Dem
47
GOP
53
We made this week's theme a little tougher, and so while we've gotten a lot of answers, many of them are not quite on target. The additional hint we'll give is that the theme, more specific than Entertainment, is "Musical Groups." That means that "Music" or "Musicians" is not quite enough. Oh, and also: The Glenn Miller Orchestra is most certainly not a rock band.
I.M. in Cleveland, OH, asks: What, if anything, keeps the Republicans from using reconciliation to get a budget through the Senate without Democratic votes?
If it is available as a tool, why don't they use it, and why don't all (responsible) media outlets blame the Republicans for not using it?(Z) answers: Remember that reconciliation is just a fancy name for one of the many carve-outs to the filibuster that have been created over the years. And when the reconciliation process was created (1974), the general idea was that Congress should be required to pass a proper budget, BUT if there is something wrong with that budget, a minority should not be able to stop the majority from making repairs.
So, the budget for FY 2025-26 (which does not exist, hence the shutdown) cannot be passed by reconciliation. However, once said budget IS passed (if it ever is; some years they just go CR all year long), then it can be amended by reconciliation.
B.S. in Berlin, Germany, asks: Article VI of the Constitution requires members of Congress to take an oath, and 5 U.S.C. 3331 specifies the language of that oath. However, aside from tradition, I can find nothing that requires that the oath must be administered by the Speaker of the House. Indeed, 5 U.S.C. 2903 seems to say that the oath can be administered by anyone who is qualified to administer oaths.
What is to stop Adelita Grijalva from simply finding a federal judge somewhere to swear her in, given that the Speaker has declined to do so?(Z) answers: The very first bill passed by the very first Congress was The Oath Act of 1789. It specifies that only the Speaker of the House, or one of his designated deputies, can swear in new members.
Adelita Grijalva could certainly try to take the matter to court, and get a ruling that the Oath Act is unconstitutional, but that would surely take weeks or months, and she's not likely to prevail, as the courts tend to let the legislative branch decide how to conduct its own business.
Let's also keep in mind the possibility that the Democrats know they'll get the discharge petition signed sooner or later, and that before that happens, there's some value in spending a few weeks loudly complaining about the Grijalva situation.
D.G. in Fairfax, VA, asks: Is there any reason to think that if Proposition 50 passes, the necessity of letting the Democrats draw favorable districts will end after the current elections? Texas isn't going to create balanced districts, so the logic behind allowing this seems unending. Or maybe it's the pessimist in me saying: Power seized won't be easily relinquished.
(Z) answers: There are two answers to that question. The first is that the pro-Prop 50 forces have expressed hope (perhaps not too realistic) that by the time the districts are next drawn in 2032, something will have been done about the gerrymandering problem.
The second, and this is the one that is highlighted in all the ads running on TV, is that this is an emergency, as the Democrats' retaking the House is the best chance for reining in Donald Trump's anti-democratic and authoritarian impulses.
C.P.S. in San Jose, CA, asks: What is the likelihood that either James Comey or Letitia James will be able to access the declination memo for their respective cases? It would seem that this would be solid gold (maybe even platinum), both for establishing selective/malicious prosecution and, if it can be shown to the jury, to establish that the case cannot possibly satisfy the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also, what do you think is the strength of the argument that Lindsey Halligan's appointment is invalid because the 120-day limit on temporary appointments had already expired?(L) answers: Prosecutors have to turn over all information that is exculpatory or that is favorable to the defendant. Those memos that explicitly say that the evidence doesn't support bringing charges would fall under that standard. The Department of Justice will argue that the memos are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or by work-product privilege. But there's a good argument that those privileges have been waived because the memos were released to the public. The defense will probably ask for other communications, because the officials have been so public in their threats to Comey and James, including Donald Trump's public statements. In fact, I'm guessing they already have them, so it'll just be a fight over how much or whether they can be used as evidence. They'll probably ask for extensive discovery and try to get some of these people, including Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche and perhaps Trump himself, to testify.
As far as Halligan's appointment, it's a strong argument and one that we've seen play out with Alina Habba. The real question is whether the judge will dismiss the indictment if she's found to be not properly appointed. In the Habba situation, the Court didn't dismiss any criminal charges, but in those cases, Habba hadn't signed off on the indictments and most cases had been brought before Habba was put in that role. Here, by contrast, the U.S. Attorney that Trump had first nominated, Erik Siebert, explicitly declined to bring these charges. And the only reason charges were brought is because he put someone in that position who was willing to bring them. Halligan appeared alone in front of the grand jury and she's the only one who signed both indictments. I think there's an excellent chance the charges are dismissed if she's found to be unauthorized. But I suspect that won't be the only basis on which the charges are dismissed.
T.V. in Moorpark, CA, asks: We will participate in the next No Kings Day protest on October 18. We can protest in our very small city, or in a few local cities that range from small to medium, or take the train to Downtown LA. How do you think our efforts can be most effective?
(Z) answers: Downtown LA, no question.
The most impactful part of the protests will be photos and video footage of giant crowds expressing opposition to Donald Trump. The DTLA crowd will likely be one of the largest, and the more people there, the more impressive it looks. Meanwhile, all the media in L.A. send their people to the place where they can get the best shot/footage, the best person-on-the-street interviews, etc. And they love, love, love DTLA for that purpose, because they know the crowds will be big, and because DTLA is very accessible for every outlet (The L.A. Times is literally in DTLA, NBC is just over the hill in Burbank, CBS is just down the 10 in Television City (mid-Wilshire), ABC is just a bit further down the 10 in Century City, etc).
