Dem
47
GOP
53
We go right from questions into letters.
D.H. in Boston, MA, writes: In addition to everything else you mentioned in your coverage of the Trump/Musk slap fight, DOGE's days are probably numbered. Twentysomething dudes who have access to software in the Treasury, IRS, and Social Security, and who answer to Elon, are a massive liability for Trump. Big Balls should be careful not to let the door hit them on his way out.
P.J.T. in Raton, NM, writes: While the Musk/Kendrick Lamar meme you reposted was intended satirically, the possibility (likelihood?) of Agent Krasnov... er, Donald Trump being a pedophile is, at very least, plausible, and perhaps even likely. Not only did 45/47 party with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, but he himself famously commented on Epstein's penchant for Lolitas when he stated in 2002 that Epstein "...likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side." Trump's own misconduct in 1997 as the owner of Miss Teen USA, barging into the dressing room where contestants as young as 15 were undressing is not only well-documented, but Trump himself bragged about it to Howard Stern: "I'll go backstage and everyone's getting dressed... no men are anywhere, and I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant... You know, I'm inspecting because I want to make sure that everything is good." Trump has, infamously, even sexualized his own daughter, Ivanka, in a variety of comments. While congratulating himself in 2005 for grabbing women by the genitals doesn't count as pedophilia, it does support a more general narrative that Trump is, and has always been, a sexual predator, just the sort of man that Epstein and Maxwell catered to on Little St. James island.
G.W. in Avon, CT, writes: As an alternative to the Alien vs. Predator movie meme you suggested: "We would have gone with Fatal Attraction."
Bonfire of the Vanities is also a good contender, no?
R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: My concept, my friends' artwork:
T.R. in Clementon, NJ, writes: I was THRILLED to see you mention Pro Wrestling in your article about the disagreement between WWE Hall of Famer, oh, and President of the United States, Donald Trump and his former tag-team partner Elon Musk. You mention the possibility that Trump and Musk turning on each other and their subsequent feud in which they cut promos on each other was purely kayfabe. Very well used. I wanted to offer another way to discuss this in the parlance of wrasslin'. I think most wrestling fans would say they considered the possibility that the feud between Trump and Musk is a work, but we believe it is a shoot.
And to continue, I would agree that Karine Jean-Pierre turning on the Dems IS a work, perpetrated because she will soon have a book to sell.
Always happy to see wrestling come up in your items. And here's hoping that this "Battle of the Billionaires" also brings in Stone Cold Steve Austin as the mediator and ends the same way the Wrestlemania 23 "Battle of the Billionaires" did (please note that Trump sells about as well as he governs).
P.Y. in Watertown, MA, writes: I think the public falling-out of Elon Musk and Donald Trump was planned to a large degree. Musk knows that his Tesla customers mostly hate Trump. Musk knows that he, once again, must be seen to dislike Trump. Therefore, he probably warned Trump that he would publicly disagree with him for the purpose of his business. I believe Musk when he says he doesn't like the debt-engorging bill, but I think it's most a convenient excuse to criticize Trump to try to save Tesla. I have historically rooted for Tesla, but my schadenfreude for Musk is off the charts these days.
M.B. in Menlo Park, CA, writes: Q: What is the German word for a fight where you're rooting for no one to win and for both sides to tear each other to shreds?
A: Elonfreude
S.S. in Lucerne, Switzerland, writes:
Elon Musk's term "rapid unscheduled disassembly" comes to mind.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes:
He said, "It's really not my habit to intrude
Furthermore, I hope my meaning won't be lost or misconstrued
But I'll repeat myself at the risk of being crude
There must be 50 Ways to leave your MAGA buddy.
You need a new DOGE plan, Stan
Lie about your black eye, Frye
Fued on X and Truth, Ruth
Just set yourself free
Name is in the Epstein file, Lyle
Diss his One Big Beautiful Bill, Jill
Have Bannon to attack, Jack
And get yourself free.
Threaten to deport his ass, Cass
Mothball your spaceship, Chip
No future EV Mandate, Nate
Just listen to me.
"It's time to impeach," Teach.
