on the Federal Reserve board? Obviously she should be fired.

Many in MAGA are proud of their racism, make no bones about it, and revel in racial profiling and state-sanctioned violence against dark-skinned people. Yes, there are still many who bristle at the notion they might be racist, yet they still vote Republican. You have to wonder whether Black people like Clarence Thomas, whose actions show him to be more racist than many white people, even realize how racist they are, or are they simply like the character Stephen in the movie Django Unchained, hating all strangers of their own race and doing the white people's racist work for them.

For any Republican voter who thinks they are not racist, cognitive dissonance is so perfectly instilled that it is almost impossible to change a MAGA/Trump mind, or even get them to do the simplest self-reflection. That is why voters keeping voting for Republicans. All they have is fear, hate and anger, at anyone who doesn't look and act like the ideal white person. Many of them even believe that Jesus would hate those people, too. It is a big problem, and just reinforced by Fox, right-wing media, and social media.

---

D.G. in Lac Brome, QC, Canada, writes: A handy guide to determine how to react to a shooting:

---

Anonymous in Ohio writes: Charlie Kirk's death reminds me of Huey Long's, i.e., someone who had a following but whose voice will no longer be heard in politics. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. Although I'm a Christian minister and believe in grace, I often ask myself when obnoxious, even malignant, people like David H. Koch or Rush Limbaugh die, is the world better off without them? Invariably, I say yes.

---

E.L. in San Francisco, CA, writes: I fear that in Charlie Kirk, the new right has now found their Horst Wessel.

---

F.D. in St. Paul, MN, writes: Following your discussion of the #ReichstagFire concern, I also offer the Great Purge in the Soviet Union after the assassination of Sergei Kirov in 1934. Scary precedents.

---

J.N. in Columbus, OH, writes: You wrote: "A not unsubstantial number of lefties (at least, we assume they are lefties) went beyond implication, and were rather more forward about their feelings, declaring that they were glad Kirk is dead, the he got what he deserved, etc."

I'm not lefty at all. Militantly centrist would be the most accurate description. However, I'm of the firm belief Kirk had it coming. The guy was the literal poster of a Nazi. He's a good part of why the youth voted Trump. He would have been a full-throated supporter of Hitler had he been in Germany in the early 30's.

---

J.E. in Boone, NC, writes: It disappoints, angers, concerns (genuinely), and really puts me off that the NFL would do the "silent reflection" shtick for Charlie Kirk, especially in Green Bay. He was not a Wisconsinite, not a member of the U.S. House or Senate, not a decorated veteran, not a world leader or anything near any of those. It's clearly a biased move by one of the most racist organizations in sports, particularly when viewed in comparison to the blowback and their response to Colin Kaepernick kneeling. The bottom line is, the NFL knows which side their bread is buttered on.

---

R.H.M. in North Haven, CT, writes: On Wednesday, there were two shootings that made headline news. One was the killing of Charlie Kirk in Utah. The other was a (yet another) school shooting, in Colorado.

I happened to be in a diner where Fox News was on, with a banner saying "Nation mourns loss of Charlie Kirk." All the time I was eating, Fox had wall-to-wall coverage of the Kirk shooting. When I got home, I went to their website to see what their headlines looked like. The first 11 boxes were about Charlie Kirk. Then, below the ads, was an article about the Colorado school shooting.

I do not condone political violence. But I wish the right would show even a fraction of the outrage for schoolkids being shot as they do when it happens to one of their own.

---

J.E. in San Jose, CA, writes: Your comments Friday showing empathy to Charlie Kirk's followers that they are "very, very upset" has not been overlooked by this reader. It serves as a reminder that they are still people, and rejoicing their loss, in their face, does not bring us together. Thank you for giving us something behavioral to model.

It also make me wonder whether abandoning "when they go low, we go high" is the right choice or if it just feels better.

Politics: What Comes Next?

K.M. in Olympia, WA, writes: So.

Another round of violence in America.

And why is anyone surprised by this? It happens practically daily, the only thing that changes, sometimes, is the prominence of the victims. America has a deeply patriarchal culture, glorifying male aggression and treating firearms as talismans. Men are judged by how "dominant" they are, in a constant competition to prove themselves worthy of the privilege of being an American male. As I write this, it has been shown that a right-wing pundit has been murdered not by a leftie, but by someone even further to the right. He wasn't murdered because of his hateful rhetoric, but because it wasn't hateful enough. I do not mourn Charlie Kirk, but neither do I celebrate his death (which, had our situations been reversed, could not have been said of him). He was, when you get to the heart of it, his own victim. But I shake my head and wonder if we can ever move beyond, to grow out of, our obsession with violence. It doesn't seem like it will occur in my lifetime, at any rate. Nor is there much that I can do myself that I am not already doing. All I can do is, like Candide, tend my own garden.

"...for all who take up the sword will also perish by the sword." - Matt 26:52

---

A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: I know our side just loves pretending that if we play nicely then the conservatives will stop being big meanies, but why not go back and fire every motherfu**er who said something bad about President Obama, President Biden, the murdered Minnesota representatives, Sandy Hook parents, or anything good about Alex Jones?

Escalation is always the excuse not to, but we keep allowing them to get away with slowly escalating with absolutely no pushback. We just keep smiling and talking about what nasty people they are.

If it's okay for conservative employers to do this, sooner or later we have to fight back. The American-liberal-doormat thing grew quite stale when it was just our presidents and members of Congress allowing the New Fascist Party to walk all over its people. If they won't fight, we need to do it for ourselves.

---

D.R. in Phoenix, AZ , writes: Every time someone tells me how angry MAGA is going to be because of Charlie Kirk's assassination, I wonder: How much more angry can these people be? As far as I can tell, they are in a permanent state of agitation, egged on by our (their?) president, all the bad things supposedly still happening because of Joe Biden, a relentless array of false tabloid TV news narratives, and algorithm-tuned personal rage news feeds first thing every morning. They're already at 11, people!

I know there's always room for more savagery on their part, going after an expanded pool of targets, including native U.S. citizens, and perhaps it could even devolve into nationwide violence. But can we just be cowed and quiet going forward, every time our political opponents are outraged about something new? They are always outraged! It might be time to stand up for ourselves, even if the cost is high, because the stakes aren't getting any lower as time passes.

