Saturday Q&A

Our first regular mailbag in a while!

If you're still working on the headline theme, think about what Darth Vader and James Earl Jones have in common, besides their voice.

Current Events

M.O. in Metamora, MI, asks: In these trying times, I see warnings of fascism everywhere. I'm sold. I've been sold for years. Tens of millions of people are sold. I've got 99 people telling me how bad it is every day. What I don't have is anyone telling me the best way to fight back, or organizing us for resistance. Why is there such a vacuum from Democratic leadership on this? Where is our Million Man March? Where is our Selma Boycott of money interests supporting Trump? Where are our Vietnam black armbands? I see ordinary people doing heroic and small versions of these things every day, but it feels like we could do so much more with organization and leadership from people with knowledge of where the best pressure point would be. If we all were boycotting the same company at the same time. If we all were showing up at the same protest, or sustaining it in shifts.

Why are none of the people that want to be our leaders willing to lead?

(Z) answers: Think of the most successful protest movements in history. Women's suffrage. Indian independence. The Civil Rights Movement. The leaders, in all cases, knew that it's a marathon, not a sprint, and that you have to move at a deliberate pace. First, because if you go too far, too fast, you risk a backlash. Second, because only a small percentage of people can pour their hearts and souls into a fight, day after day, without seeing immediate results.

The folks who CAN do that right now, who have the fortitude or the inner strength or whatever it is, are doing that. And they are building the infrastructure of a much larger resistance that will show itself later this year, we think (see our upcoming pieces on Minneapolis for more). Also, we think you might be overlooking some of the large-scale resistance that has already taken place. They may not have been in the same location, but far more than a million people took part in each of the various No Kings rallies.

Also, see the answers for next week's Question of the Week, which will run next Saturday.

---

A.G. in Bellingham, WA, asks: Colby Hall's recent Mediaite piece "Enough is Enough" articulates what many of us feel: We can't just wait out this term. The administration's flood-the-zone strategy buries negative news (Epstein is buried again by Powell and Minnesota) through constant attacks, constructed world events, and misdirection, and purely reactive coverage keeps the opposition perpetually on defense.

With Republicans now starting to push back, there's an opening. My question: Why aren't more widely-read sites like yours dedicating space to actionable opposition? Something like "How To Fight Back" or "The Daily Opposition"? You could highlight state-level investigations, legislative strategies, or historical parallels of effective resistance. Can you maintain party neutrality while still opposing constitutional attacks? If every piece is reactive, we're playing their game.

(Z) answers: It is interesting that you mention Colby Hall. He does not regard his site as an advocacy site. We do not regard our site as an advocacy site. However, we draw our lines in very different ways, such that Hall and (Z) have had a couple of rather pointed e-mail exchanges about Mediaite's editorial practices. Specifically, that site allows its "reporters" to also write op-eds under their own name. So, you'll have a staffer write a few news pieces, like "Trump Reportedly 'Leans Toward' Iran Strike as JD Vance Urges Talks" and then publish a piece with the headline "Three Cheers for Donald Trump's Monumental, Moral Achievement in Venezuela."

How can anyone take this person's "reporting" seriously? This crosses a line that goes uncrossed at any serious publication; either you're reporting, or you're opinion, but you're not both (with the exception of collective, unsigned pieces from the editorial board). (Z) pointed out the problematic nature of this arrangement, and Hall said he likes that it gives the site "balance." Uh, OK.

In any event, here is where our line is drawn:

• We engage in direct advocacy on only one issue: Voting rights/access. This was the reason the site was founded in the first place, and it is, or should be, a non-partisan issue with universal support.
  
  
• Consistent with our academic training, we are willing to be critical, even hyper-critical, when the evidence supports it. Pointing out obvious fascist, or proto-fascist, proclivities, for example, would fall within this rubric.
  
  
• We give significant coverage to acts of resistance, because that is a part of the overall political milieu.
  
  
• We are willing to answer readers' questions, to the best of our ability, including questions on the subject of resistance/protest/pushback. See next week's Question of the Week, for example.
  
  
• We are willing to share information about resistance/protest/pushback, for those readers who might want it.

What we will NOT do is: (1) tell readers what they should think, (2) advocate for or endorse specific politicians, (3) advocate for or endorse specific policies, outside of voting rights/access, (4) tell readers how we think they should be resisting the Trump administration.

You might make a good guess as to our personal feelings on some subjects, but if we begin to indulge in direct advocacy/activism/electioneering, then it becomes nearly impossible to take our analysis seriously, because you cannot know if it's actually analytical, or it's just thinly veiled advocacy. This is why (Z) thinks Hall and Mediaite have made a big mistake in the choices they've made.

All of this said, we do have plans to start a new weekly feature in which we highlight an example of resistance each week. It's been in the hopper for a while, and its time is coming soon.

---

V.H. in Lexington, MA, asks: On 1/6, Donald Trump managed to gin up a mob and get it to attack congress. It wasn't successful, inasmuch as Mike Pence, of all people, stood up to Trump, and the certification went as planned, if a few hours late.

This time, apparently, he doesn't want to leave anything to chance. So he has put together an armed and slightly trained mob in the form of ICE that is invading cities. My friend from Minneapolis says that there are 600 police officers in Minneapolis. ICE sent 2,000 agents there, and then more after the murder of Renee Good. That indicates to me that there are a lot of ICE agents. So, how big is ICE and are we going to see them turn their focus away from immigration, as soon as the stakes are "winning" elections?

(Z) answers: This administration is not known for its transparency, but ICE has been expanded from roughly 10,000 agents to 22,000 agents in the last year. It currently has a budget of about $30 billion per year.

To put that in context, the U.S. Marine Corps' budget is about $55 billion per year, to support 173,000 active-duty personnel. Or, to give a somewhat more parallel example, the FBI has 38,000 personnel, and is budgeted at $11 billion per year. So, cash is being lavished on ICE.

We tend to think ICE is part of a larger plan to try to acclimate Americans to the militarization of blue cities. If that is successful (doubtful), the next step is... unclear. However, since the United States does not hold one national election, but tens of thousands of local elections, using force to steal political offices is not as easy a task as Stephen Miller might think it is.

---

D.H.E. in Culpeper, VA, asks: Any real police officer who fires a weapon is usually put on immediate administrative leave, or at least moved to an administrative position while the expected investigation is underway. I have not seen any mention of whether or not Jonathan Ross, the ICE agent who fired at Renee Good, has been suspended from his routine armed enforcement duties. Can you find out?

