Donald Trump Kills 67 People

We presume that all readers know by now that there was a terrible collision just outside of D.C. on Wednesday night/Thursday morning, involving an American Airlines flight and a Black Hawk helicopter. All 60 passengers and 4 crew members on the airplane, and all three soldiers on the helicopter, were killed.

For a couple of weeks, we've been intending to run an item about a piece written for TNR by Jason Linkins, under the headline "Shove the Presidency Down Trump's Throat." That op-ed builds on a piece written for The Bulwark by Jonathan V. Last, under the headline "Democrats and the Ruthless Aggression Era." We did not expect these two items to intersect so clearly with actual news, but here we are. The basic argument of both Linkins and Last is that while Joe Biden was in office, the Republicans blamed him for everything, reasonable or not. So, they assert that it's time for the Democrats to adopt the same approach, now that the shoe is on the other foot.

That, then, is the genesis of the headline "Trump Kills 67 People." Which, compared to blaming Biden for, say, the price of eggs, is actually not as unreasonable as it seems. You could certainly take the view that it's a big country, and a big bureaucracy, and that a president cannot possibly keep an eye on everything. Or, you could take note that Trump (and Elon Musk) forced FAA administrator Michael Whitaker out 11 days ago, and also that the air traffic controller responsible for the crash was pulling double duty due to understaffing, and handling both civilian and helicopter traffic. Certainly, presidents (and other politicians) have gotten into much deeper trouble in situations that had far fewer of their fingerprints.

Trump instinctively recognizes when something like this might rebound on him, and so he and his media allies quickly went on the attack. In the obligatory post-disaster press conference, Trump decreed that: (1) Obama-era standards for aviation employees were "mediocre," (2) He [Trump] changed them to "extraordinary," (3) Joe Biden changed them to "lower than ever before." The President then asserted that all of this is the fault of DEI, and to underscore that this would be "solved," he promptly signed an executive order meant to assess the "damage" done to air safety by DEI policies. Needless to say, Trump offered no evidence for any of his claims. Still, his enablers at Fox jumped on it, and took the whole thing into crazypants land, asserting that the FAA was understaffed because the Biden administration was trying to fill self-created FAA quotas of deaf people, dwarves and trans people. You just can't make this stuff up. Although, apparently, the people at Fox can.

Obviously, the response from Trump and from Fox is absolutely vile. However, it's also an object lesson in exactly the kind of thing that Linkins and Last are talking about. Do Democrats actually have the stomach to run some of the ugliest parts of the Trump playbook against him? We very seriously doubt that the Party would ever stoop so low as the President did yesterday. But a milder version, where they blame him for the price of eggs, for the failure of the electrical grid in Texas, for an increase in opioid addiction, for whatever bad things happen in Ukraine or Israel? That we could at least imagine.

Although the leaders of the Democratic Party don't want to pin the blame on Trump directly, people a bit lower down but who are popular, say Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY), could say: "The crash happened because the control tower was understaffed. Trump wants to fire 50,000 hard-working civil servants and replace them with loyal cronies. How's that going to work out when all the air traffic controllers know nothing about aviation safety but everything about MAGA? And Elon Musk wants to cut their numbers too, although the crash happened because there aren't enough right now. And all this in service of tax cuts for billionaires." It could start quite a discussion. (Z)

Confirmation Hearings: Trump May Not be Able to Ram Gabbard, Kennedy Through

Yesterday, the Senate voted to confirm Doug Burgum as the new secretary of the interior. It is true that he's a fawning lackey, and that he's also one of these people who claims the government can be run like a business. However, those are not disqualifying characteristics for any president's Cabinet nominees, and they certainly are not disqualifying characteristics for THIS president's Cabinet nominees (given the problems with some of the others). Further, secretaries of the interior are pretty much always politicians from the West (the last non-Westerner to be confirmed was Donald P. Hodel, of Virginia, appointed in 1985). The upshot is that Burgum was clearly acceptable enough to be easily confirmed, and indeed he was, by a vote of 79-18.

