G'Day and Good Riddance

Another Trumpy fellow who had hopes of leading a Western democracy has bitten the dust (politically, that is).

Earlier this week, it was Canada's Pierre Poilievre, who not only failed to be elected PM, but lost his own seat in Parliament. This weekend, it was Peter Dutton, whose right-wing Liberal Party not only got trounced, but who also lost the seat in suburban Brisbane that he's held for 20 years.

The dust is still settling, but it appears that the left-wing Labor Party will have at least 85 seats in the new Parliament, well more than the 76 needed for a majority. That's a gain of 12 seats for them (with 19 seats yet to be called), and makes Anthony Albanese the first Australian PM to be reelected since the early 2000s. The Liberal-National coalition, by contrast, has currently claimed only 36 seats. That's a loss of 17, and there aren't too many uncalled seats where the Liberal candidate is ahead, so a double-digit loss of members appears to be certain. Thus far, independents and minor parties have won 10 seats; that compares to 19 in the previous Parliament.

Donald Trump has not threatened to take over Australia, nor to devastate that nation's economy with tariffs. So, he wasn't as much an issue as he was in the Canadian election. However, that does not mean he was not an issue at all; he was certainly a factor in the election. Here's reader K.W. in Sydney, NSW, Australia:

Australians went to the polls on Saturday, and they returned Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's Labor government for a second term after a landslide result.

This was by no means a certain outcome, even allowing for Australians' preference for giving governments a second go (the last single-term government lost in 1931). As recently as January, the opposition Liberal Party (our conservative party) was well-placed to tip Labor out of office, but a concerted effort by Albanese, and a dreadful election campaign by the opposition, has seen Labor returned.

The Trump effect was not nearly as strong as it was in Canada (I think Albanese would have been returned in any event), but it was definitely a factor. Labor's fortunes definitely rose as the chaos from Trump's America became more apparent, and as with Canada, the Liberals unwisely associated themselves with Trump, to their detriment.

Donald Trump is undoubtedly a huge threat to American democracy, and to that of the world. But it's clear that he is proving quite the boon for moderate Centre-Left incumbents elsewhere in the democratic world.

Thanks, K.W.! Readers should note that while the Aussies do tend to keep the ruling party, they do not tend to keep the ruling PM. Before Albanese and Labor took power in 2022, the Liberals won three straight elections, and had a new PM after each one (Tony Abbott, followed by Malcolm Turnbull, followed by Scott Morrison). The most recent PM to preside over multiple Parliaments was John Howard, who managed to hold on through four elections from 1996-2007.

And so, the Trump effect in Australia appears to be helping to turn what would have been a close election into a laugher. And in Canada, it was to help turn what should have been an easy victory for the Conservatives into a loss. Remarkably, in TrumpWorld, negative impact is still impact, and so he bragged about his influence late this week: "You know, until I came along, remember that the Conservative was leading by 25 points. Then I was disliked by enough of the Canadians that I've thrown the election into a close call, right? I don't even know if it's a close call." Yes, Mr. President, that is certainly something to be proud of... that so many Canadians hate you that much.

Incidentally, there has been a little news out of Canada over the weekend. Newly reelected PM Mark Carney has indicated that he will not form a coalition government after all (see below for more), and will instead whip non-Liberal Party votes on a case-by-case basis. Meanwhile, Poilievre has found someone to fall on their sword for him. It's Damien Kurek, who has been in the Canadian Parliament since 2019, and whose safe seat representing Battle River-Crowfoot in Alberta turns out to be a little too safe. Kurek just won reelection by 71 points, which is a big enough cushion that even Poilievre should not be able to screw it up in the special election that will be called due to Kurek's resignation. (Z)

Sunday Mailbag

What can we say? Late (this week) is better than not at all (last week), right?

Politics: This Week in TrumpWorld

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: Salve ragazzi! Amid all the horrendous news of the past 100 days, I bring some glad tidings for all. Our Dearest Leader, Donald J. Trump, has been summoned to a higher calling. One better suited to his pristine character than the political leader of an ungrateful nation. Bonum commune communitatis. I speak, of course, of Donald Trump's elevation to the pontificate. As posted on his failing Fictus Veritas social network, I give you Pope Donald Proditor I:

We will, with sad hearts, bid ciao bella, as he heads to Rome next week to accept the mitre and keys, putting him firmly on the path to his eventual beatification. He is expected to be greeted at the gates of Vatican City by the conclave of Prelates chanting "Tu sei del tutto pazzo."

Seriously, just when you think he can not be any more self-righteous and full of himself, Trump proves he can always plumb to lower depths. If that AI photo of Trump as Pope doesn't make you think of, in the words of REM, "Losing My Religion" (and my lunch), nothing will. This is, of course, is more proof that Trump wants to take us back not to the 1950's but 15th and 16th centuries, when members of the wealthy Medicis were popes, despite being leches, rapists, murderers and thieves. Trump will fit right in.

Ominia est aliquid!

P.S.: As I write this, there is one hellacious thunder storm going on. I guess someone above is preparing a just welcome for our new Pope!

