Dem
47
GOP
53
Still working on the headline theme? Larry Bird would have worked, except... wrong sport.
M.G. in Boulder, CO, asks: As thousands watched, last night the United States took a first step in repudiating Donald Trump as his name was being removed from the Kennedy Center. Midterms may well be a bigger step in the same direction, but that's only another step. The repair job will take many steps and many years. If you were in charge of choosing the next steps, what would your priorities be?
(Z) answers: Politics is, of course, the art of the possible. So, the first priority should be things that are obvious problems, where there have been abuses on both sides of the aisle, and where there is broad popular support for reform. I am thinking here of gerrymandering, the pardon power and the War Powers Act, in particular.
I do not propose that, for example, Joe Biden's abuse of the pardon power was even in the same universe as Donald Trump's abuse of the pardon power, but there's nonetheless enough problematic behavior on both sides that these things don't necessarily HAVE to devolve into members of one party pointing the finger at members of the other party.
Something has to be done about the Supreme Court, which has become far too powerful and far too politicized. Maybe an approach can be found that can attract support from both sides of the aisle. If not, then the filibuster will have to go. Let us recall that the death of the filibuster only matters if one party or the other has the trifecta. In that case, there's a pretty good argument to be made that the party in power has won the right to implement its agenda.
Then, it's time to fix some of the things the Supreme Court has clearly gotten wrong. A new Voting Rights Act is a start. Thereafter, something needs to be done about abortion, where current jurisprudence is not serving anyone well, regardless of their views on the issue.
W.R.S. in Tucson, AZ, asks: While I am truly touched that my father, who passed last year, is being honored on (what would have been) his 77th birthday with a UFC match on the White House Lawn, I must say that the whole thing seems to be a bit ill-conceived. It appears that D.C. has a heat advisory this weekend, and that on Sunday afternoon and evening there may be severe thunderstorms. I know that historians now teach that President William Henry Harrison's untimely demise was nothing to do with his long inaugural address in inclement weather, but as the current president is turning 80 years of age this weekend, surely exposure to heat, humidity, and thunderstorms is not in his best interests?
No word yet on whether my father's spirit arranged for the weather on this auspicious occasion.(Z) answers: William Henry Harrison lived in a time when men did manly things, so as to make clear how manly they were.
Some men still inhabit that world, but Donald Trump is not one of them. His sole concern is Donald Trump, particularly the comfort of Donald Trump, and the health and longevity of Donald Trump. We suspect his viewership of the event will involve an air-conditioned room, or frequent breaks from being in the audience, or both.
Overall, the best-case scenario for this event is that it turns out to be a big nothing. The worst-case is that it blows up in Trump's face, due to some sort of disaster, or the performances being godawful, or something embarrassing happening.
D.S. in Fort Collins, CO, asks: How is Trump's Get-Out-Of-Being-Audited-Free card for himself, his family, and his businesses even plausibly enforceable? That feels like such an obvious question that I'm frankly surprised I've not seen it addressed in any reporting. Most of what I've read treats it as a done deal if Congress doesn't act, but couldn't the next administration's IRS simply declare it null and void and proceed with an investigation? If the Trumps appeal to the courts, I can't see how even the most supremely partisan court would uphold such an agreement. Nobody had any illusions that the current IRS would audit him, so beyond the fact that it hands the Dems a huge cudgel for the midterms, does the attempt actually do anything at all? I hate to ask a question you've heard repeatedly and can't possibly answer, but... what the hell is he thinking?
(Z) answers: The final part of your question is the easiest. Trump has long embraced dubious legal positions, and then rolled the dice in court. Sometimes, his lawyers pull a rabbit out of a hat. Other times, at least he bought himself years and years of extra time for whatever misdeeds are in question. There's no reason he would make changes to a strategy that's worked so well for him, for so long.
Beyond that, I am with you. There is just no way this can stand up in court.
