Dem 47
image description
   
GOP 53
image description

Sunday Mailbag

We had a headline-theme hint ready for yesterday, and forgot to use it. So here it is today: The solution is a killer.

Politics: TrumpWorld

D.M. in Berlin, Germany, writes: You wrote: "Obviously, we are entirely comfortable with the notion that [Donald] Trump is pretty incompetent and pretty stupid. However, he's surrounded by people who are certainly more capable than he. And some of those people must be thinking things through, right? RIGHT? So, we are strongly inclined to look for the method in the madness, because our gut tells us so strongly that it must be there."

I think you overlooked Trump's narcissism.

George W. Bush was pretty stupid, too, but he understood perfectly well that he was stupid; so he let himself be handled.

Trump, as a narcissist, genuinely believes he's the smartest person in every room, both a very stable genius and an extremely stable genius. The only way to handle him is to get him to believe that your ideas were his all along. This is difficult enough that Trump's madness is rarely reined in and even the method some of his would-be handlers have laid out, Project 2025/Agenda 47, seldom gets through. This is why the only people who still try to handle Trump are trying to profit personally (financially and/or ideologically). And, as you went on to describe, they often compete with each other, blocking each other's actions and contributing to the madness.



S.C.-M. in Scottsdale, AZ, writes: You hit the nail on the head, as all of Donald Trump's actions are simply revenge and are performative actions designed to keep his base riled up. They serve no purpose. Hopefully, the American people will figure this out. Unfortunately, a lot of people will be hurt in the meantime.



D.A.Y. in Troy, MI, writes: As you wrote, Trump has adopted the "flood the zone" strategy, where he can spew copious amounts of bovine excrement at such a rate no one can counter him. I would say the best strategy the Democrats could adopt is to let the flood happen. Just step back and let everything get washed away. They can just tell the people "You said you wanted this. You voted for this. We tried to warn you, but Trump said he was for you and you believed him."

We've stepped into the Wayback Machine to arrive at the halcyon year of 2005. The Republican president won the popular vote and had a trifecta and claimed a mandate. Then they almost instantly overreached. However, what doomed George W Bush and the congressional Republicans was when Mother Nature punched them in the face with "KATRINA" tattooed on her knuckles.

Natural disasters are going to come for Red America. Tornado season is going to ramp up in the Deep South and Midwest. Hurricane season is coming. States with Republican trifectas will suffer multi-billion dollar disasters because they do so every year. The Republican trifecta is important because there is no blaming the state Democrats when things go to hell in a handbasket.

And to hell in a handbasket is exactly where things will go. Between the chaos of Elon Musk trying to dismantle the Administrative State to sell for parts, the executive branch being filled with incompetent lackeys, and the fractured nature of the Republican conferences in Congress, they will be ill-prepared for a disaster of any complexity.

The Democrats should refrain from trying to chase after Trump because they would just exhaust themselves, like they did in this past election. They should sit back and let the consequences pile up for people, so they can package it all together as "Trump is bad for America." They can offer token resistance, but just to let people know bad things are coming and the Republicans will not stop it. The Republicans took a bath in 2006, not picking up a single representative, senator, governor, or state house while losing their shirts. By all indications, history is ready to repeat itself.



J.D. in Greensboro, NC, writes: As a progressive, I am particularly sensitive to all the reports of cruelty attributed to Trumpian policies. I am proud that I didn't vote for the guy.

However, I think many voters were misled into thinking that his presidency would not harm them and would actually benefit them, because "he is a successful businessman" or some other vague justification.

These voters are about to get a whole lot of what they don't want. People are going to get hurt, and if it isn't them it will be those who they know and care about. Lyndon Johnson had his Great Society, but I believe the Donald Trump era should be known as The Great Betrayal.



A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: D.J.M. in Salmon Arm asked about the potential location of a Trump Memorial Library.

Actually, planning is underway: Donald J. Trump Presidential Library - Presidential Library for the 45th President of the United States

Planning originally began during his prior reign; the site has not been updated yet to encompass his return to regnal authority!



S.J.S. in Mount Holly, NJ, writes: This week, I realized it was time to add this website to my bookmarks once again: whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com.



M.C. in Drogheda, Ireland, writes: OK, that's 1 week down. Another 207 to go!

(V) & (Z) respond: Two weeks, 206 to go, by the time this runs.

Politics: Coping with Trump

J.B. in Pittsboro, NC, writes: I'd like to address the despair felt by L.S. in Black Mountain a little more directly. It seems writing our Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) might actually have some effect. How much constituent pressure, that pushes opposite MAGA, can Tillis ignore? I don't think my hope is completely groundless that we constituents have some opportunity to shift away some rubber-stamping of Trump's behavior with a Roy Cooper threat hanging over the Senator. Just don't read the letters in response: They are a mishmash of flip-floppy nothing-saying, leaving me confident that I'm receiving the "Don't give them anything to hold against me or hold me to" boilerplate letter for the topic.



D.C. in Portland, OR, writes: You've published a few comments recently expressing some form of despair and/or desperation to "do something" to address our current predicament, with L.S. in Black Mountain, in particular, triggering my response.

My suggestion is to dispel any notion of being alone. For every L.S. there are 10,000 others who feel exactly the same way.

Furthermore, every time L.S. makes the decision to do something (or not), 10,000 others decide to do exactly the same.

So FEEL the power that brings, and decide what YOU want to do to make a difference, knowing that an army of like-minded individuals has your back.