(Z) answers: By all accounts, Ross and his family are in hiding in some unknown location, and have at least temporarily abandoned their residence. This is presumably to keep him from being targeted for some sort of vengeance, but it does have the de facto (if not intended) effect of temporarily suspending him from service. And it's hard to see how he could possibly be put on the front lines again anytime soon; the administration doesn't much care if he shoots or kills someone else, but putting him into tense circumstances could certainly cause someone to "accidentally" shoot him in the heat of the moment.

---

M.M. in Seattle, WA, asks: In your item "Freedom of Suppress," you described the FBI's confiscation of Hannah Natanson's phone, two computers and a smartwatch. What is the point of this? In the modern cloud-based world, most devices are expendable and, as noted in the posting, most any competent professional who deals in sensitive information has top-level encryption of the device itself. Presumably, Natanson could get a new set of devices and be back to work without any real interruption and the FBI would be left with some inaccessible hardware. Besides intimidation and making a public statement, is there any point to such a raid?

(Z) answers: Well, the FBI is pretty good at squeezing electronic devices for information. And many journalists are very good at data hygiene, but they're not perfect at it. So, the FBI might find something, particularly from the smartwatch they took, since those are a bit tougher to encrypt.

But, that said, the primary purpose was indeed to intimidate, both reporters and potential leakers.

---

E.C. in Seattle, WA, asks: You noted that targeting a reporter could backfire by prompting reporters to double down. Could the real objective instead be to intimidate leakers?

(Z) answers: Yes. However, leakers tend to be a brave sort, and are motivated by a sense of duty, purpose and/or righteousness. Some of them might be intimidated, but the majority will just become even more careful, and thus even harder to identify.

---

J.A. in Monterey, CA, asks: According to YouGov, Republican support for an invasion of Venezuela went from 43% before the invasion to 74% after it. This may be due to how smoothly it went. But I wonder two things: (1) Should we expect a similar huge bump in Republican support for an invasion of Greenland, from a current level of 35%, if we invade Greenland? and (2) What can be concluded from this? Is this a sign that we're in a cult—that if Trump does it, it must be a good thing?

(Z) answers: There is some of "if Trump does it, it must be a good thing," although it does not necessarily indicate a cult mentality. It could, but there are plenty of Democrats who will reflexively support anything that, say, Barack Obama supports. And we don't think there's a good case for the Democratic Party as a cult.

The fundamental dynamic is that, when you've gone all-in on a person or idea or political program, especially to the extent MAGA has, it's hard to say that the leader or the movement was wrong about [THING X]. Because if they were wrong about [THING X], then what else were they wrong about? It throws the whole worldview into question. Same reason it's hard for some religious adherents to accept that their church might be wrong about [BELIEF Y].

Undoubtedly, if Trump invades Greenland, some MAGA folks will decide that taking over Greenland is a pretty good idea, after all. But we think it will not be accepted nearly as broadly as Venezuela was. Maduro is a legitimate bad guy, and he and his fellow Venezuelans are brown. Greenland and its leaders are not bad guys and gals, and the country to which it "belongs" is full of white people (even if Greenland itself is mostly populated by Inuits).

---

L.H. in Acton, MA, asks: Do you think Donald Trump is trying to take over Greenland because Vladimir Putin told him to?

(Z) answers: If so, it's not quite that simple. Assuming Putin had the power to give Trump direct orders, the first order would surely be "Turn your back on Ukraine NOW." However, Putin is a slimy bastard, and a master manipulator, and he may have planted a seed in Trump's brain along the lines of "I sure wish Russia had as many natural resources as Greenland does! Do you know how much money we'd make?"

---

M.M. on Bainbridge Island, WA, asks: Will NATO come to Denmark's defense if/when The Convicted Felon (TCF) invades Greenland? I have read articles saying it would be the end of NATO, though I don't see why they couldn't just evict the U.S. from the treaty and continue on without us. My son has friends who live in Denmark, and he tells me the mood in the country is to put Danish troops on the ground in Greenland to prepare for an eventual invasion. I support that—I would hate to see them give up without a fight, as much as I don't want to see any Americans die in an attempt to take it over.

(Z) answers: It is hard to accept that there would be direct, armed conflict between the U.S. and the other NATO powers, because that would lay the groundwork for a long, ugly, destructive war. Also, it is not outside the realm of possibility that Trump would start using nukes in such a conflict, since he likely has a dim understanding of nuclear fallout, at best.

No, what would surely happen, if Trump took Greenland by force, is there would be limited (or no) military resistance. However, there would be massive passive resistance from the people of that Island. Meanwhile, the other NATO powers would shut down the alliance, re-create it under another name without the U.S. (and probably without Turkey and Hungary), and would begin turning the screws on the U.S. in other ways, including no more intelligence-sharing, no more military bases in places like Germany, and probably economic sanctions or boycotts. It would be ugly, even if it wasn't bloody.

---

K.H. in Scotch Plains, NJ, asks: While you all understandably, from what I know, have a very low opinion of Donald Trump's first term, you did seem to look favorably upon his appointment of Jerome Powell as Fed Chief. The man stayed on through the pandemic and through the Biden administration, and now, for some reason, the man who appointed him is holding a grudge against him. I have a few theories, partially based on what I've read from you: Powell's unwillingness to back down and acquiesce to what the President wants, for one. But what exactly is it that Powell did right since he was appointed to the Fed that makes you think he was the right man for the job, and one of the few bright spots of the first Trump administration? What do you think he did right, and what is a good way to convey that to people who may not be experts on the economy and finance?

(Z) answers: Of the four of us, only (A) has any serious knowledge of the world of finance, and even then, it's self-taught.

The point is, we are not qualified to do an in-depth assessment of Powell's leadership of the Fed. However, we do know that finance in general, and leadership of the Fed in particular, are results-based businesses. And during Powell's time at the helm, the U.S. stock market has set record after record while inflation has remained lower than in other western countries. Given the things that he and the other governors have actual influence over, that's pretty solid.

---

J.H. in Peterborough, ON, Canada, asks: If Fed Chair Jerome Powell's term ends in May and he becomes again a run-of-the mill Fed Governor, will the new chair have to be chosen from among the remaining already seated Governors? Will that nomination be for a further 10 years? When a space on the board does come up—say, when Powell's term is complete—could that new Governor also be appointed to the position of chair? Could Trump expand the number of Governors beyond seven?

(Z) answers: First of all, a term on the Fed Board of Governors is 14 years, not 10. A person can only be appointed to one such term, though the 14-year appointment can come after they have completed someone else's unfinished term (because that person died or resigned).