J.M. in Highland Park, NJ, asks: Every month there are news reports that we gained a surprising amount of jobs. My question: How reliable is that data these days, or is it just another bit of propaganda that the media passes along with no comment? I thought that the new numbers guy was brought in specifically to pad the results?
(Z) answers: It's reliable, but not as reliable as it used to be.
The problem is not that someone is cooking the books. It would be hard to pull that off, in part because so many people (including many non-Trumpy careerists) would have to be involved, and in part because it's hard to fake numbers and make them look real. Phony data tends to include telltale signs that it's phony.
Further, the incompetent boob whom Trump tried to put in charge at the Bureau of Labor Statistics was so obviously an incompetent boob that Trump had to pull the nomination. The current (acting) leader of BLS is William J. Wiatrowski, a longtime BLS staffer who is competent. The fellow who has been nominated for the permanent job is Brett Matsumoto, a longtime BLS staffer who is also competent.
The problem with the data these days is not due to corruption, then. It's due to funding cuts at BLS, cuts that mean that the data isn't getting looked over as carefully as used to be the case, and that mean the data tends to be released late, by which time it is somewhat out of date.
A.G. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: I have seen a lot of apologism online, and even here at Electoral-Vote.com for how long it takes to count the votes in California. I think the process is absolutely fair and do not think there is any fraud. That being said, I still don't understand logistically why it takes so long. Sure, California is large, but so is Texas and they had results within a few hours of closing their polls. Why does size even matter if votes are counted by county/precinct? Why is California slower to count votes than seemingly every other state?
For reference I voted by dropping my mail-in ballot signed and sealed directly to a polling site. They checked my ID and put my and my wife's envelopes into a sealed plastic bin. It wasn't until June 7, 5 days after the election that my ballot was accepted.(Z) answers: There are several issues that are particular to California. The first is that its population isn't just larger than that of Texas, it's WAY larger—about 10 million people more. The difficulty involved increases geometrically, rather than arithmetically, the more people whose ballots you have to deal with. Or, to put it another way, imagine that Texas finished its counting and THEN had to do all the counting for Michigan or Ohio.
Second, California's jungle-primary system makes it much harder to project results. Texas doesn't actually finish counting on election night, it's just the races' outcomes are usually clear well before the final votes are counted.
Third, California accepts ballots up to 7 days after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked on or before Election Day, it means that election officials cannot be sure exactly how many votes there will be. It also means that things can't really be finalized until Election Day +7. Sure, the state could endure the extra expense (and the potential loss of accuracy) involved in getting every ballot counted as quickly as possible, but... why? The results still can't be finalized until Election Day +7.
Fourth, California takes election security very seriously. Even if that was not the philosophy of the state's residents and leadership (though it is), it would still be necessary because Republicans are looking under rocks for fraud or other issues in the Golden State. So, California elections officials have to dot every i and cross every t, and then re-dot and re-cross a couple of times thereafter. To be precise, they have to check every signature to make sure it's valid, then unseal the ballot, then make sure the ballot is no longer associated with the person who cast it, then count the ballots. Oh, and because it's a big state, the ballots are very long. Mine was eight or nine pages, with something like 50 things that had to be voted on.
F.L. in Durham, NC, asks: Is it possible for California to revise its voting procedures, including mail ballot deadlines, so that results are announced soon after this November's election? In a polarized country with control of the House uncertain, long delays in reporting the California results are a self-indulgent gift to the Republican Party.
(Z) answers: Is it possible? Yes. It is advisable? No.
California residents, and their leaders, have decided that as many residents as possible should be given as much opportunity as possible to register their votes. This is not only the state's right, it's also the right thing to do.
At the same time, the state's residents, and in particular the state's election officials, have decided to conduct as secure an election as is possible. This is also the right thing to do, and with tens of millions of voters, it takes time.
Finally, there is no problem that will be solved by faster counting. There is still plenty of time between the day that California announces its results and the day the newly elected officeholders take office. The only thing that a faster count would do is address conspiratorial carping from people like Donald Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA). But guess what? People like that are going to complain, and claim that the results are illegitimate, no matter what California does, and no matter how fast it counts. Because what Trump and Johnson are actually complaining about is not election fraud, it's Republicans losing elections. And that will keep happening in the Golden State for the foreseeable future.