C.L. in Boulder, CO, writes: In response to L.S. in Black Mountain, you suggested paying attention to the news (if your mental health won't suffer) and getting involved with a local party or government. I'd like to also suggest supporting two groups who may well be the busiest during this administration: attorneys and journalists. Many large nonprofit organizations have a legal department. Pick one that works on issues you care about and ask how you can help them.

Unfortunately, national news organizations are mostly caving to this administration. When The Washington Post replaces its "Democracy Dies in Darkness" motto with praise for storytelling, you gotta worry.



M.D.K. in Portland, OR, writes: You are correct that Congress, legacy media, and corporate social media have caved to Trump.

But when Tom Homan, Trump's "Border Czar," complains that brown people are so "educated" he can't just round them up, you know that some of the American people are still fighting.

Workshops for immigrants about their rights have been packed, in Chicago and other targeted sanctuary cities. Millions of "red cards," on rights and strategies, have been handed out, and used. Someone's fighting back, and winning.



J.B. in Bend, OR, writes: For the past few weeks, many of your readers have expressed dismay, anxiety, fear and near-panic over the Trump administration's actions. I'd like to offer for consideration my attitude toward the current situation: I remind myself that things looked pretty bleak and uncertain to Americans in early 1942—the fleet had been sunk, we'd lost The Philippines and other Pacific islands, the Germans had declared war on us, and our only ally, Britain, stood isolated and alone.

Understandably, for many months, Americans worried what would happen next. We are in a similar phase: the beginning of bad times, the moment when everything looks the worst, and fear, anxiety and panic (e.g., "can Trump really serve a third term?!!!") are at their highest.

Trump will do many things that will damage the country's institutions, and he will do many things that will cause dismay, but we're at the beginning of these travails. The U.S. reeled after December 7, but prevailed in 1945. Four years can seem like a long time when one looks at it from the start of the first year, but Trump will be gone in 4 years and may well be rendered toothless before that.

I often remind myself of the British expression when they faced their worst moment: "Keep calm and carry on."

Politics: Trump and the Bureaucracy

L.T.G. in Columbus, OH, writes: The mass assignment of senior career Department of Justice officials to a task force on sanctuary cities makes me think of the infamous "rubber room" maintained by the New York City public schools. Teachers and administrators who were, rightly or wrongly, charged with incompetence or malfeasance were too difficult to fire, so they were instead assigned to report to empty rooms each and every day, collecting their full pay and benefits to do precisely nothing—for months, or even years—until they retired or quit or, perhaps, went mad.

The sanctuary task force seems like pretty much the same thing. Except that this rubber room will engender actual harm. And its occupants, far from being incompetent or dangerous, are among DoJ's finest members. And the point is not to sequester the harmful, but to sideline the honest and competent. And the room has been set up, not by well-meaning officials seeking a way to help students, but by feckless thugs hell-bent on dismantling the guardrails protecting us from their untrammeled evil. But otherwise, pretty much the same.



M.S. in New York City, NY, writes: Any Federal employee foolish enough to consider hitting "send" on their buyout (with "resign" in the header!) should consider what Dilbret had to say 20+ years ago on a similar matter:

In the first panel, the
boss types an e-mail: 'DUE TO WORSENING STORM CONDITIONS, ALL 'NON-ESSENTIAL PERSONNEL MAY GO HOME EARLY.' In the second
panel, he thinks about that. In the third panel, he looks out his window and says to himself: 'THIS WILL BE THE EASIEST
ROUND OF LAYOFFS EVER.'

(V) & (Z) respond: And if any cartoonist understands the Trumpian mindset, it's Scott Adams.



J.S. in Ravenna, OH, writes: I believe that the true purpose of this buyout is to get employees to self-report their world view.

Imagine if you are a career civil servant, and you are not a Trump fan. You probably have despair about your career's future and being miserable in your job. This "offer" is a parachute for you that you'll think hard about taking. Now, imagine that you are a career civil servant and drink the Trump Kool-Aid... you ignore this e-mail. You are excited about what is to come, and are eager to help bring Trump's vision a reality. You don't want a parachute!

I believe that is all there is to this; it is an opportunity to show the door to people that are not all-in on Trumpism/MAGA.

Politics: Blood on Trump's Hands

C.F. in Waltham, MA, writes: Thank you so much for the headline "Donald Trump Kills 67 People." Sadly, there will be additional severe consequences to his presidency, but at least this one headline matches the way many right-wing sites message. Trump's messaging machine is crazy now. Almost all headlines are something like "Trump blames DEI and Biden..." then on left-wing sites the words "without evidence" is added. Democrats can't keep bringing a rubber knife to a war being fought with assault rifles! There are real actions Trump took that could plausibly have led to this tragedy.



J.A. in Hell's Kitchen. NY, writes: I just wanted to say that I absolutely love this headline. I have been screaming across anywhere there are people that will listen, that the Democrats need to change leadership, grow a backbone, and start fighting the Trump Republicans the way the Trump Republicans fight the rest of us.

We need to start pinning EVERYTHING that goes on under his presidency onto him. Short, easily digestible associations. No more long lists, no more nuanced explanations. These don't work in today's TikTok-attention-span world. Democrats need to start learning, go on the offense, CREATE narratives rather than trying to deflect the other side's narratives. You cannot be only on defense to advance. Make THEM respond to the Democratic narrative and keep pushing.



A.S. in Lenora Hills, CA, writes: Regarding your comment: "The President then asserted that all of this is the fault of DEI." I ran TCF's comments through the MAGA-to-English translator, which gave me this: "It's all of this is the fault of women and n****rs [Ed: my redaction] working at the FAA. My common sense tells me that they're low-intelligence and incompetent. I'm going to replace them with white men, who are naturally more intelligent."

