Dem
47
GOP
53
As we noted last week, this weekend's a little tough, time-wise. So, we're going to limit ourselves to questions about current events only, excepting a couple of fun questions at the end, for dessert.
If you are still working on the headline theme, we'll add the hint that we actually tried to write a headline about gravestones, but that there was no way to pull it off without being too obvious. Specifically, "Why would they use the word 'stela' here, instead of 'headstone'?"
M.G. in Piscataway, NJ, asks: Some of your younger readers might not know about the Iranian coup of 1953. The story starts in 1913 and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC; now part of BP) helped build the infrastructure necessary for Iran to have an oil industry. In 1951 Iran elected a prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. Mosaddegh introduced social programs such as Social Security, public baths and pest control. Iran was not considered a terroristic country back then. Mosaddegh suspected the AIOC was not paying the legally contracted amount of money to Iran, so Iran asked to audit the books. The AIOC refused the audit and Iran voted to nationalize their oil industry.
Britain created an economic boycott for Iranian oil. Winston Churchill's administration wanted to overthrow the Iranian prime minister but Harry S. Truman did not want to set a precedent that the U.S. would do such a thing. When Dwight D. Eisenhower became president, he supported regime change in Iran. After the coup, a government formed under General Fazlollah Zahedi and from there, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became the Shah of Iran. Mosaddegh was put in jail for 3 years and then put under house arrest for the remainder of his life. Some of Mosaddegh's top leaders were executed. The Shah, with the assistance of the CIA, created a secret police force, SAVAK, known for surveillance and torture. The Iranian people were not happy. In 1979 the Iranian Revolution led to the replacement of the Imperial State of Iran by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Since then, the U.S. has spent $8 trillion in that region of the world and lost countless lives.
Is there anything else our resident historian would like to add to this story?(Z) answers: I would add four things. First, the instability in the Middle East region since World War II is substantially due to Iran, but certainly not entirely due to Iran.
Second, the Brits effectively conned the U.S. into overthrowing Mossadegh by persuading Ike and his administration that Iran was about to throw its lot in with the U.S.S.R. and communism. This being the Cold War, that was an effective approach for the U.K., to take.
Third, for those who like a little historical trivia, the key American operative in the scheme to get rid of Mossadegh was Kermit Roosevelt Jr., grandson of Theodore. I think TR would have approved.
Fourth, if readers would like to know more, All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, by Stephen Kinzer, is a real page-turner. It's full of wild stuff, like Roosevelt sneaking the Shah into the governmental palace in the trunk of his (Roosevelt's) car.
L.W. in Edina, MN, asks: With respect to the attack on Iran, my read is that nobody in the military leadership heeded Sen. Mark Kelly's (D-AZ) admonitions and thought "golly, these orders might be unlawful," let alone refused to carry them out. Is my read accurate? If so, just how freaked out should we be that this is an indicator that the military will docilely go along with additional legally dubious (and possibly far more nefarious) orders from their Cheeto-in-Chief?
(Z) answers: I have mentioned, once or twice, that I worked for The Los Angeles Times for about a year, helping to compile research on murder cases in Los Angeles. This was part of the paper's annual attempt to win lots of journalism prizes.
Pretty much my entire job was to read the court files for various murder cases. And the single most important source of information was the police report, because it's always there, and it's pretty detailed, and it's got a lot of straightforward factual information (for example, the age of the victim, the probable murder weapon, etc.). There is also a checkbox for "Was there torture involved?" That is relevant because, in California (and many other states), torture is an aggravating circumstance, and can lead to a longer sentence.
That checkbox was never, ever checked. Not once in over 1,000 cases where I read the file. That was even when witness testimony, photographic evidence, etc. very clearly supported a finding of torture. And what the newspaper eventually learned was that police officers learned not to render an opinion on that particular question, because it was something for a jury to decide.
When a soldier is taught not to follow illegal orders, that pertains to acts that they themselves might commit that would be clearly illegal. For example, shooting someone who is trying to surrender, or killing civilians indiscriminately. They are not in a position to make judgments about whether the larger action they are involved in is legal or not, nor are they expected to do so. That is a question for Congress, the White House, the courts, and maybe the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Put another way, the fact that a soldier does not lay down arms when ordered to attack Tehran does not mean that soldier can be expected to open fire on, say, a U.S. polling place if ordered to do so. The latter act would be a clear violation of the UCMJ, the former is not.
