Dem
47
GOP
53
This week's letters were tougher to sort through than any in recent memory. Some reader comments are going to show up during the regular week, so get ready.
S.K. in Bethesda, MD, writes: The picture shows the status of the Kennedy Center as of noon Saturday:
The letters adding Trump's name have been removed—it was completed around 4:00 a.m. The delay past the court-ordered deadline was legit because there were truly heavy thunderstorms last night in several waves, and nobody should be up on a scaffolding when that's going on. But it was pretty clear they didn't want to do it in front of crowds, because there was a large crowd until around 2:00 a.m. and they waited for it to disperse. Then they put up the tarp. So much for transparency!
J.C. in Oakton, VA, writes: My husband and I were married here. We haven't been back since he assumed office:
A beautiful sight. We'll be back soon...
D.R. in Yellow Springs, OH, writes: In your item about the UFC White House event, you mentioned that the director Jon Favreau is among several celebrities who have reportedly declined invitations to the event. But you didn't mention the hilarious mixup that appears to have happened.
There is another person named Jon Favreau who worked for the Obama administration and who now co-hosts a podcast called Pod Save America. He told a story on a recent episode of the podcast about getting an invitation to the event that he believes was intended for the film director.
Rather than telling event organizers that he believed they made a mistake, the podcaster decided to accept the invitation. He got an e-mail confirming that everything was good to go, but it fell apart after he was asked to send a picture of his government-issued identification. The ID showed that he was 45-year-old Jonathan Edward Favreau, not 59-year-old Jonathan Kolia Favreau. The podcaster then got an e-mail saying "we've just discovered there was a miscommunication about our allotted number of guest invitations" and they couldn't accommodate him.
As far as I know, neither the director Jon Favreau nor event organizers have said anything publicly about this, so it's only the podcaster's speculation we have for this. But since the director is known to be a UFC fan, it seems highly likely that the director is the person who was supposed to be invited.
B.J.L. in Ann Arbor, MI, writes: I'm reading that already six states have pulled out of the Great American State Fair and I think this is a huge loss. I mean, here is a golden opportunity for Michigan to send in a replica of the Gordie Howe Bridge that is built and ready for the ribbon cutting and the President is holding hostage since the Marouns have asked him to get more concessions out of the Provincial Governor of Ontario. Knowing his negotiating skills, we won't be driving on the new bridge anytime soon... we'll have to wait until he caves. But what other states could do?
- New Mexico could send in a replica of the Epstein Ranch.
- Minnesota could send in replicas of the headstones of the two murdered by ICE agents.
- California could have a giant balloon of Sen. Adam "Shifty" Schiff (D-CA).
- Georgia could send in a picture of 11,270 voters.
- Mississippi could showcase its status as the fattest and least educated state in the nation.
- Texas could have a giant robotic screwworm.
There must be others.
R.N. in Cleveland, OH, writes: Something I am not hearing anywhere, and wish someone would point out in terms of the Republicans blaming Joe Biden: If inflation now, nearly 17 months in to Trump's term, is still Biden's fault, then why wasn't the 9% inflation 12 months into Biden's term Trump's fault? Intelligent people understand the 9% was due to the post-COVID ramp-up and lagging supply chains, increased demand, etc., but Trump's supporters cannot have it both ways. If something 17 months into this term is Biden's fault then, by their own logic, something 12 months into Biden's term must inherently be Trump's fault from his first term. Every time I pull this argument out on a Trumper, it shuts them right down.
A.Z. in Waynesville, NC, writes: I was very pleased to see Kristen Welker hold Donald Trump's feet to the fire. This journalist has exhibited courage and incredible strength of character to face up not just to a physically imposing angry man, but arguably the most powerful man on the planet. Good for her. What has been lost in the conversation about what an a***ole Trump is, is the very fact of her personal fortitude. Good for NBC as well.
I'm certain that Trump is going to call for her to be fired. The only questions are: How long will that take, how will NBC respond, and will they be able to resist an attack by Brendon Carr?
S.S. in Kansas City, MO, writes: You ask at the end of your piece about the Welker-Trump interview if Trump's temper tantrum was spontaneous or planned. One piece of evidence that it was planned is that the Conman-in-Chief says more than once, "it's been 4 days" (and later says "5 days"), when referring to how long California has been counting the ballots. The interview occurred on Friday afternoon, which is 2½ days after Tuesday. A person responding spontaneously would say 2, maybe, 3 days, but he knew the interview would air on Sunday and most viewers wouldn't know which day it was recorded. All they'd know is that they are talking on Sunday about an election that happened on Tuesday. To me, this indicates premeditation, and thus warrants a charge of lying in the first degree.
G.R. in Carol Stream, IL, writes: After watching the video of Trump "storming out" of the NBC interview, I'm convinced that was scripted. We've been served some "reality TV" and Trump still got it, not as an elected leader, but as a TV actor. He keeps his composure throughout and stays in control and on script, while the bewildered reporter stammers something about traveling all the way to Wisconsin for this.
