Dem
53
Ties
2
GOP
45
Going to ease back into this, with a Q&A, but one less structured than would be normal. We got some good letters this week, but will likely run some next weekend, and will integrate some others into this week's postings.
If you're still working on the headline theme, we'll tell you we had to hold an item headlined "The Senate, Part II: Texas Race Has Turned into a Real Soap Opera."
R.L.P. in Santa Cruz, CA, asks: Early in Trump v2.0, some of your readers asked which Cabinet appointments would turn out to be the worst. I can't remember who you selected, but do remember that you rejected awarding the prize to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth because you believed that the U.S. miliary brass would be more adept at limiting damage from Hegseth's incompetence than the leadership would be in other departments. I found your calmness in the matter comforting. It seemed reasonable at the time, but now seems to me to have been off the mark. I did not expect general officers of the U.S. military to go along with something as small-minded, misguided, and illegal as piracy on the high seas, which they have now continued apace for 2 years, and what's much worse for the world at large, the brass failed to convince Trump not to start a war in Iran, which they surely knew would be an unmitigated, long-term catastrophe. I wonder how you see it now.
(Z) answers: Certainly, Hegseth has been worse than we expected. But his excesses have largely fallen into three buckets:
- Performative nonsense, like testosterone tests for active-duty soldiers
- Stuff that is within the prerogative of any Secretary of Defense, like firing admirals and generals
- Stuff that is coming from higher up the chain of command, like the Iran War
It is probably not worthwhile for the high-ranking brass to push back against things in Bucket #1. The things in Bucket #2 are probably more the province of the courts, who are better-positioned to decide if Hegeth's decisions were capricious or discriminatory. And the things in Bucket #3, it's not so easy to push back against the commander-in-chief, at least not with complete success. Though we cannot possibly know, at this point, what foolishness the Joint Chiefs, et al., have managed to convince Trump NOT to pursue. It's entirely possible that, but for the brass, the Iran War would already be a land war.
All of this said, there are two things in particular that we were thinking of when we wrote that it would be hard to get the brass to go along. The first is using nuclear weapons. And the second is declaring martial law and using the military to overturn election results. Obviously, neither of those things has happened. At least, not yet.
D.H. in Boston, MA, asks: I've long ago stopped actively trying to think about Donald Trump and his policies, but reading some quotes from him this week about the trade deficit and tariffs made me realize that he may be confused about something (among many other things). Is it possible that he believes the U.S. trade deficit is the same thing as the U.S government's budget deficit? That would explain why he is so concerned about the trade deficit, but I'm surprised (but maybe shouldn't be) at the low level of understanding it takes to think they are one and the same. What do you think?
(Z) answers: His ideas about economics are so strange, you can never really be sure what is in his head.
That said, in many different contexts, he's shown that he sees things in very simple terms, and that he views absolutely everything as a zero-sum game. So, I think he believes that if the U.S. buys $100 billion in goods from, say, Argentina and Argentina buys only $50 billion in goods from the U.S., then the U.S. is permanently $50 billion poorer (and is also "losing" to brown people). Trump does not grasp that those $100 billion in goods from Argentina might generate $300 billion in economic activity in the U.S., thus actually making the country richer, not poorer.
D.D. in Portland, OR, asks: There's something I believe strongly but lack hard data to back it up. I'm a data person, so that gives me pause. Here's the gist of my opinion, not backed by data:
- Trump is a jerk. (Given)
- Being a jerk can be fun. There's a certain pleasure in giving somebody the finger when they honk at you. I make it a point not to give in to that urge as much as I can.
- Seeing Trump act the way he does, day in and day out and without consequence, makes being an a-hole all the more appealing. As a result, public figures embrace their vanity more openly, employers are less respectful of their staff, and the rest of us have forgotten our manners a bit more than in the past.
My data likely suffers from selection bias. Can you give some wisdom here or point to a more disciplined assessment?
(Z) answers: There is absolutely no question that the behavior of Donald Trump, and of other MAGA types, has generally given people permission to be mean-spirited, obnoxious, racist, sexist, etc. And many people have taken advantage of the opportunity.
On top of that, Trump strongly encourages his followers to think of everyone who is not MAGA—including non-MAGA Americans—as enemies. That not only creates a lot of nastiness, it also puts people on edge, society-wide. And when an entire society is on edge, lots of unpleasant stuff happens.
T.M. in Salt Lake City, UT, asks: Here in The Land of Foregone Conclusions, we don't see the national advertising campaigns. Are any of the Democratic campaign organizations, particularly DSCC, leveraging J.D. Vance into their strategies? Like, "Retire Vance from that tie-breaking role with a 51+ Senate majority."