(V) & (Z) respond: Allow us to quote Pope Saint Gregory the Great: "I say with confidence that whoever calls or desires to call himself 'universal priest' in self-exaltation of himself is a precursor of the Antichrist."

---

R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, writes: This week, you wrote that you often get questions asking what will finally end Trumpism. Recent events provided some clues. His supporters do not seem to care about his admitted groping of women, his criminal convictions, his abuses of power, or his neglect of COVID-19. I think an economic collapse is what it is going to take to break the spell of Trumpism. As you noted, we just had indicators that the economy has begun shrinking. A major recession that leads to layoffs, business closures, foreclosures, and a collapse of spending will piss off most Americans, including Trumpers. They can wave away his handling of the pandemic, but they won't be able to ignore their relatives and neighbors losing their jobs or defaulting on their mortgages.

Several large financial institutions are predicting a recession this year due to the tariffs. I think the higher prices from the tariffs will reduce consumer spending, which will cause businesses to lay off employees and cause a recession. With a 145% tariff on Chinese imports, an item that normally costs $100 will become inflated to $245, which will either cause consumers to buy fewer quantities of the item, or go without buying it all together.

You also noted that younger Generation Z voters have shifted towards Trump. These people are clearly not old enough to remember recent American history. I am a generation older, having been born in the early 1980s. Since I reached adulthood, I have lived through four recessions: in 2001, which was exacerbated by 9/11, the Great Recession which began in 2007, the 2020 COVID-19 recession, and now the upcoming one in 2025. All four of these recessions began under Republican presidents. It is one of the main reasons I don't support Republican economic policies and won't vote for Republican presidential candidates.

---

R.M. in Lincoln City, OR, writes: I work as a process server. Surprisingly interesting work. Most of the court cases I serve have to do with overdue debt. Most of the people I serve are working poor, not that well-educated. I live in a blue county in a blue state, but we have plenty of Trump supporters in rural areas, which is where most of my work takes me. During the Biden years, I often knocked on doors with huge Trump banners in the yard. Not a problem for me; my work has nothing to do with politics, at least not directly. Yesterday, I saw something new. A house with a huge F*CK TRUMP sign:

As I stood outside waiting for someone to come to the door, a car drove by and slowed down, the driver honked his horn and raised his fist out the window (in solidarity, I'm pretty sure). Whether this is an out-of-the-ordinary blip or the start of a new wave, I don't know. Fingers crossed.

---

C.B. in South Bend, IN, writes: I ran across this on social media and thought it was apropos: "William Henry Harrison had a better first 100 days, and he spent 70 of them dead."

Politics: Veterans Day

K.S. in Harrisburg, PA, writes: TCF's rant rant about the U.S. "winning" World War II goes along with what American schoolchildren were taught in the 1950s and 1960s. Although I learned over the years this was not the case, it was still an enlightening experience years later to have a discussion on this topic with a relative who grew up in Germany during the war. She told me that when Adolf Hitler turned against the USSR in June 1941, her father claimed, "That's it; we will now lose the war."

For the German people to recognize that 6 months before Pearl Harbor was a little humbling to this American. The U.S. may have shortened the war, but it's likely that Germany was going to be defeated eventually without us.

---

J.M. in Silver Spring, MD, writes: My father was in the Army and fought in the Pacific during World War II. If he were alive today he would be 106 (he was 47 when I was born). I, like (Z), am not at all pleased that his work is being disregarded by this man.

---

S.W. in New York City, NY, writes: I think Trump got this idea of naming May 8 as End of World War II Day directly from his good pal/blackmailer, Mr. Putin. The anniversary of the end of World War II is a BIG, BIG day in Russia. No matter what city or community one visits in Russia—from St. Petersburg to Siberia—the first stop is always to a commendation (statue, cemetery, etc.) to the heroes of that war. It's too bad that Trump doesn't recognize the American losses of the Pacific.

---

E.S. In Providence, RI, writes: Rhode Island is the only state to have "Victory Over Japan Day" as a state holiday. Every year there is a renewed battle over renaming it. Some think renaming it would be an affront to the memory of the 10% of Rhode Island's population that fought in World War II. Others are embarrassed by the racist undertones of "V-J Day," especially concerning reinforcing cultural stereotypes (the state's Asian-American population is estimated at 3.5%). Almost every year legislation is introduced to rename it (Peace and Remembrance Day was the latest attempt), and every year there is a huge, angry debate and the measure has yet to pass.

---

S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, writes: Trump probably thinks V-J day is the day video killed the radio star.

Politics: Foreign Affairs

P.H. in Orlando, FL, writes: Two Peters were Beaten.

Just HOW toxic the Trump Brand is on the international political stage can be measured by two extraordinary, history-making elections in the last few days?

In Canada, the incumbent Liberal Party (left-of-center) returned to power 30 days after all the polls showed they were 20 points behind the Conservatives. Not only did the Conservatives lose, but their Trumpy leader also lost his own SEAT. That's right, voters in his own Riding tossed him out of the Canadian Parliament, after 20 years serving in that seat. (Pierre Poilievre, Riding of Carleton, Province of Ontario).