---

R.H. in Macungie, PA, writes: My son sent me this. Thought your readers might appreciate it:

---

S.F. in Chatham, NJ, writes: Thank you for the link to the Profiles of Individual Radicalization; I found the data fascinating and informative. One sentence leapt off the page for me: "In 2021, nearly 90% of the offenders included in the PIRUS were affiliated with the extremist far-right—the highest percentage of any year recorded in the database."

Much of this reflects the impact of including 219 people who were arrested in connection with the January 6 attack on the Capitol. However, the data actually undercount the effects of far-right extremists and overweight that of far-left extremists. First, the database only includes January 6 individuals who had known links to extremist groups. There were far more than 219 people arrested that day, and just because they weren't connected with a known group doesn't mean they weren't far-right extremists. Second, about 35% of the people in the database (since 1970) classified as far-left extremists are people with animal rights and/or environmentalism concerns. I believe it would be more appropriate to place these people in the "Single-Issue" extremists category, as the database did for anti-abortion extremists. Or to put anti-abortion extremists in the far-right category. Certainly, anti-abortion folks are at least as associated with the far-right movement as animal rights advocates or environmentalists are associated with the far-left movement.

Even with these issues, the database clearly shows that almost all of the criminal activity associated with extremism is now happening on the far-right end of the spectrum. It's important that the media continue to push back against narratives that say otherwise.

---

C.S in Linville, NC, writes: I am less then 100 pages into The Boys in the Boat: Nine Americans and Their Epic Quest for Gold at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, which takes place after the Great War and during Adolf Hitler's rise to power. I am struck by one paragraph and the parallels between then and now.

Daniel James Brown, the book's author, writes that in the fall of 1933, Richard Tyler, Dean of Engineering at the University of Washington, had just come back from Germany, the site of the next Olympics. Tyler wrote: "The people of Germany today are afraid to express opinions even on trivial matters," and went on to observe that anyone saying anything that could be interpreted as unflattering to the Nazis was liable to be arrested and incarcerated without trial.

Brown finishes the paragraph by saying that though neither Tyler nor any of his readers yet knew it, the Nazis had, in fact, already imprisoned thousands of political dissidents in a camp they had opened in March near the charming little medieval village of Dachau. Donald Trump is clearly the wrong person for this moment. How far will he lead the country down this path of division remains to be seen.

---

M.W. in Huntington, NY, writes: With regards to the killing of Charlie Kirk, as my son said, "Right track, wrong train."

I fear this will only get worse before it gets better. And this is while Donald Trump is removing Secret Service protections from politicians...

---

Anonymous in Pennsylvania writes: For quite some time now, I have held the belief we are too divided as a country to continue to exist as we do, and that it is time for a national divorce.

The events of the past few days have only reinforced that belief.

For over 10 years, we have been told that we must give consideration to some of the most absurd conspiracies, by those on the right. The smallest slight is larger than the Holocaust and slavery combined to them. When we say school kids shouldn't be slaughtered for the crime of going to school, they scream about being oppressed. When a deadly pandemic was rampant, they couldn't be bothered to cover their mouths and stay 6 feet away. They send masked jackbooted thugs to snatch people off the street and put them in concentration camps for being the incorrect color. Let us not forget the worship of the felon, and doing so with full knowledge of his behavior, which I don't need to mention.

Now, with a prominent proponent of hate, lies, racism, sexism and so on being shot and killed, they're getting people fired for being insufficiently sad. That's some North-Korean-level stuff.

Why should we remain a "unified" country? Our system of governance, with all of its flaws, has served us well for the majority of our history because of a respect for the process and a respect for the opposition. That system has been weaponized by those on the right through aggressive gerrymandering, unqualified judges and administrators, as well as any other chicanery they can come up with. They demand we bend to every absurd idea of theirs. You can't reason with them, as they just get loud and start calling you "America hater" and whatever small-word insults come into their (small) minds.

For those of us in red areas, we don't dare put up a yard sign, a bumper sticker or express our beliefs for fear of violence. We are expected to lower ourselves to entertain outlandish, false and even dangerous "arguments" because an unwashed person who can barely read thinks their opinions are fact. Where do you go with that? You can't reason with that and I find it insulting to think I should entertain such absurdities. Every day that passes is another day they have been spoon-fed more absurdities in their right-wing echo chamber bubble, which they never leave.

I see no path for any of this to get better. I see it only getting worse. Someday, the felon will be gone, but his rabidly fascist worshipers will remain. We have lost so much respect with our allies. We have lost so much trading power among the major economies of the world. We won't be getting that back. China is on the ascent. We are declining. We have zero respect for each other. We are indeed in a Cold Civil War.

It's time for a national divorce. It's not feasible to make a country of only blue areas, so there will have to be concessions made to draw lines as cleanly as possible. My idea: from Virginia north through New England and all Great Lakes states, then the entire west coast and the southwest to include New Mexico up to Wyoming and Utah. Yes, some of those are red, but there will be blue areas left behind. Give everyone 10-ish years to decide what side of the line they want to be on, and then make it happen.

When it's done, we have three feasible options (in my view):

1. Form one, non-contiguous country.
2. Form two closely allied, yet separate countries.
3. Ask Canada if we can join them (my preference).

The remaining red country would be free to establish their fascist paradise with a Trump dynasty and those of us who drive the economic machine can be left in peace to learn, live, love and exist how we see fit. I am exhausted. I'm exhausted with the hate, the lies, the nonsense and the insecurity and the violence.

Oh, and, if you want yet another reason for a national divorce, HEALTHCARE!!!

While I don't see this as something likely to happen, it would be nice to get this idea trending. It might be the one thing where right and left could actually find some common ground.

---

J.D. in Greensboro, NC, writes: Thanks for your examination of the overall reaction to Charlie Kirk's death. I see it as another opportunity for MAGA to display their breathtaking hypocrisy, which is now on full display.

I don't have a crystal ball to predict the midterms, but could there be a possibility that voters will turn out in droves because they are just exhausted by all the chaos and violent rhetoric?

My mother used to caution me about relationships that leaned too heavily on physical attraction. The excitement only lasts so long until the eyes open and the real person shows up.

So many are saying "Is this who we are?" Maybe they will answer at the polling place—who knows?

