Dem
51
GOP
49
We got a lot of letters this week about the Speaker election. We also got multiple dozens of messages on each of the following subjects: (1) "What is a woman?" (those will run on Saturday); (2) Latin conjugation, and (3) German chocolate cake.
J.L. in Glastonbury, CT, writes: I'm not sure how the new House rules could prevent a Democrat from filing a motion to vacate the chair, but doing so regularly would put the entire Republican conference on the spot. These MAGA folks aren't the most emotionally stable people, and since their policy demands are but flatulence bubbling from a stew of paranoid grievances and ignorance of basic civics and macroeconomics, I'd expect them to react unreliably. And the rest of the Republican conference will be forced to affirm their support for the clown show of Hunter Biden dick-pic hearings.
But I wonder if Democrats really thought their Speaker voting strategy through. Was forcing Kevin McCarthy to make concessions to the MAGA wing really a good idea? Democrats could have held back 20 members until the end of a round of voting, and then thrown those votes McCarthy's way. That would have neutered the MAGA wing, and trolled the right by showing the MAGA voters that McCarthy's speakership only happened because of Democratic support. Of course the MAGA folks would still perform their antics for the Fox News cameras, but they'd have no actual power. They'd be ten times more suspicious of McCarthy. If Democrats were gambling that they'd get either an unending clown show of failed speaker votes, or a more moderate Republican if they held out for a power-sharing offer, that gamble predictably didn't pay off. By refusing to help out McCarthy, we're going to have MAGA nuts making basic "must have" legislation impossible.
J.M. in Silver Spring, MD, writes: In answer to a question from Z.C. in Beverly Hills about moderate Republicans using the new rule to move to vacate the Speaker's chair and you wrote: "That said, keep in mind that doing this is, in effect, a mutiny. And mutineers who fail generally end up as outcasts."
The thing is, they would surely succeed! Why? Because the one or two dozen "mutineers" would have already talked to and secured the support of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and could expect 212 Democratic votes in electing one of their own as the new Speaker to chart a more sensible course in the House.
L.S. in Greensboro, NC, writes: I despise Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), but I do think he's taking a lot of unfair criticism over his 14th round vote. Yes, waiting until the end was grandstanding, but I strongly suspect he never agreed to vote for Kevin McCarthy and only agreed to vote "present," so he did exactly what he had promised. It actually was one of the other four holdouts who voted for Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH) or Andy Biggs (R-AZ) when they had pledged to vote present. So Gaetz may be a slimeball, but it sure seems like he lived up to his promise and therefore didn't deserve the cries of "traitor" or the threats of physical violence directed against him.
J.L. in Paterson, NJ, writes: You suggested that, if the Democrats were to join in electing Kevin McCarthy, Fred Upton, or some other Republican as speaker, they might in return demand a subpoena rule that would thwart nutjob investigations. It's moot now, but, as a partisan Democrat, I disagreed. I'm looking forward to the multiple GOP hearings on Hunter Biden's laptop, the 1/6 committee, the FBI, etc. They should also be good for E-V.com. The MAGA faction, with the bit in its teeth, will give you plenty to write about.
W.K.D. in Houston, TX, writes: I know that most of the (left-leaning) E-V.com readership is thinking, "Why didn't Kevin McCarty just do a deal with the Democrats? Why why why why why?????" The very simple answers are: (1) ideologically, he finds this completely repugnant and (2) if he did, these would be his last 2 years in Congress. He would be primaried in 2024 and lose that primary by 60 points. E-V Dems, consider for a moment just how much you dislike Republicans. Take a minute or two to feel the hate and loathing well up inside you. Well, how do you think Republicans feel about you? You may be surprised to hear that the intensity of their dislike for you matches yours for them, neuron for neuron.
D.G. in Webster Groves, MO, writes: The comparison of the speaker election with the events of January 6 is a stretch and makes me wonder how writers like Dahlia Lithwick achieve their platforms. "A profoundly serious systems failure." Puhleaze. This is the way the system was designed. If Dahlia had read this site, she would have learned that drawn out speaker contests have not been that uncommon and have not produced system failure. This is a political party failure, not a government systems failure. If Republicans had their act together, they would already be investigating Hunter Biden's private parts and trying to take a wrecking ball to the legislation achieved in the last Congress. The fact that they cannot do so is a win for the Democratic Party and there is nothing incongruous about party members poking fun at them for their dysfunction.