Second, the first seat that will come open is that of Stephen Miran, who is currently completing one of the aforementioned unfinished terms (that of Adriana Kugler, who resigned last year to return to academia). Miran is done at the end of this month, so Trump will have an opportunity to nominate a new person, and everyone is going to assume that new person is the Chair-in-waiting. What this means is that the biggest obstacle for Trump is not the lack of opportunity, but the fact that any nomination he makes for the open seat, and later any nomination he makes for Chair (likely to be the same person both times), has to get past the Senate. And several Republican senators (and all the Democrats) are in a not-approving-anyone kind of mood, right now.

Trump cannot legally add seats to the Fed Board of Governors. That said, he also cannot legally change the names of the Department of Defense, the Kennedy Center, or the Institute for Peace, either.

---

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: I know you guys have a backlog of topics to get through but I was wondering what you thought of the Clintons deciding to ignore the House's subpoena? Yes, I know it was issued by that mentally challenged political hack, Rep. James Comer (R-KY) but I think it's a mistake for Bill to ignore it. For one thing, Bill Clinton can run circles around Comer without breaking a sweat. And if he was involved in the pedophilia orchestrated by Jeffrey Epstein, then tough luck Bubba, it's time to pay the piper. Clinton looks awfully like Trump in deciding to ignore the subpoena.

As far as Hillary, I don't understand why she was given a subpoena in the first place. Maybe they can ask her about her e-mails again. Does Comer really think she can attest to anything? Somehow I doubt Bill ever said to Hillary, "Hey Hill, I'm going to have sex with some underage girls at a tropical island. Wanna tag along?"

(Z) answers: There are several reasons that occur to us. First, both Bill and Hillary Clinton are both considerably smarter than Comer and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) combined, with a fair bit of room left over. However, they are both pushing 80, and surely aren't quite as sharp as they once were. Being grilled, under the lights, by hostile people is not easy for anyone, even when they are at the top of their mental game.

Second, Jack Smith was fielding questions about material that he knows inside and out, backwards and forwards. By contrast, the Clintons have no idea what Comer & Co. might come up with, especially since only a tiny fraction of the Epstein Files has been made public. It's also not impossible that the Republicans might create fake evidence, either by using AI, or by taking something wildly out of context. This adds an X-factor that Smith did not have to worry about.

Third, there are many people who are inclined to dislike the Clintons on a personal, visceral level, to a far, far greater extent than is true with Smith. Even the smallest misstep, like an eye-roll, could provide a week of programming for Fox and its entertainers.

Fourth, playing Comer's game implicitly endorses his framing, namely that this is a Clinton story, and not a Trump story. I have no doubt that if there was an agreement that Trump would also be put under the microscope, with Democrats on the committee being allowed to ask questions, the Clintons would be there with bells on.

Finally, if Bill Clinton says "no testimony," then it's a headline for a few days and then... it's kind of not news anymore. If the person dodging the subpoena was, say, Kamala Harris, that might hurt the Democrats. But Clinton left office nearly 3 decades ago. Is anyone really going to say "I was going to vote for [Democrat X] in 2026, but I just can't now, because Bill Clinton didn't testify!" We doubt it; anyone who is motivated by Clinton's failure to appear was not voting Democratic anyhow. And this way, Comer doesn't get to own a whole bunch more news cycles thanks to his shenanigans.

---

M.S. in Canton, NY, asks: As (V) probably knows, one of the coolest things you can encounter when walking around the UC Berkeley campus is parking spaces reserved for Nobel Prize winners:



Can the latest Nobel "winner" park his limo there? Asking for a friend.

(Z) answers: There is a fairly well-known story about Lyndon B. Johnson; perhaps we've shared it before. One day, LBJ was leaving the Oval Office to make a trip via Marine One, but he headed toward the wrong helicopter. A young Marine, trying to help, said, "Sir, that's your helicopter over there." Johnson replied: "Son, they are ALL my helicopter."

Similarly, with a sitting president, those are ALL his parking spaces. Once Trump is out of office, though, we doubt he could get a parking permit good within 5 miles of campus.

---

C.J.P. in Fife Heights, WA, asks: Is Donald Trump getting custody of someone else's Nobel Prize the ultimate participation trophy?

(Z) answers: No. The people who receive participation trophies at least get them from whatever organization or authority was responsible for the main awards, meaning that the organization or authority felt there was some effort there worth recognizing, even if that effort was not wholly successful.

This is like those people who spend thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars to buy Super Bowl/World Series/NBA Championship rings that they had absolutely no role in earning.

Politics

E.H. in Washington, DC, asks: I'm not expecting a flip in the Senate, but your item on Mary Peltola running got me to thinking.

If there's a blue wave and a flip, will the most Senior conservative SCOTUS Justices (Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts) retire to get a Trumpy replacement? They would have to all leave in November of 2026 and have replacements appointed and confirmed by January 2, 2027.

I'm just wondering if you think some or all of them would stick around hoping for a Republican win in 2028 and the Senate flips back, since they all seem to believe they are immortal.

(Z) answers: It is not easy for someone to not only admit that the end is somewhat near (or very near), but to also give up the thing that keeps them busy, and is the source of their prestige and power and influence. Many people would be thrilled to write books that sell tens of thousands of copies, and to be the most in-demand professor at [X top-tier law school], but for a former justice, it's big a step down. It is surely even harder to accept these things when you are doing so for the benefit of "the team" and not really yourself or your family. Get out your Ouija board and ask Ruth Bader Ginsburg, if you doubt it.

My guess is that Thomas is the most likely to retire strategically, since he's the oldest and he's never particularly enjoyed the job, and there are still many RV trips to be taken. Roberts is the least likely to do so, since he's the youngest of the three, and he would be giving up the most, and he's the least devoted to the Republican Party. Alito is somewhere in the middle, but I'd guess his ego is big enough that he would decide he'll have no problem making it to the next era of GOP trifecta.

---

R.L. in Alameda, CA, asks: Jonathan V. Last (JVL) from the Bulwark posited that normie, retiring and libertarian Republicans who are tired of Trump could start caucusing with the Democrats in order to hand the gavels to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). He's thinking about Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rand Paul (R-KY), Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), along with Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and possibly Don Bacon (R-NE) and/or Lauren Boebert (R-CO). He qualified this by noting that this is unlikely, but possible. Tillis has already broken with Trump in stating that no Fed Governors will be approved until he stops attacking Jerome Powell and the Fed itself.

Has this ever happened before? Have members of one party ever caucused with the other in order to change the nature of leadership in either the House or the Senate? After all, it was the threat of impeachment from his own party that finally convinced Nixon to resign.

(Z) answers: This sort of hypothetical mass (or semi-mass) act of rebellion is bandied about anytime the partisan balance of one chamber, or both, is close. Until evidence to the contrary is provided, it's a fantasy. Remember, these folks have all been in office for most or all of a decade of Trumpism, and yet they are all still members of the Republican Party. If they were open to flipping, either in name, or at least in deed, they would have done it before now.

