Main page    Jun. 08

Senate map
Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

New polls:  
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)

Sunday Q&A

As a reminder, we had to push this to today due to issues we were having yesterday.

And if you're still working on the headline theme, we'll tell you that if there had been one more item, the headline would likely have been "Straight, No Chaser," which is a song by Marquis Hill.

Current Events

H.S. in Lake Forest, CA, asks: I am wondering about the Elon Musk tweet practically accusing Donald Trump of being a pedophile. It seems this can go to ways: (1) Musk has proof, which spells major trouble for Trump or (2) Musk does not have proof, exposing him to a very expensive defamation lawsuit. How do you see this playing out?

(V) & (Z) answer: We would break it down differently. What Musk said is demonstrably true, based on information that is already public. Trump was friends with Epstein, and there are photos of them together, and plane manifests that show Trump traveling on Epstein's dime, etc.

The part that cannot currently be proven (or disproven) is the part about Trump being a pedophile. However, Musk never actually said that, he only vaguely implied it. This leaves three possibilities, as we see it: (1) Musk knows, or strongly suspects, that it's not true, and so he chose his words carefully in order to communicate the notion but in a non-actionable way; (2) Musk thinks it's true, but doesn't have the goods to prove it, and so he chose his words carefully in order to communicate the notion but in a non-actionable way; (3) Musk knows, or strongly suspects, that it IS true, but is keeping the evidence in his back pocket for potential future deployment.

We think these three possibilities are all roughly equally likely. But without knowing which one it is, it's impossible to say what will happen next.


C.S. in Guelph, ON, Canada, asks: Is it possible to determine if Qatari students will still be allowed to attend Harvard? After all, daddy's plane must be worth something.

(V) & (Z) answer: It is a near impossibility that the attempts to bar foreign students from enrolling at Harvard will stand up. But if they somehow do, the first thing the Trump administration will do is assert its right to grant exceptions. The next thing it will do is grant those exceptions to Princess Elisabeth of Belgium, and then to a bunch of Qataris, Saudis, and other "friends" of the administration.


M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: Columbia University was first on Donald Trump's hit list, which baffled everyone—why Columbia, specifically? Could it be Columbia's elite journalism program that drew the crosshairs?

(V) & (Z) answer: That could be a small part of it, but it's mostly that: (1) The administration wanted to target very elite universities in blue states, which is why nearly every school that's been targeted so far is an Ivy League school (and the main exception to that is Northwestern, which is in Chicago), and (2) Because of the pretense that this is about fighting antisemitism, the administration needed schools that had particularly bad flare-ups during the Gaza protests, and Columbia certainly did.


R.R. in Lancaster, PA, asks: I understand that for some random for-profit university, or even a small regional school, not having or losing accreditation would be disastrous for the message it sends potential students and the employers of those students, but would a well-established world-class institution like Columbia really see the value of its degrees or the interest in students attending suffer from a wannabe dictator meddling in academic affairs in this way (even if he could)? I guess my question boils down to: What are the objective, intrinsic or legal ramifications of losing accreditation?

(V) & (Z) answer: Columbia is not going to lose its accreditation. This is even more certain than Harvard's continued ability to enroll foreign students.

That said, we will tell you what the two main problems would be if that school, or any other well-established school, WERE to have its accreditation pulled. First, the school's students would no longer be eligible for most forms of federal financial aid. Second, students who graduated from the school while it had no accreditation would be unable to land some jobs. Undoubtedly, most or all private business concerns would waive any "your degree must be accredited" requirement they might have for Columbia grads who completed their degrees during the non-accredited period. However, for many governmental or quasi-governmental positions, that requirement is enshrined in law or in policy, and cannot be waived without the law or policy being formally amended. Some state and/or municipal governments might change their laws/policies, but probably not red states/cities, and certainly not the federal government while Donald Trump is in charge.


D.G. in Fairfax, VA, asks: Is it really plausible for the Senate Parliamentarian to have enough time read through the entire budget bill, while the people actually voting on it don't have enough time?

(V) & (Z) answer: Well, yes. First, if we're talking the version of the "big, beautiful bill" that passed the House, then the Parliamentarian will have multiple weeks to review the bill, whereas the members of the House had less than a day. Second, the Parliamentarian has a staff, and they can always divide up the labor, with each of them reviewing, say, a 100-page chunk. Third, the Democrats (or any other interested group) can specifically direct the Parliamentarian's attention to questionable portions, and ask for a review.


R.K. in Fort Myers, FL, asks: The media is reporting that the budget bill would make the Trump tax cuts "permanent." What do they mean (since it certainly doesn't mean forever)? What stops the next administration from changing the tax laws?

(V) & (Z) answer: It is never, ever possible for a Congress to make anything "permanent." Anything passed by the 119th Congress can be reversed by the 120th Congress, or the 121st Congress, or the 122nd, the 123rd, etc.

That said, we can explain to you what is going on here. To survive a Byrd Bath, and thus to be eligible to pass the Senate via reconciliation, a bill cannot increase the deficit beyond 10 years. For the 2017 budget bill, the Republicans knew full well that their tax cuts would do that, so they specifically set those tax cuts to sunset in 2025 (i.e., after 8 years), hoping that they would eventually be in a position to extend them.

This time, there is no sunset provision, as House Republicans are arguing that the renewal is budget-neutral. The basis of this argument is that the federal budget ALREADY reflects the effect of the tax cuts, which means that extending them does not actually change anything. If so, then extending the tax cuts does not, in and of itself, increase the deficit—the increase is due to the 2017 law, not the 2025 law. Time will tell if Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough buys that.

In short, when someone writes that the 2017 tax cuts were not permanent, and the proposed 2025 tax cuts ARE permanent, what they really mean is that the 2017 tax cuts had a specified expiration date, while the 2025 tax cuts do not.


S.E. in New York City, NY, asks: In "Another Vicious Antisemitic Attack," you say of Stephen Miller that "he's reportedly an observant Jew." I'm curious about sources for such report, as this is the first time I'm hearing him so described. Also, if "observant" is at all a paraphrase, I'm curious what you think it means.

(V) & (Z) answer: It means very different things to different people, regardless of what religious tradition we are talking about. There is a wide range of observance between different folks who consider themselves to be observant Jews or observant Catholics or observant Buddhists, etc. Unless it is over-the-top obvious (for example, we are comfortable saying that Leo XIV is an observant Catholic), we don't describe someone as observant unless they have described themselves as observant.

In any event, Jean Guerrero, who wrote Hatemonger: Stephen Miller, Donald Trump, and the White Nationalist Agenda, the only book specifically on Miller to be published thus far, says that Miller regards himself as observant. It is known that he belonged to a reform congregation in California, and that he now belongs to a conservative congregation in the Washington, DC, area. He also had a rabbi as the officiant at his wedding. Beyond that, we have no specifics. He does seem kind of like a "high holidays and that's enough for me" kind of guy, but that's just a gut feel.


E.A.K. in San Francisco, CA, asks: This week, you wrote: "Donald Trump wants a Nobel Peace Prize so badly he can taste it." And you've made comments to this effect before.

Is it really within the realm of possibility that the Nobel committee would award this honor to this vile creature who has done so much damage to humanity?

(V) & (Z) answer: It is nearly impossible that he will win a Nobel, because the people who make those decisions hate what he represents, and because they consider an entire body of work, not just one particular accomplishment. For example, a warmonger who happens to do good things for the environment is still a warmonger.

We can only think of two ways Trump might get a Nobel, and they are both long, long, long, longshots. The first is if he plays a central role in reunifying North and South Korea, and the second is if he plays a central role in implementing a two-state solution in Israel.