M.C. in Falls Church, VA, asks: Taking into account wars (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan), other military actions (getting Bin Laden, shooting alleged drug runners in Caribbean), policy decisions (COVID, vaccines, closing USAID), etc., which 21st century president is responsible for the most deaths?
(Z) answers: There is no question that the answer here is Donald Trump.
The Global War on Terror, which is primarily the handiwork of George W. Bush, is estimated to have killed about 940,000 people worldwide. That's a lot, but even if you blame W for every one of those, it's only good enough for second place on the list you've just requested. Plus, one could arguably substract the 26 million lives saved by PEPFAR from his total, in which case Bush would actually be a net positive.
The general consensus is that Trump's mismanagement of the COVID pandemic led to 400,000 additional American deaths. The cuts to USAID are estimated to have caused 750,000 to 1,100,000 additional deaths in just the first year. So, with just those two things, Trump has left Bush in the dust. Then consider that there's still 2½ years for Trump to inflict damage through the USAID and other cuts, through his Iran War, through his 16th century vaccination policies and other MAHA nonsense, and through other ill-conceived policy decisions, and it's hard to see how any president for the rest of this century could plausibly knock him off, unless some future president singlehandedly starts World War II, or launches a nuclear attack.
K.H. in Campbell, CA, asks: Mussolini made the trains run on time.
So, what are some things that Trump has actually done right as president?(Z) answers: If Trump is mentioned in any sort of positive way in U.S. history classes in 100 years, it will because he highlighted the flaws in the system, and thus inaugurated an era of reform.
But if we don't count that, then Trump did help bring an end to the Afghanistan War. He is right that Europe should contribute more toward NATO. Some of his deregulation was reasonable. The Space Force could prove to be important. Some of his tax cuts have been helpful to some working-class people. He did initiate Operation Warp Speed, which produced some (but not all) of the COVID vaccines.
The problem with Trump's successes, of course, is in the execution. For example, getting NATO members to pay more is a good goal, but not if the way you approach the problem significantly weakens America's soft power. Or implementing Operation Warp Speed would be a much greater accomplishment if he'd really leaned into vaccination instead of pooh-poohing it to keep his base happy, and thus creating an environment where both the disease and bad and dangerous "medical" information could flourish.
M.C. in Bloomfield, CT, asks: The Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee (HOC) is currently interviewing Bill Gates, and has previously interviewed Bill Clinton, Howard Lutnick and a host of others, where each person's name was in the Epstein files. This is undoubtedly an attempt to broadly smear and silence the powerful. My question is this: Isn't the Republican-controlled House all but guaranteeing Trump will be called to testify in 2027 if the House flips to Democratic-controlled? Isn't this an own goal?
(Z) answers: In contrast to what happened to Paraguay yesterday, it is not an own goal, because if the Democrats regain the House, they are 100% guaranteed to subpoena Trump to talk about the Epstein files, regardless of what the Republicans did, or did not, do during their time in the majority. Of course, he might decide not to show up. Then what?
J.B. in Bend, OR, asks: What do you think of the idea that if Trump tries to run in 2028, using some extreme legal argument, Barack Obama should say, "OK, I'm running again as well, and using the same legal argument"?
I think that if Obama at least claimed he would do that, Republicans would freak and immediately drop the idea of Trump trying for a third term. It certainly would prevent SCOTUS from ruling that Trump could run a third time.(Z) answers: I hate this idea. Nobody, and in particular not someone of Obama's stature, should be embracing the notion that the text of the Constitution is optional, and doesn't really mean anything.
That said, I hate the idea of California redistricting mid-cycle. And yet, I supported that fully. That is because if only one side engages in these shenanigans, it's asymmetrical warfare. If both sides do, there's a chance it will lead to bipartisan support for reforming the system.
