Saturday Q&A

We now present 25 non-politics questions and answers, divided into five categories, for your reading pleasure.

If you are still working on the headline theme, we'll tell you that it might help to watch one of those gum commercials from the 1980s.

Film

D.S.A. in Parish, NY, asks: I remember seeing Fritz Lang's Metropolis as a kid in the 60s, visually stunning but with a story that seemed confusing. Over the years the film has been extended at least twice by rediscovered scenes. Added back in the storyline is clarified—it's about people power, a.k.a. socialism.

It's my suspicion that earliest version I saw was edited to remove the socialism. Do I have a case, and are there any other examples of movies being given political makeovers?

(V) & (Z) answer: It's kinda complicated. There's no basis for thinking that Metropolis was specifically edited to remove its socialist undertones. However, even back then, films were often re-edited to serve the needs of various markets. That could mean cutting runtime, it could mean removing references that would not make sense to people in a different country, and it could also mean various forms of censorship. Among the possibilities covered under the rubric of censorship is political messaging.

Originally, there were three master negatives of Metropolis, which was the standard in that time, in order to make sure the film was properly preserved. A print was made from one of them, for the premiere, and that print has been lost. One of the negatives was then cut up for the German release, one for the British release and one for the American release. Thereafter, the various negatives were cut up again, and again, for various re-releases, with excisions largely being done because of demand for shorter runtimes. The point here is that there was no one individual or entity demanding changes to one version of the film. There were many people, at many times, making changes to multiple versions of the film. Some of those cuts may have been made by someone who said something like, "You know, the Americans aren't going to like this comment about capitalism." But overall, the scenes that were cut were almost certainly cut for many different reasons, and not as part of an overall strategy to change the message of the film.

It is still the case today that films are re-cut to fit the sensibilities of various audiences. The most obvious modern examples involve majority-Muslim countries, where anything involving sex and/or nudity has to be pared way back or removed, and China, where anything that makes China look bad, or that makes Taiwan look good (or, even worse, like an independent country) has to go, or the film won't be approved for release in that nation. We think it would be fair to call most or all of these "political makeovers."

In the United States, the vast majority of filmmakers have studios or other financial backers to answer to. And so, that largely keeps films that are overtly political, in a problematic way, from being made in the first place. It would not be plausible, for example, to make a film in 2025 calling for the restoration of white supremacy, because nobody would back it. The same is true of something extremely leftist, like a film calling for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government.

In general, directors who want to make political films, whether today or in generations past, know enough to encode their messaging so their film can get through the system. They can change the setting of the film to something not contemporary (say, the Wild West or space), or they can utilize allegory, or the like. Make a film or TV show condemning racism in 1965, and you're going to have trouble. Make the Star Trek episode "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield," where the crew of the Enterprise can't believe it matters if your face is half-black/half-white or half-white/half-black, and you can get away with it.

To the extent that there are notable examples of completed films being de-politicized, at least in the United States, it's a product of censorship. Almost certainly the most famous example is the film Spartacus. There is a scene in that film that was carefully written by screenwriter Dalton Trumbo to give the film a gay subtext. Trumbo was not himself gay, but he was aggravated that many of the biggest McCarthyists (most obviously Roy Cohn) indulged in vitriolic homophobia in public, while being gay in their private lives.

Needless to say, a film made in the late 1950s could not speak directly about homosexuality. And so, Trumbo had Crassus (who is clearly meant to represent Joseph McCarthy, and is played by Laurence Olivier) speaking with his slave Antoninus (Tony Curtis) about whether the slave likes to indulge in "snails" or "oysters." It is very clear from the scene that "snails" means "boys" and "oysters" means "girls," and Crassus/Olivier concedes he likes both, eventually seducing Antoninus/Curtis.

Trumbo, and director Stanley Kubrick, thought they might sneak that one past the censors, but they were wrong, so the scene was excised from the original release. When Spartacus was restored for a grand re-release, 40 years later, gay had become OK, and so the scene was put back in. The original audio had been lost, however, so it was necessary to re-record it. Curtis was still alive, but Olivier was not, and so, on the suggestion of Lady Olivier, the studio hired Anthony Hopkins to impersonate Olivier. Hopkins' impersonation is very good, but if you click on the link above, and listen, you can detect that it's actually Hopkins.

Anyhow, were the changes to Spartacus political? To us, they certainly were. Back in 1960, however, the censors would have said they were in the name of decency, not politics.

---

K.E. in Newport, RI, asks: 2025 marks the 40th anniversary of the film Red Sonja. This was one of the first action movies I saw as a young child, and a new adaptation is being released this summer. However, the original has aged very badly. Like many 1980s films, it has a very homophobic subtext. The main villain is a sorceress who becomes enraged when Red Sonja rejects her advances, and slaughters her family and entire town as punishment. Red Sonja teams up with a barbarian played by Arnold Schwarzenegger to find and kill the sorceress. It comes across as a story about purging the world of lesbians. Schwarzenegger says it is the worst film he acted in.

That is a roundabout intro to asking this question: What is your list of the top 10 action films with female leads?

(V) & (Z) answer: We recognize that there are different ideas of what it takes to make an action film, and what it takes to qualify as a "lead." However, by OUR definitions, here is our Top 10, in chronological order:

1. Notorious (1946): Ingrid Bergman must have been thrilled to land a role like this; such an opportunity did not come often for actresses of her generation.
   
   
2. Star Wars, Episode IV: A New Hope (1977): Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) isn't in the middle of the film very much, but she's awfully important in the first and third acts.
   
   
3. Aliens (1986): Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) might be the single-most intimidating character on this list.
   
   
4. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991): The first one was good, but this one was better, and this is also the one where Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) began to drive events, rather than just react to them.
   
   
5. Speed (1994): Yes, Officer Jack Traven (Keanu Reeves) does a lot of the dangerous things, but it's Annie Porter (Sandra Bullock) who is actually driving the bus.
   
   
6. X-Men (2000): The most powerful character in the movie, by far, is Jean Grey (Famke Janssen). And Storm (Halle Berry) is no slouch, either.
   
   
7. Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001): When this film came out, there were all kinds of articles about how Angelina Jolie was launching a new era in female-led actions films. We think the actresses in the six previous films on the list, among others, would disagree. Still, Tomb Raider was a great action flick.
   
   
8. Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003): While The Bride (Uma Thurman) kicked a lot of ass, we assume she did not take names, because everyone was dead by the time she was done.
   
   
9. Spy (2015): It's a shame this action-comedy didn't get as much attention as it deserved, because Melissa McCarthy was great, maybe even better than she was in Bridesmaids.
   
   
10. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016): Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones) could give Leia a run for her money. Too bad the other Star Wars films of the last 10 years weren't this good.

When films are part of a series, we chose only the one that we think is the best "female-led action film" of the set, though we abide by the Lucasfilm convention that Rogue One is a standalone film, and not part of the Skywalker saga.

---

D.S. in Layton, UT, asks: What are your essential "caper" movies?

(V) & (Z) answer: We're just going to stick with the format of the previous answer, and give you 10, in chronological order (starting with a film that makes both lists):

1. Notorious (1946): There are a number of Hitchcock films that could make this list, but this is the one that fits best, we think. Hitch was born to make films like this.
   
   
2. Ocean's Eleven (1960): The film itself is only so-so, but it makes the list because watching the Rat Pack in action is such a treat.
   