In Australia, the incumbent Labor Party (left-of-center) returned to power 30 days after all the polls showed they were 20 points behind the Conservatives "Liberal Party." Not only did the Conservatives lose, but their Trumpy leader also lost HIS own seat. That's right, voters in his own Division tossed him out of the Australian Parliament, after 24 years serving in that seat. (Peter Dutton, Division of Dickson, State of Queensland).

I lived in Oz for over 4 decades, and Canada was the first country in North America I visited.

So, for me, this is personal.

---

M.G. in Montreal, QC, Canada, writes: You have written that there will undoubtedly be a coalition government between the Liberals and New Democratic Party (NDP) in Canada. Such an arrangement would imply a written agreement between the two parties whereby PM Mark Carney would bring some NDP MPs in to hold cabinet portfolios. That will not happen. Carney will merely seek out support on critical votes and perhaps toss them a bone or two in the budget, but not more than that. Many NDP voters lent out their support to the Liberals this time around as normal order wasn't applicable due to dealing with Trump. And Carney is going to have to deliver and fast. Interestingly, 13 of the 17 ridings the NDP lost flipped to the Tories. The working-class vote is shifting rightward in Canada, too. And lastly, as to Pierre Polievre, his entire campaign was "Justin Trudeau this, and Justin Trudeau that" along with "Axe the (carbon) tax." Well, Trudeau took a hike and Carney axed the tax. Polievre's goose was cooked before the election was even called.

---

A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: F Trump, Eh?

From someone who is conversant in 5 languages—English, Politics, Construction, Sarcasm, and Profanity—that is a TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE headline!

---

C.M.W. in Myrtle Beach, SC, writes: I am speaking at a conference in Arizona this week. One of my friends that is attending is from Canada. Last night as he was headed here he told me this:

Only less than 30 people on my flight. Definitely few people traveling from Canada to the U.S. now. The entire U.S. terminal was empty. Very weird feeling: big terminal with no people in it, but lots of U.S. flights on the board, so they must all be going nearly empty. You could fire a cannon through the terminal and not hit anyone. At U.S. customs in Calgary here, they had 8 US customs booths all manned and we were the only people—me and my wife—no one else in line at security or customs...

I know that is somewhat anecdotal but it is also somewhat shocking. You hear on the news how much Canadians are upset with the U.S., but seeing it so tangibly is far different.

I know in the moment things always seem unfixable even if they are... but I don't know how we ever get back from here.

P.S. How much do you hate that Trump basically ruined your long time gag about Canada?

(V) & (Z) respond: We are definitely not happy about it. But we're stuck; it's just too tone-deaf right now.

---

A.R.S. in West Chester, PA, writes: Just finished up a 7-day tour of El Salvador and have come away with a somewhat different impression of the country from when I arrived. I think I, like many Americans, had a view of the country (thanks to the Orange-haired one) and President Nayib Bukele, as a place where everyone is living in fear, wondering what Bukele might do next. As you might guess, it's not that simple. Yes, beginning in 2022 the country has been under martial law. And personal freedoms have been compromised—no rational form of justice exists, as the accused are immediately put in jail, neighbors inform on neighbors, and personal privacy no longer exists. But the average person on the street knows little about what is going on in CECOT prison and has a new sense of freedom resulting from the removal of the gangs that roamed the streets from 2008-2022. People now venture out at night and are not worried about going from one part of town to another. The trade-off of some freedoms that don't affect a lot of people is, to them, worth gaining back that which allows them to lead a more normal life. So, whether or not to send Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the States is of little concern to most Salvadorans.

Politics: Israel

S.G. in Newark, NJ, writes: I appreciate the heavy sigh in your response to J.R. in Orlando. But in tepid defense of the questioner, I would say that "Israel-skeptical" has some unique baggage as a verbal shorthand. You point out, correctly, that "a country's name is always a metonym for its government." True, but in some cases a country's name is not ONLY a metonym for its government. A "Canada-skeptical Quebecois" might be someone who did not like Canadian government policy, but also might be understood to question the idea that Canada is sovereign over Quebec. Ditto a China-skeptical Tibetan Buddhist. Your answer to J.R. clarifies that you meant "supports the idea of a Jewish homeland, but does not support the current regime in Israel." The problem, of course, is that there exists plenty of skepticism about the idea of a Jewish homeland, so in this context, the meaning you intended was not the only one a reasonable reader might have inferred. And yes, I appreciate how difficult it is to write about this at all, ever.

(V) & (Z) respond: Even if this is the case, what purpose is served by passive-aggressive e-mails that are seething with anger? There are productive ways to give feedback on our writing, and to make suggestions for changes. That is not what happened here.

