Donald and Elon: The Thrill Is Gone

It took a while to arrange the second Muhammad Ali-Joe Frazier rematch, but everyone knew it would happen eventually, which gave the world the Thrilla in Manila. It took rather less time for Donald Trump and Elon Musk to descend into open warfare, but everyone knew it would happen eventually, and now it has.

We already wrote about the tensions between the (former) co-presidents earlier this week, and we really didn't expect to address it again, since the two men are both blowhards who often blurt out whatever notion comes into their heads. In other words, where's the news? But, boy howdy, we did not anticipate that it would turn this ugly this fast, thus becoming headline fodder around the world.

The ostensible source of their disagreement is the big, beautiful budget bill, which will increase, and arguably even explode, the deficit, and with it the national debt. This obviously runs contrary to what Musk claimed he was doing at DOGE. It is probable the South African is also unhappy with the cuts to electric vehicle subsidies. There's also surely an underlying "this country isn't big enough for the two of us" dynamic, since both men love the spotlight, hate sharing it, and see the other as a rival for the title of "alpha dog." Anyhow, here's a play-by-play of yesterday's pissing contest:

1. Trump got the ball rolling, telling reporters (and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz) that he is "very disappointed" in Musk, and that the now-former DOGEy has a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
   
   
2. Musk fired back that, without him, Trump would have lost the presidential election, and the Republicans would have lost the House of Representatives (and would only have a 51-49 margin in the Senate).
   
   
3. Trump retorted that he would have won the election easily, with or without Musk's help, and said that maybe the best way to save money is to cancel the contracts that the government has awarded to Musk's companies. It's not known exactly how much money is in play here, since some of the contracts are classified, but the best guess is that it's somewhere between $40 billion and $50 billion.
   
   
4. In response, Musk threatened that his company SpaceX might just decommission its Dragon spacecraft. Those ships are how NASA astronauts get to the International Space Station, and if they become unavailable, then the U.S. government would have to pay Russia to provide transportation. Which, from the President's standpoint, might be a feature, and not a bug. A short while later, Musk suggested that Trump should be impeached.
   
   
5. Irritated by this, Trump announced that Musk had been "wearing thin" during his time as part of the administration, and that he (Trump) had asked Musk to leave.
   
   
6. Musk, who was using eX-Twitter for all of this, by the way, fired off a tweet in which he said that claim is "an obvious lie" and "sad." He then announced that it was "Time to drop the really big bomb," and sent out a tweet in which he claimed that the reason the Jeffrey Epstein files remain sealed is that Trump's name is all over them. This carries the implication that making them public would out the President as a pedophile.

To quote Ron Burgundy: "Boy, that escalated quickly. I mean, that really got out of hand fast."

Of course, he who lives by the social media—and both of these men certainly do—dies by the social media. We don't like to overdo it on these meme roundups, and we just did one about a week ago, but... it really gives a sense of the zeitgeist. So, here's a baker's dozen of some of the biting memes that were making the rounds yesterday (thanks to reader S.K. in Los Angeles, CA, for assisting):

All-Purpose: The Cybertruck can be made to work for nearly any meme-worthy occasion. It's just an added bonus when the meme-worthy occasion actually involves Elon Musk.

---

Buyer's Remorse: Trump's worst purchase since he bought Trump International Hotel in Washington?

---

Let's Go to the Movies: We would have gone with Fatal Attraction.

---

One for the Kiddies: To understand this one, you have to know that the photo that Musk's head has been photoshopped onto is of musician Kendrick Lamar, who has recently gotten in the habit of accusing fellow musician Drake of being a pedophile.

---

One for the Historians: And to understand THIS one, you have to know that the original photos show Joseph Stalin, and Nikolai Yezhov, the head of the Soviet police who conducted a campaign of terror for a couple of years. Eventually, Stalin accused Yezhov of treason, had him executed, and then had him disappeared from all photos in which the two men appeared together.

---

The Internet Is Forever: People often come to regret things they tweeted in the past. And folks around the world have been combing through Musk's old tweets to make sure he's in that group.

