Dem
47
GOP
53
Sometimes, like last week, the mailbag is divided into less than 10 sections, with several of them very hefty. Sometimes, like this week, it's divided into more than 20 sections, with many of them very brief. That's how it goes.
It would seem our headline hint yesterday wasn't that helpful. So, we'll give a rare third hint. Knowing that many readers are fans of the film Chinatown, we tried to work "Noah" into a headline. But it just didn't work.
Anonymous in Camp Pendleton, CA, writes: In response to your Thursday item on the Department of Defense firings, the actual on-the-ground situation is both better and worse than what is being reported. The policy changes created in the memo of 30 September (at least for now) only target individuals identified as "poor performers," with reduced opportunities for corrective actions (PIPs, enhanced supervision, etc.) and shortened timelines for final decisions. The final decision on firing an employee identified as a poor performer is at the discretion of the designated "deciding official"; it is not a black-and-white, automatic process. The memo also offers several DOGE-like incentives for identified employees to voluntarily resign and waive certain rights in lieu of challenging a removal action. Most crucially for workers, the memo made no changes to the evaluation process itself or how a performance rating is determined. Employee ratings can only be reflective of work done on mutually agreed-upon performance elements established at the beginning of the rating period (April 1 through March 31 of each year) and the elements must generally adhere to the SMART principles (specific, measurable, achievable, reasonable, and timely). The agency must provide "specific, objective evidence" of failure to meet the standards of the performance elements in order to justify an employee's removal.
With that as background, a few observations. First, as a DoD employee for over 10 years, I can honestly say that someone has to "earn" an unacceptable rating; showing up and doing the tasks assigned with adult competence basically guarantees a Fully Successful rating. Second, with such a vast organization and the workforce already spread thin (chronic staffing shortages that persist across administrations), evaluations are pencil-whipped to varying degrees, and supervisors may give borderline employees informal opportunities to improve their performance or plus-up their evaluation before the formal appraisal is finalized in order to keep as many warm bodies as possible; an office of 10 slots filled with 2 superstars and 5-8 benchwarmers is better for a supervisor than an office with 4 superstars and 6 vacancies. Finally, any employee worth his or her salt will document questionable/illegal directives from supervisors with a paper trail to refute accusations of dereliction or failure to perform assigned tasks. Since the rating procedures themselves have not (yet) been changed, any attempt to base performance on these unenumerated tasks is ripe for an MSBP/legal challenge, particularly when the agency has documented the employee's previous work as being either satisfactory or outstanding.
Bottom line, the agency already knows who the poor performers are and this policy change is likely an attempt to vamoose them quickly without backfilling; essentially a mini-RIF to help with their "shrink the government" numbers. Do I think the administration will use this as the tip of the spear to try getting more people out than this policy explicitly covers, and across other agencies? Of course. Will it be successful? Like any assessment of this administration's competence, I'll believe it when I see it.
K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: So many atrocities has occurred under Trump that it's difficult to keep track of them all.
I just wanted to remind folks that one of the first things Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth did was to fire the JAGs, the military attorneys who make sure that the military is following the law and acting ethically. Every day, it's becoming more clear why he did that. I wonder what pushback they may have given against sending the military into U.S. cities or blowing up Venezuelan boats, among other things.
J.H. in Boston, MA, writes: You wrote that Donald Trump is not experiencing anywhere near the turnover he did during his first term. We may find this surprising and I recall that near the start of the term we ran a poll on Electoral-Vote.com about who would be first to be fired. Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr were top picks, as I recall. Why has literally no one been fired, given how goofy and incompetent and backstabby and controversy-attracting they all are? Given that firing people is literally one of the things that made Trump into a household name, made his political career viable, practically his slogan? Especially given how much other firing of government employees he's doing, given how much turnover was in his first term?
Well, I read this piece a couple of weeks ago, about Hegseth getting the axe soon. It says that Trump had vowed a year with no turnover to all his cabinet secretaries to prove themselves. And this rumor is saying Hegseth is going to get the axe, but they're going to wait until the 1-year mark. Since we're 9 months in, that gives him 3 more months.
K.W. in Madison, WI, writes: Does it seem to anyone else that the ICE agents are cowards? I've noticed in my home town of Chicago they need to get into full battle gear to walk down Michigan Avenue, hide their faces because they're afraid of being recognized, claim that they were going to go after the "worst of the worst" and violent criminals, but are mostly chasing down softer and safer targets like construction laborers. They keep out of Chicago's truly dangerous neighborhoods, set off tear gas when protesters get near them, and scurry back to their hidey holes before it gets dark. I think instead of trying to unnerve the agents by shouting "Shame, Shame," Chicagoans would be better served by calling out "Cowards" and "Weenies," or asking them to "take off your masks so we can see your pretty little faces." (Given what Chicagoans are like, I'm certain there would soon be a large supply of hilarious and cutting insults.) Because whatever these ICE jamokes might be, they sure aren't being brave.
T.W. in Norfolk, England, UK, writes: I see that DoHS has appropriated a Lord of the Rings reference to try to justify their recruitment of new ICE agents.
That's reprehensible on its own, and I'm sure the Tolkien Estate will have some things to say, but it warms my heart to see the comments absolutely eviscerating the outright gall of the post. Maybe there is a little hope.
L.S. in Greensboro, NC, writes: I think I've figured out the strategy of the Supreme Court. A story I heard the other day pointed out that the Court's temporary stays on lower court rulings against the Trump administration's abuses could, due to the time it takes things to work their way through the court system, remain in effect through the end of the Trump presidency. At that point, if a Democrat wins in 2028, the Court could then rule that, in fact, all the Trump actions, like tariffs, firing Federal workers, and spending money however he sees fit rather than as Congress directed, are unconstitutional.
Of course, those rulings would be moot for Trump since he would have been allowed to continue to engage in his illegal activities throughout his term. But they would then prevent his Democratic successor from exercising the same power. This would include preventing them from firing all the incompetent people that Trump would have hired to run the federal government during his term.
Thus the Court could successfully give Trump whatever he wants while preventing his Democratic successor from doing the same. They could therefore accomplish their true goal of supporting their political agenda rather than actually ruling on the law.
D.H. in Forest Park, IL, writes: I have just sent in my request to cancel my Teamsters Union dues. I have been close to this a couple of times in the past year or so, but the final straw was hearing that Teamster president SOB (my wife says that Sean O'Brien has the perfect initials!) said the Democrats need to pass a clean bill to fund the government, affordable healthcare be dammed, while standing next to J.D. Vance, among others, at the White House.
I was first very unhappy on hearing that SOB spoke at the Republican National Convention last year, a first for a Teamsters Union president. The second unhappy event was hearing that my own local chapter contributed to GOP candidates. On questioning our local president, he said that 25% or so of their support went to labor-friendly GOP candidates! I have never heard of such a thing within the GOP, but I still put off quitting the union after 15 years of membership of a movement that I am a true believer of, in principle.
In my opinion, SOB is single-handedly handing the reins of the Teamsters to the GOP, or what will be left of the union after he's done. Perhaps Sean had his eye on an appointment as Secretary of Labor or similar in the current administration, but now will likely have to take comfort in joining some right-wing think tank when he's done wrecking the union.
N.M. in West Chester, PA, writes: At this point, it feels as if Republicans want to cut the SNAP benefits to raise the crime rate and justify the insanity of military/police presence in every city due to people starving.
M.N. in Lake Ann, MI, writes: I want to bring some awareness to some lesser-known or little-reported-on facts regarding the federal work force and the shutdown consequences.