With the now-former North Dakota governor taking his seat, Donald Trump has now gotten eight Cabinet or Cabinet-level positions confirmed (in chronological order, with the final vote tally in parentheses):

• Secretary of State Marco Rubio (99-0)
• CIA Director John Ratcliffe (74-25)
• Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth (51-50)
• DHS Secretary Kristi Noem (59-34)
• Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent (68-29)
• Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy (77-22)
• EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin (56-42)
• Burgum

If you are a Californian, or a Van Halen fan, you might know that 5150 is the statewide police code for "may have mental issues, should be involuntarily detained." That certainly adds a poetic dimension to Hegseth's confirmation vote.

Yesterday, there were a couple more high-profile, potentially controversial nominees who headed to The Hill to receive the third degree. If you are rooting for rough times for the Trump administration, then we have one piece of bad news for you, and one piece of good news. The bad news, if that's your vantage point, is that controversial FBI-Director-designate Kash Patel's hearing was mostly drama-free. You should expect him to be confirmed. The good news, meanwhile, is that controversial DNI-designate Tulsi Gabbard's hearing was something of a train wreck.

Entering into yesterday's hearings, you would have thought Gabbard's biggest weakness is her past support for intelligence leaker Edward Snowden. If you actually watched the proceedings yesterday, you would have concluded that Gabbard's biggest weakness is... well, her past support for intelligence leaker Edward Snowden. The Democrats held her feet to the fire on this matter, of course, but so too did several Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee. The latter list includes Susan Collins (ME), John Cornyn (TX), James Lankford (OK), Jerry Moran (KS) and Todd Young (IN). What everyone, but particularly the Republicans, wanted was some acknowledgment from Gabbard that Snowden harmed national security. Ten different times the would-be DNI refused to say so, agreeing only that he broke the law.

And while Snowden was the main topic of conversation, there were many other issues that came up during Gabbard's appearance, including her support for Vladimir Putin, her opposition to renewing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (that piece of the legislation allows the government to monitor non-citizen communications without a warrant), and her secret 2017 trip to Syria to meet with then-leader Bashar Assad. On the latter point, Gabbard claimed that she "was not aware of any accusations" that the two brothers who arranged the trip are accused of having ties to Hezbollah. As she has said in the past that she did know, it could be argued that she perjured herself with that bit.

Ultimately, the most important thing to know is probably this. After Gabbard's hearing, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) told Fox entertainer Jesse Watters that, "I'm worried by what I hear from some of my Republican colleagues. I'm worried that her nomination may be in jeopardy." Keep in mind that Hawley, who is in lockstep with Donald Trump on pretty much everything, has no reason to lie here. Keep also in mind that these kinds of interviews, especially when coming from a senator who is very friendly to the administration, are often a warning to the White House to withdraw their nominee in order to save face.

Whether Hawley's words were meant as a warning or not, and whether the White House heeds the warning or not, Gabbard's nomination is clearly in trouble. She might well fail to secure the support of the Intelligence Committee, and she might even come up WAY short (say, 10-5 against). That is not automatically fatal, but it would be very difficult to overcome, especially since: (1) those Republicans who voted against her in committee would also vote against her on the floor of the Senate, and (2) there are Republicans who are not on the Intelligence Committee who have expressed reservations about Gabbard, and who might well join in casting "nay" votes (Mitch McConnell, R-KY, and Thom Tillis, R-NC, are obvious non-Intelligence candidates to vote against Gabbard).

It is also the case that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is shaping up to be a nail-biter, following confirmation hearings that weren't as bad as Gabbard's, but weren't good, either. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who is both a physician and chairman of the committee that will vote whether or not to endorse Kennedy's appointment, is very publicly expressing concerns about the nomination, and has said he may have something to announce over the weekend. If that is not code for "You better think about yanking this nomination, Mr. President," we don't know what is. If Cassidy does formally come out against Kennedy, it will give permission to other GOP senators to do so, in view of Cassidy's professional credentials.

If the Senate really does stand up to Trump, and rejects both Gabbard and Kennedy, then it would be double the total number of times that has happened in the last half-century. So, another record for Trump, kind of like his record for number of times being impeached. So much winning! (Z)

Trumponomics: A Heaping Pile of Bull... Well, You Know

Less than 2 weeks into Trump v2.0, those of us who write about politics have been reminded of a couple of really tricky things when it comes to discussing his economic agenda. The first is that the Trump White House engages in so much spin, and so much dishonesty, and does so much "flooding the zone" with crap, it is really hard to accurately recount exactly what is going on.