   
3. The Manchurian Candidate (1962): This is a considerably better film than the previous one, with Frank Sintra actually getting to show off his acting chops.
   
   
4. It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963): A lot of films on this list have unbelievable casts, but this one might be the most loaded of all, a veritable who's who of mid-20th-century comedy. And it's a rip-roaring adventure, to boot, one that still echoes in American culture, all these years later. We always wonder, when we visit an In-N-Out Burger, how many people know the crossed palm trees in front of every location are an homage to "the big W."
   
   
5. The Godfather (1972): We realize that this is not usually considered a caper film, but hear us out. The entire second half of the film, from the time that Michael Corleone takes over as don, is a giant con meant to lull the other families into complacency, so that Michael can eventually strike like a cobra, and reassert the Corleones as the dominant family in New York. That sounds like a caper to us.
   
   
6. The Sting (1973): We're not ranking the films here, but if we were, this pretty much has to be #1, right?
   
   
7. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988): There is no way we could make a list like this, and not find room for at least one film with Michael Caine, who clearly had an affinity for caper films (The Italian Job, Gambit, Going in Style, etc.). But this is Caine's best, in our view. And we did not realize, until writing this answer, that if Caine is the king of capers, Steve Martin is the prince. It's actually Martin who shows up twice on the list, and he could plausibly have made one or two other appearances (for example, for his take on Inspector Clouseau).
   
   
8. Sneakers (1992): Another film with an absolutely loaded cast, including three Oscar winners (Robert Redford, Sidney Poitier, and Ben Kingsley) and another five nominees (Dan Aykroyd, David Strathairn, River Phoenix, James Earl Jones, and Mary McDonnell). It's quite a thing when Stephen Tobolowsky, one of the great character actors of our time, barely makes the top ten most notable cast members. And the script is great, to boot.
   
   
9. The Usual Suspects (1995): If you haven't seen it, and you ever plan to do so, we'll just say that you'll be very surprised to learn who plays Keyser Söze.
   
   
10. The Spanish Prisoner (1997): Director and screenwriter David Mamet has turned into a real jerk, but this movie, his magnum opus, is still great (and was made before his "jerk" period). This is the other Steve Martin film, by the way.
    
    

---

G.H. in Richmond, VA, asks: Have you ever walked out of a movie? If so, how long did you last? What put you over the edge?

(V) & (Z) answer: (Z) has walked out of two movies. The first was Natural Born Killers, for two reasons: (1) It was over-the-top preachy about Americans' love of violence, despite having been marketed based on the violence in the film; and (2) It had too many gimmicky moments whose purpose seemed to be to remind everyone that "there is a great artist at work directing this film." (Z) does not remember the exact moment he left, but it was around 30 minutes in.

The second was Apocalypse Now: Redux. The original film has two problems: (1) It is over-the-top preachy about American imperialism, and (2) It has a glacial pace. The footage added for Redux makes both problems ten times worse. (Z) remembers exactly when he walked out of this one; it was during the restored (and interminable) scene on the Vietnamese plantation, which serves as a 40-minute sermon on the evils of American imperialism. (Z) does not approve of imperialism, of course, but he also does not like being talked down to by a director who think he has some sort of keen insight that nobody's ever thought of before. That scene is probably a little over an hour into the movie; (Z) was the driver that night, and so could not leave, but ended up playing arcade games out in the theater lobby for a couple of hours.

---

S.M. in Nice, France, asks: By how much did Chinatown win the "Best movies about California" poll (assuming the Polanski masterpiece carried the day, but that's a given...)? And how did the other movies fare in your poll?

(V) & (Z) answer: Oops, we forgot to run those results. Here is the full list, with #1 being the film that got the most support:

1. Chinatown (1974)
2. Back to the Future (1985)
3. Pulp Fiction (1994)
4. Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)
5. The Big Lebowski (1998)
6. The Graduate (1967)
7. American Graffiti (1973)
8. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
9. Vertigo (1958)
10. L.A. Confidential (1997)
11. Sunset Boulevard (1950)
12. The Maltese Falcon (1941)
13. Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982)
14. Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (2019)
15. Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (1989)
16. Beverly Hills Cop (1984)
17. Mulholland Drive (2001)
18. It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963)
19. Clueless (1995)
20. The Karate Kid (1984)
21. The Grapes of Wrath (1940)
22. The Lost Boys (1987)
23. L.A. Story (1991)
24. Bullitt (1968)
25. La La Land (2016)
26. Top Gun (1986)
27. Straight Outta Compton (2015)
28. Real Genius (1985)
29. Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
30. The Big Sleep (1946)
31. Training Day (2001)
32. Heat (1995)

It is not easy to convey the margin of victory, because we allowed people to rank multiple films. We can tell you that Chinatown got 3.92 points, on average (maximum 5), Back to the Future got 3.84 points, and Pulp Fiction got 2.82 points. So, the top two were close, and then there was a big gap.

Television

B.M. in Chico, CA, asks: The scene is a lighthearted morning talk show. The sunshine and coffee graphics lower and the jaunty music fades as the lights come up on our upbeat set with our two hosts. One, holding an oversized mug with a punny slogan, is Donald Trump. Who is the perfect co-host in that second cozy armchair?

(V) & (Z) answer: The only way this could work as anything other than porn for the Fox/OANN/Newsmax crowd, is as a Crossfire-type "debate" program. That means we need an antithesis for the second chair, which in turn translates into someone liberal, well-read, well-educated, smart, probably somewhat young, and probably female. It would help if the person also has some grasp of theatricality and performance.

Our first pick would be Lupita Nyong'o (Yale), but if she's not available, we would also be OK with Danica McKellar (UCLA), Emma Watson (Brown), Mayim Bialik (UCLA), or Ellie Kemper (Princeton/Oxford). If it's gotta be another white guy, for some reason, then our pick is Conan O'Brien (Harvard) or Jon Stewart (William and Mary).

---

S.A. in Salisbury, MD, asks: Who was the greatest captain in the Star Trek franchise?

(V) & (Z) answer: We think we have answered a version of this question before, but we can't find it, so we'll answer (again?). The classic debate is between the more action-oriented Captain Kirk and the more cerebral Jean-Luc Picard. And knowing that, full well, our choice is... Benjamin Sisko.

Sisko is about halfway between these two; he's more cerebral and diplomatic than Kirk, but he's also more of a cowboy than Picard. On top of that, and this is kind of a tiebreaker, he does it all while also being an excellent father. Among the pre-streaming series, he's the only captain who pulled double duty like that.

---

R.P in Redmond, WA, asks: One of the arguments I've heard about The Late Show with Stephen Colbert was "How can they be losing money on the show if it is #1 in the ratings?" That isn't a very good argument, of course. However, movies are notorious for using creative accounting to show the movie didn't make a profit. Is CBS doing the same thing with Colbert's show to make it look like it's losing money? Or is it true that ad-supported TV is no longer a viable economic model, and eventually all of the late night shows will wind up being canceled? Might they be able to move the show to a streaming platform like Netflix?

(V) & (Z) answer: This is known as Hollywood accounting, and it emerged in the film business for two main reasons. First, an individual film is usually set up as, in effect, a separate business entity. The costs of running the actual studio have to appear on the books somewhere, of course, but there is some amount of leeway as to exactly how much gets charged to each entity.