L.M.S. in Harbin, China, asks: Why can't they honor people with the Nobel Peace Prize when the dust settles? The physics prize, to take one example, is mostly awarded to people years after their achievement had been widely acknowledged. Why is the Peace committee in such a rush?
(Z) answers: Over the years, the various Nobel committees have, to a greater or a lesser extent, committed to a philosophy. The non-Peace prizes are almost always a capstone; recognition for a key contribution or discovery or research angle that produced very important results. Waiting until that contribution or discovery or research angle is mature allows for better decision-making, and also reduces the chance of embarrassments (e.g., the premature awarding of the Physiology prize to the guy who developed lobotomies—Oops!). Logistically, this works OK, since it's entirely plausible that someone could do something groundbreaking in their twenties or their thirties, and still be around to witness/be recognized for the impact of that work 20-30 years later.
The committee that awards the Peace prize decided, long ago, that they wanted to try to use the award to influence the direction of events. That is to say, they want to highlight promising developments in the world, and try to keep the momentum going by bestowing the imprimatur of the international community. In other words, the Peace Prize has always been somewhat aspirational, and the Committee—while it tries to proceed as carefully as it can—recognizes that sometimes they will award a Peace Prize and see it turn into a stinker. There's also a pragmatic aspect here—in contrast to scientists, it's pretty hard (not impossible, mind you, just pretty hard) to be a world-changer as an activist or a statesman/woman in your twenties or thirties. So, if the Committee observed a similar sort of waiting period, they would be unable to recognize many people who should be recognized, because those people would be dead, and dead people can't win a Nobel.
J.S. in Hightstown, NJ, asks: Didn't the 1978 Camp David Accords result in the Nobel Peace Prize for Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin? In yesterday's posting, you say that only the 1993 Oslo Accords produced a Nobel Peace Prize.
(Z) answers: Yes, we erred, and went back and fixed that. It does not change the point, however, that presidents usually aren't the ones recognized for progress in Israel. Jimmy Carter's Nobel citation did mention his work on the Camp David Accords, but he didn't actually win the prize for many years thereafter, and it was mostly for his other work promoting democracy and fair elections.
D.D. in Hollywood, FL, asks: Has anyone in history ever so audaciously self-promoted themselves for the Nobel Peace Prize? I can't imagine anyone being such a jerk as Trump has been on this issue.
(Z) answers: Not a chance.
This is not to say there weren't other people who wanted a Peace Prize so badly they could taste it. For example, Theodore Roosevelt very much wanted one (which he got, and which made him the first American to win a Nobel of any sort). However, TR understood that the Nobel Committee has a certain notion of what a laureate should be like, and way up at the top of the list is: "They did their work because they cared about the work, not because they wanted prizes." So, the Rough Rider was clever enough NOT to do or say anything that might give a different impression. Trump, on the other hand, just isn't that clever.
I will also take this opportunity to note that while Trump COULD have won the Nobel yesterday, as he is regularly nominated by sycophants (for example, Viktor Orbán), nominations for this year's prize closed many months ago, and this year's prize was meant to recognize work done in 2024. So, as we surmised, his rush to get something done in Israel had no bearing on the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, as anything accomplished beyond January of this year (including ending a bunch of wars, as Trump claims to have done) would be recognized with NEXT year's prize.
S.M. in Morganton, GA, asks: I'm finding mixed info on María Corina Machado and Trump
Some articles call her a "Trump ally," but then I saw Electoral-Vote.com write: "That said, the favorite is Venezuelan opposition leader (and somewhat Trump nemesis) María Corina Machado."
Can you help expand on that? I'm curious about the relationship, and any similarities or differences you can find.(Z) answers: Trump and Machado both want to take down Nicolás Maduro, and so are on the same team in that way. However, Trump sees Machado as something of a rival, because he wants the credit for bringing down Maduro and he wants the Nobel. Consequently, he's said a couple of snarky things about her over the past year, and he also did not raise a finger in the hours after the prize was announced, when MAGA world lambasted the news, and found two dozen different ways to decree that Machado is a pretender and a poseur, and Trump is the real champion of peace.
Machado is no fool, though. She doesn't want Trump to lose interest in pressuring Maduro, and she certainly doesn't want him switching sides (see Russia and Ukraine). So, in her first public statement yesterday, she dedicated her prize to the people of Venezuela, and to... Donald Trump. Thereafter, Trump called her to congratulate her, and Machado offered up some flattering words about what a great job he's doing.
R.S.M. in Collin County, TX, asks: What will it take for someone of stature, such as Barack Obama or George W. Bush, to stand up forcefully and call out the atrocities being perpetrated by TCF? Do you consider their silence to be deafening, or are they waiting for the most opportune time to take a public stand of which cannot be ignored by the media—right or left? Why isn't Obama all over MSNBC, or on CNN, or Meet The Press (forget any CBS programming). Why have they remained silent?
(Z) answers: George W. Bush has made clear that he is retired from the world of politics, and he has largely been a hermit since leaving the White House. Maybe that is because he's not bothered by what's happening, maybe he doesn't want to risk damaging the family "brand" with Republicans (there are still Bushes who aspire to public office), maybe he thinks he'll do more harm than good. Only he knows.
