Dem
47
GOP
53
Because of the events of the week, we decided on a shortened Q&A and a shortened mailbag, instead of a full-sized version of one or the other. And we'll hold the latest reader question of the week answers to next week (and, truth be told, probably to the week thereafter, as well—we got 2 weeks' worth of answers).
If you are still working on the headline theme, which was apparently tougher than we thought, we'll add the hint that the band Bow Wow Wow undoubtedly approves. So do the Strangeloves.
D.G. in Fairfax, VA, asks: Does John Roberts really believe that the decisions coming out of his Court respect precedent except where absolutely necessary? Should he be confident that future liberal appointed justices will respect those decisions, as evidenced by his latest oped?
(Z) answers: I think it's similar to his thinking on the political leaning of the Court's decisions. He says something to himself like, "At least 85% of our decisions are non-political/honor stare decisis. And in baseball, an .850 batting average is pretty darn good, indeed."
As to liberal justices engaging in a tit-for-tat, he undoubtedly tells himself that the Court will have a conservative majority until he is dead, and probably long after that.
R.P. in Alexandria, NY, asks: I was fascinated by the letters you posted about the type of modernism Iran is pursuing, beginning with the one from D.G. in Sandwich, and especially the one from D.S in London.
They reminded me of two things. The first was when I was a student intern for a human rights NGO at the United Nations in 1976, and listened in on meetings of the Economic and Social Council where I was hearing some of the first signs of what was to become the Iranian Revolution and much later the Arab Spring. Secondly, I was reminded that it was the Arab world and Muslim scholars who retained the knowledge of pre-Christian science which was brought back through the Crusades to help inspire the Renaissance. If I remember correctly, Arabs also invented algebra.
Sorry for the long prelude, but the question is straightforward. Could we make the case that Iran has been making more consistent progress toward addressing climate change than the United States has during both Trump terms?(Z) answers: Maybe, but that's a very low bar to clear. Iran, as a desert country, is being hit harder by climate change than most. On the other hand, they are in the oil business, and they generally refuse to be part of agreements like the Paris Accord because of the sanctions that have been in place for many years. The Iranians are certainly not on the cutting edge, but they are probably ahead of the U.S. government (though not ahead of some of the state governments).
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: I noticed you have written a lot more about the Iran War than you did on the War in Afghanistan while it was ongoing. That war was the longest in American history, had a lot more casualties, and ultimately failed to defeat the Taliban. Why did you cover it less?
(Z) answers: First of all, the longest war in American history is the war against the Apache Nation, which lasted at least 37 years, from 1849-1886. If anyone would like to read the brief essay I wrote for my classes on this subject, you can see a pdf here. I am going to update a few details this summer, but the basic facts are still the same.
In any event, this site has been daily (or nearly so) since 2015. By that time, the Afghanistan War was rarely a political football, and had settled into the background. Whenever it did become a political football, we wrote about it. The Iran War has happened entirely during our "daily" era and has been a political football the whole time.
T.J.C. in Boston, MA, asks: In your item "Republicans Want to Appropriate $1 Billion for the Ballroom," you raised five questions. I'll add a sixth: Why was the request from the Senate Judiciary Committee? What possible concern would they have regarding Trump's balls?
(Z) answers: That is because, in an apparently not-too-successful effort to sneak the money in under the radar, it was tucked into a Secret Service funding bill.
S.G. in Morgantown, WV, asks: Reading Ted Turner's obituary, it became apparent that he shared more than a few similarities with our current president. That brought two questions to mind: (1) Did Turner ever give serious consideration to entering the political arena? and (2) I know it's hard to answer this generally, but what would a Ted Turner presidency look like?
(Z) answers: Turner thought about running for president in 2000, but decided against it.
If he had been elected, he would likely have tried to run the country as USA, Inc., which does not work (as Donald Trump has demonstrated). Further complicating things is that Turner was quite lefty, and would surely have been very frustrated at his inability to get his ideas made into law.
J.J.D. in Massapequa, NY, asks: I am certainly no expert on the very complicated trans issues and admittedly have mixed feelings on some aspects of it, so I appreciated your item "Is the Trump Administration Scraping the Bottom of the Anti-Trans Barrel?" It was very informative. But one thing stood out and leaves me puzzled.