---

About that "Straight Man" Part...: There are dozens of variants of this basic observation out there right now (emphasis on "out").

---

Foreign Affairs, Part I: This was not created in response to this particular incident, but found new life yesterday.

---

Foreign Affairs, Part II: This one, on the other hand, WAS created this week.

---

Lady Liberty: There are dozens of popcorn memes. This one is particularly popular (and people are also circulating the opening shot of the Michael Jackson 'Thriller' video).

---

You Say Tomato...: Not necessarily the bipartisanship one would hope for.

---

A Song of Ice and Fire: It's remarkable how relevant Game of Thrones is to the current administration. You might even call it an allegory.

---

And Finally...: This IS the most important question, after all.

In short, the world (or, at least, the online world) is watching... and enjoying.

That is not to say that everyone is enjoying the show, however. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) knows very well that he's got a hothead in the White House who often does much damage with one ill-considered tweet. So, Johnson has worked hard to cultivate a warm relationship with Trump, in hopes of stopping that from happening (at least, with House business). Now, the Speaker has a second hothead who can do damage, and that hothead just so happens to be opposed to the budget bill that Johnson just shepherded through the House with virtually no votes to spare, and that he will have to try to get through the House again once the Senate takes a meat cleaver to it. So, the Louisianan is currently beside himself.

Meanwhile, there are certainly Republicans in both chambers who are happy to have a budget-hawk champion who is making a lot of noise and taking all the flak. However, they are also hoping this squabble doesn't go on for TOO long, and doesn't turn into TOO much of a hot war. They do not want to choose between the guy who has hundreds of billions of dollars and a social-media flamethrower and the guy who has the bully pulpit and no qualms about going after a member he deems to be "disloyal."

For the Democrats, by contrast, things are a little easier. They can sit back and enjoy the show, of course. Beyond that, while there are some folks out there suggesting the Democrats should reach out to the South African and try to bring him (back) into the tent (we wrote about two of them on Monday), it really doesn't make much sense. Yesterday, a quartet of writers for The Bulwark wrote a piece headlined "Dear Dems, Don't Welcome Elon Back," in which they point out that he's very unpopular, he's not at all aligned with the blue team on policy, and, oh yeah, he's a fascist and a racist. To that, we would add a few things: (1) He's too mercurial a basket to put your eggs in, (2) He's useless when it comes to verbal/moral persuasion, and as Wisconsin showed, his money doesn't actually help all that much; (3) the Democrats are trying to differentiate themselves from the Republicans right now, and hugging Musk close is NOT the way to do that; (4) the Democrats are going to get most of the benefit of his temper tantrums whether he's inside or outside their tent; and (5) oh yeah, he's a fascist and a racist.

Our guess is that, as much as people are enjoying this particular catfight, it won't last, and Trump and Musk will eventually reach some form of uneasy truce. Trump really doesn't need an external X-factor (or eX-Twitter factor) creating trouble during an already difficult budget fight. Plus, Trump has been known to use private DMs on Twitter to communicate various things, and so who knows what dirt Musk might have in his back pocket. Musk, for his part, really cannot afford to lose those government contracts. Plus, he's taking a huge hit in the wallet right now, because of his now-rocky relationship with the administration. Since Musk began carping about the budget bill, Tesla shares have fallen 16%, which is a loss of about $34 billion for him. Almost $27 billion of that was lost just yesterday.

Incidentally, we considered the possibility that Musk and Trump—both well-known wrestling fans—are just putting on a little kayfabe for the masses. But we just can't make sense of that possibility. They're not clever enough to pull it off, we think, and their egos definitely can't handle a heel turn, no matter how brief it might be. Plus, would Musk take an 11-figure hit for benefit of political theater? Finally, what would be the benefit of such a show? It just doesn't add up, so we dismissed the possibility. That said, we mention it in case readers can make it make sense.