Barack Obama most certainly does speak up, on occasion. However, it's pretty easy for things to get watered down if he speaks up too often, so he surely must believe he has to pick his battles. Also, he's still a Black man and a Democrat, one who Donald Trump perceives as an enemy. And this is a nation with a political violence problem. So, we suspect strongly that Obama (with significant feedback from his wife) is also mindful of his safety.
K.M. in Sydney, NSW, Australia, asks: I believe your response to R.N. in Redmond needs expanding. The crux of the question was "Why don't the Democrats seize these kinds of opportunities?" in relation to what Democrats should be getting extremely loud about. We understand that the administration is "flooding the zone" but we still don't hear much from Democrats, and, in my view, this was true even when Joe Biden was in office. We have Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and maybe a few others, but I think the only Democrat who is trying to use a megaphone that goes to 11 is Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA). With all the madness going on, to me it is obvious the Democrats can indeed step things up a lot more. They may be in the minority across the board, but it is still not excusable they are so quiet? So, in your opinion, why don't the Democrats seize these kinds of opportunities? Are they way too unorganized? Do they just have two left feet? Something else?
(Z) answers: First, I will note that "Gosh darn it, the Democrats just don't get it!" makes for good clickbait, which is why you see a dozen pieces with variations on that theme every week. But that doesn't mean those pieces are actually on the mark.
Keep in mind that these people, regardless of their political party, do this full time. And they are good enough at it to have risen to the very pinnacle of the their profession. It is their vocation, it is also (usually) their avocation, and it is also the source of their prestige and their influence. It simply does not make sense that they just aren't aware of the things that their voters are unhappy about, and that they aren't thinking all the time about what to do. It is true that being in office can make one cautious sometimes. And it is true that politicians make tactical errors sometimes. But this notion of Democratic (or Republican) officeholders sitting there with their thumb up their rear end, in a state of ignorance/paralysis/whatever, just isn't correct.
Moving along, you want Democrats to get the message out, but... how do you propose they do that? Social media? Go look at the eX-Twitter/Instagram/Facebook/etc. of any Democratic politician (particularly the leadership). They (or their social media team) are posting stuff ALL THE TIME. Perhaps you think they should go on the news programs? They do. The officeholders are all over CNN, MS NOW, the evening news broadcasts and the Sunday morning news shows. Heck, if House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) doesn't have his own dressing room at NBC, he really should. Alternatively, maybe the Democrats should be buying ads on TV and radio and the Internet? They do that, too. They also write op-eds, appear on podcasts, do "I'm a regular guy/gal" appearances on the lightweight talk shows, and do everything else you can think of. Again, they are pros. And they have armies of staffers and advisors working for them who are also pros.
If you don't feel you're hearing enough from the Democrats, that is substantially beyond their control, for several reasons. First, the Democrats don't control a propaganda operation (Fox, Newsmax, OAN, etc.) comparable to what the Republicans have. Second, the Democrats generally aren't willing to say batsh** crazy stuff, like "circumcisions cause autism," because while it would make headlines, their voters would be very upset. Third, the Democrats control zero-thirds of the trifecta. Maybe the Party was a bit on the quiet side while Joe Biden was in office, but he was unusually media shy for a president (and now we maybe know why).
Gavin Newsom is the exception that proves the rule: Because he runs a state with a rock-solid blue trifecta, he can actually get things done, and then go on TV/radio/podcasts/etc. to crow about them. He is also perceived, rightly, as a frontrunning 2028 presidential candidate, which makes him extra newsworthy. Most other Democrats are not likely presidential contenders, and so don't get that consideration.
L.K. in Sherman Oaks, CA, asks: Why are all the Democrats now spending so much time calling for the release of this "Epstein list?" It doesn't exist... it never has existed. Jeffrey Epstein was too smart to document all his and others' crimes. Seeing the Democrats now go down the same rabbit hole that the right-wing spent the last 4 years going down is just sad. There are real issues that they should be fighting for, and being on the same side as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) should say something.
(Z) answers: Donald Rumsfeld famously observed: "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have..." That is a variant on a quotation that has been uttered by many people.
Well, politics works the same way. You try to appeal to the voter base that you have, not the one you wish you had, or you think you should have. For reasons that aren't too hard to discern, Epsteinpot Dome resonates with voters in a way that more substantive issues do not. Further, it's easily expressed in a one- or two-word soundbite; that's not so for, say, violations of the Emoluments Clause.
And there might not be a client list, per se. But at this point, that's really just a placeholder for "incriminating evidence." And there almost certainly is some incriminating evidence of some sort, somewhere.
And Greene is also upset about the end of the Obamacare subsidies. So, even if you're a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, she's not always wrong about things.
M.B. in St. Paul, MN, asks: It's become pretty clear that Donald Trump is going to do all he can to keep Jeffrey Epstein out of the news and the files under lock and key.
In your best educated guess, what is it about these files that has him so worried?(Z) answers: There are three possibilities, in my view: (1) Trump knows there is evidence in there that he knew about Epstein's trafficking of underage victims, (2) Trump knows there is evidence in there that he himself participated in Epstein's trafficking of underage victims, or (3) Trump doesn't exactly know what's in there, but has good reason to be worried about either #1 or #2.