Of course he didn't "literally" say that, but I'll bet a toonie that's what the MAGA cult heard (I've read way too many of the comments section of Fox News articles before), and what TCF really meant. And let's be honest, we already know the guy is a flat-out racist.

Apropos to the sentiment of your item, I suggest from now on whenever you quote the administration mentioning DEI, your headline should simply be "Trump Blames 'The Blacks' Again."

I'm aware that some may find that offensive, but I think we need to be clear on what conservatives really mean when they rant about DEI(A). I'm disappointed that the press hasn't picked-up on that more.



M.B. in Granby, MA, writes: In Hit 'Em Where It Hurts: How to Save Democracy by Beating Republicans at Their Own Game, political strategist Rachel Bitecofer argues that the Democrats need to do exactly what you propose with "Donald Trump Kills 67 People": make the Republican so odious that voters will have no choice but vote for Democrats.

Bitecofer believes Democrats should build their communications on negative partisanship, the tendency of voters to form their political opinions primarily in opposition to political parties they dislike. Strategically, they should make voters dislike the GOP, in order to drive voters away from them.

For a good example of the strategy, consider Hillary Clinton's treatment by the well-financed, well-coordinated right-wing noise machine. She was attacked for 25 years before running for president.

The Democratic brand is now in the toilet. Voters think they're out of touch and unwilling to fight. Democrats can start by hitting them where it hurts.



G.R. in Carol Stream, IL, writes: I'm surprised that you are blaming Our Esteemed Leader for the untimely deaths of those people in the helicopter-versus-plane accident. Haven't you read the memo from the Supreme Court, where they decided that Leader cannot be blamed for anything that happens while he is Leadering?

On the other hand, those others you mention in passing—Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph Robinette Biden—are obviously to blame, since they governed before the Supreme Court's decision. It's basic Scary Decisus, people!



R.S. in Ticonderoga, NY, writes: The day after the tragic collision of a commercial airliner and a military helicopter, I found myself tempted to make a post on social media about Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth only being in office for a few days and already military aircraft are running into commercial aircraft. But I couldn't do it, given the families of those killed. I guess I'm one Democrat that can't stoop that low.

Politics: Trans Americans

P.C. in Stony Brook, NY, writes: Your response to M.S. in Megève was entirely accurate. In the end, the military cares more about the integrity of the mission than the ancillary cultural wars affecting civilian society.

Many decades ago I was an eager "butterbar" (2nd Lt.) in flight training in the USAF. My training base experienced some of the first rounds of female pilots.

We received briefings from senior officers regarding this change, and within a few months most officers came around to the understanding that "a pilot was a pilot," regardless of their sex. (Bear in mind that this was long before female pilots were assigned combat role aircraft, which engendered further discussion.)

But ultimately, most officers—male and female—just did their jobs.

As you point out, the military has been very good at focusing on its mission. And the successful completion of that mission often hinges on the ability/training of not only the individual service member, but also of all those around them. Everything else is secondary.

I will relate one amusing anecdote.

As pilots, we were each assigned stations in what were called "Ready Rooms." These stations were the standard government-issued gunmetal desks with glass toppers. The purpose of this was to place the immediately relevant aeronautical charts underneath the glass, then use an erasable marker to plot out the mission. (This was pre-GPS and "glass cockpit" days.)

Each station was considered a pilot's personal space. Along with the charts, pilots would often place photos of family members and anything else which they wished. Some cut out newspaper cartoons, some wrote jokes, posted mementos, religious admonitions, etc.

And, of course, some pilots chose to display explicit photos of women from magazines, or risqué Polaroid photos in their possession.

I am no prude by any means, but I always thought that practice was simply juvenile. In addition, senior officers were often present when flight/mission planning was being conducted, and I often wondered what these persons thought of the displays. Bear in mind that pilots would move from one individual's station to another, so there was no attempt to hide what was in plain sight.

And then we had female pilots.

I do not remember, nor do I know of, a single individual ever complaining—or even remarking on—the explicit displays. But what did happen was that the female pilots began to display their own sets of explicit photos, only this time it was of men.

Personally, I thought it was hilarious. But some individuals were not quite that sanguine regarding the new material. Sure enough, after a couple of weeks, junior officers were all treated to a general staff symposium on the topic of "Decorum" on USAF installations. No one mistook this symposium as anything other than an order, and within days all the personal stations were free of sexually explicit material.

I have often told this story to younger generations of service members, and they find it remarkable that such an environment ever existed. For myself, I think the female pilots were a lot smarter than their male counterparts, and simply beat them at their own game.



A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: M.S. in Megève has me livid.

A few Air Force officers say something off the cuff to some civilian, and that means the civilian suddenly understands military culture?

The Air Force, and Air Force officers in particular, don't understand what it is to have camaraderie. They have their own version of it, but it's nothing like humping 40 miles in oven-like heat and choking dust in one day and night after no sleep for a day or two.

Any Marine would die for any other Marine, even if they just found out that guy is sleeping with their wife.

Those Air Force officers should be more disciplined, but, hey! It's anti-transgender! I'm in the Air Force! I know fu**-all about discipline.