---

S.M. in Albany, OR, writes: A remarkable young woman, "K," is working with me to help clean up the garden and property. She is hard-working and positive. Her work, determination and learning her own agency now means her escape from a lifetime of abuse. We work together for 4 hours every Friday. This morning she asked how I felt about Charlie Kirk's death. It was a good conversation. Picture a 59-year-old atheist scientist liberal with a 20-year-old evangelical who is working hard to support herself and enter society for the first time, while keeping to and living her faith. Picture both talking honestly while they work together.

I had no idea what she could get out of what I consider his hateful, harmful, vile rhetoric.

So, I asked her. What was most meaningful to K was that Kirk's message to her and her generation was to learn critical thinking. She said she thinks her generation and much of present society lacks critical thinking skills. I agreed. In her abusive situation, she was never taught it, her peers weren't taught it, and Charlie Kirk encouraged dialogue and helped her and is helping her peers.

I was absolutely stunned by this. Charlie Kirk did not encourage dialogue. He pulled out all the tricks in question and response in service to his agenda.

Yet, a racist, bigoted, manipulative, vile person somehow has helped this young woman in a positive way we both agreed is lacking.

It was the second time this week that something so contrary to my beliefs helped people I care about.

---

K.Q. in Richboro, PA, writes: This past week, I attended the back-to-school-night at my son's high school. I enjoyed talking to his teachers, and seeing the topics that are going to be coming up as a part of the greater curriculum for him and his peers, but that wasn't the most inspiring thing about the night. What I truly appreciate is the sheer number of classroom doors with welcoming messages, PRIDE flags, autism awareness, and related supports for all manner of diversity among the student population. This being in addition to the murals painted on various walls honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, Harvey Milk and other historical figures who dared to speak out against the people who would hold them down. And this was just the parts of the school that I had reason to visit.

In an era where the political winds are blowing against Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in favor of something favoring White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants who don't even recognize their own privilege (even after it's pointed out to them), my son's high school stands as a reminder that there is hope, even in our tiny patch of suburbia.

Politics: This Week in TrumpWorld

G.S. in Washington, DC, writes: I believe that one of the reasons The Wall Street Journal felt secure in printing the now-famous Trump-Epstein letter is because its staff reporters have always known what it was really all about. In the Studio 54/general NYC club scene, it would occasion no notice if one man turned to another and commented that a woman passing by was a "bit of an enigma." If, instead, he said that she was "quite a gamine," then the conversation might have been taken differently, but I doubt that anyone would have been surprised. "Enigma" is an anagram for "gamine," a woman of slight, young girlish build. Exchanging the one word for the other reveals the great "mystery" shared by the two men, i.e., a preference for young girls. A passion they shared individually, and perhaps together. Trump, who has always been little more than a parvenu to NY society, likes to be thought of as clever, but this code was widely known. It's really rather a sad little letter; a sharing of sophomoric humor between two men who seem never to have moved much beyond 8th-grade locker rooms. It is, however, a signed admission against interest.

---

R.G. in Minneapolis, MN, writes: Your item "Trump Love Letter to Jeffrey Epstein Made Public" was top of mind when later that day I saw independent editorial cartoonist Ann Telnaes' public post on Substack:

She wrote: "When I first saw Trump's drawing for Epstein's birthday book, something immediately caught my eye. Putting aside the horrible context for the sketch, the fact he drew a female body with no head or arms was really disturbing to me."

---

J.E. in Manhattan, NY, writes: If you thought ICE was anything other than a death squad, the proof has finally come that it is not: "What happened to Silverio Villegas-Gonzalez."

And I really wonder how long it will be before the shoot-to-kill orders are issued. Donald Trump has already "joked" about shooting migrants at the border. How long before he says "Shoot them on sight?" And given that ordinary police officers can kill with almost no repercussions (at least, if the victim is brown or Black), does anyone have any confidence that ICE officers will, if given the OK to kill, show any restraint whatsoever?

---

G.R. in Carol Stream, IL, writes: When I read about the raid on the Hyundai battery factory in Georgia, the only reason that made sense to me was to shut down infrastructure that's necessary for the hated electric cars.

---

E.F. in Baltimore, MD, writes: Having worked in and around government for many years, I see the Hyundai raid as less a turf war among Trump's lackeys than the personnel on the ground tasked with generating arrests looking for the lowest-hanging fruit. Getting 300+ arrests in one operation is much easier than scraping them up, one or two at a time, at local restaurants. When given a quota to fill, you go where the bodies are.

The fact that this raid is at cross purposes with Trump's greater goal of on-shoring manufacturing is no surprise. Trump has never been known as an efficient manager. Clumsy PR is more his specialty. And some voters will still believe this raid will result in more good jobs for Real Amurricans.

---

R.S. in Ticonderoga, NY, writes: In "What the Hell Are They Thinking?, Part I: The Hyundai Raid," you referred to the various fiefdoms and their leader, the Duke of Hazards. Unfortunately, the voice of Waylon Jennings singing the theme to The Dukes of Hazzard has been stuck in my head all day. Guess it could be worse—the Barney song?

(V) & (Z) respond: Any time you get caught in a feedback loop like this, just remember: "It's a world of laughter, and a world of tears. It's a world of hope, and a world of fears. There's so much that we share, that it's time we're aware: It's a small world, after all."

---

L.C. in Brookline, MA, writes: You wrote about the suspension and likely termination of the Combined Federal Campaign: "Among the beneficiaries of the CFC are groups that are currently unfavored, like NPR, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. It's predictable that Trump, or one of his many fanatical underlings, would want to cut those groups off. But many of the other beneficiaries are politically neutral (e.g., the World Wildlife Fund) or are the kinds of things that MAGA Nation swoons over (e.g., the Wounded Warrior Project)."

The World Wildlife Fund cannot be politically neutral, no matter how much it wants to be. The Republicans have repeatedly shown themselves to be for running roughshod over any wildlife in their way (or that they want to shoot from a helicopter or otherwise take for trophies). Therefore, being for preservation of wildlife is inherently political, just like honestly reporting the air temperature.

As to wounded warriors, remember what Donald Trump called people who volunteered to serve in the armed forces. In case anybody doesn't have the answer handy, it is "suckers and losers."

---

C.H. in West Linn, OR, writes: There's been considerable talk recently on this site regarding mortgage fraud, and how the Trump led Department of Justice is using this against some prominent Democrats. As a mortgage loan originator for 22+ years, I thought I would offer some insight.