B.S.M. in London, England, UK, writes: On the first day of voting for speaker, I could not wait to watch Tucker Carlson to see how he was going to try to explain away the events of the day.
He started by saying that there was nothing wrong unless you believe in the Democrats' Soviet-style of coalescing around a leader. Then he followed by talking about how Kevin McCarthy is ideologically fluid, which is probably true. Then, 2 minutes into his show, he promised to return to the subject later, but I guess he ran out of time. Instead, he spent the rest of the episode suggesting that the injury to the Bills' Damar Hamlin was a result of the COVID vaccine, and also suggested that this has been a common occurrence over the last couple of years.
The hypocrisy of the situation is that his show was similar to Soviet-style propaganda news.
So, there you have it, I watched an entire episode of Tucker Carlson so you didn't have to. Just don't get used to it.
V & Z respond: There but for the grace of God...
T.W. in Norfolk, England, UK, writes: I must admit that I didn't think Kevin McCarthy was going to win, but bearing in mind I'm observing from the U.K., one saving grace from the whole extended tedious joyless debacle is this:
Come on, after the year us Brits have had, we have to be allowed a little schadenfreude, yes?
C.H. in Marietta, GA, writes: Had to share this meme:
K.H. in Maryville, TN, writes: For the next set of McCarthy memes:
L.T.G. in Bexley, OH, writes: After a display of craven capitulation to the forces against democracy that makes Neville Chamberlain look like Volodmyr Zelenskyy, the new speaker of the House has shown himself to be one hundred percent McCarthy—half Joe and half Charlie.
M.M. in Leonardtown, MD, writes: Contrary to your take on Matt Gaetz's letter to the Architect of the Capitol, I thought it was entirely appropriate. Because if there's one person in Congress who knows about entering before legally allowed, it's Matt Gaetz.
S.P. in Cranston, RI, writes: When I read the item "Five Events with Potentially Massive Political Consequences This Year," I was surprised that the topic "The world is dangerous" failed to mention the great existential issue of climate change. Take, for example, the predictions of the NGO International Rescue Committee as reported by Reuters: "Climate change will accelerate humanitarian crises around the world in 2023, adding to the issues created by armed conflict and economic downturns." I can't say whether it will be due to fires, flooding, famine, fuel, or finance, but climate change is a ticking time bomb that could well explode in massive political consequences this year.
T.B. in Leon County, FL, writes: You suggested "military-grade razor wire along parts of the border." Let me object to that. The Mexican border of all of New Mexico, and about half of Arizona and Texas, is within the Chihuahuan Desert, over which run numerous herds of antelope, plus groups of deer and coyote, etc. Not recognizing national borders, this wildlife would get torn up (and killed) by said concertina wire, and pictures of the carnage would provide bad PR for any agency who put this "quick and cheap solution" in place. (These animals crawl under or jump over regular barbed wire fences.)
Extensive "wall" building will disrupt the movement of grazing wildlife, but at least it won't kill Bambi outright. And coyotes—the human trafficking type—will just burrow under the wire, or place sheets of plywood over the top. It would be better to solve the U.S.'s immigration problems by assisting with solving safety and employment issues in Latin America with Marshall Plan-intensity, but alas, that would be neither cheap nor easy. Maybe ask Elon Musk to build electric vehicle gigafactories in southern Mexico and Guyana with his dwindling billions?
P.S. in Arlington, TN, writes: I was very happy to see you discuss the elephant in the room yesterday with L.K. in Sherman Oaks regarding spending cuts. A few weeks ago, while talking with my mom, she chose to bring up politics to complain about spending and inflation. Apparently she thinks all of our money is spent on experiments on hamsters and illegal immigrants. When I brought up that most of our spending was on defense, Medicare, Social Security and interest on the debt she gave the standard response of "Well, I paid into that!"
Personally I've found that Republicans blame our budget woes on things like general waste and undocumented immigrants. Democrats like to claim that there's an evil billionaire somewhere who can pay for all of this if only they paid their fair share of taxes. While I do agree that we can cut some money going to undocumented immigrants somewhere, or raise taxes on the wealthy to help, my understanding is that if we were to balance the budget that it'd take real sacrifices by all of us. Things like Medicare and Social Security would require cuts and all of us would pay higher taxes.
