Sunday Mailbag

We got a LOT of letters about World War II movies. So, we're going to run a batch this week, all of them connected by the movie that we did not name, but that we did note was excluded deliberately. Then we will run a batch next week.

Politics: This Week in TrumpWorld

S.N. in Sparks, NV, writes: Despite uncertainties about the final details of the budget reconciliation bill, there are four things we know with 100% certainty. Most importantly, Congress will pass a bill with most of their fiscal legislative priorities included. All the red lines and objections will melt away to meet the absolute Republican need to pass a bill. Secondly, the bill will include massive tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires and large corporations. These are the core constituencies of the Republican Party. Thirdly, the bill will add greatly to the federal deficit over the next 10 years. Lastly, the bill will cause damage to the poorest one-third to one-half of the population. These four elements are already inscribed in stone.

---

J.S. in Houston. TX, writes: The three step Trump Doctrine you presented is nicely done but J.D. Vance missed the important Step #4. This answers your follow-up questions (from Trump's perspective):

1. The president articulates a clear American interest somewhere (e.g., Iran must not develop nuclear weapons).
2. The president first tries diplomacy to solve the problem.
3. If that fails, he uses overwhelming military power to solve it and then gets the hell out.
4. The president forgets all about it and goes back to Step 1.

---

J.P. in Horsham, PA, writes: Regarding Donald Trump's aspirations to win the Nobel Peace Prize, I think I've got better odds at winning the Miss America Pageant. For the record, I'm a 53-year-old man. Can I count on the votes of E-V.com's readers to push me over the finish line?

(V) & (Z) respond: Well, you DO have purty legs.

---

H.M. in Tallahassee, FL, writes: Donald Trump says: "I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be, but the people know, and that's all that matters to me!"

Translation: "Those grapes were probably sour anyway."

---

A.R.S. in West Chester, PA, writes: A little BIRDIE told me Trump is trying to DRIVE a WEDGE between Americans, like with the renaming of the GOLF of Mexico. A BOGEY man for sure, definitely not up to PAR, and HANDICAPPED for sure. There is no FAIRWAY to say it, we are in for continued ROUGH times, with more OUT-OF-BOUNDS executive orders. He is cruder than Archie BUNKER. Needless to say I am TEED off, hoping someone will CLUB him up side the head and put a little sense in it.

Politics: Iran

P.H. in Toronto, ON, Canada, writes: Mark me undecided on the bombing of the Iranian facilities. Since we do not know how advanced the Iranian nuclear program was and we don't know how successful was the bombing, it is not reasonable to take a firm view. Therefore, it is not a matter for criticism that the Democrats are unsure as to how to react. In my mind, blind certainty is less defensible.

However, to pretend that one round of bombing has "obliterated" the Iranian program is nonsensical. Consider the Manhattan Project. The U.S. built a nuclear bomb in about four years, more or less from a standing start. Einstein's famous letter to Franklin D. Roosevelt was sent in August of 1939, the Manhattan Project was authorized in October of 1941, Los Alamos was not built until 1943, and the first nuclear device was detonated in July of 1945.

Consider then the advancements in the general state of nuclear knowledge, computing technology and manufacturing techniques since then, and it seems unrealistic to state that any reasonably advanced country with a well-resourced program would take longer today. True the Manhattan Project was massively funded by the most powerful country on Earth, but it was carried on while the U.S. was also fighting a global war.

For this reason a one and done bombing "campaign" seems to me to be an insufficient response. So, what follows? Renewed bombing every 12-18 months seems unlikely, especially since Trump has already announced "mission accomplished," and we all know how willing he is to admit he is or was wrong. In addition, the Iranians presumably now know how deep they need to go to avoid American bombs.

So, negotiations then, to put in place an oversight framework, similar to that which Trump canceled in his first term? Perhaps, but having already taken the punch, and knowing the attacks are not likely to be resumed in the face of the Trump announced ceasefire, what incentive is there for Iran to negotiate?

How does Trump respond if Iran announces tomorrow that it will entertain no further negotiations in respect of its nuclear program?

---

J.B. in Hutto, TX, writes: I'm not at all opposed to blowing up Iran's nuclear program. We're talking about an oppressive regime that denies freedom to its own people and persecutes both women and LGBTQ people. It regularly threatens to destroy Israel and nuclear weapons would give them the ability to do it.

My concerns with Trump's strike on Iran are constitutional. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution specifically gives the power to declare war to Congress, and not the President. The Framers were wise enough, and knew their history well enough, to know that the decision on whether to take our nation to war is far too serious to be entrusted to a single person. Since airstrikes against a sovereign country are an obvious act of war, and as Iran presented no immediate threat to the United States, and as there was no congressional authorization for the action, the attacks were illegal and unconstitutional.

Yet, I hear very few people even talking about this aspect of the story. That's what scares me.

---

S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, writes: You wrote: "[Trump] also predicted that Obama would start a war with Iran for political gain. Almost right, Mr. President!"

Here's the thing about Trump and his proxies: Literally every accusation is a confession. But the truly maddening thing is, he's pre-accused his opponents of all the same illegal, immoral, self-serving acts that he's committed, and his base believes him. This has inoculated him against any conceivable accusation anyone can level against him—all he has to do is say some variant of "you do it too," and his base laps it up.

But I don't think this is part of some grand plan he's concocted. I think he's been in his self-serving mindset for so long, that he can't conceive of a world in which anyone doesn't think exactly the same way. He's convinced himself that he's just telling it like it is. And his base is traumatized enough by their hardships to agree with him.

---

M.I. in Jenkintown, PA, writes: Trump's bleedingly obvious attempt at transference, "They [the media, et al.] tried to demean the great work our B-2 pilots did, and they were wrong in doing so," is so juvenile and transparent it speaks of how he must have operated as a child. Toddler do bad, toddler blame dog.