Cancel his Government money, Honey
Sack his pick for NASA head, Fred
Just set yourself free.
Given a fake White House key, Lee
Allegedly take Miller's mate, Kate
Rage tweet in a K-Hole, Cole
And get yourself free.
Get custody of "Big Balls," Rawls
"Tariffs are so TACO," Rocco
Throw him under the bus, Gus
No need to discuss much
So sad "He went crazy," Jayzee
Watch "Tesler" stocks tank, Hank
Pout for five days, Rutherford B Hayes
Just listen to me
OK, not quite fifty (but this feud is young and both participants are not the 'forgive and forget' types) but it's a damn sight better than Paul Simon did. Seriously, was I the only person that was really disappointed that Simon only named six ways to leave your lover?
Get out the popcorn, folks!
R.G.N. in Seattle, WA, writes: Upon the return of Kilmar Albrego Garcia to the U.S., Pan Bondi announced, "We"re grateful to President Bukele for agreeing to return him to our country to face these very serious charges. This is what American Justice looks like."
The "serious charges" are based on a 2022 traffic stop where Garcia was not charged with any crime, yet a Tennessee grand jury managed to come up with a few charges for an indictment that gave El Salvador an excuse to release Garcia to U.S. custody, where the charges will likely be dropped. It looks like Pam can look forward to a new career in stand-up comedy when her temporary job as Attorney General is finished.
R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: Regarding the salience of Abrego Garcia having been indicted (and I know you know this), as my dear friend former Chief Judge Sol Wachtler said, "District attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that by and large they could get them to indict a ham sandwich." In this case it was a U.S. Attorney, not a district attorney, but still.
D.G. in San Diego, CA, writes: Having served on a past grand jury which dealt with numerous unlawful transport of undocumented aliens and conspiracy to transport aliens cases, and based on reading the indictment, I would imagine the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) has cell phone records between Kilmar Abrego Garcia and the other alleged co-conspirators that will be compelling in a jury trial. In my opinion, the "conspiracy" count is the more likely one to stick. The Trump administration will embellish the level of Abrego Garcia's unlawful behavior and disregard the fact that he not given due process rights. Violating due process is the more heinous crime. We must remember that when the Trump propaganda machine tries to bury that initial injustice, because U.S. citizens' due process is next.
C.Z. in Sacramento, CA, writes: Loved your last line: "...you can tell that a member of the Trump administration is lying: Their lips are moving."
That was one of the posters I carried in the January 2017 anti-Trump March, which I later made into postcards. (It's the upper right one, in the photo):
Evidently that's also a common expression in AA: "How can you tell a drunk is lying? Their lips are moving." I learned that from my first boyfriend, who has been clean and sober for 40 years now. Yeah, we ARE that old...
S.D. in Anchorage, AK, writes: I don't think they're going to get very far with the renaming of the USNS Harvey Milk. Pete Hegseth can't be much of a boat guy, otherwise he'd know: (1) Renaming a boat is bad luck, and (2) There is not a single more superstitious group of people than sailors.
J.E. in Hannibal, MO, writes: Regarding Hegseth vs. LGBTQ: "Methinks he doth protest too much."
S.B. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: You wrote:
Finally, as regards Hegseth, we'll just toss one other observation out there. In our experience, when a person works so very hard to communicate to the world how very bad these gays are, and how very much we need to do something about these gays, and how they are personally committed to stopping these gays from indulging in their gayness, there is usually... something going on there.The only thing missing was the Seinfeld cherry on top, "...not that there's anything wrong with that!"
A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: You wrote, "there is usually... something going on there."
Or, it could also be a distraction from someone's serial philandering. Just saying!
M.B. in Singapore, writes: The recent cuts to the PEPFAR program, which provides life-saving HIV medications in Africa, should be a matter of global concern. Many Americans mistakenly believe that this issue is confined to Africa and does not impact their own lives. This perception is not only inaccurate but also dangerously short-sighted.
Antiretroviral therapy keeps the HIV virus at undetectable levels, drastically reducing the likelihood of transmission. When individuals lose access to these medications, not only do their health outcomes worsen, but the risk of a broader spread of HIV increases.