Do not interpret this as an endorsement (or a critique) of a particular approach to those problem areas. However, if Trump did pull off either of those two specific feats, it would clearly be in service of trying to find a lasting peace. Further, and this is the key, both would clearly be dramatic paradigm shifts. There have been negotiations, and armistices, and ceasefires in those two places before, and yet tensions have not abated. So, it would not be enough for him to push those situations in the general direction of peace. He would have to come up with something very new and different that hadn't already been done before.

Since very skilled politicians and diplomats have been trying to reunite the Koreas, and to implement a two-state solution in Israel, for 70+ years, and haven't come close to pulling it off, it's a safe prediction that Trump won't be able to pull it off, either, assuming he even tries.


R.C. in Des Moines, IA, asks: It appears Ukraine delivered a stunning and very effective attack on Russia's bomber fleet over the weekend. There have been reports that they accomplished this by hiding drones in mobile dwellings inside Russia for a long period before deployment. Why would Ukraine reveal how this was done? Doesn't that make it more difficult to use this tactic again?

(V) & (Z) answer: Well, it's probably not a secret to the Russian military at this point, so the Ukrainians aren't really giving much away, we'd guess.

More importantly, we have often thought that if a terrorist—domestic or foreign—really wanted to wreck the U.S., what they would do is poison the water supply of one mid-sized city. Can you imagine the effect that would have? Tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions, of people would be terrified to use the water in their residences. There would be riots as people fought over bottled water, there would be serious health consequences as people chose dehydration over poisoning, there would be scapegoating ("I blame the Haitians!"), there would be economic chaos, etc., and the effects might well last for years.

What does this have to do with Ukraine? Well, if Ukraine puts the idea out there that every shed, every semi truck, every vacant apartment, every farmhouse, etc., might just be hiding a drone that is going to come to kill some Russian citizens, that could create mass panic, and would be a huge blow to morale. It is certainly worth a try, especially if Volodymyr Zelenskyy & Co. already think their secret is out anyhow.

Politics

J.L.K. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: It seems, perhaps to an even more exaggerated degree than in his previous administration, that Donald Trump is determined to appoint only the least-qualified people possible to each position. But it's entirely possible this is a reporting bias, as we're focused on only the worst examples (since they're so numerous, and extreme). Can you think of any examples of high-level positions where Trump appointed the most-qualified person for the role? Or, in a pinch, someone at least adequately qualified?

(V) & (Z) answer: Trump is not/did not search for the most unqualified people, per se. This time around, in particular, he searched for the people most likely to do his bidding without complaint (since he got burned several times during Trump v1.0 by people who had at least some integrity). It just so happens that people like that tend to be grossly unqualified. Not helping things is that, because Trump has not spent his career in government, and he HAS spent it consuming fawning media, his "talent pool" tends to be Fox personalities, podcasters, political donors, family members and general a**-kissers.

That said, there are at a few high-ranking members of the Trump administration who are at least reasonably qualified. Marco Rubio was a below-average Secretary of State candidate, but by virtue of his service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he at least clears the bar for "reasonably qualified." Similarly, the Secretary of the Treasury is usually a longtime Wall Street insider, so Scott Bessent is not especially different from any other nominee for that position. Labor usually goes to someone who has worked in union management, or in state-level labor-bureau jobs, neither of which Lori Chavez-DeRemer has done. However, labor issues were her focus while she was in the House, and she's about as worker-friendly a pick as you could hope for in a Trump administration. Interior usually goes to a politician from west of the Mississippi, and Doug Burgum fits the description and has a reasonable amount of executive experience.

The real problem is that some of the people who are unqualified are wildly unqualified. It's not unusual to have a candidate whose résumé is a little light, or whose résumé is good but who has some sort of strike against them (a scandal, some sort of lawbreaking, a fib in their paperwork, a conflict of interest, etc.). But people like Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, AG Pam Bondi and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy aren't just "a little problematic." None of them belong within a country mile of the departments they lead. If you made a list of the 10 worst Cabinet nominations in history, Trump v2.0 might well claim half the list. In particular, Hegseth has a very strong case as the most unqualified Cabinet nominee the United States has ever seen.

And note, this week we will have a piece about someone who, while not a Cabinet-level officer, has been chosen for a job that they have absolutely no business being appointed to.


R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: My aunt and uncle haven't spoken to my uncle's sister and her husband in over 5 years because they keep pushing QAnon theories on them at family gatherings when asked not to. I can't say I can blame them, because life is too short to waste time with people who make you unhappy, even if they're related.

Whatever happened to the QAnon movement? I haven't heard much in the way from it lately. I am surprised so many people still believe in it. What do you think it will take to finally bury it?

(V) & (Z) answer: There are four dynamics here, we would say. First, the person or collective behind QAnon went silent for several years, thus cutting off the fuel to the fire for a while. Second, QAnon was pretty central to the events of 1/6, and so became somewhat toxic for a period of time. Third, QAnon sort of splintered, such that the ideas lived on, but now they are propagated across multiple platforms, like Truth Social, Parler and Gab. Fourth, the media tends to cover things when they are new and exciting and somewhat scandalous, but not when they are old hat. So, a reduced-but-still-existent QAnon in 2025 isn't going to get a fraction of the coverage that a new-and-shocking QAnon got 5-10 years ago, which means you aren't likely to hear much about QAnon's lunacy these days unless you frequent places like Truth Social, Parler and Gab.

And QAnon will never, ever go away, it will only evolve into something with a different name. People in general, and Americans in particular, are prone to various forms of conspiratorial thinking. And some subset of both the general populace and the American public, really indulge that tendency. The Anti-Masonic Party, just to take one example, was effectively the QAnon of its day, and it was founded just shy of 200 years ago.


J.J. in Johnstown, PA, asks: I've been reading a lot lately about how Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) seems to be leaning further and further away from Trump. She looks to be in the process of doing a reverse Manchin/Sinema. Is there a world where she decides control of the Senate after the midterms? If the blue team can hold all of their seats and peel off Maine, North Carolina and one of Montana or Ohio (hopefully Jon Tester and Sherrod Brown attempt a comeback), that would set her up as the key to controlling the Senate. Do you think she's positioning herself and am I just wishcasting those Democratic Senate gains?

(V) & (Z) answer: If there's any Republican senator who might do it, it's her. She's not particularly a Democrat, but she's REALLY not a Republican, as the party currently exists. She's from a state that uses ranked-choice voting, and she'd probably be able to cobble together enough first- and second-choice votes from Democrats, independents, and modern Republicans to win reelection. She'd be able to get a king's ransom from the Democrats, if she was actually the decider when it came to control of the upper chamber. Oh, and in your scenario, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) would already have been defeated, which might send a message to Murkowski about the continued viability of the "moderate Republican" lane.

And yes, the situation in which Murkowski faces this choice is certainly plausible. It's not easy to unseat incumbent senators, but if voters are angry with the people in power, anything is possible. Also note that Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) is doing everything possible to screw up her reelection bid, so Iowa should be on the list of potential Democratic flips.

Civics

P.F. in Fairbanks, AK, asks: I grew up with a daily newspaper in the house and the local (albeit Chicago) news on TV literally 10 times a day, from 5:00 in the morning until 10:30 at night. Granted, the newspaper was a subscription, but it was also pretty comprehensive for being a suburban publication. As news sites expanded to the internet when I was in college, I grew accustomed to finding all the news I wanted (I could even tailor-make my world by choosing only the news I agreed with!) and getting it for free.

As a (relatively) functioning adult, I know that news is a business. I know it relies on revenues and has a bottom line. But I cannot help but delete my long-tenured apps as the ad-counts and subscription walls pop up, and fill their vacant space with something free-er, but noticeably more bogged down with banners and pop-up ads.

