Johnson Holds Firm

Yesterday, the Republican majority in the House managed to elect a Speaker on the first ballot. Mike Johnson (R-LA) has thus accomplished something that eluded Kevin McCarthy (not to mention Johnson himself, the first time he claimed the gavel).

This does come with a caveat, however. When the votes were first announced, there were three Republican defectors: Thomas Massie (KY), Ralph Norman (SC) and Keith Self (TX). Massie was a lost cause, and so the vote was kept "open" while Norman and Self were subjected to cajoling, arm-twisting, threats, and so forth. Eventually, they folded and agreed to change their votes. And so, the appearance of unity was sustained, at least for now.

This does not strike us as a particularly meaningful story, however. If the Republicans had managed to turn things into a fiasco, it would have made for great popcorn viewing, at least for Democrats. But it clearly wouldn't have hurt the GOP at the ballot box. After all, the first Johnson election was the biggest speakership election fiasco since the Civil War era, and took place considerably closer to Election Day, and the Republicans were not affected.

Meanwhile, we presume that a day of unity and successful cat-herding is not the new normal. First, the Republicans did not want to do anything to interfere with the presidential certification on Monday. Even the nutters answer to voters who would be furious about that. This pressure will not exist in the future. Second, there was no "win" here for the far right. They had absolutely no hope of seating someone even further right than Johnson, and to act otherwise would be tilting at windmills. On the other hand, they certainly can convince themselves (rightly or not) that withholding their votes on legislation will result in the legislation being pushed further right.

That said, here's the counter-argument. What Johnson will have, in 16 days, is a whip-in-chief in the White House. Johnson has never had that before (and he needed it yesterday). Maybe that will be enough to make the thinnest majority in a century workable. It didn't generally work out that way for Paul Ryan, from 2017-19, despite his enjoying a considerably larger margin of error. But you never know. (Z)

Saturday Q&A

We're back at it, though still not operating at full speed. One of us has been tinkering with the software, and the other has been going through a very unpleasant case of food poisoning. (Z) knew that poutine didn't taste right.

Anyhow, today is another group of fun questions (with one semi-exception, for obvious reasons). Since we're so far behind today, we're going to post the questions without the answers. Every time we finish a set, we'll update. Some readers like this, since they can imagine their answers to the questions before they see ours.

Also, we got quite a lot of positive feedback about the fun questions. A lot of readers suggested we should do it one time per month, since there is much to be said for a respite from politics, especially these days. If you would care to weigh in, we put together a simple survey here.

Jimmy Carter

T.S. in Anaheim, CA, asks: After I heard the news the previous day I wondered to myself, "Was Jimmy Carter the most genuinely good person to ever be president?" And I thought I should e-mail you to ask if you've ever considered ranking presidents or even world leaders in this way.

For example, Theodore Roosevelt accomplished good deeds, but he also celebrated war and empire. Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt did good things, but both strongly compromised their values in order to win support for their causes. We won't even mention Lyndon B. Johnson.

The more I think about Jimmy Carter, the more I am struck by his fundamental goodness and decency, and how he was willing to sacrifice everything in order to remain true to his beliefs. Has there ever been another president close? Could you even rank a second best?

(V) & (Z) answer: We will start with a few caveats. First, as we've indicated with our halfway-done Carter series, he was willing to play politics when he had to. No president is an angel 100% of the time. Second, because values have changed, it can be hard to evaluate presidents of past generations. For example, what we call imperialism was regarded as legitimately charitable deeds by Theodore Roosevelt. Third, most of what we know about presidents is their public persona. They might have been very different people behind the scenes.

With this said, based on available evidence, we think it's fair to consider Carter to be the most "good" a person to ever have served as president. We would say the pretty clear runner-up is John Quincy Adams. Others in the conversation are Lincoln, William McKinley, Gerald Ford, Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

---

S.S.L. in Battle Creek, MI, asks: President Carter is one of my personal heroes, and it's my impression he has the reputation of being a less intelligent president. Can you describe some of what makes him brilliant in addition to what makes him kind?