Nobody—NOBODY—is condemning the pilots and associated crews for doing what they were ordered to do. Only Trump, his potato-stick ego, and his indentured lackeys tread that water. May they all have unending bouts of terrible diarrhea... in bed.

---

E.W. in Seattle, WA, writes: I haven't seen much commentary or even notice about the irony that the intelligence for the Fordo strike came primarily from two anonymous defense intelligence agents who worked full time for several years in concentrating solely on Fordo, trying to learn everything they could about its construction and the activities there—literally the definition of the deep state. Their work made The Donald's big blow as successful as it was; and luckily for His Eminence they were able to escape the scythe of DOGE's grim reaper, at least so far.

---

R.H. in San Antonio, TX, writes: Ya know what? Very little of what we are being told is real.

Well, the starvation in Gaza is real, and the "bunker buster" bombs dropped on Iran were real, but the Iranian "retaliation" involved them firing six missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar.

Before they fired those missiles, they told the U.S. exactly when they would be fired, at which targets, from which locations so they could all safely be shot down, allowing the Iranian regime to save face by retaliating, without the risk of the U.S. thinking that retaliation required retaliation.

That wasn't real.

Those bunker-busters? They were real. So were the Iranian trucks which evacuated that mountain fortress in the days before the bombs which everyone knew were coming.

So that wasn't real, either.

---

S.A.K. in Karnataka, India, writes: One of the U.S.'s biggest strategic mistakes—if not the biggest—over the past decade was unilaterally withdrawing from the JCPOA. The agreement's strict guidelines would have prevented Iran from enriching uranium beyond civilian needs. Biden attempted indirect negotiations, but they fizzled out due to various factors.

What happens now is anyone's guess. Given the current U.S. administration's fickle nature and a man-child of a president prone to tantrums (the latest example being his reaction to the Ayatollah's victory claims), the range of possibilities is broad. Beyond rhetoric, Iran knows it must eventually negotiate and come to terms with the U.S.

The glaring hypocrisy lies in U.S. policy toward Israel's nuclear stockpile (an open secret). Since Israel isn't an NPT signatory, acknowledging its nukes would trigger sanctions. A workaround, like the 2008 deal with India, would still make the secret public. And potentially trigger clamor for nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

As for the ceasefire between Israel and Iran, I fear this is just a temporary and fragile break in hostilities. Israel will look to ramp up its air defenses and missile interceptor capabilities. Iran will produce as many more hypersonic and ballistic missiles as possible. And possibly try to fast-track a fighter jet deal with Russia or, more probably, China. Incidentally, their defense minster was in China attending an SCO meeting last week. Iranian nuclear warheads could well change things by actually making them calmer. One has to bear in mind the fact that the Iran-Israel rivalry and its adversarial nature are orders of magnitude bigger than the Iran-U.S. one.

An amusing part of the last couple of weeks were the shenanigans of Reza Pahlavi. His delusions of grandeur are comedic, to say the least. He remains popular in the Iranian diaspora for obvious reasons. However, within Iran, he is even more unpopular than the Ayatollah, and is seen as an out-of-touch elite. His meetings with representatives of the Israeli government will make him unpopular even with those Iranians who are unhappy with the Ayatollah. As you have written, his father did a decent job on the economic, education and the healthcare fronts. Economic and social inequality during his reign was atrocious, though. And Iranians definitely remember SAVAK, the ultra-oppressive and almost personal police force (trained by the C.I.A., no less) of the Shah that suppressed any form of opposition with extreme brutality.

---

J.M. in Albany, OH, writes: While your attention to the ongoing situation with Iran is appreciated, there is some pivotal context missing from your remarks on potential Iranian "regime change". We cannot forget that the freshly post-colonial nation was already modernizing prior to the installation of the Shah, and most scholars agree that the country would have gone even further/faster in becoming a legitimate world economic power if the U.S. and U.K. had not deposed the democratically-elected social democrat PM Mohammad Mosaddegh, undermined the country's journey to economic independence, and forced the roundly-unpopular and unelected Shah on the Iranian people without their consent—leading to the rise of extremist movements across the political spectrum, as often happens when young democracies are sabotaged by outside imperial powers.

It is certainly true that the deceased Shah's son would love his dad's job. It is also certainly true that many in the Persian diaspora would like that as well, because many of them were part of the royalist minority that served Pavlavi's regime and fled the country after the Revolution. However, if the U.S. and/or Israel were to install his son in that position following any collapse of the Iranian Repbublic, it would become very quickly evident that the opinions of a largely-royalist diaspora are not those of the vast majority of the Iranian people, and he would be considered about as legitimate as Hamid Karzai was in Afghanistan from 2002-2020. We all know how that turned out.

---

M.L. in Athens, OH, writes: You wrote: "Since the shah was deposed almost half a century ago, only people in their 70s or older remember much about his rule."

I'm 67 and was in college when the shah was deposed in 1979. When the hostage rescue mission failed in 1980, my classmates and I were sure that the U.S. was going to be pulled into a war. Fortunately, that didn't happen. Unfortunately, Ronald Reagan wasn't tried for treason for negotiating behind Jimmy Carter's back for the hostages to be released after he was sworn in.

I had fellow students from Iran who were absolutely terrified of the Shah. In their minds, there were secret agents everywhere reporting back to the state on their activities and associations. If one of us would joke about it, they would actually turn pale and beg us to hush. But these same students weren't particularly overjoyed with the Ayatollahs, either.