T.M. in Aldergrove, BC, Canada, writes: In response to the question about suing Donald Trump for defamation, I thought that some of your readers would appreciate the story that J.W. George Ivany (the VP Academic at Simon Fraser University, at the time) used to tell. Back in the 1970s, the student paper at SFU ran an article making blatantly false and derogatory claims about him so he took the article to his lawyer with the intention of suing. According to Ivany, the discussion went along these lines:
LAWYER: George, does anyone you know actually read and believe anything in that paper?
IVANY: No.
LAWYER: Would reading anything negative in that paper have any negative effect on your relations with anyone who matters to you?
IVANY: No
LAWYER: George, wait until they say something nice about you and then get back to me.
M.S. in Washington, DC, writes: I thought that the readers of this fine blog might be interested in opportunities to comment on four proposed regulations (science funding, civil-servant NDAs, post office regulations on absentee ballots, and the Trump Arch) over the next month (the first deadline is Monday, for the Arch). I provide links and my own sample letters here.
H.R. in Madison, WI, writes: We shouldn't be surprised if Donald Trump announced the peace deal with Iran today. He is nothing but a showman, and today is his birthday—what a gift it would be!
He could do this because he really doesn't give a s**t about anything other than what helps him. So he would be willing to give Iran everything just to get the deal done (or, at least, to be able to announce a deal). The billions of dollars in Iranian frozen assets would be his main bargaining chip, and he would wait a week or two after to make the transfer—when people aren't paying attention—hoping we wouldn't notice.
Just a thought.
J.I. in San Francisco, CA, writes: Rather than use the word "ceasefire" when there isn't actually any cessation of firing, I'd like to contribute to the shared lexicon a new word: "lessfire," that properly describes the situation, and even is similar-sounding to ceasefire.
M.C. in Falls Church, VA, writes: You suggested several answers to the question, "So, what are some things that Trump has actually done right as president?", but I think you missed some. To be fair to the President, getting rid of the penny was a good decision. And you inexplicably missed his great contribution to combating climate change, as he has pursued policies in Iran and elsewhere that have dampened the demand for fossil fuels. Trump really does deserve the credit for helping the environment through increased gas and other energy prices!
C.F. in Waltham, MA, writes: This is a stretch, but attacking Iran, though overall horrible for the U.S., may actually be a worldwide "good." The war:
- Dramatically increased investment in getting off of oil and natural gas with renewables and EVs (now that the oil supply chain has been shown to beso vulnerable).
- Demonstrated to China (along with the Russian-Ukraine war) that just having the largest, most technologically advanced military will not allow them to "win" a war with Taiwan.
- Definitely took down support for Israel a notch or two, since PM Benjamin Netanyahu obviously manipulated Trump into wasting our military resources on another worthless war.
D.H.W. in Dublin, Ireland: From Ireland. Why aren't these all over the USA?
M.G. in Piscataway, NJ, writes: M.G. in Boulder asked about next steps, once Donald Trump has left the White House. Here are the things I would implement if I had the power to do so:
- Make DC and Puerto Rico states (If Puerto Rico still wants to be a state). The Republicans do everything they can to consolidate power, the Democrats need to do the same thing. This needs to be step number 1.
- Trump has fired a lot of Inspectors General. I would give the power to fire an IG to the Senate and require 60 votes for the firing to take place.
- War is massively profitable for the owners of many powerful companies. The 1% will always want the military and war budgets to go up as long as the 99% is paying the bill. The only way to stop these forever wars to make the 1% pay for them with a wealth tax. An added benefit of making the 1% pay for the military and wars is that it may save the U.S. from bankruptcy. The U.S. is $39 trillion in debt and we add another $1 trillion every 3-5 months. Sooner or later, the interest on the national debt will be too big for America to pay without printing a ton of money, which will cause massive inflation.
- Almost everything wrong in America can be traced back to the corrupting influence of money in politics. Hawaii removed the power of corporations and other artificial entities to spend or donate money in political campaigns. This should be implemented at the federal level for all 50 states. I would also limit campaign and SuperPAC contributions to $10,000 per year.
- Implement single-payer healthcare. All advanced countries have some form of national healthcare except the U.S. Roughly 45% of money paid into for-profit healthcare companies goes to overhead like executive salaries, office furniture, lawyers, etc. On top of that, every company in the stock market needs to make more money this year than they made last year, or nobody will buy that stock. What is the easiest way for a for-profit healthcare insurance company to make more money? Raise rates and deny more claims. For those two reasons, for-profit healthcare insurance companies cost twice as much as single-payer and the people in the U.S. die on average 4 years earlier than people in other advanced countries.
- The family and administration, or anybody that aids the president's administration, cannot be pardoned by that same president.
