Dem
47
GOP
53
One good reason to read the mailbag is that readers often improve on/fix our answers from Saturday. Direct your attention, in particular, to the sections on artists and sports dynasties.
D.C. in Portland, OR, writes: I must file my theory in advance of the next 72 hours news blackout.
The current shenanigans with Deputy AG Todd Blanche and Ghislaine Maxwell are designed to reignite the passion and enthusiasm of the base, by turning the spotlight on Bill Clinton. If Trump is Client Zero—as I personally suspect—Clinton is not too far behind.
Clinton is a well-worn punchbag of right-wing hate, and there will surely be a nostalgic flood of haters of old, who will come rushing back into the game. He will become the primary evil-doer and target of MAGA wrath, perhaps along with Prince Andrew, some decent number of Democrats, and a token Republican or two, while Donald Trump sneaks by.
Maxwell will regretfully confirm that yes, Trump was a friend and yes, he's in the files because of that friendship. But no, he never did partake and in fact expressed concern on several occasions.
Trump will admit that he did grow to suspect Epstein's perverted tendencies; in fact, one time he even called him out publicly, meaning the reference to "on the young side" as an intervention of sorts. But he had no idea how far the abuse went and ultimately cut Epstein out from his life altogether. He'll add what a great decision that was and how noble he—Trump—was, not to partake, despite all those beautiful girls.
Within one month's time, MAGA will be dutifully back on board and Clinton... well, we'll see.
D.M. in Grand Rapids, MI, writes: Let's be real: Todd Blanche isn't going to see Ghislaine Maxwell just to "gather information." He's there to deliver a message—stay quiet, and you'll walk free. It's a move right out of Trump's old playbook.
We've seen this before. Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Mike Flynn, Steve Bannon—all caught up in legal trouble, all stayed loyal, and all got pardoned. Trump rewards silence, especially when it protects him.
Blanche isn't some career DoJ guy, he was Trump's personal lawyer, handpicked to protect the boss. The idea that he's leading a fact-finding mission doesn't add up. He's not investigating. He's negotiating.
The timing says it all. Maxwell is still holding secrets about Epstein's powerful friends. Trump's base is demanding answers, Congress is heating up, and the White House needs to keep her quiet. What better way than to dangle a 2029 pardon, just like he did for everyone else who kept their mouths shut?
Bottom line: This isn't about justice. It's about making sure Ghislaine doesn't talk. And if she plays ball, Trump will make sure she's free when his time's up.
R.H. in San Antonio, TX, writes: Trump knows what's in those Epstein files.
That's why he's fighting so hard to keep from releasing them.
Remember a few years ago, when Leon Jaworski subpoenaed some tapes from the Oval Office and the President refused to comply until the Supreme Court said he had to provide the tapes, and then the President resigned?
That was funny, wasn't it?
R.H. in Wayland, MA, writes: Your invocation of Richard Nixon and Watergate with regard to the Epstein scandal reminded me of a job interview I had as a third-year law student in 1991. It was with the firm of Mudge, Rose, Guthrie & Alexander, which had previously been known as Nixon, Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander & Mitchell, as in Richard Nixon and John Mitchell.
The interview wasn't going well, and I wasn't expecting an offer, so I figured I had nothing to lose by asking about the firm's connection with Watergate. The interviewer was a partner who apparently had been a junior associate at the time. His response: "We had a lot of business before the various federal regulatory agencies." I wonder if having former partners as President and Attorney General had anything to do with that business? But I digress. He concluded, "We lost all that business because of Watergate. In a sense, we were victims of Watergate."
I had never heard the word "victim" used in this sense before, but this new meaning has apparently caught on with much of the right and has become the dominant definition among Trump supporters. Though it's worth noting that the firm dissolved in 1995.
E.F. in Baltimore, MD, writes: Bear with my seeming digression.
Trump Steaks. Back in 2007, Donald Trump had run up a sizable unpaid bill with the meat supplier for his hotels. Rather than, y'know, actually PAYING his bill, Trump proposed a deal, whereby they would forgive his debt, and he would market their steaks, the theory being that anything bearing his name doubled in value. Essentially, Trump turned his creditor into his partner. Since they were never getting a penny out of him, it must have seemed like a good idea at the time. Never mind that their joint venture failed, the important thing is that Trump got some free meat, and his debt was forgiven. See where I'm going here?
Epstein's business model was to compromise and then blackmail wealthy men. Trump's business model was to get stuff for free. When Epstein realized he was never going to get a penny out of Trump, the next best thing was to become his friend, and leverage the networking opportunities that came with that friendship.
Stacey Williams says Epstein never mentioned any friend but Trump. That was because his other "friends" were paying him to NOT mention their names. This doesn't mean that Epstein never compromised Trump, but rather, that he had no financial incentive to keep their relationship secret.
E.S. in Providence, RI, writes: Prediction: Jeffrey Epstein will be Time magazine's first posthumous Person of the Year.
L.J. in Chicago, IL, writes: You wrote: "If the libel lawsuit against Murdoch goes forward, we imagine that Murdoch's attorneys will subpoena the 'compact discs.' Will the judge allow them to be played in open court?"
I was on a jury that convicted an individual who is currently behind bars of various charges relating to sexual abuse of a minor. The evidence included pictures of the victim. As hard copies of these images were handed to us, the Judge told us that while it was our duty as jurors to look at the evidence, we should be very careful how we held the images, because if anybody in the public side of the courtroom saw one of them that might represent a violation of the very laws that we were adjudicating. As we jurors looked at the photos, the police IT specialist described them in general terms (and narrated technical details about how they searched the defendant's phone, and responded to questions from the defense lawyers about whether such images could have somehow gotten onto that phone by accident, and so forth.
So, from my experience of how that sort of evidence is handled in court, I would expect if such images are used in any legal action involving Trump, only the judge and jurors and court employees will see them; the public record will only have verbal summaries of what they depict.
S.S. in Toronto, ON, Canada, writes: You wrote: "In other words, Epstein may have secretly recorded wealthy men having sex with underage women Ghislaine Maxwell may have procured for him."
No such thing, gentlemen. I hope I am one of many who will tell you there is no such thing. These were girls.