The accusation is called occupancy fraud, which is where you obtain a loan with false information about your intent to occupy. When you finance a home, there are three options for occupancy on your application: primary residence, second home, or investment property. Primary residence is your primary residence; you can only have one. This is where you spend most of your time. Second home is a place at the beach or mountain or where you may work out of town on a regular basis but not rent out. Investment property is for rental purposes. The reason people commit occupancy fraud is because a primary residence gets you the best rate and the easiest approval conditions. Second homes and investment properties carry higher rates, higher fees, and stricter underwriting guidelines, such as higher down payment requirements, reserves, and proof of rental income.

When a borrower signs loan documents stating they will be occupying the property as their primary residence, the requirement is that they establish residence within 60 days of closing. Not doing so puts you in violation of the deed of trust, which means the lender can call the loan due, foreclose, and can even pursue jail time. Michael Cohen got popped for lying on his loan application.

Why is this a nothing burger? It's almost impossible to get away with it. First off, the originator would know what's going on, and if the originator knowingly submitted a fraudulent application, they are subject to losing their license to originate loans and would also face possible jail time. Second, it would never pass an underwriter's review. EVER! There are too many checks and balances for someone to get away with it. And the reason they don't get away with it is if a loan purchased by Fannie/Freddie defaults, they can look over the file and tell the mortgage company they need to buy back the loan, which is a huge penalty. Given this, I doubt the accusations have much merit. Any people being accused have been fully vetted and their loan profile will likely prove that.

---

J.P. in Lancaster, PA, writes: Relative to the current and future state of public health under Robert Kennedy Jr., I have been reading a book that is kind of scary. The book is Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health by Laurie Garrett. She had written the previous bestseller The Coming Plague.

Betrayal of Trust was written in 2000. It is a massive book and, to a degree, a challenging and frightening read, but it is worth reading for anyone concerned about public health in the United States. Among the topics it covers are pneumonic plague in India, Ebola virus outbreaks in Zaire, the collapse of public health in all the nations of the USSR after the fall of communism, and what happened to American public health infrastructure at the end of the 20th century caused by antigovernmentalism. As implied in the previous sentence, the time period concentrated on by Garrett is mostly the 1990s. For example, the countries of the former Soviet Union had a collapse in public health that resulted in a number of outbreaks of tuberculosis, diphtheria, and polio, among others. Some of this arose because of a drop in the rate of vaccinations (either because the vaccines were unavailable or because no one was demanding that they be used). Also, like today in the U.S., there were people who believed that vaccines were causing other illnesses in great numbers. Superstition of some in the populace also entered into this. The failure of public health in these nations because of misunderstanding or complete lack of adhering to scientific knowledge and a lack of adequate funding, among other things too involved to deal with here, led to outbreaks of disease in various countries around the world that had been thought to be under control.

A quarter of a century after this book was written, I see the same things happening to an even greater extent in the U.S., with much more incompetent and unqualified people running the show. I am afraid that she could write a sequel to these earlier health disasters about our country in the relatively near future. Once such things get started, they pick up speed remarkably fast. It is a book worth reading, and I recommend it highly.

---

C.F. in Waltham, MA, writes: Think you got this sentence backwards:

So, if [Senate Republicans] want to bundle nine basically acceptable nominees, along with Jack the Ripper, they can probably squeeze Jack through.

Here:

So, if [Senate Republicans] want to bundle nine basically acceptable nominees, along with Jack the Ripper, they can probably squeeze the nine basically acceptable nominees through.

Fixed that for you.

---

B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: If you asked me to use "Rick Perry" and "smarter" in the same sentence, I'd be stumped. But you wrote, "If Trump were a bit smarter—or listened to people who are, say, Rick Perry..."

Such a brilliant put-down. I hope people didn't read past it without enjoying it as much as I did.

Politics: Legal Matters

M.B. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: (V) wrote: "The legal system simply doesn't work any more."

Ending with that after leading with Charlie Kirk and how that's massive bad news for America... I think we can close the book on how long it took the United States to destroy itself after 9/11: exactly 24 years.

---

R.A.G. in Seattle, WA, writes: (V) wrote: "The legal system simply doesn't work any more. Any defendant with enough money for endless appeals can stretch the case out for years until the other side gives up, or until they finally stumble on a sympathetic judge."

I don't disagree, and there is much to support this conclusion. Doesn't concluding this, with no hope of reform even on the horizon, signal the end of the Republic? Aren't our laws what make the United States of America a functioning democracy? Never thought I'd see this on Electoral-Vote.com, but it is indeed quite accurate. Sad times.

I'd be interested in (L)'s reaction. Or maybe even from the readership—have we entered "abandon all hope ye who enter here" territory?

All I can come up with is surefire words of wisdom (A) will recognize from James T. Kirk: "...the highest of all our laws states that your world is yours and will always remain yours."

"That which you call Ee'd Plebnista was not written for the chiefs or the kings or the warriors or the rich and powerful, but for all the people."

"The problem with the Nazis wasn't simply that their leaders were evil, psychotic men. They were, but the main problem, I think, was the leader principle."

---

J.P. in Glenside, PA, writes: I read all of Brett Kavanaugh's words in the LA/ICE filing and was stunned by his casual abandonment of anything resembling acceptable law enforcement behavior. To start with, he brushed away entirely the use of violence as noted by the dissent in these arrests (the case does not ask us to address it...), but what struck me most was that, never mind the due process rights of undocumented foreigners, he simply does not even care that U.S. citizens are being swept up in this obvious racial-profiling-driven process. He dismissed that almost as an inconvenience worth having (the end justifies the means).

While I was reading that, I kept thinking to myself: "Well, I could be Latino and have lived in the U.S. for generations as a citizen (there are many such in Los Angeles and all over California) or a legally resident alien and it just does not matter to Kavanaugh. They can kidnap me off the streets and apologize later once they check my documents." How can this be acceptable in the USA?

I think we have not seen the end of this case or similar cases being brought forward. This brown-shirt behavior must be resisted. Wikipedia has a page where all these arrests of citizens are being documented, and it's probably over 100 entries by now.

I was sick to my stomach yesterday.

If the Supreme Court will NOT restrain this government, I fear we are headed to racial violence. This reminds me very much of the Sus laws in the U.K. that lead to race riots during the Margaret Thatcher years.