- Republicans have had the majority on the Supreme Court every day since 1970 and Republicans nominate partisan actors that ignore the law whenever it is convenient. After 10 years, Supreme Court justices get senior status. They get full pay but they can't vote on a case unless there is a recusal. Presidents get to nominate a Supreme Court member once every other year and the Senate must vote on that candidate within 2 weeks or within 2 weeks of returning from break. I thought about making the tenure 18 years but then Republicans would just lower it to 10 years so they could pack the court.
R.T. in Arlington, TX, writes: As regards Social Security running out of money, using my own example, I think we will see a gradually and fearfully shortening of the bankruptcy date for the Social Security trust fund.
Most readers know that Social Security lets you choose your own starting date, between 62 and 70 years old (no incentive to delay past 70). I think it's in my best interest to wait until 70 if no outside forces come to bear, and this puts me on the bubble of when the trust fund would run out. But, I'm confident that whatever rule change is made to buttress the system will either reduce or delay how much I can claim. Best I can hope for is being grandfathered (true pun fully intended) under the existing rules. But I'm also confident that they will not screw with anyone who is already claiming benefits under the system. If anyone else out there is thinking like me, we are going to rush the turnstiles when the fund gets tight, so we can start under the old rules. That will cause a doom spiral where the new claims accelerate and the forecasted bankruptcy date rushes at us faster than we are aging. I really doubt any legislation will happen before this midterm, or during this presidency, but it could well be the central topic of the next presidential election.
S.C. in Mountain View, CA, writes: In "Administration Wanted to Unperson Nearly 3 Million People," (V) wrote: "If the SSA thinks you are dead and the organization you are dealing with checks and is told you are dead, they will immediately suspect fraud and probably call the police to arrest you." That—at least, the first part—happened to me. Fortunately, I had spoken to my financial advisor the week before he got the monthly report that said I was dead, so he called me to check, and (to make a very long story short) I went to my local Social Security office, filled out a form and showed some ID along with my face, and they declared me undead. (I guess I'm a vampire now?)
This apparently happens more often than you'd think. As (V) will appreciate, Social Security numbers contain no check digits. Funeral homes generally report deaths to the SSA, giving the name of the deceased, their date of birth, date of death, and Social Security number (SSN). But if they mistype (or misspeak) the SSN, at least sometimes the employee at the SSA receiving the information doesn't notice that the given SSN doesn't belong to the deceased and enters it into their Death Alert Control and Update System anyway. The SSA puts out a regular report of these SSNs and their owners' names, to which financial institutions (such as my financial advisor's firm) can subscribe.
No one else called to see if I was really dead or not. None of my bank accounts or credit cards were frozen, suspended, or canceled, so presumably my prompt appearance at the local Social Security office was able to prevent any of that from happening. But I hate to think what might have happened had I not recently spoken to my financial advisor and he had taken the report of my death at face value.
D.H. in Mashpee, MA, writes: As a career-long astronomy educator, I commend (V) for his astronomically accurate assessment of our president's desire to move the country to Daylight Saving Time on a year-round basis, a debate that has continued, on and off, for decades.
Just to add a little more detail: In 1876, a conference held in Washington, DC, created a plan establishing a system of time zones worldwide. It followed the building of the transcontinental railroad in this country and a rising ability to communicate over long distances , initially by telegraph and, soon thereafter, by telephone. In essence, it became increasingly important that people communicating with one another over long distances be able to agree on what time it was.
Twenty-four time zones were created by the plan, each 15 degrees of longitude wide (360/24 = 15), and everyone within a given time zone would keep the time as told by the sun at a circle of longitude that ran from north to south through the center of the time zone. (On a map, the borders of each time zone look a bit ragged, but that's because the system's creators tried to minimize the possibility that large numbers of people would have to move their watches ahead or back an hour every time they crossed the street.)
My home on Cape Cod is located in the Eastern Time Zone, which keeps the time as indicated by the sun at 75 degrees West. My home location is at 70.5 degrees West, which means that the sun rises and sets 18 minutes earlier for me than at 75 degrees West, which determines Eastern Standard or Eastern Daylight Time. (Each degree of longitude represents a time difference of 4 minutes.)
Indianapolis, IN, is also in the Eastern Time Zone. It is located at longitude 86.2 degrees West, which corresponds to almost 45 minutes of time. Thus, the sun in Indianapolis rises and sets each day 57 minutes later than it does for me, on the clock time both of us keep. (A small rounding error in there!) On December 21st, the shortest day of the year, if we remained on Daylight Time, the sun would rise at 8:05 AM for me, which isn't great for early risers—school kids among them. But, on the same day, the sun would not rise in Indianapolis until 9:02 DST. That's a lot of morning darkness!
I do need to correct (V) on one point. He wrote that, "There are enough opponents to the idea that it is sure to fail again, as it has many times in the past." In fact, the idea did succeed on one occasion. In the fall of 1973, Congress passed the "Emergency Daylight Saving Time Energy Conservation Act," which returned the entire country to permanent Daylight Time in early January, 1974, as a two-year energy conservation experiment. The act was subsequently repealed by that same Congress less than a year later, as Washington was flooded by complaints, many from parents sending their children off to school in total darkness. Apparently, folks then couldn't understand the consequences of moving to Daylight Time on a year-round basis until they actually experienced them. If our president gets what he wants here, all of us will have to learn that same lesson again.