(V) & (Z) respond: Here is the problem. We are not interested in whitewashing sexual misconduct, and we use "girls" whenever we can. However, "girl" carries two meanings. The first is "female who is not mature." The second is something along the lines of "tantalizing object of attraction," as in "Girls Gone Wild," "the girl next door," "California Girls," etc. Sometimes, we end up with a sentence where one might possibly impute the second meaning, which would be very bad. For example, "Trump said he was very interested in the girls Epstein brought to his penthouse." In those cases, we have to fall back to "underage women."
M.M. in Centralia, IL, writes: And I quote: "Fun fact: 95.6% of people who enter graduate school, regardless of discipline, do so hoping they will one day have an excuse to write 20,000+ words on a dead sex offender. So, we're just living the dream at Electoral-Vote.com these days."
I'm going to be laughing all day. Thanks!
R.C. in Des Moines, IA, writes: I look at it this way: You have actually written 20,000+ words on a LIVE sex offender (in addition to the hundreds of thousands or maybe millions of words you have already dedicated to Trump). And it seems to me that Trump is afraid of what the information the government has about Jeffrey Epstein says about him, and how that might affect his support with MAGA world. I asked a close friend who is a Trumper how he would react if it came out that Trump had preyed on underage girls. My friend said if that were true he would support impeachment and removal for Trump.
S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, writes: You wrote: "Pop quiz: What are the three policies that are most central to Trump v2.0?", and followed with, "We would say that Trump's signature policies, in order, are: (1) immigration crackdowns, (2) tariffs, and (3) the BBB."
My own answers were:
- "ICE, ICE Baby"—spot-on;
- "Reverse Robin Hood"—chiefly the BBB; different order, but on you list nonetheless; and
- "America First" foreign policy—tariffs being the most obvious component, but also encompassing the demands of other NATO countries to spend more on their militaries, the cutting of foreign aid, general saber-rattling vis-à-vis Canada and Greenland, etc.
Do I win a prize?
(V) & (Z) respond: Yes. Roughly 3½ more years of a president you understand very well.
J.C. in Saigon, Vietnam, writes: I guessed:
- Increase money for Donald J. Trump.
- Tax breaks for the wealthy.
- Keep the immigrants/brown people out.
Not too shabby, as I got #3, and also #2, assuming it is the same as BBB—which it is. But I'm standing by #1 being a more important policy than tariffs.
D.S. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: A note from one of my suppliers today:
Due to the ongoing tariff volatility, Lenovo product pricing is subject to change without notice. All pricing and quotes provided are valid for the day issued and must be reconfirmed at the time of purchase.Hard to do business in this climate of uncertainty.
D.C. in Brentwood, CA, writes: Regarding Donald Trump's new "ENDING CRIME AND DISORDER ON AMERICA'S STREETS" executive order, I'm just reading through it and it's blatantly political, but I want to address a few specifics.
Section 3 allows penalizing municipalities with homeless/drug problems by redirecting grant money to places without those problems. Some points: (1) Losing the grants won't help solve the problems, and (2) Cities have the most people, and therefore (a) They have the most homelessness and drug problems, and (b) States that help people therefore attract more people who need help.
Both parts of point 2 correlate with Democratic areas, so this is functionally an attempt to redirect funding from Democratic areas to Republican areas, with no intent to result in the problems being fixed in the Democratic areas.
D.B. in Deer Park, NY, writes: Your speculation on the possibility of Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas retiring next year left out an important factor. Alito reportedly hates the D.C. lifestyle and would like to get out sooner rather than later. Thomas, on the other hand, reportedly loves the
bribesperks that he believes go along with the office.
S.E.Z. in New Haven, CT, writes: Since President Trump is pressuring the Washington NFL team to change its name to "Redskins," which many American citizens consider a racial slur against themselves, I would like to propose a compromise. Instead of "Red," how about splitting the difference and replacing it with the word "Orange"? The name "Washington Orangeskins" would be a slur against, at most, one American citizen (albeit one who has yet to prove his citizenship by making his birth certificate public).
E.F. in Baltimore, MD, writes: Since this is a transparent attempt by Donald Trump to change the conversation, the Commanders should rename the team to the Washington Epsteins. No, not Jeffrey, but to honor their beloved long time fan, Rabbi Epstein, who never missed a game. Just like Fort Bragg isn't named after Braxton.
C.W. in Myrtle Beach, SC, writes: You wrote: "using his much-smaller-than-Elon's social media platform..."
Best one of these so far.
(V) & (Z) respond: We try to make our small-penis jokes a bit more subtle than the ones on South Park.
P.R. in Arvada, CO, writes: Your item about Coke agreeing to make some Coca-Cola with cane sugar reminded me of a video I saw late last year. When you write that cane sugar is just as unhealthy as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS),it is actually truer than people may think. It turns out that in a carbonated beverage, such as Coke, the sucrose of cane sugar reacts and converts into both fructose and glucose, resulting in an almost identical drink (50:50 ratio vs. 55:42 of high fructose corn syrup). If you don't get it early enough, you are paying a premium for a cane-sugar Coke that also has the added downside of having more salt in it. As for a flavor difference, it is more likely the glass bottle vs. a can.
E.F. in Baltimore, MD, writes: HFCS is indeed cheaper than sugar. It may be that when Coca-Cola withdrew Original and replaced it with New Coke, their intention all along was to bring back the original formula, sans sugar, which is when HFCS Coke hit the market.
You can already find original (sugar) Coke, made in America. It's sold in the stores every year, around Passover time, since HFCS is not kosher for Passover. Look for the bottles with a yellow cap. Stock up.
But a better question is: WHY is HFCS cheaper than sugar? World sugar prices are ridiculously low, but there's been a high tariff barrier on imported sugar for many years, to the benefit of our Florida/Louisiana-based growers. They're the ones who'll see a massive windfall profit from this decision. Hard for me to believe that they haven't shown their gratitude to the man who made it possible. In other words, just the usual corruption.
D.T. in Columbus, OH, writes: The Coca-Cola made with cane sugar already exists, and in the US it is referred to as "Mexican Coke." You can get it at a lot of Mexican restaurants; and some people do prefer the taste.
