Dem
47
GOP
53
The Iran "peace" deal—which is already breaking down, by the way—was most definitely the subject of the week.
C.M. in Minneapolis, MN, writes: S.S. in West Hollywood asked: "Where does the Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) fall on a list of the worst foreign policy blunders in American history?"
While the MOU is potentially a blunder, isn't the bigger blunder attacking Iran in the first place with no real clear reason for doing so or understanding the ramifications, namely that Iran would shut down the Strait of Hormuz and the oil prices would spike? While it was colossally stupid for Donald Trump to attack Iran in the first place, it is good he realized he screwed up (though he will never admit he did) and is not willing to double down on stupid. And, as you said, there is a chance the MOU could indirectly lead to the world adopting green energy even more quickly. Ironically enough, Trump may then be credited as the true Green President (besides just turning the reflecting pool green of course). One can hope.
D.A. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: You've portrayed the distaste for the new Iran-U.S. Deal as universal, and there is no question that almost all pundits, analysts, politicians, in the U.S. hate it. And the Gulf states. And as for Israel... the word here in Brooklyn is "fuhgeddaboudit."
But I like the deal. It is a complete surrender. It's making the Zionists plotz, it restores some minimal economic justice for the people of Iran, it gives some (probably temporary) respite from the fighting, and most importantly it significantly erodes U.S. imperialist power and standing in the region and the entire globe. As a very-left-wing activist, I've fought U.S. imperialism off-and-on all my life, starting with the criminal war carried out against the Vietnamese. This has done more to undermine the U.S. as a superpower bully than I could ever have dreamed of in the last 60 years. I am sorry that the Iranian leaders are likely to be even more vicious to their people than the ones the U.S. and Israel murdered, and I don't forget that this president's domestic program is corrupt, racist, and fascistic.
Still, I get—what's your word?—as certain schadenfreudic satisfaction just thinking about the deal.
S.A.K. in Karnataka, India, writes: I followed the latest Neocon, Zionist, and "centrist" meltdown in the U.S. with a heavy dose of amusement and glee. On the face of it, the response makes sense from a political, ideological, and nationalistic perspective, especially considering the $300 billion question. However, a deeper look reveals more.
What Iran is demanding in economic and political terms is what any independent nation would want: lifting of sanctions (i.e., organized looting), return of its money, and non-interference in internal affairs. The aforementioned trio keep harping on about how Iranians are suffering from immense economic hardship. However, they skip over some inconvenient truths. To wit:
- How some of the harshest economic sanctions have contributed to this hardship.
- How it was the U.S. that initiated a series of actions (toppling a democratically elected government and installing a fascist dictator) that led to where we are today.
Imperialist and colonial thinking does not allow them to think of inferior people (read Muslims, brown folks, anybody who stands up to Israel, etc.) also wanting to live normal lives. Kaitlin Collins' barely concealed outrage at Sen. Roger Marshall's (R-KS) assertion that Iran needs ballistic missiles for self-defense sums up that mindset. She might have blown a gasket had she been the one interviewing J.D. Vance or attending his press conference. When Republicans start making more sense than you, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself in the mirror.
As for the $300 billion, this piece is revealing: Even with this administration in place, there is almost zero chance any part of that money will come from the American treasury. Other than that, I won't make the sweeping assumptions you in this week's Q&A.
It is time the crumbling American empire started paying for its crimes of the past 80 years. This loss is a very good start.
L.C.H. in Vancouver, BC, Canada, writes: In "The Iran War: Donald Trump Did Not Ace This Test," you wrote:
Oh, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has calendars, and is aware of the significance of November 3. It would be not be out of character for them to act at the moment that it will do most harm to Trump and his party in the elections.Through their propaganda and diplomacy, Iran has shown a much sharper understanding of the U.S. than the reverse. The IRGC wants to harm the U.S., not just Trump. As such, they may well decide they can do by far the most damage if they help Trump and the Republicans as much as possible.
N.A. in Asheboro, NC, writes: Years ago, I heard or read somewhere that the ghostwriter for The Art of the Deal opened the negotiations for their fee by asking for 50% of the book's residuals in perpetuity; and Donald Trump's response was something like "yeah, that sounds reasonable." I don't know if that story is true or not, but the irony there is beautiful. I can't imagine why this week's news items brought that to the front of my mind...
D.M. in Berlin, Germany, writes: You wrote: "It really is remarkable that a person whose entire life has been about guile and duplicity is so unable to detect guile and duplicity on the other side of the negotiating table."
I think this should rather be expected from the simple fact that Trump is a narcissist. Other people may be gullible enough to be scammed by a both very and extremely stable genius like him; but he is, basically by definition, above that. He soars, he floats, and he is in no danger of falling. It doesn't occur to him to compare himself to other people. I don't think he really thinks of himself as "people". He thinks of himself as the closest thing to a god that has ever existed: the self-evidently greatest of everything in the history of ever.