I am a retired uniformed service member, though not military. There are 2 branches so constituted, the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (USPHS CC), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps (NOAA Corps). These officers can be militarized if needed, can serve alongside military members in normal or extraordinary times (e.g., USPHS CC serves as the health care arm for the Coast Guard, and both branches can be mobilized for disaster relief or may cover stateside duties for deployed military units), and are usually covered with military members and retirees for purposes of pay and benefits. However, there is one area where the members from these branches are treated differently, and that is in retirement pay. USPHS CC and NOAA Corps retirees are not paid from the Military Retirement Fund, which helps ensure military retirees are still paid in a government shutdown. I am a USPHS retiree and will not receive my retiree pay for October (which is paid in arrears for the month prior), and presumably for as long as the shutdown continues. Luckily for me, I have another job, and won't be in financial straits as a result. At least for now, since my "other" job does involve a federal contract. We have been protected thus far, but I know anything can happen these days.
I'd also like to point out that while civilian federal workers are able to access various charity programs, uniformed service members are often prohibited from accepting gifts, though tokens up to a small dollar amount (usually around $10-$15) are acceptable as long as they don't add up to a "major" amount over the course of the year. It is entirely unclear if things like food handouts would be considered in this gift prohibition. And while certain privately held banking institutions often offer no-fee 0% loans to these folks, the uncertainty of whether back pay will happen this time may make this a difficult choice.
I personally still support the Democratic position here, because there is little else available to push back on this administration's overreach. And I sincerely hope that in addition to the health care subsidies, they are planning to insert language prohibiting recissions, if that is possible, because we all know that for some folks, the agreements are worth less than the paper or pixels they are printed on.
A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: You wrote: "The other problem, which is probably also obvious, is that $130 million ["donated" by Timothy Mellon] works out to about... $100 per active duty servicemember. Needless to say, that's not even enough to cover the paycheck of a buck private, and hasn't been since, oh, the days of the Korean War."
Au Contraire! Let's move up to the Vietnam era. In 1969, an E-1 with under 4 months of service gets $115.50. That gets you through basic training and into tech school. Yes, that is over $100/month, but then you need to account for deductions for federal tax withholding, Social Security and Medicare. I am not absolutely, positively sure, but I believe my first payday was 94 or 97 whole dollars for a month.
My father was an original "Antifa," my brother and I carried on that honor, my children continue that tradition!
G.W. in Oxnard, CA, writes: In your item "Today in MAGA: Better Dead than Red?", you wrote:
There is no country, other than North Korea, that has tested nuclear warheads in nearly 30 years. While it could have been done in secret, this is not likely, because it's not easy to hide AND because it's not a smart choice. Testing nuclear warheads risks re-igniting the arms race, which nobody particularly wants, and is also unnecessary, because nations can learn what they need to learn with lab tests and computer simulations.It is pretty much impossible to conceal a nuclear warhead test. If conducted above ground, the heat and radiation would be picked up by satellites and ground sensors and probably nuclear fallout would be detectable. If conducted underground, seismometers will almost certainly detect the detonation and telling the difference between a normal earthquake and a nuclear detonation is like distinguishing Aretha Franklin from Lady Gaga on the radio.
The current nuclear powers don't need to conduct such tests since, as you wrote, they have learned what they need to know from previous tests and they can assess the inventory and make new weapons based on lab tests and computer simulations. It is the rogue nations like Iran and some others who would benefit from ending the ban on such tests. They need to do the tests to get the data unless they can steal the data or have a friendly nuclear power give them the data. Ultimately, if the U.S. resumes nuclear weapon tests, that would give license to rogue nations, and instead of just Iran and North Korea to worry about, we might have several additions to the list.
A.L. in Villigen, Switzerland, writes: Starting nuclear tests is, in fact, detrimental to the interests of the U.S.
Since the 1990s, the international ban on nuclear tests was effective—even though the treaty was never signed by the U.S.. Yet, the U.S. does not have the nuclear warheads from the 1960s, they continuously renewed their nuclear arsenal to become more reliable and more efficient. The nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima converted just 1.4% of its nuclear load into energy, the rest just evaporated. The Nagasaki bomb was more effective, but still only 17% of the material was converted into energy. Modern nuclear bombs convert about 85% into energy.
Most of this development was done using nuclear bomb tests. The U.S. and Russia now have efficient bombs, but that does not stop development. They can afford to test the neutron resistance of materials in nuclear facilities, without test detonations. On the other hand, other countries like India and Pakistan would have a hard time continuing their development on nuclear bombs without detonation tests. And that is a huge advantage for the U.S.: The international ban on nuclear tests helped the US and Russia, because other nations would face a strong backslash from the international community if they started nuclear tests.
The U.S. has a military program called "stockpile stewardship." That program is using high=end research facilities to continue research on nuclear bombs, without test detonation. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is part of that program: It creates fusion with high-power lasers. This creates flashes of neutrons, which can be used for material science research; nuclear bombs need materials that can withstand extremely high neutron flux for some fractions of a second. This type of research could only be done in the U.S.
If test detonations are started up again by the U.S., then that will be great news for all countries that want to develop nuclear bombs. Because the international reaction to it—e.g., Iran staging a nuclear test—will be much less resolute if the U.S. and Russia are doing it as well.
So the decision to resume nuclear tests is very bad for the U.S. and very bad for the world.
G.S. in West Lafayette, IN, writes: As noted, the weapons stockpile is built and maintained by the Department of Energy, specifically the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The Department of Defense is responsible for delivery, but not development, maintenance or testing. In fact, the DoD does not have facilities for testing of the parts that actually go "boom." The testing range is in Nevada, and "owned" by the NNSA. Even a quick test would likely require months of preparation. It would probably take longer, considering the shutdown and cuts have significantly impacted the NNSA. They would need to hire personnel, develop testing equipment, and more. Underground testing (what we did for years before suspending testing) takes time to drill and set up. If they decided to do above-ground testing (and there would be HUGE pushback and international consequences if that were done), they could perhaps shorten the timeline.
Of course, if the POTUS means for DoD to "test" a weapon above ground outside the U.S.—say, over Caracas—that is a whole different issue, and let's not go down that rabbit hole.
I have heard speculation that, based on what has been learned from the Ukraine conflict, Russia's nuclear arsenal may not be fully operational. The level of corruption, redirection of funding and components, and shoddy maintenance that have afflicted Russia over the years may well extend to its nuclear forces. That doubt currently mitigates in favor of the West (generally): Although Russia may threaten the use of nuclear weapons, they would be extra reluctant to try to use them, as that might expose that they don't work. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) only works if the "A" part is present.
If the U.S. resumes live testing, then Russia would feel unconstrained to conduct tests, to verify operational capabilities, and correct them as needed.
For reference, the US spends about $95 billion annually on maintenance of our nuclear defense capabilities. Russia's annual expenditure for its entire defense establishment is about $127 billion; although it is difficult to find documentation online, it appears that only about $8 billion of that is for its nuclear arsenal—less than 10% of what the US spends for a smaller (in quantity) force.
M.P. in Ann Arbor, MI, writes: If the U.S. wanted to resume testing at the Nevada test site, the vast majority of people who did those last tests in 1992 are long retired, so getting to the point where new tests could be conducted again would very likely be a lengthy and costly process. Also, the NNSA has vehemently claimed for 30+ years that previous test data + supercomputer simulations + subcritical tests suffice to ensure the security and reliability of our stockpile.
A.W. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: One additional thought as to why Donald Trump may have made the announcement to begin testing nuclear weapons again: Putin put the idea in his head, with the idea that if he can get Trump to announce he is beginning testing, then Russia has permission to begin testing, whether or not Trump follows through on his announcement.