Second, many Hollywood films grant participation in a film's profits to key creatives. It doesn't matter so much if the creative (usually actors, directors and producers) get a cut of the gross revenue, but inventive bookkeeping can really work some "magic" if the creative is entitled to a cut of net profits. There are many stories of people who had profit participation in blockbuster hits, and who thought they had hit the jackpot, but who ended up with nothing. For example, Star Wars, Episode VI: The Return of the Jedi, despite grossing over half a billion dollars, is still in the red, according to studio bookkeeping.

These dynamics are somewhat less applicable to television. That's not to say they do not apply at all, merely less so. We don't have inside information, of course, but we doubt that CBS used accounting trickery to make The Late Show look unprofitable, because there's no good reason for them to do so, as Colbert doesn't have profit participation. Mind you, it's possible that CBS' claim that the Late Show is unprofitable is a lie, we just don't think they manipulated the books to back up that lie.

Our guess—again, without benefit of ANY inside information—is that the truth is somewhere between the story that CBS told, and the claim that Colbert was canceled for political reasons. Network TV is in trouble, and that undoubtedly extends to all parts of their schedule. Colbert's show apparently is unusually expensive to produce, due to an unusually large staff. And while his ratings are good, he's not a specialty show, focused on something like cooking or car repair or computers. That means no highly-targeted commercials. And the problem with non-targeted commercials (say, McDonalds or Coca-Cola) is that those businesses don't want to alienate right-wing customers. So, CBS' sales department was left trying to sell ads to fairly large corporate concerns, but who appeal mostly or exclusively to left-leaning people. And there are only so many REIs and Starbucks out there.

At the same time, The Late Show in general, and Colbert, in particular, are established properties, and being able to draw 2 million people at 11:30 at night is no small feat. So, even given the potential concerns, it's more than a little odd that CBS made no effort to save the show, especially given that the network has to air something at that time each night. It's very plausible the network leadership decided that trying to "fix" the economics of The Late Show would just be putting off the inevitable AND that this was a particularly opportune time to swing the axe, so as to make nice with the White House and with Skydance. If we're right, then the decision would be partly political, partly business.

It is certainly possible that an established property, in particular, could move to a service like Netflix. Brodcast TV brings in a fairly paltry amount for every viewer; something like a quarter per viewer per hour. That only works because networks attract so many viewers that the quarters add up. If you need to replace the income generated by 2 million viewers, at $1.25 per viewer per week, that works out to the monthly cost of about 800,000 Netflix subscriptions. That's still a lot; what's more likely is that Colbert would do something like Conan O'Brien and David Letterman have done, with a stripped-down show that produces far fewer episodes and is far cheaper. After all, if someone subscribes to Netflix to watch Colbert, Netflix makes the same money if they deliver 5 hours of Colbert programming per month as they do when delivering 25 hours of Colbert programming per month.

---

B.B. in Saint Louis, MO, asks: If the television show Gilligan's Island were to be rebooted, which actors should play the various characters?

My picks:

     Gilligan: Pete Davidson
     Skipper: Jack Black
     Ginger: Scarlett Johansson
     Mary Ann: Emma Watson
     Mr. Howell: Donald Trump (side-snicker—Mr. Howell graduated from Harvard)
     Mrs. Howell: Opray Winfrey
     Professor: Neil deGrasse Tyson

(V) & (Z) answer: Obviously, we are not being limited by which performers we could actually get for a reboot of a cheesy 1960s TV show. With that noted...

Gilligan is supposed to be somewhat childlike and naive, but ultimately able to pull it together when he absolutely has to do so. We'll go with Michael Cera for that role.

The Skipper's primary characteristic is that he's avuncular. Our pick is John Goodman.

Ginger is supposed to be worldly and sultry. Mary Ann is supposed to be innocent, with a girl-next-door quality. They also have to look different, so it's always clear who is who. A character named Ginger pretty much has to be a redhead, or redhead-adjacent, so we'll go with the auburn-haired Dakota Johnson. She and the producers can decide if they want to use dye to make her hair redder. For Mary Ann, we will choose Ariana Grande.

When you reboot a show, you want it to be similar enough to please the fans, but not TOO similar. In other words, you have to mix it up with at least some of the characters. For Mr. and Mrs. Howell, then, we will go with Samuel L. Jackson and Wanda Sykes.

The professor is supposed to be smart and a bit sardonic. We choose Stephen Colbert who, as we understand it, will soon be available for new projects.

---

M.A. in Park Ridge, IL, asks: Here's one from left field. What would you say is the first music video (in the sense that we've been thinking of music videos since MTV came along 44 years ago)? This one gets my vote:

(V) & (Z) answer: If we loosely define "music video" as "a visual presentation being driven primarily by the music," there are lots of specimens that predate the opening credits of Hawaii Five-O. In the early days of the film business, there were all kinds of music-driven short films, as people experimented with the medium, and also tried to create things that could fill out a feature-film presentation (in those days, people who bought movie tickets expected 3-5 hours of entertainment). For example, there was an early version of music videos called Soundies; nearly 2,000 of them were produced in the early 1940s.

If this is to be our definition, then we would actually say that the first music videos were produced in the 1930s, by Walt Disney. He did numerous musical shorts, called "Silly Symphonies," and the 1940 release Fantasia was basically just a collection of animated music videos, for classical compositions.

If we narrow our definition of "music video" to something like "musicians staging some sort of filmed presentation, one that is meant to accompany, but be secondary to, their music," we would say the first music video is The Beatles' film A Hard Day's Night. Not the whole film, but several of the musical sequences. Most obviously, is there any definition of "music video" that does not find room for the "Money Can't Buy Me Love" sequence? As that film was released in 1964, it also predates Hawaii Five-O.

History

L.E. in Santa Barbara, CA, asks: For the past few years, I have been listening to the podcast The Rest is History. It has been a lot of fun listening to history from a British perspective. In an early episode, the lads discussed California. They recommended Kevin Starr's series of books on California. I began reading the first book, Americans and the California Dream, 1850-1915, but found Starr's writing style really a slog, so much so that I abandoned the book.

Can you recommend a different book on California that is fairly comprehensive, which might be a more enjoyable read? I am contemplating trying to tackle Starr's book once again, but thought I would turn to the resident historian for suggestions of something that might be written in a more accessible style.

(V) & (Z) answer: Kevin Starr built his reputation on quantity, not quality. And it was a poorly kept secret, even while he was alive, that he was really just an executive editor overseeing a bunch of graduate-student writers, and was not producing his work by himself. That is why the various chapters in his books often have noticeably different writing styles.

Most books that give a comprehensive view of California are going to be textbooks. And there are two of those that are generally well-written, and have interesting sidebars, and so forth. Those are California: An Interpretive History (2011; 10th ed.) by James Rawls and Walton Bean, and The Elusive Eden: A New History of California, Fifth Edition (2019, 5th ed.) by Richard Rice, et al.

The good thing about a textbook, besides being reasonably comprehensive, is that you can skip over the chapters that don't interest you without really ruining the narrative. The bad thing is that textbooks have to be written with some level of formality, so even the good ones are a little dry. The other bad thing is that they tend to be expensive, even if you buy used.

Due to these downsides, we suspect a textbook will not hold your interest, and that the book you'll want is California: An American History (2023, 1st ed.) by John Mack Faragher. You should take a look at the table of contents/sample of content to see if it fits the bill.