The clever folks who came up with the idea of Daylight Saving Time didn't devise a system of moving our clocks back and forth on two widely spaced Sundays each year simply to aggravate the rest of us. They recognized that the benefit of the extra hour of daylight in summer would more than disappear in the winter. Astronomically speaking, the numbers are what they are, and there is nothing any of us can do about that.
F.L. in Federal Way, WA, writes: In regard to the Daylight Savings Time and schools issue...
Let's take CST, along the 30th parallel on the winter solstice, being the shortest day of the year. According to NOAA (and rounding to the nearest five minutes):
- Panama City Beach, FL, has sunrise at 05:35 and sunset at 15:45
- Pecos, TX has a sunrise at 06:50 and sunset at 16:55
Both are CST, around the 30th parallel. They have a day span of about 10 hours, but with a shift of just over an hour.
Local school boards set the hours for schools, so it's a pretty easy job for the them to pick a start and stop time that lasts 6-plus hours and is during daylight.
But... let's move north to the 49th parallel, being the western half of the lower 48's border with Canada. (I used Sumas, WA):
Sunrise is 09:00 and sunset is 17:15. That's just over 8 hours of daylight, so it's a pretty tight fit no matter what the longitude is. Yet again, the local school board can set the school hours, so I don't see that as an issue in the great DST debate.
A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: There's another option nobody brought up... How about more localized time zones, that differentiate by 1/2 hour instead of a whole hour? This can help account for latitudinal differences. I am attaching a sample of what I mean, and I may have some of it backwards, and it maybe can be tweaked a bit, but this gives the general idea of what I am talking about:
You might also have a PNW time zone and a Pacific Time Zone, the pink area on the current map. Just some food for thought. Why do time zones HAVE to differentiate by 1 hour? Why NOT ½ hour increments?
D.M. in Burnsville, MN, writes: Based upon his stated position on DST, the esteemed Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) is not very knowledgeable about farming practices, or likely farming itself. I spent my first 20+ years on a family farm on the Great Plains, in Minnesota. My dad was my boss and we'd be up before the sun and in the fields by sun-up. We'd work as long as light remained, and particularly for corn, well into the night. The only attention we'd pay to the clock was at high noon, when we'd pause for an hour for lunch. Since most small grains and alfalfa needed a few hours of sunlight to dry off the morning dew, we'd wait until around 10:00 a.m. to start the harvest. Again, we'd work until the evening dew set in. But spring and fall tillage continued from sunrise to sunset. (Perhaps that's why I'm now a suburbanite who likes to sleep in.)
One wonders if Cotton, whose namesake is one of his state's more important agricultural products, has ever observed typical farming operations or even set foot on a working farm.
N.S. in Chicago, IL, writes: Donald Trump is fighting for permanent DST because that has been a pet project for Secretary of State Marco Rubio for years. So he is doing this, weirdly, as a favor to Marco.
E.C.L. in Blacksburg, VA, writes: Some months ago I came across this tool. As you noted, "latitude plays a big role here" in terms of whether DST is preferable. Longitude does, too, as most of the country shares business hours.
I've always been of the mind that DST is bad, and permanent DST would be worse. I grew up near D.C. and moved west (remaining in the eastern time zone). With basically all settings in the map above, I would prefer to abolish DST and adopt standard time year-round.
A.M. in Brookhaven, PA, writes: I thought it was interesting that on the same day you published the item about Donald Trump wanting to go to permanent Daylight Savings Time, I received an e-mail from my congresswoman (a Democrat, if that makes a difference) asking me to complete her survey regarding which of the three options we prefer: the status quo or one of the two permanent times. She then asked a second question of which time we would prefer to use if the status quo is not an option. While I personally would prefer permanent standard time, I actually selected the status quo as my first option and in the comments section gave my reason as the enormous cost to reprogram all of the computer clocks to not change twice a year.
Anonymous writes: I debated sending this personal note, but I feel like it is important. I am the survivor of an attempted rape, and without going into the gross details, it went as close to an actual rape as is possible without being completed. I am very sensitive about men manhandling women. It is gross and completely unacceptable.
However, there is a gradient of abuse, and what was reported from Graham Platner's ex-girlfriend is worse than pinching a butt cheek, but is much less worse than a slap across the face, and not even close to a beating or a rape. Sexting behind your spouse's back is gross and shows a lack of understanding about how treating women like a sex object is demeaning to the entire gender and undermines all the work women have done for centuries to gain respect and equality. But, again, there is a gradient, and this is on the lighter end of the spectrum. We absolutely can NOT let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Every candidate will have pros and cons that must be weighed. I believe Platner when he apologizes and I believe his wife when she says they have worked things out and that they continue to work on themselves and their marriage every single day. Platner has not made excuses or tried to trivialize his behavior. He has not said anything along the lines of "it was locker room talk" or "boys will be boys." He fully admits to be imperfect and a work in progress. I think he seems to be the right person for the moment.