B.J. in Arlington, MA, asks: It is part of our American cultural zeitgeist that we should support our troops as individuals even if we disagree with the decisions made by the leaders who decide what the military must do. This is because the troops have signed on to protect us, risking their lives in the process, and we owe them honor and respect as a result.
I've always agreed with this position in the past.
Now, however, it seems to me that our military is prosecuting a war that is not authorized by Congress and is thus flatly illegal. I do not expect military personnel to be lawyers, but they all take an oath to the Constitution and I do expect them all to have the most basic understanding of what constitutes a legal war versus an illegal one.
So, I now judge every member of our military that is participating in this war on Iran to be a criminal. They are knowingly following illegal orders. They are destroying our constitutional order in the process. Obviously I understand that Trump is ultimately the root of the problem, but that does not eliminate the military's responsibility to obey the law.
So, why should I "support our troops" now?(Z) answers: June 4, 1942. That date, now almost 84 years ago, is the last time the U.S. formally declared war against another nation (three of them, on that day—Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania).
Every armed conflict since then has been undertaken under some authority beyond the one specifically granted by the Constitution. Sometimes it's some sort of use of force authorization. Sometimes it's a president engaging in a very loose reading of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. And sometimes it's something else. For this reason, every military conflict the U.S. has become involved in since 1942 has been loudly denounced, at least by some people, as "illegal."
Per the answer above, it's just not reasonable to expect the rank and file to make decisions about which wars are actually illegal. If they lay down arms, they will not only face a court martial, they will likely end their careers, and they may well end up in prison. That's a lot to ask, especially when Republican members of Congress won't even stand up to Trump, despite the fact that it is literally the Republican members' job to do so, and the fact that they face far less severe consequences for standing up than the soldiers do.
We have made clear, numerous times, that the proposition that ONLY soldiers are worthy of admiration is too much, and that we view folks like teachers and nurses and social workers as equally worthy. However, soldiers DO deserve support, and that includes the folks putting their lives on the line in Iran.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, asks: Am I the only person who is nervous about Iran? Pete Hegseth's briefings are full of pride about the success of the American military forces, but neither he nor Donald Trump seem to have any idea that military superiority and success do not equal winning the war, or that winning the war is exactly how a forever war begins. The U.S. did not lose any major battle of the Vietnam War, not even the Tet Offensive, but we could not use military force to win the hearts and minds of the people. We could hit any target we wanted in Afghanistan, but there was no one there capable of ruling except the Taliban. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has built itself to be the only group capable of ruling Iran. Establishing air or naval superiority is nothing compared to establishing a post-war stable government, and a democratic government would be even harder. I haven't heard of anyone in the administration who gets this.
(Z) answers: The problem is that the Republican Party has developed an unhappy habit of electing buffoons as president. Buffoons who openly disdain education, and who certainly disdain the study of history. Donald Trump is a buffoon, and many/most of the people around him are buffoons. The same is true of George W. Bush and his team. W. was smarter than his reputation suggested, but he was no serious student of policy or history, and he also had a number of people advising him who were morons (e.g., John Ashcroft), or else were themselves very smart and well-informed, but who let their fanatical neocon politics blind them to reality (e.g., Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Dick Cheney, etc.). I have no confidence that the people running the Iran War have the faintest idea of what they are getting themselves into, or how the U.S. will get out of it without making things worse.
It wasn't always this way. George H.W. Bush actually was a policy wonk and a history wonk. He knew, going into Iraq the first time, that leaving Saddam Hussein in power was a bad option, but that the alternatives were far worse. So, he stopped short of regime change. He made the correct choice, even though he got some blowback. Richard Nixon was also a policy wonk and a history wonk, and he at least had a vision for post-American-involvement Vietnam. Nixon's vision didn't work out... or maybe it did, since South Vietnam was probably un-save-able, but no "dominos" fell beyond that.
