Dem
47
GOP
53
Today's posting is slightly unusual. There were three different subjects on which we got more good letters than we can plausibly run on a Sunday. So, we're going to work those into items we're working on for this week. Meanwhile, we have some letters left over from last week, because we ended up making last Sunday's post all about Iran.
R.D. in Austin, TX, writes: We go through this same discussion twice a year about changing the clock. Study after study clearly shows that there is no benefit and lots of down side to this experiment. Some want to stay on Standard Time year-round, Arizona and Hawaii style, others want year-round DST, I'd prefer the former over the latter. If it's good enough for Arizona and Hawaii, why not the rest of us?
It also made me wonder, though, how much harm would be done taking the middle ground, and always staying at a standard time that was exactly 30 minutes between the two systems currently used. For those who don't know, when we are at the top of the hour in the mainland of North America, it is the bottom of the hour in Newfoundland. Here in Austin, which has longer days in winter than northern cities like Seattle and New York, but shorter days in the peak of summer, our average day on June 21 in this new approach would be a sunrise around 6:00 a.m. and sunset around 8:00 p.m. Being in a hot southern climate, I actually would prefer earlier sunset in the summertime. On the flip side, sunrise would be just before 8:00 a.m. December 21 down here, with a sunset around 6:10 in the evening, and I think that creates more of a problem in the morning. So let's just go back to good ole Standard Time and leave the clocks alone.
R.S. in Warner, NH, writes: Am I the only one who thinks that behind the podium, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is sporting a boner every time he delivers one of his bloodlust briefings to the press?
(V) & (Z) respond: This is the basic notion that underlies Colin Jost's multiple performances as Hegseth on Saturday Night Live.
R.B. in Cleveland, OH, writes: I'm surprised I haven't seen many connecting the story of Kansas invalidating the IDs of transgender people and the SAVE Act. I feel like that exposes the real threat of needing government-issued ID to vote. Instead of arguing that it's difficult to obtain ID, the Democrats should be emphasizing that the SAVE Act requires a specific form of ID issued by the federal government to vote, ID that the federal government then controls and can invalidate on a whim.
The only person I see connecting these two stories, ironically, is Donald Trump when he's recently added anti-transgender policies as a reason for passing the SAVE Act. It's clear to me that his policy advisors have already tied these two together and he's broadcasting that.
D.C. in Carbondale, IL, writes: You wrote about how "Thousands of Companies have Sued for Tariff Refunds," and that it's probably not a winning pursuit for small companies. Add in the corruption evidenced when "Hedge funds and specialist firms began buying importers' potential refund rights at deep discounts, effectively wagering that the courts might eventually strike the tariffs down," per Marlon Weems, who connected the dots on his Substack blog. More stench from the Trumpstein Class.
C.R. in St. Louis, MO, writes: The recent USPS policy allowing postmarks to reflect processing dates rather than the day mail is received may have (unintended?) equity consequences for lower-income households. Many Americans with limited financial resources and many seniors still rely on mailed payments because they lack consistent banking access, cannot risk overdraft fees, or face online payment surcharges. Under the new policy, a payment mailed on time may receive a later postmark if processing is delayed, potentially triggering late fees or penalties despite timely action by the sender. The "mailbox rule" generally applies to tax payments, property taxes, utility bills, and government filings. Can you imagine the penalty impact for a late tax filing on someone in the lower half of the income brackets?
Higher-income consumers can reduce this risk through electronic payments, early payment timing, or paid mailing services such as Certified Mail. Lower-income individuals, however, are more likely to pay bills when funds become available and may not have the flexibility, transportation, or extra funds required to use these safeguards. This is more than perhaps a political ploy against mail-in ballots, it is cruel.
R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: Further to your speculation as to how long a ballot mailed from Florida to Oregon might take to arrive, I very recently had the reverse situation—someone in Portland sent me a letter here in NYC. The letter was postmarked February 5th and arrived on the 17th. Yes, there was a holiday and some bad weather in between, but... still (and that was from one major city to another).
People are (rightfully) focusing on the effect of the new postmark rule on elections, but it's important to recognize other impacts. What leaps to mind first is tax returns and other tax filings, both annual and quarterly. I have no idea whether the IRS and state authorities rigidly enforce the "postmarked by" rule, but this certainly seems like a trap for the unwary, who may end up getting hit with penalties for late filing.
R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: Two comments from a hockey fan about Conner Hellebuyck being the one to get the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
First, R.H.D. in Webster notes that Hellebuyck plays for the Winnipeg Jets. This is irrelevant. Players don't choose who they play for when they enter the league and have little choice beyond that until they are older players and can become free agents. Canada's goalie, Jordan Binnington, plays for the St Louis Blues. This makes him no less Canadian.
Second, without Hellebucyk standing on his head throughout the tournament, but particularly in the Gold Medal game ("standing on his head" is hockey parlance for a goaltender who plays incredibly well), the U.S. doesn't win that game. His stick save of Macklin Celebrini's point blank shot stands out amongst many incredible saves. Immediately after the game, I texted this to my son. "Hellebuyck should be awarded all 25 gold medals."
I think the notion of giving any athlete the Presidential Medal of Freedom is ridiculous, but if it is to be anyone from that team, Hellebuyck deserves the honor.