R.S. in New York, NY, writes: Concerning Donald Trump's social media post that America would resume nuclear weapons tests for the first time in over 30 years and the speculation of what put this notion into his head, I have a possible scenario. Perhaps he saw the trailer for, or was told about, the current movie A House of Dynamite. It deals with a nuclear missile launched towards the country. So maybe he thought about it (uh-oh!) and, deploying his recently tested special cognitive skills, he has now become a champion of testing. Or maybe the idea just popped into his head as yet another shock item in The Epstein Campaign.
A.S. in Lenora Hills, CA, writes: You wrote: "Neither an MRI nor a cognitive test are routine parts of an annual physical, much less a person's second physical in 6 months. They are only administered if there is a reason for them. So, what prompted Trump (well, his people) to make the appointment?"
I suspect you'll hear directly from some of your physician readers, but here goes...
I was thinking the same thing, so I asked a physician whom I know quite well. Without hesitation, they said "dementia." They further explained that while MRIs are ordered for a variety of things, with the elderly, indications of dementia are the most frequent reason for an MRI by a country mile. Taking of the Montreal Cognitive Exam also suggests the same, especially since he took one just 6 months ago. There is no reason to do cognitive screening every 6 months unless there are symptoms.
And just to be clear before all the responses to this about ethics, this was not a diagnosis at a distance; it is just speaking to the probabilities.
R.D. in San Diego, CA, writes: There are several reasons for a brain MRI—the Cleveland Clinic website is a good resource listing the common ones. Most of the list covers lifelong developmental issues, such as hydrocephalus and Chiari malformations. Four other reasons stand out for The Convicted Felon (TCF): aneurysm, tumor, stroke and dementia.
Other than his covfefe moments of difficulty with words, he lacks obvious signs of stroke. His terrible diet increases the risk, and it's possible that he would be put on blood thinning medication after, but that's rare at his age. A brain aneurysm would require the frequent reevaluation to ensure it wasn't growing, as would a brain tumor. Treating the hypothetical aneurysm would be a one-off coiling procedure, while a tumor could be treated with surgery, radiation, and/or several rounds of chemo given through an IV. Given the hair thinning and hand bruising, this is certainly a strong possibility. Finally, he is once again bragging about taking the dementia test—so it is also worth considering. The evidence that stands out the most to me is his recent frequent references to getting into heaven, implying he got a terminal diagnosis that he is trying to adjust to. A terminal diagnosis would also help explain behaving like there are no consequences. If I had to rank them, I would say most likely a tumor, followed by dementia, minor stroke and, lastly, aneurysm.
B.B. in Dothan, AL, writes: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment test (MOCA) is not "meant to judge if someone is impaired." It's a screening test for cognitive impairment. It's one of the genre of "mini mental status" screeners. The advantage of all screening tests is that they are quick and easy to administer. The disadvantage is that they are so short that the error rate is very high. Almost everyone scores in the normal range, as the questions are quite easy. You have to be seriously impaired to score as impaired. Said another way, the detection of Type II errors (false negative) is deficient—you can be impaired and the test won't detect it. Thus, if you want to administer a cognitive test that is almost certain to produce a negative (i.e., not impaired, "proving" TCF is "there") result, the MOCA is a good choice.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: You wrote, "Trump bragged about his MRI result, calling it 'perfect' and asserting that the doctors said it was the best MRI for someone of his age that they'd ever seen. Certainly, that could be true."
No, it couldn't be true. It's not possible for that statement, as it stands, to be accurate. An MRI is not qualitative. Could someone have the best X-ray of anyone his age? How would one MRI or X-ray or ultrasound be better than another? In addition to always lying about his health, Trump doesn't even understand what his doctors are doing or saying, which is why he can't ever grasp the difference between a cognitive test and in an intelligence test, as you point out. But to be fair, Trump probably had an Uncle at a famous college who was very healthy, so...
(V) & (Z) respond: But it COULD be true that his doctors said that, even if it's nonsense. Remember the Cabinet meetings where they go around the table and everyone tells Trump that not only does his sh** not stink, it's actually the best-smelling sh** in the history of the world.
J.B. in Britt, IA, writes: I have a theory as to why the President and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) have said they agree that the constitution DOES prohibit him from running for a third term. The MRI he had earlier does show something. They are using the Constitution to help bury his health problem. He may not even survive the rest of this term.
E.B. in Seattle, WA, writes: I may be able to help with some of the questions from B.P. in Pensacola about the East Wing demolition, particularly around how the contract for demolition was completed.
In my industry, several federal agencies have multi-year Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts set up with various vendors. This process lets the government sign a contract once, then use that contract for small or large jobs in the future. If the National Parks Service had IDIQ contracts set up with one or more contractors for building demolition, it would be an easy process to call up the contractor(s), tell them that they wanted the East Wing demolished, and then set up an estimate or a time and materials fee schedule. A work order follows soon thereafter. There wouldn't need to be a new contract advertised under FAR, since the original IDIQ contract would have been advertised and contracted some time ago. I don't know if the NPS has those kinds of contracts set up already, but it wouldn't surprise me. If they have to take a park building down quickly, they probably don't want to have to wait for a full bidding process.
As to the concerns expressed by Anonymous in Texas about non-existent plans, it's common in the maritime industry for construction to start on a boat before the design is finished and certainly before regulatory approvals are all in place. People want their boats sooner, and they accept the risk of re-work if things need to change after plan review. Most of the time it works; once in a while it goes spectacularly badly. The rushed ballroom design and construction has all the hallmarks of the latter. And that definitely isn't the way it's supposed to work on land.
T.B. in Detroit, MI, writes: I haven't seen this anywhere else, so let me be the first to make this prediction: Donald Trump's billionaire ballroom will never be built. There would be construction delays, funding shortfalls and legal hurdles, as several of your readers pointed out last week. Trump simply doesn't have the patience for any of that. He already got what he wanted: He broke something that FDR built, owned the libs, dominated a few news cycles, and distracted from the Epstein files. There is no plan for what comes next. TACO, and now we will all now move on to the next outrage du jour.
J.A. in Redwood City, CA, writes: G.W. in Oxnard wrote in about the potential for Don Jr. to run for president in 2028 as a front for a his father. I think a more likely possibility is that First Son-in-Law Jared Kushner would be recruited to serve in that capacity. I'm quite confident that Jared already is Trump's first choice to be his successor, as Trump's #1 goal is to avoid any further federal prosecutions. And his #2 goal is to keep all his money-making grift operations going. There is no one he will trust more than the husband of his favorite child to ensure that those two goals will be fulfilled.
Of course, for a Kushner candidacy to happen, multiple stars will have to align:
- First, Jared has to agree to it. While he and Ivanka initially stated that they were done with politics after the first Trump administration, Jared has a higher political profile now as a negotiator in the Middle East than at any time during Trump's first term. He clearly has some interest in remaining in politics, even if it's just to serve his own business interests as his father-in-law does.
- Next, the cease-fire between Hamas and Israel has to hold, at least well enough to plausibly claim success where past administrations have failed. In the MAGA world, this will elevate their perception of Kushner to that of an experienced statesman, even if a full peace accord remains out of reach.
- The economy has to stay strong, to keep MAGA voters from abandoning ship. It's not clear how much hardship they will have to endure before admitting that Trump's economic policies are worse than the inflation that occurred during Biden's presidency. They may never be willing to admit that.