In any event, the era of smart, well-informed Republican presidents is gone for now, and who knows when it will come back. Even if the GOP accidentally lucks into electing a smart, well-informed president, that person will probably act like a buffoon to keep MAGA happy. And given how many smart, well-informed Republican AND Democratic presidents have tried to "fix" other nations' governments and have failed, it's hard to have any hope at all when it comes to stupid, ignorant people like the ones running the show in Iran right now.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: This might have been covered before but when Secretary of Wh-aaaar Pete Kegseth goes on and on and on about the "Warrior Ethos," where did he lift that phrase from? There's no way Kegseth coined that on his own. I'm assuming it's from some ultra-right-wing book you can find at Costco, probably one involving "connect the dots."
(Z) answers: That phrase has been bandied about in military circles for at least 40 years. However, what likely put it into the heads of Hegseth and others is the 2011 book The Warrior Ethos, by Steven Pressfield. It's ostensibly meant to be a serious historical analysis arguing that "what it means to be a warrior" really hasn't changed much over the last several millennia. However, the book also works as fascist porn. It's just 112 pages, and it only reaches that length by using the same tricks that students use to turn a 3½-page essay into a 5-page essay. So, the book is within reach for folks whose previous biggest triumph as readers is finishing The Very Hungry Caterpillar.
C.R. in Belgrade, Serbia, asks: I'm interested in how large conflicts acquire their names over time. As most visitors to this site probably know, contemporaries typically referred to World War 1 as "the Great War," and the term "World War I" only became common once the second global conflict received its name. I poked around a bit but I wasn't able to find a solid answer as to when that shift actually happened and the conflict in Europe in the 1930s became World War II.
More broadly, I'm interested in the historical pattern by which wars receive stable names. The perpetrators of a given war often have a vested interest in softening the terminology they use in order to make it more politically popular, but history seems to have a preference for calling a spade a spade. For example, the Korean War was described as a "police action" at the time, the Vietnam War was referred to as the "Vietnam conflict," and the ongoing war in Ukraine is still described by Russia as a "special military operation."(Z) answers: At least 90% of the time, wars, alliances, battles, etc. acquire their enduring names from reporters, especially newspaper reporters. Reporters need to be able to communicate what's going on clearly, so they tend to settle pretty quickly on names that readers will absorb and remember. And since the news is the first draft of history, the journalists' names tend to stick.
Of the remainder, the government and/or military is responsible for the name maybe 5% of the time. For example, when the Truman administration announced that the new alliance of European states would be called NATO, the newspapers and other media went with it and did not substitute some other name.
And the final 5% comes from historians. Invariably, this is when historians are acting as "revisionists" (which is not a dirty word, at least not in this context). The obvious example here is the Civil War, which Southern Lost Cause writers managed, for many generations, to impose a more "gentle" name upon (most commonly "The War Between the States," though in the South it was often "The War of Northern Aggression"). In the mid-20th century, historians stepped in and made "The Civil War" the dominant name.
In view of all of this, there is an obvious research strategy for answering your question about "The Great War" becoming "World War I," namely to search the archives of a prominent newspaper that published throughout the 20th century. The New York Times' TimesMachine is perfect for this. And a search makes clear that in 1937, some folks started referring to "The Great War" as "The World War." One presumes this was because hostilities between China and Japan had just broken out, and some people saw where this was probably headed. Meanwhile, the use of "World War II" first happened, and also became common, in early 1940. Undoubtedly this reflects the Nazi invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, and the various European and Asian declarations of war that soon followed.
K.C. in West Islip, NY, asks: What would be the turning point in Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu's war against Iran where we could safely say we've formally entered World War III?
(Z) answers: I think that it would become World War III if the war in Iran and the one in Ukraine were formally connected, as opposed to Ukraine just being a proxy war. For example, if Russia and Iran formed a military alliance, that would probably do it.
G.S. in Columbus, OH, asks: Operation Epic Fury should be referenced as Operation Epstein Fury.
(Z) answers: You didn't phrase that as a question, but you did send it to the questions e-mail. So, we'll add the observation that there are a lot of joke-but-not-really jokes out there like this. We think the most on-point is "Operation Epstein Shield."