We have learned from the COVID-19 pandemic that viruses do not respect borders. Ignoring the spread of HIV in one part of the world is a perilous oversight. For as little as 12 cents a day, we can ensure that individuals continue receiving the treatment they need, helping to control the virus and prevent its spread.
It is essential that we recognize that global health is interconnected. The sheer ignorance of viewing this crisis as "not our problem" is not only misguided but also dangerous. By investing in global health initiatives, we protect not just others, but ourselves as well.
C.F. in Waltham, MA, writes: My prediction is that by the end of next week, Trump's "big, beautiful bill" will pass the Senate and become law. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) has already changed his mind about it, and my guess is others will be persuaded, too! They will claim it cannot be filibustered, no matter what the parliamentarian says about it. Worse yet, for the 2026 House Elections, they will "prove" the Democrats are liars because the horrible cuts won't have started, so maybe Republicans can keep the House after all.
J.E. in San Jose, CA, writes: You mentioned the benefits of airing Trading Places more often on TV channels where the President could see it. He's way ahead of you and your checkers-playing strategy. After all, how do you think he came up with the idea to cook the books in the first place?
P.S. in North Las Vegas, NV, writes: Ok, so let me get this straight, bans of travel to Libya and Sudan. At the same time we are trying to send undocumented immigrants to both countries; the former is in the middle of Civil War with NO U.S. Embassy—GOT IT!
K.H. in Ypsilanti, MI, writes: As I'm sure most of your readers are aware, a "No Kings" national day of protest is planned for June 14, in response to Donald Trump's military parade birthday celebration. As one who has participated in other anti-Trump protests this year, I have been struck by the near-absence of U.S. flags at these events. I think this is a mistake. I think we need to very clearly express that this is a patriotic opposition, rooted in our national values and driven by a desire to defend our nation. For too long we have allowed the right to co-opt our flag as a symbol, using it as an expression of rabid nationalism and anti-government sentiment rather than the embodiment of our nation and people. It's time to reclaim it.
June 14 is also Flag Day, which is another reason to display the Stars and Stripes at these demonstrations. I recently bought a 3'x5' flag and pole that I'll be carrying that day and at demonstrations going forward. I hope others here will join me.
M.M. in San Jose, CA, writes: Is it just me or does the Belmont Stakes this weekend seem familiar? I mean; an epic battle between Journalism and Sovereignty—Where have I seen that before?
(V) & (Z) respond: Unfortunately, Sovereignty won.
P.R. in Arvada, CO, writes: You gave multiple valid reasons why the Democrats shouldn't bother courting Elon Musk. There was one more reason that I think you missed. He didn't suddenly learn that Donald Trump is all through the Epstein files. If there's any truth to it, he would have known for some time, during which he had no problem with the implications of that knowledge.
Kind of like Kash Patel saying that the Trump-Musk feud is outside of his lane when, in actual fact, accusations of someone being a pedophile is right smack in the middle of the head of the FBI's lane. Of course, the real question is "is the accusation credible?" Coming from the guy who only likes his kids when they are young and calls anyone he doesn't like a pedo, it may not be credible.That said, the guy is in pictures with Epstein, called him a great guy and has unusual feelings for his own daughter. Definitely something the FBI should be looking into at least.
M.G. in Piscataway, NJ, writes: Recently, you had an item about the Supreme Court refusing to take up two cases related to assault weapons. One case was from Maryland and the other was from Rhode Island. I am starting to think Democrats need to enact most progressive polices at the state level and forget about trying to enact them at the federal level. At the federal level, Democrats should focus on issues that are overwhelmingly popular, such as job creation, increasing wages, paid family leave, reducing the national debt, protecting people from price gouging, the economy and healthcare. If Democrats want to enact legislation to help reduce climate change, they shouldn't call it the Green New Deal, they should call it a job creation bill that gives money and incentives for clean energy jobs.
At the state level, Democrats should focus on the other progressive issues. For example, there are many good reasons to enact strong gun-safety laws. One reason is that the states with the most gun deaths have over 30 gun deaths per 100,000 people per year while states with the least gun deaths have about 5 gun deaths per 100,000 people per year. As you can probably guess, the reddest states are the ones with very high rate of gun deaths and the bluest states have the lowest gun deaths per year. The gun death statistics are pretty consistent year after year.
