Dem
47
GOP
53
A little heavier on the fun stuff than normal, because yesterday was non-politics questions day, but still pretty heavy on politics.
D.E. in San Diego, CA, writes: To understand Donald Trump's actions since he took office, you have to realize there is only one overriding theme: He considers the U.S. government to be a company that he bought and now owns (along with Elon Musk, who he then cut out of the deal). This explains almost every one of the big events: bringing in an "efficiency expert" (Musk/DOGE) to cut spending, claiming he can fire anyone he wants and replace them with loyal toadies, swinging a wrecking ball at whatever government building he wants, siccing his legal department (the Department of Justice) on his personal enemies, trying to make new trade deals by stiffing vendors and leveling tariffs on customers, putting his name on whatever he wants, making deals to have the government take financial stakes in various companies, etc.
He considers all the money in the Treasury HIS money, so whenever he can stop spending on things he doesn't like and extort money to fill it up, he gets the same pleasure as he would pretending he can still score with some supermodel. You don't have to go farther than that to figure the man out.
A.H. in Newberg, OR (about 21 miles SW of PDX as the crow flies), writes: From RawStory, on the subject of the Trump administration's management of the Iran War: "Ex-prosecutor Joyce Vance captured the shifting messaging with a common comparison: 'This is a lot like the weather in Portland, Oregon. If you don't like it, wait 15 minutes and it will change.'"
As a natural-born native Oregonian, resident for many years, I can confirm Vance's observation on the weather outlook for not just Portland but the entire coast and Willamette Valley. As for the Presidunce's proclivity for changing his mind, I am not sure you need wait 15 minutes.
Yes, I am past my "use by" date.
D.P. in Georgetown, KY writes: The item about the gold visas reminded me of something that I've thought would be a good idea if it does not already exist: a Trump Post Time Capsule. The idea would be to repost/retweet daily Trump's Truth Social posts or bold public statements from 6 months ago and 12 months ago. So today, it would show the posts from October 24, 2025 (mostly bragging on tariffs) and April 24, 2025 ("Gas and grocery prices are WAY DOWN, just like I said they would be."). We've gotten so used to Trump moving the goalposts and TACOing out of things he insists are critical, I think it would be interesting to be reminded systematically of what he has said. While direct position 180s or economic changes (like gas prices) would be entertaining, it would also remind people of how many topics that he insists are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT in the moment are forgotten long before 6 months have passed.
J.L. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Tucker Carlson apologizing now for helping to get Donald Trump elected feels kinda like your GPS saying "recalculating" after you've already driven off a cliff.
T.P. in Cleveland, OH, writes: Regarding "Legal News: Blanche Wants to Throw the Book at the SPLC," it seems likely that one side effect of the litigation, win lose or draw, will be the outing of the 'entities... set up to pay informants' and, probably, the informants themselves. That plausible-deniability result has got to warm the heart of any sympathizer of the groups SPLC is investigating.
R.T. in Arlington, TX, writes: Paraphrasing my recollection of something Warren Buffet once said, "If I had been at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina in 1903, acting strictly in the capacity of a capitalist, I would have shot Orville down."
His point was that airlines are persistent, pervasive destroyers of capital. This a natural result of operating in a microeconomic edge case where they have high fixed and inflexible costs while the cost of adding or removing one passenger to a flight is a bag of pretzels and a canned drink. The inherent pricing instability makes it like playing blackjack, where you can be up or down for awhile, but if you keep on playing, you will eventually and certainly lose (i.e., file bankruptcy). Strangely, this is the kind of situation where government ownership of a "utility" makes some sense, because airlines are a necessity of modern life but don't function well on a purely capitalistic basis. There are reasons why some "businesses," like the mail and road building, can only be done by the government, because no one else can ensure universal service or ride out the lowest spots inherent in the business model.
There are a lot of "national airlines" around the world, but federal purchase of Spirit is still a dumb idea because Spirit sucks too much to want to save. Has anyone else noticed that Donald Trump likes to hand out favors with government money while only accepting favors that benefit himself and not the people?
S.N. in Sparks, NV, writes: Perhaps the dueling Trump and Iranian blockades could be summarized in this way: The Trump blockade of Iranian ports holds the Iranian economy hostage. The Iranian blockade of the Strait of Hormuz holds the rest of the world's economies hostage. One of these blockades seems a tad more powerful than the other.
T.J. of Audubon, MN, writes: You noted that Truth Social stock has lost 90% of its value. This is in truth inconsistent with the math that the President uses for calculating pharmaceutical price decreases. Instead we should be proclaiming that Truth Social stock has experienced a 1022% decrease in value. Cue the theme from Animal Farm.
M.C. in Newton, MA, writes: In your item about the resignation of Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer, you mentioned the New York Times reporting that the (former) Secretary "drank to excess while working." I think she really should have known better than to do that.
That's Pete Hegseth's thing.
M.P. in San Francisco, CA, writes: As a California voter who supported Gavin Newsom's state-wide gerrymandering initiative, I understand how P.F. in Goldvein wrestled with the choice to support Virginia's redistricting ballot initiative.
I still remain opposed to gerrymandering on principle. But the Republicans started the gerrymandering war, and they've done nothing but escalate. Democrats are now so far at a disadvantage relative to a fair playing field, they have no choice but to respond in kind; they can't keep bringing knives to a gunfight. And the stakes are much higher than just principle: If we want to preserve our democracy, we simply can't afford to allow the current MAGA Republican Party to structurally take control of Congress for the long term.