As to your question, there were a couple of instances in the Antebellum Era when there were more than two parties represented in Congress, and what Europeans call a "coalition government" was formed. However, the only modern example of what you're talking about is the occasion, in 2001, when Jim Jeffords of Vermont switched from Republican to independent, and started caucusing with the Democrats. It had been 50-50, giving Republicans a de facto majority thanks to VP Dick Cheney's tiebreaker vote. Jeffords made it 51-49 for the Democrats, and the gavel was handed off from Trent Lott (R) to Tom Daschle (D).

---

C.F. in Waltham, MA, asks: I am constantly seeing polls that show young people (18-24), independents, Latinos, and suburban women moving away from approving of Trump at a magnitude between 20 and 40 points. Even Republicans moved from 95% to 85% approval. How is it mathematically possible that Trump's overall approval remains at 40%?

(Z) answers: There are two explanations. The first is that Trump's approval rating has dropped about 15 points since he was sworn in last January. So, the shift away from him, among these groups, IS showing up in his numbers.

The second is that there is no president, not even Richard Nixon, that does not win over SOME people while they are in office. So, Trump surely has at least some new "approvers" who are offsetting some of the defectors. In particular, we can imagine there are folks who did not think he was quite far-right enough, but are now satisfied.

---

P.J. in Quakertown, PA, asks: In response to "Elizabeth Warren Is Donating $400,000 to State Democratic Parties," could you please inform us of how we can contribute to each and every state Democratic Party? I personally live in Pennsylvania, but I am sure many of your readers would consider contributing to their state Democratic Party as well.

(Z) answers: Initially, we understood your question to mean you wanted an easy way to donate to all Democratic state parties at once. But even Elizabeth Warren didn't do that; she targeted 23 state organs, since she knows full well that giving money to the Oklahoma Democratic Party is no different than just throwing it into the fireplace.

On re-reading, we presume that you were asking how to find your state's Democratic organ, so you can donate. ActBlue, which handles most of this kind of business these days, does not have a convenient "list of state parties" page, unfortunately. So, the best thing to do is Google "[YOUR STATE] Democratic Party." That will certainly give you your state's Democratic party as the first match. And then the state party's webpage will have a DONATE button/link very prominent on their front page, usually at the top right.

Alternatively, you could send money to the DNC's State Party Victory Fund or to SwingLeft. The former gives money to the state parties/races that need it most, in the judgment of the DNC, while the latter gives money to Democrats running for the House in swing districts.

Civics

M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: How does the government eliminate an executive branch department? If the next Democratic administration wanted to get rid of a department—oh, say, the Department of Homeland Security—would it require a Senate supermajority to pass, or just a simple majority? Would it be possible to keep the TSA by shifting it to another department, while dismantling the rest of DHS? Just asking...

(Z) answers: What Congress giveth, Congress taketh away. The legislature has sole power to create, or eliminate, federal agencies.

It is certainly possible to eliminate DHS. After all, it wasn't really a new department with new duties as much as it was a new superstructure imposed on existing federal agencies. However, assuming the filibuster lives on, any reorganization would require 60 votes in the Senate.

---

R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: Since (Z) brought up the issue of canceling music and plays at the Kennedy Center because they offend MAGA sensibilities, I have a question about a related issue.

Michael Jackson has been dead since 2009, and his music is still widely played on radio stations, at sports events, in stores and in other public places. Since his death, several men have come forward and said Jackson sexually abused them as children. A few years ago, two men went public with allegations that Jackson raped them. This was discussed in an HBO documentary, and also with Gayle King on CBS.

I think it is very unlikely these men are making up these claims. Very few false allegations of rape are made, and most men in particular find it embarrassing or shameful to share these kinds of abuses. Jackson still has many fans, however. Some of them have used online platforms to attack and smear these men, who could very well be victims of abuse.

My question is why has Jackson's music escaped cancellation, when many others have been canceled for far less than what Jackson is accused of?

(Z) answers: I would guess there are two reasons. The first is that the case against Jackson is... shaky. He had a very odd relationship with underage boys for a very long time. However, he was only formally accused of sexual misconduct by four of them. One of those four reached a settlement. One of them lost in court. And the other two are the men who accused Jackson after he was dead and could not defend himself.

It is true that most men are not eager to talk about being victimized, sexually. But it is also true that the possibility of millions of dollars will cause people to do out-of-character things. That creates some doubt. So too does the fact that there aren't more accusers, given how very many young boys Jackson palled around with. And so does the testimony of his most famous boy "pal," the actor Macaulay Culkin, who said nothing untoward ever happened. Compare to the British serial sexual predator Jimmy Savile; once that dam broke, accusers were coming out of the woodwork.

This is not to defend Jackson, merely to say that a person could very well conclude that Jackson was an odd and emotionally stunted person, but that he was asexual more than anything else, and that sexual predation was not on his mind. Certainly, the story is considerably fuzzier than it is with, say, Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby.

The second reason, and probably the more important one, is that Jackson is dead. Anyone who plays his music or buys an album doesn't have to feel like they might be enabling ongoing bad acts. To take a parallel example, many John Wayne movies had appearances from Ward Bond and/or Walter Brennan. Well, Wayne was dangerously close to a white supremacist, while Bond and Brennan were that and were also rabid antisemites. And all three were homophobes, too, and communist witch hunters, and war hawks. But those movies still show up on TV, quite bit, because that trio can't harm anyone with their bigotry and their warmongering and their witch hunting any more.

---

D.V.T. in Anchorage, AK, asks: In your post on Mary Peltola running for Senate, you wrote "Alaska is notoriously tough to poll, because it's hard to reach people. That is extra true in the dead of winter." Is it really any harder than other states? Alaska is a geographically large but low population state, but people here have phones and Internet connections just like the rest of the country. And why do you think it is harder in the dead of winter? If anything, I would say that people tend to be at home more during the coldest part of the year. Please explain.

(Z) answers: We have read that, in winter, it is difficult to communicate with more remote (often Inuit) villages, which require either in-person interactions, or interactions via postal service. If you don't know how many of Alaska's most rural voters are going to show up, and which candidate they are leaning toward, you don't have an accurate picture of the electorate.

History

F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: Were all the Founding Fathers rich, white, male, Anglo-Saxon Protestants? If not, who doesn't fit in this category? And who are the 10 most influential Founding Fathers?

(Z) answers: The Founding Fathers were all somewhere between "upper middle class" and "upper class." Those were the only kinds of people back then who could take weeks or months away from their professional concerns to engage in governance. Not all of them ended their lives that way, of course; a number of them were left broke as the result of the Revolutionary War, or garden-variety business reverses.