(Z) answers: I have not seen any ads that reference Vance. I suspect that: (1) Trump is much more hated than Vance is and (2) some sizable chunk of the population lacks the civics knowledge needed to understand Vance's specific significance.
Easier to just say "vote Democratic to stop Trump."
S.L. in New York City, NY, asks: As we race toward the election, there's a lot of cheerleading of the Democrats, and lots of people and polling saying it's going to be an overall win for the blue team to one extent or another.
But as I remember things, people were also saying a lot of the same things both in 2016 and again, and maybe more painfully, in 2024. Yet, that's not what happened. In 2024, as the polls started pointing more and more toward Kamala Harris winning, Trump started to act more and more like he was losing the path, and as that happened, more and more Democrats started to celebrate. That kind of seems like where we are now, ahead of the midterms.
Pessimism looms large, of course, but a lot of what's going on now seems to me to be very similar to what happened before. It seems like a lot of "it's a lock for the Dems!" followed by a lot of finger-pointing.
What is there this time around that looks better and more reliable and positive for the Democrats? Nothing's certain, of course, but is there any confidence it's not just more of the same heartbreak on the horizon?(Z) answers: Small sample sizes, because that's the nature of American politics, but we now have three elections in the "MAGA Era" where Donald Trump was on the ballot (2016, 2020, 2024) and two where he was not (2018, 2022). And the clear pattern has been that the polls measure Republican support less accurately when he's running, and much more accurately when he's not.
This is one of those elections where, of course, he's not on the ballot (even if he keeps telling MAGA voters to pretend otherwise). So while you can never know until the ballots are counted, past experience suggests the polls this year are going to be largely on the mark. Also, Democratic (and many non-Democratic) voters are so angry, they are not leaving anything to chance.
J.S. in Chevy Chase, MD, asks: It's great to see all the favorable polls for Democrats and the way the Democrats are extending their campaigns into redder and redder states and districts. Still, isn't it possible that the Democrats are making the mistake that Hillary Clinton made in 2016 by investing their time and resources in places that they might win rather than making doubly sure that they win the places they should win and that would be enough to flip both houses of Congress? How likely is it that the Democrats will regret expanding their map rather than making sure of their initial targets?
(Z) answers: It is not likely that on November 4 of this year, Democrats will be saying, "Wow. It's Hillary 2016 all over again."
Clinton almost completely ignored the states of the "blue wall," spending no resources campaigning or advertising there, and precious little resources on get-out-the-vote and other such efforts. This despite the fact that she had a vast war chest, far greater than that of Donald Trump.
By contrast, the central party organs this year have more limited funds. Even then, the DNC, DSCC, etc. are still spending some money in states where the Senate race appears to be safe (e.g., North Carolina, Georgia). At the same time, investments in those places give diminishing returns, because you don't need to win by 20 points, and because Roy Cooper, Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA), etc. are doing a fine job of raising their own funds. So, Democratic cash provides more bang for the buck in places like Maine (where the Party is spending heavily) and Iowa (where money goes a long ways, and where the Democrats clearly have a strong chance to win).
For the Democrats, it would not make them happy if the lesson on November 4 is "Oooh, we should have paid more attention to Minnesota, Michigan and New Hampshire, because we lost those states by a nose." But it's just as painful if the lesson on November 4 is "Oooh, we should have paid more attention to Iowa, Kansas and Alaska, because we lost those states by a nose." All the pooh-bahs can do is invest the Party's money as wisely as they can. But even if they err, it won't be because they foolishly and arrogantly assumed certain states were in the bag when they were not.
O.T. in Clarkston, GA, asks: As of today, the Senate map is 53-2-45 (with Dan Osborn one of the ties).
Assuming a blue wave puts Minnesota in the Democrats' column, what do you think is the likelihood of the filibuster being removed from the Senate rules entirely?
Are the candidates leading in the red states—Mary Peltola (AK), James Talarico (TX), Josh Turek (IA), Adam Hamilton (KS) and/or Dan Osborn (NE)—likely to revive the Joe Manchin/Kyrsten Sinema Caucus?(Z) answers: If I had to bet, I would not bet that the Democrats wipe out the filibuster entirely, in one fell swoop. I would bet that the leadership decides that "death by a thousand cuts" looks better, and that they do several carve-outs. For example, "Bills admitting new states are not filibusterable."