As (Z) has opined more than once on this site, my hope is that rampant gerrymandering by both parties will lead to real, nationwide reform. That can only happen when Republicans also support reform, but they won't do that as long as they are the primary beneficiaries of gerrymandering. They have to lose seats to gerrymander themselves before they will care. Like everything else about Republicans, they care only when bad things happen to them.
K.F.S. in Lorton, VA, writes: I was torn on the recent redistricting amendment vote here in Virginia. I have been a staunch opponent of gerrymandering for several years now, for both parties. The redistricting commission established prior to the 2020 Census was not the ideal setup and it did fail as the members deadlocked forcing the state courts to step in and appoint special masters to create the current map. I tried to rationalize my feelings on this in light of the larger national impact, and even told myself that I would've considered an 8-3 or 9-2 division. I did not want to follow the guidance as uttered masterfully by Skellan Skarsgard's Luthen on the Star Wars series Andor, "I'm condemned to use the tools of my enemy to defeat them." When it came time to vote, I voted "no," but I was relieved to see it pass anyway. It's now up to the Virginia courts to decide if the process was constitutional or not before the maps can be official.
L.B. in Ashburn, VA, writes: The redistricting vote has just been called here tonight. It validates for me that something has changed in the political landscape. For a long time, Democrats cared more about the moral high ground than about winning. I still think most Democrats would prefer independent, fair maps; but it looks like a majority have finally come around to fighting fire with fire. I hope this is the start and not the end.
L.E. in Suffolk, VA, writes: Thanks for publishing my comment!
Unfortunately, I found out too late that the final redistricting map made Rep. Jen Kiggans' (R) district, VA-02, D+5. Also, Rep. Rob Wittman (R) will now have to choose between a D+13 district and a D+7 district.
If there is a blue tidal wave (5-10 points) both Rob and Jen will be doing something else in 2027. A smaller surge might not be enough if there is a backlash within Virginia on the midterm redistricting.
VA-02 could go through several cycles where Elaine Luria (D) and Jen Kiggans alternate 4 year "terms" with a changeover during presidential midterms.
R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: The results in Virginia didn't change toward the end of the evening because early and mail ballots finally got tallied. Virginia processes votes as they come in and precincts report early, absentee, and day-of votes all at the same time. What happened is that the bigger precincts took longer to report (more to do) and those big precincts were very heavily "yes." That's why "they" were able to call the election with only about 80% of the vote in—they knew how the outstanding vote was going to go.
V.F. in Richmond, VA, writes: This was a significant blow to Peter Thiel and the billionaires who poured money into this race, flooding it with ads designed to confuse and inflame voters. Every streaming platform seemed saturated with negativity, and my mailbox was filled daily with misleading campaign mailers.
What stood out most was how contradictory the messaging was. One set of ads claimed that a "Yes" vote would undermine Black voting rights, even going so far as to invoke the March on Washington. Then, almost immediately, another ad would feature a rural farmer warning that the same vote would give minorities too many advantages, leading to gun rights being taken away (an oldie but goodie) or men being placed in women's sports (the new fearmongering du jour).
Despite the sheer volume of spending, and a steady stream of "No" advocacy on Fox, they fell short. It's a reminder that even well-funded smear campaigns don't always win.
L.C. in Amherst, MA, writes: In your item on what can be done to protect midterms from federal interference, you list several actions states can take, including tabulation speed. I am a poll worker in Massachusetts, and we have a system for early, mail-in, and absentee ballots that eliminates the possibility of objecting to them. The voter fills out the same physical ballot that is used for Election Day in-person voting, seals it in an envelope, and either drops it off or mails it in a larger envelope. The inner envelope has the voter's address and precinct. There is no identifying information on the ballot itself. The ballots are collected at the clerk's office and sorted by precinct ahead of Election Day. On Election Day, toward the end of the day, after the last mail delivery, the ballots are hand-delivered to the actual polling location where they are opened and put in the machine just as if they were cast in person by the voter. When the polls close all the votes have been cast with no distinction between early, mail-in, and absentee. Results at the precinct level are available minutes after the polls close and are delivered to the clerk immediately, who then reports them to the state authorities. The state could theoretically announce results by 10:00 p.m. on Election Day.
Z.L. in Bloomington, IN, writes: I am deeply saddened and angered that we need to spell out how to protect elections from interference by our own federal government. Didn't we already have a fairly robust system that most everyone agreed was working pretty well? Then along comes an insecure sociopath who thinks he knows everything better than everyone and casts doubt on the fundamental, bedrock institution of American democracy, among so many other attacks on government agencies and institutions. He won two, count 'em, two presidential elections, yet still claims that he was robbed, and instead of being laughed out of Washington, he is propped up by cronies and sycophants.
And so doubt has been cast on the integrity of the system. We did not take this for granted. We wrote provisions into the Constitution, we passed laws, we upheld those laws over and over. But we didn't obsess over the infinitesimal cases of voter fraud or irregularities. We carried on letting the states run elections. Sure, we all complain about government bureaucracy, but on the whole, it's regular folks, elected representatives, and appointed, non-partisan officials allowing things work like they are supposed to. (At least, that's my Pollyanna view from the perspective of a regular voter for many decades.)