They were all white and male, because those were the only people allowed to wield political power back then, at least in any sort of official capacity.

Most of the Founders were Anglo-Saxon, because it was an overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon country back then. However, several of them, like James Wilson, were of Scottish heritage, and others, like John Jay, were of French extraction. And Alexander Hamilton, who was not born in the U.S., of course, was both Scottish (father) AND French (mother). I assume that is why he looks Puerto Rican when he's portrayed on stage.

The only Founder known to practice a non-Protestant religion was Charles Carroll of Carrollton, who was the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence. However, a number of the Founders were not at all observant, and there's a general consensus that several of them, most notably George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, were deists.

Finally, in 1973, the historian Richard B. Morris published Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny: The Founding Fathers as Revolutionaries, in which he argued that George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison were far and away the seven most important Founders. That convention has been embraced, almost universally, since then. So, asking for a list of Top 10 Founders is like asking for a list of Top 10 dwarfs in Disney films. It's the Big Seven, and then all the others.

---

D.O. in Sudbury, MA, asks: Is it fair to say that Turning Point (collegiate) and Club America (high school) are today's Hitler Youth Groups? Don't all these entities have the same goal: to build support for and to normalize a dictatorship?

(Z) answers: I do not think it is fair to say that.

I am comfortable with the notion that the Trump GOP is fascist, or fascist-adjacent. And obviously, TPUSA and CA support Trump and Trumpism. However, Hitler Youth was an actual organ of the Nazi Party, founded by Adolf Hitler and his minions. It was also a paramilitary organization. And membership went from being "strongly encouraged" by the government to being mandatory. None of these things are true of TPUSA and CA.

TPUSA and CA are more like the Great Japan Youth Party or Nationale Jeugdstorm, which were supportive of, and closely aligned with, an authoritarian/fascist regime, but were not actually a part of that regime.

---

T.A.O. in Minneapolis, MN, asks: My impression is that the antebellum parties, the Whigs and the Know-Nothings, split over issues of their day, resulting in election losses and the rise of the Republican Party. Are there any lessons to be gained, or hope to be found, in the example of parties splintering and failing? I am astonished at the components of the modern Republican Party and wonder if it can sustain all of the racist, isolationist, populist, anti-immigrant, nationalist, religious factions and stay intact.

(Z) answers: The Know-Nothings were not a party of national importance, except maybe in one election, and so should not be a part of the analysis any more than Ross Perot's Reform Party.

The lesson of the Whigs, and the Democrats, and now the Republicans is that whatever party wants the South has to adopt extreme positions on issues that will effectively lead to minority or near-minority status at the national level. The Whigs were the minority while kowtowing to slavery, and then when they couldn't do it anymore, they collapsed. The Democrats were the minority while kowtowing to white supremacy, and when they finally stopped, the South jumped ship. Now the Republicans are the Southern Party, and it's a near-miracle when they win the popular vote in a presidential election.

The thing that is keeping the Republicans more viable than the Whigs, and than the Democrats during that party's "wilderness" years (basically, 1861-1932), is that a fair bit of the Midwest, and much of the Mountain West, has now become an annex of the South. So, Republicans today control a whole bunch of Senate and House seats that would have been longshots for Democrats in, say, 1914, or the Whigs in, say, any year. If some of the states that do not actually have all that much in common with Alabama or Mississippi end up jumping ship, then the GOP is in big trouble.

---

L.M.S. in Harbin, China, asks: You mentioned the quote "it's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes" and debunked its attribution to Stalin. But who said that?

(Z) answers: The problem here is that there have been a lot of people who did a lot of thinking about these kinds of subjects, with the result that the same basic insight has been had, probably independently, many different times. It's also been expressed in different ways, often in different languages. So, it is near-impossible to find the original source.

What is certain is that this remark, in various forms, was frequently associated with New York City urban boss William Magear Tweed (1860s/1870s). He certainly uttered some version of it, and probably did so many times. He also was not known for his gifts of self-expression, so he certainly got it from someone or somewhere else. It's been attributed to Napoleon, so maybe he was the first to think of it, but there's no contemporaneous source that credits the Little Corporal with saying it, so maybe not.

Oh, and it's also reasonably certain that Joseph Stalin also uttered a version of it, though again, he couldn't possibly have been the first.

Gallimaufry

J.E. in San Jose, CA, asks: I believe you mentioned Gandhi being the last movie to feature an intermission on first release in the U.S. One of the reasons for the disappearance of intermissions was that longer running times means fewer showings.

My question is: Don't theaters make their money on concessions, breaking even on showings, similar to how gas stations make money in the convenience store, not at the pump? If so, I would think we would see more intermissions, as we do at plays.

(Z) answers: There was an awful lot of feedback about that point, such that if time allows next week, there will be an item about the evolution of the movie business.

But for now, the answer to your specific question is this: These days, first-run movies are booked by big theater chains under agreements that some enormous percentage of ticket sales (as high as 90%) go to the studios, at least early in the run. So, the studios have a vested interest in making possible as many showings per day as they can, and zero interest in selling concessions. That means it was the studios who (largely) ended the intermission tradition, theater owners be damned.

In theory, a theater COULD stop a film and create an ad hoc intermission. But that would violate their contracts with the studios, in many cases, and would also aggravate customers, who would know full well that it's not an actual intermission. Further, people don't usually buy concessions multiple times during a movie, in part due to the less-than-healthy nature of the food, and part due to the high costs. They usually get one round before the movie starts, and that's it. So, an intermission would not actually move as much product as you might think. The trick the theaters DO use is to offer free refills on popcorn or soda. This costs them next to nothing, and they hope that when you come out to get some more popcorn/soda, maybe you'll grab a $5 candy bar.

---

D.W. in Arden, NC, asks: My daughters are planning to move to the Netherlands by the end of this year to finally be able to live year round with their husbands, who are both Dutch. Do you have any advice regarding: (1) the process, (2) what to expect as a new resident there, (3) necessity of learning the language/assimilation, (4) ease of finding work (both are currently pastry chefs) and (5) general do's and don'ts?

(V) answers: The rules have changed since I came. According to this website, you have to pass a Dutch language test BEFORE you can get permission to live here. In the past, the Dutch were pretty open to immigrants, but those days seem to be over. The exam is intended to make it difficult to come. In daily life, the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker all speak perfect English. So you may have to learn Dutch just to pass the exam. Also, if you get in and want to work, most small companies operate in Dutch. My guess is that in a commercial bakery or restaurant, most people speak English and if there is a shortage of pastry chefs, it won't be a problem. If there are many applicants, probably a Dutch-speaking person will win out. I simply don't know that job market, but Dutch people do love pastries. There are stores that sell only pastries (banketbakkerij), like a patisserie in France. These are different from regular bakeries (broodbakkerij). Note "ij" is one letter and is like a "y" in English. If you see "bakkerij" as "bakkery" you can probably figure out what business they are in. Learning Dutch is probably a little easier than learning German.