I think I can guess how this all went down: President Trump decided to celebrate Cinco De Mayo as he always does, by demanding the nearest brown-skinned person bring him some tacos. With his meal, he was served a Mexican Coke, and he loved the taste.
The President had to have more of this superior beverage. But imagine his dismay when he learned that it was Mexican Coke... and his proud American taste buds had actually liked it?! What would the MAGA base think if they ever learned of this betrayal?
Rather than suffering the indignity of admitting he liked something that could be described as "Mexican," the President instead decided to pressure the Coca-Cola company to change their formula, market strategy, and (most importantly) branding. His beloved cane-sugar Coke needed a name that wasn't tainted by association with Mexico. Presumably, Trump will advocate that they name it "Gulf of America Coke."
(V) & (Z) respond: We believe it's going to be Mt. McKinley Coke.
L.C. in Brookline, MA, writes: Thank you very much for your excellent summary of why cryptocurrency is a scam (and tool for terrorists, extortionists, and child pornorgraphers).
But have you noticed that the silence from most of the Democrats on this issue is deafening?
S.C.-M. in Tucson, AZ, writes: As a former IT professional, thank you for your post about cryptocurrencies. The tech is kind of interesting, but the whole industry is a complete speculative scam. I wish our lawmakers would wake up to that fact.
R.S. in Bedford, England, UK, writes: Your piece on cryptocurrencies and the relationships between some of them took me straight back to 2008 and Collateralized Debt Obligations. Bundle a load of sub-prime (unlikely to be repaid) mortgages together and classify them as Class A debts so that they can prompt further lending. Here's a clue to how that ended: Lehman Bros. I must be getting old, as I prefer my assets to be backed by something with more solid, like a country with a reasonable credit rating guaranteeing my retail bank.
F.F. in London, England, UK, writes: Thank you for your excellent critique of crypto. I work in finance, and would like to add to your list of points, and that is the credit problem.
Even if we had a world where everyone was using crypto, there would still be people with excess crypto and people who want to borrow crypto, and we would still need a financial system to intermediate those transactions. The people who talk about bitcoin see it as a way of resolving the trust problem. My view is that even if all their hopes and dreams came true it would not resolve the trust problem.
L.S. in Greensboro, NC, writes: I really appreciated your item on crypto, which correctly points out that cryptocurrency is a giant scam. However, I thought your comments on the U.S. banking system were misleading. You assert the U.S. system is archaic because wire transfers are slow and banks charge a hefty fee. However, almost all transactions carried on between banks in the U.S. are by electronic funds transfer (EFT) and not wire transfers. EFTs are almost instantaneous, and are free. I pay almost all of my bills by EFT, use EFT to make charitable contributions, and to transfer money between various bank and investment accounts. I've never paid a single fee for this service. The only checks I ever write are to my cleaning service. I'm hardly alone in this. While checks may not be banned in the U.S., most everyone I know rarely writes checks anymore and instead uses credit and debit cards and EFTs.
So I'd say the U.S. system is virtually identical to the one in Europe that you describe, except it uses EFTs rather than wire transfers. And actually, I suspect that what you describe in Europe is actually EFTs as well.
D.M. in Berlin, Germany, writes: You have written about the novel phenomenon of Donald Trump threatening Vladimir Putin. I agree with most of your observations: Trump wants Putin to drop the war like a hot potato, but if Putin did that, Russia's economy would collapse immediately, Putin would very soon be overthrown and would be found dead the next morning unless he fled to the Hague (the one place in the world where his life is really safe); the threat with secondary tariffs is not well thought out; Putin doesn't have friends, only people who are useful to him at the moment. However, I think there are two important things you should have mentioned as well.
One is the simple fact that Barack Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize (for quiet diplomatic work on nuclear disarmament that didn't get into the media much). Now, Trump must have at least one, too. That means, he figures, he must find at least one war and shut it down. His first attempt was with Ukraine (maybe he even remembered that he had promised to end that war both within 24 hours after taking office, and before taking office—as usual, he made both promises several times each). His concept of a plan was to get Volodymyr Zelenskyy to fold by humiliating him. For too many reasons to list here, that didn't work, but eventually Zelenskyy signed something that would freeze the frontline for a ceasefire and hand some of Ukraine's potential mineral wealth to the Trump Organization, given a number of unrealistic conditions, first among them Putin's agreement. Putin has not agreed, and Trump is completely flabbergasted. How can this be? How can anyone in their right mind, let alone Trump's best friend and greatest admirer, have priorities that are not Trump? Isn't everybody born with the knowledge that Trump is the one and only thing that matters in the universe? By Trump's narcissistic logic, Putin must be either extremely stupid or extremely evil, and given that he has often fulfilled Trump's criteria for an extremely stable genius, Trump is very slowly leaning in the other direction and getting increasingly angry with Putin. He still can't quite believe it (hence the 50-day extension), but he does seem to be getting there.
The other is a large and important faction of Trump's base: The people who love Putin and his empire as a bastion of conservative/reactionary/fascist values and did so even before Trump took over their party. In Putin's realm, domestic violence is decriminalized, being gay is officially being part of an extremist organization (!) and therefore automatically outlawed, trans people I don't even need to mention, having as many children as possible is officially encouraged and rewarded, Christianity is invoked often and the majority church is de facto a branch of government, the president rules unrestricted, the Communist Party has been reduced from the main opposition to utter insignificance, the supreme importance of patriotism is blasted at people on every occasion, immigrants from even poorer countries are occasionally rounded up and deported to the countries they left or to the frontline in Ukraine, corporations can do whatever they want as long as their bosses are in Putin's good graces, there is a cult of war, heroes, bravery and "manliness" to the point that there are no women in combat roles anymore, education is getting increasingly militaristic, the history schoolbooks have been heavily rewritten to promote all this, and being liberal (this very word is used) is treated as the most despicable and destructive of heresies. Russia is Republican paradise. St. Ronnie of the Raygun would have loved it, and some people in this faction love it so much that they emigrated to Russia years ago. (Somewhere on YouTube, I hear, there's a woman from such a family crying because her husband has been drafted and sent to the front with no military training whatsoever.)