G.W. in Oxnard, CA, writes: The Cabinet and high-level officials in the administration will learn the lesson of Kristi Noem: When you grift, embezzle, use government resources for personal gain, reward friends using government resources, etc., ALWAYS cut the boss in on the deal!
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, writes: The Trump presidency is an entertainment production, and there is only one star. The rest are the supporting cast.
As such, there are two rules: (1) Never outshine the star and (2) Never embarrass the star.
Kristi Noem broke those rules and she paid the price. This should be a warning to the other supporting cast members as the star always gets what he wants. Always.
C.Z. in Sacramento, CA, writes: So, Barbie is being replaced by Boobie at DHS. That's just rearranging the deckchairs on the DHS Titanic as it sinks. Who's going to pay the millions it cost us taxpayers for Barbie's flying bedroom before it sinks too, or is discovered to be unsafe to fly?
J.P. in Glenside, PA, writes: I would like to see Kristi Noem charged for lying to congress under oath repeatedly. Lying to Congress under oath can result in felony charges for perjury (18 U.S.C. 1621) or making false statements (18 U.S.C. 1001), both punishable by up to 5 years in prison and significant fines. These charges apply to knowing and willful falsehoods regarding material matters.
Won't happen until the Department of Justice changes hands, I guess.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: In October of 1986, I signed on the dotted line and held up my right hand to swear the oath of enlistment into the U.S. Army (as part of the South Dakota National Guard). The following summer, I attended Basic Training, during which I received instruction on The Law of War and learned about war crimes and following illegal orders. We were all privates. Everybody had seniority and authority over us. So, the first thing we learned was that if we ever thought we had received an illegal order was to ask a clarifying question. The example in the accompanying video we were shown was an officer briefing his NCOs on an upcoming operation in which he says "Take no prisoners!" The NCOs then asked if he really meant for the men to violate the Geneva Conventions and kill people who were surrendering.
The other admonition that has stuck with me all these years (almost 40) is this bit of wisdom: "The lower your rank, the more legal the order is." At that level, the instructor's advice was to ask the clarifying question, and if the person in charge confirmed that they did, in fact, want us to violate the law of war, not to argue with them. This is the conundrum of the enlisted grunts who have to do all the heavy lifting. But even when you don't argue with your superior officer, you still are going to face much smaller consequences from actually taking prisoners contrary to that order than if you actually followed it. It's a lot easier to "get away" with failing to follow an illegal order than it is to avoid punishment for actually following an illegal order.
Of the uniformed folks, the responsibility to stand up to Trump's illegal orders lies primarily with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On the other hand, I also agree with (Z)'s assertion that there is a BIG difference between refusing to go overseas and shoot at foreigners and refusing to patrol polling places and/or shoot any brown people standing in line there. The other example I use in discussions like this is Abu Ghraib. I firmly believe that the enlisted folks in that situation, even the E-4s and below, were properly prosecuted. They should have known better. I don't believe that the enlisted folks who bore the brunt of the punishments in that case were the real root cause. In my humble opinion, COL Pappas and LTC Jordan got off easy and there probably should have been quite a few more officers and civilians held responsible and accountable.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: With the caveat that one platoon whose leader had some character and who trained his men better didn't fire a single shot that day, Kent State proved beyond a reasonable doubt (to me) that if the tamely partisan times of 1970 were cause enough for young men with guns to kill Americans, what exists after 40 years of young people being subjected to AM radio, 24/7 news cycles telling them 365 we hate America, angry rants from the pulpit, and 3/4 of an Internet filled with hate for us means that most (of the white enlisted males) would fire onto a crowd... especially if "someone in the crowd" shot one of them in the head and fear, high passions, and anger combined with that blind hate to create the deadly alloy of squeezed trigger fingers, expanding cordite, and hot lead heading downrange towards those who killed "Johnny."
There's always a "Johnny". He was gonna marry Mary Jane one day. She's a swell gal, and true. White picket fences. Three kids. A dog. A kiss and off to work in the morning. A few American flags and a station wagon, too.
Gosh, Sarge, "Johnny" sure was a good guy.
Then we should go get those damned liberals for him while I chomp this cigar. Remember Pearl Necklace, boys.
J.C. in Fez, Morocco, writes: Soldiers do not deserve support, nor anyone in the military. They are actively supporting a construct whose entire purpose is the killing of other humans, those of whom There is That of God. There is That of God in the soldiers too—and thus they deserve support, as fellow human beings. But not because they are soldiers. I did not ask them to defend me with violence, nor do I want them to. Ever.
O.E. in Greenville, SC, writes: I never got to meet Jesse Jackson, but I wish I had. He regularly came back to my hometown over the years, not just for speeches, but to see people. (A friend even saw him in a local ER.)
I was impressed with how he was able to get a disparate group of supporters from a variety of backgrounds, and wind up nearly winning the Democratic presidential nomination. In the years to come, the party would try to marginalize him, but he kept on fighting.
One thing that coverage of him misses is how he helped get other people out of trouble spots. His diplomatic work often put him at odds with the government, but it yielded positive results.
Here in Greenville, there isn't that much about him. They renamed part of a street near where he once lived for him after he died. Before that, they named a public housing development after him. The Michelin guide to the region does point out his house as a tourist attraction, and France gave him the Legion of Honor a few years back. Oftentimes, prophets aren't honored in their own country.
P.S.: Trivia note! To the best of my knowledge, Jackson was the first politician that had a rap written about him (Grandmaster Melle Mel's "Jesse," from 1984).