P.S.: I will be so disappointed if it comes to pass that he is actually putting on a great act and is truly sleazy.
L.B. in Canby, OR, writes: As a retired senior HR person from corporate America, I have to tell you how much I liked your characterization of "penis crimes."
Yes, there are those "walk the person out and have their systems shut down before they get to the front door" situations, and I was delighted to see it happen in today's times, to Phil Mickelson. And yes, I have helped do that in the past. I also agree that there is a lower level where a person just needs training and understanding of the consequences of behavior and I do agree that people can be rehabilitated and should be given a chance. And I have witnessed that as well. The worst to deal with were the situations where such behaviors were truly consensual and didn't meet the legal standard for hostile work environment. Those were the worst to deal with because other employees would get so upset but hey, it is tough when there is no clear legal course of action and, as we all know, stupidity is not illegal. And worst of all were the women who spuriously charged men with inappropriate behavior. Fortunately, I only had that happen twice in my career. But I have had to sort that out twice and therefore am more inclined to give Platner a chance to prove he has rehabilitated.
S.H. in Sutherlin, OR, writes: As a years-long FORMER avid fan of Phil Mickelson, I really appreciated your fair write-up of his recent, and shocking, fall from grace. This is one of the saddest stories in professional sports and one I never saw coming. Over the years I have followed Mickelson's career from afar, seen him in action up-close and generally admired the kid from college who won a professional golf tournament before he even graduated. I have witnessed him signing hundreds of autographs at one stretch, giving out hundred dollar bills to a spectator who was caught by an errant ball, and reading the stories of the various philanthropic causes he and wife Amy have supported.
What I have concluded is that was the "then Phil" as opposed to the "now Phil." Something seriously changed the Phil Mickelson all of us fans used to know and love into the person who now says and does shocking and horrific things. As pure speculation, I wonder if the time away that he is now involved in is really about HIS mental health and that he is "the family health" situation that he has offered as an excuse to be away. Like I said, mere speculation. I sincerely wish him and, most importantly, his family, every good outcome. There is an ability to turn oneself around (see Platner, Graham), and I hope Mickelson avails himself of this opportunity.
S.R. in Paradise, CA, writes: Given the speed and severity of the exit of Phil Mickelson from his home club; and given his place in the golf hierarchy, it seems apparent that he had universally disliked by those involved in the decision.
There are thousands of similar circumstances where management took a wait and see approach.
"Let's listen to all sides." They will say.
Not here. Telling.
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY , writes: You wrote: "The point is that when it comes to 'penis offenses,' there are very different levels of guilt, and no one-size-fits-all basis for making assessments."
One-size-fits-all, eh? I'm surprised you didn't make a more overt joke about that!
I definitely support "penis offenses" becoming a standard term of art in the blog, à la "rodent reproduction."
(V) & (Z) respond: Making jokes in an item like that is a one-way ticket to trouble.
P.F. in Fairbanks, AK, writes: I agree with you that the appearance on the ballot of "Decoy Dan" (Dan J. Sullivan's Republican-assigned nickname) is 100% ratfu**ing, but, to me, this is a classic example of reaping what one sows.
I draw your attention to Operation Alaskan Chaos, an organized effort by the Joe Miller campaign to ensure that Lisa Mur+🐄+⛷️ (R-AK) was maximally disadvantaged when write-in ballots were analyzed in 2004.
The handling of this situation in Alaska—which now includes a formal state investigation into Decoy Dan—is incredibly sad to me. Virtuous or not, there is no "Why are you running?" test for getting on the ballot. We are already a state deeply divided on things like the annual Permanent Fund Dividend, the Liquid National Gas pipeline, wilderness roads, and balancing mineral extraction with indigenous and fishing interests. This adds just another layer of animosity.
For what it's worth, Dan J. Sullivan—more flatteringly nicknamed "Petersburg Dan" to reflect his 50 years of residency in Alaska—seems to now want to be taken seriously as a legitimate opponent of "Ohio Dan" (Sen. Dan S. Sullivan's longtime carpetbagger nickname). Maybe in the end, we'll get an honest race out of this anyway?
S.B. in Seattle, WA, writes: There was a similar ratfu**ing here in Washington (state) during our 2024 Governor race, when two Republican operatives, who were legitimately named Bob Ferguson (or Robert Ferguson)—same name as the sitting Attorney General and Democratic Governor candidate, joined the race hours before the 5:00 p.m. filing deadline. Washington, like California, uses a top-two jungle primary, so this is the kind of ratfu**ing that could possibly have made a significant difference. But Washington has a law that foresaw this exact scenario, and made it a Class B felony to run under someone else's name with the intent to mislead the public. (They both dropped out shortly after pulling the stunt.)