---

T.W. in Brussels, Belgium, asks: From time to time, a list of worst mass murderers comes up, usually including people like Mao, Joseph Stalin, Leopold III and Hitler.

Who would be at the bottom of that list? In other words, who saved most people? Louis Pasteur seems to fit the bill, but who should join him there?

(V) & (Z) answer: It would be pretty hard to sort out the precise impact of some of the key people who advanced the field of medicine over the centuries, but in addition to Pasteur, certainly Alexander Fleming (penicillin); Joseph Lister (widespread use of disinfectant); William T.G. Morton (anesthesia); Edward Jenner (vaccination); John Snow (epidemiology); Frederick Banting and Charles Best (insulin); Francis Crick, Rosalind Franklin, James Watson, and Maurice Wilkins (DNA); and Charles R. Drew (blood transfusions) rate very highly.

That said, we suspect the person who would appear at the very bottom of the list (i.e., as far from the mass murderers as is possible) is Norman Borlaug. It is estimated that his work developing high-yield, disease-resistant wheat varieties was responsible for saving one billion people from starvation.

---

S.I. in Minneapolis, MN, asks: Kind of an "off-the-wall" question, and realize that you are not necessarily medical experts, so here goes...

My wife and I were born in 1962 and 1957 respectively—and, being a fan of "what if" scenarios, we asked ourselves: What if we had been born a 100 years earlier (1862 and 1857), would we still be alive at our current ages (63 and 68), assuming we had the same health trajectories?

I believe I would have made it until about 1923, when at age 66 I had a massive UTI. With no antibiotics, there was not much that could be done. It would not have been a pleasant way to go.

After lengthy labors, my wife had C-sections at ages 32 and 34 (1894 and 1896). I have heard that in those situations, sometimes the baby was "sacrificed" so the mother survived (but only in a hospital setting, many births at that time still occurred at home with mid-wives, etc.). But chances are that at least one of those would have likely done her in.

A roundabout way to get to my question: When did C-sections become an option for mothers with difficult (if not impossible) labors resulting in life-threatening complications? Online info is not conclusive, there seems to be a wide range of answers.

(V) & (Z) answer: C-sections have been around for many, many centuries, but for most of those centuries, the general idea was to save one life (usually the infant) at the cost of the other (usually the mother).

The key to C-sections that saved both lives was not perfecting surgical technique, it was figuring out how to combat infections. So, C-section mortality rates dropped precipitously starting around 1880, when doctors began washing their damn hands. They had another precipitous drop starting around 1920, as antibiotics became widely available.

---

M.R. in New Brighton, MN, asks: Has anyone ever rated the handwriting of our presidents? Which presidents have had the best handwriting and which have had the worst?

(V) & (Z) answer: We don't know of any systematic studies. And if we are going to attempt any sort of fair evaluation, we think we have to level the playing field by only considering presidents' signatures. There would otherwise be too much variance, based on the age of the president/future president when the writing was done, the haste with which the writing was done, etc. Here are all the presidential signatures:

We recognize that even this is not a totally level playing field, since some presidents were working with quill and ink and others were not, and we also live in an era today where a signature is sometimes turned into something of a brand or a logo (for example, we doubt Barack Obama's actual handwriting looks like that).

With those caveats, we would say that the best handwriting award goes to James A. Garfield (row 4, column 5). He had a reputation for beautiful handwriting in his day, so that tracks.

Our runners-up would be George Washington (1, 1), whose signature looks very magisterial, William Henry Harrison (2, 4), whose signature flows very nicely, and Ronald Reagan (8, 5), who clearly mastered his Palmer-method penmanship.

The worst, on the other hand, looks to be a tie between William Howard Taft (6, 2) and Donald Trump (9, 5). Those both look like the signature of a serial killer.

The runners-up are Chester Arthur (5, 1), which looks like the signature of a serial killer's assistant, John F. Kennedy (7, 5), which looks like the work of a schoolboy, and the Bushes (9, 1 and 9, 3), where in both cases, it looks like they were too bored to take the time to actually finish their signing.

---

C.H. in Montpelier, VT, asks: What were the top 7 conspiracy theories in the U.S. prior to 1900? Why 7? I'm not at liberty to say.

(V) & (Z) answer: If you study this subject, you will find that it's the same conspiracies, just in a different costume. So:

1. The People Secretly Running Everything: Today, it's the Deep State, or maybe the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderbergers. Back then, it was the Masons or the Jews.
   
   
2. Assassinations: Today, it's that Lee Harvey Oswald was backed by some shady forces, whether the mafia, or Cuba, or people close to Lyndon B. Johnson, or some other option. Back the, it's that John Wilkes Booth was backed by some shady forces, usually a cabal of prominent Confederates. There was also a conspiracy theory that Wilkes was not killed in that barn in 1865, and that he lived to a ripe, old age.
   
   
3. Stop the Steal: Today, it's Donald Trump claiming he actually won the Election of 2020, but the books were cooked. Back then, it was Andrew Jackson claiming that he actually won the Election of 1824, but the books were cooked.
   
   
4. Godless Heathens: Today, there are all manner of evil-doers who are ostensibly trying to undermine American Christianity, whether it's Muslims, or trans people, or liberals, or Starbucks. Back then, it was also liberals (particularly Thomas Jefferson), and then later, Catholics. Yes, Catholics are Christians, but for many 19th century Americans, they were the wrong kind of Christians, or were faux Christians.
   
   
5. The Man Who Would Be King: Today, it's people claiming that Donald Trump wants to make himself a dictator. Back then, it was people claiming that John Adams or Andrew Jackson wanted to crown themselves as king. Admittedly, the Trump part of that is not exactly a conspiracy theory.
   
   
6. Identity Politics: Today, it's people claiming that Michelle Obama, who is Black, is secretly a man. Back then, it was people claiming that Abraham Lincoln, who was a man, was secretly Black. This claim was also made about many other politicians and public figures.
   
   
7. Sexual Misdeeds: Today's it's people claiming that vast numbers of Democrats are really pedophiles. Back then, it was people claiming that various religious groups (particularly Catholics) were participating in all sorts of unorthodox sex acts. See, for example, The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk, or, The Hidden Secrets of a Nun's Life in a Convent Exposed (1836), which purported to reveal the truth about all the perversions taking place at a Canadian nunnery.
   
   

Sports

R.V. in Pittsburgh, PA, asks: So, on my trips to L.A. throughout the years, I've seen Laker games at both the old Forum and then Staples Center (which has since changed its name again), along with Dodger games.

Since (Z) is an L.A. guy, has he attended any memorable Dodgers or Lakers games over the years? Memorable doesn't only have to be Kirk Gibson's Game 1 1988 World Series home run, or Robert Horry's 3-pointer against Sacramento in 2003, but ANY game that provided you with a lasting memory?

(V) & (Z) answer: There are many such games, most obviously the first Dodger (and first MLB) game (Z) ever went to, which was in 1981, and featured Fernando Valenzuela pitching at the height of Fernandomania.

That said, most entries on the list are memorable because of the spot they occupy in (Z)'s life. We suspect you might be more interested in games he was at that have some level of ongoing fame. He can think of three such games, though only one of the three involves the Dodgers or Lakers.

First, (Z) was at the Royals-Angels game in 1982 when Amos Otis hit the ball to deep center, and Fred Lynn and Brian Downing nearly collided, but Lynn was able to make a near-miracle catch. That play was a part of highlight reels for years and years, and is still shown at Angel Stadium sometimes.