- Trump has to weather any future political crises that may arise during the remainder of his second term. For all of Trump's incompetent and incoherent behavior in office, nothing he has said or done has yet to alienate his unyielding base of support. Even if Trump's name appears in the Epstein files, his supporters will find a way to ignore or rationalize it. There simply is no "bridge too far" for them.
- Lastly, Trump has to remain healthy enough, and long enough, for him to name Jared as the political heir to the MAGA kingdom. If he does it too soon, it will give J.D. Vance time to build up his own base of support. But if Trump times his endorsement just right, he can transfer his political operation to Jared and block Vance's access to those critically needed resources. Remember, the only people who Trump doesn't ultimately throw under the bus are members of his own family.
To be clear, I'm not predicting that Kushner will become our next president, or even that he will be the Republican nominee. But I am predicting that, if the above conditions come to pass, then Kushner will get Trump's endorsement to be his successor.
B.J.L. in East Lansing, MI, writes: A bold move by the LPGA and the Pelican Golf Club to ask Kai Trump to join the field for the Annika next month. There are 32 alternatives that would be hopping mad that they weren't moved one step closer by taking the first alternate and offering them the slot instead. This is clearly a business decision by the LPGA, which could care less about their actual golf members and pro players, and are giving reasons for Donald Trump to lavish some new giveaway to the association. This will not go over well among the players, but what recourse do they have?
G.K. in Blue Island, IL, writes: Building on what Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) has been saying to anyone who will listen, I think the "strategery" behind most everything Trump does when sending Federal representatives (ICE, National Guard, election observers) into state and municipal areas is pretext. Unrestrained ICE operations, and the protests they generate, are pretext for sending in the National Guard. The NG presence is pretext for deploying them for "election security operations" in 2026.
Similarly, sending election observers to California is pretext for declaring the widespread "fraud" that will surely follow (whether observed or not), which itself will be the pretext for [insert action that will disenfranchise California voters].
P.W. in Valley Village, CA, writes: The Orange Menace's DOJ is planning on sending brownshirts to monitor the election in Los Angeles County. No doubt selecting a smattering of precincts in predominately brown communities for their voter suppression efforts. But...
Talk about the gang that can't shoot straight.
California sends a vote-by-mail ballot to every registered voter in the state. It even includes a postage-paid envelope to return it (no stamp needed). Mail it back or drop it off at one of the myriad ballot dropboxes in the County. No California voter need darken the door of a Vote Center.
AND... California no longer has neighborhood polling stations. Instead, there are Vote Centers everywhere.
AND... any Los Angeles County voter can vote in person at any LA County Vote Center, from Pacific Palisades to Pomona. From Long Beach to Lancaster, it doesn't matter. Just walk in and vote. Which means if DoJ is swarming all over a Vote Center in East LA, no problem. Just drive a bit further to a Vote Center in Alhambra and vote.
AND... early in-person voting has been underway for some time now. It's a little late to start engaging in voter suppression when so many votes hare already been cast.
Talk about the gang that can't shoot straight.
B.W. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: I was quite pleased to see you write about what you called the "gentrification" of the Democratic Party, though I suspect the main driver is one you didn't mention: the Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010. I imagine it would be very difficult for a major political party to be competitive these days without corporate donors on their ledger.
Democrats' support for the working class has historically centered economics on and worker rights—regulatory oversight, strong unions, worker protections. Corporate donors probably don't like these things very much, so that part of the agenda has been hollowed-out (even if the lip service remains).
Republican "support" for the working class is mostly culture-war stuff, which doesn't cost corporations or billionaires anything in the short term.
Rather alarmingly, in the post-Citizens United era, "Democrats vs Republicans" has started to look like "Corporatocrats vs Oligarchs." Corporatocrats (e.g., Reagan Republicans and modern establishment Democrats) like stability and free trade. Oligarchs hold nothing sacred and will break anything, at any cost, if they feel they can own (as personal property) whatever springs up in its place.
Reagan Republicans looking for continuity with their old worldview will feel most at home in today's Democratic Party, even if loath to admit it. FDR Democrats (or even Jimmy Carter Democrats) have little short-term recourse but to hold their nose and vote for the best available option.
C.C. in Saint Paul, MN, writes: I wanted to follow up on "The Gentrification of the Democratic Party Is Not Sustainable."
This is a long reply, but please understand the post was really painful to read. I hemmed and hawed about sending it, because I am truly sensitive to the negativity you've been experiencing in your inbox. But I decided to have faith that you'll give it thoughtful consideration, and I thank you in advance for that.
My rights are not a luxury. True luxury is no one ever calling your rights a luxury.
I get your line of reasoning, I do: How can anyone worry about anything but economics when they can't figure out how to pay next month's rent?
Ok, sure, but for a woman:
- How can she worry about next month's rent if she needs an abortion?
- How can she worry about next month's rent when she is psychologically crippled by the rape no one believes her about?
- How can she worry about next month's rent when she's terrified of her partner but has no where to turn for help?
- How can she pay next month's rent if she earns way less than a man for the same job?
- How can she pay next month's rent if she stands up to the sexual harassment and work and so gets fired?
- How can she leave her abusive partner and also pay nexts month's rent given that he earns more and she'll surely be stuck with all the childcare responsibilities?
I'm really hurt by arguments that Democrats should focus more on what men want. I'm hearing this argument more and more (always from men) and it always feels like a punch in the gut. I feel everyday like I'm going to suffocate, as men are clawing back everything we fought for at an alarming speed. Then I keep hearing some of the men ostensibly on our side telling us to quiet down because some men are feeling ignored? I could tell you a thing or two about being ignored, since the Democrats never stopped putting men first. So when I hear that the Democrats should focus more on men, I don't know whether to laugh at the irony, scream at how hurtful it is, or cry at what this means for my future, my sister's, my niece's, my friends'. I typically settle on doing all three.
When men argue we should downplay a commitment to women's rights because it seems like the strategic move, they endanger us all. It is not the strategic move. Across the globe, women have proven time and time again to be the key to resisting dictatorships. Abandon us in our hour of need at your own peril.
D.D. in Portland, OR, writes: Thank you for pointing out Kamala Harris has no chance to succeed if she runs for president in 2028 (or ever). Looking back, I'd go further and say her nomination in 2024 was a mistake, and Hillary Clinton's was a mistake, as well, in 2016.
Why?
First, let me state it has nothing to do with résumé. Both are intelligent, experienced in national politics, supported by powerful networks, well-spoken, wise and, as far as I can tell, respected by world leaders. I'd also add that their policy positions likely agree with my own at least 80% of the time.
So, why?
They are, in a word, unexceptional. To break the proverbial color barrier or glass ceiling, being competent and well-qualified is not nearly enough. You need that once-in-a-generation charisma and aura about you that makes winning seem inevitable. Neither of these women clear that incredibly high bar. Barack Obama had this; Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris do not. This may seem unfair, but a barrier is broken only once, and the person who makes it through becomes immortalized. Thus, the first woman president should not be the first reasonably qualified person to throw their hat in the ring.
Maybe someone more knowledgeable about history or sports than I can correct me, but I believe Jackie Robinson was not the first reasonably qualified black baseball player, right?
J.H. in Louisville, KY, writes: I believe you are misjudging things with Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY). He's a really good man and might be a good president, but his sole cachet is his ability to be elected and reelected as a Democrat in a ruby red state. He already has that. It's his ticket to the big dance. If he runs for president and loses (or doesn't win the nomination), he still has his popularity in Kentucky and could run for the U.S. Senate in the future. On the other hand, if he runs for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky and loses that election (much more likely given the national importance and visibility or such a campaign), he no longer has any reason to receive national attention. Boils down to game strategy.