When you get here, you will discover that housing prices have gone through the roof in recent years. Nearly all houses for sale and apartments for rent are on funda.nl/en. It is partly in Dutch, but "Koop" means "Buy" and "Huur" means "Rent." Pick one and enter a city name to see what is out there. Do this while sitting down. You are not going to like what you see. In the center of Amsterdam, you can rent an apartment of 800 sq. ft for €3000/mo. On the outskirts of Amsterdam, you might find one 1000 sq ft for €2000/mo. Very roughly to convert m² to ft² multiply the number given by 10.

Don't get a car if you are in any city. Buy bikes and a sturdy chain. The only crime you are likely to run across is bicycle theft. Public transit is extremely good. Uber is available everywhere in most cities.

Telling people that you are a Trump refugee will win you friends quickly.

Be polite and respectful to people. For appointments, be on time. Coming at 15:05 for a 15:00 appointment is VERY late. (Forget this a.m. and p.m. business. Nobody has a clue what that is.)

Find a G.P. (huisarts) quickly. Ask people. The entire medical system is based on them. Medical care is probably better than in most of the U.S. All doctors speak excellent English.

Once you have all the permits, open a bank account with ABNAMO, ING or RABO. These are the biggest banks and have the most offices. However, practically all banking is done online. The normal way to pay your dentist is to wire him the money. Wires are free and take 5 sec. to arrive. Checks were abolished 30 years ago as being obsolete technology. Cash is going the way of the dodo. The normal way to pay in stores is electronically, using a bank debit card. Very few businesses take credit cards except in tourist areas. Debit cards work only if you have enough money in your account.

The country is very bureaucratic. Don't fight it. If you fill in all the forms the way the bureaucrats want, everything works pretty well. Don't bother giving a sob story to any bureaucrat about why you didn't follow some rule. It won't work.

It snowed last week for the first time in years. It is never hot and never cold here. Think: Seattle.

If someone invites you to their home for tea or dinner, bring a small gift (wine, small box of chocolates, flowers, etc,)

Internet at 1000 Mbps up and down is common in cities, but not everywhere.

The quality of life here is very good.

Reader Question of the Week: News, Worthy

Here is the question we put before readers last time we had a proper mailbag:

S.H. in Duluth, MN, asks: I've finally reached a point in life where I have enough disposable income to get an actual subscription to any one news outlet of my choice. However, with a good number to choose from, and my own lack of knowledge on the subject, I'm not exactly sure which one might be optimal. Do you have any thoughts on which one I might want to go with, accounting for things like cost, content, who owns the paper, bias, etc.? Even just a few ideas would be great!

And here some of the answers we got in response:

C.S. in Tucson, AZ: Suggestions for S.H. in Duluth:

• Subscribe to the news source you are most drawn to. Don't expect that paying for news will change your interests.
  
  
• Go local. Small towns and big city news reporting has suffered mightily. Subscribe to your local newspaper. Because some papers are so far gone, investing in something that is flat-lining would be a hard first choice for me.
  
  
• Go big. The Economist, The Atlantic, ProPublica, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Rolling Stone and Vanity Fair have some impressive reporting.
  
  
• Go public. PBS, NPR and, in Minnesota, MPR. The BBC is darn good, too. There are small public radio stations that do a remarkable job (WTIP in Grand Marais, for example) and are worthy of consideration. Others, such as AZPM in Tucson, we give money but ignore the programming because it is content-light.
  
  
• Decide that you cannot save an industry but can save a life, maybe more than one. Instead of feeding a dying industry, news reporting, give money and time to a cause that matters. But, do so with the understanding that all organizations are imperfect, and the one you choose will be out of alignment with your sensibilities to some degree. The United Way, Salvation Army, and Goodwill are local and unfortunately essential in all communities. The ACLU seems pretty dang important as do organizations focused on justice, human rights, the poor and environmental issues.

If all else fails, there's The Onion, America's Finest News Source.

---

M.D.K. in Portland, OR: Subscribe to a local newspaper. It will connect you to people in your community in ways you cannot imagine.

---

A.S. in Renton, WA: S.H. in Duluth did not specify the reach they desire in their one news outlet. Local? Regional? National? International? For myself, I appreciate my local paper, the Renton Reporter. They maximize limited resources, and write about topics of immediate interest to me. Regionally, as someone who came of age in the Intermountain West, I value High Country News. Nationally/internationally, I tend to read The Guardian (UK).

---

J.E. in San Jose, CA: Seems like you would have to start with the Duluth News Tribune, which appears to not be owned by a giant corporation.

---

J.W. in Newton, MA (moving imminently to Victoria, BC Canada): The American people seem to hate the press, but it is more crucial than ever to keep newspapers alive. I'd recommend that S.H. start by supporting their local newspaper in Duluth, or perhaps The Minnesota Star-Tribune.

For national coverage, arts, and games, The New York Times is close to essential. They get a lot of grief for their hand-wringing and whataboutism, but they are the U.S. paper of record, and they have several great columnists (e.g., Thomas Edsell on the center-left, David French on the center-right) to offset the Trump loyalists like Ross Douthat (whose pieces I boycott). They make an attempt to cover the world at large, and in my view, they have not bent the knee to Mango Mussolini. I know some Electoral-Vote.com readers disagree with me on this point.

It's great to get some international coverage. As my wife and I prepare to emigrate to Canada, just in case democracy really does die in America, I've subscribed to The Globe and Mail, which reads like a Canadian mash-up of the Times and The Wall Street Journal. I like being challenged by more right-leaning writers who are not nuts. And to get a more left-wing perspective, I drop a few bucks each month to support The Guardian in the UK. Amazingly, they have no paywall!

Supporting 4-5 newspapers (and Electoral-Vote.com!) costs me less than $100 per month. Easily worth it, in my view. I also read free content when I can get it.

---

B.S. in Huntington Beach, CA: I try to be informed politically by reviewing a variety of sites on a regular basis, some more regularly than others. There are two political sites to which I am faithful every day: Electoral-Vote.com, and The New York Times. Loyal E-V.com readers know why the site is so compelling, but for those who do not subscribe to the NYT, I believe you are missing out.