I caught the replays of some of Trump's recent rants about this subject, particularly the one to the children during the Presidential Physical Fitness Award event. What surprised me the most is something you didn't mention—nor did any the commentators (even the left-leaning ones)—that I caught. When Trump tried to say "genital mutilation," he REPEATEDLY called it "mutilization" (which is not a word). He's even used it in Truth Social posts. Has the entire media become so tuned out to his stupidity that an obvious boner like this doesn't even register—even when, in this case, it was in the middle of a delivery that was a public speaking nightmare? If Joe Biden had made this exact same delivery, especially to an audience of education-age children, it would have been instantly seized upon and turned into a mockery at the level of Obama's tan suit.
What gives?(Z) answers: The answer is something along the lines of the old line, "But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
When Trump lets his bigot flag fly, or when he starts talking about nuking Iran, or when he threatens 100% tariffs against everyone, that is so fully the important part of the story that the elementary-school grammar absolutely pales in comparison. Everyone knows his command of the language is shaky, and seems the be getting shakier daily, but veering off into a sidebar about that—in most cases—interrupts the flow of an item, and can also come off as petty.
J.W. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: Didn't Trump have a branded airline of his own? And that went in the tank, right? So does he have some responsibility for killing two airlines?
(Z) answers: He did, and it did. But I think it's a bit much to blame him for the failure of Spirit. They ruined themselves. At most, Trump was guilty of being unable to save them.
F.I. in Philadelphia, PA, asks: Looking into your crystal ball (not Larry Sabato's!), do you see the Iran war ultimately being Trump's legacy? I believe his legacy won't be his first-term economy, the vulgar tweets, the blatant corruption, ICE brutality, COVID mismanagement, the January 6th insurrection, multiple felony convictions, multiple impeachment, or even the Epstein coverup, but rather the Iran War and fuel prices. Will the economic fallout from the conflict be the main thing average Americans remember him for decades from now?
(Z) answers: The people largely responsible for creating "legacy"—historians and journalists—tend to balance, as best they can: (1) fealty to the historical record and (2) understandability. You can't cover every nuance and subtlety, but you also can't oversimplify too aggressively. Most really impactful presidents end up being boiled down to a couple of main things. For Franklin D. Roosevelt, it's the New Deal and World War II. For Lyndon B. Johnson, it's Civil Rights and Vietnam. For Ronald Reagan it's the Cold War and the Great Communicator.
I would guess that Trump's legacy will be boiled down to two (or maybe three) core themes, something along the lines of incompetence and corruption (and maybe bigotry). And then, there will be key exemplars in each category. Iran will be in the "incompetence" group.
L.M. in Boston, MA, asks: Let's say that Donald Trump and his sycophants "find" the evidence that Georgia was rigged and declare that its 16 electoral votes should have gone Republican. What is the point? It doesn't change the outcome of the election; Joe Biden still would have won overall. Do you think he's just trying to use it to justify future actions? I feel like that is too much 4-D chess for Trump. Is he trying to declare anything Biden did illegitimate? That seems more likely to me, even if it doesn't go anywhere just like with his grievances against the autopen- seems like that whole thing only made it as far as his presidential walk of fame plaques.
(Z) answers: It is often very hard to figure out why Trump chooses the particular obsessions that he settles upon. And he clearly has some sort of cognitive or emotional dysfunction, and yet has never been examined or diagnosed, so don't dismiss the possibility that this is caused by something like OCD.
That said, if I had to guess why he cares so very much about Georgia, I would say it's not because he has some larger plan or purpose, but because the state has been red for a long time, and is run by Republicans, and so should have been "his" (in his mind).
S.J. in Sacramento, CA, asks: Why is "spread" calculated as the difference between percentages? If two candidates are polling at 55% and 45%, that's a 10-point spread, but half that number, "5 points", would be more intuitive, as at least 5% of voters would need to switch to change the outcome.
(Z) answers: Your method assumes that everyone who switches from the 55% candidate would vote for the 45% candidate. This is not the case; many of them will vote third-party or not at all if they lose faith in the 55% candidate.
P.M. in Port Angeles, WA, asks: Do you think it a glaring oversight that the Constitution does not provide means for the removal of elected office holders by the people who elected them? I know the concept of voting and who the voters should be, has evolved from the original enactment of the Constitution, but since so many states have mechanisms for removal of state officials, if seen as not serving the electorate, it seems reasonable that voters should hold the power to remove elected federal officials, if they are found to have been elected under disingenuous circumstances and are not serving their constituents well.
(Z) answers: It is certainly not an oversight. The fellows who wrote the Constitution created a legislative chamber that has to be constantly listening to constituents (the House, with 2-year terms), a chamber that is much more insulated from popular sentiment (the Senate, with 6-year terms), and a chief executive that splits the difference between the two. This was actually pretty radical; they came from a world where kings served for life, and members of Parliament often lingered for decades.