I can't help thinking of my mother, who lost her native Hungary in World War II to fascism and totalitarianism, after a great deal of hardship, eventually satisfying a dream to settle in the U.S. and become a citizen. She was quietly, steadfastly—not jingoistically—patriotic, revered Thomas Jefferson (blissfuly ignorant of his transgressions), celebrated the Fourth of July with unbounded joy, and volunteered at the polls as an election judge every single time she could. She wasn't a political operative or activist, she wasn't an "expert" in political science, certainly not a wealthy donor; but she found a way to contribute to her adopted country that suited her and it. How many folks like that have made our system work for so many years? And now we all have a little or a lot of doubt about the integrity of the system. We are really going to send in armed operatives to strong-arm local election officials? Give me a break!
I am reminded of photographer and conservation advocate Ansel Adams's quote in another context, "It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment."
J.S. in Gaithersburg, MD, writes: Longtime reader now with more free time since USAID was destroyed. I loved your list for protecting the midterms.
I think trust is a big challenge for the Democrats. They need to deal with any roadblocks while not unintentionally discouraging their voters. It is common to hear people in my D.C. suburb doubt whether the midterms will even happen, etc. I think that might be the most important threat. There may be challenges but voters should not delay in double checking their registration and circling Election Day on their calendars.
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, writes: Donald Trump became our nation's worst president, for me, much earlier than the times others mentioned. It was during one of the presidential debates... back in 2016 before he was even elected. When Trump said he would accept the results of the election only if he won, that violated the most important norm that makes America great: the peaceful transfer of power started by Washington and Adams and Jefferson and carrying through until 2020. 1/6 was an utterly predictable consequence of that comment back in 2016, and I worry a great deal about how 2026 and 2028 will go. I will probably always worry a little about elections even after Trump is long gone. It's very, very hard to close that Pandora's box...
M.S. in Vista, CA, writes: When we had the election in 2024, I used these three facts when deciding whether or not Donald Trump is the worst president in U.S. history. First, during the COVID pandemic, close to one million Americans died on his watch. Second, he has been impeached twice. And third, he was convicted of 35 felonies for crimes he committed while running for president.
These are three measurable and factual things that no other president has accomplished. I cannot see historians saying or explaining why he was not the worst president in history without denying or rationalizing those events.
L.C. in Brookline, MA, writes: R.P. in Kāneʻohe wrote in to dispute your assertion that one Trump election is an anomaly and two is a pattern, and took the view that "Once is an anomaly; twice is a coincidence; three times is a pattern."
Two Trump elections is definitely a pattern. Because it goes back way before Trump, getting worse with each iteration of Republican rule. Not to say that the Democrats have not had their faults, but the Republicans have specialized in the destruction of the concept of reality, just like George Orwell warned us about, ever since the racists and sexists largely moved themselves out of the Democratic Party in response to Nixon's Southern Strategy (and the start was even before that, but Nixon elevated it to the presidential level, and the Republicans haven't let up since). The next Republican president WILL be at least as bad and will try very hard to be even worse, to serve the same capitalist supremacist, white supremacist, male supremacist and Christian supremacist base that put Trump and his predecessors into power.
M.K. in Madrid, Spain, writes: As a British person with a Spanish wife, who has visited 15 U.S. States and D.C. and followed U.S. politics for decades, I am afraid that many Americans are deluding themselves about European views. A Democrat victory in 2028 will not fix anything. Trump is causing real anti-American feeling across Europe.
Over here in Europe, we've been there and done that. After Trump I, a lot of people breathed a sigh of relief, thinking that Trump was an aberration and everything would go back to normal. Joe Biden's "America is back!" was enough to fix things. Since then, we have seen that Trump II has not just set things back: It's pushed them way past where they were in 2020. He is doing things that look crazier and more vindictive than ever. There is genuine hatred of Europeans (and Canadians, for that matter) among a large fraction of the MAGA right, who think that they have decades of perceived wrongs to right.
Rather that "once is an accident, twice is a coincidence..." it is more appropriate to think "once bitten, twice shy." We have seen how a Republican president can undo all attempts to repair the bridges far faster than those bridges could be repaired. No one in Europe in their right mind is going to trust America to go back to a stable relationship for Europe in the short- or even medium-term.
To fix those bridges is going to take a series of Democratic-dominated legislatures AND a toning-down of rhetoric from the MAGA right. We are not going to trust for a long time that the U.S. will not go back to the Trumpian logic of "Europe only exists to do us down and is thus our enemy."
Sorry, U.S., most likely you are going to be on your own for a long term.
F.L. in Federal Way, WA, writes: To preface, I wish ill health or death on no person. Not even the President (I want him to live long enough to see at least one day in prison).
To my point, I see a particular weakness in the Democratic party—and you have touched on this on numerous occasions. That weakness is hubris.
It is hubris to think that one will live, or be competent, forever.
It is even more vain to think that no one younger could possibly do your job just as well... or even better.
From what I read, there are ten deaths for every two-year congressional term. The last one without a death was over 70 years ago. It is not for nothing that the word "senate" comes from the Latin senex, from which we also get the word "senile." I'm 63 and even I admit that there's not as much cheese on the cracker as there used to be.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) should take the hint. He's a nice guy, but it's time to pass the torch.