E.D. in Saddle Brook, NJ, writes: I certainly agree that Pam Bondi and Pete Hegseth should be impeached, but doing so seems like a horrible waste of political capital. Their actions are terrible, but they are simply doing the bidding of Donald Trump. Whoever replaces them will be just as bad, only with a different-scented stink to them. Everyone will high-five each other, feeling like they accomplished something, but nothing will change. Save the effort for when it can make a difference.
I think Robert Kennedy Jr. is the obvious first choice. RFK is doing what he wants to do and Trump just doesn't care. There just aren't many people out there that would do the type of harm RFK is doing, so a replacement is almost guaranteed to be an improvement. Impeaching RFK would save a lot of lives.
I'd agree with you putting Clarence Thomas as next in line after RFK. Setting a precedent that the Supreme Court cannot just abuse the office and disregard the law without consequences would be huge.
After the court, I'd have to go with J.D. Vance or Trump. I'm not sure anyone else is worth the effort.
S.J.V. in New York City, NY, writes: You wrote that the Democratic Party's 2024 election autopsy "said that the Gaza issue dealt a fatal blow to the Kamala Harris campaign."
Then, in your "take," you double down on that language, writing "It is hardly a revelation that Gaza split the Democratic coalition in a way that was ultimately fatal to Harris' presidential hopes."
Nowhere in the Axios reporting that you linked to, and apparently relied on, is there reference to anything as decisive as your "fatal" diagnosis. Axios themselves went with the headline "Scoop: Dems working on secret report found Gaza cost Harris votes." (emphasis mine).
Further, the piece described sources ranging from activists to Democratic Party officials being of the opinion that due to the Biden Administration's Gaza policy Harris "lost significant support," and that the issue "was a factor in the party's losses" and "a 'net-negative' in the 2024 election."
So, bad but not fatal.
(V) & (Z) respond: When we write an item, we usually base it on multiple sources. If those sources are similar in nature, we generally only link to one of them, and we usually pick the one that is least paywalled. The overall tenor of the coverage was that Gaza was damaging to the point of being unrecoverable for Harris.
R.C.S. in Eastchester, NY, writes: I don't disagree with any of your comments in "Nate Silver Is Losing It," but I'm not sure you read Silver's article completely/correctly.
This is a "meta" game they play with who they "think the Democrats will nominate" as opposed to who they think the Democrats should nominate.
So, while I agree with you about the fact that most Democrats will go for a straight/white male, if you read more of their commentary in other articles, I think that they think the Democratic nominating process won't ensure that.
Indeed, if you look at the prediction markets (Polymarket, for example), they are even further off, I think, not only with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) number 2, but with Kamala Harris #3!!!
(V) & (Z) respond: Any "analysis" that has Jon Stewart among the 15 most likely Democratic presidential candidates, AND that has him ahead of Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY), is going on gut feel, or social media buzz, or something else, but not on hard evidence. That was the point of that piece.
B.W. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: In my view, (V) has drastically overstated the case in the item "Nate Silver is Losing It."
The premise that class may mean as much as (or more than) race in 2028 is entirely reasonable at this stage. Consider the following:
- The other major party has made great electoral hay out of populism, and the Democrats might finally conclude that it's time to get on board with their own brand. Wealthy technocrats are hardly en vogue at the moment.
- The recipe for success in extraordinary, precarious times is rarely "milquetoast and down the middle." The candidate needs to match the moment.
- Wealth inequality and the shrinking middle class is becoming ever-more-salient as an issue. Wasn't Franklin D. Roosevelt strengthened after being pushed by "the Thunder on the Left?"
- The original Rainbow Coalition demonstrated a mechanism by which class unity can—with the right leadership and focus—be as (or more) powerful as racial disunity.
- The socialist/populist movement within the Democratic Party has recent proof of concept with mayor Zohran Mamdani (D-New York City).
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was ahead of the curve here, and has grown into her national profile nicely. While her résumé is too thin on foreign policy, I don't think it's unreasonable to put her in the top three at this stage (as you so often say, a week in politics is a lifetime).
I'm a "coastal liberal" these days, but I have also lived in Tennessee, Texas and Mississippi. I say this with a straight face: AOC would play a lot better with working folks in those areas than Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA).
M.C. in Glasgow, Scotland, writes: In "Dutch Minority Cabinet Formed after Only 4 Months," you wrote: "the October election results were very fragmented, with 15 parties represented...
Are you still sure you want more parties?"
You seem to suggest a false dichotomy; there are extant systems that manage to choose representatives from more than two and fewer than fifteen parties, mostly because one can run variants of PR that eliminate candidates that receive too small a fraction of the votes. The Netherlands is an outlier in terms of how few votes can secure a seat; even just within Europe, quite a few countries require a party to get 5% of the vote to win any seats. We'll probably be having elections for the Scottish Parliament this May where the top three parties have around five-sixths of the seats at the moment.
T.M. in Aldergrove, BC. Canada, writes: The problem in the Netherlands is not the number of political parties, it is the absurdly low cut-off level required to win a seat in the national government.
In order to win a seat in the national government, a political party has to accumulate a grand total of 0.66666% (100% of the vote divided by 150 seats) of the total vote.
If they used a more rational (well, to me at any rate) cut off of 5%—the "statistically significant" level%—then the six major parties would have won all of the seats and the coalition of the first, third, and fifth, would have won 54.82% of the 150 seats, giving the coalition a 14 seat majority.