R.H. in San Antonio, TX, writes: I doubt that I'm much more than one-and-a-half degrees of Kevin Bacon away from pretty much anyone with juice in Frankfort, KY, where Andy Beshear is zero degrees.
Frankfort is a small town, and everyone in politics has known the Beshear family since Andy was a child.
He passed on the Senate bid because some people who know Kentucky politics a heckuva lot better than I do told him that a failed Senate bid would do more damage to his future than would a failed presidential bid.
I wish him the best, though I'm pretty sure Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) is gonna pick a woman if he gets the nomination.
C.K. in Union City, CA, writes: Pete Buttigieg should run for Governor or Senator from Michigan. If the party wants him to hold our standard for 2028, we will draft him. Michigan would forgive him for trying to become president, and he'd carry their EVs. If we are still too cautious in 2028, he will be effective in either job. As governor, he would get executive experience. As senator, he would have national power and a national pulpit. And he wouldn't have to leave either post to run for president.
B.W.S. in Williamsburg, VA, writes: (V) wrote: "Govs. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) and Josh Shapiro (D-PA) are probably progressive enough for the lefties and might actually be able to win the general election, which really matters this time."
From my experience with the left as a part of it, the first part of that is extremely false. Shapiro is too connected to Israel, too moderate, and not enough of a fighter. Newsom is certainly a fighter and doesn't have Shapiro's comically strong connections to Israel, but his positions on trans rights and homeless treatment are intolerable to many.
The second part could be true, but I doubt it is. Shapiro just wouldn't make the base very enthusiastic, and while Newsom probably would, too many swing voters hate all things California.
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: I could not disagree more with (V)'s and (Z)'s statements about replacing "acting presidents" if a new vice president is confirmed after being nominated by an "acting president." They erroneously conflate the situations when there is a "inability" as opposed to a "vacancy" in the offices. "Inability" refers to a circumstance when the president and vice president are disabled in some fashion from serving, such as by illness or by the Electoral College and Congress failing to elect one or the other. "Vacancy" means the president and vice president are missing entirely, due to death, resignation, or impeachment and conviction. The constitutional and statutory provisions distinguish between these two situations.
First, J.M. in Silver Spring is absolutely correct about the application of Article I, Section 1, Clause 3, the text of which distinguishes the period in which the subordinate officer acts as president: "until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected." (Emphasis supplied.) Death, resignation and removal are not "disabilities" that can be overcome or cured. In those cases (and where there is a disability that ultimately is not removed), it is only the next election after which another president would take office.
(Z)'s reliance on the Twenty-Fifth Amendment is misplaced. Vacancies in office are dealt with in sections 1 and 2, the former stating that the vice president becomes president upon a vacancy, and the latter providing for the appointment and confirmation of a vice president when that office is vacant. The only references to "acting president" are in sections 3 and 4, and pertain solely to situations where there is a "disability." In the Trump-Speaker-to-Third-Term scenario, there is no disability, only vacancies in both offices. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that an inferior officer who acts as president due to vacancies stops being president if a new vice president is nominated and confirmed; if the authors of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment had intended that result, they would have put in another section to that effect.
The Presidential Succession Act, 3 U.S.C. Sec. 19, likewise draws a distinction between disabilities and vacancies. Subsection (a) is the one that names the Speaker of the House to act as President. Subsection (c) provides in relevant part that a speaker of the house (or Senate president pro tempore under subsection (b)) "acting as President... shall continue to act until the expiration of the then current Presidential term..." The only exceptions occur if there is either a failure to qualify or a disability, in which cases, once Congress votes to qualify someone for either office, or the disability of one of the president and vice president is removed, then and only then does the (now former) speaker cease to be the acting president. Again, there is nothing in the act about the nomination and confirmation of a new vice president thereupon replacing the acting president.
These points, based on the plain language of the Constitution and Succession Act, seem absolutely clear to me. I can't even think of a colorable legal argument to the contrary.
P.K.P. in Denver, CO, writes: In my younger days, I was a Smithsonian Intern at the Charles Wilson Peale Papers, so I became familiar with the device that Thomas Jefferson used, as did Peale (which is how his correspondence was saved.) Neither Jefferson nor Peale invented it, but they both worked to improve it. It was invented by John Isaac Hawkins and Peale obtained the U.S. rights. Back then it was called a Polygraph.
S.F. in Chatham, NJ, writes: Just wanted to give a bit of personal insight on the autopen. One summer during college in the late 1990s, I interned for a U.S. Senator in Washington. One of our primary duties every morning was to open the mail, dump it in a big pile, and sort it by topic, then deliver it to the staffer who had responsibility to respond. Every piece of mail was responded to, even the crazies who would send in clippings from the newspaper comics or scrawl very sketchy screeds. Once response letters had been generated by the staff, we interns would get a stack and then "sign" them with the autopen. It was a particularly fun part of the job. I was 21. A very small portion of the letters were seen and personally responded to by the senator, usually letters from a bigwig within the state. I have to believe every office in Congress has the same system.
R.S. in Ticonderoga, NY, writes: In "Washington Post Approves of Trump's Gold-Encrusted Eyesore," you wrote of the on-going challenges the Washington Post is facing as a result of its rightward turn under Jeff Bezos.
I know last year I dropped my long-held digital subscription to the Post after it opted not to make an endorsement for president in 2024. I replaced it with a subscription to the New Yorker.
While I feel guilty not reading enough in each issue, I've found I get a lot more out of the New Yorker than I ever did out of the Post—in the past month I took the time read an in-depth article about Carol Burnett. Her variety show in the 1970s was the one show my parents were willing to waive a strict bedtime for me to watch. I particularly remember watching the epic skit "Went with the Wind" when it originally aired.
As for the Post, who knew "Democracy Dies in Darkness" would become self-fulfilling?
F.L. in Durham, NC, writes: I've never understood the logic of cancelling Washington Post subscriptions. The paper has its problems but it still supports good reporters on the ground in D.C.—exactly what we need at this moment. Losing the Post would only blind us that much more.
P.L. in Santa Barbara, CA, writes: Reading about Jeff Bezos destroying the Post really got me shaking my head how it's Same 'Ol Same 'Ol for us in Santa Barbara. Substitute Santa Barbara News Press and Wendy McCaw for Washington Post and Bezos, and it's the exact same story (but a bit larger scale).
B.L.J. in The Hague, The Netherlands, writes: As a Dutch long-time reader of your blog, I am, as always, deeply honored that you had an item about the Dutch Parliamentary elections. It brings some solace to this grieving card-carrying PvdA member. Nevertheless, I would like to add some nuances to the story that I believe have been "lost in translation."
Your description of how the Parliamentary seats are divided is not entirely accurate. These are the steps:
- All votes per party are added up, to determine the number of "whole seats" for each party.
- The remaining seats are allocated using an (in my opinion, not so complicated) algorithm.
- Now that we know the number of seats per party, we look at the number of votes per person to determine who on that party list gets a seat. Provided a party list has sufficient seats, an individual candidate only needs a quarter of that magical number of 1/150 of all votes to be seated. Any remaining seats for the party are allocated from the top of the list.
(Actually, the allocation of seats to parties also involves the twenty different election districts of the country. As most parties have decided to use the same list of candidates in every district, this is irrelevant. But theoretically, parties could use twenty different lists. Would that not be a psephologist's dream scenario?)