For example, we had an item on Wednesday about the initiative meant to push a bunch of federal employees out the door. We correctly noted the underlying motivation, and that there was much reason for skepticism about the scheme, but we did not fully appreciate exactly how phony the whole thing is. The good news is that we have plenty of readers who work for one federal agency or another, and so can help fill in the gaps. Here's a much better explanation of the whole thing, from a reader who is directly affected:

I want to note that the offer to Federal employees is NOT a buyout, or an offer to pay employees to not work. Instead this is a "deferred" resignation, where you tell them by February 6 that you will resign ON Sept 30. The trade-off here is ONLY that the employees who take the offer will be exempt from the return-to-office orders and can continue to work remotely for the last months of their employment (well, maybe, since we know how promises from these guys go).

Also included in the letter were indications that the location, hours, and assignments of that employee may be changed at the will of the government, and you are agreeing not to fight that. In addition, there is NO indication that they cannot still fire you early. While administrative leave is mentioned, it is left up to the discretion of the office, and in most cases, administrative leave is limited to 10 days. And even should they find a way to put folks on administrative leave for the entire 7 months, there are strict rules around holding a "second" job, which I am sure will be enforced even for those who are resigning this way, so getting a different job would be problematic. After all, they are still "employed" during that 7 months, even if on leave.

In short, this is NOT a buyout, in any way, shape, or form. This is a trap. The media is doing the nation a grave disservice in describing this as a buyout.

We are keeping folks who send us these reports anonymous, for obvious reasons. We have full confidence that these readers are telling the truth, and we have numerous messages from federal workers that reiterate the same points. We thought we would share one more of those, that speaks not only to the scammery going on, but some of the other dynamics of the Trump administration's "management":

As a career civil servant for a sub-agency of the department of defense, I appreciate that you captured some of the important nuances of this latest effort to push out federal workers. What many outlets failed to mention is that the e-mail we received with this "opportunity" also included language like this:

• "We cannot give you assurance regarding the certainty of your position"
• "The federal workforce should be comprised of employees who are reliable, loyal, trustworthy"
• "Federal agencies are likely to be downsized through restructurings, realignments, and reductions in force"

In other words, this e-mail was very much a threat, with a little sprinkle of demanding loyalty in there. But many in our agency seem to believe the offer may also be bogus or unlawful. For starters, the rather silly way we "redeem" this offer is outlined in the e-mail, and is to: "Type the word 'Resign' into the body of this reply e-mail. Hit 'Send'." What??? So you end your career, and leave your group and agency with no direct communication to your chain of command that your duties need to be reassigned, by typing a one-word e-mail to an unknown brand-new e-mail address, like you are opting in to marketing texts? Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) pointed out there is no budget allocation for paying workers for this time. There is no real protection for us if Trump, on a whim, decides to fire us early anyway. The people likely to accept this are people planning to retire anyway, in which case Trump just wasted billions of tax dollars giving them extra money and time in service for their pension calculation, if he pays them at all (one might be reminded of his history of stiffing people to whom he promised money).

The deadline for accepting this offer is February 6. When are agencies supposed to release their updated policies regarding return-to-work? February 7. A skeptic of Trump's offer might think he is being advised that he is running into a legal wall with the current collective bargaining agreements and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, and he is trying to get rid of anyone he can with scare tactics before workers have the full information (and, of course, before the rubber hits the road with lawsuits in response to his future firing attempts).

We had a virtual "all hands" meeting with thousands of people and agency leaders regarding "return to work" initiatives. The general refrain from the ranking leader, to the barrage of questions and fears, was that "we need to await agency guidance." But I was also a bit taken aback with how candid he was about how unrealistic the whole return-to-office initiative was. He said plainly, to a question about possible relocation of workers, "Regardless of relocation incentives, we simply do not have enough office space and desks to bring everyone back to the office. It cannot be done." During COVID, the government learned that productivity increased with people working from home, and started selling off expensive office buildings. The government saved tens of billions with the sales, and by passing along the ongoing costs of office supplies, electricity, etc. onto its workers, who now have home offices at their own expense. If the goal is government savings, this is the wrong way to go. And, as of now, it isn't possible in the near future even if they tried.

