Sunday Q&A

Because we don't want to overwhelm readers, we are going to limit it to 20 questions (well, 21 questions, but 20 answers), all of them in the general areas of "current events" and/or "politics."

As a reminder, next Saturday is the last Saturday of the month, so it will be all NON-politics questions. That is to say, questions about history, TV, film, food, books, art, music, science, etc., but no politics. We can always use more questions of this sort, so if you have them, please send them along to comments@electoral-vote.com, ideally with the subject line "Fun question."

If you are still working on the headline theme for this week, we'll note that while we doubt Sarah Palin could figure it out, we suspect Donald Trump probably could. After all, he's a New Yorker who likes Golf, and who fancies himself to be quite a Playboy and a Hustler.

K.B. in Hartford, CT, asks: Although hoping that Epsteingate finally brings down Clementine Caligula is sort of like trusting Lucy to hold the football for Charlie Brown, what if it does? While a President Vance would probably be less chaotic (because almost anything would be less chaotic), from a policy standpoint would things be different? Would Vance be an improvement, or just fascism in a more respectable dress?

(V) & (Z) answer: J.D. Vance cares about power for power's sake. So, he would undoubtedly continue any policies that he thinks will serve that end.

However, Vance is unlikely to stick with the bizarro tariffs and trade wars. Also, Vance does not command the MAGA base the way Donald Trump does, and would have far less ability to get Congress to do things it does not want to do. So, we think you would find Vance to be an improvement, at least in some ways.

---

R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: Not surprisingly, Donald Trump sued The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch for publishing his alleged letter to Jeffrey Epstein. He claims the letter is fraudulent and is a form of defamation.

It is not unheard of for U.S. press outlets to be duped by fraudulent tips. The most famous instance of this I can think of was 21 years ago, when CBS News published false documents and aired an incorrect story just before the 2004 election, claiming George W. Bush received preferential treatment to avoid a deployment to Vietnam.

What would the WSJ do to authenticate this letter, and is there any chance its lawyers would allow them to publish it with vetting it?

(V) & (Z) answer: Undoubtedly, the lawyers vetted the letter. That said, it is very difficult for a public figure, like Donald Trump, to succeed in a defamation case. He would have to prove that he was (financially) damaged and that the newspaper's staff either knew the document was a fake, or else that they would have known but for being reckless in their regard for the truth.

The WSJ staff undoubtedly saw the whole book/binder of letters that was apparently compiled for Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday, and believed that the Trump letter was an organic part of the whole (the age of the paper, the binding, whatever, was consistent with the rest of the book). They certainly know what Trump's signature looks like, and the letter was presumably handwritten, so they could make that comparison, too. They also know that Trump and Epstein were very friendly in 2003. Oh, and while the newspaper apparently hasn't revealed their source, they know where they got their information from, and they must have considered that source to be reliable. Add it up, and they certainly had plenty of reason to believe the document is real.

---

S.W. in New York City, NY, asks: I wonder: Is Ghislaine Maxwell safe in prison? She has to know so much about Epstein's acquaintances and activities—I wouldn't be surprised if she "committed suicide" someday in prison. Would she be placed in some sort of protected custody now?

(V) & (Z) answer: Maxwell is certainly a very interesting X-factor here. If there's actual dirt on Trump, she knows what it is, and she knows where to look for it. Assuming she has that kind of information, she would love to trade her silence for a presidential pardon (she is currently serving 20 years at FCI Tallahassee).

Her problem is that any pardon would throw a tanker truck's worth of fuel onto the conspiratorial fire. On the other hand, her "suicide" would do the same thing, so she's probably safe, and does not need to be in protective custody. It would appear that the only viable option for both her and for Trump—again, assuming she has the goods—is a pardon conferred after the 2026 midterm elections.

---

D.S. in Lancaster, PA, asks: If the Epstein files point to Trump or other Republicans, why wouldn't Joe Biden have released/leaked the files?

J.H. in Boston, MA, asks: Democrats like Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) yelling about the Epstein list are like the dog chasing the car. What will they do if they catch it? If they spend enough time campaigning on this issue, and then win, then one day they will have to answer for why they haven't released the list. For that matter, why didn't Biden release the list when the Dems were in power? Isn't this a dangerous issue to campaign on, as you may find yourself in the exact predicament that Trump is in now?

(V) & (Z) answer: We do not discount the possibility that there are one or more prominent Democrats who might be implicated by their associations with Jeffrey Epstein, and that Joe Biden and his administration preferred to keep the documents under wraps for that reason.

However, we think the likelier reason that the Biden administration did not take action here is... there was really no reason for it. Epstein died in 2019, while Donald Trump was president, and Ghislaine Maxwell was successfully prosecuted in 2021. The Democratic base is not obsessed with Epstein, and Biden never committed to releasing the information (and didn't make any comment at all, in fact). Further, if Donald Trump or any other Republicans are implicated in the materials, it would have been seen as an effort by the Biden administration to smear Trump (or the other Republicans), and the right-wing media and MAGA base would have blown a gasket.

It's entirely possible the Biden administration gave no thought to the matter. But even if they did, the choice not to release the material can certainly be justified in non-corrupt ways.

Oh, and there is no risk to members of Congress campaigning on "release the files." It's ultimately not their decision; all they can do is vote (over and over and over, if necessary) in support of a resolution calling on the White House to release them. Lieu, Jeffries and Ossoff will be happy to cast those votes as often as they need to, and if a resolution does not pass, or if it does pass and is ignored, then it's not their fault.

The calculus is a little different if a Democratic presidential candidate campaigns on such a promise, but only a little different. If the files implicate no Democrats, or if they implicate only Democrats who are nearly three generations in the past (e.g., Bill Clinton), or if they implicate nobody at all, there's no real downside for President Beshear or President Newsom or President Whitmer. If there's no clearly identifiable "client list," that person can say "Well, we released what's there. Anyone who feels they were misled should talk to the person or persons who misled them, because we can't release documents that don't exist."

---

D.H. in Boulder, CO, asks: Let's agree to the obvious, Epstein was a monster and a criminal. And he had others willing to hang out with him, play along with him, or even swim in his cesspool of a lifestyle. Would I like any guilty parties to be brought to justice? Sure, and by the way, I'm OK with the notion that suicide in your cell is some form of justice. That said, from my liberal perspective I've always been willing to just accept it at that. But what I don't get is why this is tearing the MAGA movement apart. All MAGAs are Trump supporters, Trump hung out with Epstein, why do they want to potentially expose him as one of those pedophile liberals? Don't get me wrong, I love the show and hope it goes on for a long time. I just don't understand it. Any insight?

(V) & (Z) answer: They don't want to expose Trump; they think that the documents will implicate a large number of prominent Democrats.

---

S.M. in Pratt, KS, asks: One of the things that has kept me going is the thought that Trump would eventually run out of people willing to throw away all their dignity, their integrity and their legacy to serve him. I keep thinking that these people know that history is going to judge them harshly. And yet, there seems to be no end of folks lining up to take part in this administration.