By the way, the U.S. does have a "multi-party" system (not counting the two wings of "The American Capitalist Oligarchic Party"), since there are 17 American political parties with ballot access in more than one state and another 17 with ballot access in a single state only. It's just that the American electoral system is designed and operated so as to ensure that only the candidates from "The American Capitalist Oligarchic Party (MORE Reactionary Wing)" or from "The American Capitalist Oligarchic Party (LESS Reactionary Wing)" can actually get elected.
W.H.v.D. in The Hague, Netherlands, writes: You realize, I hope, that the reason this Cabinet took such a long time to be created is because the last time we tried a minority government (1939), it was roundly rejected on Day 1?
This minority government can only function for as long as the opposition to its right (43 seats) and the opposition to its left (26 seats) and the one-issue parties in the center (15 seats) don't join forces, and for as long as there are at least 10 opposition MPs willing to vote for any government proposal. That is a lot of ifs.
The fact that no majority government could be formed bodes ill for how much goodwill this government will get from the opposition. The drastic measures it proposes bode even iller for its chances of finding those 10 opposition MPs.
According to former minister (and almost prime minister) Ronald Plasterk, we may expect the Cabinet to fall by the end of summer, and new elections by late autumn. Basically, this government may turn out a waste of time. Or even the end of centrism.
M.N. in Madison, WI, writes: It sure seems like the solution to the problem of the Dutch forming a government would be to use instantaneous runoff voting, both for electing parliament members and forming a government. One vote on a fixed start date and you have a government. Combined with fixed terms and it's even better. Vote out the current government? One IRV vote that afternoon (which the current government is allowed to stand in) and back to work.
Heck, maybe we can get it in the U.S. for House Speaker elections. Just need to convince a few Republicans that it's the way to avoid looking like a clown parade anytime they win the majority.
S.C. in Mountain View, CA, writes: In "Steve Daines will Retire," (V) writes that the only solution he can think of to the problem of an incumbent withdrawing at the last minute so that their anointed successor can then file is "to make the deadline for filing to run a week after the deadline to get off the ballot."
There is a simpler solution that California already uses. If an incumbent eligible for re-election fails to file (or withdraws their filing) by the filing deadline, the deadline is extended by 5 days for anyone else, and the incumbent is not allowed to file during the extended period.
Since filing deadlines are typically 5:00 pm on a Friday, this means that other candidates can line up their nomination signers over the weekend (never more than 65 needed), come in the following Monday morning to pick up their nomination papers, have three days to collect the signatures they need, and file by 5:00 pm that Wednesday.
An anointed successor will, of course, have been given advance notice, but the door is still open for others to jump in.
A.R. in Cary, NC, writes: Thanks for highlighting the North Carolina primaries! You mentioned that we don't have any competitive statewide primaries on the Democratic side driving increased turnout, and I wanted to chime in that we did actually have one competitive statewide race. We had an open seat on the NC Court of Appeals that featured the Raleigh-based District Court Judge Christine Walczyk facing off against Attorney James Whalen.
Walczyk is a well-respected, experienced District Court judge, and has the demeanor/campaign style one would expect of an experienced jurist. Competent, measured, thoughtful, and overall it's clear that she would make a great candidate in the general election as well as a Judge on the Court of Appeals. On the other hand, Whalen is younger and lacks experience as a judge, but was a member of the legal team that successfully protected NC Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs' election win in the 2024 election. Readers may recall that Justice Riggs had to fight in court for 6 months after the election as the RNC and NC GOP attempted to throw out votes in order to overturn her victory.
Is this race the cause of the increased Democratic primary early vote turnout versus general enthusiasm among Democrats? Hard to say.
With most of the ballots in, it looks like Judge Walczyk won it with breathing room to spare! That does seem to track that Democrats historically are very willing to vote for a competent, experienced, female candidate. Her moderate style is often what it takes for Democrats to win statewide, as evidenced by recent races for Governor, Attorney General, etc. Whalen ran a good campaign and hopefully highlighted the importance of the NC Court of Appeals races—if the GOP wins the 3 seats that are up for reelection, they would control that level of the NC court system 15-0.
W.T., D-Walmart, writes: While I don't want your assessment of Arkansas as a one-party state to be true, I must admit it is accurate.
That being said, I don't think you should discount AR-02. Chris Jones (D) is a rockstar within the state and Rep. French Hill (R-AR) is just a warm body. If there is a blue wave nationally, I think Jones has a shot.
R.R. in Pasadena, CA, writes: (Z) wrote that there was nothing exciting about the Arkansas election, but it turns out that Alex Holladay flipped the HD-70 seat to the Democrats. He got about 26% more votes than in the previous election, which extends the streak of Democrats over-performing in special elections by double digits. The lesson is that Democrats should have people in every election race across the country, because elections like this signify that it's going to be a bad year for Republicans.
Yes, things might change, but with how Donald Trump and Republicans are acting, it sure seems like they are intent on losing any fairly held election. It does appear that they are planning to corrupt the election in every way they can, but with elections like this flipping by 20+% points their efforts are likely to be in vain.