Over the decades, Democrats spent a lot of political capital trying to enact gun-safety legislation at the federal level but we haven't made much progress in that area. On the contrary, that is one reason why many people may vote against Democrats. I think Democrats should leave this issue for the states. I'm happy that my state has one of the lowest gun death rates in the country and I have come to accept that as good enough. If people in a given state wants gun deaths to go even lower, it will be easier to pass legislation at the state level.
If Democrats have a trifecta sometime in the future, I would want the very first law they pass to be to make D.C. a state. We have to try to offset some of the damage Republicans have done with voter suppression, extreme gerrymandering and other bad faith actions, but until we have a trifecta, I would hope Democrats stay quiet on that issue and focus on the on the overwhelmingly popular issues listed above. We need to be the party that it is 100% focused on the 99%.
A.S. in Black Mountain, NC, writes: A twisted idea ran through my mind: Maybe Donald Trump is actually good for us.
Let's say the Democrats win the House and Senate next year. They could lay the groundwork to restructure our government to repair and make the new model better than the old. And then—optimistically—with a win of the presidency in 2028, the process to complete the upgrade would be completed. That would save some of TCF's reputation by inadvertently creating the opportunity to make government better.
And then I woke up.
C.W. in Hamilton, NY, writes: I've been a huge fan of your site for decades, and continue to urge friends and family to check out your daily work to get analysis that is both informative and entertaining (mixed with just enough optimism about the sanity of human beings that I never feel, after a day's dose of Electoral-Vote.com, that terrible sense of hopeless helplessness I often get from today's news.) I've written a few times to express my gratitude for the part you play in my daily life, and I'll say it again: I am genuinely moved by the amount of unpaid labor you put into this project and the good it does in the world.
Since I know many college administrators who read your site regularly, I suspect other may have written to you to express concern that, in a time when so many political and media figures are inaccurately slamming American higher education, you asserted that college administrators are often "conniving sleazeballs" and generally "political postings." I've been an administrator even longer than I've been reading your site, and in my experience, the first of these characterizations is unfair, an the second is just factually inaccurate, but since I owe you years of gratitude for your work and you owe me nothing, I won't belabor the point (I also recognize that your language here was meant to be a little tongue-in-cheek.) Instead, let me just say that I'm so sorry if your experience with administrators has been so negative. The bulk of us ended up in higher education because we believe it's an honorable field of work, worthy of devoting a life to... and the best of us recognize the importance of an independent and empowered faculty, well supported in their work and protected from harmful political interference. If that's not been your experience, your institutions should be ashamed of themselves.
Thanks again for all you do, and if any of my peers cross the line in taking you to task, you can send them my way. I've got a lot of experience dealing with conniving sleazeballs...
J.C. in Seattle, WA, writes: This is the first time I am writing to you, and I can't believe I'm writing to criticize one of your posts. I am a daily reader, and I have been for many years. I enjoy your posts, and I agree with much of what you have to say.
That said, I take strong exception to your post about college administrators being "conniving sleazeballs." After an extremely distinguished career as a professor at three major universities (University of Chicago, Harvard, and finally Columbia), my brother John Coatsworth accepted the position of Provost at Columbia University, working under President Lee Bollinger sometime in the early 2010s. John retired in 2019, and Bollinger retired a year or two later.
John's area of expertise was Mexico, and with the help of David Rockefeller, John established the Institute for Latin American studies at Harvard, a monumental achievement. He wrote many books, and co-authored college textbooks, in addition to his duties as a professor and mentor to many young people. Before becoming Provost, John was the Dean of International Studies, and in that capacity invited many heads of state to speak at Columbia. In fact, he became the target of a smear campaign in 2007 from, among others, The New York Post (need I say more?) because he had the audacity to invite the then Prime Minister of Iran, Ahkmadinijad, to speak on campus. John insisted Ahkmadinijad take questions from students after his talk. A student asked the Prime Minister about how homosexuals are treated in Iran, and the audience erupted in laughter after Ahkmadinijad said there were no homosexuals in Iran, thus exposing him for the buffoon he is.