C.B. in Highlands, NJ, writes: On reading "This Week in Schadenfreude: Boebert Tries to Be a Hawk, Ends Up as a Goat," I ask that you remind readers of Michelle Jezycki's amazing venture with "humankind, be both" messaging. Its simple yet clear message is one we should be espousing during the madness this country has found itself in these days. Just existing gives a person both the capacity to damage your neighbor in various ways, or to reach out and help them in countless ways. Personally, I choose the latter, every time. In my opinion, when we stop putting a label on everything and just accept that we are all human beings and we are all in this together, will be the day a great deal of the hatred will leave us. Locally, I spread this message as often as I can.



A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: OK, so some readers here may recall that I am the Chair of the Trans Caucus of the NC Democratic Party. This affords me both a seat on the State Executive Committee and the State Executive Council—which is, of course, chaired by Gov. Josh Stein (D-NC).

I admit to being a bit flummoxed in the moment as to how to fight the current onslaught that we as a community are facing. I can say, with 30 years (most of my adult life) as an open trans person... I have never fought this kind of battle. Outside of undocumented immigrants, I cannot think of a single more-hated group in America right now than trans people like myself.

The other day, I got into conversation with the Chair of the Affiliated Organizations for the NCDP, whom I will refer to as "D." I was sharing my frustration with D about the fact that the Party, on a national level, appears to have abandoned us... and even on the state level, there are battles to fight.

D was asking me what actions I would suggest, and, in conversation and meeting of minds, we determined that the first and most important thing Democrats and allies can do at this moment is to re-humanize us. I contend that CFT (Convicted Felon Trump—my preferred new moniker for him) has systematically dehumanized us... particularly with his pre-election ads that represented us as clownish, cartoonish caricatures that is not the reality of most trans. Even camp queens do not look THAT bad... and they are TRYING to create a caricature!

The first step to getting away with atrocity against a group is to dehumanize them. We need our allies and the Democrats to emphasize our humanity. We need to show trans like me that work full time jobs while going to school to better ourselves. We need to show law enforcement and firefighters, doctors and nurses, who are trans.

The "purpose statement" in these various XOs from CFT display a clear animus, and seek to further dehumanize us, so that cruelty against us becomes acceptable. We need to fight RIGHT NOW to remind everyone in this country that we are humans... and as citizens, we should have the same rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness all others take for granted. That is what we need our allies to be doing right now: emphasizing our humanity.



M.F. in Princeton, NJ, writes: Per your note that some commentators have questioned "Can a sports ecosystem built around two genders be re-jiggered to accommodate trans folks?" in many sports the system can, and has. I skated with a Men's Roller Derby Association (MRDA) team a few years back. Due to resource needs, the local men's team skated with the local women's team. There was much camaraderie between the two teams, and practices were mixed-gender most of the time—this despite the commonly accepted fact that "the men hit harder." From experience, I'm not certain that was always the case, but that was the argument made for why you wouldn't expect to see the two genders play actual games together.

Except then they did. There was a co-ed mini-league that formed for one season, just for fun, and then soon after (although perhaps not related to that event) both MRDA and the Women's Flat Track Derby Association (WFTDA) expanded their rules to accept and protect all trans, intersex, and gender-queer skaters. Essentially their rules were "if you identify as a man, you can skate in MRDA. If you identify as a woman, you can skate in WFTDA." And that's it.

Now, sure, one can argue that this is a semi-pro league and not at the same level as other sports leagues or events being discussed. But when groups like this can figure it out, and do it smoothly and effortlessly, seems like it's not really an issue about gender at all.

Politics: The National Cathedral

R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: Having attended an Episcopal Church for a few years and participated in adult instruction there, I feel pretty confident that there will be little pushback if I claim that "Episcopalian" and "non-doctrinaire as is possible" are virtually synonyms. This goes all the way back to their Anglican roots—after Henry VIII's schism and Elizabeth I's embrace of Protestantism, the Church of England very pragmatically tried to find a way to keep people together and so they thought long and hard about what things were truly essential and what things could be amenable to compromise. So, the Episcopal Church in America today still recognizes seven sacraments but categorizes them into two groups instead of insisting that they are all equally important or significant. They call this The Middle Way and also the Media Via (for the more "Catholic" among them).



D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: Some fun facts about the National Cathedral. It is the sixth largest cathedral in the world and the second largest in America. It receives no monies from either the federal government or the national Episcopal Church. It took 83 years to "complete." Woodrow Wilson, Helen Keller and Matthew Shepard are buried at the cathedral. There is an actual moon rock buried within the Space Window. And there are 112 gargoyles and grotesques (a gargoyle usually contains a water sprout while a grotesque does not) that range from the whimsical to the frightening, with the head of Darth Vader being the one looked for the most.

All Politics Is Local

P.K. in Altadena, CA, writes: I offer an update on the L.A. fires, and thoughts on how politics and climate intersect to fuel such tragedies. I live in Altadena which, like the Pacific Palisades, lost over 6,000 homes. My neighbors have lived in our community for generations. No one believed a fire could reach us, but now we will be displaced for months, and rebuilding for years. The Right spread lies that Joe Biden withheld federal assistance from North Carolina after the hurricane, yet now Donald Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) openly withhold aid from my community; with the GOP, every accusation is a confession. I barely recognize our country.