I'd love to see a write up that discusses what balancing the budget over 10 years would require. Perhaps if the GOP voters understood what that'd look like in a realistic scenario, they'd stop electing these extremists that keep shutting the government down.
M.G. in Chicago, IL, writes: I have a developing a pet peeve and I suspect it is not original. Every day that I read the E-V.com positng and some reference (V) or (Z) or reader makes to "conservative" this or that, I feel the word is inappropriate. It is my understanding that conservatives believe in fiscal responsibility and "family values," which includes a bias against miniskirts and braless displays and such. You might say conservatives believe in larger defense spending, law and order, and a more limited safety net. Remember that Richard Nixon supported a version of universal health care and backed social security, while I am not aware of any screaming by him to repeal Medicare and Medicaid.
My definition of a conservative does not include the Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) 1% view that the U.S. should return to pre-World War II capitalism, nor do I believe George Wallace's or 1948 Strom Thurmond's political views were based on Conservative values. I do not believe the Freedon Caucus, MAGA supporters, or any of the Republicans in Congress that have failed to "stand up" represent any of the values of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan or Nixon, and so I don't think they should be called Conservatives. Pseudo-fascists, anarchists, or some euphemism is far more appropriate, but when will sites like yours and the mainstream media stop insulting the Ike/Reagan/Nixon conservatives by misidentifying this 30 or so percent of the electorate as conservatives?
R.G. in Washington, DC , writes: This is completely random, but it's been about 10 years or so since I watched the entire series The West Wing, with which I'm sure a majority of your readers are familiar. One channel has been playing the entire series for 24 hours a day for the week between Christmas and NYE, so I watched a few episodes (maybe more than a few) this week. The show ran from 1999-2006 (i.e., between 23 and 16 years ago). At the time, the plot-lines could be divided between the extremely farfetched that made for good TV and poignant political commentary. What struck me watching it now is how the political commentary episodes have aged.
I feel that the political storylines can be viewed as a time capsule of sorts from 20-ish years ago. One episode had the top military brass vehemently arguing against ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (played by John Amos) coming down on the right side of history. One episode had a debate between a staunch conservative jurist and very liberal jurist about the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (just before they were both nominated to fill two vacancies on the Supreme Court—part of the far-fetched story lines). Those did not particularly age well, but some of the plot lines we are still dealing with today. Nationalized health care, making college affordable, and alternative energy among others, with full-throated Republican opposition to all of the above, all make an appearance in the show.
We have certainly made progress on a lot of the issues of the day from when the show was on TV, especially in regards to LGBTQ+ rights (although they didn't use that term; they mostly said "gay and lesbian"). It is amazing to me that we are still fighting over some of these major issues 20 years later and unfortunately will be fighting for 20 more. At least the show ended with a peaceful transition of power.
V & Z respond: The movie The American President, which was effectively the inspiration for The West Wing, also remains very much on point.
C.T.P. in Lancaster, PA, writes: Your answer concerning how many seats there are in the House Of Representatives made me wonder how they fit 535 members of Congress into that chamber for the State Of The Union address. Apparently, they add extra chairs. I did find this interesting chart that shows where everyone sits, based on their job title.
J.S. in Bellevue, WA, writes: I love your analysis and insights, and often agree with your perspectives, but in this case, I think these two things are not the same—or at least wouldn't play out in the same way: "If Trump is put on trial for inciting an insurrection (and possibly also for illegal possession of defense documents) it will tear the country apart. But if he is not put on trial for these things, it will also tear the country apart."
If Trump is put on trial, his loyalists—who are already angry, violent and extremist—will continue to be those things. Many already perceive grievance at every turn and will add this to their long list of supposed injustices. There could well be a flashpoint of violence, but I suspect that the "tearing" (if it even happens) will be white-hot but short-lived. Over time, the country will survive, heal, and ultimately be stronger because we will have shown that laws matter.
On the other hand, nearly all Democrats, most independents, and quite a few Republicans recognize that Trump and his team have openly flouted the law time and again. If there is no accountability, the tearing at the fabric of this country will be deep, slow, but never-ending. It will show that corruption and self-serving have no consequence, and political leaders will have even more license to ignore the Constitution or break the law, and this will slowly but surely tear down the foundations of our society.