If Trump declares a third run, I would like to see one of the early, blue states sue to try to keep him off the ballot on the basis of non-eligibility. And if that suit fails, then I would like to see Obama announce a run the next day.
M.H. in Council Grove, KS, asks: What are your thoughts on the Brendan Sorsby situation, especially now with Texas AG Ken Paxton saying he will get involved?
(Z) answers: For those unfamiliar, Brendan Sorsby is the starting QB for Texas Tech. While he was at Indiana, he placed thousands of sports bets, including bets on his own team. He was suspended for this, filed a lawsuit, and won an injunction, such that he will likely be able to play this year.
This, of course, strikes at the very heart of the whole competitive endeavor. If it is not certain that every player on the field is doing their best to win, then the results of the contest cannot be counted upon to be valid. If some way is not found to keep Sorsby from playing (and, more broadly, to do more to keep gambling out of sports), an existential crisis could soon be upon us.
The judge who granted the injunction did not explain his decision (and, as chance would have it, is a Texas Tech alum). I cannot imagine on what basis Sorsby might prevail when his lawsuit is actually adjudicated, but apparently the judge saw at least one.
And Paxton is a gasbag who just looks for any opportunity to score cheap political points. Texans love football and 90%+ of them think Sorsby should never see a football field again. Of course Paxton is going to throw in with that side of the issue; he'd be a fool not to.
S.P. in Harrisburg, PA, asks: Looking through the historic polls from the 2020 Maine Senate election, in the week before the election, Susan Collins had a polling deficit of 2 points in two polls. She won that race 51 to 43. So, Collins basically overcame a 2 point poll deficit and won by 8 points. This could mean she can overcome a 10-point poll deficit. Is Graham Platner, or this election, different?
(Z) answers: The pollsters blew that one, it is true. But I should point out two things: (1) It's tough to poll non-presidential races in presidential years, particularly when Donald Trump is on the ballot; (2) Because that one seemed to be a blowout, there were actually few polls in the last five weeks of the race—only one in November, and only four in October. The pollsters might well have missed a late break.
Platner is clearly a very different kind of politician than Sara Gideon. Further, Collins is clearly weaker than she was 6 years ago. Finally, "throw the bums out" worked to Collins' advantage in an anti-Democratic/anti-Biden year, it will work to her detriment in an anti-Republican/anti-Trump year.
I am not saying Platner will win. However, he's got an excellent chance, and the polling failures of 2020 should not be given undue significance in assessing this 2026 race.
R.S. in Cupertino, CA, asks: An election or two ago, there was a Democratic candidate in North Carolina (I don't remember the name) that had negative reports come out shortly before the election. I think that he had an earlier picture with blackface. I recall there was some reporting of people calling for him to drop out, but he did not. He won the election. Is this relevant for Graham Platner? I understand that sexual misconduct is different than old indications (perhaps) of racism, but there are some similarities.
(Z) answers: I think you are conflating two people. Would-be U.S. Senator from North Carolina Cal Cunningham (D) got caught cheating on his wife, and it cost him a winnable race in 2020. Meanwhile, a year earlier, sitting governor Ralph Northam (D) was found in a yearbook photo in which one person was in KKK regalia and the other was in blackface. He was not impeached and removed, but it did end his political career (well, that and the fact that Virginia governors cannot serve consecutive terms).
As I wrote this week, I would guess Platner's conduct is not disqualifying. A failure to adhere to Biblical morality when it comes to sex and marriage is not something that plays well with American voters, but plenty of politicians (ahem, Donald Trump) have overcome such allegations to be elected. Cunningham's problems were that: (1) like Ken Paxton, he had built his image around morality and chivalry; (2) North Carolina tends to be pretty socially conservative; and (3) Cunningham's dalliances were, at least in part, with people over whom he held power, which introduces a #MeToo dynamic.