I've worked for DoD for over 15 years. I have never seen morale this low, or people more distracted and unable to focus on basic work output. Perhaps this too shall pass, but I suspect this will lead to further brain drain of the government. I work in a highly specialized group within the government where it is hard to attract top talent vs. the private sector, and we have lost applicants due to the salary restrictions before. Two of my colleagues are considering leaving, since they can easily find a higher-paying job for an outside firm and the perks of working for the government (such as remote work and job security) seem to be eroding or gone. And my anecdotal experience within our group is likely to be shared across agencies: When you make it a scary, miserable place to work, the highly qualified people leave, and the lazy people or people who can't find work elsewhere stay. We may lose two of our best, and the actions from the White House will not make it easier to remove the ones in our group who do not contribute. This reminds me of Trump's tariff policies. They sound good to the simple-minded, but when you actually look at the impacts of these policies, they tend to have the opposite effect than the one that is aimed for. Under the guise of "making government more efficient and saving taxpayer money," he will be making the government lazier and less competent, while costing taxpayers money in both the short and long term. Trump in a nutshell.

We thank both of you for sharing your insights, as well as others who wrote in with messages that served as confirmation.

Let us also note that there was much coverage yesterday of the various hurdles that Trump's plan will run into, both legal and logistical. There was also much coverage of the fact that, as we've noted, this is mostly being driven by Elon Musk. Musk is clearly in over his head, and clearly does not understand (and presumably does not care to understand) the difference between "private business" and "the federal government." Although even if he does understand the difference, it's worth taking a look at his leadership of eX-Twitter, and how his "break everything" philosophy has worked out with that concern (hint: It's lost 80% of its value in a little over a year).

Meanwhile, the second real challenge when it comes to Trumponomics (or a lot of the other things coming out of this White House), is trying to answer the question: "What the hell happened here?" Obviously, we are entirely comfortable with the notion that Trump is pretty incompetent and pretty stupid. However, he's surrounded by people who are certainly more capable than he. And some of those people must be thinking things through, right? RIGHT? So, we are strongly inclined to look for the method in the madness, because our gut tells us so strongly that it must be there. But sometimes, there really is no method.

The mess we describe above certainly looks to be one example of this. A person in one fiefdom (Elon Musk) decided to do something without bothering to check with anyone in the other fiefdoms. And the result is going to be a lot of angst, and a lot of wasted time and energy, and a lot of lawsuits, and... no real hope of achieving whatever was supposed to be achieved.

The federal funding freeze is another example. That one came from OMB, which means that the feudal lord responsible was undoubtedly Russell Vought. The memo ordering the freeze, which is now widely available on the Internet, is badly written, gives instructions that are vague to the point of being meaningless, and spends almost as much time on political grandstanding as it does explaining the relevant policy decisions. This is simply not the work of someone who is being particularly competent or particularly thoughtful. It's a slap-dash attempt to impose an agenda, presumably before some other feudal lord in some other fiefdom can assert themselves.

The chicken-with-its-head-cut-off response, after the memo was released, served to affirm that we were looking at the work of incompetent boobs. Initially, the White House stuck by the plan. Then, there was blowback from both the media and from Congress. Then, OMB issued a new memo, one that contradicted the original memo. Then, OMB rescinded the funding freeze. Then, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that the freeze was still in effect, it was just the original memo that was rescinded. Then, a judge waded in and halted the freeze. Then, the White House decided that the freeze itself was lifted, not just the memo.

Although we admit we were searching for the method here, it is now clear to us that there was none, just madness. And we absolutely refuse to believe that this was some sort of distraction or opening shot or attempt to shake things up, in service of a long-term plan. No, it was a humiliating screw-up, one that left the administration with plenty of egg on its face. Team Trump showed this kind of incompetence, many times, from 2017-21, and they are back at it again. The bad news is that this foolishness is going to do a fair bit of damage to the government and to the country. The good news is that it's rather hard to see how a bunch of Klownish Keystone Kops (KKK) like these people could possibly pull off something even remotely resembling a coup. (Z)

Today in Fawning Obeisance: Meta Appears to Have Abandoned All Pretense of Balance

Writing these items is more than a little depressing. However, looking the other way is not an option. And so, we write on.