T.B. in Leon County, FL, writes: Some jurisdictions allow addresses or occupations to be identified on ballots when candidates for the same office and party have the same name. In pre-Internet days (heck, it may have been pre-personal-computer days, and I shared an Altar 680 in late 1975), I remember reading an article about two identically named Zimmermans running for some local office somewhere; I remembered the article because they shared my childhood neighbor's surname. I imagine a pair of cousins named for their grandfather, both carpenters and living across the street from each other, running for Building Code Inspector. (I hope there was an odd number of voters in that election!)
N.E. in San Mateo, CA, writes: You wrote: "In any event, suck it up, Mr. Senator. There's no rule forbidding people with similar names from running for office."
This reminds me of one of my favorite political comedies, The Distinguished Gentleman (starring Eddie Murphy). The situation is only tangentially similar, but it's a funny movie, especially given the clown show our government has become in the decades since.
J.C. in Milwaukee, WI, writes: When I saw that Dan Sullivan had registered to challenge Dan Sullivan (R-AK), I immediately thought of this absolute classic of a Taco Bell ad, featuring Ronald McDonald:
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: To call Judge Mary McElroy (who referred DOJ lawyers for discipline) a Trump nominee is technically true, but misleading. She was initially nominated by President Obama in 2015 (with the support of Rhode Island's two Democratic Senators), but Senate Republicans refused to act on her nomination. Senate Democrats returned the favor with a number of Trump appointments beginning in 2017. Judge McElroy's renomination was part of a bipartisan compromise to unblock the logjam. So, the fact that Judge McElroy is issuing fair and reasoned decisions adverse to the Trump Administration should not be surprising.
H.R. in Jamaica Plain, MA, writes: My first reaction to your answer to R.H.D. in Webster was to remember what things were like before U.S. vs. Windsor (2013). For the 9 years from May 2004, when we married, until that decision, my wife and I were legally married in Massachusetts, but for federal law purposes, we were not. Among other things, this meant filing our income taxes at the state level jointly, but filing federal taxes as two separate individuals (which resulted in our paying less, but was still insulting and annoying). It also meant we were unable to take advantage of numerous other federal benefits for married couples.
Your answer was a bit facile, in this case. States cannot overrule what the federal government does. However, as it turns out, when I researched this, Congress has enacted a law which wouldn't be overturned if just Obergefell was overturned. This is because in 2022, Congress enacted the Respect for Marriage Act, which requires the federal government and all states to recognize the marriages of same-sex and interracial couples performed validly in any state. It is hard to imagine, even the current Supreme Court overturning this particular law. To quote Lambda Legal: "If Obergefell were ever overturned, couples could still marry in many states, and their marriages would continue to be fully recognized nationwide thanks to the Respect for Marriage Act."
This site includes lots of practical advice to LGBTQ+ families and should relieve some of the anxiety that R.H.D. and others may be feeling on this particular issue.
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, writes: There are two reasons why the Republicans are crying fraud and rigging with regards to the California jungle primary election results. But it has nothing to do with that actual election itself.
To begin with, they don't give a damn about what happens to Spencer Pratt and Steve Hilton. They know both of them will not get elected in the end.
No, the first reason is to serve as a dry run for the November midterm elections. Specifically, the House seats in the Golden State, which could determine control of the House. Cry fraud, sow chaos, and declare the results as illegitimate throughout the country.
The second reason is to try to tie this to potential Democratic presidential candidate, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA). They want folks to think he is responsible for the slow results, and hence can't run the country.
This "broken record" of voter fraud from the GOP is evidence they are scared of November. They know the House will likely flip, and there is an even chance the Senate will flip as well. If both chambers in Congress turn blue, it's all over for Trump's presidency. Not only will he be a lame duck. He'll be a cooked (pressed) duck.
A.B. in Jonesboro, AR, writes: My thought for ending apparent "blue shift" in vote results as mail-in ballots in California are received: I suggest allowing only in-person voting for a period of exactly 1 Scarimucci, then reporting the all the results at once, 1 fortnight after the start of voting.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: Heidi Heitkamp and Jon Tester are pretty much the last gasp of the left-leaning Prairie Populists. Growing up in South Dakota, people used to say that the state liked Republicans in the White House and Democrats in Congress (at least, that's how the state voted most of the time). Since then, the demonization of all things Democratic—up to and including democracy itself, apparently—has taken its toll and the Tom Daschles and Tim Johnsons of the area are pretty much personas non grata. Which really is too bad, because I saw even as early as the '90s that there was no reason to think that the GOP cared about anyone other than Wall Street, while the Democrats were clearly the ones who had the interests of rural America in their hearts and minds. And for reasons I cannot understand, the voters out here are still willing—nay, happy—to support the likes of Donald Trump, who are quite obviously blowing smoke up their collective keister. That's why I was happy to see the likes of Jimmy Skovgard (R) running against Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) for the now-open U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R). I borrowed that "keister" line from him. Somebody's got to, at least, give the people of Wyoming the opportunity to choose Prairie Populism over Kissing-Trump's-A**-ism and see how it goes before we write off the GOP entirely.