Despite all of the good that he did, Pahlavi WAS brutal to his opponents, just as Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes, Artaxerxes, etc, were. I still remember the reports of the prisons and interrogation chambers being cleared after his downfall. So I shed no tears when he left this world, and I daresay the Iranian people still have sour cultural memories of his reign, even if those who actually suffered (or benefited) under him are now much fewer in number. Dictators are dictators are dictators, whether they wear a crown or a robe or a suit. To Tartarus with them all.

I really don't want the Iranians to have a nuclear weapon. I spent my career working throughout the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. They are absolutely horrific tools of war. However, I do want the Iranian people to have a healthy, functioning, beneficial society for all of our sakes. And while they're filling that order, maybe the Gods can work on one for the U.S., too.

Politics: Legal Matters

B.C. in Manhattan Beach, CA, writes: Kudos to (L) for the analysis of Trump v. CASA, Inc.!

Most of the analysis of the case that I have heard focuses on the "headline" part of the case: Nationwide Injunctions Bad! But (L) also noted the subtlety of the ruling, that "a universal injunction MAY be appropriate in order to ensure certain parties can obtain 'complete relief.'" I think it will interesting to watch this issue play out, as the lower courts are likely to start making findings that, under the particular circumstances of the case before the court, complete relief can only be achieved by granting a nationwide injunction. For instance, even in the Trump v. CASA oral argument, there was a discussion of what a disaster it would be if two infants born at the same time but in different states could have differing citizenship statuses, or even a single individual could gain and lose citizenship as the individual traverses various states. That would seem to be a prime situation in which a lower court would state that complete relief can only be achieved through a nationwide injunction.

In addition, although (L) did not directly focus on the issue, she did allude to the issue that these cases on the shadow document come very close to advisory opinions, instead of focusing on a "case or controversy" as required by the Constitution. As (L) noted, "this Court has found a way to sidestep inconvenient facts (by ignoring them altogether)" and "[n]arrowing the question in this way means the facts are irrelevant." That is the very essence of an advisory opinion, as the Court does not address whether a nationwide injunction is necessary on the particular facts of this case, between these parties, but instead is instructing the lower courts how they should address future cases in the abstract.

---

G.R. in Carol Stream, IL, writes: (L)'s item about the latest capitulation of our once-supreme court, is a great example of why i read your site every day. Lucid and comprehensive, and even i can understand.

Kudos and thank you.

---

J.E. in Manhattan, NY, writes: Evidently the Supreme Court's conservative majority has shown its colors: Trump is a king, as far as they are concerned, and the government can issue plainly unlawful orders whenever it feels like it.

You have often written that Chief Justice John Roberts is an institutionalist. The evidence was against that years ago, but I hope that since then you are willing to consider that his recent actions show he is anything but that. He is a right-wing radical, and a monstrously evil human being to boot, just like his judicial brethren. If you think the latter assessment is overblown, I point you to all the very nice Germans who loved their kids, their dogs, and their grandmas who put their neighbors into gas chambers.

More to the point, with this new ruling, I hope you might also consider that the reason Republican appointees are giving rulings they would not accept from a Democratic president is that they are assuming no Democrat—or any other non-Republican—will be president ever again.

If you think this is wrong, let's go with Occam's razor. Either the justices are so stupid they think the political winds will never shift, or they feel assured that the people in power are going to agree with them for a very long time, and that the opposition won't be able to change anything. Which option do you think is the simpler, more likely explanation?

We are reliving what happened in 1933. I expect ICE to get shoot-to-kill orders very soon—remember when Trump "joked" about shooting migrants in the legs? With this ruling, how long do you think it will be before he decides to score a "win" for his base of white supremacists and start ordering his own Final Solution? With plausible deniability, of course, as he'll say it was ICE officers acting on their individual initiative. Being masked, there will be no accountability for any atrocities ICE officers decide to commit, probably ever.

---

R.G.N. in Seattle, WA, writes: It appears that we have moved back to emulating the days when there were slave states and non-slave states. The twist is that now we have full birthright citizenship states and conditional birthright citizenship states. Next on the Supreme Court's agenda is separate but "equal" states, soon to be followed by civil rights states and no civil rights states. All of this is based on the Clarence Thomas doctrine of "because the poor have ice in the winter and the rich have ice in the summer, it all breaks out even."

---

R.H. in Wayland, MA, writes: You wrote: "What asylum seekers are required to do is present themselves to a border patrol agent at a legal crossing point and apply for asylum on the spot."

That actually misstates the law. 8 U.S.C. 1158 reads: "Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section" (emphasis added). In other words, it doesn't matter where or how they entered the country, they're still entitled to apply for asylum. They are, however, required to apply within one year of entry and many miss that deadline. They're still entitled, however, to apply for withholding of removal, which has a higher standard and doesn't lead to a green card or citizenship. It just bars removal (it is what what Kilmar Ábrego García has). Also, entering the country illegally is a misdemeanor, and not a felony (unless you've already been removed previously).

Due process is a real problem for the current regime. Not only are asylum applicants entitled to a hearing, those pesky immigration judges sometimes grant relief. The regime is purging or has purged those judges still in their probationary period who commit this sin too often. The only way the regime can come close to its target numbers is to restrict due process to the maximum extent the courts will allow. Hence, the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. Back in the days of George W. Bush, they tried to reduce the (much smaller) backlog by having the Board of Immigration Appeals issue "affirmances without opinion," whereby a single board member would affirm an immigration judge with a single sentence. One Board member was found to have issued fifty such affirmances in a single day (meaning 10 minutes per case if he worked 0 hours). They're coming back. I've recently seen the first two I've seen in close to 2 decades. I expect more attempts to cut back on non-citizens' due process rights.

These are interesting (and distressing and exhausting) times to practice immigration law (as I do).