While we are at it, we will also note there is a squabble underway on the other side of the aisle, as well, though it's not getting even a tenth of the attention. Karine Jean-Pierre, who served as White House Press Secretary for almost 3 years of Joe Biden's presidency, announced this week that she's left the Democratic Party and re-registered as an independent. In response, several other Biden White House insiders badmouthed her and her work as press secretary. For example, Tim Wu, who was a senior policy adviser, sent a tweet (later deleted) in which he wrote: "From WH policy staff perspective, the real problem with Karine Jean-Pierre was that she was kinda dumb. No interest in understanding harder topics. Just gave random incoherent answers on policy." Another person, who chose to remain unnamed, said Jean-Pierre was "One of the most ineffectual and unprepared people I've ever worked with."

The media cannot resist a good "Democrats in disarray" story, so it's no surprise that they're devoting some of their (non-Musk-Trump feud) column inches to this. But our reaction when we first heard the news, and our reaction still, is: Who cares? First, she was a relatively low-level member of the Biden administration. If one of his Cabinet secretaries jumped ship, THAT might be worth paying attention to. Second, the difference between "registered independent" and "registered Democrat" is a pretty thin one, especially since Jean-Pierre reportedly now resides in Virginia, which is an open primary state. If she said she was planning to vote MAGA in the next election, that would be meaningful, but she did not say that. Third, and finally, Jean-Pierre used this news to also tell people that she just so happens to have a book coming out about her time in the White House. That means that we're not exactly talking about a heartfelt, come to Jesus moment here. More like a "How can I maximize my odds of getting on the NYT Best Sellers list?" moment. Anyhow, it's political news, so we pass it on, but again, we don't assign much significance to it. (Z)

Legal News: Another One Bites the Dust

There's been a fair bit of news, courtesy of the judicial branch, in the last couple of days. Much of it came from the Supreme Court; what was remarkable there was... how unremarkable the rulings are! They were mostly unanimous! Maybe the Court took pity on the country and wanted to give us a break from all the drama. Anyhow, here is a rundown of the biggest legal news (including the three most notable of the six decisions the Supremes handed down):

• SCOTUS, Part I: The case that's getting the most attention is Ames v. Ohio Youth Department, which was brought by a straight woman named Marlean Ames who said she lost a promotion and was demoted due to a bias against straight people in her workplace, and that the jobs she wanted were given to two gay men, instead. Despite the fact that the people making the hiring/promoting decisions were themselves straight, she argued that she had been unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation.
  
  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had dismissed the suit on summary judgment, finding that she could not establish a prima facie case, the first step in a discrimination claim, without satisfying a higher evidentiary standard than is required for cases involving traditionally marginalized groups. Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for a unanimous court, reversed the Sixth Circuit. The Supremes found that it is a violation of Title VII to require Ames to satisfy a higher evidentiary standard than is required of members of minority groups. "Our case law thus makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group," Jackson noted. SCOTUS remanded the case back to the Sixth Circuit to evaluate the motion for summary judgment in light of the Court's holding.
  
  Presumably, this claim will now survive summary judgment and get in front of a jury, but the plaintiff still has a long way to go to win her case. Under what's called the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, there is a three-step inquiry. The first step is whether the plaintiff can produce enough evidence to support an inference of a discriminatory motive; the second step shifts the burden to the defendant to rebut that initial showing; and the third step rests with the plaintiff to show that the asserted justification was a pretext for intentional discrimination. Obviously, that third step is the most difficult to prove—there is rarely a "smoking gun" in these situations. The SCOTUS ruling points out that the first step is not onerous: "A plaintiff may satisfy it simply by presenting evidence 'that she applied for an available position for which she was qualified, but was rejected under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination." All that SCOTUS said yesterday was that Title VII claims do not require members of majority groups to show more to get past that initial step.
  