E.F. in Baltimore, MD, writes: Before I scrolled down past the pictures of Mike Rogers to read your gamma-ray diagnosis, I was nodding my head and saying, "Yup, radioactive spider bite, for sure. You see that a lot, this time of year." Couldn't have been gamma rays, because then Rogers would have been the Green Party candidate.
L.C. in Temple, TX, writes: I love the side-by-side "Pumped Up." My question is: Where can I get this instant transformation in reality?
(V) & (Z) respond: Barry Bonds might have a few ideas for you.
J.B. in Waukee, IA, writes: I was out of town last week, and just got around to reading your post about the Iowa primary results. I saw your note about VoteVets' support for Josh Turek (D). I believe that the organization supports Turek because he is disabled with spina bifida due to his father's exposure to Agent Orange during his time in Vietnam. Turek has made both disability rights and the VA a big part of his campaign because of his experiences. When you watch his ads, you should get three takeaways: (1) he's a Paralympian gold medalist in wheelchair basketball; (2) his paralysis is due to his father's exposure to Agent Orange and vets need more support; and (3) he is a product of Tom Harkin's (D) legacy due to the Americans with Disabilities Act, and he wants to win back Harkin's seat.
(V) & (Z) respond: We thank the many readers who wrote in to help answer this question.
R.D.T. in Fresno, CA, writes: There has been one Hispanic governor of California since Pio Pico.
Romualdo Pacheco was elected lieutenant governor in 1875 and he succeeded as governor when Newton Booth was elected to the U.S. Senate. There was a gubernatorial election that year (this was prior to the Constitution of 1879) and Pacheco failed to receive the Republican nomination for a full term.
He certainly was never elected governor, but he definitely served in the office.
B.W. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: You were gracious enough to avoid being pedantic in response to K.H. in Campbell, but I'll do the dirty work.
Mussolini "made the trains ran on time" in the exact same way Kim Jong-Il scored 18 holes-in-one in his first-ever round of golf.
For some reason modern discourse has begun see this line—which was probably originally delivered sardonically or credulously—taken literally.
Mussolini repeatedly claimed that the formerly-dilapidated Italian rail system had suddenly become the envy of Europe, but this was probably only ever taken seriously by true believers who were willing to ignore their own daily reality.
The grain of truth that did exist was largely due to improvements that begun before the fascist regime, but for which he took sole credit. Sound familiar?
E.V. in Derry, NH, writes: Your comments about President McKinley and his service in the Civil War brought back a memory.
My wife and I lived in and over the boundary of Washington, DC, during grad school and our early working years. To nurture our interest in history, and get out of the D.C. traffic, aggression and humidity, we often visited the nearby Civil War parks, especially Gettysburg, Harpers Ferry and Antietam. We hiked, biked, strolled and discovered just about every corner to be seen. To keep things fresh, we took to fully reading many of the monuments, and not just glancing at them.
Now the tie-in to President McKinley. Near Burnside Bridge at Antietam is a large monument dedicated to McKinley. In part it reads:
Sergeant McKinley Co. E. 23rd Ohio Vol. Infantry, while in charge of the Commissary Department, on the afternoon of the day of the Battle of Antietam, September 17, 1862, personally and without orders served hot coffee and warm food to every man in the regiment, on this spot and in doing so had to pass under fire.Delivering coffee and snacks? At the time, this struck us as incongruous, almost absurd, and a bit of a reach trying to say something about him in a place where so many soldiers were killed and wounded. Even when taking into consideration his future as president and assassination, and that this was as much a memorial to that part of his life.
Your comments about his kindness and compassion puts it into a different light. Still, one of the more unusual monuments we encountered.
J.A. in Austin, TX, writes: You Wrote: "There are hundreds of stories of [Barack] 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."
Can you imagine the current guy doing this? If he even thinks of the staff, he's more likely to organize them into a receiving line so they can thank him!
R.P.E.H. in London, England, UK, writes: I write as an English football fan and everyone knows we've had - and still have - our own problems with certain sections of fans, but I've been moved to write because of (Z)'s comment:
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....and linking to a song sung by Rangers fans.
There are several serious rivalries between British clubs: Liverpool vs. Manchester United, Arsenal vs. Tottenham Hotspurs and so on, but the most toxic has always been (Glasgow) Rangers vs (Glasgow) Celtic. There are several rivalries rooted in religious sectarianism, but this is the one that still stands out. The equivalent rivalry between the two main Edinburgh clubs, Hibernian (Catholic) and Heart of Midlothian (Protestant), is nowhere near as strong. And pointing out that Liverpool was historically a Catholic club and Everton were traditionally Protestant would get a "really?" response from most people.
In years past, some awful songs were sung. As a Liverpool fan, I hate the fact that our fans sang songs about the Munich Air Disaster. I hate that more recently, Manchester United fans sang songs about the Hillsborough Disaster. Tottenham have a reputation of having a predominately Jewish support and Arsenal supporters have sung songs and made noises related to that.