If the Democrats regain the Senate by laying claim to a bunch of seats in red states, they are going to have to get used to the fact that the red-state Democrats are going to have to break ranks sometimes, like Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA) does, or like Joe Manchin did. That said, these folks will have gotten their jobs because voters want things to be shaken up, not because they want the status quo maintained. So, those votes will likely be available for some of the Democrats' priorities in a way that Manchin's and Sinema's generally were not.
N.G. in Shrewsbury, MA, asks: As of right now, according to your maps, there is a chance that Democrats get 55 seats in the Senate this year. Using your best rose-colored glasses and assuming that does come to pass, is there a chance for a filibuster-proof Senate after the 2028 election if you look just the right way?
(Z) answers: In a world where a Senate seat in Kansas—a state that hasn't elected a Democrat to the upper chamber since 1932—is in play, anything is possible. Especially since it is likely that: (1) the Iran War will get worse before it gets better, thus meaning that the deleterious effects will get worse before they get better and (2) Trump is likely to get more and more unhinged, as he declines physically and mentally, and as he deals with the realities of one or both chambers being controlled by the Democrats (e.g., no legislation, lots of investigations, etc.).
Here are seven Republican-held seats that might plausibly flip in 2028:
- Alaska: This is only really plausible if Sen. Lisa Murkowksi (R) decides she's had enough, and retires. Or if she switches parties.
- Florida : Right now, we have Sen. Ashley Moody (R) winning this year's special election. If she does, but then the Democrats come up with a strong candidate in 2028, then maybe...
- Iowa: If the Democrats are able to grab the seat being left vacant by Sen. Joni Ernst (R) in 2026, they might be able to grab the seat that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) will probably leave vacant in 2028.
- Kansas: If Democrats are able to grab the seat being held by Sen. Roger Marshall (R) in 2026, they might be able to grab the seat held by Sen. Jerry Moran (R) in 2028.
- North Carolina: Sen. Ted Budd (R) will be one of the Democrats' top two targets in 2028.
- Utah: If the "run an independent in a red state" strategy is successful in Nebraska or Montana this year, the Democrats could try to replicate it in Utah in 2028, against the somewhat obnoxious show horse Mike Lee (R). One imagines that if this is the plan, by-then Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) would make sure to recruit a Democratic nominee who would fall on their sword after the primary and drop out.
- Wisconsin: Sen. Ron Johnson (R) might stand down. Whether he does, or doesn't, this will be the other of the Democrats' top two targets in 2028.
I realize that some of these are kind of crazy. But if you had told me, as recently as 6 months ago, that Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio and North Carolina would all be in play, I would have said you were crazy. And yet, sometimes, crazy things happen.
S.B. in Granby, MA, asks: You wrote:
A possible new FC strategy in the event of Democratic control of both chambers could be opposition to deals between Congressional Democrats and Donald Trump (rather than pushing for their own legislation). They could try to lobby other House Republicans and maybe some moderate Democrats to try to sabotage anything Trump wants to do together with the Democrats.I had to read that three times. Is there honestly any expectation that Donald would do anything with the Democrats? I fully expect he will automatically veto everything just because Democrats are behind it.
(Z) answers: He may well spend 2 years throwing a temper tantrum, and refusing to even talk to the Democrats in Congress.
That said, he's not really a Republican. He just adopted that mantle because it was the path to electoral success. And he certainly has things he wants to do, whether it's fund the military or... well, funding the military is probably the only one the Democrats would be OK with. So, it could be that the blue team would be able to make some deals with him, particularly for something like the Donald Trump Memorial Fund the Military and Make D.C. a State Now That He's Personally Made D.C. Safe Act.
M.S. in Westport, CT, asks: What do you think would happen if someone ran an ad campaign in Texas that asked people to write in Trump for the U.S. Senate?
(Z) answers: Nothing would happen. Texas law does not allow write-in votes to be counted unless the person is formally registered as a write-in candidate. Trump, obviously, is not. So, a write-in vote for him would be the same as throwing the ballot in the garbage. We imagine that every Texas voter knows either that such a vote would not be legal, or else that trying to serve as a U.S. Senator and as president at the same time would not be legal, and therefore would not make that mistake.
E.R. in Loomis, CA, asks: I am very confused about California Proposition 40: a 5% one-time tax on billionaires. Butters from South Park is not confused—he hates those billionaires and would definitely vote yes on 40 if he lived in California. My first election was in 1972. My general philosophy for California propositions is "default to 'no'" because it is the legislature's job to create state policy. Once in a while I will vote 'yes,' though.