  Some commenters believe this will result in more reverse-discrimination lawsuits and weaken efforts to increase diversity in the workplace. We have a different take and believe it simply creates a more uniform approach to discrimination claims across all the federal circuits under Title VII. Most circuits already apply the standard that members of majority groups do not have to meet a burden higher than those for minority groups, so we're not convinced this decision will open the floodgates to lots of white men bringing reverse discrimination claims against DEI policies. In fact, even under this less rigorous standard, it's possible Ames' case will still be thrown out. At oral argument, Ohio Solicitor General T. Elliot Gaiser said "Ames's claim would have failed regardless of the standard because she was not able to marshal evidence of anti-straight bias. Ames said in an interview that no one at the state agency made derogatory comments about her sexual orientation and she was unaware of any other instances of alleged discrimination against straight people in the department."
  
  
• SCOTUS, Part II: The Supremes also issued a decision in Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission. At issue was a Wisconsin law, which grants an exemption to the state's unemployment tax for employers that operate "primarily for religious purposes." Catholic Charities is obviously religious in nature (note the "Catholic" in the name), but the work it does is primarily secular (e.g., soup kitchens for unhomed people). So, Wisconsin denied the exemption. This despite the fact that a similar (Protestant) group, which performs many of the same functions but also proselytizes their religion, was granted the exemption.
  
  This could theoretically have been a BIG case in which SCOTUS made a BIG statement about religious groups and the extent to which they must adhere to state laws. However, the justices chose to keep things very narrow. The unanimous decision of the Court, written by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, found that Catholic Charities is entitled to the exemption, and that the denial amounted to religious discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. Sotomayor held that the denial of the exemption, based on the fact that Catholic Charities USA does not engage in proselytizing, which the religion specifically prohibits, "thus grants a denominational preference by explicitly differentiating between religions based on theological practices. There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one" of them.
  
  
• SCOTUS, Part III: The Supremes also dismissed a suit brought by the Mexican government, one that attempts to hold gun manufacturers liable for violence committed by U.S.-made weapons. Associate Justice Elena Kagan, writing for a (once again) unanimous court, reiterated that a 2005 federal law shields the gun industry from lawsuits based on the misuse of guns by others. Congress intended to deny these types of "downstream damages" with the passage of that law, and the dismissal of the suit is consistent with the law's purpose. So, she observed, if you want the gun industry to answer for the violence caused by the weapons it makes, write your member of Congress and get the law changed.
  
  
• Another One Bites the Dust: This is actually the legal development that the headline refers to. Donald Trump tried to deny Harvard University's right to enroll foreign-born students a couple of weeks ago, Harvard had its request for an injunction filed at the start of business the next morning, and a judge granted the request about an hour later. Yesterday, it happened again, with the same judge (U.S. District Court Judge Allison D. Burroughs) extending her injunction to cover the new executive order from Trump, in addition to the previous revocation of the school's Student and Exchange Visitor Program attempted by the Department of Homeland Security. You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Maybe if next time, Trump arranges for the order to come from someone really popular, like Oprah, or Taylor Swift, or Santa Claus, it will stick.
  
  
• And Finally, an Update...: The case in front of Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia James Boasberg, who heard the original challenge of the CECOT detainees in El Salvador and enjoined deportations without due process and told Donald Trump to turn the planes around, is still alive and well despite SCOTUS vacating his temporary restraining order and requiring each of the detainees to bring individual habeas petitions in the district where they are being detained.
  
  As we asked at the time: Well, what about those who were already shipped out, including the men on those planes that were decidedly not turned around, and dumped in a gulag before they could bring a habeas petition? The ACLU is on the case. They filed an amended complaint in Boasberg's court to bring a class action on behalf of those men at CECOT. The government is arguing, once again, that there's nothing they can do since the men are now essentially the property of the Salvadoran government. Boasberg is not buying it and wants to conduct an expedited fact-finding inquiry to ascertain if the U.S. government has "constructive custody" of the men, especially given Trump officials' statements, including those from Trump himself, that the U.S. does control their fate. Trump admitted to ABC News' Terry Moran, for instance, that he could get Kilmar Abrego Garcia back if he wanted to, but he just doesn't want to. Karoline Leavitt admitted that the U.S. is paying $6 million to El Salvador to detain the men; DHS Secretary Noem has said that CECOT "is one of the tools in our toolkit if you commit crimes against the American people."
  