R.P. in Alexandria, NY, writes: It seems you overlooked the career of Bill Russell when you were naming the 10 greatest NBA players. He won five MVP awards and 11 championships out of the 13 years in which he played, two of which as a player-coach, making him the first Black NBA coach. He averaged over 22 rebounds per game throughout his career, second only to Wilt Chamberlain's total. Also, because the NBA did not keep records for blocked shots until the 1973-74 season, Hakeem Olajuwon is credited with the most career blocked shots at 3,830. Basketball stats researchers have gone through available tapes of Bill Russell's games and found that he averaged a little over 8 blocks per game, which would give him a career total of 9,024.
There were other things besides his playing career which I believe add to his stature in terms of his influence and impact. According to his Wikipedia page, Russell organized the first boycott to protest segregated hotels in 1961, marched with Martin Luther King Jr. in Washington in 1963, and supported Muhammad Ali's protest against the draft for Vietnam in 1967.
In response to Medgar Evers's assassination, Russell organized integrated basketball camps in the South and engaged in a great deal of community work toward integration in Boston throughout his career.
Barack Obama awarded him with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2011 for his championing of civil rights, and he took a knee in support of the NFL protests in 2017.
S.M. in Milford, MA, writes: As a life-long basketball fan, I heartily agree with most of your choices and assessments regarding the ten best NBA players in history, with one exception. One can't omit Bill Russell. In his youth, he was a physical freak. He could have made the Olympic team as a high jumper but chose to skip the Olympic track and field trials to concentrate on basketball and he ran like a gazelle. He made shot blocking an art form where he didn't just swat the ball away but guided it to teammates, making it a de facto outlet pass. He was a 5-time league MVP and the greatest winner in professional sports, winning 11 championships in 13 seasons. He also paved the way for athletic big men who could dunk and run the court. Other teams had to bench their earthbound lumbering centers when they played his early Celtics teams. So in my top ten, Russell would replace Karl Malone, who never won a single championship and had no lasting impact on the game.
By the way, this is not the opinion of a Celtics homer. I grew up in North Dakota and went to Michigan State for my BA. My favorite players in my youth were Julius Erving, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson, and Michael Jordan, and I detested the Bird-era Celtics.
(V) & (Z) respond: That was the last answer of the night, and we missed two players who should clearly have been included. One of those is Russell, whose exclusion generated at least 50 messages, some of them rather less than civil. The other generated only a handful of messages, including the two that follow.
A.F. in Boston, MA, writes: I'm not a huge basketball fan anymore, but the fact that Hakeem Olajuwon didn't get a mention is Houston erasure and I won't stand for it. He earned one MVP, two titles, and regularly made fools of some in your list with blocks and the "Dream Shake." He may not eventually have made the cut for the Top 10, but he definitely should have been in the conversation.
I.G in New York, NY, writes: Long time reader, first time letter-writer. I always enjoy when (Z) talks sports, especially with baseball and football where he clearly has a great deal of knowledge. That said, I feel obligated to correct the record on a few of his NBA takes and offer my own list that I think is more in line with most hoops fans.
First, it's easy to forget after years of fat jokes, but Charles Barkley in the NBA was incredibly athletic—seriously, just watch his explosiveness and ability to drive. How else could a 6'4 power forward have been able to keep up with big men in the post? John Stockton was also an ironman, playing 16 82-game seasons, including his final year in the league. If that durability isn't athleticism, I don't know what is. He could also run a heckuva fast break. I did question the logic of having that category entirely, given that to be an all-time great you need to stand out physically.
Second, I Love Dr. J, but you shouldn't count his 3 ABA MVPs the same as NBA MVPs, when the league was basically defense-free and as such catered to his strengths. The NBA clearly was not as kind to his abilities. I could also quibble with some of the MVP choices (I don't think Charles Barkley and Karl Malone should have beaten Michael Jordan; Chris Paul should have Kobe Bryant's trophy from 08, that Jerry West never won is insane.)
Third, some INCREDIBLE players were left off your shortlist. To name a few: Bill Russell (I can only chalk it up to Laker-fan anti-Boston bias), Elgin Baylor, Moses Malone, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kevin Garnett, Giannis Antetokumnpo, and Nikola Jokić.
Finally, my own top 10.
- Michael Jordan
- LeBron James
- Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
- Bill Russell
- Magic Johnson
- Larry Bird
- Tim Duncan
- Wilt Chamberlain
- Shaquille O'Neal
- Hakeem Olajuwon
D.M. in Medical Lake, WA, writes: You wrote that "Brutus Buckeye" of Ohio State, circa 1960s, was the first costumed mascot in college football. Actually, Pistol Pete, the Oklahoma State University Cowboy, debuted in 1923.
The original Pistol Pete was a man named Eaton who was a U.S. Marshal and who traditionally led an Old West parade in Stillwater, OK. He played Pistol Pete for OSU for 35 years before the part was taken over by an OSU student, chosen each year through a competition.
B.W. in Easton, PA, writes: I have a bit of a correction about mascots. The Penn State Nittany Lion mascot dates back to 1924, when Richard Hoffman was chosen for the role. The original lion costume was based on Hoffman's role in the on campus play Androcles and the Lion. In its original form, the costume resembled an African lion with a mane and tufted tail.
The word "Nittany" refers to the Nittany Mountain that overshadows the campus and Centre County was home for one of the last remaining mountain lions (cougar, puma, panther, catamount, and other names) in the Eastern U.S. Hence the name "Nittany Lion." The present iteration of the lion costume was created in 1939 and was designed to more closely resemble an actual mountain lion.