---

B.W. in West Hartford, CT, writes: I have to disagree with the criticism from R.E.M. in Brooklyn over your take on the Supreme Court engaging in a power grab by granting to itself the power of judicial review. The standard thinking at the time was that each branch could determine for itself what the Constitution meant. Why didn't the Supreme Court under John Marshall find for Marbury's demand for a writ of mandamus, and order Jefferson to deliver Marbury's commission? Because Jefferson's own views were precisely that the Court did not have the power to order him to do anything. He would have ignored the Court if they had in any way ordered him to do something he was not prepared to do, and by this act Jefferson would have established the precedent that the Court had no such power.

So the Court found that part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave them the power to issue such writs unconstitutional, declaring they could do so under the Constitution because they had the power to declare acts by Congress unconstitutional. Marshall's decision was brilliant because he claimed a power not in the Constitution and applied that decision in a way that Jefferson could not contradict it. It is certainly telling that it would be 50 years before the Court declared another act of Congress unconstitutional. If their power was so widely accepted, why did Marshall need to write such a detailed defense of the very concept of judicial supremacy (that the Court had the final say of what the Constitution meant) and why was this power not used for 5 decades after it was claimed by Marshall?

Politics: The "Good Ones"

G.W. in Avon, CT, writes: D.A. in Hermosa Beach writes "If there is any further discussion in the Sunday mailbag on my proposed mark-ups to what the Republican party opposes and does not oppose, here are three thoughts to consider that are rooted in real world events rather than solely personal opinion..." and then lists a handful of anecdotal scenarios that appear superficially to act as counterexamples.

My answer to why those counter-examples exist: They stay in their lane. One of the things I've noticed about MAGA voters is that they have a very rigid view of what the objectively correct social order is and are upset when people don't meekly accept their proper role in the hierarchy. They're more okay with those who aren't "uppity."

"There are clearly parts of the LGBTQ+ agenda, as it is currently advocated that the Republican Party opposes. Biological males competing in female sports is one example that currently gets the most coverage in the media."

What's a second example? I've been hearing about "the gay agenda" since long before the uproar about the world-breaking impact of a literal handful of trans athletes. So what are some of those other parts of "the agenda" that are so problematic?

---

M.L. in West Hartford, CT, writes: D.A. in Hermosa Beach needs to google the word "tokenism," as it perfectly describes their use of Scott Bessent and Vivek Ramaswamy to attempt to deflect accusations of racism in the MAGA agenda. As for their other argument—that Donald Trump's increase in support among Latino voters refutes the claim that the Republican Party "is opposed to brown people"—I would say that there are many possible reasons why this might be the case, ranging from voters believing Trump when he said he would only seek to deport criminals and other "bad" people, to voters prioritizing other issues (such as the economy) over immigration and discrimination. But, most importantly, I would note that even in a year when the Republicans made massive gains among Latino voters, Kamala Harris still won the majority of Latino votes. It seems to strain logic to argue that a majority of Latino voters having voted for Harris proves that the Republican Party's agenda is the most supportive of Latinos.

---

K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: D.A. from Hermosa Beach wrote: "In 2024 Donald Trump received a higher percentage of the Latino vote than any presidential candidate since George W. Bush in 2004."

That didn't seem possible to me. So, I looked it up. There is a critical word missing from the statement. The word "Republican" needs to come before "presidential candidate" for it to be true. Kamala Harris got the majority of the Latino vote in 2024.

Politics: Talkin' 'Bout My Generation

A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: M.G. in Boulder wrote: "Electoral-Vote.com is known to have a reader-age demographic of 'older than (Z).' It would be interesting to know where we stand on this generational issue."

I have said it before; I will say it again: I am a grouchy old curmudgeon, a child of the 60's, an unreconstructed hippie, and an unrepentant liberal! That probably puts me in the "older than dirt" category according to my children.

I served on the local city planning commission for several years, then was elected to the city council for 14 years, then served an additional 25 years on the county planning commission. I have supported and/or opposed ballot measures. I have won elections and lost more than I have won. My eyesight is not what it used to be, driving at night has become an issue for me. My stamina isn't what it used to be. The fire is still there, but on July 10th I submitted my resignation from the county planning commission.

I strenuously oppose term limits. The institutional memory of why "we" did something is incredibly important. Why "we" made whatever decision, especially at a local level, is not always perfectly documented. How many people are going to go back to look up the minutes of the council meeting from 10 years ago where the issue was cussed and discussed ad nauseum before a decision was rendered.

Arbitrarily adopting some magical number of years or terms to say you are done is problematic. Note that I DO NOT agree with or support Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) or Mitch McConnell (R-KY). But their constituents have sent them back to the halls of Congress repeatedly; there must be a reason for that. I am more likely to support Nancy Pelosi or Reps. James Clyburn (D-SC) or Steny Hoyer (D-MD). All that I have mentioned and many more show up to work every day and do their jobs. I would hate to have seen any of them removed just because of term limits. Term limits did not save us from Matt Gaetz, or George Santos, or Madison Cawthorn. Nor will they save us in the future (hopefully with one exception).

I respect the decisions of Jan Schakowsky, Jerry Nadler and Joni Ernst to retire gracefully from political office. I respect the decision of Joe Biden to drop out of the 2024 election (I just wish he had seen the writing on the wall and done it sooner). To all of those who have served and gracefully bowed out of the political scene, I commend you. To all of those who stubbornly can't see the writing on the wall, have lost their fastball, are beyond their sell by date, THROW THE BUMS OUT!

---

S.H. in Duluth, MN, writes: I wanted to write in to reply to M.G. in Boulder regarding the points they made about Democratic politicians possibly being too old. As a person who just graduated from high school this past spring, I think I can say with a degree of confidence that I'm one of the youngest members of the readership. I think that even if some of the older Congressmembers are doing their jobs well right now, the Democratic caucus as a whole must be in peak condition by the time the next Democratic president is in the White House (which hopefully will be in 2029). That means that the older politicians who will have fallen off by 2029 should be doing their utmost to use their experience, connections, and knowledge to help mentor the next generation of politicians. I will concede that it would be detrimental to have a bunch of rookies in Congress running around without a clue as to what they are doing, but isn't that precisely why it is important to foster an environment of mentorship between the young and the old?