J.W. in Indianapolis, IN, writes: When discussing Trump's boutique social media post about the dysfunction surrounding the Speaker vote, you questioned why he put "wife" in quotation marks when discussing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) spouse. That unusual grammatical choice was immediately followed by a racist nickname and a suggestion that Elaine Chao is a Chinese puppet (never mind the fact that she was born in Taiwan). The explanation that she seems most obvious to me is that he's implying that the marriage isn't real because of her Asian heritage.
Your hypothesis (he's bad at grammar) follows Hanlon's razor, and I'm not sure that mine does, but I've spent all week trying to convince myself that I'm being uncharitable in my interpretation and I cannot let the thought go.
M.M. in Newbury Park, CA, writes: Regarding Donald Trump's seemingly inappropriate use of quotation marks, he may have the same level of confusion as my grandmother-in-law, who often used quotation marks when she was trying to emphasize. I would get birthday cards with handwritten notes like "Hope you have a 'great' birthday and 'many, many more'!"
She meant well, but it came off as sarcastic and vaguely threatening.
W.F. in Blairs Mills, PA, writes: Although I am pleased with the status report from A.B. in Miami, all politics is indeed local. The pirogues on the Floridian waterways may have abandoned the flags of sedition, but the cult of personality survives in Appalachia. My neighbors decorated the rocks on their property on the day Donald Trump announced his 2024 White House bid. Since they own the rocks within their survey parcel, it is a legal act, but still tragic to desecrate a geology from the Ordovician Period:
The balloon is not flaccid everywhere. To quote a classic philosopher, "There is a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive."
E.R. in Irving, TX, writes: A.B. in Miami just needs to drive up I-75 north past The Villages and Ocala to see what is coming to replace Trump flags:
J.L. in Chapel Hill, NC, writes: I have lived in North Carolina for most of my life. I remember the unbelievable reigns of Jesse Helms, Lauch Faircloth, and others of that ilk. When the state voted for Obama in 2008, I was astounded. Could it be possible that my state was turning blue, like Virginia did so dramatically? I thought we had possibly turned the corner. I thought that maybe all the growth from outside was changing my state's demographics enough that we could be a reliable blue state in just a few cycles.
The years since have proven me very wrong. I'm not even sure we qualify as a purple state yet. Sure, we have Roy Cooper (D) as governor, but Ted Budd (R) won the senate race by a relatively comfortable margin, the GOP is one seat away from a supermajority in the state House, and our state Supreme Court is now held by the GOP. This state is effectively controlled by Republicans with no end in sight.
What is particularly dismaying to me about this is the state of Georgia. Georgia has now gone blue in a presidential election, and elected two Democratic senators, albeit against deeply flawed Republican candidates. Still, this is Georgia we're talking about. A state that used to go red by double digits just a generation ago has suddenly become one of the most competitive states in the country.
I still feel that the potential is there for North Carolina to turn blue, but clearly we need some help. Where are the national Democrats in this process? Why hasn't such a large state, population-wise, gotten more attention and more help? What has Georgia done that we haven't? It cannot be simply a matter of spending money on ads. During this most recent election, it was impossible to avoid nasty political ads from either party. It just feels like we're getting ignored when we have a lot of potential to help the party on a national level.
R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: A.J. in Baltimore and R.M. in Philadelphia both correctly push back at my use of the words "colonialism" and "apartheid" in my message about antisemitism and Israel. I'll address that in a moment.
The thread initially began as a statement about antisemitism coming from the left and how it differs from antisemitism coming from the right. I took it in a different direction and didn't address the initial thought. So here goes. My experience of antisemitism from the left is that it is largely criticism of Israel's government, which is stated clunkily and in a way that appears to be blaming American Jews rather than the Israeli government. The only example I can think if is comments that Rep Ilhan Omar (DFL-MN) made a few years ago, which she quickly apologized for along with a statement that she is going to try to learn from the experience (another difference between the Left and the Right is that people on the left are largely capable of owning their mistakes and learning from them whereas people from the Right will double down and never admit a mistake... but I digress). Antisemitism from the right is violent and dangerous. I can't imagine a left-leaning crazy person shooting up a synagogue or publicly stating that Hitler was a good guy.