---

A.L. in Highland Park, NJ, writes: In your answer to J.R. in Orlando about calling Jon Stewart an "Israel-skeptical Jew," I believe you were grammatically and linguistically correct, but missed all the nuance. For example, I abhor the blocking of Indus river water to Pakistan because it would devastate hundreds of millions. Thus I could rightly be called an "India-skeptical Hindu." But even my worst detractors would not claim that I wished for the state of India to be dissolved and its people scattered. India just has a solid sense of there-ness that makes the thought absurd.

Jon Stewart knows his criticism of the Netanyahu administration can and will be twisted into a condemnation of Israel's right to exist. Yet he persists. This shows true courage. He is owed a few extra words of explanation such as "critical of Israeli government actions..." Because, let's face it, "Israel-skeptical Jew" is carrying a lot more baggage than "U.K.-skeptical Anglican" or "Japan-skeptical adherent-of-Shinto."

---

R.M. in Lincoln City, OR, writes: I LOVED your answer to the question about Jon Stewart being "an Israel-skeptical Jew." I'm a member of that particular tribe myself. I am so appalled by what Israel has done in Gaza, that I no longer take any pride in my Jewish heritage. I haven't been able to bring myself to a Passover Seder for the past two years, because I refuse to take part in a celebration that delights in the plagues that were wrought on Egypt.

I especially liked this line: "anytime we write ANYTHING about Israel, we get angry e-mails complaining about fine-grained (some would say nitpicky) details, particularly how this word or that word was a terribly wrong choice." Having grown up in a Jewish family, I would have predicted that myself.

---

S.S. in West Hollywood, CA, writes: I too grew up hearing "never again" in reference to the Holocaust. That's part of why it's now so painful watching family members embrace Trump's hate cult. I suspect one day they will feign ignorance and claim, like many Germans did after the Holocaust, that they "didn't know." With that in mind, I'd like to recommend four more documentaries. They are all extraordinary films worth watching, even if they didn't remind us why "never again" still means something today:

Three Minutes: A Lengthening: A man found almost 4 minutes of film his grandfather shot in the Jewish part of a small Polish town in 1938 while on vacation there. The people in the footage are happily unaware that everything would soon change for them. Of the 3,000 Jews in the town of 7,000, only about 100 survived. Using nothing but the film footage, like a detective, it's examined frame by frame. First, he finds one survivor who is able to identify a handful of people, which leads to other people who identify more, thus bringing the Jewish community and individuals alive for us, despite the atrocities that would occur months later in the town square where the footage was filmed. Individuality and humanity replaces what would otherwise be generic faces lost to history. It's a haunting and almost beautiful experience. Available free on Kanopy and to rent on Amazon Prime and Apple TV+.

Stamped from the Beginning: A look at the origin of racism and how stereotypes were first created to justify slavery, violence and rape, and how that continued to evolve throughout history. A lot of information and powerful ideas packed into a tight 90 minutes. It's history we should all know, but most of us probably don't. Available on Netflix.

No Other Land: This year's Oscar winner for Best Documentary. Extraordinary coverage of the Israeli occupation of the Masafer Yafta community on the West Bank. Basel Adra is a citizen-journalist who films life there. After the Israeli Supreme Court ruled the land belonged to the Israeli army, they began showing up regularly, and randomly bulldozing homes, destroying generators, water wells, and building supplies, while shooting or arresting anyone who resists. Despite this, life goes on. The Palestinians continue rebuilding, dreaming of a better future, going to school, having birthday parties, etc. Basel is supported by his friend Yuval, an Israeli journalist whose reports on the situation are barely acknowledged back home. I really hope more people see this powerful film. I don't think anything will change unless public opinion changes, and public opinion won't change until more people see the realities of life on the ground there. Available to rent from the filmmaker at supportmasaferyatta.com.

The U.S. and the Holocaust: Ken Burns' incredibly informative and engrossing three-part documentary series. I thought I was knowledgeable about the Holocaust, having learned about it at a young age and continuing to learn more since. This was the first time I really saw the big picture of how all the pieces fit. Starting with the influence on Hitler of Henry Ford's best selling antisemitic book, Hitler then looked to the U.S. to learn how it exterminated Native Americans, and how laws in southern states dehumanized Blacks and prevented opportunities for power, wealth, and influence. During the war, antisemites in the State Department stopped news from getting out and aid from getting in. Most Americans and politicians were happy to look away and feign ignorance. Even after the war, England and the U.N. created Israel not as a goodwill gesture, but because they needed a place to put Jewish refugees that wasn't their country. "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Available free on the PBS app and to rent on Amazon Prime and Apple TV+.

Politics: Academia

C.J. in Boulder, CO, writes: The question from F.C. in Nice kind of misunderstood the survey results in Nature. They weren't asking about American citizens currently in academic positions moving on—as Z notes, not a trivial thing to contemplate—they were asking a variant of that to non-citizens about working in the U.S. And 91% of those presently in the U.S. said they were more likely to leave the U.S.; similarly, of respondents outside the U.S., 83% were less likely to come here to study. Hardly a surprise with all the trauma at customs (and I've already heard stories of green-card-holding scientists getting held up trying to reenter the country).