Has it always been like this, and we just don't remember most of these people because their legacy was destroyed? Or is this something new? Has the creation of the right wing echosphere made it so that they will not suffer any consequences for their illegal, unethical, or immoral acts?

(V) & (Z) answer: Plenty of people have suffered consequences, like all the lawyers who participated in schemes to steal the 2020 election, and have now lost their law licenses, while also facing criminal charges.

That said, the sycophants convince themselves that they won't be the ones who get caught, or that if they are they will be let off the hook by the Supreme Court and/or a presidential pardon. Some of them likely also tell themselves that, even if they do end up paying a price, it's worth it.

There are limits, at least for some people, and those limits were on display on just one occasion: after 1/6. Quite a few Trumpers, like Kayleigh McEnany and Hope Hicks, not to mention Trump enablers like Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy, jumped ship when they thought the spell was broken and that Trump had become permanently toxic. They eventually jumped back on board when he rose from the ashes, like a phoenix with a combover. Still, if something happens to wreck Trump again (say, it's proven he had sexual relationships with underage girls), you'll see a bunch of defections again. And this time, they might stick.

---

J.S. in Durham, NC, asks: I cannot even read the news any more. And I am able only to skim your blog posts. All of the news hurts my head. And makes me want to cry and crawl into a hole. (Except the recipes. I like the recipes.) I understand that I need to resist this urge and do whatever I can and make my voice heard.

One thing I have been wondering about for some time now, is whether we are now a fascist nation? I usually stay away from these words because using them only increases division and halts any conversation in its tracks. However, for my own thought processes and understanding, I find it helpful to be able to name things.

(V) & (Z) answer: Donald Trump is a leader with very fascist tendencies, who would love to become a latter-day Mussolini, with all the power and the hero-worship that entails. He is surrounded by enablers like Stephen Miller, who are willing to aid Il Douchey in achieving that goal.

There are some serious obstacles to making that a reality, however. One of those is that the United States is very large, and the larger a nation is, the harder it is to impose one's will with violence.

A second is that Trump, in the end, does not have the spine to do what needs to be done. Adolf Hitler, for example, consolidated his power by ordering that all of his rivals for power be murdered by Hitler's personal police force/bodyguard, on the Night of the Long Knives. Do you really think Trump has the fortitude to order ICE or the Secret Service to kill the Joint Chiefs of Staff? And even if he does, do you think there is any force under Trump's command who would follow that order?

A third is that the United States has a deeply entrenched tradition of federalism, one that predates the Constitution. The states can serve, and many are serving, as a bulwark against Trump's most fascist tendencies. Broadly speaking, the nations that have fallen under the leadership of fascists do not have this federalist tradition.

In short, the U.S. currently has a leader who has fascist tendencies, and who is getting away with some tricks from the fascist playbook (e.g., silencing media critics), but who has not succeeded in imposing anything close to a full-blown fascist regime, and who is unlikely to be able to do so. We would say "pseudo-fascist" is probably the best descriptor available.

---

K.B. in Nashville, TN, asks: My thought is that if many of the items in the BBB do not take effect until 2026, who's to say that a "blue wave," which I hope will happen, won't reverse many of its provisions in the new Congress of 2026?

(V) & (Z) answer: The problem is that any bill passed by a Democratic-led Congress would still have to be signed into law by Donald Trump. He's not going to sign a bill undoing part or all of his "signature" accomplishment, and there's no way the Democrats win enough seats in 2026 to be able to override a Trump veto.

---

E.C.W. in New Orleans, LA, asks: I think reasonable people would agree that there is a significant portion of the electorate that votes primarily on the perceived strength of the economy. Personally, I think it's ignorant and selfish to vote that way, but c'est la vie.

Now, despite making decisions that are objectively terrible for the economy, (an unprovoked global trade war, mass firings, mass deportations, hostility toward allies, corruption, instability, and massive cuts to education, research, and development to name but a few) the DOW and DJT's approval are, more or less, stable in the low 40s. How can this possibly be the case? I understand that there is some market manipulation going on, and economic perception is heavily influenced by partisanship now, but still... there has to be limits right?

(V) & (Z) answer: First, the effects of Trump's policies have not manifest in any meaningful way. Wall Street has made TACO its mantra, and is behaving as if all Trump economic proclamations are just vaporware. And even if the Wall Streeters are wrong, it takes a while for things to ripple throughout the supply chains. Think of how disruptive the pandemic was, and then think how long it took for things to really get screwed up.

Second, Trump's approval is not, in fact, steady. It certainly looks to be trending downward. We have a piece that is coming up this week that will cover this in detail.

---

W.R. in Henderson, NC, asks: Sometimes the tariff discussions with China involve its export of rare earths to the U.S. in sufficient quantities. I understood Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy offered to export rare earths to the U.S. in hopes of securing additional military hardware/ammunitions, etc. If what I read was accurate, why hasn't the Trump administration followed up? It would appear this would push China to be more cooperative, would supply more rare earths to U.S. manufacturers (who seem to have trouble acquiring the quantities they need), and get Ukraine the much needed additional military hardware/ammunitions it needs.

(V) & (Z) answer: Ukraine's rare-earth reserves are not proven; they are hypothesized based on surveys conducted by the Soviet government. That's right, the Soviet government, which tells you how long ago those surveys were conducted (and how primitive the surveying equipment was). Some promising deposits of gold, silver, copper, diamonds, or rare earths pan out, others prove to be much ado about nothing.

And even if the Ukraine's rare earths prove to be legit, the timeline for building a viable extractive industry there is measured in... decades. The most optimistic estimates are about 15 years. So, this is not a short-term, or even medium-term, solution to the United States' needs.

---

M.N. in Lake Ann, MI, asks: I woke up Friday morning to my local NPR station announcing that the House had passed the recession bill, and that the funding has been pulled from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. And... to a fundraising request, which was repeated often throughout the day.

Now, I do support my local NPR station, as well as the local-ish PBS station, and I have no problem with that as a general funding model. However, my dilemma is this: Is it better to go ahead and give more as and when I am able, or to stay with my current level of funding and run the risk of the station going off the air? My understanding is that there will be some lobbying for some potentially limited funding to be added back in the next budget bill, though at this point anything even remotely not MAGA propaganda is probably not going to be funded, and a "budget bill" isn't likely to happen anytime soon. I can't agree with the anti-public broadcasting crowd that NPR and PBS are completely leftist, though I can admit that it may seem like that to someone who consumes a steady diet of Fox or worse, and it isn't my opinion that counts here.

If the NPR and PBS stations immediately make up the lost funding with donations and underwriting or whatever, then won't that prove that the CPB wasn't needed at all, like was being argued in Congress? Shouldn't there be actual consequences for pulling these stunts? Many of the other cuts are designed to happen after the midterms, so this one may be the only one to hit in the near term, and even MAGA kids might watch PBS on occasion. However, I don't want my local stations to go off the air for lack of funds, either. Mine has already changed programming to rely less on the big bucks shows and are running the less expensive ones, or ones produced in house. What is a good supporter of public broadcasting to do?