Single-track minds like Trump are easier to understand than normal people, not harder. Projecting ourselves into them does not work.
D.R. in Kensington, MD, writes: You wrote: "When Japan surrendered in 1945, the victorious United States graciously allowed Japan to keep the Emperor as emperor. Here, too, the victor was equally gracious, as Iran is allowing Donald Trump to remain as president."
This was one of my favorite passages from your site in years.Thanks for all you do.
M.S. in Vista, CA, writes: I studied international politics in college, and coming from that background, I would opine that the whole Iran situation is a textbook example of what not to do. I expect it to be studied for years. As measurable outcomes, the main negative effect may be that Iran is even more motivated to go nuclear now, and Donald Trump has given Russia, China and North Korea reason to assist in Iran to do so. I would not be surprised if Iran will be testing a nuclear device before the end of Trump administration to deter him from future attacks. In other words, the end result will be the exact opposite of his stated intent.
M.D.H. in Coralville, IA, writes: You wrote: "Besides, the deal with Iran isn't going to make food and other prices go down."
A large increase in food costs through at least this fall is mostly baked in. Farmers, already struggling with Trump's trade war and with a labor shortage due to his immigration crackdown, faced a huge jump in fertilizer and diesel fuel prices at the worst possible time of the year for them. Even if those costs drop rapidly soon, farmers have already spent most of their annual fertilizer budgets. Here in Iowa, we now have three very close House races, a close Senate race, and a close race for Governor. The November elections look much more interesting than they did 12 months ago, that's for sure. Since Iowa's best pollster quit after performing poorly in 2024, we lack reliable polling data; most of the available data come from organizations with limited track records.
And when Iowa voters realize Trump's war of choice ended with a deal far worse than the one Barack Obama made and Trump tore up, things could get even more interesting. This is the worst defeat for a U.S. President since the fall of Saigon.
E.C.R. in Helsinki, Finland, writes: You replied to S.S. in West Hollywood with two lists, both of which ranked the 2003 Iraq WMD war and the 1965 military escalation in Vietnam as the two worst foreign policy blunders in American history. You continued by giving examples of widely disparate outcomes from the MOU that were both quite far-fetched and meant to be ends of a spectrum of possible outcomes and concluded that "until we know [how things turn out], we just can't tell how bad the MOU really is." In doing so you ignored the question of whether Trump's first enunciated goal, regime change, in fact succeeded. Any attempt to evaluate the MOU must consider whether the Iranian regime has in fact changed and negotiating with it thus requires a fundamentally different approach than was used previously.
Regime change does not require a new Constitution (Nazi Germany used the Weimar Constitution, although many old institutions were reduced to irrelevance), nor a new state ideology (Khrushchev denounced Stalin's cult of personality but Marxism-Leninism continued with a much emptier Gulag). In each of those cases, neither of which were foreign imposed, the regime changed decisively but the state largely continued or, in the case of the Nazis, was co-opted.
Iran began the current war with a Supreme Leader selected for a life term by a clerical board of experts, an elected President and legislature with a traditional state bureaucracy and military, and a third element, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), who functioned as an parallel military, internal security and intelligence agency and owned businesses and functioned as a state within a state. The U.S. and Israel assassinated the Supreme Leader and a number of key ministers and IRGC leaders, expecting that friendly and pliant politicians or a popular revolt would cause regime change. What happened instead is that potentially traitorous politicians are in hiding or under detention, the IRGC picked the son of the late Supreme Leader as their candidate and when Israel bombed the meeting of the Assembly of Experts, the IRGC saw to it that he was still confirmed as Supreme Leader. The IRGC had long ago implemented a decentralized mosaic strategy that included provisions for independent operation if the center of power was disrupted. The result is that the clergy have been sidelined, the new supreme leader was closely aligned with the IRGC before and is totally beholden to them now, and the diplomats whom Washington is negotiating with are largely cut-outs because, in Neil MacFarquhar's words, "Decision making in [Iran] is guided by a small group of men associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps."
The U.S. began this war intending regime change and that goal gives every appearance of having been realized. Unfortunately, the new regime is significantly different from the previous one. Senior members have expressed the belief that "sanctions relief is nothing" because that can be revoked at will. (Z) answers J.M. in Minneapolis with "I don't think Iran really believes Trump will live up to his promises." The problem is far deeper than that. The IRGC does not believe that ANY U.S. President will live up to his own or any predecessors' promises. The best summation of the IRGC belief is the old movie line attributed to Native Americans, "white man speaks with forked tongue."