That said, there is ample blame to go around. Local leaders keep calling the weather that drove fires deep into urban areas "unprecedented," but this was predictable. Every 5 to 7 years, a wet El Niño drives plant growth, then a dry La Niña dries the plants into kindling, and powers winter Santa Ana winds. Following the rainy 2010 El Nin˜o, L.A. was in a La Nin˜a November in 2011 when hurricane-force Santa Anas tore down over 5,000 trees, bringing down power lines and starting fires. A neighbor's tree pulled a high voltage line down into my backyard; I spent 10 hours fighting the ensuing fire. After 5 days without power, I watched the utility just restring the lines. I implored them to bury the line, but they said it was too expensive. Seven years later, Malibu was devastated by the Woolsey Fire under the same conditions: Another La Niña, Santa Anas brought down power lines and spread fires at a cost of over $5 billion. Seven years later, in the current La Niña drought following last year's El Niño, the Santa Anas spread fires estimated to cost a quarter-trillion dollars. Too expensive? BURY THE LINES.

The lack of civil preparedness for these events was devastating. One of our major utilities does not have a pro-active plan for power outages; the other did not enact its plan. My power was never shut off on January 7, with 80 m.p.h. winds pounding our town and a fire racing towards us, trees coming down all around. On January 8, I drove through my neighborhood and passed five parked fire trucks, the firefighters just watching as houses and businesses burned to the ground. They had no water. Some firefighters lost their own homes while trying to protect ours; imagine their frustration, having no water to battle our worst-ever urban fire. California's leaders sunk $100 billion into a high-speed train that doesn't exist and no one asked for, instead of critical water infrastructure. Nearly 1 in 3 Californians now live in a "wildland-urban interface" area vulnerable to such fires. We cannot be this complacent.

I am most traumatized by our evacuation warning system. I live two blocks west of Lake Avenue, the old red-lining boundary; historically, Black families were not allowed east of Lake. My block is the most racially diverse place I have ever lived, with multiple white, Black, Latino and Asian families. West of Lake, evacuation orders came 8 to 12 hours later than east of Lake. I left early evening, before getting a warning, because I could see the fire in the distance. Many neighbors were awakened in the middle of the night by a pet, neighbor or relative, to find it raining fire on their homes, before receiving an evacuation order. All fatalities were west of Lake, but the fire started far to the east. We have more to rebuild than just houses.



R.L.S. in Portland, ME, writes: In response to B.C. in Farmingville, I am "concerned and disappointed" that someone "from away" feels comfortable writing about what us Mainers think, and I suspect that if a pollster asked Mainers if they knew what "fake bipartisanship" is, my guess is that they'd get a lot of "ayups" and then be directed down the road apiece.

No, the reason Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) won, and Sara Gideon lost, aside from the fact that incumbents overwhelmingly win re-election, is that the state is a lot like Pennsylvania, with a large northern rural region similar to the Pennsytucky found between Philly and Pittsburgh. If a tourist like B.C. spends a couple weeks visiting coastal Maine, they do not know Maine. Go a few miles inland and you're in Trump country, also known as Paul LePage country—which, by the way, is where Susan Collins hails from. Add to that the fact that Sara Gideon ran demonizing ads that made it seems as if she were running against Mitch McConnell—ads that only excited true-believers and turned off just about every one else—and she was doomed. Mainers are by and large practical Yankees. Gov. Janet Mills (D-ME) has run two successful campaigns for governor based on the issues and has won handily, even carrying Paul LePage's hometown. Not necessary to invoke any ballot shenanigans by the 'Nades.

(V) & (Z) respond: It is ALWAYS necessary to invoke ballot shenanigans by the 'Nades.

History Matters (And So Does Geography)

E.A. in Los Alamos, NM, writes: While I always enjoy your takes on American history, I was surprised that you left George Washington off of your list of the most powerful people in American history. From becoming the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army in 1775 until his retirement to Mount Vernon in 1797, he was the most powerful political figure in an era of political giants. He played a critical role securing our independence and was instrumental in calling for the Constitutional Convention and served as its president. He is the only President to win 100% of the electoral vote in two consecutive elections, and both times he ran unopposed. He defined many of the traditions of the presidency, including voluntarily giving up the office after two terms. It is amazing that we still frame political debates around his Farewell Address, over 200 years later. Moreover, if his actual accomplishments weren't enough, Parson Weems created numerous legends to add to an image of honor and integrity.

I was also surprised that Thomas Jefferson did not receive at least an honorable mention. The Declaration of Independence is a critical document, and his decision to make the Louisiana Purchase shape the future growth of the country. He also ushered in a 30 year period where his party dominating American politics.

(V) & (Z) respond: We excluded them because, in their time, the United States was a militarily weak nation with fairly limited influence on world affairs.



M.B. in Ward, CO, writes: The Boston Tea Party?

I've noticed a popular misconception spread by the libertarian right in recent years about this most American of Revolutionary actions. They say that the Boston Tea Party was a Tax Revolt, with capital letters. Nothing can be further from the truth. The Boston Tea Party was actually a revolt against a Tax Break (in capital letters). The Atlantic And Pacific Tea Company was unfairly and unilaterally granted a royal tax break, which angered the merchants of Boston—who still had to pay the tax—enough to engage in civil disobedience to the extent that they did. Remember that the next time some billionaire comes pleading to your local government for some undeserved tax break.



T.P. in Kings Park, NY, writes: I have to take issue with your contention that "[Adolf] Hitler was not particularly antisemitic." While he very well may have despised other groups as much as he despised Jews, what set the latter apart in his mind was so many of them looked and acted like Germans. Black people and Roma were obviously not German, but in his view assimilated Jews were lying about who they were, and that made them seem much more insidious to him.

(V) & (Z) respond: Whatever his personal feelings, the key point remains that power was more important to him than acting his various bigotries. He disdained Catholics, but did not act on that because it would have been impractical to do so. He loathed gay people, and yet still worked closely with Ernst Röhm for several years. And if it had been, say, Roma who really got Germans' blood boiling, then they would have been the central focus of Nazi propaganda, not Jews.