The real killer questions are whether U.S. scientists would recommend a career in science—and 68% said they were less likely to. Hey, after that shout-out to Star Trek to encourage folks in science, this is the exact opposite. And international respondents, somewhat surprisingly, overwhelmingly said that the problems in U.S. science would affect them negatively. Why "surprisingly"? Because they will be the recipients of a diaspora of scientists, which might be a plus. Presumably they see shockwaves emerging from the U.S. that will damage relationships they have in the U.S. and weigh that as a greater loss than picking up some talented U.S. scientists. They also see datasets they rely on, and that the U.S. government has supported, are at risk of vanishing—there are efforts to copy over these datasets to European centers. Somewhat similarly, two professional societies (AGU and AMS, both with large numbers of foreign members) are taking over the task of doing the climate assessment that the administration tried to kill this past week... which of course means some other tasks will be sidelined, and probably somewhat greater international participation will occur.

While tenure-track faculty aren't immediately looking for overseas jobs, I can tell you who is: postdocs and graduating PhDs, not to mention early-career government scientists now on the street. Unlike much of the humanities, academic science positions pretty much demand that you have a positive cash flow from grants. In my field (like most science fields), students are paid to get an advanced degree, and shutting off the federal science spigot makes that a lot harder to do. So, potential new faculty members are looking at this and seeing starting a faculty career in the U.S. as fraught with peril. Some will probably decide a few years overseas might be a good move—a fairly easy move at that point in a career. Some might come back; some won't.

---

S.M.S. in Pomona, CA, writes: As a staff scientist at a university highly ranked in research in my area, I'm one of the people who is thinking about my future working in science in the US. Among the people I know, there's some discussion going on, but it's more theoretical, and at this point I don't know anyone who is changing their plans and uprooting to move somewhere else. It's not quite the season for that to happen yet, though we won't know for sure about people changing location until fall when new faculty and staff positions start up.

Everyone at the moment is watching the situation closely, and our national society is lobbying Congress hard to pull back the requested cuts in science funding... I think we are all hoping that Congress acts like it did during Trump I and fully funds science once the sausage is made. It is troubling that Republicans pushed through a budget plan that includes the large cuts, instead of just the President's plan doing so; it seems more likely that the cuts will become real because of that. Many of us are funded through multiple avenues, so at least some of us will continue to receive funding even if the government cuts agency budgets; private money can't cover all of the proposed cuts, though, and the immediate termination of grants is scary. It would be easier to wait things out if grant money wasn't being yanked away.

So, there isn't an immediate exodus of researchers, but it's pretty clear that there will be if things continue down this road. That will include people not coming here, of course—the uncertainty is pulling back job and school offer numbers already; we will have fewer scientists coming into the nation to study due to funding concerns and their fears of dealing with the capricious immigration system. Foreign students and scientists here already are a lot more likely to go back home or to some other nation to continue their work if they can't find one of the narrowing paths to surviving as a scientist here. Other nations are already recruiting these people, and increasing their own scientific funding in an effort to recruit more American-trained scientists as well as professors and scientists who are already in secure positions but don't like the idea of losing their funding.

American-citizen scientists like me also have to think about this. There are a lot of foreign scientists, so we're looking at losing many colleagues as well as funding and influence. The U.S. may no longer be the leader of science (arguably, in some fields, it's already losing out to China and/or Europe), and with that loss comes a loss of prestige. Successful scientists may be recruited away with the promise to build a new group in shiny new labs with lots of funding; if that's a nation without a lot of scientific status, the scientist can have huge influence, and that's definitely attractive. We're looking at losing half of our science funding, at a time when science is very expensive to progress, and it's already tough to get grants because it's so competitive. Even the loss of a bunch of scientists won't help that, especially since it's obvious this is just the first round of cuts.

There are also personal aspects to this, as many scientists have relationships with foreigners. My wife is a green-card holder from a nation that has a somewhat prickly relationship with Trump, so there are days that it feels like it's only a matter of time until we get a letter from the government telling her to go. Even if we fight it in court, it's going to be traumatic for my citizen daughter and I, and eventually we may be forced to leave to keep our family together. I'm not the only American in this boat, and if a job opened up I would have to consider it seriously simply because of the situation... that's why so many of us are considering what we should do, and the uncertainty has all of us wondering what is coming next and how to react to it. If this continues, I would not be surprised to see a big exodus of STEM researchers next year or the year after, especially if Republicans continue to hold Congress and cut into science funding.

It's very aggravating that this is happening to science in the U.S.; it's a self-inflicted wound that is going to damage our reputation and hurt us in so many ways, some of which we will never know. There's no reason for the Trump administration to destroy our scientific institutions, except that science is antithetical to what he and Project 2025 stand for. For almost a century, the U.S. has been seen as the scientific light of the world, and it's sad to think I'm going to live through the destruction of that, and possibly have to leave my country to continue doing the thing I love and keep my family with me.