In this case what is obviously needed is a better tax code and better tax code enforcement. Proposition 40 achieves neither of these. In terms of fairness, I want to emulate my friend Butters and stick it to the billionaires by voting 'yes', but I think the correct vote is 'no.' After all, in subsequent elections someone may create a proposition to raid my IRA and Social Security.
How are you going to vote?(Z) answers: We don't announce our voting intentions. However, it would not be too far off to think of Proposition 40 like this: Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans cut Medicaid to give a tax cut to wealthy people, particularly billionaires. And California is trying to reverse that by raising taxes on wealthy people so as to pay for Medicaid (90% of the Prop 40 funds are earmarked for that purpose). In other words: "Trump gave you billionaires some extra cash, and we Californians are taking it back."
Some of the people who oppose the legislation (by and large, billionaires) argue that it will cause billionaires to flee the state and to take their economic activity with them. This is largely a straw man; most of them won't leave, and even those that do are largely going to leave their business interests behind (e.g., Facebook will stay in California even if Mark Zuckerberg does not). These same people also argue that the legislation is a de facto slippery slope, and next time the legislature will come after [insert scary-to-the-middle-class target here]. This is basically fearmongering.
Some of the people who oppose the legislation (including many lefties) observe that the proposition is not especially well written, and that any money it might raise will be tied up for years, thanks to a combination of lawsuits and arguments over exactly what assets each billionaire has, how much they are worth, whether or not the billionaires actually live in California anymore, etc.
If you think the goal being served is worth a shot, and with that shot years of messy litigation, then vote 'yes.' If you are leery of sloppy legislation that will result in years of bickering, then vote 'no.' Similarly, if you don't think it's fair to stick roughly 200 billionaires with the check, now that a hole has been blown in California's budget, then vote 'no.'
D.P. in Brooklyn, NY, asks: What would be the process for Trump to be convicted in the ICC, even if protected domestically by SCOTUS?
(Z) answers: There is no process. The United States is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, and so the ICC has no jurisdiction over American citizens. Even if there was a hasty approval of the Rome Statute by a Democratic-controlled Congress and a Democratic president, there is a strong argument that a prosecution for crimes committed before that date would be an illegal ex post facto trial. And there isn't going to be any such hasty approval, anyhow, because nobody on either side of the aisle wants to yield so much of the United States' sovereignty to an international body.
Having the ICC try Donald Trump clearly sounds very satisfying to some people, which is why it's a popular topic of discussion on left-wing podcasts. Ben Meiselas of MeidasTouch was ranting and raving about it just this week. But if Trump or anyone else is going to face consequences for his actions, it's going to be at the hands of an American court.
S.W. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, asks: Canadian here, but obviously we pay attention to American politics, maybe a bit more than usual lately. So, is there a way Trumpism goes down that involves significant incarceration of the man and his enablers? Are there any examples from history, either U.S. or globally, where fascists lost and justice was served without a bloody revolution? If so (and I'm sure that's a big if) are there any lessons for how to fix things now? As an outsider, in the past I could shrug and say "Not my circus, not my monkeys" (I believe that's Polish), but the Overton window has shifted so far, I don't see how to reset it without making massive examples of the people involved. Right now, the consensus in Canada is that we can't trust the U.S. until Trump is gone, but even if he dies tomorrow, how does it end? Or does it? I've been following U.S. politics for most of my adult life, and several POTUSes have been nasty, brutish and stupid, but the Rule of Law still held. What is the way forward for all of us, globally, to trust the U.S. again?
If I'd asked this 6 years ago, or even 2, I would have been laughably naive. Now I feel we don't have a choice.(Z) answers: There are plenty of examples, stretching over thousands of years, of bad leaders being pushed out of power without the need for a violent revolution.
The best American example is the leaders of the Confederate States of America. Some were imprisoned (usually briefly), others were run out of the country. But, by and large, they were defanged, and the Democratic Party was much weakened and was a de facto regional party for half a century. It is true that the Civil War happened, and that was plenty violent, but by and large it did not take additional violence to permanently remove most of the leaders of the rebellion from power, permanently. Those who did regain power did so multiple decades later.
