Dem
47
GOP
53
A pretty good mix today.
For anyone one who is still working on the headline theme, we'll note that it might be your striped shirt that is interfering with your work.
P.Y. in Watertown, MA, asks: Eventually this war with Iran will end. What is your definition of winning and losing? What outcomes are necessary for you to determine if it was all worth it or not?
(Z) answers: It is clear that Barack Obama's administration was able to "solve" the Iran nuclear problem about as well as could be done, such that the Iranians' program was in abeyance until Donald Trump torpedoed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. On the other hand, Obama did little about the Iranians' oppressive regime, or about that nation's propensity for backing radical militias in client states, militias whose main function is to harass Israel.
So, "winning" would be the nuclear program in abeyance once again, plus: (1) the replacement of the repressive regime with something better and/or (2) the end of the radical militias. Neither of these goals is particularly achievable, which is why Obama didn't even try, and why it was foolish for Trump to let bombs start flying.
(Note that getting the nuclear program back in abeyance, by itself, would be a great development, but it would not be a "win." No, it would be restoring the status quo, at the cost of more than a dozen American lives, not to mention all the other costs that have been incurred.)
"Losing" would be: (1) the Iranian nuclear program up and operating again and/or (2) the Iranians gaining a permanent ability to influence the world economy by leveraging the Strait of Hormuz. Both of these outcomes seem likely at this point.
J.S. in Hightstown, NJ, asks: You often write that if oil production is shut down somewhere, restarting it is difficult to impossible. Why is that?
(Z) answers: To give a rough analogy, imagine Old Faithful, the geyser at Yellowstone National Park. If the government needed to shut it down for a month, well, there's no spigot for them to turn. They would have to cap it, somehow blocking the hole/vent from which the water emerges. And once the cap was removed, there's no guarantee that the exit vent will be undamaged.
And Old Faithful is just water. Oil is much more viscous and much more temperamental. When they uncap an oil well, the structure of the well is often badly damaged, or is clogged with oil that could not escape.
P.O. in New York City, NY, asks: I am curious about the reported munitions shortage that has popped up during the conflict with Iran. The U.S. has engaged in large-scale conflicts over the past 20+ years: Iraq, Afghanistan, even Libya, but I don't recall munitions being an issue before.
Is that perception wrong or is there something different about this current conflict?(Z) answers: Broadly speaking, buying more precision bombs—and that is where the shortage is—is not sexy or politically popular. Shiny new boats and planes, raises for soldiers—things like that are what is popular. So, those get the money when it's available. And "more $4 million missiles" is what gets cut when money is not available.
On top of that, the U.S. spent the last few years giving a chunk of its stockpile to Ukraine. And, as part of the ill-conceived attempt at "shock and awe," the Trump administration overdid it in terms of how many missiles it fired at Iran. Add it up, and there is now an unprecedented shortage. The U.S. can eventually replace the arms, but is not in a position to do so quickly.
L.V.A. in Idaho Falls, ID, asks: The Federal Reserve Board of Governors has seven members. We've been hearing a lot about Donald Trump's nominee to be Federal Reserve Chairman: Kevin Warsh, who is not a Governor. Will he be the eighth Fed governor if confirmed, or is his confirmation for both governor AND chairman?
(Z) answers: His confirmation is for both.
There are seven people appointed to the board, three of whom are also appointed to managerial positions on the board (chair, vice chair and vice chair for supervision). A person can be appointed to the board, and then later to one of the managerial positions as well (as happened with Jerome Powell), or they can be appointed to the board and to a managerial position at the same time (as will likely happen with Warsh).
One of the current members of the board, Stephen Miran, is serving a term that has already expired. By law, he is allowed to remain until a replacement is appointed. So, once Warsh is (presumably) confirmed, he will take over Miran's seat, and will also assume Powell's position as chair. Powell will hold his seat, but will be "demoted" to regular member.
G.W. in Oxnard, CA, asks: In your item "Auditions for AG Are in Full Swing," you wrote that James Comey was charged for threatening the life of the president for posting a picture with "86 47." You posted that same picture. According to the DoJ legal theory, didn't you illegally threaten the life of the president? Wait, I typed the numbers "86 47." According to the DoJ legal theory, doesn't that mean I illegally threaten the life of the president? Should I lawyer up?
(Z) answers: Yes, you should. In fact, we've already handed your contact information over to the FBI.
But in seriousness, this is why a threat has to be both immediate and credible for it to be actionable. Because otherwise there would be so many "threats" that the FBI would have time for nothing else.