The current regime in Iran will take whatever it can get today, with no belief that any promise of future benefits will be worth the paper that promise is written on. This means that for the next 60 days or 6 years or however long it takes, the Iranian government is clear eyed about what the trade-offs are. And given that the Hormuz chokepoint can be worked around with pipelines or green energy, it means that the attraction of nuclear weapons is not going away. Further, given that in the past the Iranian nuclear effort leaked like a sieve and that now there is no need to report to anyone outside the IRGC and precious few inside it, any future weapons effort will be buried so deep that it will be far harder to detect. In sum, yet another catastrophic regime change operation that will in all likelihood rank with Iraq and Vietnam in future.
B.H. in Wyandotte, MI, writes: I would like to throw out another possibility for the terrible Iran deal. Donald Trump really, really wants to go after Cuba. But his people and whichever Republicans he still confides in have told him that two wars at once would be a bridge too far. And almost certainly would have a devastating effect on Republican chances of holding the House and even the Senate in November. And someone, most likely Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has told him Cuba would be much easier to effect regime change than Iran. And victory would prop up Trump's flagging support with Cuban Americans. That has endangered otherwise safe Florida seats.
M.L. in Simpsonville, SC, but formerly of Saint John, NB, Canada, writes: In your item on the G7, you noted that Canadian PM Mark Carney was asked to increase energy exports and that you felt that might be doable. The situation is a little complex right now for four reasons:
- Most of the oil is in Alberta, which is landlocked and has troubles getting their product to market.
- To remedy this, pipelines have been built and proposed. Ottawa (under former PM Justin Trudeau) invested heavily in an LNG pipeline over to the BC coast, but that's also a heavily protected ecological area, and there aren't plans to pursue a pipeline for crude oil that would pop out at Kitimat at this time.
- There was a proposed pipeline to the East coast, which would have ended at the Irving refinery in Saint John, NB. That proposal failed due to opposition along its proposed route—it would have covered most of the country—and even though some politicians talk about bringing it back I have to agree it seems unlikely from an environmental/indigenous relations perspective.
- The current government in Alberta is flirting with separatism in a manner eerily similar to the lead up to the Brexit vote, and Carney is having to manage the Albertan premier Danielle Smith and her government's demonstrated sympathies for the pro-Albexit side.
Alberta's indigenous peoples have many things to say about this, especially as their treaties were signed with the crown and not the province—so an independent Alberta would have to renegotiate treaties including land, water and mineral rights, and that discourse is becoming more fraught by the minute.All in all, Carney might not be able to move as fast as the G7 would like on that portfolio. We'll see.
M.L. in Athens, OH, writes: As much as Donald Trump tries to tamp down green energy projects, he'll ultimately fail because he's pissing into a derecho on that front. The world (and a growing number in the U.S.) has realized that our species must hop off the hydrocarbon merry-go-round or else be held hostage to situations like Trump instigated in the Strait of Hormuz. The next U.S. President will hopefully fix most of the damage that he's done.
R.T. in Arlington, TX, writes: Now that we have seen the outline of an American surrender to Iran, I would rather see the $300 billion spent on road/rail/pipeline/port infrastructure to make the Strait of Hormuz irrelevant as a choke point. That is the medium-term strategic play here.
For 20 years, I have believed the long-term strategic play is to develop the technology to capture carbon dioxide from air, combine it with water and electric power, and synthesize hydrocarbon fuels. Nuclear reactors and renewable energy provide the electricity. This gives you a closed loop carbon-energy cycle that could potentially bank carbon and reverse climate change. Direct air capture is not far from viability, even without a government commitment to develop it. Realistically, the energy density and ease of storage/transport of hydrocarbons still can't be beat and the infrastructure for using hydrocarbons doesn't have to be replaced by batteries. Strategically, it renders all of the unstable petrostates (including Texas?) irrelevant. How many conflicts could we have avoided if we didn't need to kowtow to those parts of the world. In my fantasy, once the technology was developed, it would be shared with the entire world. Food for thought from an engineer.
M.F. in Minneapolis, MN, writes: Regarding the budget for Trump's ballroom, you wrote: "The only bombshell here is that taxpayers are (allegedly) only on the hook for half the cost. We would have guessed something more like 95%."
Your original estimate is probably still more accurate. Not only will the budget likely continue to shift, but those (illegal) private contributions weren't unconditional gifts. A few were bribes to drop nonsense lawsuits (the cost of which ultimately falls to consumers). Others were bribes to get government actions. The government side of those transactions ranged from merger approvals (which will increase costs to consumers) to steering contracts to certain vendors and issuing biased regulations. These things cost taxpayers money that should be counted against the value of the ballroom "contribution."
P.Y. in Watertown, MA, writes: I hope that J.D. Vance is secretly collecting ALL the dirt on Trump and is planning an epic takedown of him at the right moment. Trump will ruin Vance's life if needed. Vance should plan for an attack.