(V) & (Z) answer: We would suggest you continue your current level of support, or maybe bump your support up a little (maybe 10%).

What is going to happen is that some NPR/PBS outlets will adapt and survive, and others will fail. Eventually, the Democrats will have the trifecta again, and will restore some/most/all of the lost funding. You want to be sure that the outlets you patronize are around when that support kicks back in. The management of NPR/PBS will never, ever, ever learn the "lesson" that they do not need government support, and will lobby very hard for that funding to be reinstated once it's not a waste of time to do so.

Truth be told, what's likely is that NPR/PBS outlets serving red areas (e.g., rural communities) will fail, and those serving blue areas (e.g., cities) will survive. And so, it will be yet another MAGA policy initiative that falls most heavily on MAGA voters.

---

G.B. in Collin County, TX, asks: Why did PBS and NPR end up being two distinct brands with somewhat different focuses as broadcasters (with NPR affiliates being much more focused on journalism than their television counterparts)? I understand that the American public broadcasting system was set up to avoid becoming a single behemoth like the BBC, but that extending to different branding between different media doesn't seem necessary, in my view.

(V) & (Z) answer: We can only speculate, but we'd bet there are two dynamics that were important here. First, when the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was first established (1967), there were many more radio stations than there were TV stations (indeed, PBS was often the "fourth" option for viewers, after the local ABC, CBS and NBC affiliates, assuming a community even had all three). This is a circumstance that pushes the radio programmers to have more "niche" programming, and television programmers to have more broadly accessible programming.

Second, when people listen to the radio, they are usually in their cars or at work, and they do not give their full attention to the programming. So, most of the content has to be information-driven, and broken up into small-ish chunks. If you stop at 7-11 for coffee, or you take a call at your desk, and then you start listening to the NPR broadcast again, you might not know who this banker from Nepal is or why they are talking, but you can pick things up again when the next segment, with the djembe player from Ghana, begins in 5 minutes. On the other hand, if it's an hourlong dramatic presentation, and you fail to learn who Bob Smith the baker is, and why he's important, then you've probably lost any hope of following along until the program is over at the top of the hour. So, dramatic programming does not work so well on the radio, at least not today.

By contrast, most people who are watching TV expect to be passively entertained for 30 or 60 or 90 minutes, and many of them want an "escape" from real life. So, that lends itself to different kinds of programming, while also (potentially) arguing against too much news/current affairs programming.

---

A.A. in South Orange, NJ, asks: Can you please explain why the rescission bill was not subject to the filibuster? I read multiple articles that mention this measure "required only 51 votes to pass the Senate," but do not spell out why.

(V) & (Z) answer: The best-known carve-out, when it comes to the filibuster, is reconciliation bills. The second-best-known is approval of judges. However, there are about 90 other carve-outs, and one of those is rescission bills.

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed after a confrontation with Richard Nixon, wherein he tried to kill certain programs by simply refusing to spend the money that Congress had allocated for them (i.e., "impoundment"). Congress wanted to reassert itself, ideally while avoiding a knock-down, drag-out fight with the President. Further, there were some members of Congress who actually liked the program killings that Nixon was trying to execute.

For both of these reasons, the legislation that settled the dispute said that only Congress can cancel funding it has appropriated, but that it can do so with an unfilibusterable bare majority of votes in the Senate. In other words, this was a way to persuade both Nixon and the budget hawks that the legislation had actual teeth, and that clawbacks wouldn't always just get tied up in filibusters.

---

D.B. in Oak Beach, NY, asks: Elon Musk turns to you and asks, "What five issues can our America Party candidates run on to win elections?" What do you tell him?

(V) & (Z) answer: Those issues do not exist, Elon.

Yes, there are many people who complain about the two-party system, but relatively few of them will actually back that with their votes. Further, the various groups of people who ARE willing to buck the two parties care about very different things. For example, the Libertarians want lower taxes. The Democratic socialists want a much more robust social safety net. These things are in conflict.

So, while you can say "The American political system is broken!" and get a lot of "Huzzahs!", you'll get fewer actual supporters than you think. And then, once you start staking out actual positions on issues, you will alienate a bunch of people who were at least willing to stick around long enough to hear what you have to say.

If there was some political position that appealed to disaffected voters, and that came with no political downsides, one major political party or both would already have adopted that position.

---

G.L. in Oviedo, FL, asks: What are the chances that voters, who are voting on U.S. Senate races, will decide that they no longer like Donald Trump or what he has done and will decide that they need to blunt the effects of the GOP by electing Democrats as U.S. Senators in 2026?

(V) & (Z) answer: The chances are not very high, at least not yet, because the Democrats would have to hold all their seats, plus take the two doable-but-tough seats in Maine and North Carolina, and then find TWO MORE seats to flip (Texas? Iowa? Ohio?).

This said, the elections do not happen in a vacuum, and the results do correlate, at least to an extent. So, the odds of the Democrats flipping the Senate are not zero. And if Trumpism really takes a bite out of the country in the next 12 months, they could get considerably better than "not zero."

---

M.P. in Westbrook, ME, asks: You often mention getting Gov. Janet Mills (D-ME) to run against Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) this year and it is pretty clear she would cause the most "concern" for the sitting senator. But Mills will turn 78 this year and would be 79 when sworn in. Sure, she could then live out the rest of her life in the Senate with two, or even three, terms, but there's a good chance she decides to retire and enjoy life with her family in Maine instead. If that happens, who do you think would be the second-best choice for Democrats to recruit? Bonus question, do you think there is a chance a Trumpy independent could get into the race and have enough effect to help a Democratic candidate?

(V) & (Z) answer: Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are fairly similar, and those three states tend to like their Senate candidates to be: (1) governors, and/or (2) members of the House of Representatives, and/or (3) members of leadership in the state legislature.

Mills would be the "governor." If she declines to run, we presume that next up would be one or both of Maine's two representatives: Chellie Pingree (D) or Jared Golden (D). They have both taken a pass on the Senate race, but if Mills decides against it, they could easily change their minds. We'd guess Golden is more likely to get in, because he constantly has to worry about getting reelected in his R+4 district, while Pingree's D+11 district is a job-for-life, if that's what she wants. Should both of the representatives decide they like their current jobs, then we would guess the next candidates up would be state Senate President Mattie Daughtry (D) or Speaker of the Maine House Ryan Fecteau (D).

Note that three non-Mills Democrats have already declared, but they are unknowns, and would be serious underdogs against any of the five people named in the previous paragraph.

---

S.O.F. in New York City, NY, asks: I've been following all the New Yorkers bickering over the mayoral race. I haven't heard anyone evaluate the role of turn out in the primary. Can you take a stab at explaining what that means for the general election? From what I understand, the race was fairly low turnout on the Democratic side.

(V) & (Z) answer: That is not the case. In the Democratic primary, there were 1,071,659 votes cast, and Zohran Mamdani ended up with 573,123 of those.