---

J.K. in Portland, OR, writes: Your reply about the Turkish endowment of a chair in Armenian history reminds me of a similar story across town at the University of Spoiled Children. The Saudis were interested in funding an entire program in Middle Eastern Studies and the USC administration was champing at the bit. It then turned out that the Saudis wanted to have control over faculty members who were hired for the program, course content, and even which students would be permitted to take courses. The university chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) found out and objected to this, but we were ignored by the administration. We escalated by suggesting that the folks who accredit institutions of higher education might wish to know about this, and that caused the administration to cave and cancel any agreement with the Saudis. It was a close call. It was around this time that a Vice President of USC flew to Teheran (as it used to be spelled) to give the Shah an honorary degree. In secret.

---

J.W. in Newton, MA, writes: In response to L.S. in Greensboro, you answered that academics would see foreign funding as interfering with academic freedom. I think your answer, as written, pertains more to the arts and humanities. In STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics), research efforts are far larger and more expensive. STEM faculty tend to see their work as politically neutral. Many of them are willing to take research funds from China and Saudi Arabia, independent of how they feel about those governments. And when it comes to STEM, university administrations are willing to grab cash from just about any source. Harvard, for example, was delighted to take money from Jeffrey Epstein, even after his conviction for sexual abuse of a minor in 2008.

There are two main reasons that the model proposed by L.S. would not work for STEM. First, universities guard intellectual property (IP) with Doberman-like efficiency. Foreign governments might be allowed to fund the work and bask in the prestige, but not to take advantage of the IP. Second, the U.S government worries a great deal about foreign exploitation of university research programs, especially from China.

The way that a rich enough foreign government could take advantage of this situation is to hire away high-end STEM faculty, who generally despise the Trump administration and fear for the safety of their students and themselves. This is already happening on a small scale.

---

E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, writes: I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote about the "overcolleging" of America, even though my livelihood as a college professor depends somewhat on healthy enrollment levels. Some portion of my interactions are with students who are not at college to learn but instead come to party or to play their sport. These students are not a majority, but they do take up a disproportionate amount of my time as an instructor and academic advisor. It's particularly galling to me when these students are from underrepresented or disadvantaged groups who are getting their way fully paid through scholarships. I am glad that these scholarships exist, but I always feel bad for the other folks from those groups who just missed out on the scholarship that this student is now wasting.

In addition, I have two illustrative examples from my own college days. During my freshman year, my roommate was basically forced to go to college by his father, a very successful and rich engineer, even though my roommate would clearly have been much happier working as a mechanic on high-performance cars. One of our earliest conversations as roommates was him telling me way too much information about all of the flaws in the first Fast and Furious movie. He flunked out of the engineering program after that first year and left school. I lost touch with him, but I hope he got to work on his muscle cars...

Also, what you wrote about non-college folks feeling like they are somehow inferior reminded me of a woman I dated in my senior year of college. She had recently quit her job and was studying at a local community college, but never went to class even though she was paying her own way. What was sad about the situation is that she was a highly successful person, and even though she was not traditionally academically gifted, she was smart in her own way. The job she quit was that of a regional manager of a successful local restaurant chain, where she would be responsible for training all of the restaurant managers in her area. She had worked her way up from waitress to restaurant manager to regional manager before she quit to pursue an associate's degree simply because she thought she had to. She never finished that degree and went back into the restaurant business, and we lost touch.

I hope we as a society can start to recognize that college is not "winter camp" or 13th-16th grade. We need to stress to students that there are ways to be highly successful that do not involve college. We should also encourage students who do go to college to take full advantage of the learning and personal growth that colleges can provide.

Politics: Gen Z 2.0

G.M.K. in Mishawaka, IN, writes: You wrote about how Generation Z appears to be made up of two distinct cohorts. Your points are well taken. However, do consider that there may be a Gen Z 3.0. My own son is currently 16, so when COVID-19 hit, he was in sixth grade. I asked him over dinner tonight, "What's the difference between a 16-year-old and a sixth grader?" He wasn't sure, but when I brought up your item, he mentioned that he didn't mind so much being told what to do as a sixth grader. And none of that would fly now.

According to him, there are great many of his cohort in his classes, on the buses and such, who are absolutely not Trump supporters. A great many of his ilk detest the current president, as I did when I was 16 and Ronald Reagan was in office. Of course, this is purely anecdotal. But, perhaps, there is hope yet for the youth of America.

---

M.B. in Granby, MA, writes: Kids change, and it's hard to prove how and when that happens. But the table in your "COVID Is Still With Us" post reflects my experience in the high school classroom.

After the pandemic, my Gen Z 2.0 students are much more anxious and, to be honest, much meaner. They are less apt to do school work (for a year or so, we didn't give homework). Kids are less apt to go to school. At my school, attendance has rebounded. Elsewhere, it lags.

On average, GenZ 2.0 spends more time on social media than GenZ 1.0. Mostly TikTok. I think GenZ 2.0 kids also have a shorter attention span than GenZ 1.0 kids. This year, one of my students remarked that he couldn't sit through a movie. Several of his classmates seconded that notion. "Movies are too long!"