To start, it would seem that Meta and Mark Zuckerberg continue to search for ways to kiss up to Donald Trump. Actually, it's also possible that someone in the Trump administration got Zuck on the phone and gave him marching orders. Either way, the fellow who once said his platform would always protect "free expression" seems to have changed his tune.

Among Meta's properties, of course, is Instagram. The audience there skews much younger than Meta's other cornerstone property, Facebook. And so, pro-choice activists—specifically, those who are trying to make sure women have access to abortifacient pills—are considerably more active on Instagram than they are on Facebook. Or, at least, they were. There is abundant evidence, first reported by The New York Times, that Facebook, and particularly Instagram, have begun to censor, in various ways, accounts and messages dedicated to information about how to obtain abortifacient pills. Groups like Just the Pill, Women Help Women, and Hey Jane, among others, have reported that their accounts were suspended, or buried deep within the system (which is known as "shadow-banning"), or had their postings blurred or removed.

To the extent that Meta has responded to these reports, it's to say two things: (1) the company is not targeting abortifacient groups, and (2) if such groups are being targeted, it's because they have violated the platform's rules regarding information about prescription drugs. We will note that these two claims are mutually exclusive, to a large extent—either the activist groups are being targeted or they are not. And if this is just "they violated our rules about prescription drugs," then how come they were able to effectively work within the rules, up until, say, January 20, 2025?

Obviously, Meta is a private concern, and can platform or de-platform anyone they wish, as long as they do not violate any laws. But, there needs to be an end to the "free expression" talk. There also needs to be an end to the talk about "these platforms discriminate against conservatives," a claim that was never actually credible.

Unfortunately, Meta was not the only corporate concern this week to bend over and say to Donald Trump: "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" Google, which makes the world's most popular map app, with billions of users each month, has announced that it will honor the name change of "Denali" to "Mt. McKinley," and "Gulf of Mexico" to "Gulf of America." Users in the United States will see Trump's preferred names, as soon as the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) is updated. Users in Mexico will only see "Gulf of Mexico." Users in all other places will see both pairs of names, side-by-side.

As with Meta, Google is hiding behind the claim that they are following their same old policies, and that they always use GNIS to determine what place names to show to American users. This is probably true, but it also smacks of disingenuousness, since 99.99999% of American place names are not politicized. When maps DO get political, choices have to be made, and Google has made theirs here, just as they have in other places in the world. Note, for example, that Google does not show Donetsk as part of Russia, but it DOES show Tibet as part of China. Those are both very political decisions, and decisions that just so happen to comport with what is wanted by governmental entities whose good graces matter to Google (the EU and China, respectively). It sure looks like the same sort of choice has been made here, GNIS or no.

And finally, it appears that Trump will be the recipient of another bribe unwarranted legal settlement, this time from Paramount Global. Recall that Kamala Harris sat for the traditional candidates' interview with 60 Minutes, while Trump declined. CBS then aired some footage from that interview on Face the Nation, and then a more polished version of the footage on 60 Minutes. Trump sued for $10 million, under a legal theory that is so wild, it borders on insane. In the court filing, his attorneys argued that CBS violated Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act. Under that law, it's illegal to claim that, say, using toilet paper made by Kimberly-Clark (headquartered in Irving, TX) will help prevent colorectal cancer. And Trump argued that by misrepresenting Harris, CBS effectively harmed "consumers" in the same way.

Never mind that there's no evidence the interview misrepresented Harris, either intentionally or inadvertently. After all, such interviews—especially with politicians—are always more "truthy" than "truth." Never mind also that a politician running for office is not a consumer product (although it may be instructive that Trump believes otherwise). The bottom line is that Paramount is at work on a big merger, and it will need to be approved by the Department of Justice, which is now a branch of the Trump Organization. So, the bribe must be paid suit must be settled.

Assuming Trump gets his $10 million, that will be added to the $15 million from ABC for the George Stephanopoulos interview and the $25 million from Meta for having suspended Trump's account after the insurrection, for a cool total of $50 million, just for filing a trio of entirely spurious lawsuits. And do you think that will be the end of it, once Trump sees how well this works, and how easily it allows him to shake down private corporations? We don't. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Little Lion Man

In addition to revealing that all the headlines contained song titles, we gave three hints last week. On Friday, it was an old-style McDonalds sign with "billions and billions served" at the bottom, as well as a somewhat inaccurate reference to the $64 billion question. On Saturday, it was a note to pay attention to the word that appeared 2-3 times in the hints (i.e., "billion"). On Sunday, we added: "Turn off your mind, relax and float down-stream."