(V) & (Z) answer: If someone says that Carter was unintelligent, they really don't know what they are talking about.

First, there is his record of achievement. You have to be pretty sharp to get into the Naval Academy, and even sharper to graduate in the Top 10% of your class. There are ways to get a diploma from some schools, even some high-profile schools, without being that bright. But not the service academies.

On top of that, after graduating, Carter was chosen to be a nuclear engineer. That's not a job for the faint of brain. Further, given the era in which he served, that means Carter was personally vetted and interviewed by Adm. Hyman Rickover. Rickover was a giant red ass who accepted none but the very best.

Of course, Carter also pieced together a successful political career. Some might even say brilliant, since he went from unknown governor of a mid-sized state to president. The other guy to have done that since World War II is Bill Clinton, and he's well known for his intellectual prowess.

Carter also wrote books—dozens of them. And they are very well written (as are the books of Barack Obama, incidentally). It's certainly possible that an editor cleaned things up, but it's not likely, since we're talking so many books, produced over the course of half a century.

The folks around Carter also said he was brilliant. Sometimes you can't be sure about these kinds of assessments, but it's another data point.

And finally, we've seen many Carter talks and speeches, and he was very well spoken. That includes in unscripted question and answer sessions. There's no good way to fake it when you're speaking extemporaneously. Either you have the lobes, as the Ferengi might say, or you don't.

---

S.P. in Wheaton, IL, asks: I've read that the U.K. flag is being flown at half-staff over Buckingham Palace in honor of Jimmy Carter. Have the Brits previously honored a former U.S. president in this way?

(V) & (Z) answer: Yes. It is fairly common to engage in reciprocal flag-lowering—for example, the U.S. lowered its flags after Queen Elizabeth II died.

We can't speak to every president, but we were able to verify that the U.K. lowered its flags for the two presidents where we were most certain they would have done so: Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. It's possible that the gesture is pro forma anytime a U.S. president dies. On the other hand, we can imagine at least one future presidential death where the Brits might decide to keep their flags flying high.

---

T.H. in Champaign, IL, asks: Where was the photo of the Carters walking during the inaugural parade taken, and what buildings are in the background? Given date, time, and sun position, they are walking NNW, presumably between the Capitol and the WH. Are the buildings in the background at what is now Freedom Plaza?

(V) & (Z) answer: We are not experts in the geography of Washington DC, particularly not the geography of Washington, DC, as it existed 50 years ago. But we did find a version of the photo with a wider cropping, and it shows an embassy to Jimmy Carter's right. The only embassy along that route, both then and now, is the Canadian embassy. So, that would suggest that the buildings shown in the photo are in the space now occupied by the National Gallery of Art (which has two buildings).

That said, if someone who knows better wants to correct us, send a message to comments@electoral-vote.com.

---

R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: Of the current living presidents we have today, who has the best chance of reaching 100?

(V) & (Z) answer: Our initial instinct was to choose Barack Obama, who clearly leads, and has led, a very healthy lifestyle.

That said, we have to take note of the lessons of Statistics 101. Of the four presidents born in the 1940s, the youngest is Bill Clinton, who is currently 78 years, 138 days old. Those four all have a 100% chance of living to 78 years, 138 days, while Obama does not. Given that a lot can happen to a person's body in 15 years (Obama is 63 years, 153 days old), we think we have to pick the healthiest of the four 1940s-born presidents. And that would appear to be George W. Bush (who also has some genetic advantages here, as his father lived to be 94, and his mother 92).

Education

C.S. in Philadelphia, PA, asks: How is "new" history incorporated into the second half of survey U.S. history courses? The end of the Cold War was too new when I was in high school/college and 9/11 had not happened. I would think now those subjects would be included, yet that would leave less time for other areas.

(V) & (Z) answer: It is very difficult, for two reasons. The first, as you note, is that for every minute of content you add, another minute of content has to go away. So, one has to decide if, for example, it's more important to talk about the presidency of Ronald Reagan than it is to talk about the causes of World War I. And when deciding on such cuts, it's usually harder to cut the earlier stuff, because it serves as a foundation for the later stuff.