My dilemma has become the same with news as it is with streaming services—there is no way I could possibly subscribe to all of the news I read and stay within a reasonable monthly budget, especially if I'm still going to be interrupted with ads and access content that could be found elsewhere.

As perusers and diffusers of the news yourselves, what is your philosophy on subscribing to news services? Should news junkies feel guilt for avoiding subscriptions, dodging paywalls, and patronizing a patchwork of pro-bono media instead?

(V) & (Z) answer: This is not particularly profound, but every site that provides information of any sort (that includes us) has made its choices about what it's doing, why it's doing it, what kind of money is needed to keep the doors open, and what the best way is to get that money. If sites have made choices that don't work for their potential consumers, then that's too bad for those sites.

For our part, our choices are driven entirely by bang-for-the-buck. If a site is cheap or free, and it has useful information sometimes, we'll peruse it. If the site has a somewhat higher cost, we'll pay up if we use it often enough, as long as it is still reasonable.

What we won't do is pay for a subscription that we will almost never use. It's not worth the cost or the associated hassles to subscribe to a mid-sized newspaper for the benefit of one article every three months. Similarly, we're not going to pay prices clearly meant to be borne by a corporation/government agency for a site that would be useful/interesting, but not useful/interesting enough to justify the outlay (looking at you, Politico Pro).


A.P. in Kitchener, ON, Canada, asks: You wrote: "Don't get us started on White's 'Twinkie defense,' which is probably the most misunderstood bit of American jurisprudence outside of the McDonald's coffee case."

I will take the bait, please explain why both of these cases are misunderstood?

(V) & (Z) answer: Both of these are often held out as outrageous examples of a "broken" legal system, and neither of them actually are, or are even close to being so.

The McDonald's coffee case involved Stella Liebeck, who was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages after being burned by McDonald's coffee that spilled in her lap. Obviously, nearly $3 million seems like a lot of money for a "little" burn. But it was not a "little" burn; Liebeck was badly injured, and had a whole lot of pain and a whole bunch of surgical procedures. In addition, she tried to just get money for medical expenses, and McDonald's stonewalled her. And finally, McDonald's in general—and the franchise that sold Liebeck the coffee in particular—had been warned multiple times that they were dispensing coffee at temperatures that were unsafe, and were violating of health and safety laws.

Oh, and in the end, a judge set aside the punitive damages and ordered a new trial. Liebeck eventually reached a confidential settlement with McDonald's that was reportedly for less than $500,000, and that largely went to cover her medical expenses.

As to Dan White, his (successful) defense was based on the notion that he was not mentally well on the day he shot and killed Harvey Milk and George Moscone. And, as a small part of the case, White's attorneys pointed out that while he was normally a health nut, he consumed at least a dozen Twinkies on the day of the shooting, so clearly something was off. Put another way, the Twinkies were one symptom (among several presented at trial) of his mental dysfunction; they were not in any way put forward as the cause of his dysfunction.

Still, a reporter covering the trial—who maybe wasn't paying attention, or maybe wanted to make a splash, or maybe thought he was being clever—wrote a piece about the "Twinkie defense." And to this day, there are many people and many written/online sources that will tell you that Dan White avoided a murder conviction by blaming Twinkies for his actions.


J.R. in Orlando, FL, asks: My grandfather was in the Navy. Unfortunately, he passed away during COVID. I do not know much about his service, other than the fact my dad was born in Charleston, lived in Spain, and eventually settled in Fort Walton Beach, FL, due to my grandfather's various duty stations. I asked my father if he knew anything about what ships my grandfather served on or anything else about his service, and all he could tell me was he served on a submarine at one point. Is there any way I can find out information on my grandfather's service and, in particular, what vessels he served on?

(V) & (Z) answer: Next of kin can get copies of DD 214s, personnel files, and other documents; instructions on how to do so are here. Note, however, that a large fire in 1972 wiped out almost 20 million documents, so if your grandfather's service was before then, it's hit-and-miss.

History

J.E. in San Jose, CA, asks: On Friday, in reference to M*A*S*H, you wrote: "At the same time, the show lasted a long time (12 seasons) and was on at a pretty momentous time in U.S. history."

When would you say was the last time U.S. history was not momentous? And does "not momentous" mean "boring"? "Inconsequential?" Something else?

(V) & (Z) answer: When we said "momentous," we were specifically thinking of social change. And by that definition, the last decade that was not especially momentous is the 1950s. A lot of seeds were planted in that decade, by the Civil Rights movement, by other ethnic empowerment movements, by women who wanted to get out of the house, etc., but those seeds did not bear substantial fruit until the 1960s, such that the social and cultural milieu of 1950 was not all that different from that of 1959.

For the last decade that wasn't especially momentous in any way, let's propose this hypothetical test: You take (Z) or some other U.S. historian and put them in a time machine and drop them in either the first year of the last year of [DECADE X]. The test subject cannot ask questions of people, and cannot look at newspapers or other publications that would give away the date. They know what decade they are in, but they have to figure out whether it is the first year or the last year of that decade, based solely on observing the population and the way in which people interact with one another, the buildings, the way the language is spoken. the tools in use, etc. What would be the most recent decade in which it would be nearly impossible to say "Ah! This must be 1XX9 and not 1XX0!" or "This must be 1XX0 and not 1XX9!"

We would say the most recent decade in which the first and last years would be nearly indistinguishable would be the 1840s.


M.J. in Birmingham, AL, asks: I've been so overcome with schadenfreude from watching Elon Musk take a minigun to his foot over the last few days that it's hard for me to do anything but grin. However, deep down beneath all the layers of joy at the spectacle of Musk's recent self-destructive tirades, I think I detect a hint of curiosity within myself. Has anyone else in the world of American politics ever amassed so much power and then thrown it all away through hubris and lack of self-awareness? I'm just in awe at Musk's ability to bite the hand that feeds him and identify ways to lose the confidence (and accompanying money) of so many, and I'd appreciate it if you could provide a few names of people who might be able to compete with him for the title of The Most Self-Destructive Politico. Personally, my first thought was Joseph McCarthy, but at least he got to keep his Senate seat until his (early and possibly alcoholism-related) death.

(V) & (Z) answer: We'll give you half a dozen names, in chronological order:


R.E. in San Dimas, CA, asks: Donald Trump has run for president at least three or four times. Who has run for the office the most?

(V) & (Z) answer: It is a little bit difficult to count with precision, since a person can "explore" a run, or hint at a run, and then decide they're not going to pursue it.

Limiting ourselves to substantive presidential bids, the champions are probably William Jennings Bryan and Henry Clay. Bryan was a serious contender for the Democratic nomination for four straight elections, and was the party's nominee in three of those. Clay was a serious contender at least four times, and maybe more (it's harder to judge before the existence of nominating conventions). He was his party's nominee twice, and earned electoral votes a third time, in a presidential election that had four "non-partisan" candidates (1824).

If we include candidates who were just running to send a message, or to get attention, or for a joke, and who had no expectation of winning most/all of the times they jumped in, there are a bunch of folks who ran at least 5 times. That list includes Harold Stassen and Jack Fellure (9 runs each), Lyndon LaRouche and Pat Paulsen (8 runs each), Earl Dodge and Norman Thomas (6 runs each) and Eugene V. Debs and Eugene McCarthy (5 runs each).


M.H.B. in Alexandria, VA, asks: What do you think would have happened if, instead of going to war, Lincoln had told the South, "OK, good luck, godspeed. We will free all our slaves, and will never send back escaped slaves."