The Times provides, on a daily basis, a broad overview of significant national stories. Just perusing the headlines is informative. In addition, their journalists are top-notch, well-informed, and insightful, so when I choose to read an in-depth article, it is always worth the time.

The Times also provides diversions on a daily basis, which I enjoy. For example, Wordle, Mini Crossword, Sports Connections, etc., keep the brain functioning.

I love to cook, and having a subscription provides access to Times cooking recommendations, and I have found their recipes to be both doable and amazing. Try their Lasagna made with meatballs and sausage, or their Chicken Alfredo Lasagna. Amazing!

Where I find them lacking is in their New York/east coast bias, their unfailing support of Israel, and their provision of a forum for the likes of Bret Stephens and other right-wing shills in the interest of "balance."

All in all, I have found the Times to be by far the best of the remaining major national news outlets and well worth the subscription cost.

---

J.M. in Eagle Mills, NY: I subscribe to The New York Times, strictly digital now. This goes back to our days of living in the metro New York area 40 years ago, when we could get local delivery of the dead-tree edition. Some years back, the NYT started offering delivery in the Albany, NY, area, so we rejoined. We cut back delivery to Sunday only, but that also included digital, and eventually dropped delivery when we were on the road too much, and were constantly putting delivery on hold.

Pluses: Word games either on computer (preferred) or in an app; broad reach of news coverage; one subscription can be used by 3 people (or 4; they keep bugging me).

Minuses: The Grey Lady has become somewhat tentative about covering the goings-on in the current administration, and tends to pull punches.

---

D.R. in Phoenix, AZ: The Atlantic has always been my ideal of what smart grown-ups read. There are in-depth articles written by very smart, very veteran journalists on topics you won't find anywhere else. One of my favorites was an in-depth look at the industry of breaking down ships that are no longer seaworthy. It's not a topic I ever would have sought out, but once I read the first paragraph, I was hooked by the quality of the writing. Every month there's at least one like that. Their politics coverage is superb. They definitely lean left these days, but their motto is "Of no party or clique." This has been under their masthead since 1857, which is probably the only time in America's history more polarized than this one, and I think they try hard to honor the sentiment. Give them a try.

---

J.B. in Aarhus, Denmark: The Atlantic.

I've had an online subscription for the last 6 years and I read four to six articles every week. Strangely enough, although I consider myself very much to the left, I find myself reading the Never Trump writers all the time. Guilty pleasures. This includes David Frum and Tom Nichols (born-again Reaganauts) who I would have disdained entirely in the 1980's. I find myself agreeing with almost everything that Tom Nichols writes and every single time wondering: Is it him or is it me?

The Atlantic's staff of writers are superb: David Graham, Adam Sewer, Anne Applebaum (the best in her field) Jonathan Chait, Helen Lewis. The list goes on and on...

---

B.C. in Phoenix, AZ: S.H. in Duluth should know I think I get a real bargain with my monthly and yearly contributions to three news organizations which are the most responsible in existence:

• NPR, via my local radio station
• PBS, via my local television station
• Electoral-Vote.com, via a Patreon monthly donation (see the top of the home page)

---

A.L. in San Diego, CA: Consider membership at your local public broadcaster, especially if they have a local newsroom and a good website. The national news from NPR and PBS relies on the local broadcasters for both transmission and, crucially, funding.

Another good option is a subscription to The Guardian, a British paper which also puts out U.S., Australia, Europe, and international editions.

Yes, these sources make the news available to all, including those who don't subscribe. That's part of why they're so important and worthy of support from those of us who can afford to.

---

N.G. in San Jose, CA: I have found The Guardian worth a subscription. I am very impressed with their international, American and climate crisis news coverage, as well as their editorial columns. A plus for me is that it is owned by a trust. From Wikipedia:

...owned by the Scott Trust Limited. The trust was created in 1936 to "secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity and to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of The Guardian free from commercial or political interference." The trust was converted into a limited company in 2008, with a constitution written so as to maintain for The Guardian the same protections as were built into the structure of the Scott Trust by its creators. Profits are reinvested in its journalism rather than distributed to owners or shareholders.

It has a leftist slant. But if that bothers you, I would recommend you take a look and see its wide-ranging coverage and then decide.

---

D.A. in Brooklyn, NY: I tend to go for British media because I (mostly) know the language and it is not nearly as parochial as U.S. media (including The New York Times). So I was going to suggest The Guardian or The Economist.

The NYT does beckon, simply because of its influence and stature. And the Times does have some very good (albeit almost always U.S.-centric) in-depth articles (for example, Hannah Dreier's articles on immigration, and on fire fighters). But I'm going to make a recommendation that I really hate to make: Apple News+. (Ugh. There. I've said it. More ka-ching ka-ching for that corporate behemoth.) The reason is that it opens up access to an awful lot of news-media that have paywalls. Like The Wall St Journal, The Economist, The Atlantic, and so much more.

---

B.M. in Dyer, IN: To answer S.H., I would put in my vote for the Financial Times. FT has excellent coverage of business, politics and news that covers the full globe. I got my first exposure to it in college from the general advice of the Dean of the Business School I attended—he indicated that while The Wall Street Journal was "OK" for business coverage, if you wanted a full picture, you should read FT. I started reading several years afterwards (buying the famous salmon-colored newspapers at first) and eventually becoming a full subscriber. Nowadays, I read FT online via the computer or through its excellent app on an iPad.

It is pricey, to be clear, but something that I have found well worth it. Compared to the columnists in the competing WSJ, FT's are much more balanced and center to center-right (European center-right). There are some portions that are free and only require a registration, such as FT's "Alphaville," a great source for snark in the business world along with excellent analysis.

Last thing, the President Trump "TACO" acronym came from FT reporter Robert Armstrong... one might consider that a bonus.

---

V.W. in Wiltshire, England, UK: I am poorly equipped to comment on the best news outlets in Minnesota or the United States, but in addition to Electoral-Vote.com I try to read both The Telegraph and The Guardian each day. The extent to which I read either depends how busy I am, of course, but I find that in order to triangulate what I think about an issue, it's helpful to read what the center-right Torygraph and the center-left Grauniad (to use their colloquial names...) are saying. A few of my friends think I am weird for failing to pick a side, and perhaps they are right.

P.S.: There is a lyric to a song by an Australian band called Redgum, which goes "I love to read the Bulletin and watch the ABC, I love to air my well-informed opinions constantly...", which probably does describe me nowadays, notwithstanding the Bulletin being long gone!