Back in 2021, there were 942,031 votes cast in the Democratic primary, of which 404,513 went to eventual nominee Eric Adams. In 2017, there were 437,517 votes cast in the Democratic primary, of which 326,361 went to eventual nominee Bill de Blasio. And in 2013, there were 691,801 votes cast in the Democratic primary, of which 282,344 went to eventual nominee Bill de Blasio.

The outlier here is 2017, since de Blasio was an incumbent and his victory was seen as inevitable. The 2013 and 2017 elections also did not have ranked choice voting, which seems to have driven down turnout, and certainly reduced the number of votes the eventual winner ended up with.

In any event, this year's primary saw an increase in turnout of about 14% over 2021, despite the fact that the population of New York City declined by about 4% over that same timeframe. This suggests there was a lot of interest in the primary, and a lot of support for Mamdani, who personally received about 76% of the total of 753,801 votes that it took for Adams to win the 2021 general election.

---

S.S. in Lucerne, Switzerland, asks: I have a question regarding your analysis on the potential Texas dummymander. You write that the federal requirement for roughly similar population in each district makes a successful gerrymander difficult and pushes an aggressive gerrymander into dummymander territory. That makes a lot of sense, and with any other administration, I'd have no question to ask. But with the current officeholders, what makes you think that they won't ignore the federal requirements and just hope the lawsuits take too much time to resolve before the election?

(V) & (Z) answer: If Texas tries to redraw its maps, the matter WILL end up in court. Questions like "Was this an illegal racial gerrymander?" or "Is this now an illegal racial gerrymander?" are subjective, and can take time to adjudicate.

The question of "Does this district have the correct number of people, as required by federal law?", by contrast, is basically objective, and a gross violation of the rules could be adjudicated in 2 minutes.

If the goal is to drag this out long enough so that there is not time to come up with new maps before the 2026 election, the Republicans will need to put tricky questions before the courts, not questions that are easy-as-pie to answer.

---

C.Z. in Sacramento, CA, asks: How can we best express our outrage over the cancellation of Stephen Colbert by Hair Furor?

(V) & (Z) answer: If you are a Paramount+ (formerly CBS All Access) subscriber, you can cancel your subscription, and tell them why you are doing so. You can also support Colbert in whatever his next project is. Beyond that, we can't think of too much.

Sunday Mailbag

One last set of World War II movie letters.

Politics: The Epstein-Contra Affair

B.H. in Southborough, MA, writes: I believe the Epstein debacle is an excuse for many MAGA supporters, disillusioned by the train wreck that is Trump v2.0, to head for the exits, with some very interesting (to say the least) dynamics to follow.

As much as liberals would like to paint all MAGA supporters as cultists, misinformed, or with some other rationale for supporting the unsupportable, the reason for many is much simpler: wealth inequality. Donald Trump remains the only candidate who has ever called the systemic rerouting of wealth to the richest as it is, and that, along with an empty promise to fix it, was enough to garner widespread support among the poorest 98% or so who have been pretty much screwed by the system since Ronald Reagan. Just replay any Bernie/AOC rally to hear this dynamic described much better that I can here.

Again, counter to the popular leftist thinking, most of these people are inherently reasonable. They work across many industries and are from all geographies and walks of life, and by no means are they all white Christians. They really want Trump to succeed. But even they see the terrible cabinet picks, the grift, the bullying, the abandonment of research and science, the Big, Beautiful Bill (BBB) for what it is (despite the spin), the tariffs and the failure to govern in any coherent or reasonable manner. Worse, the promise of addressing the wealth inequity that got Trump elected in the first place isn't even on the radar—the BBB goes the other way. Had Trump been even remotely competent as a leader, he might have weathered this storm better and given his base a reason to stick with him.

So, many supporters have been looking for way out, whether they've expressed it verbally or not. The Epstein case is a way to abandon support while avoiding dreaded cognitive dissonance; "I thought Trump was the first honest politician but this proves he's just like the hated Democrats and rest of the deep state with something to hide."

Once the base erodes and loses critical mass, many Republican senators and representatives will magically find their spines, no longer afraid of losing the voters they need to get/stay elected. Make no mistake, they hate Trump and/or think he is a complete idiot. His only redeeming quality is the savant-like hold he has on his base, and once that's gone, the dominos fall from there.

If this trend holds, I'll take bets on him being out by mid-next-year at the latest. Where we go from there, who knows?

---

S.G. in Morgantown, WV, writes: Prediction: Pam Bondi takes the fall for the Epstein saga.

Sorry, Pam—it had to be either you or Kash Patel. And given the choice in this administration, it's not going to be the man. Perhaps you can put in a call to U.N. Ambassador Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) and commiserate.

Trump will then state that he would like to release the Epstein information, but his hands are tied due to Bondi's prior actions. The MAGA base will readily accept this, and Trump will escape yet another scandal, completely unscathed.

Bonus prediction: Trump will say that he never wanted Bondi in the first place, but nominated her as a favor to and/or on the advice of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL). The MAGA base and conservative media will run with this, as Bondi is pilloried as a DEI hire. Her career in politics will be over.

Trump will then immediately nominate Matt Gaetz as attorney general, stating that he was his preferred candidate all along. Republican senators, desperate to be free of this nonsense, will quickly vote to approve Gaetz.

---

M.H. in Bellingham, WA, writes: Those of us long enough in the tooth to remember Watergate can recall two main lessons from that scandal, truisms both noted at the time. First, the cover-up is always worse than the "crime." This was certainly true of Richard Nixon, who spent more time, energy, and political capital trying to deny and hide any involvement in the original Watergate break-in, rather than simply admitting a connection between CREEP (Committee to Re-Elect the President) and the burglars (and bug-planters), which could have produced a fall guy and ended the scandal. (As a counter-example, Dwight D. Eisenhower let his Chief of Staff, Sherman Adams, resign after having been found in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about gifts given to his wife. That scandal passed.) We don't know, of course, but the "crime(s)" in the Trump case—the extent of his involvement with Epstein—may be far worse than the efforts to cover it up.

But second, regardless the crime or the cover-up, information let out in dribs and drabs never ends the scandal. To the contrary, it invites more questions and investigations from media. Inquiring minds want to know; salacious ones even more-so. The sharks gather when they smell blood. A heavily redacted report of the grand jury testimony in the Epstein case will do the same; so too will other bits of the scandal as they are revealed. It's not likely to actually go forward, but the lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal would exacerbate matters considerably (with depositions, documents, testimony). Whatever the source of information, this story has legs.

Both these truisms from the Watergate scandal combined to end Nixon's presidency. It does not stretch credulity to imagine such an end to the current scandal. (To that point, it appears a shrewd move on J.D. Vance's part that he is egging on the investigation with his demand that the WSJ make public the "birthday letter" from Trump to Epstein. He too can smell the blood, but his eyes are focused on a different prize.)

---

E.F. in Baltimore, MD, writes: With this WSJ birthday cartoon exposé (and reportedly more where that came from!), this scandal is rapidly approaching meltdown phase. I'm expecting Donald Trump to try the mother of all Friday night news dumps to make this story go away, but it's too late. Releasing everything that doesn't incriminate Trump doesn't exonerate him either.