Complaints Department

M.S. in Parma, OH, writes: In writing about the signers of the discharge petition for the resolution calling for release of the Epstein documents, you referred to the three Republican women who signed it as "crazy women." While the word crazy may be appropriate for most of what they say and do, it was not appropriate here. You should have recognized that each of the three has legitimate reasons to call for transparency on this issue, and support the victims.

Nancy Mace (R-SC) has said that she was raped at age 16. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) was impregnated when she was 16 years old by her 23 year old "boyfriend" (whom she later married and divorced). Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) gave an eloquent speech, which you highlighted in one of your posts, in support of the Epstein victims and the need for exposing all the wrongdoers. She has previously spoken out about sexual harassment on Capitol Hill and how it is covered up by confidential settlements.

They may have some other motives (even conspiratorial ideas) that contributed to supporting the resolution, but they should not be called "crazy" in this context.

---

J.D.M. in Portland, OR, writes: In "Trump Love Letter to Jeffrey Epstein Made Public," (Z) asked, of the Trump-Epstein letter: "Third... is anyone else picking up on the enormous amounts of gay subtext? This could have been copied and pasted from the script of Brokeback Mountain. I can't quit you, Jeffrey."

Speaking as a gay man and a survivor of sexual abuse, the perception is entirely (Z)'s. In TCF's note, it's one sexual predator gloating to his wingman how they keep getting away with their heinous deeds against underage girls and women they so clearly enjoy. He's celebrating acts of violence against those they exploited and absolutely not expressing any sort of love for anyone.

Rape is about power, anger, hatred and expressions of dominance. Sexual orientation is a persistent sexual and romantic attraction to one or more genders—or love, for shorthand. Rape and sexual orientation have nothing to do with each other.

I get (Z)'s trying to be snarky, but in this case he's engaged in the same scapegoating dearly loved by the far right: it's not those closest to our children (father, uncles, brothers) most likely to molest them, it's The Others (the gays, the trans, the Blacks, etc.) who are the real threat. That line of reasoning, "blame The Others," neatly allows people to disregard uncomfortable thoughts about who really does these heinous things and pin it on someone else. It's the same reasoning used for decades to justify violence against minorities and, recently, attempts to ban drag shows, the existence of trans people, DEI, etc.

Maybe (Z) thought those lines were good for a laugh, but they're flatly offensive and poorly chosen. That's before one considers the irony: Brokeback Mountain, a film about two gay men who could only be themselves far away from an oppressive society, was used as a comparison for the relationship between two rich heterosexual white men with an army of enablers at their beck and call.

(V) & (Z) respond: For the record, it was not intended as snark. It was a reference to the significant body of literature about homoerotic behavior in uber-heterosexual contexts, particularly football.

---

J.C. in Chicago, IL, writes: Regarding "Conservative Activist Charlie Kirk Shot and Killed in Utah," I'm a huge fan of your humor and your turns of phrase. That being said, "Kirk was a full-throated supporter of Donald Trump..." should've been left on the editing room floor.

(V) & (Z) respond: Again, for the record, that was not a joke; it was just a common turn of phrase that we happened to use, at a time when we had to write fast. We don't make jokes in items like that one.

Big Cities, Bigger Heads

L.H. in Chicago, IL, writes: In response to a question from P.F. in Goldvein, you discussed the prominence of New York and Los Angeles in popular culture. Certainly, though I have never been to New York City, I feel like I know the geography of Manhattan thanks to TV, movies, and comic books.

However, when I was a youngster in the late 60s/early 70s, it seemed to me that movies—at least the children's movies I saw at the time—all took place in London. I'm thinking of Peter Pan, 101 Dalmatians, The Aristocats, Bedknobs and Broomsticks and Mary Poppins, and those are just off the top of my head. As I got older, I actually noticed when I saw movies set in NYC, and it felt weird to me. Like, "The US isn't where movies happen." And 1980's The Blues Brothers might have been the first movie I saw set in my city of Chicago.

---

A.B. in Lichfield, England, UK, writes: The dominant position of New York and Los Angeles in popular culture doesn't just reflect their position in the production of mass entertainment; it also reflects that the United States is currently the dominant world power (notwithstanding the current president's ongoing attempts to undermine that hard-won status). It wasn't always this way. When Martians invaded Earth in 1898, H.G. Wells didn't have them destroying New York or Los Angeles, he had the first capsule land southwest of London, before they took over the capital of the British Empire. That allowed him to make a pointed analogy in The War of the Worlds about the impact of colonialism, yes, but it also reflected that the United Kingdom and the British Empire were the dominant polities in the late 19th century, and London was still the center of the global economy. The rest of the world barely features in the novel. Modern aliens are now beginning to attack China, possibly hinting at a coming power shift, though based on 2016's The Great Wall, at this particular point, we still need Matt Damon and Pedro Pascal to defeat them.

---

R.P.E.H. in London, England, UK, writes: There's no contest about this. London has the largest ego of any city.

All roads may lead to Rome, but you set your watches via Greenwich Mean Time, even if it's called UTC these days.

And you can't forget Dr. Johnson: "Why, Sir, you find no man, at all intellectual, who is willing to leave London. No, Sir, when a man is tired of London, he is tired of life; for there is in London all that life can afford."

You colonists have created some amusing settlements, but none compare to the Empire's beating heart.

---

C.B. in Berlin, Germany, writes: London and Paris are the obvious ones where, like in New York City (I'm not that familiar with L.A. culture), people who live there never tire of telling you that it's the greatest place in the world and they couldn't imagine living anywhere else.

One that many people don't have in their sights is Cologne—a city that has a lot in common with New Orleans (Mardi Gras, corruption, Catholic Church pageantry and the damn median that makes it impossible to turn left on many roads) where people also identify very much with the place (I've lived in both places).

The local dialect, Kölsch, is considered its own language (a mix of various dialects from the region). In fact it's supposed to be the only city that has its own language. There's a local beer, Kölsch, that is not just a brand but a specific type of (watery) beer. People also take pride in the local football/soccer team though it hasn't won anything in decades—again like New Orleans. Very Cologne Moment: During the 2006 World Cup Match between Switzerland and Ukraine, people were singing loudly and enthusiastically... about Cologne. A rather characteristic moment by the local crowd!

---

J.H. in The Hub, writes: Regarding Boston's status on the list of cities that consider themselves the center of the universe, one of Boston's nicknames is literally "The Hub of the Universe" or just "The Hub" for short. This apparently goes back to the 19th century. I have only ever heard it used ironically, for whatever that's worth.