F.H. in Ithaca, NY, writes: I'm a retired geophysicist, who participated in the research end of mineral exploration for much of my career. In your answer to a question from W.R. in Henderson, you wrote: "Ukraine's rare-earth reserves are not proven; they are hypothesized based on surveys conducted by the Soviet government. That's right, the Soviet government, which tells you how long ago those surveys were conducted (and how primitive the surveying equipment was). Some promising deposits of gold, silver, copper, diamonds, or rare earths pan out, others prove to be much ado about nothing."
I take your point, and mostly agree with the main thrust of your answer. I'd like to offer a very gentle augmentation on your parenthetical statement "(and how primitive the surveying equipment was)."
By and large, while the equipment and technology has indeed improved in the intervening time since the Soviet era, in my experience something else is more likely to be the dominant factor. Very roughly—with many exceptions—minable resources are found by a multi-step process:
- A geophysical survey—performed at a specific spatial resolution—finds some kind of anomaly that looks "interesting" to a skilled explorationist.
- That explorationist—most often a geologist by training—then "works up" the anomalous region to assess the likelihood of there actually being a mineral deposit present.
- Economic factors play a heavy role in deciding whether or not that hypothesized mineral deposit can be mined profitably. Other experts are brought in, such as mining engineers and geostatisticians. Factors such as depth of the deposit, concentration of the mineral of interest, strength of the "country rocks," and distance to mining infrastructure play a huge role in the economics. Projections of market fluctuations also matter greatly, and are essentially unknown from my perspective.
- Eventually—maybe—if all other indications still support the mineral "play," drilling is commissioned to establish whether the minerals are actually there, and are not just imaginary or in uneconomical quantities.
Steps 1 through 4 are iterated upon, with new (higher resolution and perhaps using recently developed technique) surveys, analyses, and drilling programs being commissioned if things still look good. Eventually, somebody needs to make a go/no-go decision.
It's only for step #1 where old geophysics is improved upon, and also perhaps at step #4 where newer scanning techniques for drilling cores are used these days where your comment about the primitive surveying equipment is relevant. Far more likely to kill a "play" is the economics.
Geopolitics can occasionally override the economics. The USGS—not the agency I was employed by—still has (had?) a critical minerals research team. But that only affects step #3 in my list. (For example, if the USA requires "unobtainium" it will mine it, with less regard to economics.)
So, probably like everything else in the modern world, the answer actually is "It's complicated."
I.K. in Queens, NY, writes: My perspective on the ground in New York: I don't know very much about Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado (D-NY), which in itself is fairly unusual for NY politicians (they tend to be an attention-grabbing, in-your-face bunch). And while it's hard to unseat an incumbent, I think Gov. Kathy Hochul's (D-NY) epic unpopularity gives him a fighting chance.
General-election wise, the governorship is going to be won or lost in Hudson Valley—the leafy suburbs north of New York City that are fairly moderate. Delgado was a Democratic representative from there for two terms, so he is proven to be able to win there. If Delgado goes up against Rep. Elise Stefanik (D-NY), I think he'd be a strong favorite.
R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is a coward. Full stop. Zohran Mamdani is the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York. That's all he needs to know about the man to make an endorsement.
This is our next Speaker? Heaven help us!
B.C. in Houston, TX, writes: Thanks for including that ad by Bobby Cole for governor of Texas. I live in Texas but haven't been there all summer, and but for you all, I might have missed this ad. (Although, I guess they will keep running it). As a Democrat, I will certainly vote for Cole, although we all have been waiting to turn Texas blue for a very long time.
But here is what struck me the most about that ad: the music in the background. It very much sounds like it's from the movie Sinners,"and I guess if it is, Bobby Cole's staff got permission to use it. Remember a long time ago when George H.W. Bush was running for President, he wanted to use "Don't Worry, Be Happy," and Bobby McFerrin wouldn't let him use it. Anyway, I know you all write a political blog, but you often talk about movies, and if there is one movie that I just couldn't recommend more, it is Sinners. The movie is just beyond awesome. Some people describe it as a horror film because it includes vampires, but it's about a lot more than vampires. It's a must see!
W.M.B. in Alexandria, VA, writes: Just wanted to let you know that Republicans in Virginia knew that any chance to keep the governor's mansion went out the window the moment Donald Trump won in 2024. That is one of the two main issues hurting Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears (R) in her gubernatorial campaign, the other being her complete lack of anything resembling charisma. Those two issues are why Republicans are not donating any money to her, since they know it is a lost cause. Remember that Earle-Sears was not chosen or endorsed by Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) in 2021. Virginia Republicans decided to have a statewide convention with RCV, as opposed to a primary, in order to prevent Amanda Chase from being the nominee, in a winnable election year. So there is very little reason for Youngkin to do more than the bare minimum for Earle-Sears this election cycle.
The AG race is the only statewide race that could be competitive. Right now AG Jason Miyares (R) has raised $4.8M and has $7M on hand compared to Jay Jones (D), who has raised $2.2M and has $1.2M on hand. It is doubtful that would be enough to allow Miyares to outperform Earle-Sears, but not impossible.
S.C. in Farmington Hills, MI, writes: Concerning the Virginia gubernatorial election: Republicans just have to realize you Winsome and you lose some.
S.T. in Worcestershire, England, UK, writes: In response to the question from T.W. in Brussels about the person who saved the most people, let me add the controversial suggestion of German chemist, Fritz Haber.
Haber was the inventor of the Haber-Bosch process, which synthesized ammonia from nitrogen gas and hydrogen gas. The result was the first artificial fertilizers. It has been estimated that between a third and a half of all food produced today uses such fertilizers, meaning that billions of people have avoided possible starvation since the original invention. Haber deservedly won the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1918 for his work.
By that point, however, his reputation was already tarnished. The process could also be used to produce explosives which were much in demand from August 1914 onwards. Further, as a patriotic German, Haber thought it his duty to use his skills to assist his nation during the First World War. The result was his involvement in the development of poison gas as a weapon. Ten of thousands died as a result, and many more were injured for the remainder of their lives. Haber was, in the view of many, a war criminal. Further, his involvement may have been a factor in his first wife taking her own life in 1915, appalled at her husband's actions.