Second, UCLA won all four UCLA-USC football games during his undergrad years, and (Z) was at all four of them, including the one in 1994 when the heavy-underdog Bruins staged an unbelievable comeback to knock USC out of the Rose Bowl and out of national title contention. By virtue of where the student section is located, (Z) couldn't have been more than 50 feet away from the spot where the TD that proved to be the winner was caught by Jim McElroy.

Third, and finally, the best answer to your question. On September 18, 2006, the Dodgers were playing the Padres, and trailed 9-5 in the ninth. It looked pretty hopeless for the home team, and the challenges of trying to get home from Dodger Stadium being what they are, the place had started to empty out. Because it was not a save situation, the Padres started the ninth with one of their setup men, Jon Adkins, and not their future-Hall-of-Fame closer, Trevor Hoffman. The first batter of the inning, Jeff Kent, hit a solo home run. Then the second batter of the inning, J.D. Drew, did the same.

At that point, two things happened. The first is that all the people leaving the game started trying to make their way back to their seats. (Z) was sitting very near the right-field foul pole, and could see all the taillights of cars that were trying to turn around. The second is that the Padres' manager decided to stop screwing around, and to bring in Hoffman. It did not help. The third batter of the inning, Russell Martin, hit another solo home run. And the fourth batter of the inning, Marlon Anderson, followed suit. Obviously, that tied it up. In the 10th, Nomar Garciaparra hit a solo home run (naturally) to win the game for the Dodgers.

This is one of the most famous games in Dodger history, and set a record for consecutive home runs (since equaled). When (Z) went to the Baseball Hall of Fame a few years later, the bat that Anderson used to hit the fourth home run was on display. The highlights of the game (i.e., all five home runs) can be seen here.

---

M.D. in San Tan Valley, AZ, asks: As we continue to see the positive advancement of women sports in America, do you foresee a day in the near future where we will see a woman play in one of the four major professional leagues? If so, which sport has the best chance of this happening in first?

(V) & (Z) answer: Very doubtful. If you could take the very best women athletes today, and transport them back to the 1940s, then maybe. But the problem is that as women athletes have gotten stronger and faster and quicker, so too have male athletes.

You can see this, for example, by comparing world records in various athletic disciplines. For example, the women's record for the 100-meter dash is 10.49 seconds; that would be an OK time for a men's runner... if they were still in high school. And it's nearly a second slower than Usain Bolt's men's record of 9.58 seconds.

You can also see this by asking the people who theoretically should be in the know. Serena Williams may be the most famous female athlete in the world. And while she is retired now, there is a period of 10+ years where she might also have been the most dominant female athlete in the world. She herself has said that if she had to play against male tennis players, she'd be lucky to break the Top 400 in the world.

If a woman athlete in one of the four major men's leagues does happen, it would have to be in some sort of very specialized role. That means that, of the four sports you name, basketball is immediately off the table. Everyone on the court has to play both offense and defense. And while a Caitlin Clark or a Sabrina Ionescu can hang with the men when it comes to shooting, they would get crushed on the defensive end. The guards would be too quick, the forwards and centers would be too big and strong.

In hockey, the only plausible spot is at goalie. Even the best female goalie is not likely to be big enough or quick enough to play there in the NHL, but it's much more plausible than forward or defense.

In football, there is only one very narrow opportunity that is even remotely conceivable to us, and that is kicker, but with serious caveats. There have been a few women kickers in college, but the competition for one of the 32 placekicker slots in the NFL is cutthroat, and they go to men with incredible leg strength.

That said, there was a time when teams carried both a placekicker (field goals and extra points) AND a kickoff specialist. These days, NFL teams almost always have the same player do both duties, because the emphasis for both tasks was power kicks. Teams want a player who can boot a long field goal and who can boot it out of the endzone, and most kickers, if they have the leg strength, can do both.

It is at least possible, however, that the jobs will once again be split. The NFL has literally just changed the rules, because they want more returns, and fewer kicks out of the endzone. So, if NFL teams were to decide that the person handling kickoffs should not be a power kicker, but instead a sniper, then maybe a woman kicker could catch on in the sniper role.

And that leaves baseball. If you were to tell us that, in the next 50 years, there WILL be a female player in one of the four major sports, we'd assume it was Major League Baseball where it happened. We could imagine that a very good softball pitcher could maybe adapt, and become a specialty, submarine-style reliever, like Dan Quisenberry or Dennis Eckersley. However, that's something of a gimmick pitch, and such players can only get away with one inning or so, before the opposing team adapts.

---

J.C. in Lockport, IL, asks: Why do you think there are so many Green Bay Packers fans around the country? I grew up in the Green Bay Area, and while most of my extended family are ardent Packers fans, my brother and I both got sick of hearing about them day-in/day-out 365 days a year that we chose other teams to root for. (Myself, the Eagles because my local high school was the Eagles, and my brother the Patriots because of his love of Drew Bledsoe). The city itself is barely 100,000 people and I understand that it's the only football team in the entire state but the fans are EVERYWHERE. I thought that, with one of you being a Packers fan, you might have insight.

(V) & (Z) answer: First, because the Packers were, and are, a regional team, adopted by many Midwesterners outside of Minneapolis and Chicago and Detroit.

Second, because many, many people (and so, many, many Packers fans) left the Midwest for warmer climes, and became Packer proselytizers.

Third, because the Packers have been the Green Bay Packers since 1919. The fellows in Chicago, the ones who present themselves as a football team, have been at it longer, but not under their current name. This means the Packers' brand is the oldest in the NFL, with 106 years and counting under the same name, and in the same city.

Fourth, because the Packers' brand has come to be associated with two very pleasant ideas. The first of those is that, like the Steelers, the Packers are a hardworking, meat-and-potatoes, blue-collar team. Not prima donna glamour boys, like those fellows in Dallas. (Note: The same dynamic exists with the Lakers and Celtics, with the Lakers the glamour boys, and the Celtics the blue-collar team.). The second pleasant idea is that the Packers are a version of David. Yes, they are a big and famous team, with 13 championships, and they just got a revenue-sharing check for $450 million. However, they're also the little guys. Green Bay is, by far, the smallest city in America with a team in one of the four major leagues. Further, the team is publicly owned, and so the fans are a part of it, in a way that is not true of any other major league team. Note, incidentally, that (Z) is one of the 538,967 shareholders, and assumes that his cut of the $450 million has somehow been held up at the post office, and will be arriving in the mail any day.

---

A.M. in Brookhaven, PA, asks: I grew up a fan of the Washington Redskins. When they changed their name to The Washington Football Team, I was fine with it. (I'm also a soccer fan, so I understand names that end in "Football Club" and "Athletic Club.") However, I do not like the name Washington Commanders, for some reason it just grates on me. So I have basically just stopped watching football for the last few years.

My question is when someone asks me about my fandom. Should I say that I was a Redskins fan even though that is not politically correct? I know I could say I was a fan of the Football Team, but that implies that I was a fan for 2 years rather than 50. I can't say I'm a Commanders fan since I never was a fan under that name. What would you recommend (and don't suggest becoming a Packers fan, I've been rooting against them since the 1972 playoffs)?

(V) & (Z) answer: "I was a big fan of the Hogs, but over time, I've kind of drifted away from the team."