E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, writes: In college, I took a geography course called World Regions to fulfill a general education requirement. The course was absolutely fascinating, focusing on understanding how a region's geographic features influence the ways societies and cultures function there.

One very memorable moment from the Tuesday-Thursday class was when the professor was discussing how rebel groups often hide in mountainous regions, citing both the FARC in Colombia and an Islamic extremist organization known as al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. In his slides, he even showed a topographical map of Afghanistan with a thought bubble reading something like "come and get us." The very next meeting of that class, set to take place on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, was canceled...

When our stunned class returned on Thursday, September 13, the professor told us that he made those slides years before (after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and that he had no idea how prescient that would be. That experience forever reinforced to me how important it is to stay informed about world events and to never stop learning.

To that end, I agree that Guns, Germs, and Steel. is an excellent choice! For those especially interested in current geopolitics, I also highly recommend the five books of The Politics of Place series by Tim Marshall. Marshall's experiences reporting from over 40 countries as a international correspondent for the BBC give him a unique perspective on world affairs. I especially liked how he also included personal anecdotes in the books, such as his experience of falling into a canal in Iran while being chased by the police! The books' topics range from maps to flags to walls to astropolitics (yes, that's a thing), and they are consistently readable, always informative, and incredibly eye-opening.

Novel Ideas

T.S. in Mansfield, OH, writes: Regarding your list of influential novels since 1900, it is unfortunate that those who were enamored with Atlas Shrugged did not follow up with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.



L.D. in Bedford, MA, writes: I'm sure I'm not the only one to submit this in response to your inclusion of Atlas Shrugged. It is from the pen of screenwriter John Rogers, though it is often attributed incorrectly to Paul Krugman:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.


B.J. in Arlington, MA, writes: I read Atlas Shrugged as a teenager. I might not go so far as to say it changed my life, but it had a huge impact on me.

My understanding is that most people consider Rand's philosophy as a deeply right-wing and conservative. On several occasions, I've read well known liberal authors slam the book and anyone who likes it as being emotionally arrested at the teenage-boy level. I specifically recall Paul Krugman writing something like that.

That isn't how I took it. Sure, John Galt did not want to be taxed, but I felt that he did not want to be taxed in order to support "moochers." I did not feel that he objected to being taxed to support fair play, stable markets, etc. He went on strike in objection to people owning him and his work without just compensation, and against the idea that he was obligated to work for someone else's benefit instead of his own.

A key line for me, and I don't remember if it was spoken by Galt or Rearden, was something like "I will forgive a mistake made in ignorance for a mile, but an action taken in malice not a single inch." I think the speaker was answering the question of what he thought should happen to a particular employee who was low-level, not particularly great, but decent and honest and did his best.

I see Atlas Shrugged as speaking very directly to our time. The moochers, led by Donald Trump, have taken over the government. They will tear everything down. They will demand loyalty and tithes and never accept responsibility for anything. They will suck the life out of any legitimate business or activity except for those favored insiders who participate in the scam.

I think a great industrial leader leading a national strike against Trump and the Republican party might be exactly what we need right now. Unfortunately, they all seem to be going in the opposite direction.



B.C. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: Imagine it is 1963. You are 13 years old and, because you have a subscription to the Science Fiction Book Club, one day you receive a copy of The Man in the High Castle, by Philip K. Dick, in the mail. After reading the book, I gave it to my World War II-veteran father to read.

The alternative history idea of the Axis powers defeating the Allies as a result of the United States remaining isolationist, and failing to enter the war, would become a topic of conversation between my dad and me years later when he became concerned about my hesitancy to join the military service and fight in Vietnam. Try as I might, I failed to convince him there was a big difference in goals between Nazi Germany and North Vietnam. It took the actions of Tricky Dick Nixon to convince him that I was probably correct in my stance.

This book is at the top of my personal list of great, impactful novels, and I think it should be required reading for high schoolers.



R.F. in Washington, DC, writes: How about Jack Kerouac's On the Road (1957)? Much to Kerouac's later chagrin, the book was probably more influential on the 60s hippie counterculture than any other, with its rejection of square culture and laissez-faire approach to drugs and sex, along with its celebration of youth and movement. The seismic impact of 60s counterculture has reverberated through the generations since.



K.J. in Austin, TX, writes: One scary thing about the book 1984 is that we essentially now have the technology described in the book. We have voluntary brought technology into our lives allowing ourselves to be tracked 24-7. Beyond cell phones, computers, and devices like Alexa, we also have video cameras nearly everywhere and computers that can identify faces in videos. We also can track wherever someone spends money.

Talkin' Bout Baseball (Again)

D.C.W. in Fredericksburg, TX, writes: My reason for commenting is to thank you for pointing out, despite your being an Angel fan, the basic goodness of the Dodgers organization. I know some people hate rich, successful teams, but they are rich and successful for a reason, as you noted. They do good works and treat their players well. I remember the severely ill player they kept on the roster so he would have healthcare.

I have been a Dodger fan since they first came to L.A., when my dad and I listened Vin Scully call their games on the radio. I am very familiar with Dodger Stadium, as I attended one of the first games there (in what was Chavez Ravine) with my dad, and also went to "Duke Snider night" there with him. Many years later and far away, I still follow the team and love me some baseball. For my birthday a few years ago, my son flew us out to L.A. and we attended two beautiful sunny ballgames in Dodger Stadium. We also went up to San Francisco and attended a couple of Giants games in old cold Candlestick Park. Brrrrrr.