And there was another twist in the tale. Haber's parents were secular German Jews. Haber himself had formally converted to Lutheranism. With the rise of the Nazis, these factors counted for little. The targeting of Jewish scientists began in early 1933, and although Haber was legally entitled to retain his post as a "converted Jew," he resigned his academic posts in April 1933, perhaps sensing things to come. Ironically, given his actions in World War I, he found sanctuary in the U.K. for several months, supported by fellow scientists. He died in Switzerland in 1934.
His overall legacy remains the subject of heated debate, truly one of the "grey" figures in history. Nevertheless, his invention of fixing ammonia remains one of the greatest ever contributions to human well-being.
A.K. in Toronto, ON, Canada, writes: Ignaz Semmelweis was the Hungarian physician who discovered the cause of puerperal (childbed) fever and introduced antisepsis into medical practice, obviously a major lifesaver.
B.C. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: WHAT?!? You mention the best national parks and Grand Canyon National Park is excluded? The Grand Canyon is just that: grand. I double-quadruple-quintuple dare anybody who has stood at the edge of it to argue it was not one of the most awe-inspiring experiences of their life. And anyone hiking it would be perfectly comfortable saying "Yeah, Sequoia National Park has big trees... big deal. If ya want 'big,' look around."
G.A. in Carnation, WA, writes: Once upon a time I worked summers in Zion, the Grand Tetons, and Yellowstone National Parks. Since then, my wife and I have discussed National Park rankings many times. Without question, Yellowstone comes out on top. The breadth of things to do and see there is astounding. The Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone has magnificent colors and waterfalls. The many geyser basins, mud pots, and hot springs found throughout the park by themselves could rank as the best NP. The bison are incredible and having one walk past your car while stuck in a bison-jamb is striking. With luck and good binoculars or help from spotters with scopes, you can see wolves, bears, and elk in their natural environments. Old Faithful Inn (and the nearby Lodge and gym) are architectural gems reminiscent of another era. Watching people from the second- or third-floor balconies in the Inn while listening to the pianist serenading the dining room (and then scooting outside every 75 minutes to see Old Faithful erupt) is magical. Spending 4 nights at Old Faithful Inn and 2 nights at Lake Hotel (in the shoulder seasons May-June or September-October) makes a perfect vacation. The Lake Hotel still hosts a performance by a string quartet five nights a week in the Great Room. You can sit on plush furniture and enjoy the music with a drink after a day of unbelievable sights. There are many other features such as Tower Falls, Lake Yellowstone, Fishing Bridge, Mammoth Hot Springs, Old Faithful Observation Point, Fairy Falls and Roosevelt Arch. Other parks in our top tier include Yosemite, Zion, and Sequoia (which we much prefer to Redwood NP).
K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: When I was 10 years old, I went to Bryce Canyon. It was like visiting another world, and it has always been in my memory as one of my most amazing experiences.
This year, 43 years later, I finally had the opportunity to visit again. I wondered if it would live up to my memory or be a disappointment.
It lived up to memory, and I vote it the best national park.
D.R. in Chicago, IL, and AK, writes: I was excited to see your answer refer to Gates of the Arctic National Park. I lived in Anaktuvuk Pass, AK, for 3 years, which is surrounded by Gates of the Arctic. It is indeed beautiful—and a bit cold.
B.C.B. in Madison, SD, writes: Yes, do consider the Badlands in the Dakotas, but remember the first white settlers to see the area described it as "Hell with the fires out."
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: I tend to agree that the National Park system has something for everyone, and that's before you add in the national monuments, that are similar in a lot of ways. I remember when Badlands was a monument, for example. If you are visiting Badlands, but you (or members of your party) also have interests beyond harsh beauty, the whole Black Hills area (broadly defined) has something for everyone:
- Not far from Badlands is the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site, for the Cold War historians in the group. Delta-01 is the launch facility and Delta-09 is an actual missile silo. Bonus, there are still deactivated missile sites with their original fencing being used by local landowners for various purposes visible from 1-90 from about Spearfish to the Wyoming Border.
- Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument are next to each other and Custer State Park. If you love caves and/or wildlife, this trio is for you. Mountain goats at Jewel, bison at Wind Cave and Custer, prairie dog towns all over, deer and antelope, etc. Plus the historic town of Custer, two, count 'em two, mountain carvings (Rushmore and Crazy Horse) all nestled in the Black Hills National Forest.
- On the other (Wyoming) side of the Hills, the Bear Lodge section of the BH National Forest leads to Devils Tower National Monument, first such in the nation. That and Bear Butte State Park in South Dakota are particularly sacred to the Lakota (and other Plains peoples) and so are great places to learn about Native life and culture.
- On that note, Custer Battlefield on the Little Big Horn River (aka Greasy Grass) is not far away in Montana. Well, "not far" by Wyoming Standards; when my wife and I went we got a room out there and headed back the next day, but you could do it in a day trip from Sundance or Hulett when you visit Devils Tower.
- Spearfish Canyon, back in SD, is beautiful in any season just outside the City of Spearfish in the BH National Forest. If you're heading back to South Dakota anyway, the Vore Buffalo Jump National Historic Site is a fascinating look at pre-columbian (pre-horse) buffalo hunting by the Plains folks, along I-90 between Sundance and Beulah, WY.
A.B. in Lichfield, England, UK, writes: Thank you for the warm tribute to Ozzy Osbourne and Black Sabbath.