I could go on, but I will end by saying that in John's retirement he continues to receive awards and accolades for his many years of dedication and devotion to a job he loved.
I thank God John retired before the uproar over the Palestinian issue. I am certain that, had John still been Provost, he would have handled the entire matter professionally, and would not have caved to the demands of Trump and his henchmen.
I know you don't mean ALL college administrators, but I hope you will say something to insure people know there are many good people in academia, and my brother John is certainly one of them.
(V) & (Z) respond: Yes, there are plenty of good people in academia. We should have written that administrators are SOMETIMES slimy, which is true, and not that they are OFTEN slimy, which is a bit of an overstatement.
T.B. in Selkirk, NY (and a University of Michigan grad), writes: It is my understanding that Santa Ono, in the fall of 2024, expressed interest and may have applied for the president's job at both Harvard and Oxford. Then he applied for the Florida job—the Michigan Regents did not know about the interest in Harvard and Oxford—but once they found out about the Florida interest, they not so politely told Ono to leave.
As a result, Ono left Michigan as the president with the shortest tenure in the school's history. And has no job to show for it. As a Michigan grad, I am not disappointed to see him gone.
S.N. in Sparks, NV, writes: Thank you to M.S. in Canton for that beautiful remembrance of George.
M.K. in Essex Junction, VT, writes: My daily routine is to read Electoral-Vote.com on my lunch break. And today when I read "The Duty to Remember George" from M.S in Canton, I had tears running down my face. Not because I was sad, mind you, but because it was written so beautifully and reminded me of the many people in my life who passed away too young. Am I the last to remember them, too?
As the tears poured down my face a coworker asked if I was OK. I said yes and proceeded to read M.S.' post. There was 10 of us in the break room and everyone just stopped, some wiped tears away from their eyes, and we all spend the next half hour recanting and telling stories of people we lost.
What a wonderfully powerful post. Thank you (V), (Z), (L), and M.S. You made more of a difference in my life today than you realize.
L.L. in Seymour, CT, writes: For that lovely and moving remembrance of George. There are, I am sure, thousands of Georges from the wars throughout the centuries. You made me think of them, and I will make sure I do so again each and every Memorial Day... the unknown or unremembered who gave their lives in service to this country.
J.O. in Williamsburg, MA, writes: The writing about George by M.S in Canton was tear-inducing. I am so glad M.S. wrote, and reminded us of ALL those who pass with little fanfare in life. They are also important. I was reminded of the many men from, especially, the heartland who did not serve in the military and so got no recognition, but served in another way. My father and his brothers and many others did not go to the Army, they were told to stay home and produce food. Their farm work kept food and fiber coming. I enjoyed teasing my dad about growing marijuana in the form of hemp.
C.B. in Fresno, CA, writes: In response to M.S. in Canton, I suggest looking into Stories Behind the Stars and a related Facebook group STAR Corps (StoryTelling and Research) WWII Fallen.
Stories Behind the Stars is a group of volunteers dedicated to writing obituaries for servicepeople lost in World War II. The goal to is for each one to have a story telling of their early life, history of service, how they were lost, and how the mission fit into the overall strategy of the Allies.
With an app, someone scanning the serviceperson's grave marker can bring up the associated story, so the fallen is more than just dates and a name.
The Facebook group is public and I'm sure someone would be interested in the information M.S. has to share or can communicate how to connect with a volunteer working on that mission.
P.D. in Memphis, TN, writes: G.W. in Oxnard made some rather severe statements about humans in space. In particular, G.W. complained about radiation issues. I would like to point out that such issues regarding safety are nothing more or less than engineering problems, and engineering problems have solutions. In particular, I believe G.W. needs to read this NASA release, which describes a radiation shield and links to the patent.
P.M. in Port Angeles, WA, writes: To augment comments made by G.W. in Oxnard, I add that the earth is shielded by a layer of air that creates a surface pressure of 14.7 psi at sea level. To match that shielding, a hull of iron might need to be as much at 4.3 feet thick. Since people seem to live quite well at altitudes up to about 10,000 feet, that 4.3 feet might be reduced to about 2.5 feet.