The thing that Democrats are worried about right now, with good cause, is that there are more Platner revelations coming down the pike. And if it is somehow revealed that he made advances on someone who was underage, or if his wife were to announce that he physically assaulted her and that she has pictures showing the resulting black eye, then Platner's career would be over instantly. Voters in general, and Democrats in particular, will not tolerate those things, which most certainly cross a line that cannot be crossed.
G.S. in Beverly, MA, asks: Thanks much to (V) for the comprehensive Monday writeup of primary elections! The article was excellent: measured, nuanced, and comprehensive.
Thinking about North Dakota, can you explain how Heidi Heitkamp won North Dakota in 2012?(Z) answers: There is an undercurrent in American politics, one that has existed for 125 years or so, called "Prairie Populism." That is to say, there is a culture of "we're the little guy who is getting screwed" and that it is "us vs. them," whether the "them" is rich fat-cats, or the politicians in Washington, or both.
There are left-leaning populists, and there are right-leaning populists, and you can find examples of each who have won major elections in both Midwestern states and in Great Plains state. Heitkamp was a textbook left-leaning Prairie populist. Her issues were helping farmers, levying tariffs, reining in banks, uncovering government corruption, balancing the budget, helping Native Americans, and helping small entrepreneurs.
Note that folks like former senator Jon Tester (D-MT) are also Prairie Populists. The problem is that Donald Trump, and Fox, have done an excellent job of convincing many conservative-leaning voters that ANY politician with a (D) next to their name is an evil deep stater who hates the working people and hates America.
J.S. in Hightstown, NJ, asks: With talk of a third reconciliation bill for defense spending, can you please explain how many reconciliation bills there can be each year?
(Z) answers: There can be up to three for each fiscal year, one each for spending, revenues and the debt limit. Often, these are combined into a single bill, because it's hard enough to get one bill through Congress, much less three.
There has been little public information about exactly how this third reconciliation bill is/was going to be set up. It presumably can't be a spending bill for FY 2025-26, as the Republicans already used that privilege for the second reconciliation bill they just passed. It's hard to see how lavishing money on the military can be framed as a revenue bill or a debt-limit bill (although those terms cease to have much meaning if the Senate Parliamentarian is fired). And Congress can't do a reconciliation bill for FY 2026-27 until it has a budget for FY 2026-27, which is not likely to happen early (since it NEVER happens early) and/or just months before an election (since that would give opponents all kinds of ammunition to use against sitting members).
Maybe the lack of viable options is why Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) say a third reconciliation bill isn't happening.
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, asks: Regarding the Dan Sullivans... or is it Dans Sullivan?
What would happen if there were two candidates with the same first, middle, and last names (e.g., George Smith) in a nominally non-partisan election? Would they have to do George Smith (I) and George Smith (II) like on IMDB, or something else?(Z) answers: There is no hard-and-fast rule, and often these things end up in court.
Generally, election officials try to come up with some fair way to distinguish the candidates. If they are from different parties, then their partisan affiliation does the job. If not, it is common to do what Alaska will do with the Dan Sullivans, and give them their middle initials.
But what if two candidates with the same name had the same party affiliation and the same middle initial? We don't know of a case where that has happened, but the Republican primary in KS-04 in 2018 probably gives a pretty good clue. In that year, Rep. Ron Estes (R-KS) was challenged by another Ron Estes. The two Rons actually had different middle initials, "G" for the Representative, "M" for the challenger, but the Representative argued that nobody knows him as Ron G. Estes, and so he wanted to be listed as "Rep. Ron Estes." The court found that listing Estes' office was too prejudicial, and instead decided that the Representative had establised the right to use the name "Ron Estes" and that only the challenger had to use his middle initial.
So, if Sen. Ronald Harold Johnson (R-WI) were to be challenged in 2028 by a previously unknown Ronald Harold Johnson (R), we suspect that the Senator would be listed as "Ron Johnson (R)" (the name by which he is best known) and the challenger would be "Ron H. Johnson (R)."