---

J.A. in Austin, TX, writes: Anyone who exchanges testimony for "preferred immigration status" is buying a pig in a poke. Given that the administration is rounding up legal immigrants and U.S. citizens, getting "preferred immigration status," a green card, or even full U.S. citizenship won't protect them from a government that doesn't care about any of those things if you don't have the right pedigree. And they don't even care about that if they can make $0.50 selling you out.

Politics: Never Forget

A.I. in Honolulu, HI, writes: Today the last line from "Never Forget: WTF?" really resonated with me: "My mother, for all her complications of a highly intelligent woman trapped in so many ways by gender expectations of the 1950s, knew that crudeness and lack of decency were no way to support and represent one's country."

Let us not be dragged down to the level of those who pollute our public life with "crudeness and lack of decency." Recently I feel that Electoral-Vote.com has been crossing the line from classy to crass more frequently. I suppose it is entirely understandable, given the outrages in the news every day and the deplorable discourse from people who are supposed to be our role models. Still, I hope we can get through this without sinking too deep into the mud that is their native habitat.

---

K.S. in Harrisburg, PA, writes: I appreciated the tribute to her mother, a military spouse, from P.R. in Saco, ME.

I'm a veteran, and although not gung-ho patriotic, I always appreciated the day off on November 11. What I didn't appreciate was it was not honoring veterans, since everyone got the day off. In fact, while non-veterans had a full day to relax or whatever, veterans often were asked to march or attend school ceremonies for children or grandchildren.

I always said if they really wanted to honor veterans, then only give veterans the day off. I added military spouses to that list as well since, as P.R. makes clear, the spouse sometimes has a harder time than the server.

Thank you, P.R., for highlighting that there are others who "serve" and thank you to Mrs. K.S. for keeping my home fires burning.

All Politics Is Local

B.C. in Farmingville, NY, writes: As a suburban resident outside of New York City, I do not get a say in the city votes. However, the mayoral primary was constantly covered in the news and a significant discussion topic. I was disappointed in hearing that Andrew Cuomo lost. While I understand the draw of the Democratic Socialist policies, now is not the time to play games. Zohran Mamdani seems like a genuine guy, but is inexperienced when it comes to getting things done. While I hope to be wrong, I expect that if Mamdani wins in the general election (not guaranteed by any means) that his promises will not go anywhere when hit with the reality of how politics here works. They are great ideas when you are in college, but right now we need a strong figure who knows the way the government works to stand up to this administration. I also think the far-left ideas, even if they are not mainstream, and even if they go nowhere, hurt the party overall since you see non-city folk complaining about these "socialist, communist policies."

---

B.S. in Huntington Beach, CA, writes: I am more than a bit surprised at the general statements of shock related to the "unexpected" victory of a supposed political novice over the establishment-chosen candidate, Andrew Cuomo. I am at a loss to explain establishment Democrats lining up to support the bullying, sexist, disingenuous former governor who left office in total disgrace. How could anyone believe that holding their nose and supporting Cuomo was a good idea? It felt like a "but the trains ran on time" kind of argument. And other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

On the other hand, Mamdani was authentic, straightforward, young and enthusiastic. He was media savvy and ventured into every New York borough to talk to people, especially those who may not have supported him initially. But as the old guard—including Bill Clinton, James Carville, Jim Clyburn, Michael Bloomberg, et al.—lined up behind the old guy, the young whippersnappers moved in ever greater numbers into the Mamdani camp. And the final poll got it right. The people were tired of the same old establishment approach to their concerns. The voters had enough, and moved away in significant numbers from the corporation-dominated politics by both parties that have ignored the needs of middle-class Americans for far too long.

There is now a fundamental question the Democratic Party must ask. Is the same, tired, "go along to get along" mentality, which has cost them election after election, sufficient to the new realities exposed by the Mamdani campaign, or can we learn that their is a viable path forward that truly recognizes and addresses the needs of middle class Americans and can win elections?

As Republicans plot and scheme to shift ever more money and power from the neediest to the wealthiest, and as old-guard Democratic leadership exhibits ever more the effects of political calcification and affiliation with corporate interests, I believe the enthusiasm generated by the Mamdani campaign can be built upon by the Democratic Party writ large. Hope and belief in the possibility of a better way forward is not such a bad thing.

---

J.A. in Forest, VA, writes: Regarding the New York mayoral primary, D.C. in Manhattan wrote:

Mamdani demonstrated he could connect with the average New Yorker, one who takes the subway and sees the problems our city has every day. He walked from one end of Manhattan to the other. That's not something I could have ever imagined Cuomo, or members of the Democratic old guard, doing.

This is reminiscent of the campaigns of John Lindsay 60 years ago. I live in Virginia now, but grew up in Brooklyn. Lindsay's ads in 1965 featured the numerous pairs of shoes he had worn out while walking the city's streets. He was a tall, Protestant Republican congressman (representing what was then known as "the silk stocking district") in a city of ethnic candidates (mayoral tickets of the time featured, without fail, one Jewish, one Irish, and one Italian candidate for the three major offices). Lindsay was not a popular mayor with the press—he was blamed for everything, including the transit and teachers' strikes, a massive snowstorm that wasn't predicted, and for mobilizing the city's snow removal crews (overtime!) for a predicted snowstorm that missed the city. But he continued to walk the city's streets through his two terms (the second time elected on the Liberal Party ticket, after losing the Republican primary), especially at night and especially in the city's rundown areas. He's now given credit for preventing New York from burning in 1968, when so many other American cities endured violent riots. He was a youthful 44 when he was first elected mayor.

So maybe Mamdani pulled a page from a previous mayor's playbook.