If you want an even more fine-grained answer, I would guess that the paper trail isn't the problem as much as the videos that Epstein made and kept for blackmail purposes. This would certainly explain why Pam Bondi talked big about sharing the files on her desk (the paper trail), but then did a 180.
N.N. in Fremont, CA, asks: Why hasn't Donald Trump released doctored, cleaned Epstein files? His allies and supporters would happily accept anything that lets him off the hook. And he could call "fake news" when the Democrats and media complain.
(Z) answers: There are a couple of problems here. The first is that Trump and his underlings are generally very bad at... almost everything. Although the full story is not known yet, it's clear that someone in the administration doctored the footage from Epstein's "suicide." If they can't even get that right, then how can they be expected to doctor other things properly, to the point that experts are fooled?
The second problem is that the Department of Justice does not have 100% of the evidence in its possession. There are other people and entities out there who have at least part of it. Who knows what Epstein's executor has squirreled away? And pretty much the best way to convince anyone and everyone that you are guilty is to get caught doctoring evidence. So, if the White House releases [DOCUMENT A] or [FILM B], and then someone else who has that document or film says, "Wait a minute" and shares the un-doctored article, that would be very bad for Trump.
J.J. in Johnstown, PA, asks: With all of the speculation about Donald Trump's health, I have a hypothetical question: Suppose his health really is pretty dire but he manages to hang on until after the midterms and the Democrats take control of the House, then he has the Big Mac Attack after that, and J.D. Vance accedes to the presidency. Do you think it will be possible for Vance to get a VP seated, given that it requires both the House and the Senate to approve?
(Z) answers: J.D. Vance would have no problem getting a VP seated. The Democrats don't have the stomach for that kind of power play (and maybe not the Republicans, either). It would look really, really, really bad to keep that office open for some imagined political gain, and the voting public would be furious.
It is also probable that Vance would choose someone at least reasonably grown-up, like Marco Rubio or Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC). Remember, Vance would have every intention of running for reelection, and would almost certainly have to keep that person on as his running mate. And he knows full well what happens when you pick a running mate who is both dumb and crazy (ahem, Sarah Palin).
M.B. in Menlo Park, CA, asks: If Donald Trump were to die in office before his term expires, J.D. Vance would become the 48th president. Assuming that then-President Vance wins the Republican primary, how would the timing of Trump's death affect the chances of Vance winning the 2028 election?
(Z) answers: I would guess that Vance would be best off if Trump died very, very late in his term. Then Vance could ride the memory of Trump—"Let's do it for Donald"—and there would not be enough time for him to disappoint MAGA by not being Trumpy enough, or for him to alienate swing voters by being too Trumpy.
D.S. in Lancaster, PA, asks: In your opinion, in a hypothetical scenario where congressional Republicans prioritized the country over party loyalty, which event from Donald Trump's second term do you think would have led to his impeachment and resignation?
(Z) answers: I would guess the Qatari plane, or maybe the crypto dinner, or some similar incident that involves Trump lining his own pockets.
Most members of Congress are lawyers, and lawyers like their cases to be as button-down as is possible. The Emoluments Clause is right there in the Constitution, is very clear, and Trump has clearly violated it. This would be much more of a slam dunk than some of the other things he's done, even if the other things are more damaging. It's the Al Capone dynamic—he went to prison for tax evasion, not all the other stuff, because the tax evasion was the thing that the feds could easily prove.
J.L. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: If we believe Kristi Noem and her Halloween pumpkin of a boss, then ANTIFA is the greatest threat America has ever faced. ANTIFA is hiding under your bed, in your closet, waiting in the backseat of your car, and likely even stealing Amazon packages from your front porch! ANTIFA IS EVERYWHERE!!!
So, I have one question: Has there been any coverage, even on Fox "News" or Newsmax or OAN, of arrests and court trials of ANTIFA members/terrorists? I haven't seen any, I don't think. I mean, with so many of these nefarious menaces running around left, right, and center (well, left anyway), and with the FBI cracking down (or cracking up) and the National Guard cleaning house and city parks, shouldn't ANTIFA arrests and trials be on TV non-stop? In short, WHERE IS ANTIFA AT?(Z) answers: Remember the problem of the dog that actually catches the car wheel, and doesn't know what to do with it?
The best boogeymen are "present" enough to leave some traces, but not present enough to actually be caught. After all, if you catch them, you don't have a boogeyman to rally your base around anymore. It's an old trick; alleged communists in America served the same purpose in the 20th century, and the Masons served the same purpose in the 19th century.
P.L. in Denver, CO, asks: Most of the tech bros have decided aligning with Trump is to their benefit. This got me thinking: If Steve Jobs were still alive and running Apple, what would he have done?
(V) answers: Steve Jobs was an odd duck. While he was worth $10 billion when he died, that was simply because he owned a lot of Apple and Pixar (actually, Disney, which bought Pixar) stock and the companies did well. His life was never about "How do I acquire another $10 billion?" He was actually interested in the companies he ran and or was majority stockholder in, and paid close attention to what they did. He believed in what he was doing. His goal in life was never how to make the next billion. He was an unpleasant person and deeply flawed, but he was not evil, like some billionaires. Apple is primarily a consumer company, not a defense contractor like SpaceX, so Trump has relatively little leverage over Apple. I doubt Jobs would have aligned himself with Trump. Also, Jobs trusted his wife, and his wife is very lefty and a major Democratic donor.