R.N. in Cleveland, OH, asks: As Donald Trump makes up all these blatant lies, such as stating that Barack Obama withdrew $1.7 billion and flew it to Iran, why are these people not suing him for defamation? I have always wondered why he can defame people repeatedly with lies and very few sue him. I understand the bar is high to prove the case, but he is the president. His words carry weight (at least with some) and are damaging. Seems to me there should be hundreds of active defamation cases against him at any given time. Would you happen to have any insights on this matter?
(Z) answers: First, dealing with courts and lawyers is a pain in the a**.
Second, suing Trump over such verbiage risks just giving more oxygen to the lies, à la the Streisand Effect.
Third, it would be a very hard suit to win. A lawyer would have to prove that people took seriously the claims of Trump, a man widely known to constantly lie and exaggerate for political effect. Then, the lawyer would have to prove that people's having taken the claims seriously led to some specific harm to the target—the target lost money, or a job, or something like that.
J.L.G. in Boston, MA, asks: You wrote: "Most folks know about the studies suggesting that something like 75% of presidents qualify for a diagnosis of sociopathy."
Any color the staff historian would like to add about these studies? Would we have been better off without those 75%?(Z) answers: That study is not broadly accepted. I just mentioned it to emphasize that successful politicans tend to have characteristics—willingness to manipulate people, comfort with stretching the truth, a tolerance for ordering acts of violence, massive ego—that would be maladaptive in many (or most) contexts.
Not all of America's successful presidents were maladaptive in these ways. But certainly George Washington, the Roosevelts, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Bill Clinton were. And the United States would be a much worse country, or not a country at all, if those men had not served as president.
J.B. in East Windsor, CT, asks: So, 25% of presidents do not qualify as sociopaths. That's only 11 or 12 presidents, depending on how you count it. I'd like to know which candidates would not qualify for the diagnosis of sociopathy, and why.
(Z) answers: I think it is close to impossible to honestly evaluate most of the 19th century presidents. But I'll give you five presidents who clearly were not sociopathic, keeping in mind that the key indicators of sociopathy are a lack of shame/remorse, dishonesty, a tendency toward being manipulative, and impulsive behavior:
- Abraham Lincoln: Yes, Lincoln would sometimes tell politician lies, but his overall reputation for honesty and for straight shooting was well deserved. And he felt so much remorse over the Civil War, and over his role in the deaths of so many people, that if that bullet hadn't killed him, the guilt soon would have.
- Ulysses S. Grant: One of the great ironies of American military history was that Grant, possibly America's greatest soldier, could not stand the sight of blood. He did what was necessary, as both general and president, but he often hated doing it. And he was very cognizant of when he had erred, and was haunted in those cases. Famously, he regretted to his dying day having ordered the final charge at Cold Harbor, saying that whatever had been gained was not worth the price. USG was also so scrupulously honest (and trusting) that it made it fairly easy for sleazeballs to take advantage of him.
- William McKinley: McKinley isn't as famous as he once was, but he also had a reputation for being a straight shooter. He cared deeply about the men under his command during the Civil War, and tried everything he could think of to avoid sending men into harm's way during the Spanish-American War. In an era where this was not a common thing for men, he was exceedingly concerned about, and sensitive to, his wife's health (she had epilepsy). And when McKinley was assassinated, he urged the crowd—despite the two bullets already in McKinley's body—not to hurt the man who had fired the shots.
- Jimmy Carter: This is the probably biggest slam dunk on the list. Carter not only read his Bible, he believed it, and he really tried to follow it. His honesty got him into trouble on many occasions, perhaps most famously when he admitted to Playboy that he had "lusted in his heart" many times. Into his nineties, he was building homes with Habitat for Humanity. It's hard to get less sociopathic than that.
- Barack Obama: Obama was about as honest as you can be as a 21st century politician, and he was very slow and methodical (perhaps too much so), and definitely not impulsive. He was also very careful to remember his roots, and that there are a lot of little guys out there who made his privileged life possible. There are hundreds of stories of Obama's attending a banquet or gathering or other such event, and insisting that the staff who made the event possible be organized into a receiving line, so that he could thank each of them personally.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: Do you think Donald Trump is hated by liberals (and others) more or less than Abraham Lincoln was hated by Southerners before and during the Civil War?