---

G.B. in Kailua, HI, writes: Reading this comment from D.C. in Manhattan:

Zohran Mamdani's sudden rise in the polls—he was a no-name a few months ago—is explained very simply. He ran a terrific campaign. National Democrats would do well to notice the tactics that made his run effective. He mobilized an army of passionate volunteers. My door was knocked on twice. He also very effectively employed social media. A crowning moment, in my opinion, was his appearance on the popular show Subway Takes, which has a 2-minute-long format designed for TikTok and Instagram. His take, of course, was "I should be the mayor."

I couldn't help but to drift back to late 2007, early 2008. Some other guy with a funny name and atypical background was starting to get noticed...

---

P.L. in Denver, CO, writes: Discussing the right-wing response to the New York Democratic mayoral primary, you wrote:

Charlie Kirk, who has been on the dark side so long he keeps a toothbrush at Emperor Palpatine's house, concurred with Stefanik, sending out an overtly Islamophobic tweet in which he observed: "24 years ago a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9/11. Now a Muslim Socialist is on pace to run New York City."

Charlie failed to mention that the 9/11 Muslims were from Saudi Arabia. The same Saudi Arabia with whom his lord Donald Trump is 100% in bed.

---

P.F. in Fairbanks, AK, writes: I have to admit that my previous comments doubting that Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) would ever consider caucusing with the Democrats were wrong. There are rumors, however, that she is looking at retirement at the end of her term, so it may be that its likelihood is tied to the fact that it may be moot by 2028.

---

D.D. in South Webster, OH, writes: I am a resident of Southern Ohio (and long-time reader) who lives within 35 miles of Vanceburg, KY, on the Ohio side. In your item about the big, beautiful bill, you described Vanceburg as located "right across the Ohio River from Middle of Nowhere, OH."

In response to your description, all I can do is say... congratulations on your geographical acumen. My family often uses almost that exact phrasing when people ask where we are from.

Movies: World War II Films, Part I

R.G.N. in Seattle WA, writes: I am going to take a wild guess and suggest that To Be or Not to Be is the obvious candidate for your list of best World War II films that was left off because (V) and (Z) don't actually care for the film very much. The film's reviews over the years have varied wildly from the equivalent of "burn all copies" to "A complex and timely satire with as much darkness as slapstick." Jack Benny's father initially left the theater in disgust at seeing his son in a Nazi uniform, but came to embrace the film. The movie has a 96% approval rating on the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes and it was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant."

(V) & (Z) respond: Not that one. Keep reading.

---

K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: I'm going to guess that the film you excluded is Life is Beautiful. If so, I'm glad you did.

I enjoyed the film, to a certain extent. However, especially after hearing my grandma's stories of surviving Soviet work camps and of her family being killed in German concentration camps, I feel that the movie implies that the camps weren't less bad if people just had the right attitude.

In general, I don't like the message that when things are at their worst, having a good attitude makes everything magically better. A good attitude certainly helps, but if someone is in a terrible situation such as dying of cancer, dealing with the death of a loved one, or in a concentration camp, it's very dismissive of reality to tell them to just have a positive outlook and everything will be OK.

Note, that is different than telling someone to have a positive outlook when dealing with much more minor issues.

(V) & (Z) respond: Not that one, either.

---

E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, writes: I assume that the film you "forgot" was Saving Private Ryan, which I have actually never seen before. I would like to recommend Life is Beautiful, a World War II comedy film about an Italian-Jewish man who is sent to a concentration camp with his son. He convinces his son that the whole thing is an elaborate game and the top prize for the winner is a tank. Given it is set in a concentration camp, it manages to be surprisingly funny, deeply humanistic, and, of course, profoundly sad all at the same time. I watched it in the original Italian with subtitles, so that's the only way I could recommend it. Roberto Benigni, who also wrote the film, gives a stellar performance as the father, and the child actor who plays the son is great as well.

Another World War II film that I can recommend is called Operation Mincemeat, and came out on Netflix in 2021. It's based on the actual operation of the same name that the Allies used to trick Adolf Hitler about where they were going to invade Southern Europe. The source of the idea was none other than Ian Fleming, of James Bond fame. I won't spoil it by revealing the details of their elaborate deception, but it makes a great plot even if you know what happened before seeing the movie, as I did. There's an ahistorical and somewhat unnecessary love story component but overall, it's a great film that shows the real-life ingenuity that helped us win the war. In fact, this clever operation may have helped save my grandfather's life as he was one of those Allied soldiers invading Sicily and later the rest of the Italian peninsula.

---

J.M. in Minneapolis, MN, writes: I am assuming the film that you don't care for is Saving Private Ryan, and I am hoping it is not The Thin Red Line. This was not Malick at his finest, but that's a bar that few other screenwriters or directors can touch.

---

G.S. in Woodhaven, NY, writes: Great list. I agree about including the homefront and A League of Their Own which is an incredible film and, as you wrote, did observe that sometimes traditional gender roles were more practical at the time.

I'm assuming the film you left off because you don't care for it was Saving Private Ryan. I agree. INCREDIBLE opening... but the story turns into Hollywood drama after that.

I do think there are a LOT of European Theater films on your list, and a few Pacific Theater films I think are missing.

Flags of Our Fathers/Letters from Iwo Jima: The former has a great wraparound plot of the homefront and needing the soldiers in the photo to go home to sell war bonds, as the need for money and to keep public opinion behind the war was very real and extremely important. The latter was a rare view from the Japanese side, and was very well produced and a tough but very accurate portrayal. Ken Watanabe was rightfully Oscar-nominated as the doomed field commander.

Tora! Tora! Tora!: This film was dismissed and even panned when released but has gained more respect through home media and especially streaming. The problem? It was TOO accurate for when it was released; the wounds of Pearl Harbor were still pretty fresh, even after 30+ years, and many people weren't ready for a film that showed the Japanese side of things.