You state that a future coalition of D66, VVD, GL/PvdA and CDA (a "big coalition" of left-wing, center and right-wing parties) is a deal that nobody wants. I beg to differ; I think the voters of D66 and CDA (which would be the middle two parties in such a coalition) would be quite happy with it. The idea of forming a "middenkabinet" featured heavily in the CDA campaign (preferably with their leader as prime minister, of course).
You mention that GL/PvdA is D66's natural partner. Indeed, there is significant overlap in its political goals and potential voter base. The funny thing is that the last time that they were in a coalition together (D66 and PvdA) was until 2002. Since then, D66 has been in three coalitions, PvdA in two. But never together. So I think a better description of the relationship would be "rivals." During this formation, it seems beneficial for both parties to stick together. For GL/PvdA, joining D66 is its only option to be in government, and to block a coalition dominated by right-wing parties. D66 needs GL/PvdA for its climate policy goals, among other things.
You also write that "all the small parties are mostly one-issue parties and would be terrible and unreliable partners". This is certainly not the case for the small Christian parties SGP and ChristenUnie (CU). In the last twenty years, CU (centrist Christians) has been a stable partner in three coalitions. With only three seats at the moment, it is unlikely that they will be involved this time around.
(V) & (Z) respond: Fair enough, "nobody" is too strong a word, but the leader of the VVD has repeatedly said she does not want to be in a cabinet with GL/PvdA because they disagree on so many things. She also said that such a cabinet would not work. If they are forced to work together because no other combination can get to a majority, the cabinet probably won't get much done due to these disagreements on policy. Also, while D66 and PvdA may be rivals for votes, they want many of the same things and could easily work together in a cabinet.
W.H.v.D. in The Hague, Netherlands, writes: I am one of those Dutch who got to vote for 958 candidates. Here is my problem, though: I wasn't spoilt for choice.
You see, parties that are (center-)left on economic issues tend to be on the socially (hyper-)progressive side as well. The more conservative parties are all (center-)right on economic issues. see this illustration, courtesy of Kieskompas:
You see that little orange pin in the lower left hand corner? That is my position, according to Kieskompas. Center-left on economic issues, but moderately conservative on social-cultural issues. Dr André Crouwel and the other bright minds behind Kieskompas have calculated that about 19% of the Dutch "share" my position; there is no party even approaching an effort to represent our views.
The socially hyper-progressive but economically hyper-right voters do have a party to represent the other empty corner. We have libertarians, but there aren't enough of them to get a seat in Parliament. But 19% going unrepresented or underrepresented with 958 candidates to choose from? That is a lot...
M.D. in Lanciano, Italy, writes: I've been following your wonderful website for years with great interest, but in recent months I've found it hard to read—not because of you, but because of the things you're forced to write about by reality itself.
What happened? How is it possible that such a shady character became president twice? What happened to the American Dream?
Twenty years ago I read The Plot Against America by Philip Roth, and I was devastated. But I told myself it was political fiction, something that could never really happen. And yet, here we are.
I have some distant relatives in Philadelphia—three siblings who are Italian Americans. The man has always been Republican, while his two sisters were lifelong Democrats. When Al Gore lost the recount, they were heartbroken (and George W. Bush a saint compared to Trump!). But one after the other, both sisters became MAGA Republicans, and I've gradually reduced contact with them because I don't want to end up insulting them.
One last note: I find your gerrymandering practices obscenely undemocratic. Let's hope for better times ahead.
L.C. in Brookline, MA, writes: Of the New York races for mayor and governor, you wrote: "It is not too easy to explain why [Zohran] Mamdani's best poll would also be [Elise] Stefanik's best poll. It's possible that Mamdani and Stefanik both represent insurgency and shaking up the status quo, and that there really are a bunch of Mamdani-Stefanik voters out there."
Another possibility is that both insurgencies have attracted their own set of people who would normally not vote, but now have decided to vote, and who split between left and right insurgencies.
D.J. in Denver, CO, writes: Maybe this explains the weird Mamdani-Stefanik poll:
J.M. in Eagle Mills, NY, writes: You wrote: "Stefanik's district, NY-21 is R+10, and in special elections... well, stranger things have happened."
The Democrats had a very good candidate, Blake Gendebien, lined up for that election, while the Republicans were actively engaged in infighting. In fact, Gendebien is still in it, making Stiffneck's chances in the regular 2026 election somewhat lower. (In fact, I'd guess that she may have had some internal polling?)
R.H. in San Antonio, TX, writes: You wrote: "According to our high school civics teachers, city mayors do not, in fact, have the power to shut down the federal government."
U.S. Senate candidate Jack Conway (D) voted with SAN FRANCISCO LIBERAL NANCY PELOSI ninety-some percent of the time, according to the TV ads when he was running for the Senate against Rand Paul (R) in 2010 and again when he lost to Matt Bevin (R) for Governor of Kentucky in 2015.
Jack Conway's only political office was that of Attorney General of Kentucky, therefore he actually voted with the San Francisco housewife exactly zero percent of the time. Those ads were bald-faced lies, aimed at very low-information voters.
But they worked.
L.V.A. in Idaho Falls, ID, writes: Your (justifiable) tirade about administrators prompted a few anecdotes:
First, in grad school, I had a friend who was a grad student at an unnamed top notch department in the California system (not in the L.A. area). One day, since the administrators were making noise about how secure their system was, my friend (easily) found and downloaded a password cracker and ran it. He then reported that the program successfully "guessed" 85% of passwords and they really need to improve their security. Boy howdy did the CYA sh*t hit the fan. As my friend related it, he stayed out of jail because the sysadmin was a friend of his.
I now work at a government lab. The phishing e-mails from IT come in weekly and are obvious. I delete them and have made it clear to my management that I also delete legit internal e-mails from the company requiring a response, to be cyber-secure of course. I used to report phishing e-mails, but then they sent me a crappy plastic fish. Don't get me started on the company wasting money on cheap crap to reward its (pavlovian) employees for RightThink.
L.H. in West Orange, NJ, writes: (Z)'s comment about his university's approach to cybersafety training (fake phishing e-mails) reminded me of a couple of my own campus's missteps. During the pandemic lockdown, they sent out a similar phishing test, which was an e-mail about campus availability of COVID vaccines (which at that point were new and scarce, and people were frantic to get them). Clicking on the link they provided gave you a message that you had failed the security test. Everyone was furious at the university for using such a sensitive subject for training purposes.
But my favorite was the e-mail we got at one point about our required cybersecurity training. The e-mail had a link to an external site that hosted the training. We were told to click on the link, and then log on to this external site with our university credentials. I reported the e-mail as a potential phishing scam, and decided that by not clicking the link I had demonstrated that I didn't need the training. (They've since updated their procedure so the initial link is internal, and we log in through a university portal before being sent to the third-party site.)
D.D. in Hollywood, FL, writes: For what it's worth, my favorite trick is to right-click on any link, select "Copy link address," and then paste it into Notepad. Check whether it looks legitimate, especially the ending—.com, .org, .gov, etc. I also always double-check the address bar to make sure it makes sense. I also make sure the body addresses my by my name, not my e-mail or generic (Dear value customer).
You probably know this already, but I thought I'd pass it along since I find it very helpful.
(V) & (Z) respond: In fact, I applied all these tests to the fake phishing e-mail.
E.T. in Ondangwa, Namibia, writes: T.C. in Pretoria offers a very proud defense of the Afrikaans language, and I appreciate that, but another perspective is needed. As a disclaimer, I'm simply a Peace Corps volunteer and am not trying to speak authoritatively about South Africa or the Afrikaans language, just adding some context that lends itself to (V)'s somewhat negative characterization.