Back to my earlier message. I may have overstated my case in characterizing the Israeli government as practicing colonialism and apartheid. After all, it was the United Kingdom that was the actual colonial power in the region. Jews from Europe and the United States (including my aunt and uncle) migrated to Israel after World War II with the dream of establishing a Jewish state where they would be free from the antisemitism that was rampant at the time. And, to be fair, it was the Arab states who encouraged the Palestinians to "temporarily" relocate to the West Bank and Gaza under the pretense that they would crush the upstart Jewish state within days or weeks and they would be able to return to their homes. This was the genesis of what I incorrectly characterized as an "apartheid" system. So there is plenty of blame to go around. However, 75 years later, the Jewish state is thriving and the Palestinians never did get to go back to their homes (most of which I'm sure have long been destroyed). However, the Arab states also refused to welcome them in and let them become citizens. This impasse has existed for 3-4 generations now. That's 75 years of living in limbo, not a citizen of any state or nation, not having freedom of movement and having little in the way of economic opportunity. The perpetuation of this colonial-ish/apartheid-ish system is clearly the responsibility of the Israeli government.
My parents' generation was OK with this. From their perspective it was all the fault of the Arab states. We built a democracy. We irrigated the desert and grew crops to feed our people. We were attacked again and again. The 1967 Six Day War, the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the 1982 Lebanon War were etched into my memory and used as justification for anything heinous that Israel did. Simply put, Arabs were not to be trusted and were dehumanized in my mind (probably not unlike the way that eighteenth and nineteenth-century Southerners dehumanized their African slaves). However, times change. Situations change. The facts on the ground now are that, whatever you call it, the behavior of the Likud government looks a lot like colonialism and apartheid. In my judgment, this does not comport with Tikun Olam (healing the world) and I have no problem criticizing this government.
What has been done to date by both the Israelis and the Palestinians clearly is not working. (I'm reminded of Barack Obama's statement about why he began to open up relations with Cuba; that it's about time to try a different approach because the then-60-year-old approach wasn't working). I just don't see a way out of this pickle that doesn't involve some sort of two-state solution. In spite of my parents' racist teachings about Arabs, I have learned to see the Palestinian people as human beings. They have the same hopes and dreams as any other human. And it is the state of Israel that is getting in the way of those dreams. All that most Palestinians want is to raise their families and set their children up to live better lives than they did. That doesn't seem like much to ask for. If anything, that seems like a baseline minimum to me.
As so many people learn when they grow up in a religion, I really thought that Judaism was the "one true way." Now, at 56, I understand that it is a "way" but there is no "one true way." We are as capable of selfishness and cruelty as people of any other religion (or non-religion). In today's world, it is the Israeli government (and, by extension, the Israeli people) who perpetuate something that looks like colonialism and apartheid on the Palestinian people (I'm open to better words to describe this). Criticism of the Likud government is completely warranted. I would like to see people on the left be more careful with how they criticize the Israeli government. It's a fine line between that and stepping into antisemitic comments (as Rep. Omar learned). However, anything from the left that crosses this line pales in comparison to any of the violence and hatred that has come from the right.
H.R. in Jamaica Plain, MA, writes: In response to A.J. in Baltimore: I tried to be very careful in my previous post to acknowledge that there's room for disagreement about both the idea that Israel is a settler colonialist state and the characterization of current Israeli laws and policies as meeting the international definition of apartheid. But the discussion should address these issues without engaging in misdirection. A.J. holds up a definition of "colonialism" which is not the definition of settler colonialism, "a type of colonialism in which the indigenous peoples of a colonized region are displaced by settlers who permanently form a society there." And it just isn't true that the Zionists didn't have a military prior to 1948. An example is the Haganah. For an excellent Palestinian perspective on the history of the region, I recommend Rashid Khalidi's book: The Hundred Years' War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917-2017. Also, I don't think I ever said that Israel was illegitimate. I'm not sure what that means. Israel exists. It's a member of the U.N. What I did say is the Israeli government has diverged from what I understand the values of Judaism to be.
As to apartheid, my post linked to Amnesty International's report on this subject, and I urge readers to take a look at it. What needs to be understood in this discussion is that according to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD),"the term 'racial discrimination' shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."