For several months, my GenZ 2.0 students had limited face-to-face interaction, due to the pandemic. I had them write journals during that time. It was heartbreaking.

After talking to some of my male students, I learned about the toxicity of their online culture. They have enormous group chats on SnapChat where they try to outdo each other in outrageousness. They have take screenshots of some of the more outrageous statements and sometimes use them against each other.

I'm very concerned about the way technology is transforming them. They smoke marijuana in school now without a tell-tale cloud of smoke. Kids who would never have picked up a cigarette, now are addicted to nicotine because vapes come in candy flavors. Ten to fifteen percent of my boys gamble online.

GenZ 1.0 may be different than GenZ 2.0, but the next cohort of kids may be even more different.

---

S.M. in Pratt, KS, writes: I think that your item on mistrust of the media answers the question you had posted at the end of the previous piece on Gen Z's rightward turn.

After the November election, I read a piece that stated that roughly 50% of the population get all of their news from social media, and that 20% get all of their news from influencers on social media. My experience is that those figures are even higher among Gen Z, and highest among the younger Gen Z'ers. We now know that many (most?) of the social media influencers are paid to push certain positions and opinions. Heck, we even know that Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, Benny Johnson and others were being paid by the Russian government to push pro-Russian and right-wing propaganda.

The simplest explanation is that the young Gen-Z's are the most exposed to right-wing propaganda and, with limited experiences to draw from, haven't seen through it yet.

---

B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: Of the vast amount of print I consumed this week, two paragraphs particularly stood out: (V)'s takedown of analysis-by-generation, and (Z)'s comments about Jefferson Davis' trade war. (V) pushed back against the "assumption... that people born in same span of 15 years or so had the same experiences and tend to think alike and vote alike." Indeed, analysis-by-generation is the new astrology. It is a prevailing idea among journalists and self-appointed social commentators. They talk about Gen X and Gen Z with the same confidence someone else would talk about Capricorns and Libras. And they think that it's real. I see these articles constantly, and (V) finally called them out.

(Z) wrote about how the secessionist leaders were convinced that Britain and France would have to recognize and aid the Confederate States of America, because they could not afford to do without the South's cotton. They were dead wrong. Britain and France found other sources. The South lost its wealth in the war and, as (Z) points out, the price of cotton did not return to prewar levels for 120 years. (By then, Texas produced more cotton than Mississippi, and Mississippi produced more cattle than Texas, and cotton production was already moving to Arizona.)

Was I the only reader who saw this as an object lesson for the Trump administration? They are convinced that the world will necessarily have to come to Washington and "make deals" and we'll all be better off. But the rest of the world may choose to make deals with each other and find more reliable partners, and the Trumpers may be destroying the nation's wealth for a long time to come.

---

A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: It's interesting how salient the point about igniting a trade war with much-needed allies who then seek out other trade partners is to 2025.

In 1862, it was a reactionary, pro-slavery, states' rights agenda of poor election losers that caused their own society to fail.

Hmm.

Politics: Hogg Wild

A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: As you and many readers know, I am a former candidate for the North Carolina state Senate, and a current sitting member of the Executive Committee and Executive Council of the North Carolina Democratic Party. That being the case, I want to weigh in on the question from M.W in Huntington and your reply.

I DO have a problem with what David Hogg is doing, because the Party IS NOT supposed to take sides in a primary. I lost my own primary, and my opponent was clearly a Party favorite over me... but at least the Party did not overtly take sides with my opponent. Sarah Crawford and I are friends to this day, incidentally—we ran a good clean campaign, and she came out on top. No hard feelings, but I'd be a liar if I said I wouldn't have rather won.

Hogg, being a Party official, should not be taking sides. One reason is that he controls data and resources that can be directed, just as my own NCDP did and does, and that is why they don't take sides in a primary. It just is not a proper thing.

If Hogg wants to do what he is doing, then he needs to stand down from his DNC position. I do not have a problem with what Hogg is doing, but I do have a problem with him doing it from the position he is doing it from.

---

M.G. in Piscataway, NJ, writes: It is a fundamental fact that to win elections, people need to hear your message. If they don't hear your message, they will only hear your opponent's message about you. That's why the Democratic brand is toxic in so many parts of this country. Democrats let the Republicans define them and if the Republicans do have one thing they are great at, it's demonizing groups of people. Some people are upset that David Hogg is trying to get rid of the ineffective do-nothing Democrats, but we need Democrats that are spreading the Democratic message day-in and day-out. There are many ways for elected Democrats to get the message out. They can hold town halls, get on every podcast, TV show and radio show that will have them, they can send out a weekly newsletter, they can answer questions on social media, they can start their own podcast. Franklin D. Roosevelt got the message out with his fireside chats.

Some people don't think the most ineffective Democrats in safe blue seats should be primaried. To those people I would ask how would they feel if their favorite NFL football team went 5 -11 and the head coach said "I'm not going to try and upgrade any players. I want the same group of players that got us to our horrendous record"? If an NFL head coach said that in real life, he would be fired by the end of the day.

Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin blocked Build Back Better, they blocked voting-rights bills and they blocked a critical Democratic nomination to the National Labor Relations Board. If we could have waved a magic wand and upgraded Manchin and Sinema, there is a good chance Democrats would have won the 2024 election. When you put it that way, are there any Democratic voters that don't think we should upgrade the worst elected Democrats in safe seats?

(V) & (Z) respond: Note, however, that neither Sinema nor Manchin represented a safe seat, and so would not have been the type of candidate Hogg is targeting.

Gallimaufry

L.S. in Ann Arbor, MI, writes: I appreciated reading about all the non-gambling things to do in Las Vegas. Prior to reading that, I thought the best thing to do in Las Vegas is rent a car and drive to Zion National Park. It's close-by, and best visited in November. If time allows, after enjoying museums and comedy, I recommend an excursion out of town.

---

T.H.W. in Marlboro, VT, writes: In your Freudenfreude account of Valerie the dachshund, you described Kangaroo Island as "quite far removed from civilization and very well populated with dangerous animals." While I don't at all wish to challenge Valerie's resourcefulness, pluck, and good luck, unless you conflate "civilization" and "urban life," it is not "far removed from civilization." It is largely rural, with sheep farming, various sorts of agriculture, and beekeeping with a particular bee that remains nowhere else in the world. Pretty civilized, I'd think. There are substantial parks and wildlife refuges, protecting in a civilized fashion kangaroos, echidnas, wallabies, koalas, bandicoots, platypuses, goannas, possums and penguins, none of which qualify as dangerous animals to a dog who thinks she's human. There are two kinds of very venomous snakes, though they're not as aggressive as some of the mainland species and not likely to think of a pink-collared dog as prey. Tens of thousands of tourists visit every year without incident. Not all of them lose their dogs.

---

J.H. in Parker, AZ, writes: I hate to point this out but you are, in fact, mistaken that there's no political connection to this week's freudenfreude item. Valerie the dachshund undoubtedly heard about the elections in Australia and the wiener came out of the woodwork to get herself a democracy sausage to snack on.

---

S.R. in Paradise, CA, writes: It is not widely known that Dachshunds are expert at camouflage:

(V) & (Z) respond: Anyone who has a dachshund and has tried to find them at bath time certainly knows it.

---

R.R. in Montreal, QC, Canada, writes: You asked for a decimal calendar? OK, I guess I can't resist. Here is a new decimal calendar for the 21st century: Denarius Verus.

That's (supposed to be) the latin version of the name "true decimal", which is the name of my more-decimal-than-SI system of units.

My website has other curiosities, such as a chemical engineering report on Greek fire (any historians in the house?), and a ground-up reinvention of baseball statistics.

---

T.B. in Leon County, FL, writes: Funny, I also invented a "metric" clock when I was in junior high school, matching what you report those revolutionary Frogs did. My excuse for why it didn't "take": I didn't know how to find a manufacturer. (My thought process may have started after I was given a cheap watch that was erratic; my dad noticed the back put pressure on the axle of one of the gears, so we punched the watch's back out a little. This new freedom caused my watch to gain 20 seconds per minute on my friend's watches. Boy was my time flying!)

Of interest to me, an "old" heart-rate of 60 beats per minute becomes a "metric" heart-rate of 86. (Metric seconds pass about 15% more quickly than the currently used ones; metric minutes, on the other hand, are about 40% longer than the currently used ones.) Sixty miles per hour (which is about 95 km/hr) becomes about 235 km/m-hr. (How fast does your car go?)

Thank goodness I didn't also invent a metric calendar—I didn't know I'd have to want heads to roll.

Final Words

R.H. in San Antonio, TX, writes: From Pope Francis:

As I sense the approaching twilight of my earthly life, and with firm hope in eternal life, I wish to set out my final wishes solely regarding the place of my burial.

Throughout my life and ministry as a priest and bishop, I have always entrusted myself to the Mother of Our Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary. For this reason, I ask that my mortal remains rest—awaiting the day of the Resurrection—in the Papal Basilica of Saint Mary Major. I wish my final earthly journey to end precisely in this ancient Marian sanctuary, where I would always stop to pray at the beginning and end of every Apostolic Journey, confidently entrusting my intentions to the Immaculate Mother, and giving thanks for her gentle and maternal care.

I ask that my tomb be prepared in the burial niche in the side aisle between the Pauline Chapel and the Sforza Chapel of the Basilica, as shown in the attached plan. The tomb should be in the ground; simple, without particular ornamentation, bearing only the inscription: Franciscus.

The cost of preparing the burial will be covered by a sum provided by a benefactor, which I have arranged to be transferred to the Papal Basilica of Saint Mary Major. I have given the necessary instructions regarding this to Cardinal Rolandas Makrickas, Extraordinary Commissioner of the Liberian Basilica.

May the Lord grant a fitting reward to all those who have loved me and who continue to pray for me. The suffering that has marked the final part of my life, I offer to the Lord, for peace in the world and for fraternity among peoples.

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