As T.C. says, most first-language Afrikaans speakers are not white. Many of my colleagues here in Namibia are Black and multilingual, speaking English, Afrikaans, and an indigenous language. Black Afrikaans speakers are instinctively leery of white people using the language with them, especially people over the age of 40. For those people, the language carries painful reminders of life during the apartheid regime, when they were treated with scorn by their white contemporaries. Even today, Namibia and South Africa are very de facto segregated, and some (not all, but not an insignificant number) of the Afrikaners still carry some of those apartheid-era attitudes when dealing with their Black neighbors. All of that is to say that as much as I appreciate T.C.'s love for their language, Afrikaans carries a dark legacy that has resulted in a lot of people having a very strained relationship with the language. Even if it is their first language.
J.H. in Boston, MA, writes: I've been a fan of your site for 10+ years. I'm also an American and, as such, very proud of my mother-tongue, which is this year celebrating its 0th year as the official language. Over its history, American has grown as a language of instruction, research, literature and art. It is also the language in which close to 240 million Americans laugh, love, dream and pray. Many AE speakers are not white.
The American dialect was created by colonies of English settlers in the 17th century, and their dialect missed some of the sound shifts of English which caused the dialects to diverge. If my politics blog Electoral-Vote.com were to make a flippant side remark calling American "a kind of 17th-century kindergarten English," I wouldn't whip up an angry letter. I would probably just nod my head and chuckle at the friendly ribbing.
I wonder whether the speakers of Québécois, Mexican, or Brazilian would feel similar to our Afrikaner friends if you were to make a mocking comparison of their tongues.
D.C. in Myersville, MD, writes: T.C. in Pretoria wrote: "Your disparaging comment about Afrikaans being "kind of 18th-century-kindergarten Dutch" seems to be designed to paint Afrikaners as a group as dumb and lazy. You usually warn readers against making sweeping assumptions of people based on race, language, religion or other characteristics..."
Coming from (V), I interpreted that as a diss on the language, not its speakers. The correct response is to return fire. Allow me to help: "My German friend says Dutch sounds like his drunk in-laws."
J.B. in Shawano, WI, writes: While I agree wholeheartedly with all the tv show intro themes listed on Electoral-Vote.com to date, I can't help but feel that the theme from Law and Order has now achieved an iconic place in television history for so many reasons. Each spinoff offspring (SVU, Criminal Intent, Organized Crime, etc.) has maintained that iconic short intro and, as with Hawaii Five-O, I defy anyone currently between the ages of 30 and 65 to hear the Law and Order intro and NOT know what show it belongs to. And BTW, still some of the best (crime show) dialogue in the last 50+ years. Where else could you find this exchange (from a 1997 episode titled "Navy Blues") that is so incredibly on-point 28 years later:
Jamie Ross: It's like finding out Amelia Earhardt has been hiding out in Bakersfield all these years.Ages like fine wine.
Jack McCoy, in reply: I got over Pete Rose.
C.T. in Cape Coral, FL, writes: I add these six memorable instrumental TV themes:
- "Peter Gunn," by Henry Mancini
- "Dark Shadows," by Bob Cobert
- "Falcon Crest," by Bill Conti
- "Scarecrow and Mrs. King," by Arthur B. Rubinstein
- "St. Elsewhere," by Dave Grusin
- "Stargate SG-1," by Dave Arnold
M.B. in Chicago, IL, writes: I fondly remember the theme song to Bonanza, which was very popular in the 1960s. I rank it up there with among the best.
B.W. in Oakland, CA, writes: The theme that has stuck with me forever is "Mannix." How many other themes are a jazz waltz that crackles with energy? Written by Lalo Shifrin, on the heels of Mission: Impossible in 1966 (in 5/4 time, for you music nerds—I can't think of another famous one). The famous long-long-short-short rhythm is Morse Code for M-I. A tremendous composer with multiple all-time great themes and several Grammys.
R.P.E.H. in London, England, UK, writes: Very late to the party on this one but British TV has been sadly under-represented so far, and there haven't been many fun tunes at all. So here are a few 80's themes from children's TV shows—coincidentally, when I was watching 'em. I think these all follow (Z)'s criteria for great themes.
- Chorlton and the Wheelies: Tells you everything you need to know about the show in one banging tune.
- Jamie and the Magic Torch: Ditto, frankly.
- Dangermouse: Had a stellar voice cast and was a massively underrated satire on the spy movie genre.
- Roobarb and Custard: Perfect theme for a show about a dog and a cat.
- Willo the Wisp: Hilarious show about mythical creatures and a psychotic television, all voiced by the incomparable Kenneth Williams.
- Rentaghost: The theme sets the scene for a kids' favorite. I remember the lyrics some 40 years later.
- Grange Hill: Arguably the most iconic kids' show theme unless you bring Doctor Who into the mix. Ask any Brit of a certain age "Flying sausage?" and they'll know what you mean.
I had a lot of fun trying to recall the best ones.
J.R. in Berlin, Germany, writes: Absolutely THE BEST jazzy instrumental opening was the theme to Bracken's World, by the one and only David Rose (first husband to Judy Garland, BTW.
B.P. in Arlington Heights, TX, writes: I will second the vote for Barney Miller, which also gets my prize for the best sitcom in history, full of likable, smart, literate and very funny characters.
I would also nominate One Day at a Time, which had a theme which is also just a great song, fantastically sung by.... whoever that was.
Paul Shaffer's theme for Late Night with David Letterman should also be mentioned.
Finally, the theme song from Zoom (at least, the '70's edition) is indelible as well, and irresistible, as was the show (it remains my choice as the best kids TV show in history and probably one of the five best shows, period).
S.E.Z. in New Haven, CT, writes: A TV show that I wish I could watch again but that I have never seen after its initial run on SyFy is Who Wants to Be a Superhero? It ran for two seasons with a total of 14 episodes in 2006 and 2007. The show was created and hosted by Stan Lee, the creative genius behind Marvel Comics, and it illustrated Lee's feelings about what it means to be a superhero.
When it comes to TV music, the theme song written by Vonda Shepard for Ally McBeal is another theme song that expresses the spirit of its show without incorporating the show's name. Shepard appeared in almost every episode of Ally McBeal and has a whole string of music credits for the show. And the music was an integral part of the show's stories.
L.O.-R. in San Francisco, CA, writes: Just a note to (A) about Almost Human. We loved that show, but found it first in the original British incarnation. Presumably you've found that version already but, if not, look it up. It lasted many more seasons than just one.
T.J.R. in Metuchen, NJ, writes: The Rolling Stones over the Beatles. I would never denigrate the Beatles (they were infinitely innovative and influential), but to me, the Rolling Stones win on depth and social influence and longevity. Their 68-72 streak (Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile On Main Street) are four of the greatest albums of all time. The 1969 tour set the pattern for the professional rock tour. "Satisfaction"/"You Can't Always Get What You Want" form the definitive dyad of the 60s. Keith Richards is a god. Plus, they rocked harder than the Beatles.
By the way, I do denigrate Hot Rocks for giving a one-dimensional view of their 60s period. More Hot Rocks, while not having the hits, gives a better picture of the band. Actually, I prefer my own 26 track (1 hour, 17 minute) compilation of those years, covering "Bye Bye Johnny" to "Back Street Girl."
M.M. in Columbus, GA, writes: Only one published comment about the "first" heavy metal song/band?!
One of the primary characteristics of metal is, of course, distortion. I did a bit of digging, and it seems the fuzz tone created by a faulty preamp on Marty Robbins' "Don't Worry" became the inspiration to build the first distortion pedal for electric guitars in 1960.