In later years, some conservative strategists opined that Richard Nixon should have just ignored the courts, burned all the tapes, and dared Congress to do something about it. It couldn't possibly have turned out any worse for him than what did happen. With the lackeys Trump has put in place at DOJ/FBI, I expect a wholesale destruction of Epstein evidence very soon. Open question: Will it be framed as accidental, or intentional?

---

J.D.M. in Cottonwood Shores, TX, writes: A little detail that caught my eye in the latest Heather Cox Richardson letter: The hundreds of CDs/DVDs in Jeffrey Epstein's office were all labeled "Young(name) + (name)". Undoubtedly the FBI, has a list of those labels that would be interesting to the public and to MAGA, in particular (with the young woman's name redacted. of course).

---

K.S. in Harrisburg, PA, writes: Seen at a protest today in Maryland:

---

D.S., Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, writes: From a friend: "He who lives by the sordid, dies by the sordid."

---

D.R.M. in Delray Beach, FL, writes: Oh. Merkin. All this time, I thought he was saying 'Merican. It all makes sense now.

Politics: Trumponomics

E.W. in Seattle, WA, writes: It is curious that the controversies over different food-related programs being cut by the Trump administration never mention the rationale for adoption of the programs in the first place: The programs provided another benefit, a market for the enormous American agricultural production of food encouraged by governmental subsidies given to farmers. These agricultural subsidies provided steady markets (and some price stability) for an important part of the American economy. The domestic food programs followed the incredibly successful Fulbright program, that provided large shipments of food (surplus food for the U.S.) for sale in places where it was needed, such as in India where my father had a Fulbright fellowship in 1960 to teach American history in Indian universities, and where the British never seemed to be fazed by the periodic recurrence of famines (and which were never again experienced after independence). Sales of the food resulted in huge amounts of local currencies being held by the U.S. government, way beyond the scale that could practically be spent for American needs other than the kind of programs Senator Fulbright envisioned.

Similarly, the government faced the same problem domestically. Paying farmers not to grow or destroying food surpluses seemed really distasteful options, so what's not to like with a program which solved two problems at once? So it is apparently better to maintain the agricultural subsidies and let the resulting food rot, and then deny the resulting governmental costs generated by malnutrition? (Oops! I forgot that the Republicans are cutting medical subsidies, as well.)

---

T.K. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, writes: Comparing her to Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), you wrote, "[Sen. Lisa] Murkowski [R-AK] is actually a decent human being."

She delivered the BBB to Trump for a few scraps of pork for Alaska. That will never be forgiven...

---

B.M in Birmingham, AL, writes: In the item "In Congress: Democrats Get Mad, But Not Even," you sarcastically wrote, "The CPB, incidentally, gets about one penny out of every $100 the federal government spends, so cutting that funding in the name of economy is clearly justified."

The government is clearly bloated and wasteful, but there are not too many things that would correct that problem by themselves. It is going to take hundreds of these kinds of cuts to get America back to a balanced budget. This argument needs to be put to rest that because the spending is small we should ignore it. "The frog in a kettle" mentality is how we got in this mess.

(V) & (Z) respond: When the Party responsible for a saving a few billion dollars on public broadcasting is NOT handing out a few trillion dollars in tax cuts, then it might be time to start talking about belt-tightening on the margins.

---

A.G. in Bensalem, PA, writes: Pittston is roughly halfway between Scranton and my worthless hometown of Wilkes-Barre. The employers spent the last half century keeping down wages as educated college students left in a brain drain. The declining anthracite industry fell off in 1970, when Blue Coal in Ashley closed the mines. When I left for the third and last time in 1994, the manufacturing was almost gone. The area is a virtual Catholic West Virginia, so I'm not surprised that J.D. Vance could get away with the fourth version of Reaganomics. The area is heavily dependent on the federal government for help, almost as much as when the Agnes flood visited in 1972 and temporarily halted the decline. You're correct that the bill will hit the area hard, and they deserve it. I don't miss the area, for nearly all my immediate relatives from both sides either have left or are in the ground.

---

C.F. in Waltham, MA, writes: Since Donald Trump first talked about "Black jobs," I knew what he was talking about—that they should be underpaid field workers that had no choice but to be there. He made it clear that it was the immigrants that were causing Black Americans to lose their "Black jobs." What the horrifically racist Trump meant was pretty clear then, but now that migrant workers are being chased away, can there be any doubt where he believes all dark-skinned citizens should be working?

The horrible part is not so much how overtly racist Trump and his appointees are, but that all the Republicans go along with it, and the absolutely worst part is that any Black voter would ever vote for these vile racists and racist enablers. It is beyond me how anyone can vote for or support a leader and party that wants to essentially bring back slavery based on skin color in the form of underpaid workers doing the worst jobs for almost no pay. How can any Black person possibly want to have leaders who see them as sub-human, and not qualified for any type of work that requires intellect (codified by anti-DEI)? It is truly disgusting to me the way these voters have been brainwashed into helping the racist party that hates them get into power.

Politics: Immigration

R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: I went digging into the footnotes in the documentation for Perdomo, et al. v. Noem, et al. and found this interesting tidbit. In addition to arguing that the only way they could think of to enforce immigration law was to violate the Constitution, they also argued that the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was unnecessary since—of course!—they were already obeying the Constitution.

The government then turned right around and argued the plaintiffs should post a $30 million bond to pay for all the retraining that their agents—who, of course, were already following the Fourth Amendment—would need to be able to comply with the order to follow the Fourth Amendment. Are they that stupid or do they think we are that stupid?

---

S.J. in Santa Cruz, CA, writes: Could we all please stop referring to that thing in Florida as "Alligator Alcatraz"? MAGA loves that name and is proud of it, and like all things that jazz MAGA, it's a lie. Why accept and concede to their terminology?

All the prisoners in the original Alcatraz: (1) had been accused of a crime, (2) received due process, and (3) had been convicted of the crime at a trial by jury. None of these conditions applies to that thing in Florida.

The proper nomenclature for that thing in Florida is "Alligator Auschwitz."

---

P.B. in Brussels, Belgium, writes: Shouldn't we begin to call him "Concentration Camp Donald"?

---

T.B. in Salmon Arm, BC, Canada, writes: I'm surprised that no one is pointing out Superman is a Dreamer.

He was sent to the U.S. as an infant without prior permission or paperwork from the U.S. government. I don't think even a comic book reader would believe the Kents could have filled out truthful paperwork to make him a legal resident and be allowed to keep him.

So, he is an illegal immigrant, who came to America as a child, hiding from the authorities.

Politics: Foreign Affairs

J.B. in Bend, OR, writes: I think I know why Donald Trump has apparently done an about-face in his relationship with Vladimir Putin: The New York Times recently reported on how Trump has managed to solve numerous serious financial problems by monetizing his second term. Prior to this term, his various enterprises were apparently in very bad shape, but thanks to grifting and using the presidency to line his pockets, things are going much better.