A.J. claims that Israel's non-Jewish citizens "enjoy almost all the same rights as" Jews, but the Amnesty report describes "a web of discriminatory laws on land allocation, planning and zoning" that block these citizens from leasing around 80% of Israel's state land. Amnesty also describes the plight of 35 Beduin villages whose 68,000 inhabitants are "unrecognized" by Israel, leading to "restrictions on political participation and are excluded from the healthcare and education systems."
Personally, I think we would all be better off if we acknowledged the terrible harms done to Palestinians, starting with listening to how Palestinians describe the Nakba (ongoing to this day from their point of view) and recognizing the legitimate right of refugees (of any country) to return. As I've already stated, understanding that the solution to settler colonialism is equality for all the peoples living in the region seems to me to be a way forward. Only when Palestinians enjoy the same human rights and fundamental freedoms as Jews will there truly be peace and prosperity for all who live between the river and the sea.
L.A. in Caldwell County, TX, writes: I am neither Jewish nor Arab. I find the discussion about who is indigenous to that much fought over patch of land silly and ahistorical. By most accounts, Homo Neanderthalensis first arose there before migrating to Europe. I am 2% Neanderthal, so I suppose that makes me indigenous. The Israelites conquered what became Judea and Israel. They conquered Jerusalem and Jericho; they were not the founders of those cities. The archaeological evidence aside, the Hebrew bible makes that clear, particularly the books of Samuel, Joshua, Judges and Kings. God commanded the annihilation of the indigenous: Jebusites, Amorites, Canaanites, etc. These were their Semitic-speaking cousins. If God did that today, He'd get referred to the International Court of Justice.
The subsequent history of the area's post-Israelite conquest constantly mentions other peoples intermingled with or neighboring the Jewish nation, including Arabs. Fast forward a few millennia, when the various Semitic-speaking communities in the region came under the sway of the first Islamic empire, which used the Semitic language Arabic as the Imperial language. Most of these Semitic-speaking communities gradually adopted Arabic language and identity, which was related to their own. So, the region has long featured an ethnic mix dominated by groups speaking Semitic languages. The Jews clearly have a long historical connection to the area. The Arabs clearly have a long historical connection to the area. Some advice from a Neanderthal: Get over yourselves and find a way to live together based on all that you share, including love of that special land.
D.L. in Uslar, Germany, writes: You wrote: "The new E.U. ruling could cost Meta much more because it affects every Meta user, not just those people using Apple's mobile devices."
Non-compliance could cost them considerably more. Firstly, this isn't an E.U. ruling, it's strictly an Irish ruling, and consists of little more than a shot across Meta's bow. This is a fine imposed by an Irish court for violations of the Irish implementation of the E.U.'s General Data Protection Regulation. The maximum fine for violation is 4% of a company's annual revenue. That's total revenue, not local (i.e., 4% of all the money Meta made globally in 2022, not just in Ireland). Every single other country in the E.U. could conceivably take Meta to court for the same violation and impose the same fine. There are enough countries in the E.U. that total fines could exceed more than 100% of Meta's revenues (and that's revenues, not profits). And countries outside the E.U. have similar regulations modeled on the GDPR.
Actually, this isn't just a shot across Meta's bow, but the bows of Alphabet, Apple, Microsoft, Twitter, and every other major tech company that sells user information. If Meta drags their feet on paying the fine or bringing their practices into compliance, they could wind up being a terrifying example to bring the other tech giants to heel. As you noted in your piece, the E.U. is simply too large and too wealthy a market to ignore.
F.L. in Denton, TX, writes: To A.B. in Wendell, concerning Jimmy Carter installing solar panels, uninstalled by Reagan, etc.:
As an electrical engineer, I will say that when Carter installed the panels, it actually took more energy to produce them than the panels would ever produce in their lifetime. Still, they were there and should have remained until their lifecycle ended (which would have been late-Clinton/early-Bush 43).
However, when the new panels were installed under Barack Obama (or, rather, over Obama), the technology had improved and production costs were greatly reduced, so they were very cost-effective.
R.M. in Seattle, WA, writes: Your "What a Year" item noted that the world's solar power capacity surpassed 1 terawatt (one million megawatts) for the first time, a significant milestone, but you opined this is still a drop in the bucket compared to world energy demand. In the mailbag, J.G. in Fredonia correctly pointed out that power is measured in watts (W) and can't be directly compared to energy, which is measured in watt-hours (Wh). Energy represents a capacity to do a certain amount of work, such as fully charge a battery. Power measures the rate that work is being done. For example, that new 20W power supply charges your iPhone much faster than the old 5W supply, but the amount of energy needed to charge the battery is the same.