D.T. in Hillsboro, OR, writes: With the death of Congressman David Scott (D-GA), there have been 4 vacancies in the House of Representatives in the last 8 days. Extrapolating that to the end of the Congress and assuming there will be no more special elections other than the two already scheduled in California, we'll end up with only 204 Representatives by Jan 3, 2027.
Of course, there are dangers to extrapolation.
R.H. in San Antonio, TX (who did not change his party registration when he moved to Texas from California), writes: You wrote: "Democrats can't win in Texas (or anywhere in the South) statewide unless the Republican is truly horrible (see: Moore, Roy)."
[Andy Beshear enters the chat ...]
R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: In addition to the point you've raised several times about the Republicans possibly ramming through a completely unfit nominee to the Supreme Court (i.e., that it would provide ammunition to attack the senators who voted in favor), it would also provide great messaging when next the Democrats have the trifecta and try to expand the Court. "The Republicans have filled the Court with completely unfit political hacks, and the only way to undo this mischief in our lifetimes is to expand the Court."
G.W. in Framingham, MA, writes: Regarding the question from D.S.A. in Parish about whether "dummymander" will have a shot as the Oxford English Dictionary's word of the year: Most of the dictionary Words of the Year are decided on the basis of substantial written evidence, and typically they are announced in November and early December, leaving precious little time for the results of an election in the U.S. on November 3 to show up in news and online corpora. Oxford tends to announce their selection at the beginning of December. So, the betting as regards the OED in particular would definitely be against.
However, the American Dialect Society's Word of the Year vote takes place at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America in January, and always includes a "political word of the year" category, in addition to other categories such as "most useful," "informal," and "most creative," where political words often also show up. Next year's meeting will take place in San Francisco starting January 6, so if in the aftermath of the election "dummymander" gains prominence in either traditional or social media, it's likely to make an appearance. The organizers of the event also accept nominations from the public via social media.
D.S. in Palo Alto, CA, writes: In 2016 and 2024, enough people liked the products Donald Trump was selling to vote him in to produce them. We know the outcomes, which makes the 2024 result all the more puzzling. It was clear to this observer that he had no intention of meeting any of those promises.
Tom Steyer (D) is trying a similar approach, spending millions promoting his promises to do all sorts of great things for California. Turns out, I honestly believe he will try to accomplish those things. I have trouble objecting to any of the things his ads are promoting, and his track record over the last decade is pretty clear. In contrast, the small number of ads that I have hear or seen for his competitors were stodgy and content-free, many just complaining, sometimes unfairly, about Steyer's past investments or his ability to fill the airwaves with his messages, or uttering the usual platitudes. Steyer has won my vote.
S.C. in Mountain View, CA, writes: I appreciate your publishing my comments about the California governor's race. One correction and one additional comment.
First of all, the California Democratic Party Convention was in San Francisco, not Sacramento. My bad. (That's what I get for sending an e-mail at 1:00 a.m.)
As for the assumption that Tom Steyer had something to do with Eric Swalwell's downfall, I support the theory that notion arose from, as (V) & (Z) wrote, with the "Steyer-funded anti-Swalwell ad blitz." But I'm not sure that Steyer started it.
My wife and I don't watch much TV. In fact we didn't even own one until we adopted our daughter as an infant and my stepmom sent us some Baby Einstein videos, so we bought a TV and a VCR for our daughter's enlightenment.
Fast forward to grown daughter now away at college, and Saturday Night Live, when there is a new episode, being broadcast by the local NBC affiliate at 8:30pm on the West Coast. This becomes a "date night" thing for us. Now jump to the present. The past few weeks there's been a Steyer ad aired every (new) SNL episode, usually more than once. One of the ads a few weeks ago (before Eric Swalwell dropped out) was attacking Swalwell for apparently attacking Steyer in one of Swalwell's ads (which we have never seen). Prior to that, all of Steyer's SNL ads were positive ads. I'm guessing that Swalwell attacked Steyer first and Steyer just fought back.
Speaking of Steyer's SNL ads, the most recent one (as I write this on April 23) didn't have Steyer talking about himself, it had Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA) extolling the virtues of Steyer. My previous first choice, Betty Yee, has also endorsed Steyer. Both Khanna and Yee are self-identified progressives, as am I. While I generally prefer candidates for higher office who have had experience in lower office, I may end up making an exception in this case and fill in the bubble for Steyer.
F.L. in Federal Way, WA, writes: In 2018, I was visiting Blighty—right during the World Cup. Before each match of the Lions, I'd head to the bookie and place a pony (£,25) on their opponent. My reasoning was that I never win with bookies, so a wager would guarantee victory for England. It worked rather well—unfortunately, I missed the Croatia game.
My history with supporting political candidates is equally unsuccessful. As with sports wagers, I have a 0.000 batting average—and I didn't always pick underdogs. Hillary Clinton (twice) springs to mind.
As such, I shall hold my bile and send a fiver to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), sealing his doom.
After the primary, I shall send another fiver to AG Ken Paxton (R-TX) and then take a shower.
G.W. in Dayton, OH, writes: I have an idea why Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) voted in favor of extending temporary protected status (TPS) to Haitians. His district does not include Springfield, OH (site of Trump's odious "they're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats, they're eating the pets of the people that live there"), but it borders that district. Many of Turner's constituents have been involved in work to care for and welcome the Haitian population to our area. He received kudos from them for standing on the correct side of a moral issue.
B.B. in Dothan, AL, writes: I lived in South Florida for many years. I can confirm that there is a significant number of Haitian Immigrants in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, represented by three of the Republicans who voted to extend the TPS for Haitians.
M.R. in San Diego, CA, writes: I've been a reader of Electoral-Vote.com for over 20 years, and I always appreciate you calling out antisemitism, among other bigotries. Thank you for pointing out the antisemitism in the modern use of the term "Pharisees," as you did when you wrote that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth "slurred the Pentagon press pool as 'unpatriotic' and compared them to the Pharisees. That is pretty clearly a dog whistle (more like a dog bullhorn, actually) that translates to 'Damn you Jews who control the media.'"
I hope you don't mind me adding context for folks who don't get the reference. Roughly 2,000 years ago, the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, which was the religious, social, and political center for the Jewish people. In the face of that cataclysm, a variety of Jewish sects developed strategies to figure out a way Jewishness could survive without its center. The Sadducees, for instance, were descendants of the Temple priests, and sought to maintain that lineage even with foreign control of Jerusalem. More enduring were the Pharisees, rabbis who taught the idea that temple sacrifice could be replaced by prayer, Torah study, support of the poor, and righteous action. From these Pharisaic teachings emerge all the major streams of modern Judaism.
Christianity began as another one of these Jewish sects, and was a natural competitor for Jews' allegiance with the Pharisees. The New Testament writers try to earn that allegiance by dismissing the Pharisees as small-minded, conniving, legalistic rabbis who refuse to accept Jesus' teachings. It's no great leap to see how that portrayal feeds into centuries of antisemitic rhetoric.
All religions have our problematic texts. I believe the moral measure of their adherents is how we deal with those troubling texts. I know Christians and Muslims who acknowledge the challenges of painful scripture, and I try to do the same for Jews in my work as a rabbi. And then there are the Ben-Gvirs and Hegseths of the world, who lean into the hate and cruelty for their own purposes. Thank you for shedding a light on their regrettable rhetoric.
D.E. in Fremont, CA, writes: I understand why you would define a "global golden era" as a time when "science and the arts are flourishing" because that's good in itself and sort of suggests that most people's basic human needs are being met. But as a mother/parent and regular person, I would offer a different answer to the question of when the "condition of the human race was most happy." I think humans likely experienced the best standard of living and highest levels of happiness during the few decades when child mortality was plummeting (due to improvements in public health and hygiene sanitation and wide availability of antibiotics and vaccines) but before most of the population had moved from rural to urban areas. Of course, that has happened at different times in different parts of the world, but it's all been since the late 19th century and mostly during the 20th. And it's pretty much over now, sad to say.
D.H. in Boston, MA, writes: I found it interesting that (Z) gave the 16th century as a suggested time of maximal global happiness. I'm not a historian and I don't necessarily disagree with that time period as an overall answer, but I've been slowly working my way through a book called Inventing the Renaissance: The Myth of a Golden Age by Ada Palmer, a historian at the University of Chicago. She makes the case that "the Renaissance" is a somewhat arbitrary time period, and that it's not the golden era we may think it was.
For one thing, most of western Europe engaged in proxy wars in Italy from 1494 to 1559. Rome was sacked for the last time in 1527, by Protestant soldiers. In 1506, a friend of Machiavelli wrote to him saying he should write a full history of the previous decade, so the world would remember how horrible it was. That was the same decade in which Michelangelo sculpted his David, and Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa. While it is true that a lot of great art was produced in Italy in the 15th and 16th centuries, a lot of it was fostered by Florence, which had an interest in appearing cultured so its larger neighbors would ally with it instead of attacking it. So while some good things were happening in Europe at around that time, it was not necessarily a happy period. A case could be made that the Peace of Lodi, which lasted from 1454 until about 1494, was a better time, but there were plenty of unhappy events then, too.
Anyway, Inventing the Renaissance is a fascinating book and I'm not doing justice to it. I highly recommend it for insights into that time period.
B.K.J. in San Diego, CA, writes: (Z)'s response to the question of "happiest era" instantly made me think of this ditty from an expert weaver of music and history. Hope you enjoy if you've never heard, and hope you smile if you have:
S.T. in Worcestershire, England, UK, writes: The question from S.C. in Bellaire about the Spanish owning or controlling the Netherlands perhaps requires some further explanation.
They ended up being ruled by the same individual circa 1519 as a result of an extraordinary inheritance. The Hapsburg monarch, Charles V, gained much of modern day Austria and parts of Germany from his paternal grandfather, most of the Netherlands, Belgium and large chunks of what is now northern and eastern France from his paternal grandmother, Aragon (eastern Spain) and claims to much of northern and southern Italy from his maternal grandfather and Castille (central and southern Spain) and some rapidly expanding colonies in the New World from his maternal grandmother. Charles was actually raised in the Low Countries, so in a sense the Netherlands took over Spain! During his reign, however, Charles became increasingly attached to his Spanish territories, eventually abdicating and retiring to a monastery there.
The problem with this vast inheritance was that each part tended to prioritize its own needs, and there was little sense of a common aim, let alone of being a nation. They may have recognized Charles as their sovereign but felt little or no obligation to support other parts of his empire. Regionalism was particularly strong in the Low Countries and this, together with the impact of the Reformation, led first to unrest and then to outright revolt in the second part of the 16th century under Charles' heir, the very Hispanic and Catholic Phillip. It is notable, however, that only the seven provinces in the north, where Protestantism was strongest, ultimately gained independence after nearly 80 years of warfare, forming the Netherlands/United Provinces. The remainder, largely modern day Belgium, remained under the control of a branch of the Hapsburg dynasty until the redrawing of European boundaries following the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars.
Incidentally, the Reformation and the conflicts which it generated, together with a catastrophic fall in the standard of living of the majority of the population, are reasons why I would dispute (Z)'s suggestion that the 16th century, at least in Europe, is a candidate for being a "Golden Era."
K.K. in San Diego, CA, writes: I thought I should follow up on (V)'s rather sanitized response to S.C. in Bellaire concerning the popular Dutch perception of Spain.
When Sinterklaas (St. Nicholas, whose nickname made it into English as "Santa Claus") comes to bring presents to good Dutch children, he doesn't just bring booby gifts like coal for the bad children. He kidnaps them and takes them with him back to his toy factory, which is located somewhere far more frightening than the North Pole. It is, of course, in Spain.
It gets better, or rather worse! In practice, Sinterklaas leaves the dirty work to his buddy Zwarte Piet (Black Pete), usually depicted as a white person in blackface dressed as a harlequin. I wish I were making this up (as no doubt do most of V's Dutch colleagues).
J.K. in Portland, OR, writes: Disclosure: I lived in Scheveningen from 1994 through 2005—not anywhere nearly as long as (V) has been in the Netherlands. In some ways, the Dutch animosity for Spain is not entirely gone. In the mid-20th Century, when a member of the royal family wanted to marry a member of the Spanish royal family, she had to first renounce her position of succession to the crown.
On the other hand, a decade or two after that, there was a period of time when a good chunk of the Dutch national football team (including its best players) played for Barcelona. After the European Commission put the kibosh on national football squads having no more than 3 non-nationals on the field at any time, Barca at one point had six Dutch starters and a Dutch head coach. The Dutch didn't mind that. World War II resulted in Germany overtaking Spain as the nation who had wreaked the most damage upon the Dutch, but was tempered by a closer association, or—as some Dutch joke—"The Dutch believe they're not German because they drink milk."
A.J.C. in Colonial Williamsburg, VA, writes: I always love it when Colonial Williamsburg gets a shoutout, but I really must take issue with the last comment in your reply to S.S.L. in Battle Creek. I'm sure the recipe for Maccarony Cheese is excellent, but it was Thomas Jefferson who took James Hemings with him to France to become a chef, where he learned about this magical meal. So, Jefferson is the founding father most likely to have enjoyed mac and cheese for lunch. It was, in fact, one of his favorite meals! Although I grew up in a historic town, my connection to the University of Virginia means I cannot allow you to get away with such a "cavalier" name check error!
If George Washington enjoyed Mac and cheese at Mount Vernon, it was only after tasting it at Jefferson's table (possibly followed by ice cream, which Jefferson and Hemings also gifted to American culture). Of course, you can enjoy mac and cheese today at many of the restaurants and taverns in Colonial Williamsburg! Come visit any time!
K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: I hadn't learned about the Zoot Suit riots before. It sounds like something Donald Trump would approve of.
I also recently learned about the Straw Hat Riot. I thought the judgment and ostracism that my middle school daughter experiences when wearing the wrong clothes was bad, but at least it's not a riot.
W.W. in Jacksonville, FL, writes: Thank you for (Z)'s freudenfreude piece on Friday about Stetson Kennedy, the folklorist and activist who helped unmask the KKK.
Stetson was a good friend of mine. I was a board member of his foundation and spent many delightful hours at the home he built on Lake Beluthahatchee in Fruit Cove, FL, where he lived for most of his last 50 years. He would regale us with stories about Ernest Hemmingway, Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings, Zora Neale Hurston and Woody Guthrie. There are three stories that I remember most vividly.
The first was the moment in his teenage years when he had his epiphany about racism. He was walking home from school with two of his high school friends. A young Black boy was riding toward them on a bicycle with a basket packed with groceries, presumably for delivery to a nearby white housewife. One of Stetson's friends jabbed a baseball bat into the spokes of the delivery boy's bicycle as he rode past, sending him crashing to the ground with groceries strewn everywhere. Stetson's two schoolmates burst into laughter, but Stetson was horrified at the cruelty and helped the delivery boy pick up the scattered groceries. Stetson said that moment changed his life forever.
Another story was from the days after he had infiltrated the Klan and was at one of their secret meetings. Midway through a speech, the Grand Wizard locked the doors and announced, "We've got the rat now. The bald-headed bastard is sitting right here among us." Stetson grinned when he told me, "I looked around, and there were seven of us bald-headed bastards in the room. I sat tight." (His secret identity was not revealed until much later when he was in the courtroom to testify against the leaders of the Klan.)
The third story is sad as well as frightening. One day, Stetson woke up to find that his beloved dog had been shot and was lying dead on his front porch. Stetson called the county police. The deputy soon arrived, and noted Stetson's grief. He looked Stetson straight in the eye. "I'm so sorry, Mr. Kennedy," he said, "we didn't mean to shoot your dog."
He was a true American hero. His friend and frequent visitor was folksinger Woody Guthrie, who wrote the song "Beluthahatchee Bill" about Stetson:
Well it's the name that I was born with
It's the name that I got still
And it rings out by the sound of Beluthahatchee Bill
Well you Kluxers tried to scare me,
With your words of swill
But you'll never scare me none,
Not Beluthahatchee Bill
Freedom Lovin' Freedom Huntin'
Easy Riding Bill
J.L. in Ridgewood, NJ, writes: Thanks for your piece on Stetson Kennedy, including the anti-KKK Superman radio serial he worked on.
Decades later, that story arc came to the attention of cartoonist and author Gene Luen Yang. The result was a limited-series comic book, Superman Smashes the Klan, published by DC Comics in 2019. It is loosely based on "Clan of the Fiery Cross." Superman helps a Chinese-American family against bigotry. Kennedy's good work lives on!
S.B. in Hood River, OR, writes: The 16 episodes of "Clan of the Fiery Cross" are readily available online, and are well worth a listen.
M.S. in Canton, NY, writes: Thanks for the piece on Stetson Kennedy, a fascinating guy about whom I first heard about just this week. Readers who would like to hear more details and context about his undercover work might enjoy listening to Thursday's episode of Fresh Air.
S.M. in Morganton, GA, writes: My father taught a college course on adaptation. It was a night class and he would make sure that every semester the class would see a movie in the theatres that they had read the material it was based on. As a kid this was how I was exposed to Field of Dreams (based on the novel Shoeless Joe) and Akira Kurosawa's Throne of Blood (an adaptation of Macbeth). My father was brilliant at this. In another exercise, he'd have his students read the lyrics to Pearl Jam's "Jeremy" as a poem; then they listened to the song; then they watched the music video. At each step, they discussed the art both as a standalone piece and as an adaptation for a new medium.
I write all this to ask (A) and everyone reading to not sleep on adaptations. Yes there are the possibilities of disappointment but there is also the possibility of art reaching new levels, new eyes/ears and new heights (Throne of Blood is the BEST Macbeth) through adaptation. I also think—and this comes from a 90s goth teen who is still running Vampire the Masquerade TTRP games in my 40s—the new Interview with the Vampire TV series is really good. It makes the changes needed (not done well for the movie) to turn this into a visual story. While Tom Cruise was a successful Lestat because his real-life persona mirrors Lestat's vanity, the new actors playing Lestat and Louis truly "get" the assignment.
As the TV adaptation moves into adapting The Vampire Lestat, the second in the Vampire Chronicles, the show has already pulled from later books to flesh out the story of Interview. This is the genius of adaptation. What makes sense on a page does not always make sense on a screen or a stage and the showrunners of this new adaptation get that. I am very excited about the show adapting the subsequent books and as (A) wrote, "The rest of Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles books are fantastic."
I highly recommend adaptations as a whole and the new Interview with the Vampire TV series in particular.
A.B. in Eugene, OR, writes: I can't speak to "best" adaptation, as I don't watch all that many movies. But The Eiger Sanction was the most faithful screenplay to a novel I can recall. A small tweak at the climax, but otherwise very true to Trevanian's plot. And the casting of the three main characters was spot on. Clint Eastwood, George Kennedy and Jack Cassidy were perfect for their roles.
C.G. in Toronto, ON, Canada, writes: For me, Women in Love with Glenda Jackson is the greatest movie adaptation of a book. The only movie I've ever seen three or more times.
E.S. in Providence, RI, writes: On the other side of your best screen adaptation, the absolutely worst screen adaptation of all time is Bonfire of the Vanities, which is one of the best books I've ever read, and was turned into one of the worst movies ever made. I am hopeful that the planned miniseries to be written by Tom Wolfe and David E. Kelley will finally correct this injustice.
S.K. in Bethesda, MD, writes: When I saw the question about the best final lines from movies, I made my own list before reading your answer and the lists were almost identical. The two I had that you didn't were "Nobody's perfect" from Some Like it Hot, and "What do we do now?" from The Candidate. Honorable mention to "I wish we could chat longer, but I'm having an old friend for dinner" from Silence of the Lambs.
S.F. in Pemberton Borough, NJ, writes: Perhaps my favorite last line from a movie is "Well, nobody's perfect!" from Some Like it Hot.
Another favorite is a simple one from a lesser-known movie, Birdy: "What?"
D.T.R. in Schaumburg, IL, writes: While I love the whole final Robert Redford monologue at the end of A River Runs Through It, the final line is absolutely perfect: "I am haunted by waters."
D.S. in Palo Alto, CA, writes: One of my favorite movies is a quirky mash-up of the most unlikely disaster movies and a Nashville-like day-in-the-life parody, called Drive-In.
The residents of a small Texas town are introduced: some teens, a (possibly sensibly) paranoid Black family, a couple of cartoon-like robbers, and the operators of a local drive-in theater, currently showing the movie Disaster 77. After introducing everyone throughout the day, they gather at the drive-in, where we see a collection of disasters unfold, each in some way triggering the next, interspersed with similarly-linked dramas going on in the parking lot. So the airplane loses its entire crew due to a broken window, requiring a hero to land it, which he does, crashing into a building and setting it afire. So the building fire is extinguished by a flood, which rushes out to sea, where it capsizes a cruise ship. In each case, the same hero has managed to put himself in the savior position again. His final line, standing like Lloyd Bridges on a beach after the ship disaster (which is apparently about to produce a tidal wave), is "Somebody's got to save Rio."
D.D. in Portland, OR, writes: For the longest time, I said that what's truly amazing about the Beatles is you could get a bunch of their fans, ask what their favorite Beatles songs are, and get virtually no overlap. Your two lists of your 15 favorite Beatles songs, with only 5 in common, proves the point nicely.
Led Zeppelin has "Stairway to Heaven," Eagles has "Hotel California," the Beatles have literally dozens of immortal songs.
And neither of you included "Yellow Submarine," "Come Together," "With a Little Help From My Friends" or "Here comes the Sun." I'm sure some folks think they were pretty good.
E.M. in Milwaukee, WI, writes: Thanks for the excellent lists of best Beatles' songs. My additions to those of (L) and (Z) are:
- "I Call Your Name"
- "You Can't Do That": A real rocker—The fine guitar solo is by Lennon, while Harrison came up with the intro/outro lick.
- "I Feel Fine": The first deliberate use of feedback in a studio recording, plus it's driven by a great Lennon guitar riff.
- "I'm Only Sleeping": Perhaps my favorite Beatles song... at least partly because it's not a love song.
D.S. in Layton, UT, writes: Apart from swapping out "Lovely Rita" and "Hey Jude" for "I Will" and "She Loves You," (L) and I have just about identical lists of favorite Beatles songs.
E.F. in Brentwood, TN, writes: You wrote:
We will concede that we are not 100% sure if "falling on your sword" only applies to honorable acts of self-sacrifice, or if it applies to any circumstance where a person removes themselves from a situation before someone else does the job for them. We think that the "honorable" part is implied, but is not actually required.This seems to almost be a request for clarification. So I will mention that the most historically and culturally famous "falling on the sword" comes from the Biblical story of King Saul. 1 Samuel 31:4 reads:
Saul groaned to his armor bearer, "Take your sword and kill me before these pagan Philistines come to run me through and taunt and torture me." But his armor bearer was afraid and would not do it. So Saul took his own sword and fell on it.Jewish and Christian theologians generally regard this as a moral failure, indicating the finality of King Saul's loss of faith in God's deliverance, and instead embracing faithless hopelessness. It is not viewed as honorable or self-sacrificial (in the noble sense) in the text or in scholarship.
Anyway, I recognize that idiom evolves beyond source material, and sometimes even reverses meaning as it does so. But since the source material is still studied in the modern day, I wanted to bring it to your attention.
M.W. in Cleveland, OH (late of Boston, MA), writes: Z.L. in Bloomington mentions the detective novels by Anne and Tony Hillerman about the Navajo nation. I remember my mom, a prolific reader, telling me about Tony Hillerman years ago, but I haven't gotten around to reading him yet. However, I'm now going to prioritize his work (and likely Anne's), because I've been watching the new show on AMC based on the novels.
It's called Dark Winds, and it's absolutely fantastic: well-acted and paced, gorgeously shot, and clearly with many indigenous folks on the writing and production staff. The show does a great job showcasing ordinary life for Navajo (they call themselves "Diné"). Each season is only six episodes, too, so it moves fast.
Just wanted to make sure folks here knew of its existence.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: There's one little railroad that makes a killing off of the TMZ rule. They own a diverse (by average movie-goer standards) fleet of locomotives and rolling stock that can fill in for most eras' railroad equipment, rent specific locomotives and railcars when they need something different, and have a shop crew that loves playing "movie star" and getting credited by modifying things to look right for directors. Their crews pay SAG and Teamster dues so they can play small roles, say lines, and appear as extras and so they can work on set, and since the railroad runs through farming fields, some forested areas, the suburbs, a small urban area, and has a few different bridges, it can be used for almost every setting that might be required by a script.
They run a small consulting business that informs directors on the lingo and practices of the industry, finds appropriate rail-related and other locations elsewhere as needs be, and a few other things, as well.
I never knew that about UCLA, but I knew a ton of college and university scenes where I thought, "Nope. Been there and that wasn't what it looks like." I am certain they must be careful how liberally they do that in regards to when dealing with a sacred cow topic or well-known place aboard a learning institution that could become one of those odd things that causes a movie to become controversial in the wrong way or laughably unbelievable because of a poor choice in substituting maybe a heavily CGI'd version of UCLA's open spaces for a concentration camp or the Medgar Evars Bridge or something.
Autism and the suspension of disbelief do not go hand-in-hand. I just commented to a few autistic YouTube creators I am trying to enlist to find a probably murdered girl's body or killers out west that their commitment to "facts matter" seems to be a common denominator among autistic people.
F.B. in Harrisonburg, VA, writes: You wrote: "And on an unrelated note... If Democrats want to engage in a bit of rodent reproduction..."
This is a great turn of phrase (that even stumps Google AI):
D.S. in Palo Alto, CA, writes: As a computer scientist, I've always treasured the lyrics of Eleanor Rigby:
Eleanor Rigby
Died in the church and was buried along with her name
Nobody came
I envision the church graveyard, with a tombstone etched with two lines:
Now that's a joke for a coding junkie, right there.
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.