Writing from the West Midlands, just up the road from Villa Park stadium where the "Back to the Beginning" final Osbourne and Black Sabbath gig took place, I'd only note that it's hard to underestimate the importance of Black Sabbath to Birmingham (the original, proper Birmingham; not that travesty in Alabama) and the broader region. It wasn't just heavy metal musicians who commemorated the occasion. After Ozzy died, the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra—one of the premier U.K. orchestras—performed a special tribute to Osbourne and Black Sabbath at Birmingham's main train station. And I have tickets for September for the Birmingham Royal Ballet performance of Black Sabbath: The Ballet (tickets purchased before the final concert was even announced, for what it's worth). If any site readers find themselves passing through Birmingham, they can visit the Black Sabbath bench on Black Sabbath Bridge; and days before the concert, the four original members of the band (Osbourne, Tony Iommi, Geezer Butler, and Bill Ward) were all given the freedom of the city. The band's sound was literally impacted by Birmingham's rich industrial heritage. The reason that guitarist Iommi started downtuning his guitar, essentially inventing the heavy metal sound, is because he lost the tips of his fingers in a sheet metal accident while working in a local factory.
So that final concert meant a lot in this corner of the world; the donations to local charities, while very welcome, were realistically just the icing on the cake.
J.O. in Portsmouth, NH, writes: M.A. in Park Ridge asked about the first music video. Your response was A Hard Day's Night, from 1964.
Check out the sequence of the Glenn Miller Band performing "In The Mood" from their film Sun Valley Serenade, made in 1941:
It rocks. And that performance surely strikes me as a music video (from the Great Band era, no less).
N.S. in Fayetteville, NY, writes: I remember my folks telling me that "Travelin' Man," sung by Ricky Nelson on The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet was the first music video:
It beat A Hard Day's Night by 3 years.
(V) & (Z) respond: We would take the view that, if merely performing a song on camera counts as a music video, that's not even the first Ricky Nelson music video. He performed "My Rifle, My Pony, and Me" with Dean Martin and Walter Brennan in the film Rio Bravo in 1959, 2 years before "Travelin' Man."
P.M. in Port Angeles, WA, writes: In my opinion, the first music video" was the TV show Miami Vice.
Viewing it as a first-run series, my wife and I noted to each other that this was a music video show (aside from also being a crime drama).
This was especially so with the inclusion of Phil Collins in a number of episodes.
I'm not sure when the show first aired, but somewhere around the mid-1980's.
(V) & (Z) respond: You are both wrong and right. Miami Vice debuted in 1984, and so came roughly 3 years after MTV went on the air. However, when legendary NBC executive Brandon Tartikoff commissioned the show, he gave a two-word instruction to show creator Anthony Yerkovich: "MTV cops."
L.R.H. in Oakland, CA, writes: S.S. in West Hollywood suggested that Harvey Milk would be an appropriate opera for the possibly renamed opera house at the Kennedy Center. I must disagree, for two reasons: first, it's a deeply flawed work, both in the versions from the 1990s (its was revised between its initial runs and its San Francisco Opera performances) and in the recent major revision, which calls the opera Harvey Milk Reimagined.
Washington National Opera had been scheduled to perform Gregory Spears's Fellow Travelers, based on the novel by Thomas Mallon, this coming season. Fellow Travelers is set in 1950s Washington, and it concerns the clandestine affair between a young, conservative gay man and an older, closeted gay man. Spears and librettist Greg Pierce withdrew the performing rights because of the Trump takeover of the Kennedy Center. The replacement chosen was Robert Ward's The Crucible, which seems entirely appropriate for the Age of Trump.
K.M. in Cincinnati, OH, writes: Among the suggestions for which opera should be performed at the renamed Kennedy Center, M.A.N. in Falls Church wrote: "Um, Six? It's about the various wives of Henry VIII, a domineering, overweight, blustery monarch from another time who actually had one of his wives beheaded."
King Henry VIII had TWO of his wives beheaded: Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard (who was still in her teens at the time).
J.T. in Marietta, GA, writes: As an art historian, I have to (mostly) disagree with your estimations of what artists were "uncontroversial."
First of all, you seem to have interpreted this at least partially as "likeable." But a large number of likeable artists still led controversial lives in one way or another. Looking at the wording of the original question, who was "decent and kind" and "uncontroversial"—meaning his/her life or career did not involve controversies?
Of your Renaissance choices, only Raphael fits the bill. Leonardo and Michelangelo were infamously temperamental and often unreliable. Leonardo was harassed by his enemies to the point of the infamous accusations of illicit relations with his assistant Salai. Raphael's reputation could not have been more different: Beloved by virtually everyone, his kindness was shown by his incorporation of his predecessors' portraits in works when he took over a commission.
I can hardly imagine that being confined to a sanitarium would not have been somewhat controversial for van Gogh, although, as you note, he was considered to be personally kind. However, you shouldn't forget that he was virtually chased out of his lay ministry early on because of his annoying ways, and then there was that whole issue about cutting off an earlobe for a prostitute...
Georgia O'Keeffe and Frida Kahlo may have been "delightful" if you met them at a party. But hardly "uncontroversial," and not "decent" to many. O'Keeffe was for many years the most famous living American artist. But she was notoriously stern and unforgiving. Recent research has revealed her purposeful sabotage of her sister's artistic career in favor of her own. Kahlo's life was full of controversy: political, artistic, and personal. You just have to read her letters to see her sometimes abrasive relationships with other artists. Her Marxist politics were quite controversial, and seriously interfered with her career.
Munch was an alcoholic with severe psychological issues; his life was full of drama and controversy, including about his art. Monet seems to have been a pleasant enough fellow, but bearing children out of wedlock was still controversial in the nineteenth century (even though it happened all the time).
Dali seems to have successfully pursued his fame without controversy, other than that which was purposeful in his self-promotion. Andy Warhol, on the other hand... self-promotion was his game, and he trampled over anyone who might get in his way. His public passivity masked the way that he used others, but because he made his personality a blank, he often avoided being blamed. Still, controversy was his middle name, more or less. He was about as "out" of a gay man as one could be in the sixties, and it caused him no end of trouble, even as it was important for his career. His "eccentricities" weren't really harmless for the people whose addictions and destructive behavior he enabled in the Factory.
So as far as decent, kind, and uncontroversial artists, in addition to Raphael I might add:
Sofonisba Anguissola, the long-lived sixteenth-century artist: In an era of few women artists, she managed to achieve fame without controversy.
Pieter Paul Rubens, a seventeenth-century success story: A multi-talented polyglot, he was a celebrity across Europe.