As a proud Penn State grad (1980) and father of another (2020), it rankles me to think that somehow your readers would be misinformed to think that our arch-rival, Ohio (cough, cough) State, would be noted as having the first mascot. Clearly, 1924 or 1939 predates the 1960's—unless, of course you consult Ohio State's Math Department.
As a side note, UCLA's "Joe Bruin" was also created around 1963. Welcome to the BIG10!
G.R. in Tarzana, CA, writes: As a proud Penn Stater, let me point out that the first Nittany Lion mascot was Richard Hoffman, Class of 1923, who appeared in a costumed version of the mascot during a football game in the fall of 1921. We Are...
L.S. in Greensboro, NC, writes: I'm sure you'll get a lot of these, but my beloved Bucky Badger first appeared in costume at a Wisconsin football game in 1949, long before that "nut" Brutus Buckeye!
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: On the topic of animal performers and costumed mascots, I thought of the University of Texas at Austin's Bevo, a live bovine of the longhorn variety. My understanding is that before bringing him into the stadium full of spectators, players, officials, and other on-field personnel, they drug him up pretty good. And the reason I didn't specify a gender above is that I presume he's a steer (neutered) and not a bull, but I don't actually know. I can't imagine the UT legal team signing off on a fully hormonal, one-ton creature armed with 6 feet of lances being in close quarters with that many people, drugged up or not.
J.M. in Arvada, CO, writes: You had questions about filmmaking and the advent of team 'big-head' mascots. Coincidentally these two topics overlap at the University of Washington. Disney picked Washington to be the school in their movie The 6th Man. It's a typical "bad team becomes good" sports movie, in this case due to the angel of a player on the basketball team. They came to campus to shoot during my senior year and one of the things they wanted to use was a "big head" mascot. The only problem is that the Huskies have always had a live dog as their mascot, not a "big head" human walking around. So Disney created Harry the Husky for the film, then gave the rights to him to Washington. It's now 30 years later and Harry the Husky still patrols the sidelines and everyone likes him, but the true mascot is still the dog, currently Dubs II, shown here for all the dog lovers:
Fun trivia: Disney also influenced two other former Pac-10/12 mascots. Most people know that the Oregon Duck is Donald Duck with special permission given to the school to use him. And supposedly, the Arizona State Sun Devil bears a resemblance to Walt Disney because it was drawn by an animator who had recently been laid off from Disney.
P.A. in Redwood City, CA, writes: The question about costumed characters reminded me of something your readers might find interesting.
A late friend of mine was one of the original costumed characters at Disneyland in the 1950s. He was the White Rabbit from Alice in Wonderland, and the backup Mickey Mouse. Disneyland did not make the costumes; they were actually from the Ice Capades... which meant that they were designed to be worn on ice, where it was cold, and not in the southern California sun, where it definitely was not. Nearly passing out from the heat was a common occurrence.
Also, because the costumes were designed to give skaters flexibility and a wide view, the resemblance to the cartoon characters could be pretty tenuous. I understand from more recent friends who worked there that the current costumes are still pretty hot, but nothing like the old days.
An article with more information on the history of Disney costumed characters is here.
P.R. in Kirksville, MO , writes: There seem to be a lot of film fans on this site, so I thought I would send in a recommendation for those who might want to know more about the craft of film. The YouTube channel Moviewise has surprisingly few subscribers, but is hands-down one of the best places for movie analysis, filled with insightful commentary and humor.
Whoever runs it (the writer/narrator has so far remained anonymous) has an absolutely encyclopedic knowledge of film, in all countries, going back to the silent era. He discusses everything from acting to screenplays, but his specialty is analysis of directing techniques, including framing, blocking and aspect ratios. For example, his most recent video ranks this year's Oscar nominees for best direction, and he has video essays on the effective use of mirrors and doors. His analysis of Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet is one of his best, explaining why he thinks it's an excellent example of good directing. He also occasionally veers into television—for example with the unexpected, but excellent "The Scientific Reason why How I Met Your Mother is Better than Friends" video. I've learned a lot from this site about what to look for when I watch movies, and why many modern movies just aren't as well directed as those of the past.
P.B. in Sønderborg, Denmark, writes: I wanted to comment briefly on your answer about movie music.
I have some expertise in this area, having performed on over 70 soundtracks for major motion pictures, television, and computer games. [I'll link to my bio and attach some supporting documentation as well.] There were a few inaccuracies in your answer regarding orchestral scores. An orchestra is hired through an orchestral contractor, not agencies. Almost no orchestral musicians have agents. A contractor has contacts with local musicians, and can put together just about any combination of instruments needed for a score. The most famous contractor would have to be Sandy DeCrescent in Hollywood, who, for example, did hiring for many of John Williams' scores.
When it comes to unusual instruments, you have to go much more obscure than piccolo trumpet to challenge a contractor. Every trumpet player who does session work can play piccolo, in addition to their normal B-flat and C trumpets. In general, it would be up to the contractor to find musicians to cover all the parts, regardless of how unusual they might be. The exception would be if there is an individual musician that a composer wants to hire, as John Williams did with Itzhak Perlman for his Schindler's List violin solo. Vocalists and instrument soloists like Perlman do typically have agents, so they could possibly be involved in that case.