"The Hogs" was specifically the nickname for Washington's offensive line, but it's also come to be a metonym for the team in general during the 1980s and 1990s. Anyhow, we think that sentence tells the story accurately, without requiring the use of problematic language.

---

D.S. in Layton, UT, asks: Eliminating MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL teams, what are the 10 greatest sports dynasties in history?

(V) & (Z) answer: What we are going to do is identify 10 sports, other than those four, that have had at least one dynastic entry, and give you our greatest dynasty in that sport. Also, we do not take the position that a "dynasty" necessarily requires consecutive championships; a long run of success at a high level can make the cut, as well.

• Association Football, Club: Manchester United. This is not exactly our bailiwick, but from this side of the pond, it seems that Man United, with its 20 Premiere League titles, and numerous other awards and honors, has been more dominant than, say, Paris Saint-Germain or Real Madrid or Inter Milan.
  
  
• Association Football, National: Brazil. Five World Cups, plus Pelé.
  
  
• Basketball, Men's College: UCLA. The University of Kentucky, #2 on the titles list, has 8 NCAA championships, won over a span of just less than 100 years. UCLA, from 1964-72, won 7 in a row.
  
  
• Basketball, Olympic: United States. The IOC has handed out a total of 34 gold medals in basketball. The U.S. men's and women's teams have combined to win 27 of those, and two of the ones they did not win were because the U.S. skipped the 1980 Moscow Olympics.
  
  
• Basketball, Women's College: University of Connecticut. Under Geno Auriemma's leadership, the team has won 12 NCAA titles, compiled a record 111-game win streak, and won just shy of 90% of its games.
  
  
• Cricket: West Indies. They did not lose a single test series for nearly 5 years in the 1970s.
  
  
• Football, College: Oklahoma. 47 consecutive wins and two national championships between 1953 and 1957.
  
  
• Softball, College: UCLA. A total of 12 titles, three more than any other school, including six in the 1980s alone.
  
  
• Volleyball, Men's College: UCLA. Not to keep going to the same well, but under Al Scates, the UCLA men's volleyball team won 19 NCAA titles over 36 years, including 14 titles between 1970 and 1989.
  
  
• Wrestling, College: Iowa. The school has won more than 80% of its 1,000+ matches, has 4 NCAA titles, 11 individual championships, and counts Dan Gable, with a career 118-1 record, among its alumni.
  
  

Gallimaufry

G.B. in Collin County, TX, asks: I just got my bicycle tuned up ahead of using it to commute. As you can imagine, doing that in Texas suburbia is not always going to be pleasant. It's got me wondering whether (V) can tell me if Dutch cycling culture/infrastructure is as utopian as it looks from the other side of the fence?

(V) & (Z) answer: The photos of couples riding together on bicycles in a lovely rural area are real, but not the whole story. This photo shows Amsterdam at rush hour. Cycling to work is certainly doable and many people do it, but utopia? No.

What some people do is cycle from home to a train station, park the bike there, take the train to a different city, and then take the bike they have parked at the station to work. Here is one of the bicycle parking lots at Amsterdam Central Station. There are more. This requires having at least two bicycles.

One of (V)'s colleagues has six bicycles (commuting, recreation, racing, recumbent, etc.). This is on the high side, but two or three is not that unusual.

---

M.A. in Colorado Springs, CO, asks: Has (V) spent much time traveling around Europe? Which cities/sights/sites would he recommend to someone like himself traveling to Europe for the first time? How much does the list change with longer vacations, say a week vs a fortnight vs a month?

(V) & (Z) answer: (V) has been to almost every country in Europe, often multiple times.

You can't say you have seen Europe if you have missed London, Paris or Amsterdam. My suggestion is that if you have only a week, spend 2 days in each one. Trying to stuff more cities in a week will just make you crazy. Important note: Fly to London (less jet lag than the others). Then take the train to Paris (2½ hours). Then take the train to Amsterdam (3½ hours). De facto this actually faster than flying and you see more on the way (except 30 minutes in the Chunnel). You can arrive at the departure station 30 minutes in advance and end up in the center of the city on the other end. You need to make train reservations online in advance, though.

If you have another week and you want to relax a bit, go for Copenhagen and Stockholm, both lovely, very low-key cities. A plus there is that roughly 100% of the population speaks perfect English. If you like history and good food, Italy has plenty. Rome has many ruins, but is a big crowded city. Personally, (V) prefers Florence and Venice, but then only off season, when the tourists are gone. Athens is crowded noisy city, but has a great deal of history, of course. If you want natural beauty, Switzerland has plenty of it. Geneva is very French and Zurich is very German. Don't go to Spain, Portugal or southern France in the summer. Too hot and also too many tourists.

As to which sights to see, that is a matter of personal taste. Just go to tripadvisor.com and look for the list of attractions. There are often ones further down the list that are interesting. (V) likes the V&A Museum in London, the Catacombs in Paris, and Rembrandt's house in Amsterdam, for example.

---

R.L.G. in Geneseo, NY, asks: Which is the best national park?

(V) & (Z) answer: The one you're standing in.

Not to be glib, but they're all remarkable, and so it's hard to really rank them, per se. So, we're going to approach this from a slightly different angle.

If you are going to pick a national park to be your first national park experience, then pick Yosemite in California. It's got flora, it's got fauna, it's got rivers, it's got mountains, it's got a little of everything. It's easily accessible, and has numerous sites that everyone's seen before, primarily thanks to Ansel Adams, like Half Dome. It's also easily accessible, via a very pleasant drive.

If your interest is in seeing wildlife, then head to Florida and visit Biscayne and Everglades, which are only about 20 miles from each other, and which are both marine sanctuaries.

If you sunburn easily, or otherwise prefer not to be outdoors, go to Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico, which has over 100 caves to explore.

If you want to ride horses while looking at magnificent scenery, go to Great Smoky Mountains in North Carolina and Tennessee. There are also many other amenities, as this is the most visited of all the national parks.

If you would like to go on a tropical vacation, but you would like to be able to tell people you're going to see a national park, then head to Virgin Islands National Park, which is on the island of St. John's.

If you are looking for something of a spa experience, go to Hot Springs in Arkansas.

If you don't really like nature that much, and would prefer something that skews more historical, then head to Gateway Arch in Missouri, which is surrounded with all sorts of antebellum historical spots, most of them related to Mark Twain or Dred Scott.

If you would like a reminder that Mother Nature doesn't give a fu** about you, and would just as soon see you dead, then go to Badlands in South Dakota, or Death Valley in California.

If you are interested in really tall trees, then go to Redwood in California.

If you are a hermit at heart, and want to be away from humanity for a while, visit Gates of the Arctic in Alaska. It's the least-trafficked national park, by far, while also being the second-largest. Put another way, there's an average of about 1 person for every 1,175 square miles, at any given time. Bonus points if you also like your national parks cold.

---

K.G. in Columbus, OH, asks: We all know artists (visual artists, musicians, writers) who produced work that will stand the test of time but were deeply flawed or just plain bad human beings. Who comes to mind when you think of a great artist who was—or is—considered a genuinely decent and kind person with a mostly uncontroversial life?

(V) & (Z) answer: On the whole, the Renaissance artists—Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, etc.—appear to heve been generally good guys. Of course, they are not THAT well documented, so it's possible their bad behavior has been lost to the mists of time.