Roy Lichtenstein, one of the founders of Pop Art in the sixties: Well-liked by his colleagues, other than controversies caused by his break with artistic traditions, he led an unremarkable life.
K.G.'s initial question is largely the result of the old adage, "There's no such thing as bad publicity." We just hear more about creatives who are controversial, so the more mundane ones tend to fade into the background. But if you're interested in the question of an "artistic personality" (are quirks and eccentricities endemic to the creative class?), look no further than Born Under Saturn: The Character and Conduct of Artists by Margot and Rudolf Wittkower. This book is still the best resource for gossip about western artists since the Renaissance, even as it seriously investigates the topic.
D.C.W. in Fredericksburg, TX, writes: G.H. in Richmond asked if you had ever walked out of a movie. That question triggered a bad memory for me of walking out of the original Death Wish during the first act.
I am pretty tolerant of violence in movies, but the cruelty and unnecessary blood-letting and torture of the wife and daughter in that movie by the young thugs that followed them home from the store just put me over the edge immediately. I walked out when they showed the wife's blood splattered all over the apartment wall. I don't remember now what I did then or even who I was with. It just shook me to my core. Every time I see Charles Bronson's picture or some reference to that movie, I want to be sick. And of course, I hear it had sequels. No accounting for taste.
T.J.R. In Metuchen, NJ, writes: I like Natural Born Killers, even though it is over the top. That was the whole point. It was Oliver Stone on steroids. Or LSD. Probably both. Yes, it is overly moralistic and heavy handed (and Stone's fixation on indigenous people is trite and simple-minded), but I could ignore that and just appreciate the editing, acting and visuals.
And Apocalypse Now: Redux is flat out brilliant. When I saw the original, back in 1980 or so, I thought it was two movies: a river journey action film and a hallucinatory vision (the Marlon Brando sequence). Redux makes the whole film hallucinatory. The point is Vietnam as a state of mind, surreal and distorted, where both nothing makes sense and it all makes sense in a undefinable way. I've never taken any psychotropic substances, but this movie feels close to what a bad trip might be like. All based in the reality of Vietnam conflict itself. Madness masquerading as reality, or vice-versa.
Note: Don't talk to me about 2001: A Space Odyssey. Please, I beg of you...
The only movie I almost walked out of was Angel, in 1984. The film broke and I was literally about to stand up and walk out of this offensively stupid film, when they repaired it.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: Christ, there are some great moments in Apocalypse Now: Redux, and there are the most overused and misunderstood moments, too... but that plantation scene?
"Interminable" is a word barely strong enough to describe how long that scene now feels (or is).
So many of these directors' cuts and re-edits are such a sham.
Some movies have been made a million times better by adding the old footage or whatever, but most... it's been a money grab, nothing more or less.
B.J. in Arlington, MA, writes: My nomination for greatest female-led action movie is The Long Kiss Goodnight. I loved the movie and thought Geena Davis was awesome. Samuel Jackson was a great sidekick, too.
J.S. in Pemaquid, ME, writes: I feel compelled to make a case for Charlize Theron's excellent performance as Furiosa in Mad Max: Fury Road, which has a strong case for the best action film, full stop.
K.F.K. in Cle Elum, WA, writes: I was disappointed not to see my favorite girl-power movie in your list of actions films with female leads. That would be Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. I feel powerful just typing out the title.
(V) & (Z) respond: (Z), who wrote that list, likes Michelle Yeoh, and even liked her performance in that film, but does not like the film itself. It must be Ang Lee's direction, because he's seen half-a-dozen films from Lee, and did not like any of them. Hulk, in particular, was a train wreck.
D.H. in Boston, MA, writes: Since you remarked there haven't been any good Star Wars movies recently besides Rogue One (a view I agree with), I'd like to recommend the finale of the Clone Wars animated series as a great Star Wars "movie" with a female lead. The final four episodes, taken together, are a coherent plot arc and about the length of a movie. They tell how Ahsoka Tano, the former padawan of Anakin Skywalker, successfully completes her last mission for the Republic and then survives the Emperor's order to kill all the Jedi. (This hopefully isn't a spoiler, because there's a whole show about her later adventures.)
The series (covering the time between Episodes II and III) was over 100 episodes, so any potential viewer would want context for the final episodes, but there are guides to which are essential (most aren't, to be honest), and plenty of plot summaries on the Internet. The payoff is worth it. Ahsoka is a badass Jedi.
B.P.V. in Fairview Park, OH, writes: Yes, yes, a thousand times yes to your choice of Benjamin Sisko as best captain in the Star Trek franchise. Deep Space Nine is the unsung hero of the entire saga. I saved up my pennies to attend the 30th Anniversary convention in Vegas, and to this day I believe DS9 was the apex of the franchise, with the multidimensional (and totally badass) Sisko at its center.
K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: Your prior answer to "best captains" had Kirk number 1!
(V) & (Z) respond: Yes, but the question was asking us to approach the matter from a couple of pretty specific vantage points.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: If you would like Star Trek themed beverages, there are sister sites StarTrekWines.com and StarTrekSpirits.com, which sell such vintages as Klingon Blood Wine and Chateau Picard, Romulan Ale... but not Saurian Brandy (I think they used to, but I couldn't find it on either site when I last checked).
J.A. in Monterey, CA, writes: This is meant for our great hosts, the readers, and particularly my college buddy who introduced me to Electoral-Vote.com, J.O. in Sacramento, CA.
The Star-Trek-knock-off The Orville should get much more love and acknowledgment than it gets, and should be ranked as the best Star Trek, IMHO. The show has everything you would want:
- It's hilarious: The Worf-like head of security comes from a nearly all-male planet in which heterosexuality is outlawed. And the opening scene of the series was the captain finding his wife in bed with a blue alien, only to later have her (as his ex-wife) be assigned as his first officer (and later to fall for this blue-pheremone-rich alien himself).
- It's more realistic: Rather than having a perfectly-upstanding crew, the crew on the Orville are all psychologically-flawed and sometimes hungover on duty.
- It deals with important social issues.
- It has some of the best (and most heart-wrenching) time-travel scenarios I have ever seen.