You are correct that composers usually conduct their own scores. I hope I am not being indiscreet by saying that this is very often not to their advantage, as their knowledge of their own music does not always make up for their lack of technical conducting skill. However, these days, 100% of films are recorded with a click track, so that orchestral musicians are playing along with a pre-recorded beat on their headphones and are typically only looking up so they know when to start or stop a particular recording cue. In this way, it doesn't matter so much who is standing on the podium.
(V) & (Z) respond: We did not mean "agency" in the sense of "talent agency." We meant it in the sense of "contractor," like the word is used in "temp agency."
S.S. in West Hollywood, CA, writes: Your answer regarding the best political themed documentaries were all good picks. I'd like to suggest a few more. Also in chronological order:
An Inconvenient Truth (Davis Guggenheim, 2006): Historical because the nations of the world immediately recognized the danger of climate change and enacted policies that eliminated excessive carbon from the atmosphere. Thus saving the planet for future generations! Okay, that didn't happen, but it did change our collective understanding of our planet and the effects humans have had on it. Not to mention catapulting the issue right into the center of our politics and cultural wars.
13th (Ava DuVernay, 2016): A look at the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution which ended slavery "except as a punishment for crime." This led directly to a prison-industrial complex and the intersection of race, justice, and mass incarceration that continues to this day.
The U.S. and the Holocaust (Ken Burns, Lynn Novick and Sarah Botstein, 2022): An incredibly informative and engrossing series. Starting with the influence of Henry Ford's best-selling antisemitic book on Hitler, American politics, and around the world. Hitler then looked to the U.S. to learn how its laws dehumanized Black people and prevented opportunities for power, wealth, and influence. During the war antisemites in government stopped news from getting out of Germany and aid from getting in. And after the war, Israel was not created as a goodwill gesture, but because no country wanted the Jewish refugees.
Life After (Reid Davenport, 2025): Filmmaker Reid Davenport, who is disabled with cerebral palsy, takes a look at the issue of assisted suicide from the perspective of people with disabilities, starting with the 1983 Elizabeth Bouvia court case when she sued for the right to assisted suicide and lost, to today in Canada where assisted suicide is not only legal, but the list of who qualifies continues to expand. I thought I understood the issue enough to know where I stood on it. Like many, I support the right for people with a diminished quality of life to make their own decisions about how that life should end. I was an idiot. The issue is so much more complicated and layered than I thought. I highly recommend this film for anyone who thinks they know where they stand on the issue. And for anyone who has never given it any thought. It's not a sad and depressing film about death. It's a film about life and seeing disabled people as just as complicated with the same wants and fears as the rest of us. About how we as a society look at people with disabilities and the choices we put on them when we think we know best. As Reid explains, "This film is not about suicide. It's about the phenomenon that leaves people desperate to find their place in a world that perpetually rejects them."
D.M. in Oakland, CA, writes: To your list of five directors who influenced the broader world, I'd add George Stevens.
Stevens and John Ford were the directors chosen to accompany and document the Normandy invasion. Ford went on an epic bender after the landing and got sent home to occupy a desk for the remainder of the war but Stevens pressed on, filming the liberation of Paris, the Battle of the Bulge, the meeting at the Elbe and, most horrifically, the liberation of several concentration camps, including Dachau.
Overwhelmed by the stark evidence of unspeakable inhumanity, Stevens took on the burden of not looking away. He filmed everything he saw, painstakingly compiling the filmed record, the documentary evidence, that would eventually be a central exhibit at the Nuremberg Trials.
For that reason, I've long contended that Stevens was the most consequential filmmaker of the 20th century, and probably still the most consequential filmmaker of all time.
Also, he made Shane, A Place in the Sun, and Giant, and was the guy who introduced Laurel to Hardy.
Anybody at all interested in the role Hollywood played in shaping public perception during World War II should read Mark Harris' magnificent book Five Came Back: A Story of Hollywood and the Second World War, which chronicles the wartime service of five classic directors: Stevens, Ford, Frank Capra, William Wyler and John Huston. Harris is, in my opinion, the greatest writer on film history today. Pictures at a Revolution: Five Movies and the Birth of the New Hollywood, his account of the shift from old Hollywood to new, is also essential, as is his wonderful biography, Mike Nichols: A Life.
J.B. in Shawano, WI, writes: I am completely astounded that your list of 10 most influential American directors missed one of the quintessential filmmakers of the 20th century, not only by depth of résumé but in span (46 years), the brilliant and versatile John Huston. Just a cross-section of his directing gems:
1941: The Maltese Falcon
1948: Key Largo
1948: The Treasure of Sierra Madre
1950: The Asphalt Jungle
1951: Red Badge of Courage
1951: The African Queen
1961: The Misfits
1964: Night of the Iguana
1972: Fat City
1972: The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean
1975: The Man Who Would be King
1985: Prizzi's HonorPretty safe to say that without John Huston before them, there would be no George Lucas or Steven Spielberg.
E.T. in Lorain, OH, writes: I think you gave short shrift to Stanley Kubrick as a director. He has influenced several directors, including Christopher Nolan (Interstellar, directly akin to 2001: A Space Odyssey); David Fincher (Fight Club and Zodiac, akin to A Clockwork Orange); and Paul Thomas Anderson. Stephen Spielberg completed A.I. Artificial Intelligence, a film that Kubrick planned to make. Even Martin Scorsese has stated Kubrick was a master of film.