The other issue is that the closer you get to the present, the more likely you are to engage with touchy issues. For example, (Z) has a lecture on 9/11 and on the United States' relationship with the Middle East. The lecture only appears when there's time for it (which basically means, no days of class lost to holidays). By chance, it hasn't appeared since the current situation in Gaza emerged. If and when he next delivers that lecture, it's going to be touchy. And these days, students run to administrators at the drop of a hat to complain about being offended. It's only a very small percentage who do that, but even a small percentage can create big headaches.

(Z) does do some lectures that are more thematic than chronological. For example, there's one on the rise of consumer culture and another on the place of television in American culture. Those are good places to squeeze in at least a little modern-day stuff.

---

S.C. in Tonawanda, NY, asks: A few years after graduating, I started having nightmares about college. Usually I'm skipping a class and realize I'm missing a test that's a major part of my grade. Then I wake up in a panic. I found that a few of my friends have similar nightmares.

Last night I had my first teaching nightmare. My multiple choices questions weren't lined up with the answers. I tried to explain to my class that they needed to shift their answers up one position, but saw that many of them weren't getting what I was explaining, and I knew that trying to grade these questions fairly would be difficult. Then the proctor who was helping me (who was the PA from my doctor's office for some reason) started playing distracting music over the classroom PA. Then the class was handing in their papers, and I noticed that one of the students had included a sappy note about how much they liked the class along with a bribe of $2—a $1 bill and four quarters.

I knew dealing with all of this was going to be a mess, and I woke up at that point.

I was wondering if you, ever had school related nightmares like this—either from the student or the teacher's prospective.

(V) & (Z) answer: Not that we can recall. We would guess that the reason why is that we have so much experience, we can pretty much deal with any crisis on the fly. If that theory is right, and if we are correct in inferring from your question that you're relatively early in your teaching career, then it means that such nightmares will eventually fade away.

---

R.B. in Santa Monica, CA, asks: What is your first indication that a group of students is going to be good... or not so good?

(V) & (Z) answer: The first-day presentation (going over the syllabus) is carefully crafted and very polished, It is designed to (1) convey key information, (2) give a brief overview of the material, (3) set the tone for the course, and (4) be as engaging as possible. (Z), in particular, has done this hundreds of times, and has been told by many hundreds of students that it's the best first-day presentation they've ever seen.

Ideally, the students will laugh at the joke lines and will ask at least some questions. For some groups it's both, for some it's one but not the other. The bad sign is when it's neither. Sometimes a class like that will "thaw," but often that does not happen.

---

A.B. in Wendell, NC, asks: OK, so, many of your regular readers will recognize me, but something you wrote in response to an aspiring Bruin piqued my interest, namely... unweighted versus weighted GPA.

As you may be aware, I went back to school at the age of 52 to fulfill a dream that had been sitting on my shelf for 25 years: to study and then work in the field of police forensics.

Because of my age and lack of law enforcement experience, I have taken a stepping-stone approach, going for an AAS in Criminal Justice Technology, which hopefully will lead to a job as a Police Records Specialist or Evidence Room Custodian, while I then continue education for forensics.

Right now, I attend Wake Tech, our community college here in my part of NC, and I am carrying a 4.0 GPA and am a member in good standing of our chapter of Phi Theta Kappa. I have had many people write letters of recommendation for me for scholarships, from a town councilman to a county commissioner, a state representative, a former minister and even several professors.

I'd love, eventually, to get a scholarship to attend Towson or Loyola-Chicago, as these are the schools with the best reputation, nationwide, for forensics. What else can I do, as a 50-plus year old, to get scholarships? And please explain a weighted GPA versus an unweighted GPA (mine is 4.0)

(V) & (Z) answer: We have been out of the "pursuing scholarships" game for decades, so we don't exactly have the latest information. That said, there are certainly scholarship matching services, such as Scholarship Owl, which are probably worth throwing a few bucks at, just to see if they come up with anything. Also, if a school admits you, they will generally try to help you find funding. If any readers have insights or suggestions, let us know at comments@electoral-vote.com.