And now, courtesy of reader T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts, the solution:

All of the songs referenced in this week's headlines have generated over a billion streaming plays on Spotify:

• That Didn't Take Long, Part I: When the Party's Over (Billie Eilish)
• That Didn't Take Long, Part II: Under Pressure (Queen & David Bowie)
• That Didn't Take Long, Part III: There's Nothing Holdin' Me Back (Shawn Mendes)
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Here Comes the Sun (The Beatles)
• This Week in Schadenfreude: Leave The Door Open (Silk Sonic)
• This Week in Freudenfreude: Rewrite The Stars (Zendaya and Zac Efron)

"Here Comes the Sun" was the very first song to reach that milestone.

Indeed. And "Little Lion Man," by Mumford & Sons, has just joined the club. In any event, we told you the clue "Billions and Billions Served" was pretty good.

Here are the first 50 readers to get it:

T.K. in Half Moon Bay R.D. in Cheshire, CT H.B. in Toronto, ON, Canada S.R.G. in Grecia, Costa Rica J.N. in Zionsville, IN M.J. in Oakdale, MN T.F. in Craftsbury Common, VT P.Q. in Metuchen, NJ B.H. in Southborough, MA E.K. in Arlington, MA M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO M.T. in Simpsonville, SC S.S. in Lucerne, Switzerland S.L. in St. Louis, MO M.G. in DuBois, PA S.C. in Tonawanda, NY R.K. in Bel Air, MD K.R. in Austin, TX K.P. in Tampa, FL G.K. in Calgary, AB, Canada M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada P.R. in Havertown, PA D.M. in Austin, TX L.D. in Bedford, MA S.W. in Winter Garden, FL

S.R. in Robbinsville, NJ S.B. in Los Altos Hills, CA E.W. in Skaneateles, NY E.S. in Cincinnati, OH D.S. in Layton, UT K.L. in Sterling, VA T.T. in Conway, AR D.H. in Portland OR T.K. in Kirkwood, MO J.C. in Trenton, NJ M.N. in Washington, DC R.R. in Mountain View, CA J.K.P. in Springfield, IL M.O. in Dallas, TX C.W. in Fort Lauderdale, FL J.J. in Boston, MA O.B. in Los Angeles, CA D.U. in Atlanta, GA S.T. in Grants Pass, OR M.R. in Appleton, WI A.L. in San Diego, CA J.F. in El Paso, TX J.F. in Irvine, CA W.D. in Rome, Italy B.B. in Santa Monica, CA

D.S. in Layton adds: "And speaking as an artist with a CD that is on Spotify, I can report that the artists of each of those songs received from Spotify almost a dollar in royalties."

This week's theme is in the Trivial Pursuit category Cosmology (from Trivial Pursuit: Dungeons & Dragons Ultimate Edition), and involves one word in some headlines, two words in others. The very first item/headline are not part of the puzzle. As to a hint, we are reminded of our Shakespeare: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves."

If you think you've got it, send an e-mail to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "January 31 Headlines." (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Boebert Tries to Be a Hawk, Ends Up as a Goat

There are three Republican members of the House who share two important commonalities. First, they very desperately want to send out tweets and do Fox interviews about those horrible trans people (particularly their new colleague, Rep. Sarah McBride, D-DE). Second, they are women, and so are in a position to patrol the women's restrooms, in hopes of catching McBride breaking the newly established "only people assigned female at birth can use the women's restroom" rule. The three Republican members we speak of, of course, are Nancy Mace (SC), Lauren Boebert (CO) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA).

Last week, while watching the women's restroom nearest the Capitol chamber like a hawk, Boebert "saw" McBride enter, and was so joyous, she damn near soiled herself. The Coloradan promptly ran to get Mace, so they could confront McBride together. Bloomberg reporter Billy House, who recognized what was going on, watched the bathroom in the interim, and noted that only four people came out of it, none of them McBride. Eventually, Boebert and Mace burst in, ready to lay down the law, only to discover that McBride was not there, and that it was a case of mistaken identity. Oops!