Gibson bought the rights and started selling the Maestro FZ-1 Fuzz-Tone in 1962. Today these pedals go for around $800 or more.
Marty Robbins is about as far from metal as you can get and the solo using the fuzz tone sounds very strange to our ears now, but it was probably so novel and interesting back then, that they just left it in the song.
My father maintains to this day that Leslie West "invented" heavy metal. There are some really metal-esque licks in his album Mountain ("Never in My Life," in particular). If you want to obsess about genres, Mountain should probably be classified as Heavy Blues Rock, but his playing does have a metal tinge to it.
As with any music, people take what they like and expand on it. Black Sabbath would be the first band I can think of that dealt in the subject matter of your typical "metal," but the tones and playing were certainly influenced by Led Zeppelin, West, The Rolling Stones, Jethro Tull and a whole lot more.
S.S. in Athens, OH, writes: I was traveling recently in Brazil with my wife and another friend. One of the places we stayed was a pousada not too far from São Paulo. It was originally a coffee plantation, founded by Italian immigrants at the beginning of the 20th Century. The current 70-something owner, a descendant of the original owners, is in the process of restarting the coffee business, this time with an emphasis on wildlife-friendly cultivation. He drove us around the property to show us the various bits and pieces, and while he drove, he whistled softly to himself. I wasn't sure at first, but I became convinced that one of the tunes he was whistling was "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida." It came out later that he was, in fact, a member of a metal band, and had been for most of his life, even playing semi-professionally in his younger days.
S.T. in Worcestershire, England, UK, writes: First Heavy Metal song? Perhaps you have to dig back a little earlier than 1968...
The Kinks' "You Really Got Me" from 1964 is a worthy contender with its great riff (The incorrect rumor that it was played by Jimmy Page rather than Dave Davies is an indication of how notable and influential it has been). A U.K. #1 and sounding completely unlike anything else of its immediate time, though oddly overlooked stateside.
The Kinks' subsequent career shift into the social observation/satire they are most well known for—as well as such classic pieces of 60's pop such as "Waterloo Sunset" and "Days"—could hardly have been anticipated from this early outing.
L.H. in Chicago, IL, writes: In answer to a question about baseball cards on Saturday, (Z) answered: "I did not take my friend's advice, and instead focused on Wade Boggs, Roger Clemens and Don Mattingly rookie cards."
Do you realize that you just named three of the nine professional baseball players from the 1992 Simpsons episode in which Mr. Burns put together a team of ringers for his softball team? What are the odds?
(Z) responds: I wondered if anyone would notice that. I also had/have a rookie card for two other players on the team, namely Darryl Strawberry and Jose Canseco, but only one of each. I have/have multiples for Boggs, Clemens and Mattingly.
J.E. in San Jose, CA, writes: Maybe in SoCal people say "swap meet," but in the Bay Area we definitely say "flea market." But, (Z), we can unite on not calling it a "tag sale" like those so-called patriots in New England.
D.T. in Hillsboro, OR, writes: In the Freudenfreude item on Pope Leo/Patriarch Awa, you neglected to note that, like Leo, Awa was born and raised in Chicago, but as a Cubs fan. So that jersey was just some crosstown sports rivalry smack-talk type stuff. Much like if a history professor from that directional college across town were to give some of their sports paraphernalia to (Z).
B.F. in Madison, WI, writes: Something that you hinted at in the Freudenfreude segment, but I think deserves an explicit call out, is that, like the current bishop of Rome, Mar Awa III is also a Chicago native. He, however is a Cubs fan, so this isn't just another religious head making light of Leo's preferred MLB team. It's two Chicago boys making light of the Sox-Cubs rivalry on a global scale, which I find to be even more endearing.
K.I. in Sacramento, CA, writes: You wrote: "For those who don't know (though pretty much everyone is aware by now), Leo is a longtime fan of the Chicago White Sox. So, Catholicos-Patriarch Awa III is having a little fun with his Roman Catholic counterpart, and Leo is half-grimacing (because he's a White Sox fan) but half-smiling (because he knows it's all in gentle good fun)."
It is worth pointing out (although there are some doubters) the story that the Pope fractured his jaw many years ago in the heroic act of saving a child from getting hit by a car. Apparently, he does not easily reveal the story out of humility. In any case, Leo is not much of a smiler, so his reaction to receiving a Cubs jersey isn't necessarily what you attribute: half-grimace and half-smile.
A.B. in Concord, CA, writes: There is a company dedicated to solving the games-for-the-visually-impaired problem: 64 Oz. Games.
They publish (and sell) accessibility kits for a wide variety of popular modern board games—you need a copy of the actual game as well, but the kit includes such things as braille-printed cards, uniquely shaped tokens, etc., to make games playable for the modern gamer. They also sell a variety of tactile game tools (a wide variety of dice, etc.) and full games with visual accessibility elements added. I believe they sell these at or below the cost of making and shipping them, and at least once upon a time they provided free copies to libraries and organizations.
Additionally, many game reviews on boardgamegeek.com specifically address the issue of accessibility, although there no organization of such info. (Also, full disclosure, the accessibility focus of most of the reviews is on color blindness.)
Finally, there is a site dedicated to accessibility in modern board gaming: meeplelikeus.co.uk. They appear to be on hiatus, but their historic reviews are still available; see the "teardown" link on their review page.
I hope this information helps people. I have been a fan of the hobby for decades, and removing barriers to entry is always a worthwhile endeavor.
Full disclosure, I am not visually impaired myself, nor is anyone I am close to, so all of this information comes from a passion for the games, and not any direct experience.
R.R. in Pasadena, CA, writes: In "Some Senators Show Some Spine," you wrote:"That's five s-words in a row in that headline, which is obviously doable. It would also be pretty doable with T, or R, or B, we'd say. Much, much harder with U or Q or Z."
Sounds like a challenge.
Quarrelsome Queens Quickly Quiet Quibbling Quislings. I even got six in there for you.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: Quick, quit quiet quarter quashing.
Just in case there's ever a story about an expedited move to stop an under-the-radar attempt to discontinue the 25-cent piece at the U.S. Mint. I do the difficult work so you don't have to. You're welcome.
B.G.M. in Dedham, MA, writes: Quietly Querulous Quislings Quickly Quibble
J.D. in Orlando, FL, writes: Quiet Quasimodo Quizzed Quirky Quakers
J.M. in New York City, NY, writes: (V), thank you for the Groucho-Marx-inspired grin-stimulant with my morning-coffee read!
The DoJ is going to send election monitors to California and New Jersey on Election Day. That is a week from tomorrow. Time flies like an arrow (in contrast, fruit flies like a banana).Next time Electoral-Vote.com does a roundup of voting and candidates in East Texas, remember: Nacogdoches is full of roaches!
G.W. in Avon, CT, writes: Today you noted: "Time flies like an arrow (in contrast, fruit flies like a banana)."
So you are Marxists!
(Z) writes: This is a little different; a response to last week's final words.
People can change.
Those who want to change will. — A.G. in Scranton, PA, a former heroin addict and violent criminal
Millions who want to change cannot. — A.G. in Scranton, PA, victim of Big Pharma, former heroin addict, close friend of addicted girls who trick, friend of the sad children, sisters, and parents of other addicted girls who can't trick anymore
Those who say they cannot change and have a list of reasons why they cannot change that reference age, obvious lies, insecurities about the rapidity of change, or a "fu** you" to people they don't like have no desire to change and the reasons are just their way of telling themselves it's not about hate or racism. — A.G. in Scranton, PA, the son of racist Trump votersBack to normal order with this feature next week.
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.