M.G. in Boulder, CO, asks: (V) wrote: "If the Democrats capture the House in November, there could well be an impeachathon, especially if they also control the Senate so they can hold actual trials of the impeachees. [Kristi] Noem is a bald-faced liar, a detestable and self-dealing person, and a show horse rather than a workhorse. She could well be the first person impeached next year."
"[A] bald-faced liar, a detestable and self-dealing person, and a show horse rather than a workhorse" seems to me to describe most members of this administration, though I'd throw in incompetence as well. Which five members would you predict will or should be the first to star in the impeachathon?(Z) answers: If the Democrats are going to impeach, they need to have a political rationale and a legal rationale, or they are going to do more harm to themselves, and to the country, than good.
First up would be AG Pam Bondi. She's as corrupt as it gets, and has brought shame to one of the most important parts of the executive branch and of the government as a whole.
Next up would be Pete Hegseth. He's crazy (probably enough to be diagnosed clinically) and that Signal chat alone is enough to remove him, much less all the other stuff.
Third would be Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He clearly lied during his confirmation hearings, which is perjury, and his actions are killing people.
In fourth place, we'd put Clarence Thomas. Technically, he's not a member of this administration. However, whatever point the Democrats might be trying to make, there are diminishing returns after the third, and fourth, and fifth Cabinet officer. Thomas is certainly in bed with Trump and MAGA, and his acceptance of all those gifts clearly crosses an ethical line.
Finally, Donald Trump. I think the Democrats are going to be reluctant to go after him, since the right-wing media will scream bloody murder, call it a political stunt and say "See, we told you so!" For these reasons, it is improbable he'll be first up, or even second. But once you start to run out of fingers to count on, the right-wing media is going to be screaming bloody murder anyhow. And the non-MAGA public, and the world, do need to see that there are at least some people in America trying to hold leaders who abuse their power accountable.
P.V. in Portland, OR, asks: Every day I think it can't get any worse, and then we sink a ship in international waters and leave all the sailors to drown... but that's not my question.
Now that Noem is Noem-more, how likely is it that we will have justice for the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti? It is unfathomable to me that they should both die so needlessly, while exercising their constitutionally protected right to protest, with no repercussions for their assailants. Are there good things happening that are being drowned out by all the war coverage? I desperately need some good news.(Z) answers: This is both a political/moral question and a legal question.
I think I am reasonably well qualified to address the political/moral dimension. The Trump administration has no interest in holding the shooters accountable, but local authorities in Minnesota do. Those authorities have a very great interest, indeed, whether it is because it is the right thing to do, or because it will help their political careers, or both. So, I would expect them to pursue this very zealously.
The legal question is much trickier, because of the interplay of federal and state law, and because of the legal protections afforded to federal employees while they are doing their jobs. I have read many legal assessments of this matter, and I have written one or two of them myself, and I am absolutely persuaded that it will be possible for prosecutors in Minnesota to get this before a judge and a grand jury, and to secure indictments. At that point, the law appears to on the Minnesotans' side. Perhaps more importantly, the video evidence is on the Minnesotans' side. And, as you may have heard, juries sometimes go with their hearts, regardless of what the law or the judge might say.
So, I think it is very likely that there will be justice for Good and Pretti. At very least, their cases will get their day in court, and the officers will be forced to try to account for their actions. But it will take time, and until there's a big development (like a grand jury indictment), you won't hear much, because prosecutors are not in the habit of sharing their thinking or their evidence until they absolutely have to.
G.R. in Carol Stream, IL, asks: Am I the only one to think that appointing Kristi Noem to interface with Latin American countries is either karma or an intentionally nasty gift? She is the face of U.S. government's hatred of and cruelty to Latin Americans.
(Z) answers: I think it is a nasty gift to both sides. Most nations of the Western Hemisphere hate the Trump administration and hate her. Do you really imagine that Canada, or Mexico, or Cuba are going to be eager to work on this "Shield of the Americas" project? Meanwhile, she hates people who are brown and people who are not Americans. And she really hates people who are brown AND who are not Americans. The only exceptions are those who happen to be among "the good ones," like Javier Milei of Argentina (who isn't very brown, anyhow). Maybe he and Kristi can have lunch, or take a plane trip together. They won't be able to use the $70 million DHS flying bedroom, but maybe Milei has a nice place, too.