P.F. in Fairbanks, AK, asks: So... is it the Department of Defense or the Department of War? And, either way, what are the legal and practical consequences of President Trump's (attempt at) rebranding?
(Z) answers: It is the Department of Defense until Congress passes a bill changing the name.
It seems pretty clear that the administration doesn't really want to ask Congress to do that, while the leadership of Congress don't really want to have this particular fight. So, Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth are going to be allowed to indulge in their martial fantasies for a while (probably until the end of Trump's term), and then it will go back to being the DoD once a Democrat is in the White House again.
To put that another way, "Department of War" is effectively just a nickname, no different than if Hegseth were to announce that the U.S. military will now be known as the "Fightin' 'Muricans."
K.R. in Austin, TX, asks: It's my understanding that the border wall is not actually on the border. It is about a mile into the U.S. from the border.
If that is correct, if a baby was born on U.S. soil on the Mexican side of the wall, would they be a U.S. citizen?(Z) answers: The border wall has to be on U.S soil, but it's also got to work with local geography/topography. So yes, there are parts of it that are some distance from the actual border.
Technically, a baby born on the Mexican side of the wall, but on U.S. soil, is a citizen. However, there is the practical issue of trying to deliver an infant in the middle of nowhere, presumably without benefit of equipment or medical personnel. There is the additional practical issue of proving exactly where the infant was born.
Most undocumented mothers who manage to secure jus soli citizenship for their children manage to get far enough into the country to be taken to an American hospital. That then means an American birth certificate, which is unimpeachable evidence of an American birth (well, unless you're Barack Obama).
D.R. Phoenix, AZ, asks: What are the contours of China's religious landscape? I take it most people are nominally atheists, as that is the Communist way, but I remember the CCP easing up and allowing some Christianity, while trying to obliterate Falun Gong. I would expect Confucianism (is this even technically a religion?) and Buddhism to also play a role, but how openly are faith believers really allowed to worship? I could probably get a satisfactory answer from my Chatbot, with the added bonus of being addressed as "Your Excellency," but I knew you all would be more interesting.
(Z) answers: When I assisted Prof. Scott Bartchy with his History of Religions class at UCLA, one of the first assignments was to write a short essay about how people in Asian cultures are often simultaneously Buddhist, Confucian and Taoist. The point here was to get the students to move beyond a monotheistic, Western view of religious practice.
In Chinese culture, they speak of Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism as the three teachings (this mindset has now spread to other Asian nations, as well). It's different from era to era and person to person, but the general notion is that Buddhism is a way of thinking about cosmology, Confucianism is about social structure and a person's place within their family and within the larger society, and Taoism is about the person's relationship with the natural world. The three traditions can, and often do, exist in harmony, and none of them makes an exclusive claim upon believers.
The Chinese government, presumably learning from the Russian example, does not encourage people to be religious, but does not forbid it either. By law, five religions are recognized in that nation: Buddhism, Taoism, Catholicism, Protestantism and Islam. Yes, that means that the Chinese consider the two major branches of Christianity to be separate religions. It also means that Confucianism is not an official religion. This does not mean it's outlawed or anything like that, however. It just means that while scholars of religion count Confucianism as a religious tradition, the Chinese merely view it as a philosophy, like epicureanism or objectivism or liberalism.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: You wrote that Donald Trump has "Corrupted the government for his own gain in a way that would make Warren Harding blush" (according to Ezra Klein). So was Warren Harding personally corrupt? Why is he regarded as one of the worst presidents now? And why was he regarded as one of the best presidents during his presidency? This seems odd. What changed?
(Z) answers: When I was in junior high school, we had a guest presenter, who apparently went around to schools and gave these "lesson" presentations for a living. And the basic lesson of that presenter was that a lie of omission is still a lie.
Warren Harding was not personally corrupt in the sense that he was using his high office to line his own pockets. However, his personal behavior was not exactly of the highest caliber; he regularly cheated on his wife with his mistress in a closet attached to the Oval Office, he drank liquor when it was against the law because of Prohibition, and he engaged in other less-than-savory activities.
More importantly, Harding appointed people to office that he knew were shady, and then he took a hands-off approach to management that allowed those shady people to get away with their illegal and unethical deeds. In other words, Harding, unlike Donald Trump, was not taking the lead in engaging in criminal behavior. The criminal behavior happened, however, because of his basically criminal lack of leadership. So, it's sort of like those lies of omission—it's not what he did, it's what he didn't do.
Harding was popular because the U.S. had just triumphed in World War I, and because the economy was humming along. He died before people could learn that: (1) his administration was rotten, and (2) his "economy," while good in the short-term, was laying the groundwork for the Great Depression. So, it's no surprise his reputation has taken a nosedive.
J.M. in Davis, CA, asks: Ok. I'll bite. You wrote, in the discussion about the first rock and roll song: "The conclusion of this whole conversation, before moving on to racism and how it shaped rock and roll..."
Inquiring minds (or, at least, mine) would like to know the story.(Z) answers: Well, that's about 45 minutes of lecture, but here's the executive summary. I always start every lecture with a person, and the person who starts that lecture—even before the material I summarized last week—is Chuck Berry. I talk about his talents as a performer and songwriter, but how he sold relatively few records during his peak, and his only #1 single was a novelty record in the 1970s.