I'll pull for your Angels anytime they are not playing my Dodgers.

(V) & (Z) respond: We wrote about that player, Andrew Toles, in a past freudenfreude. And he's still on the payroll, having been renewed in May of last year.



N.K. in Cleveland Heights, OH (but originally from Brooklyn, NY), writes: You write: "Meanwhile, anytime [The Dodgers] make the World Series in the next five years (which they will probably do more than once), only fans of the opposing team are authorized to root against the Blue Crew."

That should read "fans of the opposing team... or residents of Brooklyn, NY."

My mother, along with the rest of 1950s Brooklyn, had her heart broken by Walter O'Malley. I always say it's a mark of how much she likes my husband (born and raised in Southern California and a diehard Dodger fan) that she let me marry him anyway.)

Sci-Fi

T.W. in Norfolk, England, UK, writes: I saw this on Facebook (in my favorite Star Trek group, "Star Trek Forever") and it invited comments:

The Enterprise
faces off against the planet-eating entity from the original series, except that Donald Trump's face has been
pasted in, so it looks like a giant Trump-faced cone

It was impossible not to respond to that invitation with the immortal quote from the first Kelvin-verse film: "FIRE EVERYTHING!"

(V) & (Z) respond: For those who do not know the reference, you will want to check the Memory Alpha entry on The Doomsday Machine.



R.P. in Gloucester City, NJ, writes: My wife made this several years ago for our Doctor-Who-obsessed nephew:

A multicolor scarf starts at the top of the staircase, 
goes all the way down, and runs along the floor enough that the camera cannot capture it all; the total must be at least 30 feet

As you can see, it extended the full length of the staircase.

Gallimaufry: Superheroes Edition

M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: Prompted by E.W. in Skaneateles asking about the worst superhero:

A book called 'The League of
Regrettable Sidekicks,' it clearly is a rundown of some of the stupidest comic book heroes.



J.C. in West Philippine Sea writes: I read two shocking things in this week's Q&A: (1) There's a Trump Park. At least it's approximately toxic and falling apart; (2) Aquaman as the worst DC superhero?!? How could you?? He is the king—literally! The very best superhero and you say the worst? NO. No one else can talk to sea creatures, which is the greatest power ever. But to prove my point, where no argument is possible, every... other... superhero is on land. (Namor doesn't count. He's an antihero, and a poor copy.) Our planet is 75% water. We have one hero for 75% of the planet. #ConchDrop



J.H. in Boston, MA, writes: You write that Colossus is the best super hero because he is hilarious. I had to look him up because the name didn't ring a bell, but are you talking about the Russian bodybuilder X-Men minor character whose superpower is to turn metallic and invulnerable? How is he hilarious? I don't remember him ever being played for laughs, and he barely got any screentime. Seemed like a pretty generic guy. I don't really get it.

(V) & (Z) respond: We originally had Deadpool. Colossus serves as foil to Deadpool in the first two films, and has pretty meaty roles in both. And we ultimately decided that as much as we like Deadpool's yin, we like Colossus' yang just a tiny bit more.



D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: While you might get some pushback on your selections, I just have to quote the Grail Knight in The Last Crusade, "You have chosen...wisely" when you picked Marvel over DC and Trek over Wars!

Growing up in the 70's, I read both Marvel and DC comics but found myself more enthralled with Marvel. For me, Marvel was based in the real world of New York City, as opposed to the fictitious Gotham and Metropolis. The characters were relatable in that they have modern everyday problems and neuroses: problems at work and with marriage, money issues, having a temper or self-worth issues (the great psychological angst of Batman is really a "recent" addition to the character, with most of the stories between the 40's and 70's deemphasizing the darkness of the character). There were consequences for characters and when there was a body, death was real and permanent.

One of the first comic books I read was The Amazing Spider-Man #121-122, which features the deaths of Peter Parker's then-girlfriend, Gwen Stacy, and the death his best friend's father (and secretly arch villain, the Green Goblin), two issues that have had a profound effect on comic book storytelling to this day. One of the first major multi-issue stories was Steve Engelhart's Captain America, which had Steve Rogers unmasking the leader of the villainous Secret Empire in the White House—while the identity of the leader was never revealed, every reader inferred it to be President Nixon. This story is probably the reason I became so fascinated with politics.

The DC universe, on the other hand was more campy, and whimsical, relying heavily on alternate worlds and realities. Over time, DC became more like Marvel, especially when the talented Marvel writers/artists, like Kirby, Byrne, Engelhart, Perez, Miller, Gerber and Wolfman, all migrated to DC because of Marvel's overbearing editor-in-chief, and Marvel became more DC-like, with an overemphasis on the Multiverse and alternative timelines, which takes away that "real world" consequences, a problem the films have been experiencing after making the same mistake of going into the Multiverse. There was a point in my comics-collecting history where I dropped my Marvel titles (about the time there were about four Jean Greys and a handful of her children from alternate timelines running around) and moved over to DC, who had recently pared all that silliness down to just one universe and timeline. And for what it's worth, and for what will sound like me being an old fart, for the most part modern-day comics drive me crazy—yes, there are some very interesting story ideas but the execution is usually boring, rambling, with too much interest in trying to replicate Robert Downey Jr.'s snark, and conclusions that are too quick and anticlimactic.