It is very clear, at this point, that the lesson of the Richard Nixon crimes (e.g., Watergate), and of the Ronald Reagan/George H.W. Bush crimes (e.g., Iran-Contra) is that the president is above the law, and that those who enable his misdeeds will get a slap on the wrist, at worst. Anyone who is paying attention will see that the Donald Trump crimes simply cannot be treated in the same way, and that the full force of the law needs to be used against anyone and everyone in his administration who participated in corruption and lawbreaking, to the greatest extent possible. It will not be easy, because Trump will hand out pardons liberally, and because the right-wing media will scream bloody murder, day-in and day-out. But the next Democratic president (presumably no Republican will take action) has to make very clear that this is essential to saving the United States' reputation abroad, and to saving the very fabric of democracy. And that president will have to appoint people who will do their jobs without passion or prejudice, but with integrity and vigor, and who will not drag their feet the way Merrick Garland did.
J.I. in San Francisco, CA, asks: Apparently, the Treasury Department is now issuing currency notes that contain the president's signature instead of one of the treasury officials that normally appears (the Secretary of the Treasury is still on there). Near as I can tell, stores can refuse to accept cash, but can customers refuse to accept individual bills from stores or banks with a presidential signature, or alternatively, could one simply sharpie over the signature? Asking for a friend...
(Z) answers: First, let me point out that any business that tries to refuse ONLY Trump-signed bills would be creating a huge headache for itself, logistically.
But, of course, you are asking about the legality of such a policy. As you point out, it is legal for a business to refuse ALL forms of cash. It is also legal for a business to refuse some denominations of cash (most commonly, $100 bills). In both cases, there is a legitimate, business-related reason for the policy (avoiding the costs/risks of handling cash, and avoiding the risks of being targeted by counterfeiters, respectively). If a business wanted to refuse to accept Trump-signed currency, they would probably need to come up with a legitimate, business-related reason for it. I cannot think of one, though—something a lawyer could deliver while looking a judge squarely in the face.
As to defacing currency in the way you propose, that is legal. 18 U.S.C. 333 says that you cannot mutilate currency in a manner meant to render it unfit for circulation (for example, punching holes in it). And several different parts of the U.S. code say you cannot alter currency in a manner meant to defraud (for example, changing $10 into $100). But beyond that, marking a bill up is OK.
J.O. in Omaha, NE, asks: I remember reading an item on your site years ago about the morally dubious (but ultimately legal) practice of selling influence to bring a pardon recommendation to the president. How is that legally—or even politically—distinct from the allegations against Kimberly Guilfoyle?
(Z) answers: In the world of lobbying, there is often a fine line between "dubious, but probably legal" and "illegal."
What we have written about in the past is "pardon brokers." These are lobbyists, usually with legal backgrounds, who charge fat fees. If you hire them, they tell you that they know how to fill out the paperwork needed to request a pardon, and that they can twist the right arms to make the pardon more likely to be granted. The first part of that is usually true, and the second part might be true. Even if the pardon broker has contact with the president and his team, however, the pardon broker cannot legally offer cash or other considerations in exchange for the pardon. All they can do is use their access to make the argument to the president or to his people. (That said, in the case of the Trump administration, there are certainly cases where cash or other considerations WERE involved, although people are generally clever enough to make the transaction indirect and harder to trace.)
Anyhow, assuming there is no payment made to the president and/or his administration, the pardon brokering is legal. By contrast, what Kimberly Guilfoyle offered was to put her benefactors in direct contact with Donald Trump and his team in exchange for cash considerations. This is called "influence peddling," it is illegal, and it has been illegal for many, many years.
K.B. in Stamford, CT, asks: Would it be a Profiles in Courage moment if Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH) supported Rep. Max Miller's (R-OH) Democratic opponent?
(Z) answers: Truth be told, I see only two options here: (1) Do the right thing, and support your daughter by coming out against her abuser, or (2) Be a coward. As far as I can tell, Moreno is largely choosing #2.
In other words, there is no Profiles in Courage option here. It is not "courage" to back your own offspring in a situation as obvious as this.
D.F. in Berkeley, CA, asks: In this week's "I Read the News Today, Oh Boy," you included the observation that "... people's brains can only hold so much information." Since you seem to be both a historian and a Star Trek fan, I thought you might be able to answer this.
Ever since the bridge crew of the U.S.S Enterprise recognized Abraham Lincoln in the original Star Trek episode "The Savage Curtain" I've wondered...
Today, we struggle in American schools with what to leave out of a Western curriculum to include more about Asia, Africa, and the rest of the world.
On the way to Star Trek, we'd achieve a global civilization. What would we learn then?
And then, with the advent of the Federation, what about the other founding worlds of Andoria, Tellar Prime, Proxima Centauri, and Vulcan (not to mention the Mars and Lunar colonies). What then?