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: With the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act this past week, and in the wake of the recent gerrymandering wars, do you think they will take up the Virginia redistricting vote that's being tied up in the lower courts, or will they not touch this with a ten-foot pole?
(Z) answers: I don't think so. The Virginia case is about the interpretation of Virginia state law, and has nothing to do with federal law. You can never know with this Supreme Court, I suppose, but they are supposed to stay out of matters of state law, and there's really no basis for turning this into a federal case.
R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, asks: I'm wondering what you envision when you suggest that "states and counties must physically resist handing over anything without a valid warrant." I'm envisioning the little old ladies who staff my polling place duking it out with some brawny sheriff's deputies, and it's not a pretty picture. I'm guessing you had something else in mind?
(Z) answers: To start, sheriff's deputies work for the local government, not the federal government. They are there to protect the ballots, not seize them. The federal government has no power to order them to do... anything.
Beyond that, every locality has rules about who is allowed to take possession of ballots. Usually, it is those very same sheriff's deputies, who take them to some sort of central facility, after they have been counted. A federal agent could also take possession of the ballots, but only with a warrant, and it's not likely that one would be forthcoming.
Anyone who seizes ballots they are not entitled to possess is committing a felony. Being a government employee does not change that. Not only that, but there will be poll watchers and lawyers who will pitch a fit (and who will get the police and the courts involved instantly). The ballot seizures would be photographed and talked about, and would de-legitimize whatever the Trump administration might try to do.
G.Z. in St. Paul, MN, asks: What do you think the odds are that Graham Platner (assuming he wins) turns out to be Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) redux?
(Z) answers: You never know, particularly with someone who has never served before, and with someone whose views do not fit entirely within the standard left-right dichotomy. That said, I would not bet that Platner turns out to be Fetterman, v2.0. First, it is clear that one of Fetterman's core, personal issues is staunch Zionism. That just happened to become an issue du jour during the Senator's term, and pitted him against many members of his party, especially since he sees the Iran War as an aspect of the Israel situation. If the central theme of the last 2-3 years had been, say, the opioid crisis, we might not be wondering whether or not Fetterman is still a Democrat, since he holds standard blue-team views on that subject.
Second, if we may play armchair doctor for a moment, it looks to us like Fetterman's stroke affected him profoundly, including his thought processes and his emotional regulation. If nothing else, it brought an end to his hopes of maybe running for president. Absent the stroke, his cognitive and emotional responses to things might well be different. And, even if that is not the case, he might be trying harder to be "politic," so as to keep his long-term aspirations on track. Fetterman is now on track to be a one-term senator since Democrats hate him and Republicans surely prefer an actual Republican. Platner is probably not making $174,000 chasing oysters and in any event being a senator is indoor work with no heavy lifting and the benefits are better. He surely sees what is happening to Fetterman and will likely figure out how "independent" he can be and still keep the job.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: Will Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) run for president in 2028 as the sane Republican candidate? Or do you think the normies will still be too cowed by MAGA to assert themselves?
(Z) answers: Doubtful. He'd be 68 at the start of a first term, 72 at the start of a second, and the milieu right now is "enough of the oldsters."
Further, he's been battling MAGA for years, and he knows full well that is a losing fight for a sane Republican, at least at the moment. He's clearly pretty tired of politics anyhow; he doesn't want to compound his exhaustion by spending a couple of years tilting at windmills.
The likeliest person to try to run in the sane Republican lane is Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA).
K.J. in Tulsa, OK, asks: I have a question about your item on the Texas U.S. Senate race. What do you think the chances are that a substantial portion of the undecided groups in the polls are Republicans that told the pollster that, "Of my candidate Paxton doesn't win the nomination, I'm not voting for Cornyn," and vice versa? My thought is the election will hinge on whether the Republican nominee can sway loyal supporters of the other Republican candidate.
(Z) answers: When we wrote that item, we thought about adding a few sentences about the undecideds. However, the crosstabs are not instructive, especially since respondents don't actually explain their choices. So, we skipped that.
But since you've asked, I will say that I would guess that there are Republicans who dislike both of their options, and are waiting to see how they feel about the candidate who is left when the dust settles. If it's Cornyn, some MAGA Republicans will suck it up and vote for him and others will vote third-party or skip the election. If it's Paxton, some normal Republicans will suck it up and vote for him, others will vote for Talarico, and still others will vote third-party or skip the election.