A.S. in Renton, WA, writes: My first scrolling glance at the G7 table photo had me wondering what political news prompted Electoral-Vote.com to share stylized art of a vulva:
How very clever of the French, to have all those men circled around and worshiping, exactly as they should be.
J.G. in Chicago, IL, writes: I enjoy reading your site every day and I am amazed you are able to keep it up after all these years! Impressive!
I usually agree with your points of view, but had a small nit to pick with (V)'s piece on the USPS' proposed rule to block mail delivery in some states. The item states that the current postmaster has no "familiarity with delivery services" and implies that he is therefore unfit to serve as postmaster general.
I beg to differ—as the former president of Waste Management, Steiner is intimately familiar with postal delivery as his company no doubt handled, shall we say, the "last mile" of more than half of the mail pieces on the way to their final resting place: the dump.
The USPS itself states that 52% to 58% of the total mail volume (by pieces) is marketing mail. So I'd argue that Steiner is actually very familiar with the USPS as he's run a company responsible for delivering billions of pieces of mail in large green trucks.
Given that fact, I would reframe the discussion as hoping we don't end up expanding the scope of WM's mail-handling business to include sealed ballots as well.
K.J. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: Donald Trump's obsession with mail-in ballots is a voter-suppression tactic in support of his in-person voter suppression tactics. If he can get everyone voting on the same day in person, he can use the National Guard and ICE to provide voter intimidation. He can pressure Republican Secretaries of State to reduce polling places and to move polling places at the last minute. If people can easily vote by mail, those in-person suppression tactics don't work.
M.L. in Portland, ME, writes: The doomsday clock is well and good, but I'm more concerned about the Idiocracy clock. The UFC event moved it closer to midnight in my eyes.
S.G. in Newark, NJ, writes: I have just one point about your item on the DNI shenanigans. (Z) wrote: "the U.S. is going to be operating in partial darkness for a while, intelligence-wise."
This would be true in any normal administration—no FISA, no intelligence-gathering that FISA used to authorize. The trouble is that the current administration has shown, time and again, that it is absolutely lawless. It wouldn't shock me in the least to learn that what is going on the day after FISA expired is exactly the same as what was going on the day before FISA expired, except it's now illegal. Who's going to find out? Who's going to tell? Heck, I wonder how much the current administration bothered complying with FISA (like getting secret warrants from the secret FISA court) even while FISA was in effect.
D.B. in Deer Park, NY, writes: I don't understand why the possible demise of FISA Section 702 is being seen as a bad thing. The Pa Cheney-spawned atrocity should have been repealed a long time ago. And it's to their lasting shame that in their combined 12 years, Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden made no attempt to convince Congress to do so. Oh well, if respect for the Constitution couldn't do it, I'll take presidential petulance.
J.M. in Silver Spring, MD, writes: You wrote: "Donald Trump has just made his latest move in the game of DNI
chesscheckerstiddlywinks he's been playing with the Senate."I happen to have a friend named Larry Kahn, who is a many-time world champion Tiddlywink (or "Winks," as he calls it) player. That may sound ridiculous, but he has told me a lot about the game and it's a challenging game and quite a lot more complex than Checkers so I think he would object to you implying it's a step down from Checkers.
D.W. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: I understand the "fair and balanced" Fox is calling the water in the reflecting pool "victory soup" and the resultant stench "the smell of freedom."
Heckuva job, Trumpy.
G.S. in Palm Springs, CA, writes: An appropriately named company called Greenwater Services received a $1.7 million no-bid contract to install a water-purification system for the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool project in Washington, D.C. The company is owned by John J. Cafaro, who has donated more than $300,000 to Trump-connected committees. Cafaro previously pleaded guilty in separate cases involving bribery and campaign-finance violations.
And indeed, the water has turned a most lovely shade of green!
E.F. in Baltimore, MD, writes: I'll bet it was the illegal aliens who sabotaged the reflecting pool. If only Trump had his ballroom, this never would have happened!
But seriously, Trump doesn't consider this a failure, certainly not on his part. His only measure of success for any venture is whether he made money on the deal, and he ALWAYS makes money on every deal. Those bankrupt casinos? He walked away from them with money in his pocket—therefore, a big success.
The reflecting pool? It'll take a little investigative journalism, but I expect we'll eventually learn that the contractor who was handed this inflated, no-bid contract kicked at least half the profits back to Trump, most likely in the form of free work on all the pools at his resorts. That, or he bought a bunch of worthless crypto from Trump. And now that the whole job will need to be redone, it just means TWICE as much grift for Trump. An even BIGGER success!
K.H. in Golden, CO, writes: In your item "Nuts and Bolts, Part I: Thom Tillis," you wrote that you would give us a "few thoughts," then proceeded to enumerate 10 thoughts. I guess the staff mathematician must have been on one of his infamous binges.