The magnetosphere can be recreated for spacecraft by a solenoid-type structure to match the earth's magnetic field. I'm not sure how strong it might have to be, with the differences in distance between a spacecraft shroud and the whole Earth.
This is all because virtually the entire dosage of cosmic radiation emanates from the sun. Mars is not that much farther from the sun than the Earth, but as you recede from the solar system the shielding needed reduces (by an amount of the distance removed squared). But if you approach another star system, the shielding will need to be in place.
D.H. in Durham, NC, writes: "Goodbye, Farewell and Amen" to Loretta Swit, and thank you so much for that tribute to her. She was a talented woman who brought great joy to me and untold numbers of M*A*S*H fans. I grew up with the show, but only later understood the commentary from those early seasons. I was in college in 1983, when our whole campus basically shut down on that Monday night, as every corner of it seemed to be hosting a party to watch the final episode. I attended one in army khakis (and a Hawaiian shirt, of course). My wife and I know the show so well that we continue to hurl quotes at each other (and get hysterical over them). Swit's portrayal of Margaret Houlihan is one of the highlights of not only that show, but any sitcom either before or since. Her evolution of that character over those many seasons is unparalleled. And by the way, there are still plenty of things we could learn from M*A*S*H.
A.M. in Brookhaven, PA, writes: As someone of the M*A*S*H generation (the final episode was during my senior year in high school and the show was pretty much mandatory viewing on Monday nights for years), I want to thank you for your tribute to Loretta Swit. I especially appreciated your reference to the moving episode "Abyssinia, Henry."
For this week's last words, I'd like to suggest this from that episode which always moves me to tears. Little did we know at the time, these would also be Trapper's last words on the show.
Trapper: Radar, put a mask on.
Radar: I have a message. Lieutenant Colonel Henry Blake's plane was shot down over the Sea of Japan. It spun in. There were no survivors.
(V) & (Z) respond: We thought this worked better here than at the bottom of the page.
E.S. in Providence, RI, writes: Another actor whose character changed dramatically over the years was Melissa McBride's Carol Peletier. Over the course of 174 episodes of The Walking Dead, she was transformed from a fearful battered wife to a strong, all-around kick-ass warrior and survivor. It happened slowly over the years, and is an incredible story arc.
D.W. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: My preferred show/metaphor for Viet nam was China Beach. It was not from the doctors' perspective but from that of the nurses and civilians.
It was also more respectful of minorities and the frictions of class, culture, sex and race than was M*A*S*H. It also did not hide its Vietnam roots, as did M*A*S*H. In addition, it did a lot to humanize the enemy and was not supportive exclusively of our view and our goals... whatever the heck they were.
It's hard to find, but easily as entertaining as M*A*S*H... and has aged well over the years. It was about our souls during those times.
L.H. in Chicago, IL, writes: I have to say that P.D.N. in Boardman totally misses the point when complaining that President Tyler is no big deal or that references to Edmund Ruffin are objectionable. The attention-worthy part of the story wasn't about President Tyler or the person whose namesake H.R. Tyler was. It was that the grandson of someone born during the George Washington administration had, until just very recently, still been alive!
I find it fascinating that a mere three generations span over two centuries. I'm too hurried to look this up now, but I believe that King Georges I through III also spanned a considerable amount of time.
Also, I knew from The Three Musketeers that Louis XIII was king in 1613, so when I started to do the math, I was surprised to note that the king in 1789 was only three Louis later. I was absolutely blown away to learn that King Louis XIV reigned for 75 years. Not "lived to be 75," but was King of France for 75 years, in a time when the average lifespan was about half that, and kings didn't usually die a natural death.
So maybe it's just me.
D.A. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: B.C. in Forest Park complained that, by "referencing Harry Potter," you are promoting the work of J.K. Rowling, a "prominent transphobe." I trust that B.C. avoids all references to works by Johannes Brahms, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, T.S. Eliot, Edith Wharton, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, and Edgar Degas—all notorious antisemites (to name a few). And, of course, B.C. does not now and never has owned a Ford.