Meanwhile, after the material I discussed last week, I tell the students that this style of music was, in its early stages, known as "rhythm and blues." Under that name, it could not plausibly be played on mainstream radio, because white advertisers would not pay for commercial time while "race music" was played. So, the popular and successful disc jockey Alan Freed, who was white, began describing it as "rock and roll music." Remember, as I noted in last week's Q&A, young people who were up-to-date on their urban slang heard that as "fu** music," which made it more interesting and dangerous. Older white advertisers had no real idea what that meant, and so were willing to buy commercials on Freed's shows, because he got ratings. I tell the students that a rough modern equivalent would be if some cable network started airing the "Netflix and Chill Hour." Younger people who know modern slang would understand that title in a very different way from anyone who doesn't know what Netflix and Chill means.
After that, I move on to record sales. Building on an earlier lecture about racism and segregation, I remind the students that by the 1940s and 1950s, white Americans had been exposed to generations—really, centuries—of dehumanizing propaganda meant to persuade them that, in general, Black people are more like animals than humans, and, more specifically, that Black men cannot control their sexual urges. Rock and roll, of course, is very animalisitic, and very sexual. So, while the culture could accept records with Black men on the sleeve, if those records were crooning/easy listening (e.g., Nat "King" Cole), it largely could not accept rock and roll records with Black men on the sleeve. That meant that most of the commercially successful rock songs of the mid-1950s were from white artists, in particular "white cover" artists like Pat Boone, who did sanitized versions of songs from Black artists.
This grated on Black artists and their record labels, of course, so they found a workaround. Most stores weren't willing to put Black rock and roll records on the shelves, but they WERE willing to make special orders. The workaround, then, was that Black artists and their record labels (invariably small labels like Chess, Sun, etc.) would go to DJs like Alan Freed with a deal something like this: "We'll give you a copy of our latest songs, and we'll toss in $50. In exchange, you play the record at least 20 times, and after say something like, 'Kids, that was 'Good Golly, Miss Molly,' by Little Richard. If you liked it, ask your local store to order you a copy.'" This was a good deal for the record labels and Black artists, who were getting great advertising at a cheap price. And it was a good deal for the DJs, who were getting early access to good music, plus some extra cash on top. But the big record labels, who were making good money off the white covers, pitched a fit and ran to Congress. Thus you have the Payola scandal.
So, you have a society that, on the whole, wants a musician with the talent of a Black man, but the skin of a white man. Or, as Nashville based record-producer Sam Phillips put it: "If I could find a white man with the negro sound, and the negro feel, I'd make a billion dollars." Well, Phillips worked for Sun, and Sun, like most small labels in those days, would allow people to come in and record vanity records for a relatively small fee. This helped pay the rent and keep the doors open. One day, a local man walked into Sun, and plopped down his $10, and recorded three songs, including a cover of "Shake, Rattle and Roll." That man, of course, was Elvis Presley, and he was the person Phillips was looking for.
The conclusion of this part of the lecture goes something like this: "In a different place, and a different time, the music would be called 'rhythm and blues' or maybe 'modern rhythm and blues,' and Chuck Berry would be its king. But because of the pervasive racism of 1950s America, it's called rock and roll, and Elvis Presley is its king."
There are some more nuances, but that's the main thrust of that 45 minutes. I also play parts of a bunch of songs. In order:
- "Rock and Roll Music," by Chuck Berry
- "Johnny B. Goode," by Chuck Berry
- "My Ding-a-Ling," by Chuck Berry
- "Unforgettable," by Nat "King" Cole
- "Tutti Frutti," by Little Richard
- "Tutti Frutti," by Pat Boone
- "Shake, Rattle and Roll," by Big Joe Turner
- "Shake, Rattle and Roll," by Elvis Presley
- "Jailhouse Rock," by Elvis Presley
The next part of the lecture is about the 1960s, and there are a bunch more songs, covering Stevie Wonder, The Beach Boys, Bob Dylan and The Beatles.
J.M. in Stamford, CT, asks: Can I quickly ask (Z) why he used the postwar German flag, not the Nazi one, to mark the Nazi German positions in 1942-43 Europe?
(Z) answers: Because when I made that Powerpoint presentation, quite a few years ago, the bulbs in overhead projectors were notorious for washing out reds when the bulb started to wear out. I was worried the Nazi flag would not be properly visible. At least the regular German flag is two-thirds NOT red.
When I redo those maps, I'll use the correct flag.
M.C. in Spokane, WA, asks: M.B. in Pittsburgh made mention of a novel about the Civil War that they use in their 9th grade class. What is the novel?
(Z) answers: M.B. in Pittsburgh tells us: "Soldier's Heart by Gary Paulsen... it's a young adult book."
N.S. in Chicago, IL, asks: Something that has always bothered me is the term "antisemitic." When looking up the definition of "Semite," it includes Arab-speaking people, like Palestinians. News organizations, yourselves included, appear to use this term to strictly talk about being anti-Jewish, but isn't discriminating against Palestinians also antisemitic? It appears both sides of this conversation could be antisemitic.
(Z) answers: The term Semite was first coined, quite a long time ago, to refer to a group of languages that emerged from the Middle East. Then, in the 19th century, bigots seized on that to argue that the speakers of the Semitic languages (which included Hebrew) were all Arabs, and thus not white.
Eventually, because the whole point of this game of intellectual gymnastics was to exclude Jewish people from being members of the "Aryan race," antisemitic came to mean "anti-Jewish" as opposed to "anti-the-speaker-of-any-Semitic-language."