Meanwhile, the article was... absolutely fabulous. And I'm not obliquely referring to all the Bollinger the mathematician must have consumed. Probably in the Top 5 of all the articles explaining and highlighting sausage-making for us junkies. Perhaps it's the best ever. Thank you!
(V) & (Z) respond: We are glad you liked it!
J.L. in Chicago, IL, writes: Although not at the same level as the first 10 items on your list:
11. Sen. Tillis does not know that names of political parties are proper nouns.
B.P. in Louisville, KY, writes: Your observations were spot on, but the thing that stood out most to me from Thom Tillis's letter was:
Rural state senators voted for it, but now they must explain why shutting down mail-in ballots, ending early voting, and complicating registration is a good thing for rural voters in big states. Other members will need to account for their past positions in support of the state laws that would be repealed or preempted if the SAVE Act passes.This comment sticks out as a tacit admission that Tillis and the rest of the caucus know the SAVE Act is bad policy. It's not said by Tillis, probably because it doesn't have to be, that they're all doing this because of Trump's delusions and unfounded conspiratorial claims about voter fraud. On one hand, it speaks volumes about the whole caucus's fealty to Trump even on technical subjects of negligible interest to the MAGA base, and their loss of impetus to govern well in their own right. On the other, it's further evidence that the 2020 election is going to keep getting re-litigated until the end of time (or Trump's lifespan).
S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, writes: My hot take on the Tillis letter: It reads like the captain of the (3-D) chess team trying to explain effective strategy to a meathead who only knows football.
D.G. in Webster Groves, MO, writes: I was driving into work the other day and listening to CNN (I am a glutton for punishment), and their numbers guy, the name of whom escapes me, but who bothers me because he comes off more like a TV game show host than a serious reporter, was sounding alarms about how the generic ballot for Democrats looks worse than it did going into the 2018 midterms. I remember those well. And was surprised at the news on CNN. It made me wonder if something was off, like timing, because my sense is that general antipathy toward Trump and the Republican brand is greater now than then. And today I read your summary of the numbers and it confirmed my suspicion. The CNN report was clearly referring to numbers from 2018 taken much closer to the election. That is one of the reasons I'm thankful for your site. No drama. Just the facts. Thank you.
(V) & (Z) respond: That's Harry Enten, and he drives us nuts, too. Basically, on M/W/F, his take is "The polling news is very good for the Democrats/very bad for the Republicans." And then, on T/Th, his take is "The polling news is very good for the Republicans/very bad for the Democrats." It could not be clearer that someone ordered him to perform "balance" in his presentations.
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, writes: This past week, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, declared that it was a mistake of the 46th President, Joe Biden, to have run for a second term in 2024. Frankly, I'm not surprised by this.
I voted for both of these people. Both of them defeated Donald Trump in the popular vote. But only one of them defeated Trump in the all-important Electoral College.
I admired President Biden. He did an amazing job, given what he inherited. But there were so many headwinds he faced during his term that there was no way he would have won re-election. As I've said before, he should have announced after the 2022 midterms that he would step aside and allow his party to nominate the best possible candidate under normal circumstances.
This past Thursday, I celebrated my birthday and the Obama Presidential Library was opened. For a few hours, Americans once again got to see what real patriotism and leadership look like. As we approach the 20th anniversary of that historic 2008 election, I wonder if we will once again have someone like Barack Obama lead us again and give us hope. We badly need it now.
L.B. in Canby, OR, writes: Although I have often disagreed with James Carville and think it is long past time for him to retire permanently, I actually think he might be spot on with his current prediction that Donald Trump is going to walk away next year.
If Democrats win the House, he will be impeached, regardless of what the Senate does. He won't want to be impeached for a third time. Even though it is hard to embarrass this poor excuse for a human, I really believe he wants to avoid that. He also knows he will need a pardon for himself and his family and it is still very uncertain he can pardon himself. And finally, he is bored with being president and while he likes the power, he doesn't like the job itself.
My only complaint about Carville's prediction is that he doesn't go far enough. Will Trump have a very exhaustive pardon for himself and his family created, offer it to J.D. Vance, and say "The presidency is yours if you sign this and then date it the day or the day after you are sworn in"? And yes, while Trump will know he is throwing away the presidency for Republicans in 2028, I don't think he cares about that as much as he cares about himself.
J.R. in Berlin, Germany, writes: Another vintage deepfake postcard:
(V) & (Z) respond: Uh, we hate to break it to you, but we're pretty sure that one's real.
J.E. in San Jose, CA, writes: (V) wrote: Chairman of the Georgia Democratic Party Charlie Bailey noted that over 1 million Democrats voted in the recent primary vs. 940,000 Republicans. He said this is the largest edge Democrats have held in a primary since 1998. Bailey: "It [the decision] is pissing people off..."