I found it interesting that you picked Colossus as your favorite superhero, a hero that turns into metal. Of all the Marvel characters, I would describe Piotr as the most pure of heart. Of course, Republican comic nerds would just say that shows your not-so-secret communist leanings :). My favorite has changed over time. As a kid, I wanted nothing more than to be Johnny Storm, the Human Torch. Nowadays, my choice changes depending on my mood. There are times I would love to have Wolverine's claws (snikt, snikt). During emotionally dark times, I gravitate to Dark Phoenix (who needs a planet of asparagus people anyway). Most of the time, nowadays, I see myself more as Rocket ("Ain't no thing like me except me!") but I usually fall back to the Vision, who is super strong, can fly, change his body's density to be either impenetrably solid or to be able to pass through solid matter, and who can project solar energy blasts through his forehead—not to mention he's an android. What's not to love!

As far worst superhero, since I grew up on the shores of the ocean, I spent many a childhood hour pretending I was Aquaman (I mean, who pretends they're Batman while swimming in the ocean on a bright summer day?). So it's almost impossible for me to name him as the worst. I would have to go for a more obscure hero from the Legion of Superheroes (don't get me wrong, I love me some Legion, especially during the Paul Levitz/Keith Giffen run) with Matter-Eater Lad. As you can ascertain from his name, his sole power is the ability to eat all forms of physical matter. Huh? While that might be a power set that could possibly be "useful" for some situations calling for an escape, what the hell does he do in a battle? To make matters worse, it doesn't help that Matter-Eater Lad hails from the planet of Bismoll, presumably from the Pepto solar system! Taking it even further, after using his powers, he literally sh**s bricks! Or else, to be anywhere near effective as a superhero, he would have to be bulimic, constantly bingeing and purging. Both scenarios are ones I would rather not think about for too long!

I would add, to your pick of Star Trek over Star Wars, that Star Wars is a self-contained allegorical story (ironically, most alt-right Star Wars Bros fail to see that it is a commentary against fascism, authoritarianism and conformity), whereas Star Trek is a platform that can host of variety of genres, high-concept science fiction, comedy, time travel, examinations of social issues, gritty soliloquies on war and religion, character exploration, romance and allegory, just to name a few. While I might have some issues with what is called Nu-Trek, it still after 50 plus years still manages to entertain and contemplate! With a few exceptions—Andor, The Mandalorian and Skeleton Crew—Star Wars has struggled ineptly to break free of the allegorical story of the Skywalkers, making most of their 200 hours seem like a retelling of the first three films. It also seems to be the franchise most resistant to change (for example, some Star Wars fans are incredibly hostile to a female and Black man as the main characters, whereas Star Trek got over those humps decades ago).

I have had the theory that "Marvel vs DC 'and "Star Trek vs Star Wars" are in reality just proxies for our political battles of liberalism vs conservatism. The Marvel style focused on the soap opera elements that highlighted the individual personalities, where Spider-Man was a representative of the Everyman, the Fantastic Four of the family you live with vs. the ideal 50's family, Daredevil was a hero with disabilities, and the X-Men as a catch-all representatives of any minority or person who felt like they were at odds with the rest of the world. On the other hand, a lot of the DC product involved rather homogeneous characters in simplistic stories that relied on magical solutions of alternate realities to maintain a conventional bland society. Later, DC took a 180 degree turn, especially in their films, of trying to be super grim, dark and pessimistic, around the same time Republicans started to embrace their hellscape philosophy of American democracy.

Star Trek's Vulcan philosophy IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations) is one that would send Donald Trump into a fury of orange rage. Star Trek, like Marvel, always has at its core that glimmer of hope, that slow but sure march of progress, whereas Star Wars seems to exist in an universe of unbreakable cycles of darkness and light, an eternally Bushian Us vs Them world. In Star Trek, what was a previous antagonist would in later iterations become the protagonist—think Klingons and the Borg. Yes, in Star Wars there are some moments of individual redemption but they are usually followed by yet another inevitable rise in the Dark Side. There is an inherent pessimism and fatalism to the Star Wars universe that rests underneath its family-fare face. To me, the most Republican moment in Star Wars is the reveal that Luke and Leia are long lost siblings. For one thing, it is a hoary simplistic solution to a messy love triangle problem that has a very large share of "ick" to it.

The first Star Wars trilogy ends in a forced fairytale ending. The best Star Trek films end after a horrific battle with the death of a major character, but with Kirk nevertheless being able to say, "I feel young." Likewise, the MCU's Endgame (and the Infinity Saga) ends after a horrific battle and the deaths of several main characters with a feeling of hope as one character's fondest wish becomes true with one dance. It has a character moving from selfish individualism to one of self-sacrifice for the greater good and another character learning there is a delicate balance between, to borrow from Trek, the needs of the many vs the needs of the few or the one. Republicans, who have an innate hard time doing subtlety or complexity, refuse to understand that sometimes the needs of the few, even sometimes the needs of the one individual, should weigh greatly against the needs of the many and vice-versa. One side of the equation can't outweigh the other; but on the other hand you can't go the Thanos route and have everything "perfectly balanced, as all things should be." Democracy is a dance to an ever-changing tune. Right now we have the one person, unfortunately the super villain, forcing his will on everyone while doing some strange off rhythm solo cha-cha-cha (or maybe it's the Batusi).

Final Words

J.P. in New York City, NY, writes: Emperor Vespasian on his deathbed: "Oh dear, I fear I am becoming a god."

Romans deified good emperors by senatorial decree after they died.

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



This item appeared on www.electoral-vote.com. Read it Monday through Friday for political and election news, Saturday for answers to reader's questions, and Sunday for letters from readers.

www.electoral-vote.com                     State polls                     All Senate candidates