The South believed in "King Cotton" but had nothing else, except "honor." The whole house of cards was built on free labor. Would the slave states have eventually come back, and made a bargain?

(V) & (Z) answer: First, Lincoln couldn't let the Confederacy go. Democracy rests on the understanding that "sometimes our side wins, sometimes our side loses, and on those occasions where our side loses, we accept the outcome and try again next time." If the Confederacy can quit because they don't like a presidential result, then it's only a matter of time until some other state or group of states makes the same choice.

That said, if the South had gone its own way—regardless of the circumstances—it would never have come back to the U.S., hat in hand, seeking readmission. The Southern states have shown many, many times (including with the recent choices to reject Obamacare money) that they would rather be "right" and suffer than be "wrong" and prosper.


M.G. in Boulder, CO , asks: Eighty-one years ago Friday, 1,465 Americans died. I'm finding that a lot of people have only a vague idea of what D-Day meant. What do you consider essential knowledge about this formerly celebrated day?

(V) & (Z) answer: We presume that most Americans, and most people, are aware it was a massive military invasion that allowed the Allies to establish positions in Northern France, and thus to squeeze Germany from the west (with Russia doing do from the east), leading to the complete collapse of the Hitler regime in a little less than a year.

We will add three important things to know, beyond this, that are undoubtedly less familiar to most people. First, while the invasion was about winning World War II, it was also about the Cold War, which everyone in political and military leadership knew was coming. They recognized that the Soviets were going to continue to occupy pretty much any territory they re-conquered, and so it was important for the other Allied nations to re-conquer France and as much of Germany as was possible, so as to keep that territory from falling under Russian control.

Second, the Americans and the British get pretty much all the credit, but there was a significant troop presence from many nations on that day, most obviously Canada, Australia and the Free French. We have probably mentioned this before, but the most famous person to participate in D-Day, beyond people who are famous for their military careers, was probably the Canadian actor James Doohan, who lost the middle finger on his right hand during the invasion. When he was cast in Star Trek 20 years later, he took great pains to hide that hand (in pockets, by holding a clipboard or other tool, by standing behind a chair, etc.). So, in a small way, every episode of Star Trek contains a reminder of D-Day, and of the coalitions of nations that made it happen.

Third, because we know how things turned out, there is a tendency to assume that OF COURSE that is how they were going to turn out. Not so much, particularly in this case. Indeed, the invasion of northern France was so risky that Supreme Allied Commander wrote out an apology (and de facto resignation) to be sent out in the event the maneuver was a failure:

Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air, and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone.

This is reminiscent of the speech that was written for Richard Nixon to deliver in the event the Apollo 11 astronauts could not return from the moon.

Fun Stuff

J.B. in Bend, OR, asks: You asked readers to suggest the most famous shouted movie lines, and that got me thinking of what the most famous whispered movie lines might be. I could only think of one: "Rosebud," whispered by Charles Foster Kane as he died, in Citizen Kane.

(V) & (Z) answer: Whether or not something belongs on such a list is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. Well, the ear of the beholder. However, here are a dozen famous instances of lines that, at least in our view, qualify:

  1. "I see dead people." — Hayley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense
  2. "I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse." (and nearly every other line delivered by Vito Corleone) — Marlon Brando in The Godfather
  3. "Only the penitent man shall pass..." — Sean Connery in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
  4. "I... don't... bargain." — Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive
  5. "You see, this is my life! Nothing else! Just us, and the cameras, and those wonderful people out there in the dark!" — Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard
  6. "My precious..." (and nearly every other line delivered by Gollum) — Andy Serkis in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
  7. "If you build it, he will come." — Anonymous actor playing the voice in Ray Kinsella's head in Field of Dreams
  8. "There is... another... Sky... walker." — Frank Oz in Star Wars, Episode VI: Return of the Jedi
  9. "Great! Scott!" — Christopher Lloyd in Back to the Future
  10. "I Killed Mufasa." — Jeremy Irons in The Lion King
  11. "Show me the way..." — Jimmy Stewart in It's a Wonderful Life
  12. Unknown — Scarlett Johansson to Bill Murray in Lost in Translation

If readers have additional answers, send them to comments@electoral-vote.com and we'll run them next week.


S.B. in North Liberty, IA, asks: What are the 10 greatest World Series games of all time? This is something I have spent way too much time thinking about and would love to hear (Z)'s list.

(V) & (Z) answer: In chronological order:


P.R. in Arvada, CO, asks: So, the other slow burn romance came to a conclusion this week, and Aaron Rodgers finally said yes to the mighty Steelers.

Thoughts? Predictions? Over under on how many times the offensive line collapses before he is out injured for the rest of the season?

(V) & (Z) answer: The Steelers dumped a quarterback, in Russell Wilson, who hasn't been good in about 6 years, for a quarterback, in Aaron Rodgers, who hasn't been good in about 4 years. That team is going to do its usual thing, and go 9-8 and then lose in the first round of the playoffs. Meanwhile, the over/under on the number of weeks until Rodgers is blaming someone else for his failings is 2½.

We don't foresee him getting hurt due to a poor offensive line, however. Aaron Rogers places far too much value on Aaron Rodgers to let that happen—he'll throw the ball away prematurely, if he has to. Brett Favre was doing the same thing for his last 4-5 years.

Gallimaufry

A.S. in Bedford, MA, asks: My company hires college student interns during the summer, and I'm usually assigned to mentor at least one. My role is to give career advice and answer questions. Two years in a row now, my student has been extremely proactive about their career, beyond anything I ever did (e.g., asking me who to get grad school recommendation letters from... as a rising sophomore). It made me wonder: My impression of Gen Z is that world events and access to so much information (and AI) has made them cynical beyond their years. In your teaching though, do you see the opposite effect as well, where they use the copious information available to them to try to optimize their lives and careers beyond what previous generations could do? Or are all these generalizations just looking for patterns that aren't there?

(V) & (Z) answer: Well, as you surely know, you're not exactly getting a representative slice, since it's a small sample size, and anyone who goes out and lands an internship as a sophomore is, at the very least, above-average on the motivation spectrum.

There is little question that, when it comes to college (and grad school) admissions, things are as fiercely competitive as they have ever been. This certainly leads to some students doing a lot of hustling, and trying to use available resources to improve themselves, and maybe embracing a little bit of cynicism. However, the primary dynamic, as far as we can tell, is students learning how to use all these tools to create shortcuts that allow them to cope with their many and varied responsibilities. We wouldn't quite call this "personal development," but it's understandable and it's acceptable as long as there's no dishonesty involved.


P.D.F. in Salt Lake City, UT, asks: Thank you for your piece on Loretta Swit. It was terrific to be reminded of her work helping advance American TV culturally (insofar as that's possible). But, as I read it, I couldn't help but think, "Uh-oh, they're going to say 'she passed.'" And you did. Why? Why not say she died? What is it about Americans, even the smart ones, that often makes them unable to stay away from euphemism when it comes to death? Maybe this was just a slip. You did, after all, say that President Carter had died. But not Loretta Swit. What gives?

(V) & (Z) answer: Usually, "died" is used in headlines, because it is short, and "passed away" is used in body text, because it's a bit more gentle. We would have put "died" in that headline, except that the headline was also crafted to fit the headline theme, and the song we chose didn't have "died" or "passed" in its title.


M.A. in Colorado Springs, CO, asks: Your recent wrap-up of the 20th anniversary trivia from a year ago made me wonder how you keep track of all of the items you are working on and the ones hanging around on the back burner, especially in terms of priority.