What's more, a much higher percentage of Georgia Democrats in 1998 were actually Dixiecrats, meaning the current enthusiasm of the blue team in the Peach State is even more promising for that party's supporters.
A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: I know I am too late now, but, as an Illinoisian by birth, I am very proud of Tammy Duckworth. In fact, I will go so far as to say the two best people in the Senate are both named Tammy!
(V) & (Z) respond: Actually, it's TOMMY Tuberville, not Tammy. That IS the other senator you were referring to, right?
R.P. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: I know it has been said many times on this site that the Mayoralty of New York City is not a stepping stone to national political prominence, but I would encourage anyone to watch this speech by the current officeholder about their local sports team and not feel that they are witnessing a generational talent.
B.W. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: You wrote:
It's Kind of Official: The final tallies have not been released yet, but Democratic Socialist Janeese Lewis George (D) remains steady at about 53% of the mayoral vote in Washington, DC, while her nearest competitor, Kenyan R. McDuffie, conceded yesterday. So, Lewis George is going to be the next mayor in the District.
Our Take: Lewis George is about to become pretty famous, either as one of the faces of the resistance, or as the mayor whose town was put under de facto martial law by Donald Trump because the election results hurt his fee fees, or both.
The word "resistance," having taken on new shades of meaning over the past decade, feels somewhat ill-fitting in this context.
You are likely aware of that word's growing negative connotations among leftists and left-leaning populists. It has become shorthand for performative liberalism—for wearing the clothes of activism on weekends without personally assuming any meaningful risk to wealth or status.
I don't know much about Lewis George, but she certainly does not seem to fit the mold the "resistance liberal." Voluntarily wearing the mantle of Democratic Socialist hints, in itself, at a different ethos entirely.
She might indeed become the face of a movement, but I wouldn't expect it to be one that has full support from the "weekend march" crowd.
R.G. in Washington, DC, writes: In your response to my letter about the D.C. primaries, you pointed out that if Janeese Lewis George wins the mayoral election, Donald Trump said he might take over DC. I have a purely anecdotal response to your response. I am currently serving on a jury in an almost 2-week trial. During some down time we were talking about the election. Someone mentioned that Trump said he would take over the city if Lewis George wins. The overwhelming, maybe unanimous, consensus was that nobody cared what Trump had to say and nobody changed their vote because of it. Lewis George seemed to be very well liked in the room. As far as I could tell, there are no Republicans among my fellow jurors, so I can't really judge GOP reaction to Trump's proclamation of a takeover.
M.B.F. in Oakton, VA, writes: Thank you to D.M. in Lexington, NC for the letter about "Papa."
I'm very sure that many of your readers have a parent or grandparent, living or passed on, whose life exemplified both patriotism and devotion to their community. It is always important to be reminded of this, especially these days.
As we approach the 250th anniversary of American Independence, we need to remind ourselves that our celebration is not about the flag—an important symbol but nevertheless, a symbol—but about something much deeper, and that our predecessors understood this better than many of us seem to at the moment, and lived their lives accordingly.
D.M., thanks for the account of your beloved grandfather, who seems to have understood this to his core, both as a matter of his military service and of service to the community around him. And thanks for taking the time to find out the details he, as so many men of his time and after, did not wish to share. You more than "filled in the hyphen."
I say all of this in the hope that the portion of your readership which is on the political right and who identify as MAGA can recognize that the vast, comprehensive majority of those who oppose your politics nevertheless also share your patriotism and love of this nation, and that we have our own equivalents to D.M.'s Papa, whose lives we try to honor by our own lights. I hope that you (and we) will celebrate the Fourth of July in that spirit.
Finally, as a teacher of high school history and government for 29 years, I'd like to stress what I always emphasized to my students: The flag they salute and pledge allegiance to stands for a set of the Founders' ideas about limited government power, distributed so as to check excessive ambition and corruption, and respect for the will of the people.
It does not stand for ethnic or religious nationalism, or only for one side of a set of political controversies. Most of the Founders knew this well, despite their differences with each other and their shortcomings and failures to actualize those ideals, as (mostly) aristocratic men of their time. This is what we mean when we say, accurately, that America is based on a creed, not on a faith or a nationality, and that this creed is durable and adaptable to changing times, if we will keep it.
Please keep up the fine work, and have a happy and patriotic 4th of July.