Is it a mistake? I don't think so. Judging by the experience of California, recall elections tend to be used more often for political purposes rather than their intended purpose.
F.L. in Federal Way, WA, asks: The Supreme Court's power (much like money) depends on the faith and confidence of the public; they have no enforcement, as Andrew Jackson once noted. Of late, that has been greatly eroded. Federal courts below that have (ostensibly) the DoJ to enforce their rulings. Unfortunately, the MAGA GOP has almost completely co-opted them.
Meanwhile, Article II, Section 4 says that Congress may impeach and convict, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States."
Would that include officers in the Department of Justice? Would defying a court order be considered a "high crime or misdemeanor"? I understand that the Senate (barring a blue deluge of Biblical proportions) would be unlikely to convict, but is it legally possible?(Z) answers: Members of Congress cannot be impeached, but anyone serving in either of the two other branches can. No member of the DoJ has ever been impeached, but secretaries of two other Cabinet departments have been.
And, as Gerald Ford once observed, a "high crime or misdemeanor" is whatever the House thinks it is. That said, I think some of the things done by Acting AG Todd Blanche & Co. very easily clear the bar.
M.H. in Salt Lake City, UT, asks: I was reading a piece by Heather Cox Richardson; she mentioned a concern that the President's limo, known as The Beast, as well as his entourage, might damage the work that is being done at Trump's direction to the Reflecting Pool in Washington. This piece brought to mind the following questions: How heavy is The Beast? What kind of gas mileage does it get? How much does the government pay per gallon of gas? And which D.C. gas station gets its business?
(Z) answers: The government does not make specs for the Beast available, for security reasons. However, various estimates place the weight at between 15,000 and 20,000 pounds, and the gas mileage between 1.5 mpg and 10 mpg.
The vehicle is refueled by Secret Service personnel when it is not in use by the president. And they choose whatever gas station is convenient. The closest gas station to the White House is a BP at 2830 Sherman Ave NW. So, that station probably gets its fair share of Beast business.
C.M. in Raymond, NH, asks: Reading about the Iowa economic woes, I thought to myself that is is ironic that they are so dependent on foreign trade yet so landlocked. But then I remembered that they are on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. By conventional definitions, all the Midwestern states are landlocked, as they don't border an ocean. But in terms of actual navigable waterways (the Great Lakes, major rivers), which state is most landlocked? I suspect Utah, Colorado, or Wyoming. What is the historian's take?
(Z) answers: The upper Midwest is a pretty good answer. The Great Lakes are great and all, but those states' economies were badly stunted until the Erie Canal opened, and it was possible to get goods to the Atlantic Coast.
Today, the most landlocked state is Nevada. It only has one major river, and that is the Colorado, which forms a relatively small portion of the state's far southern border. This may explain why Nevada's main industry does not involve exports (unless you count STDs as an export).
M.F. in Des Moines, IA, asks: Among elements of the left, there is a belief that most of our modern political problems (MAGA, persistent racism, attacks on expertise and education, etc.) can all be traced back to the former Confederate states and officials receiving a relatively light punishment after the war in favor of reintegration.
I'm quite certain that's a gross oversimplification of a variety of historical factors leading to where we are now. That said, I am left with two questions: (1) Have historians identified potentially negative effects of focusing on reintegration instead of punishment? and (2) Is it a moot point anyway, because the kinds of things we would be talking about (hanging Confederate generals and elected officials, redistributing property en masse) would have lacked political support in the Union, or otherwise met such opposition that we'd have had a post-war bloodbath?(Z) answers: The South was very racist, anti-government, anti-education and violent before the Civil War. The South was very racist, anti-government, anti-education and violent after the Civil War. It is a fantasy to argue that, had Reconstruction gone differently, all of those impulses would somehow have been erased from the cultural and political fabric of that region. And no historian I am aware of has conducted a serious study that starts from that vantage point.
And it is indeed a moot point. The primary concern, in 1865 (and immediately thereafter) was restoring the peace. Imposing some sort of victors' justice risked sparking a bunch of partisan (guerrilla) violence, that could have gone on for years and years. The Congress, and the Freedmen's Bureau, did about as much as was humanly possible, given the generally conservative lean of the country and the very conservative lean of the white South.
D.G. in Fairfax, VA, asks: Is there a way to contrast how Germany lost World War I and a few years later tried again in World War II and then still went on to be a major power, with how the South lost the Civil War but continued to resist without trying militarily again?