Midway: Yes, it was the "Yay America Wins!" era of World War II films, but does capture the brutality of the naval and air combat of the Pacific (and yes, I am talking about the original!).

---

J.B.C. in St. Louis, MO, writes: There are two films I immediately felt were missing from this list—possibly intentionally, but for me they're required viewing. Both play a bit fast and loose with the facts, but what movies don't?

Tora! Tora! Tora! and Midway are both riveting movies about the lead-up, battle, failures and successes, both accidental and planned. I feel like both films give a fair representation to both navies.

I'd also tend to include Saving Private Ryan in this list, if only for the realistic portrayal of the "walking face-first into a lawnmower" feel of war.

---

B.D. in Victoria, MN, writes: I'm assuming that you didn't "forget" to put Saving Private Ryan on the list? I love that so much, because I also don't care for that film. It's hilarious how many people just agree it's great, when it really is not.

---

J.C. in San Diego, CA, writes: I'm assuming the "obvious" film you left off is Saving Private Ryan? While I do think the film is very good at certain things, I agree that most of the ones you selected would be ahead of it.

I'm going to put forward one I saw recently for the first time: The Guns Of Navarone. While the mission is fictitious, the film deals with some classic issues and themes: infiltrating enemy lines, interrogation of prisoners, double agents, and more. Lots of great action too. The intrigue goes right until the very end.

---

M.L. in West Hartford, CT, writes: I assume that the film you excluded is Saving Private Ryan. I'm a fan, though I acknowledge that it is all a bit "Spielberg-y" in its dramatic flourishes. Nevertheless, there are so many poignant moments: General Bradley's letter to Mrs. Ryan with the Lincoln quotation at the end; the way we see the staff car come up the road to her house and she falls to her knees, knowing what they are there to tell her (and it was a great choice not to show us any more of that scene); the elderly Ryan imploring his wife to "tell me I'm a good man" (it always seems to get a little dusty in my house when that scene comes on). The first twenty minutes are as epic as any war movie, and Tom Hanks' performance is brilliant, making John Miller feel as believable as a mild-mannered English teacher as he is as a Captain operating behind enemy lines.

I'd be very interested to hear your critique, which I assume will be quite lengthy and erudite, as always.

(V) & (Z) respond: Saving Private Ryan is correct. We can't do "lengthy" in comments on letters, while "erudite" is up to the readers. However, while the D-Day sequence is remarkable, the film gives away its ending in the first 30 seconds, due to the opening bookend scene with the elderly version of the Private Ryan character. Meanwhile, Spielberg is not very good at getting compelling performances out of his actors, and while he is sometimes lucky enough to work with top talents who can do it on their own (Hanks, Daniel Day-Lews, Richard Dreyfuss, etc.), most of the characters in this film are not fully formed and are somewhat hard to distinguish from one another, rendering a lot of scenes kind of murky. Further, as is typical of many Spielberg films, the ending (and, really, most of the movie outside the D-Day sequence) is maudlin and overwrought.

Movies: Politics

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: From the readers responses about best political movies, I would like to respond to B.B. in St. Louis with: Are you sure Dr. Strangelove will be synonymous with Trump's (please, dear God, no) third term? Because the film seems to be walking hand-in-hand with his horrific second term. In the Kubrick masterpiece, President Muffley's Scientific Advisor is Dr. Strangelove, a foreign born mad genius who suffers from Alien Hand Syndrome, in which his arms seems to have a mind of their own by constantly going into the "Heil, Hitler!" salute. He also has a strange adolescent fantasy of having to repopulate the planet by breeding nonstop with a harem of women, selected for their highly stimulating sexual characteristics. In response, from our "real world," I give you: Elon Musk.

Additionally, the plot of the film gets underway when Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper sends a squad of planes carrying nuclear weapons the codes to have them attack the Soviet Union. Ripper does this because he is convinced that the Soviets are using fluoride in our water to control us. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works." Sounds like that could come from RFK Jr.'s mouth and from the madness in his eyes.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General "Buck" Turgidson gives off some serious J.D. Vance vibes. "Well, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sir." On the other hand, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seems to be channeling two characters from the film, Major T.J. "King" Kong, played by Slim Pickens, who infamously whoops it up as he rides the nuclear bomb to its target ("Shoot, a fella' could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff") and Colonel "Bat" Guano ("I think you're some kind of deviated pervert. I think General Ripper found out about your perversion, and that you were organizing some kind of mutiny of perverts.")

It looks like Dr. Strangelove is trying to outdo The Simpsons for predictive capability. The flip side is we now have proof that we live in an absurdist black comedy. "Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!"

---

D.M. in Wimberley, TX, writes: I once met someone at a party who said that they had met Barack Obama, back when he was running for president the first time, and asked him what his favorite American political movie was.

The answer—wait for it—Election, with Reese Witherspoon.

In case you haven't seen it, it's something of a black comedy about the competition for high school class president, in which issues play no part. It is deeply cynical and extremely funny.

---

L.B. in Savannah, GA, writes: I was shocked to seek JFK listed as one of the great political films. It focused on Jim Garrison's conspiracy theory, one so absurd that even other JFK conspiracy theorists were embarrassed by it at the time. Even Oliver Stone admitted later that most of the film was a fabrication. I suppose it's an important cultural artifact, as JFK almost single-handedly popularized the JFK assassination conspiracy industry, to the point that more people are familiar with the grassy knoll than the Texas School Book Depository. It also had the effect of giving extra credence to the "CIA did it" theory (over the ones blaming the FBI, the mafia, LBJ, the KGB, anti-communists, pro-Castro Cubans, and anti-Castro Cubans, all of whom were apparently working together in spite of hating each other in public).