K.H. in Golden, CO, writes: I would like to debunk the professor's take, relayed by F.H. in Akron, on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. I have a Ph.D. in space science physics. Not nuclear. But I took enough nuclear to know two things and enough math to offer reasonable speculation about the middle thing. Here are the 3 things:
- The Manhattan Project was so secretive that Truman did not know about it until April 25, 1945. At that point, the scientists were not sure enough to tell him: "Yeah we can do this. It will work." They were still working furiously on theoretical and practical problems to get the bombs ready. There really wasn't a lot of time from when Truman knew to when the bombs were used to change the strategy that was in place for defeating the Japanese. He could not have saved the lives of a large proportion of the boys that died in, say, Iwo Jima or Okinawa in 3 months. (Trinity test was July 16, 1945.)
- This is speculative, But Truman probably did not understand the orders of magnitude involved. We use "kilotons" and "megatons" of TNT as the measurement for nuclear explosions for this reason. The real numbers are 4 x 10^13 Joules and up to about and 2 x 10^17 Joules, for the smallest and largest ever detonated. The Tsar Bomba, 50 Megatons produced about 2 x 10^17 Joules of energy. A huge World War II bunker buster was at most like 10^8 Joules. So it's 5 orders of magnitude. Ordinary politicians would not likely be able to grok those orders of magnitude. In my speculation, Truman only grokked that the bombs were "so big" that Japan would have to surrender.
- The time between the Trinity test and Hiroshima was only a couple of weeks. Trinity was detonated on July 16, 1945. Hiroshima was detonated on August 6, 1945 and Nagasaki on August 9, 1945. That's just a 2+ weeks. Before Trinity, the engineers and scientists were just not certain the "fat man" Pu implosion mechanism would work. The problems were not nuclear, they were "conventional." Would the implosion be accurate enough to trigger a fission reaction in the Pu core? If some of the charges and/or calculations of how those charges created the implosion were slightly off, the bomb would fizzle. There would be a reaction, but not enough to go hypercritical and create a bomb. They were confident the "little boy" Ur gun-type mechanism would work but there was a lot of theory and speculation about how much "fizzle" they would get. (Fizzle can be thought of as the nuclear reactions of the remnants after the thing blows itself up so much that it is no longer hypercritical.)
So... the engineers and scientists wanted to wait for the Trinity test and, to my knowledge, the politicians agreed. Leaving a couple of weeks. The "little Boy" was a go without testing by itself, but the decision was to have both ready before the first attack. And 2 weeks was certainly not enough time to really think about changing the ongoing strategy that led to the death of so many American boys.To summarize, two of the most well known and likely costliest battles were Iwo Jima (Feb. - Mar. 1945), before Truman even knew about the bombs, and Okinawa (Apr. - June 1945, by which time Truman knew but could hardly change strategy. After Trinity it was known that the new strategy would stop the island-hopping battles, but there were only 2 weeks until the U.S. attacked. There just wasn't any time to save any U.S. Marines and Navy. There was never really any choice to amend the ongoing strategy. No offense intended toward either F.H. or that professor. But... that's not the way it was.
M.D.H. in Coralville, IA, writes: My history-professor father disliked presidential libraries, because his research sometimes required visiting more than one. He felt it would be preferable to have all presidential papers in one place, likely D.C. or nearby, so a historian could cover them all in a single trip.
S.G. in Durham, NC, writes: (Z) wrote: "Lincoln did not carry arms on his person..."
Well, except for his ax: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.
The book is a diverting, entertaining example of alternate history from the Ministry of Silly Premises.
L.B. in Cardiff, Wales, UK, writes: Given I'm originally English, I feel like I should remind you that the Cup is coming home.
If it does, so will I, and I'll work from my parents' house for a week.
And in the interest of sportsmanship, the correct team to root for is whoever happens to be playing Argentina (you may suspend this if, as expected, they play against Saudi Arabia in the round of 32).
I'm also fully on the Vozinha hype train and hope Cabo Verde can get as far as possible.
P.R. in Arvada, CO, writes: Neither England nor the U.S. have a chance of winning. The U.S. has played very well but unfortunately, that has been against mediocre teams. Their ball control is really good, and they are a nice team to watch. I just don't see them beating France, England, Argentina, Brazil, Germany, etc. As for England, I don't buy into the whole "anyone but England" mentality a lot of other people in Scotland do. It is 100% hilarious watching my English friends; reaction when I joke about it with them, though. In any case, they are a decent side with a lot of depth, but they don't always know where the other players are or anticipate what someone else is going to do. That tends to leave them vulnerable at the back. France is my pick this year, followed by maybe Germany.
R.O. in Ede, the Netherlands, writes: R.C. in Des Moines asked how much of an upset it would be if the USA won the world cup this year. (Z) nicely explained the current state of affairs, but I wanted to illustrate how much of an historical upset it would be. The world cup has been played 22 times. This is the share of the spots in the knockout rounds that have been claimed by European and South American teams:
- Winners: 22/22
- Finalists: 44/44
- Semi-finalists: 85/88
- Quarter-finalists: 141/152 (not all editions had quarter finals)
Or, put another way, in 22 world cups, 11 times a non-EU/SA team has qualified for the quarterfinals, of which 3 have advanced to the semifinals, of which none have even made it to the finals.