(Z) answers: Germany was and is an industrial nation, in a world where industrial power means military and economic power. It also has the largest population of any nation that is located wholly on the European continent.
The American South was (and largely still is) agrarian, in world where industrial power means military and economic power. Its population is also much smaller than that of the combined remainder of the United States. Despite the rhetoric, there was and is no viable possibility that the South might rise again. That leaves non-military forms of resistance as the only option on the table.
S.C, Bellaire in TX, asks: Like most of your readers, apparently, I am a diehard Trekkie. However, I am reluctant to subscribe to Paramount+ (home to the extended Star Trek universe) because of the autocratic leanings of its current Skydance/Ellison ownership. Am I wrong to think it matters whether my money goes into the pockets of people who support policies and people I strongly oppose? Or is it more important I get to watch the most recent season of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds I have missed and see for myself whether Starfleet Academy is worth the time?
(Z) answers: If you choose to withhold your money from corporations whose politics you disagree with, then that is a very reasonable position.
However, in this case, by doing so, you are hurting yourself far more than you are hurting the Ellisons. You are also hurting the talented people who make the shows, whose politics rarely agree with the Ellisons. If you do decide to sign up, you might tell yourself (correctly) that your money is going towards shows that promote liberal values far at odds with those of the Ellisons.
There is another option, of course, but it would be improper for us to direct your attention to The Pirate Proxy and Vuze. It is my understanding that people who use those services make sure to have a VPN in place.
D.T.R. in Schaumburg, IL, asks: When you, (Z), had to cancel Friday's posting, my wife and I (incorrectly) speculated that you might be dealing with the fallout from this week's cyberattack on Canvas. Did the attack end up affecting you and UCLA in any appreciable way? And do you have any thoughts on what schools, in particular, and the government, in general, should/can do about these increasingly frequent ransomware attacks?
(Z) answers: I teach at two schools, UCLA and Cal Poly Pomona, and both were caught up in the Canvas outage. At the moment, the impact on faculty, at both institutions, has been the loss of a couple of prime "getting grades in order" days, and a lot of freaked-out students.
Both the company that owns and operates Canvas (Instructure Holdings, Inc.) and the administrators seem to be keeping certain details to themselves. However, we have been told several times to download everything we can. So, they clearly think this might not be over. Particularly worrying is that the hackers apparently made a ransom demand payable by Tuesday. So, there could be very bad things on tap that day.
I am not sure this can really be "solved." Humans are fallible, and a system that is 99.9% secure is still vulnerable to evil-doers who are very dedicated. In this case, the evil-doers gained access through the door that had been left (too far) open for people who wanted to try out the system before deciding whether or not to purchase it.
Truth be told, I was affected less than most faculty. I don't trust Canvas, and never have, and only use it for things where it is legally necessary (most obviously, posting grades). So, I have my own personal website, and the entire time, my students had access to all the readings, all the PPTs, all the assignments, etc., and the only thing that they didn't have was the ability to check their grades. For most of my colleagues, everything was unavailable. For the record, (V) never trusted Canvas or any of its predecessors, either, and also used his own website for communicating with students.
D.B. in Mountain View, CA, asks: Are you sure you told us how (Z) got Ben Shapiro fired from the Daily Bruin? Google says no.
(Z) answers: I really think I did, but in short, I worked at the Daily Bruin running the computer network at the same time Shapiro was an opinion columnist for the opinion section (which was then called "Viewpoint"). He missed his deadline one week, by over a day, and then submitted a column that was pretty aggressively Islamophobic. Because Shapiro blew his deadline, the Viewpoint editor held the column, possibly to be revised and run the next week.
Shapiro decided—or maybe he set things up to create a narrative—that the column was held because the "liberal media" hates Jews and loves Muslims. And he promptly booked himself on a local right-wing talk show, hosted by Larry Elder, to gripe about it. Everyone at the Daily Bruin knows full well that you do not make appearances with other media outlets without getting permission from the Editor-in-Chief. I happened to hear the Elder hit, not because I listened to his show, but because I regularly listened to the station's late night general-interest show ("Ask Mr. KABC"), and my radio happened to be tuned to 790 when I got in my car the next afternoon.
I had no doubt that Shapiro had not gotten permission to go on Larry Elder's show and lambaste the Daily Bruin, so I promptly called the E-i-C (Tim Kudo), and told him to turn on the radio. Shapiro was called into Tim's office and fired later that day.