---

W.V. in Andover, MN, writes: Minneapolis HAS to be in the Top 10 Cities with an Ego. After all, it regularly tops out on scores of lists about cities, just like this one. Whether it's the Minneapolis lakes, the Minneapolis parks, the considerable Minneapolis skyway system, the great Minneapolis theater community, the biggest mall in America (well, actually that's in suburban Bloomington), or the lists of the most livable, the healthiest, the best-educated, or just the most likable city around, those Minneapolis egos regularly get stroked—but in classic Minnesota Niceness fashion, we just can't bring ourselves to brag about it like folks in Chicago or New Orleans or Boston or Los Angeles like to do.

---

H.B. in Toronto, ON, Canada, writes: As someone who lives in the vicinity of Toronto—the Greater Toronto Area, as we like to call it—I get the impression that Torontonians hate being part of a big city way more than they love it. (To some degree, I suspect, this is a legacy of the 1998 amalgamation.) Combine that with Canadians' despising of Americans, and I'd say New York is overrated, but nobody thinks that means Toronto should take over.

---

L.C.H. in Vancouver, BC, Canada, writes: It's well-known that Toronto considers itself the most important city in Canada, and possibly anywhere. It is the largest city, and definitely the financial capital of Canada. It is certainly an impressive city, with a rich culture. But what mostly comes across is many Torontonians' lack of curiosity about anything outside of Toronto.

Vancouver has a bit of an identity crisis. There are competing beliefs that it's a major cosmopolitan hub, on par with other great cities, but also that it's just a nice West Coast city with snowsports, hiking, and aquatic sports available in equal measure. This results in an odd tension between exclusiveness and casual-egalitarianism that seeps into local politics and culture.

Having lived in Austria for a while, many there consider Vienna to be one of the most important cities in the world, and they can be a bit offended if you don't have it at the top of your list of great cities. I had a professor from Vienna who explained that, having once been the co-capital of an empire, it's still thought of that way by Austrians. Even though the empire has been gone for over a century.

---

R.P. in Montclair, NJ, writes: There are lots of cities with egos, though most of them focus on a primary rival. Working for Japanese expats, the rivalry between Tokyo and Osaka was explained to me as being similar to NYC vs LA. They really aren't all that different to outsiders, but residents will fight tooth and nail to defend "their" city.

---

E.W. in Silver Spring, MARYLAND, writes: In response to P.F. in Goldvein, we are not a city, but Maryland has built an entire cultural identity around blue crabs (crab cakes are for tourists), Old Bay (including in ice cream), Utz, Natty Bo (gross, but tastes like home), horse racing (Preakness weekend), lacrosse (those jocks were as 'important' as the football players in high school), the Baltimorean accent (it's pronounced "Bawlmer, Murlin") and the Bay.

While there isn't a "we are the best" ego in play, there is a strong sense of pride among the nativeborn and those who moved here alike. It's tough to find a Edward Norton film without some reference to the state he grew up in. It's been 24 years since he retired, but to this day people will say "in Maryland there are three things guaranteed in life: death, taxes, and Cal Ripken Jr." The state flag is plastered everywhere, including cars that already have it on the license plate.

The expression used to describe this phenomenon is, "Maryland is a cult, not a state." It may not be city pride, but there is a very strong connection people feel with this state. Possibly more than any other state in the union, and don't any of you write in about Texas. I've been to Texas. It doesn't even compare. Don't mess with Maryland.

---

P.C. in Vero Beach, FL, writes: Regarding cities that think highly of themselves, I feel that I have some experience in this area and should comment.

I was born in New York City, and certainly agree that New York presents itself as the center of the universe, not in a conceited manner, just as an understanding of fact. There is some realization that other cities exist, but are looked at like you see your baby brother—nice, but you have a long way to go to match our greatness.

I grew up outside of Philadelphia, a wonderful city to those who know it, but will always be in the shadow of its neighbor 90 miles to the north.

I lived in Denver for a bit back in the 80s, a fun city, but no center, no soul. A couple of years in San Francisco will always be dear to my heart, a wonderful city, but more inward-looking than trying to compare itself with other cities. Besides, when the two closest cities to you with larger populations are Oakland and San Jose, you basically have nothing to prove.

I recently spent a year in Atlanta, and I have to give full props to that city, up and coming, rich history and accessible. Definitely has an inferiority complex but striving to improve itself more than anywhere else I've lived.

A career working at FedEx sent me to Memphis dozens of times through the years. I returned 20 years later and nothing had changed. Nothing. A depressing place where the people living there can see the potential, but just can't make any progress.

Twenty years in the Chicago suburbs taught me much of the city's rich culture and history. I can't count the number of times I heard the phrase "greatest city in the world," spoken by locals whose only trip outside the Windy City was the weekend they spent in Milwaukee. Chicago is the only place I've ever lived that made me miss New Jersey.

I had the wonderful experience of spending a decade in Europe, mostly Brussels and Paris. Brussels is a shell-shocked survivor, looking over its shoulder for the next disaster to come, with a near-religious belief in negotiation and compromise, as if their existence depends on it, a perfect place to govern the EU.

Amsterdam is Amsterdam. No other place in the world like it. But I'm sure there are others out there who know it better than I...

Then there is Paris. Everything you hear about it is true, maybe except the dog poop on the sidewalk. Every day was an adventure, every adventure made me smile. But in terms of the city's ego, here is the punchline story of this tome. An American friend, first time visitor of the city, was in awe of everything they saw. They said to one of my Parisian friends, "Wow! Y'all must think this is the greatest city in the world!", to which my French friend responded, "No, we just think Paris is one of the great cities in the world." To the French, that's enough, and demonstrated a maturity unknown on this side of the Atlantic.

History Matters

K.H. in Corning, NY, writes: You wrote: "Anyone who is interested in this general subject should pick up a copy of How the States Got Their Shapes, by Mark Stein."

Great shout-out for this wonderful book. We bought a copy years ago when we started taking our kids on cross-country trips. Every time we entered a state, one of the kids was to open the book and read the pages on how that state got its shape. It's several pages each, but we were driving, so we had many hours, usually, before the next border.

While they sometimes rolled their eyes at this forced education, they mostly loved the knowledge and shared it when they got back to school.