In short, it looks like a double F.U., courtesy of someone (Susie Wiles?) in the White House.
F.R. in Berlin, Germany, asks: The situation that has emerged in the state of Montana due to Sen. Steve Daines' (R-MT) sudden and dishonest withdrawal highlights an implicit problem of the American party system's bottom-up-nature, namely, that, in so-called ruby-red or sapphire-blue states, the out-party is getting standard-bearers who in other states would hardly qualify as politicians, not to mention U.S. Senate material. Sometimes, this mechanism is distorting the serious thing that a Senate election is supposed to be.
I notice that in countries with more top-bottom party organizations, the parties take greater care to represent themselves in unfriendly territory with qualified individuals—loyal apparatchiks, who take one for the team, or aspiring politicians who want to prove their campaigning skills. Should the national committees, in your opinion, take greater care to recruit credible candidates, even in states where there is no plausible roadmap?(Z) answers: There are two problems here. The first is that some party organs sometimes get careless about these unwinnable states/political offices. The Democrats, to take the obvious example, were very sloppy in the first decade-plus of the 21st century, and are now paying the price for that, even though they've since woken up.
The second, if we may adapt a phrase we use a lot, is that you can't run someone without having someone to run. Consider a state like Montana. There are 60 Democrats in the state legislature. There are another four or five mayors who are officially "nonpartisan" but are clearly Democrats, and who lead cities of some meaningful size. If the Democrats can't get one of those 65 or so people, or one of the handful of prominent Democrats who have served in the past and are out of office now (e.g., former senator Jon Tester), then they are basically stuck with an unknown who has no political experience.
And it's often not easy to get such folks to be sacrificial lambs. They get to spend some meaningful amount of time and energy, and they almost certainly end up with an "L" on their record, and for what? If they have no chance of advancing beyond their current post anyhow, then it's just not a great investment for them. (Z) is colleagues with the son of a Republican who was one of the most prominent members of the House for many years, and rose to lead one of the two or three most important committees. The national party tried all the time to get that Republican to run for Senate or governor, and he refused every time, because it was high-risk in such a blue state, and since his best outcomes involved staying in his safe legislative job and working his way up that ladder.
R.V. in Pittsburgh, PA, asks: Can you see this scenario unfolding in the 2026 GOP Texas Senate runoff? Trump endorses Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and orders AG Ken Paxton (T-TX) to drop out. In return for his obedience, Elon Musk gives Paxton a parting gift of $2 million. Would this be legal?
(Z) answers: It is most certainly not legal. However, it is also entirely doable. If this is going to be the deal, Musk would hire Paxton to "consult" on regulatory issues in Texas at a salary of $500,000 per year for 4 years, or something like that. Since Tesla has an absolutely massive "Gigafactory" in Travis County outside Austin, there are no doubt many legitimate regulatory issues Musk needs to be concerned about. It would be a grift, but impossible to prosecute, especially if Paxton was clever enough to spend one day each year writing a report about regulatory issues that he could later present in court to show that he did actual work for Tesla and his pay was easily worth $500K to keep Tesla from being fined millions of dollars for violating some law.
I don't know if Paxton is buy-able like this, as it really is not clear to me what makes him tick. If he is buy-able, however, then it will probably take a fair bit more than $2 million.
J.M. in Portland, OR, asks: Do you think the Stephen Colbert interview made any difference in the Texas Democratic primary? How much?
(Z) answers: Not too much, since the number of Texans who watched it, and who had not already made up their minds, surely can't be more than the mid-five-figures, and Talarico won by about 150,000 votes. It's more likely to be relevant if Talarico somehow wins in the general, with what would likely be a very narrow margin.
C.F. in Waltham, MA, asks: I know you wrote several times that the inflammatory things Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) has said are going to "haunt" her in a general election. However, Donald Trump is way beyond her in saying inflammatory things and still won Texas by 14 points. Isn't it possible saying inflammatory things doesn't matter? Or do you think cognitive dissonance is so rampant, that only Trump (or a Republican) can do that and still get voted in?