So, one can say that the Palestinians are Semites, but that's deploying a usage that is now pretty archaic. To give a roughly comparable example, Egypt was once considered "The Orient" because it was well to the east of Rome. But while you can still buy Oriental rugs in China or Japan, nobody refers to Egyptian rugs as "Oriental" anymore.
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, asks: When I was teaching at a previous college, it was in NCAA Division III (D-III) for sports. D-III schools do not offer sports scholarships, so the (generally) lower-tier athletes are really playing for the love of their sport, rather than for financial reasons or to go pro. I had a student who was on the men's basketball team and insisted he'd be in the NBA one day (he wasn't), and our D-III teams were generally mediocre, even for D-III. However, this got me thinking: What would happen if a top-tier Division-I (D-I) women's basketball team (e.g., UConn, South Carolina, UCLA) played a mediocre D-III men's basketball team (e.g., SUNY Geneseo, Keuka College)? How about if a mediocre D-I women's team (e.g., Syracuse, Kansas, Wisconsin) played a championship D-III men's team (e.g., NYU, Trinity College)?
Update: I've asked this of others and gotten a split decision. My dad said the men would dominate in both scenarios. However, my friend and work colleague Rachel said the women would win as long as they played on a women's basketball court. Can you please settle the impasse?(Z) answers: Here is one data point I can add to the analysis. When I was an undergrad, I played a lot of pickup basketball. And one of the guys I played against fairly regularly had been a varsity player at his high school. Not exactly a starter, more like a sixth man. He was taller than I was, and a better shooter, but if I had to guard him for a play or two, I could do it.
Anyhow, his side hustle was that he and a half-dozen other players of his rough skill level were paid, several times a week, to be the "scout" team for the UCLA women's basketball team. In other words, these fellows would play a scrimmage against the women's team, and would endeavor to mimic the style of the women's team's next opponent. Reportedly, the scout team won those games about half the time.
I would imagine that a borderline high-school starter would be about the skill level of the average D-III player. And the data point I offer up here suggests that a team of average D-III-level male players is a pretty fair match for an elite D-I women's team. From that, I would presume that you can change the percentages a bit if you increase/decrease the quality of the men's team, or if you decrease the quality of the women's team. The D-III men's champion would probably beat, say, the women's team from Incarnate Word 90% of the time.
I don't think the size of the court has much to do with it, though. Maybe the size of the ball, depending on whether they play with the (smaller) women's ball or the (larger) men's ball. But the real problem for the women would be defending the men. The women, if they're distance shooters (like, say, Caitlin Clark), could score points. But they would have a hard time keeping the men from driving to the rim. And nearly all women players cannot dunk, which means they can't effectively defend the dunk. And if the men CAN dunk, that spells big trouble.
R.G. in Seattle, WA, asks: I am always impressed when you discuss movies on this site. Given your day jobs, producing this blog, and all the little details of everyday life (not to mention the demands of the staff dachshunds) how do you find time to watch movies? Or watch TV? And really, how does anyone go to a "movie theater" anymore? Given the prices and just how awful the experience is (20+ minutes of commercials at showtime; kids on their phones, incessant talking) who would want to do this anymore, given how nice and (comparatively affordable) home theaters are? Do you go to theaters? Is there a "cinematic experience" that you value, or any specific movie(s) you can't imagine being the same without it?
(Z) answers: Of the four of us, (A) is the most up-to-date on movies and TV, and even has a subscription that entitles her to multiple movie passes each week. (L) and I catch movies and TV when we can, but time is short. I often have stuff on in the background, although my primary way of keeping up with the latest visual stuff (i.e., movies and TV) is reading about it. I also keep close tabs on theatrical showings of classic movies; Los Angeles has a lot of that. So, I've seen most of the "great" movies that are at least 20 years old, and usually I've seen them on the big screen, even if their original release was before my time. (V) invests the least amount of time on movies and TV, and rarely sees anything in the first decade (or two) in which it is available.
There are two main reasons to go to the theater, I think. First, as good as home setups might be, it's hard to get the same experience with certain kinds of movies. A RomCom or arthouse drama, home or the theater doesn't matter too much. But if there are big-time special effects, or an orchestral score, or there's lots of stuff going on at the same time? The theater is better. As I have written before, The Godfather is a completely different experience in the theater than at home. Star Wars is another like that, and Citizen Kane is a third.
In addition, seeing a movie in the theater is a communal experience, and that cannot easily be replicated at home, either. This matters a whole lot with films that have become interactive, like Rocky Horror Picture Show and Clue. It matters a fair bit with comedies, action pictures, space operas, and other genres where the crowd response is part of the experience.
D.S. in Layton, UT, asks: I would say this is a fun question, but I have seen tempers flare when I had Little Caesars on the phone.
Pineapple on pizza. Yay or nay?(A) answers: Nay (full disclosure: I don't eat pineapple, ever).
(Z) answers: Yay. This is one of those questions ("Is Die Hard a Christmas movie?" is another) that arouses great passions in some people, passions I really don't understand. I know that some people who get hot and bothered about pineapple on pizza are just play-acting, but not everyone is.