J.G. made a rough estimate of average solar cell efficiency, which is affected by time of day, climate, and other factors and concluded that 1 TW of solar power could provide 10% of global electrical energy needs. That's in the ballpark, but it's too optimistic. In practice, efficiency is less than J.G. assumed. According to the IEA report "World Energy Outlook 2022," global electricity demand in 2021 was 24,700 TWh (terawatt-hours). Solar photovoltaic (i.e., solar cells) supplied 1,003 TWh of that demand, or about 4%. What I find interesting (and encouraging) about renewable energy today is that wind power supplied 1,870 TWh, almost double the energy obtained from solar cells, and the total supply of renewable energy including hydroelectric and miscellaneous sources amounted to over 8,000 TWh. Add in energy from nuclear plants and the total supply of carbon free electricity in 2021 was 10,835 TWh, almost half the total global demand for electrical energy. This is certainly more than a drop in the bucket, but there is still a long way to go. Total global energy demand from all sources, including fossil fuel, is currently a staggering 170,000 TWh.
A.B. in Jonesboro, AR, writes: I know we were all disappointed in 2015, when flying cars didn't materialize. However, in light of the recent breakthrough in fusion research, and watching the Back to the Future trilogy this weekend, I feel confident Doc Brown traveled ahead to 2022 to find out more about Marty's life. That of course would be when he also picked up the Mr. Fusion Home Power System. I'm looking forward to seeing it on Walmart shelves by next Christmas.
Maybe 2023 is starting off on a good note?!?!
T.S. in Monmouth, IL, writes: Please pardon the pedantry of a retired Latin teacher, but "Habemus Dicentis" is simply bad Latin. So, unfortunately, is "Habemus papum," the phrase cited in reference to the announcement of a new pope. Any quick check on the web would confirm that the correct phrase is "Habemus papam." If you want to say "We have a speaker" instead of "We have a pope," good Latin would be "Habemus oratorem" if you understand the primary role of the Speaker of the House to be an orator, or "Habemus legatum" if you think the primary role of that officeholder is to be a legate or spokesperson.
I suspect that Google Translate was used to transform "Habemus papam" into "Habemus dicentis." Unfortunately, "dicentis" the Latin word Google translates as "speaker" into Latin, is a participle, not a noun, and is usually translated as "speaking." In a stretch, it could mean "speaker," but I suspect that Romans would not usually have used it that way. They would have preferred nouns like "orator" or "legatus." Even if they did use "dicentis" in the Latin for "We have a speaker," they would have written "Habemus dicentem" because "dicentis" is genitive ("of a speaker") while the accusative "dicentem" is needed as the direct object of "Habemus."
You were apparently in good company using the incorrect "Habemus dicentis." Radio host John Ziegler also used the phrase in a tweet.
Fortunately we can all breathe more easily because recent events have certainly shown that "Non Habemus dictatorem" ("We do not have a dictator") in the person of Kevin McCarthy.
O.R. in Milan, Italy, writes: I am afraid you've got your suffix wrong. Habemus calls for the accusative case, so it should be: habemus dicentem.
Yet I would not appear that this was the appropriate verb to begin with. Instead of dicere (to say), I'd use the verb loquor (to speak, to talk). The term locutor is in fact a "speaker." Prolocutor, by the way, is still in use in the Anglican Church to denote a chairman.
Your title should therefore more appropriately be: habemus locutorem.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: I just had to point out the similarities between habemus dicentis and habemus DeSantis. There's a joke in there somewhere, but I'm not comedian enough to find it.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: Status quo ante tantrum? To quote someone I can't remember, "I wish I'd said that!" "Oh, you will, you will." It's the -um ending that makes it the perfect word.
S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, writes: To counter the German pedantry of A.C. in Aachen with a bit of my own: L.S. in Greensboro was not referring to a generic chocolate cake from Germany, but to German chocolate cake, which is a specific cake recipe that originates from Texas, and is named not for the country, but for the particular baking chocolate used in its original recipe, which in turn was named for its creator, one Samuel German.
Personally, I prefer Black Forest cake which, like me, has actual German roots.