And then when the United Federation of Planets includes 350 worlds, and certainly at least something about our "enemies" the Klingons, the Romulans, etc... what do we learn then?
My question is: What of U.S. history would it be reasonable to expect to be retained in a human general education that would cover so vast a shared culture and history, even with minimal knowledge of the rest of the galaxy?(Z) answers: When I was majoring in history as an undergraduate, I was required to take three quarters of Western Civilizations (History 1A, 1B, and 1C). Over the course of my career, the trend has been to replace Western Civilizations with World Civilizations. I have never been asked to teach World Civ, but I have thought about how I would approach the subject if I did. And my conclusion is that any sort of narrative, covering dozens or hundreds of civilizations and hundreds or thousands of years, would be a train wreck. And so, the only choice would be a thematic approach, where you would spend a week or two looking at how various civilizations dealt with, say, law codes, along with notable examples (Hammurabi. Justinian, the Ten Commandments, etc.).
Presumably, the same approach would work for the United Federation of Planets. You would have a week or two, on say, how various civilizations have perceived an ideal society. And then, during that week or two, you'd cover notable examples like Abraham Lincoln, Surak of Vulcan, Zefram Cochrane, Akorem Laan of Bajor, Kahless, etc.
It is also possible that, in the future, they figure out ways to unlock intellectual potential, such that people can retain more information than is currently possible.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, asks: How long did Bush remain at the Bush line once he got there?
(Z) answers: Just for consistency's sake, we'll rely on the Gallup Poll to answer:
As you can see, he dropped to "Bush line" range around the time of the 2006 midterms. And he remained stuck there, more or less, for the balance of his term.
G.R. in Carol Stream, IL, asks: Non-political question for you. Since you quoted Starship Troopers by way of J.C. in Washington: What do you make of the book? Is it fascist? Is it satire? Why did the same man who wrote Stranger In A Strange Land also write Starship Troopers?
Perhaps more importantly, do you think it's worth a read or re-read?(Z) answers: When Robert A. Heinlein wrote Starship Troopers, he was well along a path that took him from being a New Deal liberal to being a staunch conservative. By all indications, he did not set out to write a pro-fascist novel. However, he decided to build a world around far-right and/or libertarian ideas that seemed to be sensible, or at least potentially sensible, to him, and he ended up with a world that is pretty obviously fascist. To a greater or lesser extent, this also describes how Donald Trump came to his version of fascist. Trump has no coherent political philosophy, and surely could not give an intelligent definition of what fascism is (or what communism is, for that matter). But the things that make sense to Trump produce, by and large, a fascist orientation.
Paul Verhoeven, the filmmaker who made the 1997 adaptation of Starship Troopers, was born in the soon-to-be Nazi-occupied Netherlands in 1938. He knows well the evils of fascism (and to the extent his 7-year-old mind did not absorb the full picture, his parents were able to fill in the gaps). He certainly was not going to make a pro-fascist movie. So he consciously made his film a critique and satire of fascism.
The movie is certainly worth seeing. Personally, I would only read the book as an exercise in comparing two different ways of representing the same ideas: straightforward (the book) and mockingly (the film).
B.B. in St. Louis, MO, asks: Reading about (Z)'s recurrent symptoms prompts me to ask (Z) whether you are still taking the tirzepatide on Thursdays. If so, you may want to skip a dose or two to see if you still get symptoms on the "holiday" weeks. If the symptoms do not occur on the weeks you skip, then you may want to have a discussion with your physician about this possible medication reaction.
(Z) answers: Well, I do take it on Thursdays.
However, my current illness actually began on a Wednesday night, with a severe sore throat I initially attributed to overdoing it during my lectures that day. And, as chance would have it, I was off the injections that week (and the week before) because it appeared that I might have had a bad reaction, and I was waiting for a doctor's appointment to check and see if she thought that was the case (she did not think so).
I never really suspected the shots had anything to do with the respiratory illness. This same thing happens to me once every 4-5 years—I get a cold/flu/whatever, it moves into my lungs, and it becomes bronchitis. At that point, it lingers until I get a LOT of rest and I get some pharmaceutical assistance. I have been on the pharmaceutical assistance (mostly steroids and antitussives) all week, and it's working, but it also makes me a bit light-headed, so I can't work as fast as I need to work in order to produce the blog in a timely manner. And if I just keep working until I am done, and so am up until 6:00 or 7:00 or 8:00 a.m., then getting rest goes by the wayside, and the illness lingers. That is what killed yesterday's post.
In any event, I do appreciate all the readers who have expressed concern and/or good wishes.