  That's where things stood at the start of May. Earlier this week, Judge Boasberg granted the detainees being held in El Salvador class status and ruled that they were deprived of their due process rights when they were snatched up and flown out of the country without an opportunity to challenge their removal. Regrettably, he did not find that the Trump administration has constructive custody of the men such that they can be brought back to the U.S. Instead, he ordered that the government bring a proposal to him by June 11 as to how their due process rights can be provided outside the U.S. Essentially, Boasberg is saying that he has to take Trump's word for it when he says Trump has no control over the men anymore, despite the $6 million the U.S. is paying El Salvador to keep them locked up.

So, it's been a busy week. Now you know what Batman meant when he said "justice never sleeps." (L & Z)

Never Forget: Two Paratroopers

Today's contribution is from reader D.R. in Cincinnati, OH, and it continues a theme that has already shown up in this series:

I meant to write this for Memorial Day, but got delayed, so it will instead be for D-Day.

This past Memorial Day, I visited the cemetery where my relatives are laid, and spent a lot of time looking for one grave in particular, that of a relative who was a staff sergeant killed in France in late 1944. He was listed in government records as D.O.W., meaning "died of wounds." I was curious as to the difference between D.O.W. and Killed in Action. Apparently, the difference is that if you were wounded in action and made it to a hospital of some sort, and died after arrival, then you are D.O.W. instead of K.I.A.

Three years ago, I had visited the grave of an uncle who was also killed in France and is buried in the Luxembourg-American cemetery, near General George Patton. I was very likely the first person in my family to ever visit his grave. Coincidently, both of these young men were paratroopers.

A couple of years after World War II, The War Department established a program to bring World War II soldiers' remains home if their family requested it. The government supplied a coffin, a headstone, and transportation, with a $50 or $75 allowance for the burial. It was up to the family to purchase a grave and make all arrangements for a funeral. Even in 1947, that much money probably didn't go very far towards a proper funeral. So, while the first paratrooper's remains, initially interred in France, were later brought home to be re-buried near his home, the second paratrooper's remains were not.

I would expect that some graves for fallen soldiers who were brought home were donated by local cemeteries, or veterans' organizations or towns, but the expenses to bring many, if not most, home were probably too much for poor families to bear.

There are a little over two dozen American military cemeteries in foreign countries. Most are in Europe, with two in the Philippines and one in Panama.

For Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and other days of remembrance: "All gave some, some gave all."

Thanks, D.R. More next week, of course. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Alice Through The Looking Glass

We gave two hints as to last week's headline theme. The first was "one of the headlines is actually a little TOO on the nose, but we just couldn't resist." The second was: "You might want to let your mind wand-er." And now, for those who did not learn it from the letter to this week's mailbag, here is the solution, courtesy of reader T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts:

I think the headlines all contain the first name of a character from the Harry Potter books:

• Trump vs. Harvard: Are the Administration's Options Beginning to Peter Out?—Peter Pettigrew
• Make a Wish!: The Decline and Fall of Ron Weaselly—Ron Weasley
• Trade Wars: As Horace Said, "Seize the Day, Trusting as Little as Possible in Tomorrow"—Horace Slughorn
• The End of an Era: The Dean of Presidential Grandsons Has Passed Away—Dean Thomas
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown—Charlie Weasley
• This Week in Schadenfreude: When People Talk about "Trump's Bill," Is THIS What They Mean?—Bill Weasley
• This Week in Freudenfreude: King Charles Shows Prince Harry How It's Done—Harry Potter

All but Slughorn were sorted into Gryffindor.

Yes, the non-Gryffindor wizards tend to have names that don't fit well into headlines, like Draco or Cho or Helga. And Alice Longbottom, from this item's headline, was also (assumed to be) a Gryffindor. Obviously, the "Ron Weaselly" headline was the one that was a bit too on the nose.

Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:

G.W. in Avon, CT M.F. in Norwood, MA N.S. in Fayetteville, NY A.D. in Vass, NC M.S. in Canton, NY J.N. in Zionsville, IN K.H. in Maryville, TN S.W. in Winter Garden, FL N.S. in Fayetteville, NY A.P. in Kitchener, ON, Canada N.H. in London, England, UK B.R. in Arlington, MA R.D. in Cheshire, CT T.K. in Half Moon Bay M.M. in Dunellen, NJ M.B. in Albany, NY T.T. in Conway, AR R.S. in Milan, OH M.L. in Simpsonville, SC M.T. in Simpsonville, SC E.S. in Providence, RI H.S. in Lake Forest, CA J.R. in Austin, TX G.M. in Chevy Chase, MD J.D. in Olathe, KS

T.C. in Somerset, NJ E.S. in Cincinnati, OH C.C. in Rockville, MD H.B. in Toronto, ON, Canada L.S. in Marshall, NC R.N. in Cleveland, OH N.C. in Columbus, MS M.A. in Soquel, CA M.S. in New York City, NY R.P. in Brooklyn, NY S.K. in Ardmore, PA M.C. in Falls Church, VA T.A. in South Orange, NJ M.Z. in Sharon, MA E.B. in North Liberty, IA D.S. in Mankato, MN P.R. in Havertown, PA B.A. in Silver City, GA D.B. in Glendale, CA P.H. in Ft. Lauderdale, FL M.B. in Menlo Park, CA: M.W. in Altea, Spain J.C. in Trenton, NJ L.D. in Bedford, MA S.S. in Washington, DC

The 50th correct response was received at 8:01 a.m. PT on Friday.

For this week's theme, we're doing song titles, which means the category is music. For a hint, we'll tell you that the headlines appear in the correct order for the theme, and that you would do well to focus on the first two headlines, because those are the easiest to pin down. Also, note that "Never Forget" is NOT part of it; it seemed inappropriate to include.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com, ideally with subject line June 6 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: I Got It Bad (And That Ain't Good)

Anyone in academia knows that high-ranking university administrators are often—How can we put this delicately?—conniving sleazeballs. As we have noted recently, "university administrator" is basically a political posting, and so university administrators tend to be, well, politicians. The higher up they are, and the more elite the university is, the more likely that is to be true. Particularly galling—and this is not an uncommon phenomenon—is when the president/provost/chancellor is just using their current job as a stepping stone to the next, better-paying, more glamorous job, and everybody knows it.

Santa Ono, former president of the University of Michigan and aspiring president of the University of Florida, is such a person, by all indications. There is no question that he has a sterling résumé as a scholar and an administrator. But from the moment he got the Michigan gig in 2022, it was clear his eye was on something more... sunny and southerly, let's say. And so, he went into full pandering mode. For example:

• When then-football coach Jim Harbaugh was enmeshed in a cheating scandal (for which he ultimately served a suspension), Ono was right there on the scene, posing for pictures with the coach and lamenting the injustice of it all. The clear message was that winning football games is very, very important, more important than things like honesty, integrity, the rules, etc. This is a worldview that will find many adherents in places that really, really love football—like, say, the South.
  
  
• When graduate students went on strike, Ono said that he's a big supporter of organized labor, and then... did everything he could to break the back of the strike.
  
  
• During the protests over the war in Gaza, Ono deployed university police to come down hard on pro-Palestinian protestors, going so far as to have them raid a (peaceful) encampment. He also stepped in and forbade student government from voting on a pair of resolutions that would have condemned the Israeli government.
  
  
• Ono was a supporter of DEI initiatives... until he wasn't. As last year's elections reached their climax, he took steps to dismantle Michigan's DEI programs. Recently, he wrote an op-ed in which he explained that he agreed with the original intent of DEI, but that it had become perverted, and was now about divisiveness and not giving white people a fair shake.