The important point is that, almost entirely, that type of song has been eliminated in stadia because the vast, vast majority of fans is no longer willing to put up with it.
It is no way the case that the people singing these songs represent a majority of even those club's fans. And the idea that the minority of one club's fans represent a significant part of a nation's support is massively wrong.
Support Scotland, don't support Scotland, that's entirely up to you. But using this as a decider is a really bad take.
D.H. in Boston, MA, writes: For what it's worth, the thousands of Scottish fans currently in Boston for their first World Cup game seem to be pretty well behaved. There are already many videos of bagpipers playing, and guys in kilts. The fans are spending lots of tourist dollars at bars and restaurants, and on harbor cruises. We'll see how things go during and after the game, of course. It's pretty hard for me to see how Haiti, their opponent, is not the underdog, though. Given that there are a lot of Haitian immigrants working in the Boston area, I think I'm rooting for them and not Scotland, at least for this game.
J.M. in Arvada, CO, writes: As a big soccer fan I have obviously followed this World Cup in great detail. In regards to the Somali referee Omar Artan being denied entry, my first thought was that Trump and his goons had embarrassed us again. As more information has come out, though, this seems not as black and white as it first appeared. First of all, a Somali official has stated he tried to use a diplomatic passport. And then, Rick Larsen (D) came out with the following statement:
I will just say this. In the last 24 hours, I received information that unfortunately for this particular individual, as a non-U.S. national, he seems to have been treated like any other non-U.S. national and ran into some problems at the border and port of entry that sound legitimate from my understanding.
The CBP (Customs and Border Protection) decision was probably the right one in this particular case. I am not in a position (to share more). I think CBP has the authority to look at people's phones and communications and it seems they determined that some communications in this particular person's devices were concerning enough to deny him entry.That leads me to believe that something in Artan's background was concerning. Now, I do think that under a different administration this is probably something that's dealt with weeks before the World Cup starts and Artan is cleared to appear at the competition or his name is quietly removed from FIFA's list and we never hear about it. The fact that the E.U. seems to have no concern having him officiate their Super Cup final in Austria in August suggests that whatever is problematic in his background isn't that big of a deal.
A.J. in Moorhead, MN, writes: You wrote: "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."
Paxton, for some insane reason, is partially coming down on Sorsby and Tech's side, arguing against penalities applied by the conference. I have absolutely no concept of why he would choose that side to argue, because yeah, the vast majority of fans don't want to see the sport go the way of boxing.
The rest of your response—that this constitutes an existential crisis—is completely true and might understate the problem. This could be a threat to college sports as a concept, beyond just CFB, because the subtext of this injunction implies the NCAA isn't permitted to enforce its own rules.
J.R. in St. Petersburg, FL, writes: If current Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby is permitted to play a single quarter after betting on his own team while at Indiana—and I rarely even write in, much less with an opinion this strong—then Pete Rose needs to be declared a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame, instantly.
Even in the informal straw pull I conduct among my friends every year, he had progressed to "he has done his penance, and it's time to let him in before he dies." Now that Rose is dead, it's getting really hard to find somebody who doesn't think he should be inducted.
He's clearly so overqualified that it's hilarious he's not in there, his bad behavior notwithstanding.
R.C. in Newport News, VA, writes: R.P. in Kāneʻohe wrote about how the Hubble's and Webb's long-range views of galaxies in the universe help to cope with today's political dystopia. An interesting tidbit to add to this notion is that there are enough galaxies in the universe so that each human being who has ever lived, going back hundreds of thousands of years, could have a different unique galaxy named after him or her. Similarly, the average galaxy contains enough stars so that the same would hold true: each human who has ever lived could have a star named after him or her in the average galaxy.
The numbers are staggering. And that's only for the observable universe. By definition, we don't know what's going in the rest of the universe, which some think could be infinite, though I don't see how a finite event in time (the Big Bang) results in an infinite thing.
That also puts some perspective to today's UFO craze (I'm looking at you, Steven Spielberg). Mathematically, it's almost certain there are zillions of alien civilizations, each as alone as we are.
M.C. in Friendship, ME, writes: F.M. in Fargo wrote, "Every time I enter a VA hospital, I'm greeted by the glowering visage of Donald J. Trump."
Any chance you could sneak in a Sharpie and draw him a Hitler mustache?
I like to refer to Trump as "The Loser" when possible. It would be great if that caught on in meme, print and conversation. Can be backed with evidence if necessary.
R.B. in Cleveland, OH, writes: I found this postcard in an antique shop for $2. Clearly we're overpaying for AI deepfakes:
J.P. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Since you mentioned the final days of William McKinley yesterday, his final words seem appropriate to share today: "Goodbye, all, goodbye. It is God's way. His will be done." Thereafter, he endeavored, with only partial success, to recite the hymn "Nearer, My God, to Thee."
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.