All of this said, anyone who is undecided clearly isn't happy with the choices before then. Since Cornyn and Paxton are universally known, and Talarico is not, that means that the Democrat has a chance to convert some of the undecided of his own volition. The two Republicans, probably not.
S.W. in New York City, NY, asks: I notice that some Members of Congress from "red" districts are sponsoring "Passport Fairs" for their constituents to have their Congressional staff members assist them with their passport applications. I've never heard of Passport Fairs—Why do you think this is taking place now? Does it correspond to the SAVE Act?
(Z) answers: It's not an uncommon constituent service. (Z)'s representative in Congress, Brad Sherman (D-CA), hosts them on a fairly regular basis. He even airs TV commercials on local stations, inviting people to sign up. He's gotta do something with that money; it's not like he needs to spend it on his reelection campaigns, with the district being D+17 and all.
That said, the increased interest on both sides of the aisle, particularly on the red side, is undoubtedly related to the potential passage of the SAVE Act.
D.P. in Oakland, CA, asks: It seems to me that long before the Republican presidential primaries were over in 2024, there was a Project 2025, a roadmap ready to be implemented by whomever was elected. Do you know of such a comparable effort now in the works so that the Democrats can hit the ground running in January 2029?
(Z) answers: Yes. There's already a Project 2029. It even has a website and everything.
That said, these things are irrelevant unless they have buy-in from party leadership. The Contract with America mattered because it came from Newt Gingrich, the Republican leader in the House. Project 2025 mattered because the architects knew that Donald Trump would be willing to implement as much of it as possible.
With the Democrats, it's not especially plausible for them to rally behind a cohesive plan of action until they are in power in Congress or, more probably, until the party's 2029 nominee is known. And really, if that 2029 nominee does NOT have his or her own plan, with a pithy name, they are committing political malpractice. That said, the name should not be a variant of Project [X] (or, for that matter, "Contract with [Y]"), as it would appear to be taking cues from the other party. Something a bit less clumsy than Build Back Better would be wise, however.
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: I read your comments about Navy Secretary nominee Hung Cao, and was hoping you could elaborate on this issue. When Cao was running for the U.S. house in a Virginia district, he did an interview with Sean Fuchs, a pastor who ran for the U.S. house in a California district. Cao claimed, without a shred of proof, that Monterey, California has been overrun by pagans practicing witchcraft, and they control the municipal government and public schools. Cao said he wants to stamp out their movement when part of the federal government.
I have never been to Monterey, but I agree with you this comment is one of the nuttiest I have heard all year. (And that's saying something, considering the mentally ill man in the White House). However, these views seem quite common in Christian Nationalist circles, which Cao and Fuchs are almost certainly a part of. These people do not value religious differences and freedom, and see demonic influences everywhere in the United States.
Given the First Amendment guarantees religious freedom, and the Fourth Amendment protects people from government intrusion in their homes without probable cause of crime, how do these Christian Nationalists propose to stamp out religious dissent if they get control over the government? I think this movement is ascendant, with Mike Johnson and J.D. Vance 2 prominent members.(Z) answers: I don't think they have any real plan; such talk is either entirely aspirational, or red meat for the base, or both.
And, in any event, their goal isn't exactly to get rid of other religions. No, their goal, and their view of what "freedom of religion" means, goes something like this: Christians should be able to do whatever they damn well please. People like Cao, Vance, Fuchs, etc. expect that sort of "freedom" will eventually have the affect of making Christianity ascendant again in the U.S.
B.C. in Manhattan Beach, CA, asks: Why do all Republicans insist on referring to the "Democrat" party? Sure, a member of the party is a "Democrat," but the adjectival form is the "Democratic" party—and that is the official name.
Do Republicans think this is some sort of low-level insult? To my ear, it just makes them sound ignorant, especially since every single one of them does this.(Z) answers: It is indeed meant as an insult. Not unlike calling a Japanese person a "Jap" or a homosexual person a "homo."
However, it is most certainly not all Republicans who do it. There are plenty of normal Republicans who realize that such verbiage is childish and coarsens discourse. What that means is that when someone DOES do that, they are outing themselves, on some level, as an obnoxious and insincere cultist whose main concern is "owning the libs."
G.W. in Minneapolis, MN, asks: You have written about why a Cabinet vote under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment is not an easier route than impeachment for permanently removing a president. But with respect to temporary removal, is having the cabinet—all of whom can be immediately fired by the president—the best idea? Under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, Congress has the authority to enact a law bypassing the Cabinet and instead appointing another body (along with the VP) for this role. Have there been any serious attempts to pass such a law? Any thoughts on what body would be better suited for this role?