T.R. in Wembley, England, UK, writes: I couldn't disagree more with B.C. in Forest Park, who effectively argues that because of her views on trans rights, you should make no reference whatsoever to JK Rowling, or any aspect of her work.
Whether or not one agrees with Rowling's views, surely Harry Potter has become sufficiently part of the cultural zeitgeist that trying to erase it from history is a fool's errand, as well as opening up a can of worms about other creators/contributors who hold and express problematic political views. Is B.C. suggesting that the previous week's headline theme (Musicals) should/could be taken as an endorsement of the (very different) political views of Andrew Lloyd Webber, or Toby Marlow/Lucy Moss?
S.D.R. in Raleigh, NC, writes: N.S. in Milwaukee criticized your "continual misuse of the word 'underway' when you clearly mean 'ongoing'." I'm sure you are aware of this without me needing to say anything, but for the benefit of others (particularly N.S.): You were not guilty of any misuse. "In progress" is well established as one of the definitions of "underway," and one would struggle to find any dictionary that does not list it as a definition for "underway." Or, to put it more simply, "underway" and "ongoing" are synonyms, and anything that can be correctly described as being "ongoing" can also be correctly described as being "underway."
Of course, this sort of "correction" is par for the course. The vast majority of language usage "corrections" are what the linguists at Language Log refer to as "prescriptivist poppycock": attempts to enforce rules or distinctions that do not actually exist anywhere except in the minds of a small number of self-appointed "experts." The criticism from N.S. in Milwaukee is a perfect example. My advice to anyone who ever finds themselves tempted to correct another person's usage would be this: Don't, for your correction is almost certainly misguided.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: When N.S. in Milwaukee took issue with you describing Cal Ripken's streak as "underway," I thought it would be because Cal Ripken's streak wasn't a ship.
K.C in Westport, CT, writes: I am an avid reader of the daily posts on Electoral-Vote.com, and I support your site via Patreon. I strongly believe in a healthy democracy, which you obviously do as well. Given the sorry present state of democracy in America, your daily posts can be a bit of a downer. The truth is, democracy in America is in trouble, and your posts reflect this sad reality. That said, I greatly appreciate the humor you sprinkle into your posts, as your humor lightens up some depressing news. It may be gallows humor, but it's appreciated just the same. Please keep it up!
C.Z. in Sacramento, CA, writes: I love the new "editing" convention you are using of striking through the words that represent what Donald Trump is actually doing and thinking, and following them with what Trump and company provide for public consumption. It's as effective as (and much quicker than) a political cartoon, but just as hilarious. Example: "
shitholeselected countries".Thanks for the laughs!
(V) & (Z) respond: We have to be careful not to overdo it, but there are circumstances where it's more effective than any other option.
P.N. in Austin, TX, writes: Recently you ran summer reading recommendations, and this last weekend you ran reader letters on their favorite Disney rides. My immediate reaction to both was the same, and sarcastic... "Well, this is interesting" (rolls eyes). And you know what? I'm quite happy you ran both. I'm happy that the Electoral-Vote.com community is strong, diverse, and active. I'm glad it's led by three thinkers with diverse interests. It makes me glad that the place I so like to frequent has something for everyone. An amusement park that only held amusements I liked would be a poor one indeed.
Of course, the completionist in me won the day, and I read both items, using a technique I often employ if I'm not enthusiastic. I read the items backwards (grouped by paragraph). I ended up enjoying the summer reading recommendations, but not the Disney ride discussion. It's fascinating what the brain does when you subvert processes.
Your work is greatly appreciated, even when it doesn't excite me. I suspect many of your other readers agree. Many thanks!
(V) & (Z) respond: We appreciate the kind words from all three of you in this section. And we run these messages just to underscore that we think carefully about the choices we make, including both content and style, and we pay careful attention to evidence that those choices are on the mark (or, sometimes, missed the mark).
T.D. in Austin, TX, writes: St. Lawrence, reportedly, while being slowly roasted to death on a gridiron: "Turn me over, I'm done on this side."
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.