Kubrick also was the first to show realism in science fiction; and to use natural light in period films, classical music as film themes, and slow tracking shots to create suspense. Most film historians consider him the most influential director of the late 20th century.
Orson Welles was revolutionary, but his work centers on two films: Citizen Kane and The Magnificent Ambersons. Touch of Evil was a disaster that is nearly unwatchable. Kubrick had masterpieces across four decades that are still being studied in film schools.
S.A. in Downey, CA, writes: Your responses to the question from S.T. in Asbury Park about undeserved acting Oscars brought to mind one of my favorite reference books, Michael Gebert's Encyclopedia of Movie Awards.
He gives Al Pacino's win for Scent of a Woman two stars out of five, commenting, "Not even the best performance Pacino gave that year—Glengarry Glen Ross's Ricky Roma [for which Pacino was also nominated] would have had this guy for lunch—and the hammiest Best Actor winner since... what? The Lost Weekend? Disraeli? Fun for a while, but two and a half hours on this wisp of a story—Phooh-ah!"
And while I love Unforgiven, the Best Actor that year should have gone to Denzel Washington for Malcolm X.
D.S. in Layton, UT, writes: Where to begin? First of all, Al Pacino's best performances were in The Godfather, Part II (for which he should have won the Oscar over Art Carney) and Dog Day Afternoon, and Joel Grey absolutely deserved his Oscar for Cabaret. As for Cabaret itself, when looking at MAGA through the lens of the rise of Nazism, few films have aged as well. Anyone who has not seen it recently NEEDS to make viewing a priority. Network may be the only other 1970s film that was as accurately prophetic.
M.S. in Canton, NY, writes: Worst Best Actor Oscar?
Hands down, Lee Marvin in 1965 for his forgettable, allegedly "comedic" portrayal of a washed-up gunfighter in Cat Ballou. (But he also played the gunfighter's evil brother! What range!) A lifetime achievement award, indeed. Meanwhile, Rod Steiger had been nominated for his leading role in The Pawnbroker, one of the most moving performances of all time. (Fortunately, some justice was served when Steiger won the Oscar in 1967 for his equally iconic performance as the sheriff in In the Heat of the Night.)
P.O. in New York City, NY, writes: You wrote: "And again, I'd really prefer to go off the board, and pick the actual Best Actor, Chadwick Boseman in Black Panther. But that's a comic book film, and we just can't have that."
Boseman is even better in Captain America: Civil War, which introduced the character to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Boseman wasn't the lead in that but he demonstrated right off the bat why he was so great, showing great depth, emotional range, nuance and a full character arc with minimal screen time.
Also, Sterling K. Brown in Black Panther was also probably deserving of a supporting actor nom.
J.B. in Bend, OR, writes: Your list of movies featuring dachshunds did not include Weiner Takes All, a documentary about dachshund races. It is not an exposé of mistreatment, but a whimsical look at the various characters (two and four-legged) who participate in this very funny event.
K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: We had a dachshund for many years, and our family favorite movie for a while was The Ugly Dachshund from 1966.
As a 1966 live-action Disney movie, the plot is silly. Still, it's very fun, and the scenes of the dachshunds making mischief always had our family laughing.
L.B. in Marietta, GA, writes: How about The Ugly Dachshund Disney movie? Sure, the Great Dane who thinks he is a dachshund is the star, but the dachshunds are adorable.
D.C. in Carbondale, IL , writes: I submit a dachshunds-in-film honorable mention, The Brave Little Toaster, which features a line we ever after use in our family troubleshooting:
Radio: Why, if we were all wiener dogs, our problems would be solved!
[...]
Radio: It was a news flash I picked up yesterday about a dog...
L.V.A. in Idaho Falls, ID, writes: I'm afraid you missed one. In the W. C. Fields film The Fatal Glass of Beer, there's a scene of W. C. Fields driving a dogsled in the Yukon. He yells something like "Otto Flash", and then you see three of the dogs, two great danes with a dachshund-like dog in between:
A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: What is the hidden message of VZLA?
I have to go with "vuvuzela." Those "horns" at soccer matches worldwide expressing the wishes, dreams, and desires of the fans corresponds with the fanaticism of the Electoral-Vote.com commentariat expressing our cry for a better world for ALL of us!
M.C. in Friendship, ME, writes: Speaking of vuvuzela (weren't we? ought to be), I got one after they were "showcased" during the football matches in South Africa. My wife plays trombone and while my vuvuzela is A-flat, she does a great job of accompanying me (well, I only play one note) on New Year's Eve. We go out on the deck at midnight and serenade the neighborhood with "Auld Lang Syne." Now we're in discussions about playing "Hail to the Chief" or "God Bless America" when "He" shuffles off to... Buffalo?
J.M. in Silver Spring, MD, writes: You wrote:
A Southside, which is still sold in Chicago as "Al Capone's Cocktail" or "Al's Favorite," has two parts gin, one part lime juice, sugar syrup and mint leaves. That sounds dangerously close to a mojito to us, but what do we know?Ah! Barbarians! Clearly you are not gin drinkers! Everyone knows that a Mojito is made with rum while a Southside is made with the king of all liquors!
(V) & (Z) respond: There's Scotch whisky in a Southside?
R.H. in San Antonio, TX, writes: After she was sentenced to die by hanging, Jenny-Wanda Barkmann said: "Life is really a great pleasure, and pleasure, as a rule, does not last long."
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.