(V) & (Z) answer: For stuff that is more on the front burner, mostly bookmarks and the bookmark manager. For example, (Z)'s current collection of links, which are stored in a file called "upcoming_EV," includes folders called "fugate," "budget," "judges," "pardons," "gov_candidates," "biden_cancer_dementia," "trump_sports," "shadow_cabinet," "pride_month" and "dem_plans," among others. Each of those contains at least three or four links that will form the basis of an item. Some of those items will appear this week. Some of them will get pushed back because of time/length constraints or because there is other, more pressing news. For example, "trump_sports" has been sitting on deck, as it were, for 5 weeks, and is not likely to make it into the batter's box this week.

For stuff that is on the back burner, mostly e-mail mailboxes. There are SOME things on the back burner that we use links/bookmark manager to track, and there are SOME things that are imminent that are being tracked using mailboxes (usually stuff that includes a lot of reader-driven content, like the upcoming pieces on genocide/terrorism and on Joe Biden, which means there is both a link collection AND a mailbox for Biden). But generally, it's links for stuff that's coming up soon, mailboxes (and sometimes notes) for stuff that's in the future.

Sunday Mailbag

We go right from questions into letters.

Politics: The Musk-Trump Slugfest

D.H. in Boston, MA, writes: In addition to everything else you mentioned in your coverage of the Trump/Musk slap fight, DOGE's days are probably numbered. Twentysomething dudes who have access to software in the Treasury, IRS, and Social Security, and who answer to Elon, are a massive liability for Trump. Big Balls should be careful not to let the door hit them on his way out.


P.J.T. in Raton, NM, writes: While the Musk/Kendrick Lamar meme you reposted was intended satirically, the possibility (likelihood?) of Agent Krasnov... er, Donald Trump being a pedophile is, at very least, plausible, and perhaps even likely. Not only did 45/47 party with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, but he himself famously commented on Epstein's penchant for Lolitas when he stated in 2002 that Epstein "...likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side." Trump's own misconduct in 1997 as the owner of Miss Teen USA, barging into the dressing room where contestants as young as 15 were undressing is not only well-documented, but Trump himself bragged about it to Howard Stern: "I'll go backstage and everyone's getting dressed... no men are anywhere, and I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant... You know, I'm inspecting because I want to make sure that everything is good." Trump has, infamously, even sexualized his own daughter, Ivanka, in a variety of comments. While congratulating himself in 2005 for grabbing women by the genitals doesn't count as pedophilia, it does support a more general narrative that Trump is, and has always been, a sexual predator, just the sort of man that Epstein and Maxwell catered to on Little St. James island.


G.W. in Avon, CT, writes: As an alternative to the Alien vs. Predator movie meme you suggested: "We would have gone with Fatal Attraction."

Bonfire of the Vanities is also a good contender, no?


R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: My concept, my friends' artwork:

A parody of the Mothra vs. Godzilla poster, with the title Trumpzilla vs. Muskra, and their heads photoshopped on to the appropriate monsters' bodies


T.R. in Clementon, NJ, writes: I was THRILLED to see you mention Pro Wrestling in your article about the disagreement between WWE Hall of Famer, oh, and President of the United States, Donald Trump and his former tag-team partner Elon Musk. You mention the possibility that Trump and Musk turning on each other and their subsequent feud in which they cut promos on each other was purely kayfabe. Very well used. I wanted to offer another way to discuss this in the parlance of wrasslin'. I think most wrestling fans would say they considered the possibility that the feud between Trump and Musk is a work, but we believe it is a shoot.

And to continue, I would agree that Karine Jean-Pierre turning on the Dems IS a work, perpetrated because she will soon have a book to sell.

Always happy to see wrestling come up in your items. And here's hoping that this "Battle of the Billionaires" also brings in Stone Cold Steve Austin as the mediator and ends the same way the Wrestlemania 23 "Battle of the Billionaires" did (please note that Trump sells about as well as he governs).


P.Y. in Watertown, MA, writes: I think the public falling-out of Elon Musk and Donald Trump was planned to a large degree. Musk knows that his Tesla customers mostly hate Trump. Musk knows that he, once again, must be seen to dislike Trump. Therefore, he probably warned Trump that he would publicly disagree with him for the purpose of his business. I believe Musk when he says he doesn't like the debt-engorging bill, but I think it's most a convenient excuse to criticize Trump to try to save Tesla. I have historically rooted for Tesla, but my schadenfreude for Musk is off the charts these days.


M.B. in Menlo Park, CA, writes: Q: What is the German word for a fight where you're rooting for no one to win and for both sides to tear each other to shreds?

A: Elonfreude


S.S. in Lucerne, Switzerland, writes:

Elon Musk's term "rapid unscheduled disassembly" comes to mind.


D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes:

He said, "It's really not my habit to intrude
Furthermore, I hope my meaning won't be lost or misconstrued
But I'll repeat myself at the risk of being crude
There must be 50 Ways to leave your MAGA buddy.

You need a new DOGE plan, Stan
Lie about your black eye, Frye
Fued on X and Truth, Ruth
Just set yourself free
Name is in the Epstein file, Lyle
Diss his One Big Beautiful Bill, Jill
Have Bannon to attack, Jack
And get yourself free.
Threaten to deport his ass, Cass
Mothball your spaceship, Chip
No future EV Mandate, Nate
Just listen to me.
"It's time to impeach," Teach.
Cancel his Government money, Honey
Sack his pick for NASA head, Fred
Just set yourself free.
Given a fake White House key, Lee
Allegedly take Miller's mate, Kate
Rage tweet in a K-Hole, Cole
And get yourself free.
Get custody of "Big Balls," Rawls
"Tariffs are so TACO," Rocco
Throw him under the bus, Gus
No need to discuss much
So sad "He went crazy," Jayzee
Watch "Tesler" stocks tank, Hank
Pout for five days, Rutherford B Hayes
Just listen to me

OK, not quite fifty (but this feud is young and both participants are not the 'forgive and forget' types) but it's a damn sight better than Paul Simon did. Seriously, was I the only person that was really disappointed that Simon only named six ways to leave your lover?

Get out the popcorn, folks!

Politics: Kilmar Abrego Garcia

R.G.N. in Seattle, WA, writes: Upon the return of Kilmar Albrego Garcia to the U.S., Pan Bondi announced, "We"re grateful to President Bukele for agreeing to return him to our country to face these very serious charges. This is what American Justice looks like."

The "serious charges" are based on a 2022 traffic stop where Garcia was not charged with any crime, yet a Tennessee grand jury managed to come up with a few charges for an indictment that gave El Salvador an excuse to release Garcia to U.S. custody, where the charges will likely be dropped. It looks like Pam can look forward to a new career in stand-up comedy when her temporary job as Attorney General is finished.


R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: Regarding the salience of Abrego Garcia having been indicted (and I know you know this), as my dear friend former Chief Judge Sol Wachtler said, "District attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that by and large they could get them to indict a ham sandwich." In this case it was a U.S. Attorney, not a district attorney, but still.


D.G. in San Diego, CA, writes: Having served on a past grand jury which dealt with numerous unlawful transport of undocumented aliens and conspiracy to transport aliens cases, and based on reading the indictment, I would imagine the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) has cell phone records between Kilmar Abrego Garcia and the other alleged co-conspirators that will be compelling in a jury trial. In my opinion, the "conspiracy" count is the more likely one to stick. The Trump administration will embellish the level of Abrego Garcia's unlawful behavior and disregard the fact that he not given due process rights. Violating due process is the more heinous crime. We must remember that when the Trump propaganda machine tries to bury that initial injustice, because U.S. citizens' due process is next.


C.Z. in Sacramento, CA, writes: Loved your last line: "...you can tell that a member of the Trump administration is lying: Their lips are moving."