And at the high school level, grades in honors and AP courses are treated as being on a 5-point scale (in other words, extra credit). So, an A is worth 5.0, a B is worth 4.0, etc. That means it's possible to graduate with a weighted GPA of 4.7 or 4.8 (some mandatory classes, like PE, are always on a 4-point scale). It's a little bit of a screwy system. (Z) took the same courses as his AP/honors colleagues, but he ALSO took theater, which was graded on a 4 point scale. So, although he got all As in his courses, his GPA was actually 0.4 points lower than it would have been if he'd never set foot in the theater department.

---

J.M. in Stamford, CT, asks: I once heard a dean of a university's school of architecture explain why none of his students concentrated on producing high-quality buildings for the mass-housing market: apartments and tract houses. He said, basically, you don't win prizes or gain professional prestige from such work; the prizes go to arty one-offs for corporate HQs or high-end mansions for the wealthy. What could be done to turn this around, so that architects would actually WANT to design good-looking buildings for strip malls and suburban developments?

(V) & (Z) answer: We wish we had some brilliant insight, but we don't. In most creative fields, whether it's cuisine, or fashion, or painting, or literature, the prizes go to folks who target the beautiful people, and not those who produce work for the hoi polloi.

The only "solution" we can see is this: Some architects have made a name doing prestige work, and then have taken an interest in buildings for use by the masses. Buckminster Fuller is an example, even if his ideas didn't really catch on.

Film

J.C. in Thủ Dầu Mộ, Bình Dương, Vietnam, asks: You described Monty Python and the Holy Grail as documentary-level accurate. I feel that you got the wrong Python by the tail. To get to the full Monty, you should have described The Life of Brian as documentary-level accurate.

(V) & (Z) answer: The Life of Brian isn't a documentary, it's newsreel footage.

---

D.S. in Layton, UT, asks: What is the best New Year's Eve movie? After The Poseidon Adventure, I am stumped.

(V) & (Z) answer: When your question first arrived, we had an immediate answer, and several days' reflection has not changed our minds.

Before we tell you our pick, we'll say that there aren't that many movies that take place exclusively on New Year's Eve/Day, though there are many that have notable New Year's Eve/Day scenes. That list includes The Godfather, Part II, The Phantom of the Opera, When Harry Met Sally, An American in Paris and Ocean's 11.

Our choice, however, is Trading Places.

---

M.M. in Plano, TX, asks: I enjoyed your comments on historical movies. I was raised on the 70mm spectacles of 1956-1970: Around the World in 80 Days, Ben-Hur, Spartacus, Lawrence of Arabia, The Longest Day, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Patton, etc. I wonder if (Z) saw any of these films in theaters? How have you reacted to them?

Also, regarding the ketchup on hot dogs controversy: any true New Yorker (which I am) or Chicagoan will regard this combination as what Don Vito Corleone would call an infamnia.

(V) & (Z) answer: (Z) keeps close tabs on the numerous local theaters that show old movies. And so, he has seen screenings of Ben-Hur, Spartacus, Lawrence of Arabia, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Patton. It helps to live in an industry town. One of his biggest disappointments in 2024 is that he had to miss out on a screening of It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

(Z) has told many students (and many others) that there are some movies where it doesn't much matter if you see them in the theater. And there are some movies where a theatrical viewing is an entirely different experience, and a home viewing is a poor substitute. All of the movies listed above should, if at all possible, be viewed in a proper theater. Although the movie where a theater matters the most, in (Z)'s experience, is The Godfather. That movie is just stunning when viewed properly—especially the baptism sequence. (Z) has seen it in a theater at least five times. Also very high on that list is Star Wars, which (Z) has also seen in a theater at least five times.

---

S.S. in West Hollywood, CA, asks: You told us which films you consider the most historically accurate. So, which films do you consider the most historically inaccurate? Not the films that are obviously and intentionally inaccurate, like Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, but the films non-historians may perceive as accurate. The films that have gone the farthest in miseducating the public and our perceptions of history.