(Z) answers: The Twenty-Fifth Amendment was ratified in 1967, largely in response to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. When Kennedy was shot, there was a period of time when it was not clear how badly he was hurt, and whether or not the presidency had devolved on Lyndon B. Johnson or not. Obviously, that period of time lasted less than an hour, but even that was too much in the middle of the Cold War. Congress was primarily interested in removing any ambiguity, and also in solving the "Woodrow Wilson" problem, wherein a president is too physically incapacitated to do the job, but refuses to step aside. The Cabinet is more able, and likely, to say "the president cannot function, physically" than they are to say "the president, who is still coherent, and can fire me at any time, should be removed for malfeasance."
And so, when the Amendment was passed, Congress expected that the primary way malfeasance would be reined in was through impeachment. A lot of the folks who helped shape the Twenty-Fifth Amendment were still in office 7 years later, when impeachment (or, really, the threat of impeachment) worked exactly as it was supposed to. Undoubtedly, they patted themselves on the backs. They would not be patting themselves on the backs today, however.
There has never been any serious attempt to create an alternative body to evaluate removal under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. If it did happen, then the ready-made option that would probably be the best choice would be... the judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They are Senate-approved, have been appointed by presidents from both political parties, and many of them actually do call balls and strikes. They are also "in the loop," in that they are local and have a front-row seat for what's happening at the White House.
You will sometimes see talk that the deciding body should be a panel of doctors—say, the faculty of Harvard Medical School. That would be problematic; their decision would be seen as a reflection of their personal political biases. However, the D.C. judges should certainly be empowered to hear testimony/reports from professional physicians.
J.C. in Fez, Morocco, asks: I am glad no one tried to assassinate Lyndon B. Johnson, but given that he presided over the Vietnam War... why?
(Z) answers: There's a certain amount of randomness to these things. However, it is fair to imagine that it's not a coincidence that the president without an attempt came right after the victim of a successful attempt. The Secret Service was surely being cautious to the point of being paranoid in the years immediately following JFK's death. And if and when they relaxed a bit, well, by the last few years of his term, Johnson had taken to staying mostly at the White House, Camp David and the LBJ Ranch, because he had become so unpopular.
M.W. in Springfield, IL, asks: As I understand it, the Presidential Succession Act sets the order of succession to the presidency for cabinet secretaries according to the order their respective departments were created. It is also my understanding that the Department of Defense has been rebranded as the Department of War by the current administration. So my question is: What stops this change from bumping the newly named department to the bottom of the succession list? And if someone wanted to advance this proposal, who could make it happen?
(Z) answers: Beyond the VP, who is always second in line, Congress can set the order any way it wants to, up to and including, "If the president and VP are incapacitated, then the next person is the first person listed in the Washington, DC, phonebook who is constitutionally eligible. So, make sure to keep your cell phone charged, Abraham Aaronson."
However, when a department changes names, or sorta changes names, it does not cease to exist, and is not reborn on that day. The date of founding for the department led by Pete Hegseth is still August 7, 1789. And when a department is renamed, or when it's split into multiple departments, the enabling legislation specifies what the post-change hierarchy looks like. For example, when the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was chopped up, the legislation that did it specified that the Department of Health and Human Services was the successor department, and so retains an origin date of April 11, 1953, while the Department of Education was a brand-new agency, with an origin date of October 17, 1979.
P.B. in Chicago, IL, asks: It is my understanding that felons can't vote in Florida without some rigorous (and maybe expensive) process to be re-enfranchised. Correct me if I am in error.
But didn't a certain convicted felon just vote in the special election held there. (and he voted by the certainly corrupt mail-in voting process)? Why was tRump allowed to vote?(Z) answers: Florida honors the rules of the state in which a person was convicted. Trump would not be barred from voting in New York State, since he is not in prison, and so he's not barred in Florida.
J.L. in Baltimore, MD, asks: There's approximately 2 months between the midterm elections and the seating of the new Congress. In that time, Congress takes long breaks for Thanksgiving and Christmas, so even less than usual gets done. But I'm also wondering about the members who lose their reelection bids. How common is it for them to just skip those last few weeks so they can pack up and look for new jobs? With both chambers so close, every vote would be needed to pass any legislation. So we can expect a total zero in that period?