(Z) answers: There is a political and a cultural answer here. The political answer is that Trump needs MAGA voters, many of whom are angry, and like inflammatory rhetoric. Crockett needed independents and center-left voters, who see inflammatory rhetoric as a bug, not a feature.
The cultural answer is that men can get away with more than women, and white people can get away with more than Black people, when it comes to running your mouth in the United States.
J.B. in Hutto, TX, asks: Kamala Harris endorsed Jasmine Crockett in the Texas primary. To me, this suggests that she doesn't really have much clout with the Democratic electorate. Does the fact that state Rep. James Talarico (D) won the Texas primary quite convincingly despite Harris's support from Crockett damage Harris's 2028 prospects at all?
(Z) answers: Kamala Harris had no choice but to endorse Crockett. If Harris had not done so, her base (Black women) would have been furious.
This does not make the Top 10 for "signs of trouble for Harris' 2028 prospects." Maybe not even the Top 50.
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: I couldn't believe that, at the State of the Union, Connor Hellebuyck, goaltender for the Winnipeg Jets, was nominated for the Presidential Medal of Freedom. This is an award that I presumed was given to the likes of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks. Of course, this president gave it to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Charlie Kirk.
So how does someone get the Presidential Medal of Freedom? What are the qualifications or requirements? Is it whatever the sitting president decides?
Finally, does Trump realize he'd be giving this award to someone who plays on a Canadian team? Oh, the irony!(Z) answers: The award is given entirely at the discretion of the sitting president. There are no other qualifications, nor any other people or entities who need to bestow approval.
Trump gave the award to Hellebuyck because giving out medals was a big part of the theater that night, and Trump needed one of the hockey players who was at the SOTU, and who could be treated as a de facto MVP. Among offensive players, Quinn Hughes, Jack Hughes, Auston Matthews, Jack Eichel and Zachary Werenski all performed about the same (each tallied between 6 and 8 points during the tournament), and it would have been weird to give it to one of them but not the rest. So, they went with the goalie.
It is not uncommon to recognize athletes in this way. Joe Biden, for example, gave the Medal to Simone Biles and Megan Rapinoe, both of them for their Olympic feats.
S.B. in Granby, MA, asks: In your item "The Media Landscape on the Left Is Fragmenting," where would you put Electoral-Vote.com? Also, is Aaron Parnas on your radar, and if so, where would you put him?
(Z) answers: Axios' categories are interesting, but imperfect. That said, if we must categorize ourselves, it would be "The Resistance: These are stridently anti-Trump rather than being pro-Democrat. If an interviewee seems squishy about his or her hatred and opposition to Trump, the interview will get some negative feedback from the host. Interviews aren't always friendly to all Democrats."
We are not interviewers, or journalists. Nor are we advocates for the Democratic Party or any other political movement. However, we are advocates for democracy, and particularly for voting rights. So, we are generally critical of the anti-democratic Trump administration, often very critical. At the same time, we are more than happy to call out Democrats, when they deserve it.
Parnas is on our radar, a little bit. His conversion to liberal politics appears to be genuine, and is not just anti-Trumpism. He's not militantly pro-Palestine, but he does take their side of the dispute. So, he would seem to fit best in "The Left Wing: This has changed since 2020, when voices friendly to Bernie Sanders were here. Now it is dominated by pro-Palestine, anti-Israel names, like Medhi Hasan, Ryan Grim and Hasan Piker."
J.O. in Portsmouth, NH, asks: Can you explain why Stanley Kubrick does not even get a mention in your list of most influential American directors?
This was a master craftsman of a director, subjecting his actors to hundreds of takes just to get exactly the right vibe, framing, and mood. His storytelling was impeccable. And yes, he gave us some signature techniques like: (1) backtracking camera, (2) the depraved face, (3) eerie ballrooms, (4) the extra long take, (5) panoramic vistas, and (6) time, circular and unresolved endings, among others. What gives?(Z) answers: First, that was not an exhaustive list of all influential directors. It was a top five. If Kubrick or any other director is added, then someone on the list has to go. And I do not see Kubrick as being more important than Orson Welles (much less the four filmmakers above Welles on the "artistic impact" list).