And if you don't include The Birth of a Nation on that list, I'd like to know your thoughts on it and how it's shaped our understanding of history and specifically race relations in this country.

(V) & (Z) answer: We think you largely have to exclude films from before 1950 or so, for two reasons. The first is that they were often based on received history. In other words, when D.W. Griffith made The Birth of a Nation, he was basing it on what the professional historians of his day were saying. He was not aware, or at least not fully aware, that he was spinning a racist fantasy. The same is true with Gone with the Wind or with any of a thousand Westerns.

The second reason that pre-1950s films should be put aside is that there was a much greater tolerance for blending fact and fiction in search of entertainment. The filmmakers largely saw themselves as putting on pantomimes, and were willing to throw together whatever ingredients were necessary to carry off their vision.

This, then, is a list of ten post-1950 films that are egregiously inaccurate, in one way or another. It is presented in rough order of the events portrayed, and is most certainly not exhaustive:

1. Spartacus: This is a pretty good example of how pre-1950 films were put together. They tossed in a bunch of elements of Roman history, including centurions, gladiators, Spartacus, a single character named Gracchus (there were actually two Gracchi), Marcus Licinius Crassus, sandals, togas and crucifixions and they made a movie of it. Most of the characters in the film were not contemporaries of each other (both Gracchi were dead before Crassus was born, for example), and the portrayal of Spartacus' rebellion is only loosely based on what really happened.
   
   
2. Braveheart: This is another pretty good example of how pre-1950 films were put together, although it's far less excusable, since the film was made decades after that style fell into disfavor. The Scots' kilts are about 200 years too early, their blue face paint is about 1,000 years too late. The film considerably reinvents the story of William Wallace, and mixes details from his life and that of Robert the Bruce. The weapons are wrong, the details of the battles are wrong, Wallace's execution is wrong.
   
   
3. Pocahontas: Pocahontas is the only Disney princess based on a real person. Let's hope it stays that way, because when Disney gets its hands on history, well, the results are problematic to the point that there's actually a word for it—the "Disneyfication" of the past. Most obviously, there was no romance between Pocahontas and John Smith. And that is for the best, as she was 9 years old when he arrived in the New World.
   
   
4. The Patriot: Do you get the sense that Mel Gibson cares little for the historical record? This picture makes the Americans look way too heroic, makes the British look way too villainous (Gibson wanted viewers to think "Nazis"), and aggressively whitewashes the story of Benjamin Martin, who was actually a giant a**hole.
   
   
5. Amistad: Other than a couple of the Indiana Jones films, Lincoln, and Schindler's List, (Z) is not generally a fan of the work of Steven Spielberg, and this is exhibit 1A as to why. Spielberg is clearly a gifted technical filmmaker. However, he so wants to pull on the viewer's heartstrings that he engages in emotional trickery that is somewhere between "cheesy" and "dishonest." The details of Amistad are fine, and the events are portrayed basically as they happened. However, the horrors of slavery were apparently not enough emotional weight. And so, Spielberg and his screenwriter (David Franzoni) grafted on top of the main narrative the notion that these events, which took place from 1839-41, very nearly started the Civil War. This is not remotely true.
   
   
6. The League of Ungentlemanly Warfare: This film has virtually nothing to do with the actual events upon which it was based. Several characters in the movie are invented, others who "work together" never actually met. Anders Lassen, who was actually a fairly slight fellow (think Tom Cruise) is portrayed by Alan Ritchson, who looks like the Incredible Hulk. Winston Churchill looks and sounds more like Rush Limbaugh. And the actual raid on Fernando Po was nothing like what is portrayed in the movie.
   
   
7. Pearl Harbor: Michael Bay likes his villains to be cartoonishly evil. That's not a problem when we're talking alien robots or violent felons. But it is a problem when your villains are, in effect, a racial group. At various times, the film shows Japanese Americans collaborating with the invading forces and Japanese planes deliberately targeting both civilians and hospitals. None of this is true, and it's actually kind of racist. There's all kinds of other stuff in the film that's ridiculous (like the counterattack on Tokyo, which did not happen), but it's the racist stuff that's really problematic.
   