That was one of the posters I carried in the January 2017 anti-Trump March, which I later made into postcards. (It's the upper right one, in the photo):

Half a dozen anti-Trump postcards on a table, they say 'TRUMP BELONGS IN THE NUTHOUSE NOT THE WHITEHOUSE,' 'HOW CAN YOU TELL TRUMP IS LYING? HIS LIPS ARE MOVING,' 'IMPEACH THE LIAR-IN-CHIEF,' 'WE SHALL OVERCOMB TRUMP,' 'IN YOUR GUTS, YOU KNOW HE'S NUTS!,' and 'TINKLE, TINKLE LITTLE CZAR, PUTIN PUT YOU WHERE YOU ARE'

Evidently that's also a common expression in AA: "How can you tell a drunk is lying? Their lips are moving." I learned that from my first boyfriend, who has been clean and sober for 40 years now. Yeah, we ARE that old...

Politics: Harvey Milk

S.D. in Anchorage, AK, writes: I don't think they're going to get very far with the renaming of the USNS Harvey Milk. Pete Hegseth can't be much of a boat guy, otherwise he'd know: (1) Renaming a boat is bad luck, and (2) There is not a single more superstitious group of people than sailors.


J.E. in Hannibal, MO, writes: Regarding Hegseth vs. LGBTQ: "Methinks he doth protest too much."


S.B. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: You wrote:

Finally, as regards Hegseth, we'll just toss one other observation out there. In our experience, when a person works so very hard to communicate to the world how very bad these gays are, and how very much we need to do something about these gays, and how they are personally committed to stopping these gays from indulging in their gayness, there is usually... something going on there.

The only thing missing was the Seinfeld cherry on top, "...not that there's anything wrong with that!"


A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: You wrote, "there is usually... something going on there."

Or, it could also be a distraction from someone's serial philandering. Just saying!

Politics: Other News from Trumpworld

M.B. in Singapore, writes: The recent cuts to the PEPFAR program, which provides life-saving HIV medications in Africa, should be a matter of global concern. Many Americans mistakenly believe that this issue is confined to Africa and does not impact their own lives. This perception is not only inaccurate but also dangerously short-sighted.

Antiretroviral therapy keeps the HIV virus at undetectable levels, drastically reducing the likelihood of transmission. When individuals lose access to these medications, not only do their health outcomes worsen, but the risk of a broader spread of HIV increases.

We have learned from the COVID-19 pandemic that viruses do not respect borders. Ignoring the spread of HIV in one part of the world is a perilous oversight. For as little as 12 cents a day, we can ensure that individuals continue receiving the treatment they need, helping to control the virus and prevent its spread.

It is essential that we recognize that global health is interconnected. The sheer ignorance of viewing this crisis as "not our problem" is not only misguided but also dangerous. By investing in global health initiatives, we protect not just others, but ourselves as well.


C.F. in Waltham, MA, writes: My prediction is that by the end of next week, Trump's "big, beautiful bill" will pass the Senate and become law. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) has already changed his mind about it, and my guess is others will be persuaded, too! They will claim it cannot be filibustered, no matter what the parliamentarian says about it. Worse yet, for the 2026 House Elections, they will "prove" the Democrats are liars because the horrible cuts won't have started, so maybe Republicans can keep the House after all.


J.E. in San Jose, CA, writes: You mentioned the benefits of airing Trading Places more often on TV channels where the President could see it. He's way ahead of you and your checkers-playing strategy. After all, how do you think he came up with the idea to cook the books in the first place?


P.S. in North Las Vegas, NV, writes: Ok, so let me get this straight, bans of travel to Libya and Sudan. At the same time we are trying to send undocumented immigrants to both countries; the former is in the middle of Civil War with NO U.S. Embassy—GOT IT!


K.H. in Ypsilanti, MI, writes: As I'm sure most of your readers are aware, a "No Kings" national day of protest is planned for June 14, in response to Donald Trump's military parade birthday celebration. As one who has participated in other anti-Trump protests this year, I have been struck by the near-absence of U.S. flags at these events. I think this is a mistake. I think we need to very clearly express that this is a patriotic opposition, rooted in our national values and driven by a desire to defend our nation. For too long we have allowed the right to co-opt our flag as a symbol, using it as an expression of rabid nationalism and anti-government sentiment rather than the embodiment of our nation and people. It's time to reclaim it.

June 14 is also Flag Day, which is another reason to display the Stars and Stripes at these demonstrations. I recently bought a 3'x5' flag and pole that I'll be carrying that day and at demonstrations going forward. I hope others here will join me.


M.M. in San Jose, CA, writes: Is it just me or does the Belmont Stakes this weekend seem familiar? I mean; an epic battle between Journalism and Sovereignty—Where have I seen that before?

(V) & (Z) respond: Unfortunately, Sovereignty won.

Politics: The Democrats

P.R. in Arvada, CO, writes: You gave multiple valid reasons why the Democrats shouldn't bother courting Elon Musk. There was one more reason that I think you missed. He didn't suddenly learn that Donald Trump is all through the Epstein files. If there's any truth to it, he would have known for some time, during which he had no problem with the implications of that knowledge.

Kind of like Kash Patel saying that the Trump-Musk feud is outside of his lane when, in actual fact, accusations of someone being a pedophile is right smack in the middle of the head of the FBI's lane. Of course, the real question is "is the accusation credible?" Coming from the guy who only likes his kids when they are young and calls anyone he doesn't like a pedo, it may not be credible.That said, the guy is in pictures with Epstein, called him a great guy and has unusual feelings for his own daughter. Definitely something the FBI should be looking into at least.


M.G. in Piscataway, NJ, writes: Recently, you had an item about the Supreme Court refusing to take up two cases related to assault weapons. One case was from Maryland and the other was from Rhode Island. I am starting to think Democrats need to enact most progressive polices at the state level and forget about trying to enact them at the federal level. At the federal level, Democrats should focus on issues that are overwhelmingly popular, such as job creation, increasing wages, paid family leave, reducing the national debt, protecting people from price gouging, the economy and healthcare. If Democrats want to enact legislation to help reduce climate change, they shouldn't call it the Green New Deal, they should call it a job creation bill that gives money and incentives for clean energy jobs.

At the state level, Democrats should focus on the other progressive issues. For example, there are many good reasons to enact strong gun-safety laws. One reason is that the states with the most gun deaths have over 30 gun deaths per 100,000 people per year while states with the least gun deaths have about 5 gun deaths per 100,000 people per year. As you can probably guess, the reddest states are the ones with very high rate of gun deaths and the bluest states have the lowest gun deaths per year. The gun death statistics are pretty consistent year after year.

Over the decades, Democrats spent a lot of political capital trying to enact gun-safety legislation at the federal level but we haven't made much progress in that area. On the contrary, that is one reason why many people may vote against Democrats. I think Democrats should leave this issue for the states. I'm happy that my state has one of the lowest gun death rates in the country and I have come to accept that as good enough. If people in a given state wants gun deaths to go even lower, it will be easier to pass legislation at the state level.

If Democrats have a trifecta sometime in the future, I would want the very first law they pass to be to make D.C. a state. We have to try to offset some of the damage Republicans have done with voter suppression, extreme gerrymandering and other bad faith actions, but until we have a trifecta, I would hope Democrats stay quiet on that issue and focus on the on the overwhelmingly popular issues listed above. We need to be the party that it is 100% focused on the 99%.


A.S. in Black Mountain, NC, writes: A twisted idea ran through my mind: Maybe Donald Trump is actually good for us.