Much of this will presumably sound familiar, because we wrote about it exactly one week ago, in the context of Gov. Ron DeSantis' (R-FL) ever-more-shaky grasp on power. We noted, in that piece, that the regents of the university had approved Ono, which was a rebuke to DeSantis, since conservatives believe that if you are DEI for a day, then you are DEI for life, no matter what you might say or do. It's very much like the people who went to one communist meeting in 1936, and then saw their lives ruined for it in 1953. The main difference is that the anti-DEI people—DeSantis, Donald Trump Jr., Marge Greene, etc.—are more fanatical than Joseph McCarthy and the McCarthyites (which would actually be a pretty good band name).

This week, however, Ono got some bad news. The Florida Board of Governors, which was appointed by DeSantis, normally rubber stamps the choice of the Regents. But not this time; because many of them are anti-woke/anti-DEI fanatics, they voted 10-6 to reject Ono. So, it's back to the drawing board, as the University of Florida looks to replace Ben Sasse (who, incidentally, was also too "woke," although his downfall was primarily due to financial mismanagement).

So, it's a "win" for DeSantis, which is going to happen sometimes; you know what they say about the sun shining on a dog's a**. Ono, on the other hand, sold out whatever principles he has (it's hard to tell what these sorts of politicians believe in, or if they believe in anything at all) for a job, and then didn't get the job. And he quit his old gig to pursue this gig, so he doesn't have the Michigan job either, anymore. Given how he's comported himself, there's certainly some schadenfreude in that. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Oh, Lady Be Good

For someone who teaches a lot about 20th century cultural history, as (Z) does, M*A*S*H is a remarkably rich resource.

On one hand, it is undeniably a product of its time. For example, when it comes to race, M*A*S*H is very much post-Civil Rights movement, and yet very much NOT of today. Yes, the producers tried to avoid obvious bigotries, and they did not cast white actors in non-white roles (by contrast, both things happened all the time in 1950s and 1960s shows; catch an episode of Bonanza on TV Land sometime). At the same time, the only regular Black character (Capt. Oliver Harmon "Spearchucker" Jones, played by Timothy Jones) was dismissed after six episodes of Season 1, the only semi-regular Black character (Lt. Ginger Bayliss, played by Odessa Cleveland) was dismissed after 24 episodes spread across the first five seasons, and thereafter, there were very few Black characters, even in one-off roles.

Similarly, the show certainly tried to treat its Korean characters with some amount of sensitivity. That said, the writers still tended to dabble in stereotypes, rotating among half a dozen or so recurring ones (the wise elder, the barely-literate peasant, the slick operator, the Asian temptress, etc.). Also, they were more than happy to cast any sort of Asian person in those roles, such that "Koreans" were often played by actors who were actually Japanese, Chinese or, in a couple of cases, Vietnamese. Again, the folks who made the show were trying their best, but the fact is that most of the writers and producers and directors were born in the 1910s, 1920s, or 1930s, and old ways of thinking die hard.

At the same time, the show lasted a long time (12 seasons) and was on at a pretty momentous time in U.S. history. So, while the portrayals of non-white characters were pretty static between 1972 and 1983, there are other ways in which the show's early seasons are very different from its final seasons. To take one example, the show was based on the movie MASH (no asterisks), and both the movie and the early seasons of the show were meant to be comments on the Vietnam War, which was still ongoing. By seasons 10, 11 and 12, the war was over, the U.S. had left that country, and South Vietnam had fallen. And so, while the anti-war element certainly remained, much of the critical commentary was about bureaucracy and corruption more broadly. Like, for example, the kinds of bureaucracy and corruption that allowed for the Watergate scandal of the mid-1970s.

The most obvious way in which the show changed over the years, however, was in its approach to women. Because the 1950s were dripping with various forms of sexism and misogyny, the movie was dripping with various forms of sexism and misogyny. Sometimes it's actually uncomfortable to watch; one wonders if director Robert Altman took things a little too far. The TV show—which, again, took its early cues from the movie—carried this on into the early and middle years of its run.