   
8. The Imitation Game: When (Z) teaches his "Film and History" course, he uses this film to illustrate some of the reasons that filmmakers make the inaccurate choices they make. The work of the thousands of people at Bletchley Park is reduced to a team of half a dozen. A challenge that, in reality, involved many steps forward and many steps back, is resolved with a single blazing flash of insight. Commander Alastair Denniston is made into a villain; in actuality, he was one of the biggest supporters of the work being done. Alan Turing is portrayed as autistic and antisocial, and he was not. Turing also has close, working relationships with the head of MI-6 (Stewart Menzies) and with later-revealed-to-be-a-spy John Cairncross. In fact, he did not meet these people. One can infer why these choices were made, which is why it's a good film for discussion, but the fact is that it's a pretty gross misrepresentation.
   
   
9. JFK: Oliver Stone conspiratorial thinking framed as if it's a documentary. Moving on.
   
   
10. Argo: There are two big problems here. The first is that the role of the Canadians (and the Brits) was downplayed to the point of being insulting. The second is that while the escape from Iran is very dramatic in the film, with militants chasing down the runway as the Americans' plane takes off, in reality it was no different than any other plane flight. That said, Bryan Cranston gives a hell of a performance.

As to Birth of a Nation's impact on race, we don't think it was all that substantial. That film affirmed ideas that white people already had more than it created new ideas.

---

J.W. in Pomona, CA, asks: What do you think of the movie 300? It has not exactly received high praise from historians, but I saw a video that argues that it is accurate, as it is the telling of the tale from the one survivor, and it was his embellished tale that we are seeing.

(V) & (Z) answer: First, let us note that the sources for people and events from that long ago are very sparse, and leave a lot of room for creative interpretation. Second, "it's accurate to one person's account of the battle" is a pretty thin leg to stand on, particularly for something as chaotic as a battle, where our understanding must necessarily come from a blending of sources. If you based a movie about, say, the Battle of Gettysburg entirely on Robert E. Lee's battle reports, that would produce an account of the battle that is not a lie, per se, but is not faithful to the overall picture.

Anyhow, 300 engages in plenty of dramatic license, most obviously making the Greeks look more David-like and heroic and making the Persians look more Goliath-like and villainous. That said, we doubt anyone went into the theater expecting to get a history lecture.

Sports

D.L. in Somerville, MA, asks: I am one of the people who started the sport of Ultimate Frisbee back in 1969. We took pieces from many sports, including soccer, basketball, touch football and skeet shooting (the throw-off is called a "pull"). When players began to sit on a lead in about 1975 and just not throw the disc, we introduced a stall count. My question involves the elimination of the center jump after every basket in basketball in the 1930's. Was this done just to speed up the game or were there other reasons, too?

(V) & (Z) answer: There were three reasons. The first, as you infer, was to speed the game up. The second was to make sure that teams with a very tall player did not have an unfair advantage. And the third was that administrators did not believe that referees could produce 100 or so clean "throws" per game.

---

S.B. in North Liberty, IA, asks: What will it take for Bob Nutting to finally sell the Pittsburgh Pirates so the organization can actually focus on building a winning baseball team?

(V) & (Z) answer: Death. He knows full well that the fans don't like him, and he doesn't care, because he's making good money.

Sadly, the team's issues don't figure to improve even once he's exited, stage right. In the end, they are a small-market team, and cannot compete with the big boys when it comes to salary. The economically rational decision is to keep payroll low, take the revenue sharing money, and collect as much as possible in TV fees, ticket sales, concessions, etc. Roughly 29 out of 30 owners would rather have a team that is not competitive and makes $20 million in profit than a team that wins the World Series and loses $20 million (the exception is the Mets' Steve Cohen).