Second, like Quentin Tarantino being the only filmmaker who makes Quentin Tarantino films, only Stanley Kubrick made Stanley Kubrick films. What film that was released in the last 10 years was really similar to A Clockwork Orange or 2001: A Space Odyssey or Barry Lyndon? Kubrick often gets credit for pioneering moviemaking techniques, perhaps more so than any other major director, but that doesn't make it so. For example, extra long takes and panoramic vistas? John Ford would be very surprised indeed to learn that Kubrick invented those.
Third, we could certainly put a list of "runners-up" or "also considered" or something like that. But we find that adds very little, while "scooping" readers' ability to weigh in on the question.
S.S.L. in Battle Creek, MI, asks: Will you compare and contrast Alexander Hamilton the historical figure with Alexander Hamilton the musical character?
(Z) answers: I assume you want me to focus on broad strokes, rather than on small details. So, I will say that there are two basic differences between the real story of the man, and the story told by the play, and they both reflect the needs of the artist (to wit, playwright, lyricist and originator of the role Lin-Manuel Miranda).
First, Miranda not only wanted to make Alexander Hamilton heroic, he basically wanted to make Hamilton 21st-century-liberal heroic. So, he had the character Hamilton be much more pro-immigrant, and much more anti-slavery/anti-racism than the real Hamilton actually was. The historical figure was himself an immigrant, and was sometimes pro-immigrant, but not always, and not often in an outspoken way. Similarly, Hamilton was more liberal on race than nearly anyone of his generation (see also Franklin, Ben), but the play makes him sound like Frederick Douglass, which is not correct.
Second, the dramatic purposes of the play mean that there have to be antagonists, and they probably have to be the same people throughout the narrative. So, Miranda made Aaron Burr much more of an antagonist than he actually was. Hamilton and Burr did not like each other, there is no question of that, but they only butted heads for a few years. This was not an Amadeus and Salieri situation (and, indeed, the real Amadeus and Salieri situation wasn't actually an Amadeus and Salieri situation, either). Similarly, Miranda made John Adams much more of a deuteragonist than he actually was, suggesting Adams fired Hamilton from the government, when this was not so.
F.S. in Cologne Germany, asks: Who are the 10 best players in NBA history?
(Z) answers: Well, the first four are easy. Nobody can seriously dispute that LeBron James, Michael Jordan, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Wilt Chamberlain are among the top 10 players in NBA history. Long careers, big-time stats, championships, impact on the game, MVP awards, they have it all. All four are in the discussion for greatest NBA player of all time.
After those four, there is a group of maybe 10-15 players who could fill the remaining six slots, depending on what a person prioritizes. The criteria that are normally used to make such assessments:
- MVP Awards: Did the player win an MVP award? Did he win more than one?
- Championships: Did the player win a title? Did he win more than one?
- Longevity: Did the player have a long career?
- Stats: Did the player dominate one or more key statistical categories?
- Athleticism: Was the player a physical specimen? Could he still play today?
- Impact: Did the player transform the game or the league in some key way?
Probably the quickest way to do this is to put together a table. So:
Player MVPs Titles Years Stats Athletic Impact Charles Barkley 1 0 16 No No No Larry Bird 3 3 13 No Yes Yes Kobe Bryant 1 5 20 Yes (Points) Yes Yes Stephen Curry* 2 4 16 Yes (3-pointers) Yes Yes Tim Duncan 2 5 19 No Yes No Kevin Durant* 1 2 18 No Yes No Julius Erving 4 1 (+2 ABA) 11 (+5 ABA) No Yes Yes Magic Johnson 3 5 13 Yes (Assists) Yes Yes Karl Malone 2 0 19 Yes (Points) Yes No George Mikan 2 5 7 No No Yes Dirk Nowitzki 1 1 21 No Yes Yes Shaquille O'Neal 1 4 19 No Yes No Chris Paul 0 0 21 Yes (Assists) Yes No Oscar Robertson 1 1 14 Yes (Triple-Doubles) Yes Yes John Stockton 0 0 19 Yes (Assists) No No Jerry West 0 1 14 Yes (Points) Yes Yes
Players marked with an asterisk are still active.
If I was picking six off this list, I would pick Bird, Curry, Erving, Johnson, Malone and Robertson. But you can make a case for any of them.