(Z) answers: It happens. For example, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D?-AZ) was basically a ghost for the last few months of her term (beginning before the elections, actually, since she wasn't running anyhow).
If members' votes are really needed, however, they will generally stick around, either out of loyalty to their party, their colleagues/staff and/or their constituents, or because their post-politics prospects are best served by sucking it up and acting like a grown-up. In the Senate, it's not uncommon for a member to resign, and to have their already-elected successor appointed as their replacement. That gets the departing member off the hook, lets the member-elect start to learn the ropes, and also gives the member-elect a leg up on seniority.
C.F. in Waltham, MA, asks: Donald Trump could easily be described as the worst businessman ever, and is certainly the worst president by a huge margin. My question is, could he also be described as the worst leader ever for the entire world? That is, has there been a leader in all of world history who has been more destructive to the human race than Trump?
(Z) answers: Let us introduce you to a fellow named Adolf Hitler. Or one named Joseph Stalin. Or one named Leopold II. Trump has been a terrible president, but let's not get out over our skis here.
A.M. in Toronto, ON, Canada, asks: If the American colonists had managed to work out their differences with the "Mother Country," if there had not been a Revolutionary War, would there have been a Civil War and would Canada and the U.S. be one country today?
(Z) answers: Mayyyyyybe not the Civil War, because the British government grew weary of slavery and outlawed it in 1833. The South was nowhere near as committed to the institution at that point, and would also have thought twice about taking on the combined might of the North AND the British military.
However, I don't think Canada and the U.S. could have remained one country, long-term. They're quite different, and other former British possessions ultimately split along long-existing fault lines once they gained independence. New Zealand chose not to stay part of the colony of New South Wales (Australia), Pakistan and Bangladesh are no longer part of India, etc.
M.M. on Bainbridge Island, WA, asks: OK, I give up: What's UGGGGDC? I'm not feeling very clever today.
(Z) answers: The organization is the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Anyone who can claim to be an actual daughter of the Confederacy (i.e., alive when the Confederacy existed, or the child of a Confederate veteran) is long dead. Now it's the United Great-Great-Great-Granddaughters of the Confederacy.
J.M. in Arvada, CO, asks: You have written about the "Big 4" American pro leagues. I'm wondering what it would take for the default to become "Big 5" or is that's just not something that's going tp happen in the era of streaming and the ability to watch whatever sport you want from wherever you want. Major League Soccer has 30 teams, average attendances above that of the NBA and the NHL, and a yearly $250 million TV deal from Apple. What would it take for them to be considered alongside the other "Big 4"?
(Z) answers: Major League Soccer averages 22,000 per game because they play outside, whereas indoor NHL/NBA arenas seat around 18,000. Meanwhile, $250 million is a lot of money, but the other leagues all pull in $1 billion or more per year (often way more, as in the case of the NFL).
So, the gap between MLS and the others is still pretty big. But I actually think the biggest problem is that all of the Big 4 leagues are, in fact, the world's premier league for that sport. There is no basketball league that outclasses the NBA, no baseball league that outclasses MLB, etc. MLS, for the foreseeable future, will be outside the top five association football leagues in the world. Indeed, when people DO speak of a North American "Big 5," the league they add is not MLS, but instead Mexico's Liga MX.
Truth be told, if there IS to be a Big 5 (primarily) in the U.S., I think it is more likely that the fifth entrant will be the WNBA. That is a league on the rise, and unlike MLS, but like the NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB, it is the premier league for its sport in the world.
A.H.-S. in Brier, WA, asks: We always talk about how the movie adaptation is worse than the book that it was based on. And it's true 99% of the time. But there are occasional exceptions.
Personally, I have a couple of films that I think are better than the book. The prime example is François Truffaut's adaptation of Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. The original book is very wordy, and the film uses almost no written words. Even the credits are spoken. Very effective in a story about book burning.
What are some movies that you feel are better than the books they were based on?(Z) answers: Here are ten movies that qualify, I would say:
- The Wizard of Oz (1939): The original book, by L. Frank Baum, is rightly a children's classic. However, the movie, which is pitch-perfect, has reached 2 billion viewers and counting.
- The Grapes of Wrath (1940): It turns out that even a great book gets elevated when you add Henry Fonda and Jane Darwell to the mix.
- Casablanca (1942): I am cheating a little bit here, because the movie was based on a play, not a book. Still, Everybody Comes to Rick's was weak enough that it didn't get produced. And re-imagined as a screenplay by the Epstein brothers, it is a Top 10 all-time film.