---

J.H. in Parker, AZ: I would suggest a subscription to The Bulwark, which, for those who may not know, is mainly run by a cadre of Never-Trump Republicans. I find them to be a nice change of pace in tone and content from mainstream and left-leaning news sources and, given their history, the contributors are especially keen to point out the hypocrisy of MAGA mouthpieces and enablers. It's also been interesting to watch their crew grow over time, with more exposure to people who might have been outside their bubble in the past. Also, much of their content is available for free if you want to check them out before sending them your money.

---

S.W. in Wimberley, TX: Heather Cox Richardson is free to read but, if you're like me, you'll be so appreciative of her knowledge, passion, and ability to capture the news and share it a nonpartisan way, you'll want to subscribe.

Also, Joyce White Vance is an experienced legal eagle who explains in the most easily understandable ways but is definitely partisan.

---

M.W. in Cleveland, OH: I spend money for premium access to two news sources. Although both of them have free tiers, they are the two organizations that I have encountered that I find sufficiently reliable and ideologically sane to be worth supporting financially.

First, Talking Points Memo. To be honest, I only read the news on the site sporadically, but I read founding Editor-in-Chief Josh Marshall's blog religiously; I also listen to their podcast (although my ad-free status on the site does not entitle me to an ad-free version of the podcast, which is annoying but minor).

Josh, his podcast co-host Kate, and the rest of the reporters and editors on the site have good heads on their shoulders. They share my progressive values, clearly, but because they are actually in the thick of things doing real reporting, they also avoid falling prey to some of the more common fallacies common on the left. For instance, Josh has repeatedly hammered home the importance of finding Democratic candidates who are a good fit for their districts, rather than simply always trying to elect more leftists in the mold of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D).

They are also very critical of the cringing, afraid-of-their-own-shadows attitude common among Senate and some House Democrats. They want Democrats to be unapologetic in their beliefs, and clear in their messaging. I have come, through their reporting and Josh's writing, to see the true divide in the Democratic Party through the lens of effective anti-Trumpism and advocacy for specific outcomes, rather than simply being about left versus center.

There are several other major issues where I find TPM to be consistently clear-eyed and analytical, even as they recognize the urgency of the many issues facing our country.

Second, the Opening Arguments podcast. This is a show whose basic premise is pairing lawyers and smart lay people together to discuss the law through a political lens. The lay people aren't just there to add humor, though they do that; the real genius of the show's format is the way the non-lawyer cohost(s) (usually Thomas Smith, but sometimes joined by his wife Lydia Smith) stand in for non-lawyers in the audience as they grapple with the meaning of abstruse legal terminology. (It should be noted, though, that many lawyers listen to the show, because it's technical enough not to be insulting to people with the relevant expertise.)

We all need to understand what various cases and precedents mean in real-world terms, and the Smiths help us do that. The show also often points out the ways the mainstream media either completely misrepresents or simply ignores major legal cases.

Meanwhile, the legal minds on the show, currently criminal immigration attorney Matt Cameron and disability rights lawyer Jenessa Seymour, are both fantastic. They each have their own brand of humor mixed with strong moral stances on some of the most urgent topics of our day. That said, the show does also sometimes delve into historical SCOTUS cases, analyzing them for historical interest and for contrast to today's corrupt, venal conservative "justices."

Overall, I find OA to be illuminating. Thanks to OA, TPM, and of course Electoral-Vote.com, I am able to absorb current events with a significant sense of context and nuance that would be totally absent if I was simply leaning on legacy media to get the job done.

---

M.D. in North Canton, OH: So this subject is actually something I have meaning to mention to the boys (and now girls) at Electoral-Vote.com. The Apple One bundle is pricey at $38 a month, but it gets you so much. Apple News+ includes almost every newspaper (only The New York Times has opted out, from what I have searched for), every major magazine, and a ton of other media, as well. Apple Music, with just about every song. Then everything else you would expect: TV, fitness, arcade and 2TB of cloud storage.

Now, like I say, it's pricey, but the other part of this is it's shareable with up to 5 other users and it explicitly says they don't have to be in your household. I have it, my wife, my daughter, my brother, and both our parents are on the plan. The only thing they need to watch out for is if they buy something, as it will show up on our bill. I know I sound like an ad, but it really is a pretty good deal and we consider it a Christmas/birthday present for our parents. (Cause what can you possibly buy an 80-year-old that will give them that much entertainment?) I would say that, just for me and my wife, it is easily worth $20 a month. If you have 2 other people that will benefit, then it's totally worth it.

---

K.V. in Valley Village, CA: Apple News+ is the obvious answer, since for a single, low fee, you get the full versions of a wide range of publications. Unfortunately, The New York Times is no longer included, which is pretty much a must-have, though clearly far below Electoral-Vote.com in importance.

---

M.M. in Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK: Without question, the most worthwhile subscription is to PressReader. It provides facsimiles of almost every newspaper and journal in the world

---

T.V.P. in Portland, OR: Since you read Electoral-Vote.com, S.H. in Duluth, you get a broad view of daily news with a politics-centered perspective, and a heavy dose of popular culture and sports items. The last of my subscriptions that I would cancel is Science News, a great publication of news and articles from all the sciences from Anthropology to Zoology. I am a retired professor of Art Theory and Religious Studies, but I am curious about our world and can't imagine not keeping up with the sciences. I spend almost as much time reading Science News and Electoral-vote.com as my reading of novels and historical non-fiction.

---

B.T. in Kansas City, MO: If you're really into sports and cultural analysis, check out Defector. It's made up of former Deadspin staff who resigned en masse after their corporate overlords forced them to stick to sports. Defector is owned by the writers, so there's no ads or biases favoring corporate interests (the staff have borderline communist-leaning viewpoints, however, so take that as you will). They cover a wide range of sports, with NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL being their bread and butter, but you'll also find plenty of articles on TV, Broadway and politics. It's $80 a year to subscribe, though if you want to comment on articles with the lovingly named "Commentariat" community, that'll cost extra. If you want a free taste of what they're like, they also have a number of podcasts. I recommend The Distraction, which is hosted by arguably their two best writers, Drew Magary and David Roth.

---

M.W.O. in Syracuse, NY: I recommend the paper version of The Onion. It costs $100/year. It also comes with an e-mail subscription that has different articles than the print edition. The print edition is delivered towards the end of each month. It is often hilarious and sometimes a little painful but a delightful diversion. I also subscribe to the on-line versions of The New York Times, The Guardian and The Associated Press.

Here is the question for next week:

L.L. in Seymour, CT, asks: How can I help Minnesotans right now? And others? How to help D.G. in St. Paul? I am protesting, all of the Connecticut federal delegation is speaking out as I would want them to, our state AG is at the forefront of lawsuits, and our state legislature is proposing legislation further limiting ICE in Connecticut. What else can I be doing?

Submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Civil Disobedience"!

---

Previous report         Next report

---

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