I will say that if someone dislikes pineapple on their pizza, then that's their preference. But if they turn up their nose, and behave as if pineapple-on-pizza people are somehow philistines, well, I tend to think of those people as compensating for something, and not being very cosmpolitan. I've had a lot of different pizzas in and around L.A. (and Chicago, and New York, and Rome) with a lot of different toppings, many of them more unorthodox than pineapple. Also, mixing sweet and savory is a foundational concept in many world cuisines, like Oaxacan (e.g., chocolate and meats), Japanese (e.g., eel sauce), and North African (where they often put cinnamon in savory dishes). Are the pineapple pizza snobs also dismissing those cuisines?
K.H. in Maryville, TN, asks: Up until a few days ago, I'd pull Electoral-Vote.com up on my phone and zoom in enough to where the words took up the whole screen and it was plenty big enough to read. But this week the print has been really, really small and I can only read it if I turn my phone sideways.
Any ideas?(Z) answers: We did not change anything. All we can advise is to make sure you use our cell phone version, which is reached by clicking on the green "Smartphone" button at the top right. That tends to work better than the ad hoc cell phone versions created by the iOS and/or Android.
Beyond that, our general experience with these kinds of issues is that it's due to software updates, and that they eventually get resolved by... additional software updates. Beyond that, however, if readers have ideas, we're happy to have them at comments@electoral-vote.com.
M.M. in Alexandria, MN, asks: Is there a setting or way to make Electoral-Vote.com display in dark mode? In particular, on a Samsung Android OS tablet using Chrome as the browser? I sometimes want to read the day's post at night, but can't handle the bright white page. I've tried "chrome:\\flags" forced dark mode setting, but then the site doesn't render properly. Thanks for your help (and, of course, "for your attention to this matter").
(Z) answers: We... don't know. Maybe there's some programming on our end, and if so, we'll put that on the to-do list, because you're not the first reader to make this request. Beyond that, once again, if readers have useful insights, we're happy to have them at comments@electoral-vote.com.
Anonymous in Ohio, asks: How would (Z), and in particular (V), improve the Internet? Is there a way it could be structured so it's bringing out the best in people instead of their fear, anger and hatred? Should everybody have an avatar?
(V) answers: The problem with the Internet is not CNN or even Fox "News." The latter is very slanted but the lawyers make sure it tries hard to avoid out and out defamatory lies. The real problem is social media. Giving every nitwit and hater on the planet a worldwide megaphone to spew lies and hatred with no accountability was not a good idea. It just sort of happened.
The first fix would be to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and replace it with an explicit provision making social media companies subject to the same laws as newspapers. Then if someone posted defamatory material to eX-Twitter, Facebook, etc. the company would be legally liable and could be sued. This would force the companies to be more careful about what is posted in the same way that the The New York Times chooses which letters to the editor it publishes. The First Amendment does not guarantee you the right to force private companies to publish your hateful letter/message if they don't want to for any reason.
A closely related step is to abolish anonymous postings. To read social media, you would just go to their site or app and start reading. But to post, you would need a verified account, which would require uploading a government ID along with a waiver authorizing the company to verify the authenticity with the source. You could post using an anonymous handle, but in the event of a lawsuit, the judge could order the company to reveal the true identity of the poster in court. Knowing that they could be traced would very likely cool off some hotheads and lower the temperature. In the 18th century, freedom of speech meant if you went to the town square and started attacking the government, you couldn't be arrested for that. There is no guarantee of anonymous free speech in the Constitution. Say what you want, but be prepared to defend yourself, not hide from opponents.
A second thing that is badly needed is much better security. The Internet grew out of the ARPAnet, which was run by a few dozen universities, all of whom knew and trusted the other ones. Security was not needed among friends. That is not a good basis for the modern Internet. The whole structure probably needs a serious rethinking with security foremost, especially with foreign actors attacking all the time. Maybe Internet servers (and more) should not run on buggy consumer operating systems but on specially designed ones where security and correctness were the main criteria, not performance or user friendliness. The seL4 microkernel is said to be proven correct. More research is needed but this is one possible path to follow.
But even current hardware is vulnerable (e.g. via the RowHammer Attack), even if the software is completely bug free. For more on hardware exploits, see this paper.
For better (national) security, Internet servers should run secure software on secure hardware, just for starters. Modern hardware (e.g., the Apple M4 chip) is blindingly fast. What is needed is a complete redesign of the Internet with security first, even if that costs a little performance. Cars and airplanes are required to meet safety standards. Computers could be, too.
S.I. in Philadelphia, PA, asks: Could someone, most likely (Z), explain the origin and use of the words "reps" and "repping" in the context of sports? As far as I can make out, rep is used to mean something like "opportunity to play" in sentences like "Every rep that you get is going to be at left guard." But I also see things like "Jay Pross Art History 101 streetwear brand has been repped by everyone from Eagles head coach Nick Sirianni to thousands of Philly fans," where it is a verb apparently meaning "to wear." It looks like an abbreviation for something, but what?
(Z) answers: The two slangy terms do not have the same origins.
"Rep," in the context of sports, is short for "repetitions." At some point, probably because Vince Lombardi used to have the Packers practice the same play for hours and hours on end, the notion took hold that the best way to improve at sports was to do [THING X] over and over. The more reps you get, in other words, the better you will perform. And those reps are more useful if they come in game-like situations (or actual game situations).
"Repped," in the context of both sports and the larger culture, is short for "represented." It means something like "showing off" but also carries connotations of carrying a torch for your hometown, community, team, etc. This one most certainly comes from hip-hop culture (of which Vince Lombardi was definitely not a part).