Let's say the Democrats win the House and Senate next year. They could lay the groundwork to restructure our government to repair and make the new model better than the old. And then—optimistically—with a win of the presidency in 2028, the process to complete the upgrade would be completed. That would save some of TCF's reputation by inadvertently creating the opportunity to make government better.

And then I woke up.

Politics: Academia

C.W. in Hamilton, NY, writes: I've been a huge fan of your site for decades, and continue to urge friends and family to check out your daily work to get analysis that is both informative and entertaining (mixed with just enough optimism about the sanity of human beings that I never feel, after a day's dose of Electoral-Vote.com, that terrible sense of hopeless helplessness I often get from today's news.) I've written a few times to express my gratitude for the part you play in my daily life, and I'll say it again: I am genuinely moved by the amount of unpaid labor you put into this project and the good it does in the world.

Since I know many college administrators who read your site regularly, I suspect other may have written to you to express concern that, in a time when so many political and media figures are inaccurately slamming American higher education, you asserted that college administrators are often "conniving sleazeballs" and generally "political postings." I've been an administrator even longer than I've been reading your site, and in my experience, the first of these characterizations is unfair, an the second is just factually inaccurate, but since I owe you years of gratitude for your work and you owe me nothing, I won't belabor the point (I also recognize that your language here was meant to be a little tongue-in-cheek.) Instead, let me just say that I'm so sorry if your experience with administrators has been so negative. The bulk of us ended up in higher education because we believe it's an honorable field of work, worthy of devoting a life to... and the best of us recognize the importance of an independent and empowered faculty, well supported in their work and protected from harmful political interference. If that's not been your experience, your institutions should be ashamed of themselves.

Thanks again for all you do, and if any of my peers cross the line in taking you to task, you can send them my way. I've got a lot of experience dealing with conniving sleazeballs...


J.C. in Seattle, WA, writes: This is the first time I am writing to you, and I can't believe I'm writing to criticize one of your posts. I am a daily reader, and I have been for many years. I enjoy your posts, and I agree with much of what you have to say.

That said, I take strong exception to your post about college administrators being "conniving sleazeballs." After an extremely distinguished career as a professor at three major universities (University of Chicago, Harvard, and finally Columbia), my brother John Coatsworth accepted the position of Provost at Columbia University, working under President Lee Bollinger sometime in the early 2010s. John retired in 2019, and Bollinger retired a year or two later.

John's area of expertise was Mexico, and with the help of David Rockefeller, John established the Institute for Latin American studies at Harvard, a monumental achievement. He wrote many books, and co-authored college textbooks, in addition to his duties as a professor and mentor to many young people. Before becoming Provost, John was the Dean of International Studies, and in that capacity invited many heads of state to speak at Columbia. In fact, he became the target of a smear campaign in 2007 from, among others, The New York Post (need I say more?) because he had the audacity to invite the then Prime Minister of Iran, Ahkmadinijad, to speak on campus. John insisted Ahkmadinijad take questions from students after his talk. A student asked the Prime Minister about how homosexuals are treated in Iran, and the audience erupted in laughter after Ahkmadinijad said there were no homosexuals in Iran, thus exposing him for the buffoon he is.

I could go on, but I will end by saying that in John's retirement he continues to receive awards and accolades for his many years of dedication and devotion to a job he loved.

I thank God John retired before the uproar over the Palestinian issue. I am certain that, had John still been Provost, he would have handled the entire matter professionally, and would not have caved to the demands of Trump and his henchmen.

I know you don't mean ALL college administrators, but I hope you will say something to insure people know there are many good people in academia, and my brother John is certainly one of them.

(V) & (Z) respond: Yes, there are plenty of good people in academia. We should have written that administrators are SOMETIMES slimy, which is true, and not that they are OFTEN slimy, which is a bit of an overstatement.


T.B. in Selkirk, NY (and a University of Michigan grad), writes: It is my understanding that Santa Ono, in the fall of 2024, expressed interest and may have applied for the president's job at both Harvard and Oxford. Then he applied for the Florida job—the Michigan Regents did not know about the interest in Harvard and Oxford—but once they found out about the Florida interest, they not so politely told Ono to leave.

As a result, Ono left Michigan as the president with the shortest tenure in the school's history. And has no job to show for it. As a Michigan grad, I am not disappointed to see him gone.

Politics: Never Forget

S.N. in Sparks, NV, writes: Thank you to M.S. in Canton for that beautiful remembrance of George.


M.K. in Essex Junction, VT, writes: My daily routine is to read Electoral-Vote.com on my lunch break. And today when I read "The Duty to Remember George" from M.S in Canton, I had tears running down my face. Not because I was sad, mind you, but because it was written so beautifully and reminded me of the many people in my life who passed away too young. Am I the last to remember them, too?

As the tears poured down my face a coworker asked if I was OK. I said yes and proceeded to read M.S.' post. There was 10 of us in the break room and everyone just stopped, some wiped tears away from their eyes, and we all spend the next half hour recanting and telling stories of people we lost.

What a wonderfully powerful post. Thank you (V), (Z), (L), and M.S. You made more of a difference in my life today than you realize.


L.L. in Seymour, CT, writes: For that lovely and moving remembrance of George. There are, I am sure, thousands of Georges from the wars throughout the centuries. You made me think of them, and I will make sure I do so again each and every Memorial Day... the unknown or unremembered who gave their lives in service to this country.


J.O. in Williamsburg, MA, writes: The writing about George by M.S in Canton was tear-inducing. I am so glad M.S. wrote, and reminded us of ALL those who pass with little fanfare in life. They are also important. I was reminded of the many men from, especially, the heartland who did not serve in the military and so got no recognition, but served in another way. My father and his brothers and many others did not go to the Army, they were told to stay home and produce food. Their farm work kept food and fiber coming. I enjoyed teasing my dad about growing marijuana in the form of hemp.


C.B. in Fresno, CA, writes: In response to M.S. in Canton, I suggest looking into Stories Behind the Stars and a related Facebook group STAR Corps (StoryTelling and Research) WWII Fallen.

Stories Behind the Stars is a group of volunteers dedicated to writing obituaries for servicepeople lost in World War II. The goal to is for each one to have a story telling of their early life, history of service, how they were lost, and how the mission fit into the overall strategy of the Allies.

With an app, someone scanning the serviceperson's grave marker can bring up the associated story, so the fallen is more than just dates and a name.

The Facebook group is public and I'm sure someone would be interested in the information M.S. has to share or can communicate how to connect with a volunteer working on that mission.

Ground Control to Major Tom...

P.D. in Memphis, TN, writes: G.W. in Oxnard made some rather severe statements about humans in space. In particular, G.W. complained about radiation issues. I would like to point out that such issues regarding safety are nothing more or less than engineering problems, and engineering problems have solutions. In particular, I believe G.W. needs to read this NASA release, which describes a radiation shield and links to the patent.


P.M. in Port Angeles, WA, writes: To augment comments made by G.W. in Oxnard, I add that the earth is shielded by a layer of air that creates a surface pressure of 14.7 psi at sea level. To match that shielding, a hull of iron might need to be as much at 4.3 feet thick. Since people seem to live quite well at altitudes up to about 10,000 feet, that 4.3 feet might be reduced to about 2.5 feet.

The magnetosphere can be recreated for spacecraft by a solenoid-type structure to match the earth's magnetic field. I'm not sure how strong it might have to be, with the differences in distance between a spacecraft shroud and the whole Earth.

This is all because virtually the entire dosage of cosmic radiation emanates from the sun. Mars is not that much farther from the sun than the Earth, but as you recede from the solar system the shielding needed reduces (by an amount of the distance removed squared). But if you approach another star system, the shielding will need to be in place.

Goodbye, Farewell, and Amen

D.H. in Durham, NC, writes: "Goodbye, Farewell and Amen" to Loretta Swit, and thank you so much for that tribute to her. She was a talented woman who brought great joy to me and untold numbers of M*A*S*H fans. I grew up with the show, but only later understood the commentary from those early seasons. I was in college in 1983, when our whole campus basically shut down on that Monday night, as every corner of it seemed to be hosting a party to watch the final episode. I attended one in army khakis (and a Hawaiian shirt, of course). My wife and I know the show so well that we continue to hurl quotes at each other (and get hysterical over them). Swit's portrayal of Margaret Houlihan is one of the highlights of not only that show, but any sitcom either before or since. Her evolution of that character over those many seasons is unparalleled. And by the way, there are still plenty of things we could learn from M*A*S*H.


A.M. in Brookhaven, PA, writes: As someone of the M*A*S*H generation (the final episode was during my senior year in high school and the show was pretty much mandatory viewing on Monday nights for years), I want to thank you for your tribute to Loretta Swit. I especially appreciated your reference to the moving episode "Abyssinia, Henry."

For this week's last words, I'd like to suggest this from that episode which always moves me to tears. Little did we know at the time, these would also be Trapper's last words on the show.

Trapper: Radar, put a mask on.

Radar: I have a message. Lieutenant Colonel Henry Blake's plane was shot down over the Sea of Japan. It spun in. There were no survivors.

(V) & (Z) respond: We thought this worked better here than at the bottom of the page.


E.S. in Providence, RI, writes: Another actor whose character changed dramatically over the years was Melissa McBride's Carol Peletier. Over the course of 174 episodes of The Walking Dead, she was transformed from a fearful battered wife to a strong, all-around kick-ass warrior and survivor. It happened slowly over the years, and is an incredible story arc.


D.W. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: My preferred show/metaphor for Viet nam was China Beach. It was not from the doctors' perspective but from that of the nurses and civilians.

It was also more respectful of minorities and the frictions of class, culture, sex and race than was M*A*S*H. It also did not hide its Vietnam roots, as did M*A*S*H. In addition, it did a lot to humanize the enemy and was not supportive exclusively of our view and our goals... whatever the heck they were.

It's hard to find, but easily as entertaining as M*A*S*H... and has aged well over the years. It was about our souls during those times.

Counter-Complaints Department

L.H. in Chicago, IL, writes: I have to say that P.D.N. in Boardman totally misses the point when complaining that President Tyler is no big deal or that references to Edmund Ruffin are objectionable. The attention-worthy part of the story wasn't about President Tyler or the person whose namesake H.R. Tyler was. It was that the grandson of someone born during the George Washington administration had, until just very recently, still been alive!

I find it fascinating that a mere three generations span over two centuries. I'm too hurried to look this up now, but I believe that King Georges I through III also spanned a considerable amount of time.

Also, I knew from The Three Musketeers that Louis XIII was king in 1613, so when I started to do the math, I was surprised to note that the king in 1789 was only three Louis later. I was absolutely blown away to learn that King Louis XIV reigned for 75 years. Not "lived to be 75," but was King of France for 75 years, in a time when the average lifespan was about half that, and kings didn't usually die a natural death.

So maybe it's just me.


D.A. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: B.C. in Forest Park complained that, by "referencing Harry Potter," you are promoting the work of J.K. Rowling, a "prominent transphobe." I trust that B.C. avoids all references to works by Johannes Brahms, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, T.S. Eliot, Edith Wharton, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, and Edgar Degas—all notorious antisemites (to name a few). And, of course, B.C. does not now and never has owned a Ford.


T.R. in Wembley, England, UK, writes: I couldn't disagree more with B.C. in Forest Park, who effectively argues that because of her views on trans rights, you should make no reference whatsoever to JK Rowling, or any aspect of her work.

Whether or not one agrees with Rowling's views, surely Harry Potter has become sufficiently part of the cultural zeitgeist that trying to erase it from history is a fool's errand, as well as opening up a can of worms about other creators/contributors who hold and express problematic political views. Is B.C. suggesting that the previous week's headline theme (Musicals) should/could be taken as an endorsement of the (very different) political views of Andrew Lloyd Webber, or Toby Marlow/Lucy Moss?


S.D.R. in Raleigh, NC, writes: N.S. in Milwaukee criticized your "continual misuse of the word 'underway' when you clearly mean 'ongoing'." I'm sure you are aware of this without me needing to say anything, but for the benefit of others (particularly N.S.): You were not guilty of any misuse. "In progress" is well established as one of the definitions of "underway," and one would struggle to find any dictionary that does not list it as a definition for "underway." Or, to put it more simply, "underway" and "ongoing" are synonyms, and anything that can be correctly described as being "ongoing" can also be correctly described as being "underway."

Of course, this sort of "correction" is par for the course. The vast majority of language usage "corrections" are what the linguists at Language Log refer to as "prescriptivist poppycock": attempts to enforce rules or distinctions that do not actually exist anywhere except in the minds of a small number of self-appointed "experts." The criticism from N.S. in Milwaukee is a perfect example. My advice to anyone who ever finds themselves tempted to correct another person's usage would be this: Don't, for your correction is almost certainly misguided.


M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: When N.S. in Milwaukee took issue with you describing Cal Ripken's streak as "underway," I thought it would be because Cal Ripken's streak wasn't a ship.

Gallimaufry

K.C in Westport, CT, writes: I am an avid reader of the daily posts on Electoral-Vote.com, and I support your site via Patreon. I strongly believe in a healthy democracy, which you obviously do as well. Given the sorry present state of democracy in America, your daily posts can be a bit of a downer. The truth is, democracy in America is in trouble, and your posts reflect this sad reality. That said, I greatly appreciate the humor you sprinkle into your posts, as your humor lightens up some depressing news. It may be gallows humor, but it's appreciated just the same. Please keep it up!


C.Z. in Sacramento, CA, writes: I love the new "editing" convention you are using of striking through the words that represent what Donald Trump is actually doing and thinking, and following them with what Trump and company provide for public consumption. It's as effective as (and much quicker than) a political cartoon, but just as hilarious. Example: "shithole selected countries".

Thanks for the laughs!

(V) & (Z) respond: We have to be careful not to overdo it, but there are circumstances where it's more effective than any other option.


P.N. in Austin, TX, writes: Recently you ran summer reading recommendations, and this last weekend you ran reader letters on their favorite Disney rides. My immediate reaction to both was the same, and sarcastic... "Well, this is interesting" (rolls eyes). And you know what? I'm quite happy you ran both. I'm happy that the Electoral-Vote.com community is strong, diverse, and active. I'm glad it's led by three thinkers with diverse interests. It makes me glad that the place I so like to frequent has something for everyone. An amusement park that only held amusements I liked would be a poor one indeed.

Of course, the completionist in me won the day, and I read both items, using a technique I often employ if I'm not enthusiastic. I read the items backwards (grouped by paragraph). I ended up enjoying the summer reading recommendations, but not the Disney ride discussion. It's fascinating what the brain does when you subvert processes.

Your work is greatly appreciated, even when it doesn't excite me. I suspect many of your other readers agree. Many thanks!

(V) & (Z) respond: We appreciate the kind words from all three of you in this section. And we run these messages just to underscore that we think carefully about the choices we make, including both content and style, and we pay careful attention to evidence that those choices are on the mark (or, sometimes, missed the mark).

Final Words

T.D. in Austin, TX, writes: St. Lawrence, reportedly, while being slowly roasted to death on a gridiron: "Turn me over, I'm done on this side."

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

Main page for smartphones

Web Analytics Made Easy - StatCounter