In short, previously Trump needed Putin, and Putin probably kept dangling fabulous "deals" to keep Trump in line. Now Trump doesn't need Putin's money, so as he does with everyone, Trump has turned on him. However, should something go wrong (as in, Trump making the usual bad business decisions), I would expect him to make up with Putin very quickly.

---

C.S. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: I disagree with your choice "This Week in Schadenfreude." Getting NATO members to pay more has been a goal of multiple U.S. administrations. It's one of the few Trump policies that he is correct on (though his reasoning and methods leave much to be desired). If we have established that Vladimir Putin is bad, Ukraine is fighting for its life, and the U.S. with a President Trump and a large isolationist wing can't be trusted, then we should not be encouraging this type of malicious compliance.

---

B.H. in Sherman Oaks, CA, writes: In this week's Schadenfreude item, (Z) wrote "Of course, if Trump takes the bait, then all the other NATO countries are going to quickly 'discover' the military applications of the bridges, roads, airports, subways, public housing and other projects they were already planning to build."

I wouldn't pooh-pooh so easily the military importance of airports. As we all know, the outcome of the Revolutionary War was in serious doubt until the U.S. forces under Washington defeated the British once and for all at the Battle of the Airports. If it wasn't for that, you'd be speaking English right now.

And to think you consider yourself a historian!

Politics: Texas Flood

P.S. in North Las Vegas, NV, writes: Your assertion that the Texas flood issue will fade away in the eyes of the Republican Party have somewhat of a flaw. Even as we speak, there is an unorganized system expected to develop in the Gulf of MEXICO this week. Chances are this pressure system could develop into a tropical depression. The system will undoubtedly contain copious amounts of moisture and rainfall, rising the sea level and windspeed. If the system moves north and impacts the coast perpendicular to the coastline (especially near Louisiana), there will undoubtedly be flooding and potential lives lost.

And remember, it is only mid-July. The height of hurricane season is yet to come, especially once trade wind activity off of Africa starts producing waves that "march" across the Atlantic. When that starts to happen, this story will appear again. Stay tuned and visit the National Hurricane Center daily... unless, of course, the Administration shuts it down.

---

W.P. in Santa Cruz, CA, writes: Who is to blame for the tragic losses in the Texas flooding? To Donald Trump, the answer is as clear as it is consistent: Joe Biden. Back here in reality, there are many correct answers, but one that is overlooked are the people of Texas. They value freedom, including freedom from taxes and freedom from regulation. Texas has attracted many people to their state looking for lower costs and less burdensome regulation.

There is a downside to lower taxes and reduced regulation. Sometimes things go wrong, and you need government to help. For example, if you get biblical storms, a robust warning system is essential. Solid land-use planning in a flood zone brings regulatory burdens, but can also be quite helpful in a flood.

To some, "government spending" is interchangeable with "waste, fraud and abuse." When that attitude is dominant in a state, and every contract goes to the lowest bidder, and everything that can be deferred will be deferred, people develop a higher tolerance for tragedy.

---

R.H. in Akron, OH, writes: It isn't unusual to try and get properties taken off the 100-year flood plain. Properties usually are required to perform remediations in order to protect from a 100-year event in order to get the waiver. This is ultimately about whether a property is required to have national flood insurance coverage (yes, if in the 100-year plain, no if not). It has nothing to do with safety.

What is telling is that after the 1987 flood that killed 10 people, a siren alarm system was installed in the region. It was out of commission by 1999. The people that died at Camp Mystic died because the locals didn't want to pay for that alarm system and because those running the camp didn't pay enough attention to the snowballing warning signs.

Politics: Demography

D.H. in Boston, MA, writes: F.R. in Evergreen asked if there were any trends that might move the U.S. in a "peace and love" direction, away from Trumplandia.

Since last year's election, I've been looking around for something to feel optimistic about. One thing I noticed is how generational cohorts are voting. In 2004, Americans aged 30-44 voted decisively for George W. Bush (53%-46%). In 2024, Americans aged 30-39 voted for Kamala Harris (51%-46%), and Americans aged 40-49 were tied (49%-49%).

Unfortunately, the age ranges don't line up perfectly, but it does look like Millennials aged 30-44 in 2024 voted significantly more Democratic than the Boomers and Gen Xers aged 30-44 in 2004. It looks to me like the 30-44 age cohort in 2004 voted fairly strongly for Bush, and then became an age cohort of 50-64 that voted fairly strongly for Trump in 2024 (by 56%-43%). As that cohort ages and members of it die, Millennials should start voting in larger numbers (if historical trends continue). If they continue to lean Democratic, it would make it harder for a Trump-like candidate to win.

I'm not claiming those exit poll numbers mean everything's going to be all right anytime soon. It could take 10 or 20 years before we see the effects of demographic change, and obviously a lot of other factors go into an election. But it's one thing that gives me a little hope.

Politics: Colbert

T.G. in Salem, OR, writes: Now that CBS has canceled The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, maybe Colbert will decide to run for Senate next year in South Carolina against Lindsey Graham.

Wouldn't THAT be fun to watch?

---

G.A. in Albany, NY, writes: Regarding your statement: "Further, it did ax the late-night program that came after Colbert a few weeks ago. So maybe it really was just a business decision."

There is an additional event that colors the cancellation of that show (After Midnight). The host of that show was Taylor Tomlinson, a very popular stand-up comedian. The show was actually renewed for a third season, but after the renewal was announced, Tomlinson decided that continuing as host of the show didn't fit the career arc that she had planned. She notified CBS that she was not coming back for the third season, and that she preferred to return to her career as a standup comedian.

The show would need to be retooled for a new host, viewership was middling, and rather than go through that unexpected effort and expense, CBS apparently decided to retract the renewal.

---

R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: I think perhaps the best thing to come out of the COVID pandemic and associated lockdowns was our introduction to Stephen Colbert's wife, Evie (apologies, it's not clear to me what last name she uses). I love watching them together. You can almost see the love sparking between them. In the beforetimes, Stephen would call someone out of the audience to be his foil for his "First Drafts" segment of cards for various holidays throughout the year, but now it's only Evie. And appropriately so.

Politics: Never Forget

M.S. Highland Park, IL, writes: I was so happy to see your Never Forget entry on the USS Dorchester. The grandfather of J.S. In Dayton survived. My grandfather's beloved cousin, who was more of a brother than anything else, as they were raised together, died on the Dorchester. I wept reading about J.S.'s grandfather. May his memory, and that of my grandfather and his cousin, be a blessing.

---

T.R., Hillsborough, NH, writes: I was intrigued to see the recent "Never Forget" reminiscence from J.S. in Dayton, which mentioned the tragedy of the Four Chaplains.

I became acquainted with this bit of history myself some years ago as the result of a hike to the high point in Deering, NH, named Clark Summit. Originally named Wolf Hill, it was renamed Clark Summit in honor of one of the Four Chaplains, Clark Poling. Although not originally from the state, he had spent some of his youth in Deering, and apparently found peace and meaning at the summit of Wolf Hill.

There is a memorial plaque at the summit, accessible only by foot trail. The other three chaplains are also mentioned.

I find it interesting that the former Wolf Hill now bears the name "Clark Summit" rather than "Poling Summit," though I have not found a good explanation as to why this is so.

In a war full of tales of sacrifice, the story of the Four Chaplains stands out for me as an example of bravery and selflessness in the face of death.

All Politics Is Local

M.A.N., Falls Church, VA, writes: I'm a Virginia registered voter. I recently received a telephone call from a pollster regarding the Virginia gubernatorial election and it was, in a word, ridiculous.

As I listened to the questions, it became apparent very quickly that it was a slanted poll with questions like: "If you knew that Abigail Spanberger supported legislation that would increase inflation, would that make you MORE likely to vote for her, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not likely at all?"

There were about a half-dozen more weighted questions and I started asking what organization the pollster worked for, but she insisted and said my voice was very important, yadda, yadda, yadda.

It wasn't until the end that she admitted that it was a poll sponsored by the Republican Governors Association. The poll was total garbage. But at least my co-worker who was eavesdropping—we were all at our annual meeting in San Francisco and this occurred in our staff office—found the whole exchange very entertaining! Ha, ha!

---

T.M.M. in Odessa, MO, writes: As your item suggests, it is not easy to redraw an already heavily gerrymandered map to make an even more heavily gerrymandered map.

The two south Texas districts that Republicans would like to take—TX-28 and TX-34—are bordered by four Republican-held seats, namely TX-15, TX-21, TX-23 and TX-27. Currently, TX-15 (a narrow wedge between the two districts) is R+7, TX-21 (northern San Antonio to Austin) is R+11, TX-23 (basically everything in south Texas west of the two districts all the way to El Paso) is R+7, and TX-25 (northeast of the two districts) is R+14. That leaves you very little room to take Republicans out of those three districts without putting one or two of them at risk. Maybe, you could take Republicans out of TX-20 (D+11) or TX-35 (D+19) in San Antonio but that would put those seats even further out of reach of the Republican goal of picking up five seats.

Similarly, the third district on the target list is the D+11 TX-16, which is the island of El Paso surrounded by the previously noted R+7 TX-23. How you gain 11% in TX-16 without losing TX-23 requires higher math than I was taught.

Just considering these three districts, gaining those two seats would require a massive redrawing of the maps in a way that screams "take a closer look" or would only marginally improve the Republicans' chances in a handful of swing districts while creating more swing districts (basically reversing the 2021 decision by Republicans that they wanted to lock up as many districts and minimize the number of seats that could be lost in a wave election). If I am a Republican member of the Texas delegation, I would be screaming "Don't mess up our big beautiful map that we already have or you will guarantee that Republicans lose the House!"

---

D.A. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: That was really good coverage of the New York City mayoral election. I think your correspondents are making helpful contributions, with J.E.'s numerical analysis fairly spot-on. I want to add one other point. NYC is a union town, and the unions seem to be coalescing around Mamdani. This includes some pretty centrist public-sector unions like the AFSCME's DC-37 and the AFT's UFT, but also the downright conservative unions represented in the Central Labor Council. Does that mean our unions have gone "red" (in the left-wing sense)? Not one bit. I think they've made the same calculation as J.E. and want to be on the winning side, in the obvious hope of achieving some influence.

But regardless of motive: Their early endorsement is a huge boost to a campaign that already has momentum.

The real question is not whether Mamdani will win (he will), but how on earth will he govern? Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) is definitely a hostile, and from Wall Street to the PBA to pro-Israel groups, he will face a lot of challenges.

---

K.H. in Ypsilanti, MI, writes: I have to say, as a former reporter with no strong feelings one way or the other about Mamdani's candidacy, I thought the New York Times article about his Columbia University application was pretty far from a hit piece or "gotcha" article. If anything, the reporters went out of their way to tell Mamdani's side of the story and note the complexity of his background, while acknowledging the insufficiency of the check-off box system in describing someone like him.

The fact the tip came from a right-wing mudslinger makes little difference—the information is relevant and had been made public, so it would be unethical for the NYT to sit on it—and they made it clear the guy has an ax to grind. Mayor Adams' remarks calling Mamdani's action an insult is buried way down toward the end of the article, so you can't say they were playing that up. And they left it up to readers to decide how they feel about Mamdani's choice, without advocating for one view or another. So I thought they handled the matter quite fairly.

World War II Movies, Part IV

B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: Excellent World War II movie list. I won't ask you to explain why you overlooked Tora! Tora! Tora! Our family has always been partial to Mr. Roberts. Personal favorite: The Dam Busters. Does Foreign Correspondent count as a WWII film? It should.

Should WWII comedy films be a separate category? Bit of a niche, but you can include The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, Christmas in Connecticut, The Dough Girls, and The Great Dictator. Also the greatest WWII comedy of them all, Miracle at Morgan's Creek.

Best WWII movie, Romance Category: Mrs. Miniver.

I guess that as an historian, you refused to include Where Eagles Dare just because the clever Nazis have gotten their hands on a Bell 47 helicopter manufactured in Texas after World War II was over. Picky, picky.

Any chance you could send your list to Turner Classic Movies? Somehow, their programmers think that Veterans Day and Memorial Day are just perfect for showing The Dirty Dozen and Kelly's Heroes.

In a way, the greatest World War II film ever is The Best Years of Our Lives.

I note, with great interest and some disappointment, that you did not include The Sound of Music. Singing children, surrounded by Alps, defeat the Nazis! What more do you people want?

---

C.B. in Golden, CO, writes: Grave of the Fireflies by Isao Takahata and Studio Ghibli is not for the faint of heart.

It's anime. It's Japanese. It has a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It's also so painful that I've never made it all the way through, but then, once upon a time, I taught public junior high school in Osaka.

But it belongs on any list of great World War II movies. You can find it on Netflix.

---

M.S. in Westchester County, NY, writes: Where is From Here to Eternity? The beach scene is hot and Burt Lancaster was very hot. For that scene alone, it is one of my favorite movies. On the more thematic side, our unpreparedness at Pearl Harbor is explained by the existence of an upper echelon which is more concerned with petty (literally) fights than actual training for war. It is also interesting that the Frank Sinatra character, who is clearly ethnic, is portrayed very sympathetically. That message from the movie—forget where we came from or whom we worship, we have a war to be won, and America, the ultimate melting pot, will defeat the Axis' fascist powers. Based upon a best-selling novel, it is a great movie.

---

B.B. in Dothan, AL, writes: I always liked The Birdmen.

---

C.K.S. in Berkeley, CA, writes: A good selection, but for me, A Midnight Clear must be included in any such list... if you haven't seen it, find it and watch.

---

R.C. in Des Moines, IA, writes: I loved your list of best movies about World War II. I've seen most of them and agree they should be on any such list. Some movies I thought about before reading your list:

The Best Years of Our Lives: As with A League of Their Own, this one shows the home front, but after the war is over and the individual prices paid by not only the soldiers but their loved ones at home. Beloved by my mom.

Battleground: I include this because it was one of my parents' favorites, especially my mom. They were born in 1935 and 1936 so this movie was formidable for them after World War II overshadowed their childhoods.

Stalag 17 and The Great Escape: Fantastic casts. I was inspired by the courage and the defiant, never-say-die attitude of the men held as POW's by the Germans. Both movies I'd seen as a kid and fell in love with them because of the adventure. But watching them again as an adult after my reading/studying about the war gave me deeper understanding of the sacrifice and human toll of the war, and so both these resonate on a deeper level now.

The Caine Mutiny: A great courtroom drama on top of everything else. Humphrey Bogart's portrayal of the paranoid and increasingly unstable Lieutenant Commander Queeq's progressive breakdown has to be one of Bogie's greatest performances. Another of my parents' favorites.

The Guns of Navarone: My dad first showed this to me at about age 9 (around the same time my parents introduced me to The Bridge on the River Kwai) and I was dazzled by the caper aspect of the plot. I know it is completely fictional but it's a great story and the cast is fantastic. I remember Dad and I sharing the exhilaration of the adventure portrayed.

The Longest Day: One of my college buddies loved this film and would rent it a couple of times a year from the little video store down the street. We'd tease him for his obsession but the rest of us always wound up being quickly engrossed by it.

Midway: I experienced this movie in the "startling multi-dimension of SENSURROUND," which was stupendous technology for my boyhood sensory receptors. It gave more weight to the sound of the planes, especially as they idled on the deck of the carriers and the pilots took off to meet their fates/destinies. The little melodramatic sideshow involving Chuck Heston and his son notwithstanding (although I guess some credit should be given to the filmmakers for at least including the shameful internment of Japanese Americans, even if handled poorly), my 10-year-old self was engrossed in the machinations of both sides leading up to the climactic battle. So much so that this, along with the next movie, sparked my lifelong interest in WWII history and also inspired my first research paper in 9th grade on the Battle of Midway. I got an A!

A Bridge Too Far: My dad took my brother and me to see this, so I have fond memories of that aspect of the experience. Although this movie wasn't particularly well received by critics, I loved it for the peek at strategy, as the big maps on walls transfixed me. I was dazzled by the cast, which included some of my all-time favorite actors like Michael Caine, Elliot Gould, James Caan, Sean Connery and Gene Hackman. I find myself returning to this movie every couple of years and I am enthralled by it each time.

Saving Private Ryan: I understand why some people have a problem with this movie. But I've never been affected by a movie as much as this one on an emotional level. Tom Hanks' final line, "Earn this," and the elderly Private Ryan's reflection on his life as he visits Capt. Miller's grave asking his family if he's a good man reduced me to tears as I simultaneously experienced patriotic pride, gratefulness, and shame (at doubting whether I had earned what the men who died saving democracy provided us). I sat in my car for about 10 minutes shaken by the emotions.

Dunkirk: This is the last movie I went to see in the theater with my mom—who would go into assisted living later that year—giving it enormous sentimental value for me. I liked the cast and the epic nature of the movie and that the emotional weight was achieved absent melodramatic manipulation.

These movies have stayed with me for so long because of the personal feelings I associate with each one and most of them involved family or close friends. None of these are meant as replacements for any of the selections you made. I just wanted to share some of the World War II movies that are important to me and why they are special.

Role Models

J.S. in Durham, NC, writes: I read your item on Hank Aaron. And I thought you would like to know that the folk singer John McCutcheon has a song about Hank Aaron called "The Hammer":

I am not a sports fan, and I love this song, for many reasons.

---

R.S. in Ticonderoga, NY, writes: Your Freudenfreude piece on Mister Rogers brought back some great memories. Growing up in the early 1970s in mountainous northern New York, we only received two TV stations—a CBS affiliate and a PBS station. Sesame Street and Mister Rogers' Neighborhood were both a part of my after-school routine.

Fast forward 35 years or so. I was the guest of an AM radio station's morning show to talk about upcoming events at a historic site I worked at when into the "green room" walked Officer Clemmons! Not only did I get to meet and talk with him, but I was invited to stay on the air when he was interviewed. And to top it off, he sang "Won't You be My Neighbor" to me, on the air! Fran¸ois was so kind and congenial. Thanks for triggering a great memory.

---

C.R. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: Being from Pittsburgh, and having grown up with Mister Rogers and his team of gifted television writers and performers, I was delighted to watch the clip that you provided of him testifying before the Senate Subcommittee. He might have given Senator Pastore goosebumps but he had me in tears. We grieved at his passing, yes, and we eternally hope that someone will turn up to continue his work. We will remember him always.

How I wish we had some strategy to stop the current administration in its tracks from stripping our rights, our food, our healthcare, and the safety of our children. Thank you, (V) and (Z) for keeping us informed every day and especially for providing a bit of freudenfreude when we really need it.

---

A.G, in Scranton, PA, writes: That would've been an interesting show, Mister Rogers channeling his R. Lee Ermey (a complete sellout, if you ask me) to help little kids understand why jelly donuts aren't allowed outside of the mess hall, in the barracks, or in the mouths of disgusting, fat-body children.

That would be the sort of Republican the Trump fanatics would want him to be, but only because they could never possibly understand that DIs aren't cruel with no purpose, that what they offer for people willingly volunteering to serve and able to quit is something none of them are remotely capable of, because it is a noble endeavor that puts the good of others before the good of the self... you know, that most detestable quality of socialism.

While I cannot imagine Fred Rogers as a Republican in the same stripe of the Republican male since 2008, I can very well imagine him to still have the spirit of a United States Marine.

(V) & (Z) respond: Just to make sure everyone follows, Ermey, himself a former drill sergeant, played the drill sergeant in the movie Full Metal Jacket. In the first act of that movie, a key scene involves his abuse of an overweight, "fat-body" recruit named Gomer Pyle, who stole a jelly donut from the mess hall. Meanwhile, there is a longstanding, but completely untrue, urban legend that Mister Rogers was once a Marine sniper.

Gallimaufry

B.C. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: I must apologize, profusely, to M.M. in San Diego, and to all Kiwis everywhere, for lumping them under the title of "British." By way of excuse, I am overly wordy by nature, and was looking for a succinct way of describing the genre of thoughtful, engaging detective shows which go against the grain of mindless American shoot 'em up cop shows. As is usual in this situation, I failed miserably.

M.M. caused me to think of other, non-American crime dramas in this genre that I have enjoyed. Although it has a lot of action sequences, Arctic Circle, a Finnish-German product, would fit in this TV category. And I would be remiss if I failed to mention the Murdoch Mysteries, out of Canada. Don't wanna git them folks to the north ticked off at me before they invade sometime in the next few years!

Maybe I should coin an acronym for this genre. How about MACSOS, for Mindless American Cop Show Objurgation Series?

Final Words

D.H. in Boston, MA, writes: From a physics textbook called States of Matter" by David Goodstein: "Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the same work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study statistical mechanics."

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

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger