Dem
47
GOP
53
It's not too common these days, but we got more letters this week about the Democrats than about Donald Trump.
C.M. in Minneapolis, MN, writes: Regarding Marky Mark Mullin's comments on election fraud and the States needing to cooperate with him or else, it's interesting that there has been little to no talk about the 2024 election being rigged. And if there was fraud, then why the GOP-led Congress hasn't done anything about trying to fix our problems. But, of course, now that it seems likely they will lose the midterms, it is a big problem again. Much like 2020. Funny how it is only a problem when they lose elections.
R.T. in Arlington, TX, writes: Parallelism with your observation about Israel:
Trumpism is not Christianity, Christianity is not Trumpism.Seems like a lot of people are treating Trump like he is Jesus. Clearly there is a difference.
M.L. in West Hartford, CT, writes: (Z) wrote that the Westinghouse that is publicly traded is NOT the Westinghouse that makes nuclear power plants, theoretically eliminating Westinghouse as a potential avenue for grift. He then added that "...it's not impossible that some traders made the same error we did, and bid the stock up, thinking they were buying the correct Westinghouse. This COULD be a story of both corruption AND incompetence."
One specific trader who could have made that error is Donald Trump, or the trader(s) executing his trades for him. Given that this is essentially the same operation that sent Rudy Giuliani to hold a press conference at Four Seasons Total Landscaping in Philly, it does not require a great leap of imagination to envision Trump mistakenly thinking that he could grift off of the announcement of the Saudi deal by illegally trading in advance to buy Westinghouse shares.
K.W. in Dallas, TX, writes: Your item about the Westinghouse stock reminded me of the period during COVID when Zoom teleconferencing took off, and a bunch of people suddenly bought ZOOM, a tiny unrelated Chinese company no one had ever heard of. To say nothing of the whole "Four Seasons" debacle.
J.A. in Austin, TX, writes: You wrote "at this point, that either Trump or his inner circle would find a way to make some money from a war in Mali. It's a leading producer of gold, so hoarding gold would seem to be an obvious choice."
Conservative TV (and, before that, conservative talk radio) have been flogging gold investment to the rubes for decades. Which, of course, probably means that Trump's people are trying to make their own investments finally pay off. To the extent that they think of the (other) rubes at all, throwing a bone to the faithful at this moment (while reaping profits for themselves) is probably the least stupid goal they could have right now.
M.C. in Raleigh, NC, writes: In "Honest Graft," you wrote:
There is probably not a single reader of this site that, if given the honor and privilege of serving as President of the United States, would put their own financial bottom line ahead of ending a senseless war, or suffering a huge defeat in the midterms, or protecting their reputation as an honest leader.To "honor and privilege of serving", I would guess that most Electoral-Vote.com readers would add "responsibility." Sadly, there is not much evidence of that ethos in the current White House.
N.S. in Lafayette, CO, writes: I thought I'd share a light-hearted, albeit PG-13, anecdote with the Electoral-Vote.com readership.
Last weekend I was driving with my teenage son who, at 17, is at least somewhat dialed in to politics. We came upon a car with a bumper sticker in all caps "FU** MAGA". I took a parenting opportunity to say that while I do not necessarily disagree with the sentiment, I do not believe 4-letter obscenities belong on vehicles in public view.
To which he responded, "MAGA?"
S.A.K. in Karnataka, India, writes: Your item about the U.S.-Saudi nuclear deal was thought-provoking. Doesn't take a neurosurgeon to deduce that the Saudis are in a real bind here. They'd doubtless love to have this agreement in place. But I think normalizing with Israel is still a bridge too far. Certainly in the current geopolitical environment in the Middle East, and almost surely for the foreseeable future, too. Palestinian statehood with East Jerusalem as its capital is the stated red line for them. The latter houses the Al-Aqsa mosque, the third holiest site in Islam.
Makkah and Madinah, and the faith of two billion Muslims centred around those cities, will continue to place the Saudis under a unique kind of pressure that no other Arab country faces when it comes to dealing with Israel. The domestic populace, of course, a vast majority of whom are against the normalization of diplomatic ties, is another factor to contend with. No amount of internal repression will change that. Then there is the clergy, which for the most part is pretty subservient to the monarchy, except on this issue.
None of this is to say Mohammed bin Salman won't steamroll right over these factors and normalize anyway. He very well could. But in doing so, he would be risking the existence of the Saudi monarchy itself.
The mention of India not being a signatory to the NPT brought to mind Manmohan Singh and his single-minded conviction in getting the 2008 nuclear deal through. He put his parliamentary majority on the line for it. Incidentally, it was Indira Gandhi who refused to sign the treaty, citing its discriminatory nature and national security. She was right on both counts. If only India had a leader like either of them today.
J.L. in Chicago, IL, writes: I certainly am not trying to defend either Saudi Arabia or Donald Trump, but I can think of another reason for the uranium deal. Trump is stuck on the Iran war. He cannot afford to lose and he cannot figure out how to win.
A veiled threat to help Saudia Arabia get nuclear weapons could be intended to scare the bejesus (or whatever the Islamic equivalent is) out of Iran, in the hopes of forcing it to agree to whatever Trump considers to be acceptable terms.
It would be a really dangerous strategy but that does not mean Trump would not pursue it.
K.P. in New York City, NY, writes: I enjoyed this:
What is this all about? Nobody is talking and if someone starts talking, take it with oil barrels full of salt. Does Saudi Arabia need nuclear reactors to power its massive industrial base? Maybe not, since it doesn't have one. But if it acquires one someday, how could it be powered? Oil? Where would Saudi Arabia find oil in the middle of the desert? Solar power? You need sunshine and a lot of empty land for that. Obviously not an option for Saudi Arabia. No, nuclear power is obviously the only way to go for them.
S.A. in Clarkston, GA, writes: In your item about the winners and losers of the Iran war, you cogently explain how China, along with Iran, is a victor.
Later in the same piece you note how the past 25 years of American wars in Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq have also resulted in a victory for China, as the U.S. expends blood and money for... something, and China quietly builds its economy and military. The 25-year timing, though, suggests another victory: Isn't this long-term weakening of the U.S. exactly what Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda dreamed of?
J.M. in Silver Spring, MD, writes: Talking about how Trump having attacked Venezuela and Iran, and now threatening to attack Cuba and Mali, reminds me of a Babylon Five quotation: "Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."
T.W. in Norfolk, England, UK, writes: Thanks for making me wistful again. Your piece on Emily Smith's letter to President Obama brought a lump to my throat (since my mother also passed away due to cancer) and made me yearn for the days of a leader of the free world who embodied and lived the concepts of honour, decency, fidelity, compassion and truth. Oh, for a return to those enlightened times. If Barack Obama were able to run for the presidency again, he would absolutely crush Trump like a bug. Sadly, one can only dream...
J.A. in St. Petersburg, FL, writes: As a sidebar to your story about the little girl who wrote to Barack Obama, I just wanted to say that I was a little disappointed—didn't happen very often—that we never got a book out of the Obama presidency entitled: Ten Letters A Day: Americans write to President Obama.
It seems like a collection of letters from the 10 that he read every day would have been a really interesting thing to read.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: Thanks for sharing the clip about Emily Smith's letter and President Obama. Sometimes I retroactively reevaluate this belief, but I think that clip cements it that President Obama was the greatest president of my lifetime (from JFK to, unfortunately, DJT). Now I just have to figure out how water is dripping from my ceiling onto my cheeks.
R.B. in Durham, NC, writes: I appreciated "Former Biden Aide: Harris Is Not Going to be President," though I'd push back gently on one point. There's a pattern worth considering: Often the next president is a kind of pendulum swing against whatever the last one represented, not a continuation of it. Trump, in a lot of ways, was the reaction against Obama—against the thoughtfulness, the deliberateness, the "no-drama" style Obama embodied. Trump is almost the photo-negative of that.
If that pattern holds, it's not crazy to think the swing after Trump could favor someone who represents the opposite of him—someone measured, careful, even "boring" by comparison. That's usually treated as Harris's weakness, but depending on how exhausted the country is with chaos by 2028, it could just as easily become an asset. I'm not saying she's the favorite, but I do think she has more of a fighting chance than the piece gives her credit for. Just my two cents.
G.K. in Blue Island, IL, writes: I have to say I entirely agree with your assessment of Kamala Harris. I once called her the "luckiest Democrat in America," because she rose above the rest of the field more due to happenstance than obvious accomplishments (relative to others). I do not know who is giving her advice—and it says something that she's listening to them—but it's beyond me why she would have taken a pass on the California gubernatorial race, when it would have put her in the driver's seat of one of the most influential states in the union and, possibly, positioned her very well for future events.
More than anything, I generally mourn the loss of the "elder statesman" role in American politics, and I wish more public servants would look past K Street when the "electability fairy" is no longer bestowing favor on them. Service comes in many forms, and there continues to be a deep need for mentorship, bench deepening, and (civil) discussion that edifies rather than confuses or alienates.
A.F. in Boston, MA, writes: Honestly, if the Democrats want to nominate an older woman, at least go with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). She's smart and a fighter.
For every demographic that Kamala Harris might appeal to, there's a much better option. The Democrats will be planning their own funeral (and likely America's) if they nominate Harris again.
M.G. in Boulder, CO, writes: I continue to look forward to the Presidential Candidate of the Week articles. Reader comments for the Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) entry came slowly, but, largely thanks to S.J.W. in Grand Rapids, you put together a very useful focus group. I will no longer say, "Which one is that?" when I see Slotkin's name.
These pieces are more than "Who will be the next president?" useful. They're a Who's Who of Democratic leaders. You are making names into people. We need that, especially at this "change or be lost" moment. A single person cannot save us. We need to identify future cabinet members, Congressional leaders, and Party leaders. Slotkin, for example, may not be a future president, but she sounds like someone who belongs in the Cabinet, possibly in State or Defense. We're finding out now how important it is to have intelligent, informed, capable people in those positions. We can no longer take that for granted. We are now facing the largest housecleaning job in history. We need the most clear-sighted, experienced people to do the work, but first we have to find them. These profiles are allowing Electoral-Vote.com writers and readers to identify them. Thanks to everyone who's participating.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: After reading (Z)'s bio of Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), she's now my pick for either Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State. That's what "highly qualified, highly accomplished" looks like, folks. Believe me, once we have a 2028 nominee, they will not stop hearing from me about her suitability for those Cabinet positions.
S.S. in Cuyahoga Falls, OH, writes: After reading the item on Elissa Slotkin I was intrigued by her impressive foreign policy résumé, so I looked up some of her speeches on YouTube. Very impressed; I feel like a Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY)/Slotkin ticket could be pretty effective.
L.E. in Putnam County, NY, writes: I don't live in Montana or Nebraska, but even if I did, I would still be a lifelong Democrat who sees the (I) label as irredeemably toxic for a Senate candidate... I want the Senate Democratic caucus to be all Democrats, and want the non-D proportion phased out, not expanded.
In any election, I vote only for Democrats. If the nominee is too insufferable for me, I write in another Democrat more to my liking.
Are there truly no voters like me in those states? I can not believe it is win-win to have the D line blank!
D.A. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: In "Who Are the DSA Members?," your discussion of Nate Silver's analysis of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), you wrote:
A study by the DSA of its membership showed that most of its members were working as teachers, nonprofit workers, social workers or government employees. They were not working class at all, and 85% were white, which is not even representative of the Democratic Party, let alone the country.You are confusing "working class" with "industrial working class." This is a mistake for three reasons. First, as a matter of definition, "working class" means people who: (1) work for wages/salary, (2) do not own the means of production, (3) have no or little say about the conditions and terms of their employment and (4) typically have little in the way of job security. The latter is becoming especially true for a wide range of occupations (university and other teachers; doctors, nurses and other health care workers; etc.). This process is called "proletarianization" and it has been going on since the birth of capitalism.
Second, the U.S. has very much become a service economy: teachers, most nonprofit workers, social workers, and government employees and other white- and pink-collar workers are a large part of this economy.
Third, if you look at the areas where the union movement is growing , you will see both independent unions (organizing Amazon warehouse workers and Starbucks baristas) as well as traditional "industrial" unions (like the UAW) organizing... graduate student TAs.
While it is true that the industrial working class (factory workers, longshoremen, truck drivers, railroad workers) remain a strategic key to a successful revolutionary struggle against the ruling capitalist class, it constitutes a minority in the population and is less crucial in the kind of politics that Electoral-Vote.com covers (bourgeois democratic electoral politics).
O.B. from Oklahoma City, OK, writes: I think Nate Silver is confusing priorities with preferences.
Many of the lower-priority issues on the list of "important issues" for DSA members are actually reasonably popular. Take abortion access: Since the Dobbs decision, red and purple states usually saw a majority of people voting against ballot measures that restricted abortion and voting for ballot measures that expanded abortion access. Notably, these states include Missouri and Montana (both reliably red states), and yet most people keep voting for anti-abortion politicians in those states. Abortion is simply a lower priority.
Public opinion on Convicted Felon Trump's immigration policies has soured a lot, and the same can be said for Israel. Gay rights are still reasonably popular, and even trans rights are popular by a surprisingly high margin. Polls from Fox have repeatedly found that voters trust Democrats over Republicans on trans issues (D+13). However, these issues are all much lower priority than things like the economy and democracy, which have a much greater impact on everyday life for most Americans.
Not only do I think that Nate Silver is confusing priorities with preferences, but I also think that he fits the trope of "some rich dude who's insulated from the effects of policies says that the Democratic Party (or the leftist wing) can win by throwing vulnerable people under the bus." That didn't go very well in 2024 for the Harris campaign. She refused to counter Convicted Felon Trump's blatant lies about trans issues and immigration, which meant that the Republican Party had total control of the narrative there.
It's one thing to say that Democrats (particularly the leftist ones) should simply focus their message more on kitchen-table issues to win over more voters, while still vowing to protect vulnerable people. It's a whole different matter to suggest that Democrats should abandon vulnerable people and give Republicans total control of the narrative. Shrinking the tent does not expand the tent, and visibly abandoning people who have historically been protected by the Democratic Party is not going to increase enthusiasm among Democratic voters. It almost certainly won't get "moderate Republicans" to vote for Democrats; the Harris campaign already demonstrated that courting those voters does not translate to success.
As for the Labour Party, I'm sure someone from the U.K. can provide more information. From what I can tell, Labour in 2024 looked like a center-left party, but Labour in 2026 is trying to be a far-right party by governing as Reform-lite. The U.K. is rapidly descending into a dystopian surveillance state under Labour. Those are just my perceptions about U.K. politics from bits and pieces that I have heard from friends living there, so don't put TOO much stock into my thoughts.
B.W. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Nate Silver's column exploring the link between DSA membership, income and educational attainment has a striking (and disqualifying) omission: age.
The clear implication is that postgraduates making between $30-60k are frustrated millennials who feel entitled to better, or "people who have a Ph.D. from studying the philosophy of some Belgian philosopher no one else has ever heard of, and are not working as a professional philosopher, and are not making as much money as they expected," as (V) puts it.
But the more likely archetype by far is the early-careerist: someone aged 24-29 in a paid internship or adjunct faculty position.
The only reference to age I could find in a quick read of Silver's column: "80 percent of (DSA) members aged 25 or older had bachelor's degrees." Of course, "25 or older" translates to something like 95% of all voters, so this is hardly telling us much.
While it could be true that the DSA is packed full of disillusioned, educated, downwardly-mobile cynics, it seems at least equally likely that it's simply a youth movement.
J.P. in Chicago, IL, writes: You hit the nail on the head here. I went to a DSA national meeting about 12 years ago. The building was full of people working chronically underpaid jobs that require advanced degrees. People who take these jobs often do so because they are empaths. That inevitably leads to the woke agenda, which leads to some fringe membership by those affected groups, furthering culture war demands.
During the meeting, they were clearly at the peak of a drawn-out argument over leadership and direction. The whole organization seemed like a group that is not interested in a political movement as much as an opportunity to complain. It appears that new leadership is impacting their direction, but its core membership is the same.
D.C. in Portland, OR, writes: Has (V) ever taken a real look at the policy positions of the DSA, or was that item more of a "vibe" thing? Because there is nary a mention of cultural issues in the DSA platform, the vast majority of which is focused on economic issues and the needs of working people, exactly as (V) recommends.
I understand that some individuals press the cultural side, too, but it's inaccurate to claim those issues are at all central to their ideology. Certainly, "trans-loving communists" is what the right wing would have you believe, but that doesn't make it so.
L.H. in Chicago, IL, writes: The item about Caitlin Clark contained this passage:
And then, Armour goes in for the coup de grace, and decrees that Clark really ought to know better, since she just played in the WNBA All Star game in Chicago, the same city where Emmett Till was lynched.Since you were quoting the columnist Nancy Armour there, I'm not calling you out on a mistake, but I was surprised not to see a mention of the fact that she's got her mythology wrong. Emmett Till was certainly laid to rest here in Chicago, but that was hardly the place where he was lynched. That was more like 1,000 miles south of here.
(V) & (Z) respond: Yes, we got many e-mails about that. We intended to make clear that we were summarizing Armour's piece (which eventually got corrected), but we did not do so.
R.S. in Ticonderoga, NY, writes: Your breakdown of what wars are called by residents of the "other side" reminded me that, when I took a graduate class on the Civil War at the College of William and Mary in the late 1980s, the official course listing was "U.S. History: 1861-1865."
D.M.C. in Seoul, South Korea, writes: Following up on the question from W.R.S. in Tucson, "June 25th War" is certainly the most common name for the Korean War in South Korea, although a more literal translation would be the "Six Two Five War." However, "Korean War" is certainly used in South Korea too.
In its article on the Korean war, Namu Wiki (the Korean equivalent of Wikipedia) also gives the Fatherland Liberation War as the default term in North Korea, while listing the "Korean War" as being in existence and "the June 25th War" as being used with a somewhat low frequency. Interestingly, the endonyms for Korea are different in North and South Korea ("Joseon" and "Hanguk", respectively) meaning the words for the "Korean War" in each are different, too.
R.P.E.H. in London, England, UK, writes: Not a correction, per se, but I would add that the eastern front in World War II is usually known in Russia—and some other former Soviet states—as The Great Patriotic War. Something I learned from reading Sci-fi, and had to confirm elsewhere.
B.J. in Arlington, MA, writes: Thanks for your list of war names from the non-American perspective.
With appreciation to Spain for the idea, I think "The Disaster of 2026" will do nicely as a name for our current activity in Iran. Not that I expect it to be limited to this year.
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: Further to your response to J.M. in Boulder about history books for 6th-12th graders, I wanted to recommend the "Who Was" series series for 1st-6th graders. Each of the books (over 250 total, so you can pick what interests the kids the most) tells a life story in accessible language (and dealing appropriately with the problematic aspects). We started reading these to our son at bedtime, and then he started reading them for himself. The series got him hooked on history, and he intends to major in the subject when he starts college in a month.
P.K. in Marshalltown, IA, writes: I must confess that I am not a fan of Candace Millard's work on James Garfield, nor of the film adaptation it inspired on Netflix. For the book, Millard seemed to rely extensively on memoirs published by Garfield's kids long after his assassination. These are very much colored by time and have a hagiographic character to them. As for Death by Lightning, there was just so much ahistorical material in it. We have no records that Lucretia Garfield or Mollie Garfield were such feminists, or that Black people in the President's orbit had so much influence. Seven years of graduate studies, leading to my master and doctoral degrees at the University of Illinois, just do not allow me to conclude that works like Mallard's are the way to have the public learn history.
Strangely I like your idea about using the Parson Weems' work, for the reasons you stated.
On a side note, I returned recently to the Gettysburg battlefield and had to take issue with some interpretational materials on Little Round Top. The issue being discussed involved whether or not the bayonet charge made by the Maine 20th was done on orders issued by Lawrence Chamberlain or not. The exhibit listed four quotes on the matter, the first from Chamberlain in 1863 and the last from another officer in 1913. The former indicated that he gave the order to charge and the latter that Chamberlain did not give such an order. I have to go with Chamberlain. His evidence is much closer to when the action and the charge occurred. Yes, I know about the Union action on Missionary Ridge and the understanding that no orders were given for that charge that surprised the Confederates and turned the tide on that day but, in general, trained and experienced soldiers act on command. Ergo, Chamberlain ordered a bayonet charge and a bayonet charge occurred.
R.P. in Kāneʻohe, HI, writes: In answering the question from S.S.L. in Battle Creek about recommended immersive books, (A) referenced The Sex Lives of Cannibals: Adrift in the Equatorial Pacific, and provided a phonetic spelling of the word "Kiribati."
The Republic of Kiribati encompasses several island groups in the central Pacific, including the Gilbert Islands, the Phoenix Islands, and most of the Line Islands. One of the better-known constituents of the latter (which happens to be the largest atoll in the world by land area) is what has historically been called "Christmas Island," because Captain James Cook's ship first arrived there on Christmas Eve, 1777. I've visited this atoll many times since my first visit in 1980, which was just after the Republic of Kiribati gained independence from the United Kingdom. At the time, many of the islands were given new names in Gilbertese (the English word for the language spoken in the Gilbert Islands). The new name for Christmas Island was "Kiritimati," which most English speakers would intuitively pronounce as something like "kee-REE-tee-MAH-tee." It was explained to us shortly after the new name took effect that the "ti" should be pronounced as an "s," but most westerners couldn't suppress the urge to pronounce the "i," so the tendency was to pronounce it as "kee-REE-see-MAH-see."
During a much later visit, I found myself standing in front of a map of the atoll alongside a local Gilbertese man. I pointed at the word "Kiritimati" on the map and asked him the correct pronunciation in his local language. He said "KREES-mahs," which sounded exactly like "Christmas" as spoken with a Gilbertese accent. The light bulb went off in my head, so I then pointed to the word "Kiribati" on the same map, and he said "GHEE-lree-bahts" (the "lr" was a sound that mixed both "l" and "r" together)—which sounded exactly like "Gilberts" as spoken with a Gilbertese accent. So, while (A) is absolutely correct that most English-speaking people "in the know" pronounce the word "Kiribati" as something like "KEE-ruh-bass" (or "KEE-ree-bahss"), if you ever find yourself chatting with a person native to that region, you'll probably be closer to the correct indigenous pronunciation if you simply say "Gilberts" (or, in the case of the atoll, "Christmas").
An interesting anecdote: The date I was chatting with the Gilbertese man in front of the map just happened to be December 25. My hosts and other local people on the atoll I interacted with certainly celebrated the holiday in the same way we do in western society (no doubt a legacy of the former English colonization), but despite the identical pronunciation, most of the local people I spoke with were oblivious to the connection between the name of their atoll and the holiday.
J.D.M. in Cottonwood Shores, TX, writes: I am also a big fan of Sherlock Holmes stories, both the original canon and the various alternate explorations of the fascinating character for whom logical patterns are the natural form of thought. I would heartily recommend the Laurie R. King series Mary Russell and Sherlock Holmes. They are artfully written, provide all the plot twists and turns you expect from Sherlock, and add a delightful look into the inner thoughts and emotions (yes, emotions!) of the great man via the provenance of a female partner with equal intellectual abilities and similar struggles to fit in to society.
S.G. in Newark, NJ, writes: I was pleased to see Catch-22 on your very short list of favorite books. I think it is the best American novel I have ever read.
I've read Catch-22 at least four times. The first time I read it, I was 13 years old and in 8th grade. I thought it was a hilarious book.
The second time I read it, I was 28 years old, had graduated from law school, and was clerking for a federal judge. Reading the book while watching the daily exercise of real power by the court, I was struck by how deeply moral the book is.
The third time I read it, I was in my early thirties and working as an attorney at the Justice Department. Back then that was a job to be proud of. And yet the absurdity of big bureaucracy was all around me. I remember thinking that Catch-22 was a deeply cynical book.
The fourth time I read it, I was fifty or so, married for a couple of decades, and teaching law classes to students of all ethnicities, socioeconomic statuses, and genders. I was struck by how sexist Catch-22 is. Reflective, no doubt, of both the era and the environment depicted. But still.
A deep, complex, and great book, despite the warts. And I still use this passage to exhort my students to live thoughtful, ethical lives as people and as lawyers:
The chaplain had sinned, and it was good. Common sense told him that telling lies and defecting from duty were sins. On the other hand, everyone knew that sin was evil and that no good could come from evil. But he did feel good; he felt positively marvelous. Consequently, it followed logically that telling lies and defecting from duty could not be sins.
The chaplain had mastered, in a moment of divine intuition, the handy technique of protective rationalization, and he was exhilarated by his discovery. It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. It merely required no character.Remind you of anybody?
J.E. in San Jose, CA, writes: As a former copyeditor, I often am met with surprise when I disclose that I'm not a heavy reader.
And I guess (A) isn't either, whatever her background. It provides much solace that the general reviewer of my reported corrections is no longer a big reader, just like me.
T.S. in Berlin, Germany, writes: You wrote that the U.S. is not competitive in soccer.
I would like to suggest that the U.S. women's team, by virtue of being "the most successful women's national team in the history of the Women's World Cup," per Wikipedia, deserves this correction:
The U.S. is not competitive in men's soccer."
A.M. in Brookhaven, PA, writes: As someone who was a 7-year-old Washington Redskins fan in 1973, and who had gone upstairs to cry in his closet earlier in the game, I strongly disagree with your characterization of Garo Yepremian's mistake as "one of the most godawful NFL plays of all time." I would characterize it as "the only saving grace to an otherwise miserable day." And 53½ years later, I still give my dad a hard time for yelling at Mike Bass to go out of bounds to stop the clock. Even 7-year-old me knew that even if he was tackled the clock would stop for the change of possession.
Godawful play or the only good part of the game? It's all a matter of perspective.
J.T. in San Bernardino, CA, writes: Former Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe has become a major progressive activist in Huntington Beach, CA, where they have a disproportionate number of MAGA elected officials (HB, my wife's hometown, has a conservative streak but its MAGA government is more a product of people not paying attention to local elections).
He was kicked out of a city council meeting for protesting a plan to place a MAGA plaque outside of the Huntington Beach library, among other things. He's currently running for a California Assembly seat and seems like a thoughtful dude, evidence of the intellectuality of punters.
(V) & (Z) respond: We thought about mentioning him, but he is a former student of (Z)'s, so it seemed a little self-serving.
D.S. in Palo Alto, CA, writes: Association football is an awful game.
Imagine eliminating the three-second rule in basketball. Station a 7'2" Center right under the basket, leaving the rules against physical contact. Enjoy your 10-8 basketball games. Soccer and hockey would be much more enjoyable if you eliminated the goalie, possibly adjusting the net sizes down, and put a time-in-front-of-goal limit on other players.
S.M. in Toronto, ON, Canada, writes: Soccer fans really seem to be clueless about certain aspects of North America vs European countries.
Specifically, that North America is—please sit down for this soccer fans—REALLY, REALLY BIG. Especially in comparison to European countries.
For the most part, there's maybe three to five TV markets in most European countries (England, I think, technically has 10 local ITV franchises, but those are hyper-regional). Usually, each of those is represented by more than one team in the top flight of soccer; I think London will have six franchises in the EPL for next season, Manchester and Liverpool two each, etc.
So if one of them gets relegated, no big loss. Your TV market size doesn't change much.
Imagine if the Bears, Blackhawks, or Bulls are relegated. There goes the #3 media market in the U.S. Do you think Fox would be happy to pay the same amount for the NFC TV package if that happened? Or, even worse, the Cowboys, the historical biggest TV draw in North American sports? The Blue Jays or Raptors being relegated would both cost their leagues basically the entire Canadian TV contract, a market of 40 million—one team representing more people than any whole league in Europe, outside the big four.
Simply put, relegation works for tiny European countries that are dominated by a few cities. It makes absolutely zero sense for the much larger, much more diverse, North American market.
P.J.T. in Raton, NM, writes: Oh, c'mon, (Z), the NFC has won only one more Super Bowl than the AFC (30-29).
(V) & (Z) respond: Most of those AFC wins came after steroids became widely available. Reach your own conclusions.
T.B. in Winston-Salem, NC, writes: Concerning the question from D.L. in Springfield as to why their work computer, recently upgraded to Windows 11, will not browse electoral-vote.com:
The request from your computer in Springfield, IL has to travel through and then outside your corporate network, through your work's Internet Service Provider (ISP), and then through the interwebs to Electoral-Vote.com, which runs on a dedicated web server in Clifton Park, NY. The datacenter in which that web server lives has two main suppliers on the Internet backbone: Cogent Communications and Hurricane Electric. The response to your request will have to travel in the opposite direction, most of the time via the same set of one or two dozen hops through various routers.
The first obstacle to your computer will be Domain Name Services (DNS). You can test whether this is an issue on your own computer. (I greatly doubt that Windows 11 itself is the issue, because Windows 11 has probably the most robust capabilities of any Windows version when it comes to the TCP/IP stack.)
Launch a Windows command-prompt session (cmd.exe) and at the command prompt enter "nslookup electoral-vote.com" (without the quotation marks) and press Enter. This command should return an IP address and tell you whether or not the answer came from an authoritative server. You should get an IP address regardless of whether the server was authoritative or not (usually, the IP address does not come from an authoritative server). The IP address that you get will almost certainly be the actual IP address of Electoral-Vote.com.
If you don't get an IP address in response to your nslookup command, that's the problem right there, and it's time to ask for help from your company's networking person.
Once you do have an IP address for electoral-vote.com, the next thing to do in a command-prompt session is to enter the following command at the prompt: "tracert [ip address of electoral-vote.com]" and watch as the output proceeds. As the output proceeds, numerous routers will be contacted. Some of them may sit for a few seconds and then time out, but eventually you should ping Electoral-Vote.com's actual server. If this process of tracing the route from you to here fails, then the point of failure will likely yield additional clues to the issue.
A failure in routing could be caused by any one of multiple issues. Maybe your employer has a "Net Nanny" process installed on the local network, and doesn't want you to be browsing Electoral-Vote.com at work. Maybe your ISP hasn't refreshed its DNS servers for a week or two. Maybe there is an issue somewhere between your ISP and the Internet backbone, such that some important router just can't find a path to the next place a message should go. The tracert may indicate which router is the problematic one. It could be that your company's gateway has an IP address that Electoral-Vote.com or its host has decided is in a block of IP addresses that must simply be blocked and ignored because of its reputation.
For whatever reason, my communications with the Electoral-Vote.com web server travel through Charter Communications, which eventually talks to Hurricane Electric, which talks to Electoral-Vote.com's host, in whose network Electoral-Vote.com's web server lives. The same path is used to come back to me. Your situation will be different, because your ISP is more likely to be on Comcast's backbone than Charter's.
In short, networking and routing are probably where your issue will be uncovered. Windows 11 isn't likely to be involved at all.
P.L. in Santa Barbara, CA, writes: Since you are converting from Windows 10 to 11 this late in the version cycle (Win 11 came out 5 years ago), there may be a mismatch in certificates between the desktop and the Electoral-Vote.com server. Try clearing out the Windows Certificate Cache (you may need to get someone with Admin rights). If you don't know how, you can google it. Hope this helps.
D.G. in Irvine, CA, writes: In response to D.L. in Springfield, this sounds like a firewall issue and not a Windows 11 issue. Modern firewalls allow blocking of various content categories, such as pornography, video streaming or politics. The firewall manufacturer maintains lists appropriate for each category and updates the firewalls regularly. My guess is that Electoral-Vote.com is in one of the categories that D.L.'s work has decided to block, probably politics. I'd recommend that D.L. review their work's policies for internet usage and if they believe that reading Electoral-Vote.com on their lunch break is within the policy to request a change to the restriction.
(V) & (Z) respond: Could be in "porn," too, since we write nearly every day about Donald Trump screwing America.
B.C. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: D.L. in Springfield should be aware that there is nothing in Windows 11 that would, by default, prevent connection to Electoral-Vote.com, or any other web site.
D.L. should also be aware that we know very little about the networking setup in their office, which I suggest is where the problem lies. There are a host of networking variables which can affect what you can see and do on the Interwebs. A lot of the solutions to the problem of lack of access involve having administrative rights to your workstation, something most Windows Domain administrators (myself included) do not allow to "regular" users.
One of the things D.L. could try on the office computer is determining if there is lack of access to any other web sites: search web sites like Google, and information sites like Wikipedia, or business-related web sites you simply must have access to. That information might help the company sysadmins with identifying the problem.
Lastly, Windows 10 originally reached end-of-life in October 2025, but Microsoft implemented Extended Security Updates (ESU) to October 12, 2027. Windows 10 computers are on borrowed time, and you should look at upgrading your computers to Windows 11 or, if your machine is too old to upgrade, (1) migrate it to an alternative operating system like Linux, or (2) simply buy a new computer; I always go with option (1), even on machines that are around 15 years old.
(V) & (Z) respond: Thanks to all the readers who wrote in with suggestions. We tried to pick letters that covered all of the various suggestions that were made.
N.A.T. in London, England, UK, writes: "Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here." Not EVERY Nostradamus prediction was wrong.
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.