L.C. in Brookline, MA, writes: You wrote about the possibility that a woman might play in one of the four major professional leagues. And you wrote about men having greater strength and speed preventing this from happening. That problem could theoretically be solved by the rise of a mutant woman... except for one problem: The professional sports world has made it clear that it doesn't want to let a woman have higher than normal speed and strength. Look at what has happened to women that have naturally high testosterone levels (that is, no doping involved) that give them an advantage—they are forced to undergo hormone reduction treatment before being allowed to compete.
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: I agree that baseball pitching is the most likely spot for a female major league sports performer. But rather than a submariner, I think it would be a knuckleballer, like Eri Yoshida, though obviously that player would have to be even better than Yoshida.
I.H. in Washington, DC, writes: To be clear, Nikki Hiltz was assigned female at birth and competes in the female category today (as a middle distance track and field runner), so they would not be impacted by the USOC's new policy.
S.D.R. in Raleigh, NC, writes: I would dispute a few of your entries for the greatest sports dynasties. In two cases, I think you selected the wrong team, and there's one sport you did not list where I feel the dynasty was too dominant to not deserve mention:
Association Football, Club: Yes, Man U. has twenty top flight titles, but Bayern Munich has twenty top-flight titles just in the past 27 years. They have been league champions in the Bundesliga for more than half the years that it has existed (32 titles in 59 seasons). They also have half again as many DFB-Pokal Cups as Man U. have FA Cups, despite the FA Cup being more than twice as old. Finally, Bayern have twice as many UEFA Champions League titles as Man U.
Association Football, National: Since you didn't specify gender here, I'm going to say the U.S. Women's National Team is more dominant than the Brazil Men's National Team. There have been 22 men's World Cups and Brazil has won five of them. There have been nine women's World Cups and America has won four.
Soccer, Women's College: The University of North Carolina won nine consecutive titles, and 16 in a 19-year period. Since the first title was awarded, there has never been a time that the Tar Heels have not possessed over half the titles in the history of the competition. I'm not sure which item on your list should be pulled to make way for this, but I do feel it deserves to be included.
M.P. in Scotts Valley, CA, writes: Penn State's wrestling program has won a total of 13 NCAA Division I Men's Wrestling National Championships, 11 coming in the last 14 years. Led by Cael Sanderson, with a career 159-0 record.
It is very unlikely that this dominance will stop. Iowa will never challenge that record. Likely no other team ever will.
R.C in Des Moines, IA, writes: Another team that should be on the list is the University of Utah women's gymnastics program. They are the only team to have qualified for every single NCAA tournament in gymnastics. And they won 10 national championships from 1981 to 1995. This is arguably stronger than any of the teams you mentioned, besides USA Basketball.
M.S. in Canton, NY, writes: I suggest Yale men's swimming and diving. Between 1945 and 1961, they won 201 consecutive dual meets. Coach Robert Kiphuth's record over 42 years (1917-1959) was 528-12 in dual meets, with 35 undefeated seasons and 4 NCAA championships.
K.W. in Sydney, NSW, Australia, writes: Enjoyed your take on dynasty sports teams, but I think you got the cricket one a bit off. West Indies were indeed the dominant Test team in the 1970s and 1980s, but it was the latter period when they were at their peak. West Indies lost a Test series to New Zealand (of all teams!) in 1980, and then didn't lose another until Australia beat them in 1995. But this period was something of an anomaly. Australia has always been the traditional powerhouse in cricket, and remains so to the current day.
One sporting dynasty you omitted (understandably) was the St. George rugby league team, which plays in the Sydney (now National) rugby league competition, which holds the world record (for any sport) for consecutive titles, winning eleven straight from 1956-66. So dominant were "the Dragons" that the sport changed the rules, always a good indication of a dynastic team.
K.S. in Harrisburg, PA, writes: You referred to "the most dangerous crystal ball in the west."
I don't think anyone need be worried. That crystal ball is down so often, I suspect that your staff mathematician doubles as your crystal ball repairman:
R.D.K. in Ebensee am Traunsee, Austria, writes: The rule that every rule has exceptions has been proven because a fourth celebrity has died: Chuck Mangione. RIP.
S.E. in Haiku, HI, writes: L.E. in Santa Barbara asked about books about California, and as a born-and-raised Californian and resident 'til a few years ago, I would recommend Assembling California, by John McPhee. It is a deep dive into the tectonic plate geology that formed the many features of the state that make it unique. After reading it I began noticing things I never thought of before.
J.S. in Minneapolis, MN, writes: You wrote: "Yesterday, The New York Times had a long article detailing the 15-year friendship between Trump and Epstein. Even if you aren't a subscriber, everyone gets 10 free articles a month."
NYT certainly isn't giving me 10 free articles a month! But my local public library provides access via a news database subscription that spans 1985 to present. It's not as convenient as following a link to the article, and, depending on the database subscription, you may lose formatting or fidelity (e.g., I can't view images), but it works. I believe many (most?) public libraries offer some type of access to a variety of newspapers, whether in-person print editions of today's paper or access to digital library databases. Happy reading!
B.T. in Bogalusa, LA, writes: Please let B.C. in Phoenix know that kiwis are often mistaken for being British or Australian; very few people can tell the difference between the accents.
I was born and raised in New Zealand but have lived in the U.S. over 25 years and still have a kiwi accent.
If you want some good recommendations of movies to watch I highly recommend Once We're Warriors (1994), Boy (2010) or Whale Rider (2003).
They're all pretty bloody choice!
T.B. in Leon County, FL, writes: My wife died this week. The last words my daughter heard from her were a murmured, "I love you, too." I wasn't so fortunate; at 1:45 in the morning a few days before she passed, after doing a couple minutes of pantomime (I filmed some of it, so I have the time-stamp), she distinctly said, "Oh, shit!" and her last complete sentence directed to me, the previous afternoon, was, "I know I'm dying; stop talking about it." Maybe it took several hours for the reality to sink in—who knows, but may she rest in peace. God bless her. For the record, my last words to her, moments before her last breath, were, "You have everything you need, for you are loved."
Please allow us to extend our condolences on behalf of the entire Electoral-Vote.com staff and community, and indeed, may she rest in peace.
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.