It's a sign of the times that the newest theory of "Israel did it because JFK didn't want them to have the bomb" is now gaining popularity, a particularly absurd one as JFK essentially began the American program of military aid to Israel with the sale of Hawk missiles. A few years later, RFK was assassinated by a Palestinian angry over his vote to supply Israel with fighter jets. The Israelis are the last people to have wanted any of the Kennedys dead.

By convincing a majority of Americans that their own government carried out the assassination, while legitimizing the JFK assassination conspiracy industry, the harm done by JFK outweighs any artistic qualities it may have. It's "good" only in the sense that Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will are "good."

Movies: Music

A.C. in Kingston, MA, writes: Loved the variety in the Q&A this weekend—and it reminded me that despite the slide into fascism we're currently experiencing, other societies have fought their way out before and we will, too. In the meantime, we need to recharge our batteries with art and media that bring us joy.

I have to add two movies to your lists of films with the best music, although overall I think your picks are fantastic. I wholeheartedly agree with J.K. in Mahomet that Amadeus needs to be on that list; I'd include it on the "borrowed" list since the play was written around the music, not the other way around. Thanks to my dad, I grew up steeped in classical music, and Mozart has always been one of my favorites. Although the movie itself takes great license with the details of Mozart's life, the way Salieri describes certain passages and the way certain pieces move the plot forward are pretty much perfect.

In the first category, while, with the exception of Alan Rickman, the movie itself absolutely sucks, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves has a killer soundtrack. I sometimes dig up old videos of Tonya Harding (1992 worlds) and Katarina Witt (1994 Olympics) just to watch their routines done to the music.

---

J.B.C. in St. Louis, MO, writes: I think you might have slightly misinterpreted the question from J.K. in Mahomet—it seemed like they were asking about movies ABOUT music, not necessarily soundtracks. If I may add one that fits that description: Immortal Beloved—the Amadeus of Beethoven, if you will. With the masterful portrayal from Gary Oldman, reflecting just how different the life of one of our greatest composers might have been if not for a snoopy innkeeper.

(V) & (Z) respond: You are likely right, although nearly half of the 20 films we mentioned ARE music films, including our #1 soundtrack (The Blues Brothers).

---

T.J.R. In Metuchen, NJ, writes: Not in order and incomplete:

• Boogie Nights
• Goodfellas
• Casino
• American Hustle
• The Harder They Come
• Trainspotting
• L.A. Confidential
• Scandal (The John Hurt movie)

Many of these opened my ears to music that I'm not naturally attuned to.

---

M.S. in Newton, MA, writes: Three movies you're missing with first ballot hall of fame soundtracks:

• Judgment Night: Legitimately terrible movie, but the joining of a heavy metal and hip-hop artist for each song was revolutionary. The greatest soundtrack of all time.
  
  
• The Crow: Another mediocre movie, but the soundtrack is headlined by an amazing song by The Cure, and followed by one legit song after another.
  
  
• Reservoir Dogs: I know you included Pulp Fiction, but start with "Little Green Bag," and then the memorable scene with "Stuck in the Middle with You." This is Tarantino's gold standard.

---

J.W. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Thanks for making the distinction between songs made for a movie and a collection of songs for a movie. The third category is movie score, and I think Star Wars is more suited for that category. I have a couple of other candidates for consideration.

• Harold and Maude: Movie and music are almost inseparable.
• Garden State.
• Ferris Bueller's Day Off: An odd one; the soundtrack was released decades after the movie, but that one song alone (Chick. Chickachahh)...

---

D.S. in Layton, UT, writes: Paul Simon's One Trick Pony bombed as a movie, but the soundtrack was one of his best collections of original music.

This one is so obvious that it is often overlooked, but each song on it has become part of the souls of everyone (except for Lady D.S., who hates the movie—something I did not know when I proposed). The Wizard of Oz would be nothing short of magnificent even if it did not include Judy Garland singing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow"... but of course, it does.

McCabe & Mrs. Miller uses the music of the magnificent Leonard Cohen as effectively as The Graduate uses Simon and Garfunkel.

---

J.K. in Portland, OR, writes: How could you omit Singing in the Rain? Yes, it is a Gene Kelly hoofer's delight (and the underrated Donald O'Connor matches Gene, step for step) and the two most memorable songs (the "Good Morning" trio and the title song star's solo) get a little bit buried in the comedy of the accompanying dances. But if you listen to the movie with your eyes closed, you get some real treats. The plot is, after all, all about singing, which requires Debbie Reynolds to sing beautifully (which she does). For those of us who like metamovies (movies about making movies), it is perfection when Gene requires a sound stage set to give him the courage to declare his love for Debbie. I've been convinced for a long time that it didn't get the Oscars it deserved because Gene Kelly and company won the marbles (deservedly, and that movie merits serious consideration for your second category) the year before for An American in Paris.

---

H.B. in State College, PA, writes: Do I approve of your list of the best movie soundtracks "that was wholly (or mostly) borrowed by the movie, and was not composed for that film."

I'm afraid I can't do that.

You left out 2001: A Space Odyssey, which forever changed our reaction to the opening of Richard Strauss's "Also sprach Zarathustra."

(V) & (Z) respond: It was down to that movie and Fantasia for the last slot, and we think that Fantasia did what 2001 did (repurpose classic music) a bit better, and also did it first.

---

R.O. in Providence, RI, writes: I can't believe you left the soundtrack from Rocky off your list. Perfect movie soundtrack.

---

R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, writes: I am surprised you left Evita off your list of best musical movies. I think this movie blows Grease, Purple Rain, and The Sound of Music out of the water. It's set in 1940s Argentina and it's a fictionalized story about Eva Perón, the former First Lady of Argentina. Madonna played the starring role and won a Golden Globe for it. She put a tremendous effort into improving her vocals and professionalism for this role and it shows. The soundtrack is heavily influenced by a variety of Latin American styles and it required a lot musical versatility from the cast.