There are two characters where this dynamic is particularly evident. The first of those is Chief Surgeon Hawkeye Pierce, who was, of course, played by Alan Alda on the TV show, and who became the centerpiece of what was initially supposed to be an ensemble show. Although presented as a gifted surgeon and a humanist, Hawkeye started out as quite the sexist. He leered at the women characters, with constant comments on their appearance, their figures, their attractiveness, etc. He was often dismissive of the capabilities of his women colleagues. If it was 2025, instead of 1952, he would be a walking, talking sexual harassment lawsuit waiting to happen.

The other character, which will be obvious to anyone who's seen the show, is Head Nurse Margaret Houlihan (O'Houlihan in the movie), played by Loretta Swit on the TV show. The not-meant-to-be-kind nickname "Hot Lips" carried over from the movie; she acquired it due to some sexual escapades. Houlihan was the target of more leering, and more come-on attempts, than any other female character on the show, by far. And though she was a high-ranking officer in a time when few women achieved the rank of major, her fondest dream was to find a man and marry him (a goal realized when she wedded Lt. Col. Donald Penobscott).

But whereas the show was pretty static on race, it eventually moved leaps and bounds forward in shedding its early sexism and misogyny. Hawkeye may have maintained his libido, but he stopped leering, and he eventually got an object lesson in how to treat women, courtesy of a Swedish surgeon named Inga. Houlihan eventually shed the name Hot Lips, and stopped putting up with men who weren't good enough for her. That included Penobscott, whom she divorced, after concluding that: (1) he was a lech, and (2) marriage is not the end all and be all for a woman. Later in her life, Swit remarked: "If you've got a long-run series, then there's always got to be room for growth." It would actually be pretty hard to think of a TV character who changed more radically over the run of a TV show than did Margaret Houlihan. Perhaps Nog on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, or Walter White on Breaking Bad, or... Max Klinger on M*A*S*H (the show also dialed way back what some might have seen as homophobia/transphobia).

The primary reason for the change is that while there were no people of color in the main cast of M*A*S*H to advocate for better portrayals on that front, there were two cast members who were very invested in the ongoing feminist movement and very concerned with women's equality. The first was Alda, who embraced women's liberation, and, over time, became the key creative figure behind the scenes (in addition to his work in front of the camera). The show eventually embraced 1970s gender politics (and liberal politics in general) to the point that some called it "preachy." We're not sure where these people are coming from; they may be the same folks who hate DEI.

The second person who was responsible for moving the show forward was, of course, Swit. She was frustrated enough with the portrayal that she intended to quit the show, and to join the cast of the more woman-forward Cagney & Lacey. The show's producers said they could not get by without her, and so refused to void Swit's contract. But they did agree they needed to do better in how the character was portrayed (Sharon Gless took over for Swit on Cagney).

There weren't too many forward-looking women characters on 1970s TV; for every late-M*A*S*H Houlihan or Maude, there were at least three "jiggle television" women like on Charlie's Angels, or every Jack Tripper roommate save one on Three's Company. That means Swit's work (and Bea Arthur's work) was very important, playing a similar role in the 1970s that The Cosby Show and A Different World would play in advancing views of Black people in the 1980s (this was long before Bill Cosby was outed as a slimeball, of course).

This comes up because, as many readers will have heard, Swit passed away this week. She had a long and varied career that included dozens of movies, many guest spots on TV shows, and some Broadway and regional theater. However, she was remembered first, and foremost, for M*A*S*H. This was not a problem for her; she considered it to be the best work of her career, and spent much time in her later years attending conventions and meeting fans.

On hearing the news of his longtime colleague and collaborator's passing, Alda posted this to eX-Twitter:

Loretta was a supremely talented actor. She deserved all her 10 EMMY nominations and her 2 wins. But more than acting her part, she created it. She worked hard in showing the writing staff how they could turn the character from a one joke sexist stereotype into a real person—with real feelings and ambitions. We celebrated the day the script came out listing her character not as Hot Lips, but as Margaret. Loretta made the most of her time here.

We couldn't have said it better. Abyssinia, Loretta Swit.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

---

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