You already knew Boebert was a hypocrite, deeply concerned with policing people's genitals in the bathroom, and yet unconcerned about what goes on, genitally, in a public place—like, say, a theater in Colorado. You also knew that Boebert wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, and this serves as yet another reminder. Even if she can't figure out who is Sarah McBride and who is not, there is NO WAY McBride is ever going into that restroom, and risking humiliation plus handing the Witches of Itsadick a talking point they can flog for the next 6 months. For readers who are unaware, each member of Congress has a bathroom in their office, and that is where McBride handles her business.

In any event, Boebert (and Mace) ended up humiliated while in the process of trying to humiliate someone else for cheap political points. If that's not schadenfreude time, we might as well just shut this feature down.

Also, while we are on the subject, allow us to note something. To a greater or lesser extent, (Z) is the gatekeeper of the comments e-mails. Many e-mails on trans issues address legitimate questions, like "Can a sports ecosystem built around two genders be re-jiggered to accommodate trans folks?" or "What should the Democrats do, if anything, about the anti-trans attacks being wielded against the Party?" Some e-mails, on the other hand, boil down to "trans people bad." (Z) has very little patience for those, and what little patience he did have has shrunk considerably in the last few months, such that yesterday was the first time a correspondent was banned specifically for transphobia.

We have this item today, and will likely have another pretty big item on trans Americans and politics next week. So, it seemed a good time to remind folks of our expectations in terms of decency and civility (which, it should be clear, 99.5% of readers adhere to). That concludes this public service announcement. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Fires, Meet Water Bearer

This week, Yankees owner Hal Steinbrenner gave an interview that was somewhere between "tacky" and "insulting." Engaging in a line of carping that is popular among baseball fans these days, he lamented how much money the Los Angeles Dodgers have laid out in salaries in the past year or so, adding "It's difficult for most of us owners to be able to do the kind of things that they're doing."

Certainly, it is not fun for fans of lesser teams (say Z, a fan of the Angels) to watch the Dodgers seemingly snap up all the best players. That said, an honest broker has to admit that while the team has certainly benefited from its financial largesse, it has also benefited from building a top-notch organization that players want to play for. That's how they got Shohei Ohtani, who took a steep discount to play for the boys in blue. That's also how they got Roki Sasaki, who, under MLB rules, would have earned the same salary regardless of the team he chose.

Meanwhile, Steinbrenner seems to forget—or, probably more accurately, hopes listeners will forget—exactly who he is. He is the owner of the New York freaking Yankees, which is the fourth-most-valuable sports franchise, and most valuable baseball team in the world, at $7.55 billion. The team brings in nearly $700 million in revenue a year. If the Yankees wanted to compete financially with, well, any team, they have the means to do so. It is not the Dodgers' fault if Steinbrenner chooses not to do so.

We note all of this as prelude to the actual focal point of this item, which is indeed the Dodgers. They are the water bearers referred to in the headline—not literally, perhaps, but metaphorically. For those unfamiliar with Los Angeles geography, Dodger Stadium is located on a fairly tall hill, just north of downtown. That means that the recent fires did not quite threaten the stadium, although they came pretty close. Certainly, anyone who was working in the stadium would have been able to see some of the conflagration as it was underway. On top of that, the team is a big part of the fabric of Los Angeles culture, on par with the Los Angeles Lakers, and far exceeding any other sporting concern (oh, and Lakers legend Magic Johnson is a part-owner of the Dodgers, and so has his toes in both of those ponds).

In view of all of this, the Dodgers have responded to the fires, and the need to rebuild, in remarkable fashion. Team leadership, including Johnson and Dodgers chairman Mark Walter, have formed an organization called LA Rises, which will coordinate corporate philanthropy directed toward rebuilding efforts. The team has also used Dodger Stadium as a hub, at which goods needed by families (food, clothing, baby strollers) are distributed. The Dodgers are also going to host a number of benefit events, to raise funds. And the team's leadership has committed to donating a minimum of one hundred million dollars to recovery efforts.

In short: Way to go, Dodgers. The team has a reputation for being civic-minded, and is certainly living up to that. Meanwhile, anytime they make the World Series in the next five years (which they will probably do more than once), only fans of the opposing team are authorized to root against the Blue Crew.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

---

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