(Z) answers: This is easy. There is absolutely no question that Lincoln was hated far more by 19th century Southerners than Trump is by modern-day liberals (and others). Lincoln represented a threat to the entire Southern way of life—its economy, its social system, its culture. And this was an era where it was 100% acceptable to see anyone who is not "us" as "the enemy," and an era/place where deploying violence against one's enemies was considered entirely appropriate.
If you had given 1860s white Southerners the opportunity to kill Lincoln in cold blood, probably half of them would have taken it. I have no idea what the percentage is for modern-day liberals and Trump, but it's surely far lower than 50%.
J.S. in Pemaquid, ME, asks: I wonder if (Z) has any thoughts about the unfortunate passing of historian Gordon Wood. I'm not in the field myself, but I am adjacent to many who are and I understand he was a towering figure.
(Z) answers: He certainly was a giant. He wrote one of those books that everyone has to read in grad school, namely The Radicalism of the American Revolution. There actually aren't too many books that achieve that rarefied status.
That said, Wood was 92, and enjoying a well-deserved retirement that was cut short by the driver that ran him over. He did not have any more field-changing works in his future.
P.R. in Arvada, CO, asks: Just checking: Everyone is supporting Scotland in the World Cup aren't we? This is the year we go all the way. Well, maybe out of the group stages at least.
(Z) answers: Sorry, I don't have a problem with people rooting for an underdog, or rooting against a favorite, or against a country whose leadership has behaved badly. But it's hard for me to get behind Scotland, given the behavior of (some of) its fans.
P.L. in Groningen, The Netherlands, asks: The soccer World Cup in the U.S., Canada and Mexico has a rough start. A Somalian referee was denied entry to the U.S. An Iraqi player was interrogated by border police for 7 hours. The Iranian team may enter the U.S. to play a match, but has to leave the same day. The Uzbekistan team was searched just before a friendly match against the Dutch team.
Please explain what is happening. Is this all a tough-on-foreigners/Muslims/immigrants show by the administration?(Z) answers: I think that political theater is part of it. The administration doesn't want to appear "soft," but it also doesn't want responsibility for ruining the World Cup. So, it sure looks to be staging a few high-profile performances of anti-foreigner/Muslim/immigrant theater.
That said, the details are not known, in some cases. And there are legitimate reasons to bar entry, in some cases. For example, the Canadians denied entrance to Ghanaian midfielder Thomas Partey, because he has pleaded guilty to charges of sexual assault and rape in the United Kingdom. So, we leave open the possibility that the Trump administration has some good reason for its choices. It's not likely, but it's possible.
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: I have a question about Donald Trump and New York City sports. No, not about him being booed at the Knicks game. But rather, what do you make of Giants QB Jaxson Dart's recent appearance at a Trump rally, which has caused a lot of controversy?
(Z) answers: With sports teams, every member is a representative of the whole team. That is particularly true for NFL teams. It is even truer still for the quarterbacks of NFL teams. So, for Jaxson Dart to assert that his involvement with Trump was just because he was "honored" to be asked to introduce the President, and to say it has nothing to do with the New York Giants, is either disingenuous or stupid. Both are very possible with Dart; I've heard him speak at press conferences several times.
T.C. in Danby, NY, asks: One of this week's Legal Bytes items was introduced with, "Boutros, Golly!"
I couldn't miss the reference to the former U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and then waited for an enlightening reference to U.N. history. And waited. What did I miss?(Z) answers: That was not a U.N. reference, at least not directly. It was a Seinfeld reference. In the episode "The Hamptons," a topless woman presents herself, and Seinfeld says, "Boutros-Boutros Golly!" Those section headers, in Political Bytes/Legal Bytes, are mostly trying to be clever, and aren't always directly relevant to the material.