If the U.S. can match its best result (the third-place finish of 1930), it would be an absolute upset. That would maybe already match the Miracle on Ice in unlikeliness.
R.P.E.H. in London, England, UK, writes: I just want to say thanks for "This Week in Freudenfreude: I Am the Eggman."
I was bred, born and raised in England but lived a wonderful five years in Edinburgh, which is why I felt moved to write in last week. I hope your impression of Scottish fans has improved.
Having lived there, I am in no way surprised that the fans have drunk the city of Boston nearly out of beer. Back in my days in politics as a member of the Liberal Democrats, we drank more than one hotel dry. But the best record surely lives with the continuing Liberal Party, who are the people who rejected the merger between the Liberal Party and the Social Democrats (leading to the modern Lib Dems), and who once managed to buy a hotel out of condoms. Make your own punchline.
B.W. in Boston, MA, writes: You missed one aspect of the Scottish fans' activities in Boston and the surrounding areas. Traffic cones on statues:
They have also donated over $20,000 to local charities, including the Hasbro Children's Hospital cancer unit and Horizons for Homeless Children.
R.C. in Newport News, VA, writes: In Juneteenth's Freudenfreude, you didn't include the curious Scottish custom of putting traffic cones on the heads of statues:
R.H. in San Antonio, TX, writes: In a prior life I once found myself iced-in overnight at the Denver airport with the Ireland national football team. (Just imagine an ice storm severe enough to shut down Denver!)
We stranded travelers gathered at the one bar which was open.
One of the lads was paying the tab and a grand time was had by all until the bartender announced last call, whereupon the lad asked "What do you mean you're closing the bar? I still have money!"
The bartender said she was sorry, but she really had to go home, so the lads' manager called a few limos to take them to a hotel he had arranged at short notice, where I'm sure the party continued, though I didn't go.
As I look back on my long and arguably mostly misspent life, one bright memory is of getting soused in an airport bar with that bunch of lads. Other than watching all of Ted Lasso a couple times with my wife, I know nothing about soccer, but I do know what it's like to drink with elite soccer players, and that's a lot of fun.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: I just wanted to give my endorsement to M.G. in Boulder's intentional courtesy. For some time now, I've been more intentional about gratitude and affirmations in much the same way as M.G. described. I can't say I've noticed an effect on the world around me (I mostly interact with my wife, who is already a peach, and a plethora of strangers I may or may not ever see again) but it does wonders for my own attitude. 5/5—highly recommended.
C.S. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: A small note about your Susan Collins item: Seafood, under Jewish law, is not considered meat. This is why lox and cream cheese is allowed, but cheesesteaks are not. It would be why, if lobster had fins and scales, we could have it with melted butter.
J.B. in Austin, TX, writes: You wrote that Senate Republicans "...are hoping that the beast somehow gets slain in some other way, without the senators having to be the ones who wield the steely knife."
I'm going to interpret this as a "Hotel California" reference.
I do hope the beast gets killed this time, at least.
(V) & (Z) respond: It was indeed a "Hotel California" reference.
L.O.-J. in Belmore, NSW, Australia, writes: Can you tell me if I can contact Electoral-Vote.com readers in Sydney about meditation? It would be great to get together.
(V) & (Z) respond: If we hear from anyone at comments@electoral-vote.com, we will pass those messages along.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: You wrote: "Aren't there only something like a few hundred Navy SEALs? Seems like half of them are running for office as Republicans at any given time."
Yes! I've been thinking this for a long time. Every third Republican office-seeker seems be a SEAL, ex-SEAL, former SEAL, or I'm-claiming-to-be-a-Navy SEAL; and all of them seem to think that expertise with plastic explosives and advanced rebreathers are some kind of qualification for office.
Do you remember the Onion Dear Abby-style series, "Ask a U.S. Navy SEAL"? Someone sends their problem ("My boyfriend and I have been together for two years now. I'm ready to marry and begin a family, but whenever I bring it up, he becomes nervous and doesn't want to discuss it. What should I do?), and the columnist/Navy SEAL gives a practical solution ("C-4, properly planted, concealed, and detonated can address many relationship problems. Do you want to eliminate the problem, or motivate your opponent to surrender?") I always think of this when I hear a Navy SEAL is a candidate.
R.H. in San Antonio, TX, writes: Not exactly his "final" words, but perhaps close enough... "Wellington is a bad general and the English are bad troops. The whole affair will not be more serious than swallowing one's breakfast" — Napoleon, on the eve of the Battle of Waterloo
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.