Vincent van Gogh had serious mental illness, and that led him to do some unpleasant things. But when he was well, he was reportedly a very warm and supportive individual.

Georgia O'Keeffe and Frida Kahlo both ended up in romantic relationships with philanderers, but were themselves delightful, according to contemporaries.

Nobody had anything bad to say about family men Edvard Munch and Claude Monet.

Salvador Dali and Andy Warhol were both very, very eccentric, but their eccentricities were harmless, and they were very well liked by the people in their inner circles.

---

A.S. in Black Mountain, NC, asks: My parents loved to eat limburger cheese with beer and crackers. I would head upstairs so I wouldn't have to smell it. What makes that cheese smell so bad?

(V) & (Z) answer: In general, if something is ill-smelling to humans, but is otherwise tolerated (i.e., not toxic), then the culprit is sulfur. In the case of limburger, the sulfur is produced by the Brevibacterium linens, which is used to ferment the cheese.

Reader Question of the Week: Salud!

Here is the question we put before readers a couple of weeks ago:

D.C. in Portland, OR, asks: Electoral-Vote.com is now 21 years old and thus mature enough for an adult libation. What would its "official" drink be, and why?

And here some of the answers we got in response:

J.B. In Bozeman, MT: Given the number of Star Trek fans that read the site (and Z, of course), I suggest Romulan Ale. It is depicted as irresistibly delicious, although does come with a nasty hangover. But since it is illegal and fictional, then maybe "Tea. Earl Grey. Hot." may be a good substitute. Though Americans aren't big tea drinkers, so maybe Raktajinos, which are a coffee based drink (oh, those are fictional too?).

---

L.S. in Queens, NY: Romulan ale, if you can get it.

Saurian brandy may be more available.

Avoid any Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster.

---

J.R.A. in St. Petersburg, FL: I think the obvious official drink is the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster, which has the twin advantages of being a really hoopy drink, and not actually existing, no matter how many ways people have tried to create one. That gold brick is really expensive.

---

B.R. in Berwyn, PA: If we're talking real drinks, you can't go wrong with a classic:

The Vesper Martini: Strong, sharp, and confidently forward, just like a good political take. First dreamed up by Ian Fleming in 1953's Casino Royale, it was Bond's own creation, named after the double agent Vesper Lynd. After imbibing a few of these, you might start calling it the "voter martini." A secret agent for democracy in a coup(e) glass.

Recipe: 3 oz. gin, 1 oz. vodka, ½ oz. Lillet Blanc (originally Kina Lillet, but sadly no longer made). Shake (never stir) over ice until ice-cold, strain into a martini glass, garnish with a lemon twist, perfect for sipping while imagining the staff dachshunds running ICE sensitivity trainings.

But Electoral-Vote.com surely deserves its own drink, so here are a few suggestions...

The Blue Wave: Big enough to wash every orange off the beach and leave you with a smug g(r)in. Loud, messy, and best enjoyed while yelling "Take that, Fox News!" from your porch at midnight.

Recipe: 1½ oz. gin, 1 oz. blue curaçao, ½ oz. lemon juice, splash of soda for fizz, ½ oz. navy rum floated on top. Shake first four ingredients with ice, strain into a hurricane glass over fresh ice, float rum on top, garnish with a lemon wheel, perfect for the Electoral-Vote.com team to sip while plotting gerrymandered maps on the back of subscriber postcards.

The Pollster's Screwdriver: What you serve to your friend who swore the race was a lock before losing by ten points. Classic orange juice and vodka, but you spill half on the way to the table, miscount the rest, and call it too close to call. Starts strong, finishes in tears, and comes with a free subscription to "Lessons Learned Next Cycle."

Recipe: 2 oz. vodka, 4 oz. orange juice, slice of humble pie (figurative garnish). Build over ice in a tall glass, stir briefly, add a straw for sipping while revising spreadsheets.

The Liberal Lament: Dark, bitter, and best poured right after getting crushed in a Presidential election you swore would be a "blue tsunami." Perfect for frantically Googling at 2:00 a.m. how to return the 2,000 "Harris Rocks" yard signs and "I Heart Dr. Fauci" tote bags you bulk-ordered in a moment of peak optimism.

Recipe: 3 oz. overproof red wine (think port or fortified Spanish), 1 oz. blackcurrant liqueur, 1 oz. rye whiskey, ¼ oz. bitters. Build in a large wine goblet, stir gently, garnish with dark berries and a dramatic sigh, while tweeting "End capitalism" from your latest iPhone.

The Bozo(s) Billionaire's Buyout: Smoky, fiery, and designed for when you finally sell out and let your scrappy blog get acquired by a space-obsessed billionaire who promises editorial freedom right before suggesting a glowing feature on tax loopholes. Mezcal for your burnt principles, overproof rum for scorched-earth hot takes, and crocodile tears from Republicans laughing all the way to the bank.

Recipe: 1 oz. Mezcal, 1 oz. overproof rum, ½ oz. orange bitters, ¼ oz. honey syrup, a few crocodile tears. Shake all but the tears with ice, strain into a coupe, drizzle in crocodile tears, garnish with a tiny gold bar if available, perfect for sipping while lounging on your new yacht, proudly christened Eat the Rich.

---

J.M. in New York City, NY: I suggest a Cherry Bounce, favorite of George Washington and his family. Because it would be a salute and spiritual summons to the type of steadfast, reserved yet simmering, Cincinnatus-type statesman we need today. Accompanied by a proper toast from General George: "An extra ration of liquor is to be issued to every man tomorrow to drink to Perpetual Peace, Independence, and Happiness to the United States of America."

Possible runners-up: (1) Gimlet, because Electoral-Vote.com consistently fixes current political events "with a gimlet eye"; (2) Hemlock, because it's all too much, and this beverage was good enough for Socrates; (3) Elixir of Ponce de Leon, because Electoral-Vote.com is so essential, we want you to go on forever with youthful verve!

---

D.C.W. in Fredericksburg, TX : A salty dog.

Simple ingredients, tasty, goes down easy like Electoral-Vote.com. Salty with wit and snark along with the tart analysis. And, of course, named for the staff dachshunds, Otto and Flash. Salud and Woof!

---

M.M. in San Diego, CA: Let's go with hot mulled wine because it (like Electoral-Vote.com) makes every day like Christmas.

---

B.C. in Walpole, ME: Official drink of electoral-vote.com? I thought we already had one. We wake up in the morning and read with our breakfast: Wheaties (the "Breakfast of Champions"), and, substituting for the traditional cup of milk, eight ounces of Jack Daniel's (the "Breakfast of Realists"). With what we're about to read, we need something stronger than milk and we're going to need it early in the day.

As with the Morning Martini, there are many popular recipe variations on this breakfast drink: Single Malt and Shredded Wheat, Kentucky Bourbon and Special K, Corn Liquor and Cap'n Crunch, Irish Whiskey and Lucky Charms, Steel Cut Oatmeal and Rye, Muesli and Moonshine, Cheerios and Canadian Club ("Cheerios and Cheerio!"), Scotch and Frosted Mini-Wheats, Scotch and Fruit Loops, Scotch and Trix.

Please, I don't want to get push-back from miffed Weetabix fans. Make your own kind of music/Sing your own kind of song/Even if nobody else sings along.