History Matters

M.S. in Harrisonburg, VA, writes: As a former Civil War reenactor I thought I'd write a response to M.R, in Brighton and provide a few comments on my experiences. I was a reenactor for about five years and was lucky enough to be an extra on Gettysburg and participated in the filming of the attack on Little Round Top (which, in my biased opinion, was the best scene in the movie). Although my ancestor fought for the Union I joined a Confederate reenactor unit as I live in a former Confederate state and had a friend who was a member of that unit. While I enjoyed the experience overall, there were some serious downsides that finally led me to give it up. I'll provide a brief rundown of both the good and the bad.

The Good: As you would expect, the most fun was the actual reenactments themselves. Even though you know you are in no danger, seeing a line of blue "soldiers" level their rifles at you and fire is eye-opening. My favorite reenactments were Gettysburg (of course, did a reenactment of the Confederate assault on Culp's Hill on July 2, done at the correct time which was a blast) and Cedar Creek. Even with the careful scripting of most reenactments, chaos and confusion usually quickly took over, as it often did in real battle. It did give you a real feel for what it might have been like.

The bad and the ugly: I was expecting a lot of Lost Cause B.S. when I joined, but it was so over the top that it was hard to have an honest conversation of anything Civil War-related with a large number of my fellow reenactors, at least on the Confederate side. On more than one occasion, somebody wanted to fight me (for real) because my Great, Great Grandfather fought for the Union. Worse, the pure racism of some of the reenactors, either overt or passive, was hard to deal with. The last straw was an argument I got into with one of the members of my unit who was saying that the Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves, and I was the only one who stood up to him. I don't know for certain, but I imagine that this might even be worse now.

Overall I'm glad I got the experience of doing it, and still love watching my scene in Gettysburg, there is still a bad taste in my mouth from some of my experiences. I have not been to a reenactment since I stopped, but will likely try to at least get to the New Market reenactment at some point.

The Sporting Life

M.S. in Canton, NY, writes: I'm amazed that in your list of 10 greatest World Series games ever, you omitted Game 6 of the 1975 World Series! Look at what it had: The Big Red Machine vs. the Yaz-led Red Sox, two of the glamour teams of the decade. Five Hall of Fame players, a Hall of Fame manager, and several other players who arguably should be in the Hall of Fame (most famously Pete Rose). All the drama you could want: Boston led, then the game was tied for several innings, then Cincinnati led, then Boston tied it on a thrilling 2-out, 2-strike pinch-hit home run. Brilliant defensive plays by both teams kept the game tied until the 12th inning, when Boston won on a walk-off home run that just barely stayed fair. It was everything a World Series game should be.

(V) & (Z) respond: We narrowed our list down to 11 games, and we cut that one because the Sox did not end up winning that World Series.

---

J.N. in Freeland, WA, writes: R.M. in Norwich asks: "Why do you think it took so long for soccer to become popular on a professional level in America?"

You replied (in part): "...a number of factors. However, we think the most significant, by far, is that people have only so much headspace for sports..."

I've long believed there's a much more powerful reason why soccer has had a long uphill climb in popularity. It's long been almost impossible to find soccer on television, because the game does not lend itself to the traditional (American) means of broadcasting commercials. After all, 45 minutes (plus stoppage time!) of uninterrupted action doesn't allow for the long commercial breaks you find in football ("American football", that is), baseball, basketball, and hockey. As the sport has started to gain a toehold in the U.S. market, broadcasters have found ways to shoehorn in some commercials, primarily through a "picture-in-picture" format. But even then, when there's a brief stoppage on the field, and the broadcaster wants to slip in a commercial, they usually don't know how much time they'll have for them—could be 15 seconds, could be several minutes. Corporate advertising doesn't like this type of uncertainty. The major league sports even provide for "commercial time-outs"—the game may be ready to resume in a matter of seconds, but the media are promised a 2- or 3-minute window to air their sponsors' messages. A stoppage in hockey for icing is followed by the ensuing faceoff in perhaps 15 seconds during live action—but that becomes several minutes if it's time to show commercials. I'd be surprised if some of the rule changes to speed up the game in baseball weren't met with pushback by corporate sponsors.

When was the last time you saw a baseball game that went 45 or 50 minutes with no commercials?

---

K.Z. in San Antonio, TX, writes: I think you missed the easy answer about why soccer took so long to catch on into the U.S. I'm in Gen X and my rec sports options were football, basketball, soccer and lacrosse. Now, every kid, including mine, plays youth soccer at some point.

So at this point, parents my age and younger have been exposed to the sport and understand that it's wildly exciting.

Just my 2 cents.

(V) & (Z) respond: That basic theory has been around, in one form or another, for a very long time, and we rejected it because we don't think it stands up to scrutiny. The correlation between the sports that American kids play, and the sports that American adults watch/patronize, is not a strong one. If we go based on youth (or high school) participation, football, for example, should not be the #1 sport by a mile, while baseball, for another example, should have much more 40-and-under viewership than it does.

Final Words

R.B. in Santa Monica, CA, writes: Many readers will know that George Washington's final words were: "'Tis well."

However, taken out of context, the remark implies he met death with courage and/or stoicism. Maybe he did, but that was not what he was communicating. In fact, he was scared witless that he might be entombed alive. And so, as the Father of His Country faded, he told his private secretary—Tobias Lear—that everyone damn well better wait at least 3 days before interring the body. Washington demanded that Lear acknowledge the instructions, Lear nodded, and Washington said "'Tis well" and expired.

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