And since you are (presumably) a Pirates fan, allow us to congratulate you on Paul Skenes winning the Future Yankee of the Year award. Undoubtedly, Gerrit Cole looks forward to welcoming him to town in a year or two.

---

L.S. in Greensboro, NC, asks: Reading your questions led me to wonder something about the color lines in sports: Why do you think that they were broken so much earlier in college athletics than in professional sports? I believe most Big Ten schools had Black athletes decades before Jackie Robinson (who himself was at UCLA before the Dodgers). For example, at my alma mater, the University of Wisconsin, the first two Black athletes began to play baseball in 1900 despite the fact that Wisconsin has never been a highly integrated state.

(V) & (Z) answer: Limiting ourselves to the "Big Four," the NBA and NFL, until the 1950s, were predominantly Midwestern leagues catering to a white audience, and were leery of alienating their fanbases. Oh, and some of the owners were racists. Major League Baseball had a wider fanbase, although it was also mostly white, and also had a commissioner, in Kenesaw Mountain Landis, who actively worked to maintain the color line. Oh, and some of the owners were giant mega racists (most obviously Tom Yawkey of the Red Sox). The NHL was limited to colder climes, and there was virtually no Black talent available, even if a team had been tempted.

At the university level, there was far less centralized control. And so, there was much more potential for universities to utilize Black athletes, either out of a desire to win, or for political reasons, or both. UCLA, for example, prided itself on its open-mindedness and its success across a wide variety of sports. So, it's not too much of a surprise that the school welcomed a sizable number of very important Black athletes in the years before and during the Civil Rights Movement: Robinson, Kenny Washington, Woody Strode, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Arthur Ashe, etc.

---

N.S. in Portland, OR, asks: Baseball has often been called America's favorite pastime. Maybe basketball or football has replaced baseball these days. My question is: Looking back in history to before baseball became popular (in the 1870s?), what were America's favorite sporting events? Or even more in general, what events drew large crowds on a regular basis? Were any of these events something that bound the country together via a shared experience/competition, or were they just local or regional events?

(V) & (Z) answer: Before the 1870s, America did not have a bunch of large cities, and American culture mostly did not draw a clear line between "work time" and "leisure time." Both of those things changed with the advent of the factories. And so, tt was indeed in the 1870s that baseball became professionalized, and that a few other big-time sports began to coalesce at either the college or professional levels.

Prior to the 1870s, most "sports" were amateur, and were enjoyed at events like picnics and church socials. Northerners, on the whole, preferred athletics—running, jumping, throwing. Southerners, on the whole, preferred combat sports. There was a sport back then called "gouging," that was very much like wrestling, except with virtually no limits on what a participant could do. It was not uncommon for fingers to be bit off, or eyes to be popped out of their sockets.

There were occasionally events that attracted national attention, usually a boxing match or a horse race. But there really wasn't anything that was an annual subject of interest, like the Super Bowl or March Madness today.

---

R.T. in Arlington, TX, asks: College football pretty well sucks now, with unlimited transfers, unlimited cash, ditching bowl games, sitting out games to preserve a redshirt, and going pro the moment you think you can get drafted. A lot of the joy of the game was watching young spastic players mature into stars, and watching a team come together from year to year. Fan loyalty is critical to the sport, but I'm left flat. What do you think needs to change? Is it possible? How long would it take? I would tell you what I think the answer is, but where is the fun in that?

(V) & (Z) answer: For way too many years, the balance of power was too much in favor of the schools, and not at all in favor of the athletes. That pendulum has now swung way in the other direction.

We would say that the solution—and we would not expect universities to go for it—is to encourage the athletes to unionize and bargain collectively. That is the only way we see that some sort of rules can be imposed, without there being anti-collusion lawsuits (which the universities would almost certainly lose).

If that were to come to pass, the next step would be contracts. If a player signs a 3-year contract at, say, Michigan, then they are committed to Michigan for 3 years. The tradeoff is that Michigan is committed to them, and has to provide all promised funds and tuition even if the player does not perform up to expectations, or is injured.