- Psycho (1960): Not a bad book, by any means. But Alfred Hitchcock understood author Robert Bloch's (considerable) vision even better than Bloch did.
- The Godfather (1972): Mario Puzo famously wrote The Godfather in just a few weeks because he was desperately in need of money. It's interesting to read for more background detail on the characters and their motivations, but the hastiness with which it was written is evident. Francis Ford Coppola (working with Puzo) was able to trim out the fat and to create a tighter and much more compelling epic tale.
- The Godfather, Part II (1974): I don't especially like the Cuba/Tahoe parts of this movie. I very much like the Hell's Kitchen/Vito's backstory parts. Those happen to be the parts that were based on portions of the book that were unused in the first film. The Cuba/Tahoe parts were invented for the movie.
- The Shootist (1976): The source book is fine, but the movie might well be the greatest finale for any A-list star in Hollywood history. A story of a gunfighter whose time has passed, with that gunfighter played by an actor whose time had passed.
- The Firm (1993): When John Grisham wrote the book, he hadn't really figured out a plausible way out of the dilemma faced by the main character, so he kind of faked it. While he was writing the screenplay, he solved that problem, resulting in a story that works much, much better.
- Forrest Gump (1994): In the book, Forrest Gump is an uncouth, foul-mouthed redneck. In the movie, he's more like a child looking at the world with wonder. If you read the book first, you might like that Gump better. Maybe. But if you see Hanks' interpretation first, then the book version does not land well. Plus, author Winston Groom went a little overboard with inserting Gump into historical moments (he was an astronaut, for example). The movie pared that stuff back quite a bit.
- Lincoln (2012): To this day, the people who produced the screenplay for Lincoln insist it is based on Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin. This is because Goodwin was paid handsomely for her participation; the events of the movie occupy maybe two pages in her book. The real source material is obviously Michael Vorenberg's Final Freedom: The Civil War, The Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment. It's a really great book, particularly if you are a professional historian. But 99% of people are going to prefer the movie.
A.S. in Bedford, MA, asks: Are there common misconceptions or untruths that your students show up with that then have to be untaught?
(V) answers: I haven't been teaching for a while, so this answer could be stale.
We sometimes got students who had used computers a lot and maybe had written a bit of software. We also had students whose computer experience was limited to Facebook on their phones. The students who had done some programming thought they knew everything and could we please just give them their degree so they could get to work. We decided to deal with this by having a 1-week "Introductory course" for all first year computer science students. On Day 1, we would ask "Who knows emacs well?" Usually no one. Then we would ask: "Oh, so you all use vi?" Again no one (emacs and vi are two popular editors programmers like). Oh. OK, we'll teach you emacs today. On Day 2 we would ask: "Who has experience writing UNIX shell scripts in bash?" Again, no one. Response: "Looks like you don't know much about computers. Today's lesson is on UNIX shell scripting." This went on for a week to convince the know-it-alls that maybe they didn't know it all. The things we taught in the first week were useful skills for rest of the program, so it wasn't only for show.
(Z) answers: There are plenty of topic-specific misconceptions that students have. For example, that the U.S. entered World War I because of the sinking of the Lusitania. That World War II would not have happened if Adolf Hitler had not been born. That there was no meaningful civil rights activism between Plessy (1896) and Brown (1954). That Richard Nixon was impeached.
However, the most important misconception is about the discipline of history itself. Many history classes, even at the university level, treat the subject as an exercise in absorbing factual information and then spitting it back out on a multiple choice test or in a report. It can be very, very difficult to persuade some students that a paper in a college-level history course is, in fact, an essay that advances a thesis, a thesis supported by primary evidence.
J.B. in Radnor, PA, asks: As you're probably aware, May is Mental Health Awareness Month. And I'd love to know how you all keep your sanity and avoid becoming depressed from getting so deep into all the demoralizing news in U.S. politics, and the country as a whole. I just came back from an overseas vacation where I was able to escape it some, but now that I'm back home, I've been dragged down again.
I'd love to know your secret.(Z) answers: I wish I had something profound to say, but I do not. Being exposed to the nastiness every single day, not to mention regular criticism from unhappy readers, leads a person to develop a fairly thick skin. It undoubtedly also helps that we all live in California or Europe, and so are at least somewhat insulated from the worst of it.
We're going to do something unusual, and also use this as the question of the week. Readers will probably have much better wisdom than I can offer.