Joking aside, when you asked for reader suggestions for the official drink of Electoral-Vote.com, the article immediately above comprised reader responses to the question, "Who do you look up to (whether famous or not) as a source of love and hope to help you to keep carrying on? And why?" I have been privileged to know several many-decades-long members of Alcoholics Anonymous. All of them had been to the edge. All of them had faced death to one degree or another. All of them had to do a deeper dive into their own psyche than most of us would have the courage to do (with me at the top of that list). And they became humble, balanced, centered, wise, moral people who are neither self-deluded nor ego-driven.

---

K.H. in Ypsilanti, MI: Obviously, the official drink of Electoral-Vote.com would be coffee, because that's what most of us are drinking while we read it. Preferably black, though that's my personal choice, and it's definitely adult, because few take it up before age 18, even though some youngsters may embrace lattes, mochas and other sweet drinks that are the Boone's Farm of the coffee works.

---

J.E. in West Hollywood, CA: If I was a hater, I would say a Dry White Whine. But I like you guys too much even for a good pun. So, instead I would say a hot cup of coffee with sugar: a fresh jolt in the morning, a little bitter at times, but with a sweet aftertaste.

---

D.H. Forest Park, IL: I don't have a specific name for the celebratory beverage but it would have undoubtedly begun life in 2004 as oats and grain, distilled and started its maturation in an American oak barrel. In 2015, the contents would have been transferred to a British sherry cask to create a smooth and sweet blend.

It would be bold and have tones of early morning black coffee, leather, a subtle smoke with an occasional hint of sweet tobacco. There would be occasional overtones of pepper and incense(d), but always a caramel finish.

---

P.J.B. in Shawano, WI: Though not found in any formal bartenders' guide, I would say Combat Juice (a.k.a. "whopatui")—lots of ingredients that go into the most delicious final product.

---

A.G. in Scranton, PA: In 2025?

An entire handle of vodka and/or whiskey.

A mint julep, because we better get used to making those for others.

A roofie coolatta, because we're gonna wake up from this feeling fu**ed.

Otherwise?

Cosmopolitan, just because.

A Mudslide, because it symbolizes being a Democrat quite well.

---

D.A. in Brooklyn, NY: OK, I don't know what particular drink Electoral-Vote.com would adopt as official, but I know for sure that it would be definitely served neat. No ICE.

(And if you want my personal recommendation, I'd go for a Laphroaig 10-yr Islay single malt Scotch [or something similar from the lowlands]. I made sure I had it handy, that evil night last November.)

---

T.B. in Duluth, MN: Rye whiskey, straight. To go along with rye comments and straight talk. Also, no ICE.

---

T.B. in Wiscasset, ME: Well, it should be Moxie!

Of course that's non-alcoholic, but that shouldn't be disqualifying.

---

G.R. in Carol Stream, IL: An old-fashioned, of course!

We still believe in politics, compromise, and reason!

---

J.D in Greensboro, NC: This beverage seems appropriate:

---

E.S. in Clatskanie, OR: I think the official adult beverage for Electoral-Vote.com should be the antivenom to the Orange Kool-Aid being served from the taps of hell.

---

D.R., Yellow Springs, OH: I propose the Manhattan cocktail as the official Electoral-Vote.com drink. First of all, it's a wonderful beverage that's often consumed by Americans in politics. But also, the site put in enough time making fun of Canadians that it's time to make up for it by choosing a cocktail made with Canadian whisky.

---

R.P.E.H. in London, England, UK: With all the initials that decorate the page, especially on letters days, surely the official drink has to be an IPA?

---

A.H. in Newberg, OR: D.C. in Portland will appreciate this, but maybe only a dozen or so of the commentariat will truly understand!

A "HAMMERHEAD IPA" at any McMenamins watering hole.

---

B.C. in Phoenix, AZ: Lets see, none of you folks are effete snobs, so wine is definitely out. Y'all also don't strike me as dishonest people who would hide their love of spirits with some fruity camouflage; that eliminates vodka. Gin is too cockneyed (or is that "cockeyed"), bourbon is too redneck, and all of the other alcohol drinks are pretty niche. The only thing left is one of the most sublime liquids on the planet...

Beer!

Beer is one of the most important components of social interaction all around the world. You sit down with your friends, have a beer and discuss (or fight about) world affairs, personal issues, sports (at least one of you is a baseball fan, so how do you separate baseball and beer?) and every other subject on the planet. In the Arizona desert especially, one of the most welcoming and comforting building signs is the one that says "ICE COLD BEER!"

Everyone at Electoral-Vote.com is well educated, which means it is highly unlikely they are not familiar with the healthy aspects of... THE 3 MAIN FOOD GROUPS: (1) beer, (2) pizza and (3) everything else edible .

To the lawyer there on staff: "I rest my case! Barkeep, draw another couple cold ones!"

---

P.D.N. in Bolardman, OH: It should be beer, and probably a craft brew of their own choosing for everyone reading and participating at Electoral-Vote.com. Beer not wine, because wine has a snobby aroma (and is hardly ever that good) whereas beer is the people's drink in all cultures and electoral—takes in all comers and all types. Beer because it is inherently democratic.

Finally, on a personal note, when I was a graduate student in History at San Diego State University, there was a group of us in a stand-out course called US and the Global Cold War. When our beloved professor would say something somewhat controversial, or that would require a long explanation, he'd say let's discuss that over beer. Well, one of our friends worked for a beer distributor and because San Diego is full of micro-breweries, we got together after the semester for what we would call Beer With History. Eight years later we're still going. Some of us got married, or lost their partner to cancer (me), we all got COVID, a few moved or got new jobs, but we're still the history nerds (including some faculty) who get together in person or on FaceTime that made a community supporting and loving each other for the sake of history.

---

J.E. in San Jose, CA (now, but Cleo's Bar at Caesars Tahoe then): Twenty-five years ago, during my bartending days, I created a libation for Independence Day called a red, white, and blue. It was a layered drink of blue curaçao, white creme de cacao, and Chambord. Layered drinks only work if the heaviest liquor is on the bottom, so this did not meet with much success, but as a name/gimmick it worked well.

---

M.B. in San Antonio, TX: The cocktail for the site should include the initials of its contributors. I offer to you: The Vodka Zanzibar! (Vodka, dry vermouth, lemon juice, simple syrup, orange bitters.)

---

D.M. in Santa Rosa, CA: The official drink of Electoral-Vote.com should be room-temperature tap water in a metal dog bowl. The reason is that the staff dachshunds have more influence on the value of the material than the staff mathematician, who is so often drunk that he/she probably likes all drinks equally.

---

K.H. in Albuquerque, NM: I've always assumed that the staff mathematician would be the one making decisions about any drinking at Electoral-Vote.com. And there has being a long-running relationship between the Votemaster and the Mathematician, so I assume he or she is Dutch or possibly a faculty member at Vrije Universiteit. That leads one to conclude that the official libation would be a Kopstootje, considered the national drink of the Netherlands. As someone who very much enjoys the more commonly available varieties of "Dutch courage" here in the States, I look forward to tracking down a bottle of genever at my local import store and enjoying an authentic "little head-butt."

---

J.E. in Whidbey Island, WA: The official Electoral-Vote.com drink should be whatever the staff mathematician is having.

Here is the question for next week:

S.B. in Winslow, ME, asks: What one aspect about humanity, if changed, would bring the greatest benefit to society and the natural world as a whole?

Submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "The Better Angels"!

---

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