This summer, when we took the now 20+ year olds to Alaska, their 48th (one kid) and 49th (the other kid) states (50th for the parents), they happily read the entries out loud to their friends who were there.

That book has traveled tens of thousands of miles in our minivan. It is well-loved and well used. We hope, after kid 1 gets to catch up to Hawaii, that it reaches its final destination, the remaining unvisited state of Delaware, in the next few years.

Thanks for the reminder of these wonderful memories!

The Sporting Life

P.D.N. in Boardman, OH, writes: Thanks, (Z), for your thoughtful suggestions on what rules changes you would make in the four major sports leagues.

I would eliminate the blue line altogether. When you have a goaltender, as in soccer, inevitably scoring goes down. Four goals in hockey is a blowout. There needs to be more scoring. That's what the NFL figured out, and later MLB. Nothing in hockey is more exciting than a break-away. Let's have more of them. And too many penalties are blue-line infractions. It slows the game down and frustrates everybody. Eliminating the blue line would open up the rink. Players would have to use and defend all of it and there would be more coordination and strategy on plays, instead of merely advancing the puck. There would be more line changes, which means more strategy for just when you'd send them out. Sounds like fun to me.

---

C.G. in Toronto, ON, Canada, writes: I disagree on changing the NHL offside rule. Soccer has a similar rule, but the NHL only has offside at opponents' blue line when entering the zone. Approximately 80% of all challenged goals are overturned ('22-'23, '23-'24, '24-'25 seasons), so there is a clear advantage to being offside on entering the zone ('22-'23 and '23-'24 had over 100 goals scored and challenged). So is 1 foot offside okay, but 5 feet is not? Where do you draw the line for an unfair advantage?

(V) & (Z) respond: Eh, what do Canadians know about hockey?

---

T.B. in Leon County, FL, writes: I like your American football "4th and 20" replacement for onside kicking. As it's called "football," I'd like to see kickoff kicks that go through the goalposts give the kicking team one point (with no other change). This would mostly decrease the number of personal fouls committed after touchdowns, as that is when kickoff kicks might reach that far.

---

L.R.H. in Oakland, CA, writes: You wrote: "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?"

Some of us are old enough to remember the enormous publicity surrounding Fischer vs. Spassky in 1972. I do not recall whether there was TV coverage of the games but there was such excitement! So many kids buying chess sets and MCO!

It was really something. I don't know whether there's been a similar period of interest in chess since. The game has changed; you can now play chess against software programs that are pretty amazing.

---

B.J. in Arlington, MA, writes: I respectfully disagree with the idea of chess in the Olympics.

I've played the card game bridge on and off since high school. I really enjoy it. For some periods of time I have played regularly and even entered regional and national tournaments (though I am nowhere near a nationally ranked player).

I remember a few decades ago that there was a push to have bridge in the Olympics. As much as I love the game, and as much as it requires enormous skill, physical and mental stamina, and years of dedication to become a top player, I thought the idea was ridiculous. The Olympics is a celebration of athleticism. Bridge can be played well by a quadriplegic. They are totally different things.

I feel the same way about chess. I would totally support an international competitive event for non-athletic endeavors, with chess and bridge both included. But not the Olympics.

---

B.H. in Frankfort, IL, writes: To get our minds off the human failures of our times, when comparing Aaron Judge to Joe DiMaggio, an interesting factoid appears:

• Aaron Judge: 361 HRs, 1358 K's. An amazing feat which solidifies Judge's place as a future Hall of Famer.
• Joe DiMaggio: 361 HRs, 369 K's. Joe D. must have been sent down from a higher league. "Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio? / A nation turns its lonely eyes to you."

---

P.M. in Edenton, NC, writes: You wrote: "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?"

Am I the only reader who had the thought of "Britney Spears"?

(And now a reference to Britney has made it to Electoral-Vote.com! This place is becoming like TV Tropes.)

And You People, You're All Astronauts... on Some Kind of Star Trek

E.S. in Providence, RI, writes: I agree with A's assessment that Star Trek: The Original Series is an excruciating slow slog and hasn't aged well. I feel the very same way about the pre-2005 reboot "Classic" Doctor Who (1963-89). (I know, SACRILEGE!) Between the rubber-suited monsters and the loooong stretches where nothing really happens to move the plot along, I find "Classic" DW to be unwatchable. The reboot, however, might be my favorite show ever (especially the David Tennant era). Also, Lower Decks is hilarious. I love it.

---

R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: I generally agree with (A)'s ranking of Star Trek series, and I will refrain from going into a lengthy discussion of those points where I disagree. But very quickly, my top five are:

1. Voyager
2. Lower Decks
3. Strange New Worlds
4. The Next Generation
5. Deep Space Nine

---

T.L. in West Orange, NJ, writes: (Z)'s post discussing how to recast Deep Space Nine was thoughtful, insightful, and balls-to-the-wall hilarious. 2025 has been a pretty dystopian-leaning year, and the past few days have been particularly awful, so that answer of his was exactly the pick-me-up this reader needed. Many thanks—except that now I'm trying to picture Jake Sisko Doin' the Pigeon...

---

R.S. in Oak Ridge, TN, writes: Loved that bit in Saturday, but you didn't cast Major Kira!

Mean Mama, maybe?

Statler and Waldorf could be General Martok and Chancellor Gowron. Q'apla!

DS9 and SNW are my favorites of the Star Trek franchise, by the way. "In The Pale Moonlight" is one of the best episodes of TV ever made, Trek or otherwise, in my opinion.

(V) & (Z) respond: Oops, we made our pick, and then forgot to write that sentence. Mean Mama is good; we were going to go with Sweetums, who is scary to those who don't know him, but lovable to those who do. Plus, that would be a former terrorist named Sweetums.

Gallimaufry

L.H. in Chicago, IL, writes: You wrote, of The Godfather: "[F]or anyone who does not recognize that, it's The Godfather, Don Vito Corleone. And while the character is certainly Italian and violent, he is not left-wing, he is not fascist, and he's not obviously political at all."

No big deal, but as someone who has seen the film too many times, I was expecting to see Don Barzini's line referenced: "If Don Corleone wants to present us a bill for those services, that is his right. After all, we are not communists."

Final Words

A.C. in Springfield, IL, writes: The last words of Johann Sebastian Bach: "Don't cry for me, for I go where music is born."

If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.

---

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