Gallimaufry

M.G. in Boulder, CO, asks: Who would have guessed that Electoral-Vote.com was a site for dog-training tips and now, mustard questions—but, with an expert available, why not?

First, what's the best single all-around mustard? Second, what would be your next 4 choices and the best way to use each?

(V) & (Z) answer: The best mustard (Z) has ever had—and he's tried hundreds—is undoubtedly Pommery Meaux. It's a very strong, whole-grain, Dijon mustard. And if that is your thing, it's actually good enough to eat straight.

Four others, in no particular order:

• Inglehoffer makes a bunch of interesting flavors; (Z)'s favorite is bread and butter pickle, which is really good on things like bratwurst.
  
  
• Hickory Farms makes a cranberry mustard that is very good on turkey sandwiches.
  
  
• Maille's mustards are quite good on pretzels, particularly their honey dijon flavor.
  
  
• Beaver also makes a cranberry mustard that's good, and their dijon is very good on hamburgers.

---

S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, asks: You wrote: "Yeah, but what's your Kevin Bacon number?"

It occurs to me that, depending on how liberally one accepts connections for the purpose of calculating Kevin Bacon numbers that (Z), having experience in musical theater (IIRC), might actually have one. And so now I'm curious. (Z)?

(I was surprised to find that, if one accepts being in the pit orchestra of a high school musical, I have a Bacon number of 3.)

(V) & (Z) answer: First, note that (Z) never did musical theater, just theater. First, because (Z) was the only one in the class who could sing. Second, because when you do a play, you only have to pay royalties on the play. But when you do a musical, you also have to pay royalties on the songs. It was not a well-to-do high school.

Second, it is not actually necessary to refer to his work in high school theater. (Z) was an extra in the movie Speechless. Also in that movie was David Cromwell, who appeared in Picture Perfect with Bacon. So, (Z) has a Bacon number of 2.

---

D.J.M. in Salmon Arm, BC, Canada, asks: The Electoral-Vote.com Olympics are about to award gold, silver and bronze to a favorite Canadian in the visual, literary, musical, or performing arts fields. Who do you pick?

(V) & (Z) answer:

• Bronze: Wayne Gretzky. We're going to take the position that sports are a form of visual and performing art. Gretzky, by all indications, is a very genuine, very humble fellow who has nonetheless performed great service to his country and his sport. That said, this is something of a personal pick; he was a real positive at a tough time in Los Angeles' history.
  
  
• Silver: Neil Young. Great music, and a man of great conviction, who is willing to put his ideals ahead of his profits.
  
  
• Gold: Michael J. Fox. Back to the Future is damn near a perfect movie. And, of course, it's only part of his body of work, which is impressive. Meanwhile, the way he's responded to having Parkinson's Disease has been an inspiration. If you haven't seen his appearance at last year's BAFTAs, you really should take a look:
  
  

---

D.M. in McLean, VA, asks: Shortly before I departed for a holiday vacation, I left my dogs at a kennel where they spent the holidays. Of course, being Cocker Spaniels, their reaction was, "Oh boy, friends to play with!" I've never seen dogs more happy to be left at a kennel.

How did Flash and Otto spend the holidays? Also, have they ever had to spend time at a kennel and, if so, what was their reaction?

(V) & (Z) answer: Flash and Otto spent the holidays at home, largely camped out in their doggie beds. Flash has never been to a kennel. Otto has been, but only for daycare, and that was many years ago. That said, his reaction was very much like that of your dogs. The reason he stopped going there was that they work around normal workers' hours, not professors' hours.

If (Z) has to be out of town, he either arranges for the dog walker to take up residence, or he leaves the dogs with a friend who also has two dogs. The four dogs all know each other, and the friend knows well how to handle the dachshunds.

---

J.M in Goshen, IN, asks: How many messages do you generally get a week to the questions inbox, comments inbox, etc. and how much time does it take to read through and sort all of them?

(V) & (Z) answer: It varies, as you might imagine. But the average week is probably 1,800 messages, and it takes about 10 hours to go through them all.

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger