Saturday Q&A

This week's headline theme was tougher than we thought. We thought we'd given away the store with the Davy Crockett hint, particularly if you consider both references to him in yesterday's posting. Today, we'll add the hint that we think Jeremy Allen White would do pretty well with this theme, too.

Current Events

 

R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: We are now about 5 months into the Iran War, and Donald Trump still seems to think bombing Iran will coerce them to re-open the Strait of Hormuz. He has tried this multiple times, and it should be obvious to everyone that it won't work. It is because the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is using irregular naval warfare tactics to threaten and attack civilian ships.

However, what I don't understand is why the Joint Chiefs of Staff would stand by silently while the president's tactics are failing. As the President's main military advisors, they surely must know his choices in this war are not working. Do you think they are lying to him about what will work? Are they giving him bad advice? Or are they just staying quiet to further their careers?

(Z) answers: Someone like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine has to walk a very fine line.

On one hand, he is responsible for giving honest advice, and for anticipating potential problems before they happen, and before they turn into disasters.

On the other hand, like any soldier, he must honor the chain of command. Further, in contrast to, say, a captain who does not like the orders his colonel gave him, Caine must be constantly mindful that the U.S. military is ultimately subordinate to civilian leadership. Finally, in contrast to someone like Colin Powell or George Marshall, Caine is dealing with a president who is very thin-skinned and is prone to temper tantrums, and who would absolutely remove a high-ranking military officer solely because that military officer hurt the president's fee-fees.

By all indications, Caine is doing what he can to walk that line, and, unlike a Todd Blanche or a Scott Bessent, is not compromised by partisan politics or by a desire to promote his own prospects. There was just a story yesterday that Caine is trying to gently but firmly tell White House staffers that they need to be thinking about an off-ramp, because the current campaign of bombing is not working (and is going to run short on bombs), and any sort of escalation (say, an invasion by ground troops) will likely turn disastrous.

---

 

A.Q. in Ithaca, NY, asks: I'm a little surprised that you have not written about the possibility that Donald Trump, given the depleted stock of weapons, may decide to go nuclear in Iran. It would seem like a very Trumpian thing to do. Do you think that it's unlikely?

(Z) answers: I think it is very unlikely.

First of all, the United States' allies in the region, most obviously Saudi Arabia and Israel, would be hopping mad, to the point they might actually turn their guns on the Americans. The European allies would also be furious, and while they probably wouldn't attack the U.S. or its forces, they would very likely impose some pretty serious sanctions.

Meanwhile, Trump would be risking open season around the world if he re-ignited the era of nuclear warfare. Can we really be sure that Iran doesn't have, say, a few suitcase nukes that it managed to lay hands on when Russia was in turmoil? And speaking of Russia, it would be all bets off in terms of them lobbing some nukes at Ukraine. If and when that happened, then Pakistan and India might get in on the fun. Or China might strike Taiwan.

It is such an obviously bad idea that if Trump tried to give the order, I suspect that Dan Caine and his underlings would simply refuse to carry it out, and would dare the President to do something about it. There have been multiple studies over the years, and they suggest that the personnel who would actually have to execute the launches are generally only willing to do so defensively, not offensively. Nearly all of them are willing to sacrifice their careers if they believe they might be preventing a nuclear holocaust.

It is true that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth would probably be willing to launch nukes preemptively, but I suspect he can barely operate his cell phone, much less operate a nuclear launch vehicle.

---

 

D.B. in San Diego, CA, asks: I'm curious if the marketplace might be able to dissuade Iran from their plans to charge tolls in the Strait of Hormuz? As I understand it, Iran is almost as heavily dependent on incoming cargo (especially for food) as they are on out-going cargo (oil), which makes me wonder if the shipping companies might refuse to deliver to Iran if they are charging tolls in the Strait? Governments clearly have very little leverage, but maybe the market does?

(Z) answers: There is virtually no question this is the case. There's already a consortium of 10 Middle Eastern countries working together to countermand Iranian ambitions to control the Strait. This consortium is willing to impose severe sanctions on Iran, it's willing to develop alternate shipping routes, and it's willing to work on some sort of anti-drone defense system. It may take a little time for the Strait to be fully reopened if Iran continues to assert itself, but that nation cannot hope to have permanent control of the Strait so that it may impose permanent tolls.

---

 

E.F. in Baltimore, MD, asks: I am not a constitutional scholar. Hell, I'm not even a Supreme Court Justice. But it strikes me as somehow wrong, perhaps unconstitutional, for someone whom the Senate has explicitly rejected for a position to continue indefinitely in an acting capacity, the Federal Vacancies Act notwithstanding. Can you enlighten me?

(Z) answers: The laws that govern vacancies were written based on three main assumptions:

1. It is necessary to have a clear-cut person "in charge" at all of the executive agencies, even if that person is "acting."
   
   
2. The president will make a good-faith effort to nominate qualified people to office, especially Cabinet posts.
   
   
3. If the Senate declines to approve a nomination, the president will make a good-faith effort to choose another qualified nominee with as much haste as is possible.

Because #1 is so important, the deadlines for making nominations, and for making replacement nominations, are pretty loose. That wouldn't be a big problem if assumptions #2 and #3 were correct, and the president was acting in good faith. The issue here is that assumptions #2 and #3 do not apply to Donald Trump, who basically never acts in good faith.

A future Democratic president might be able to convince Republicans that the current laws need to be changed. He could do that by firing every Trump appointee on day 1 and replacing them all with acting officers while the Senate debated their confirmations. Then the president could ask Congress to repeal all the laws about filling vacancies by temporary presidential appointments and have a single rule for the entire Executive Branch. When a position becomes vacant, the highest-ranking Senate-confirmed officer in the department or agency would automatically take over the vacant position as an "acting" replacement until the Senate confirms a permanent one. This way no one would ever run any department or agency without Senate confirmation.

---

 

M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: I read that Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been voting by proxy to break ties on the Senate Agriculture Committee. Is that possible? Does the Senate get proxy votes, but the House doesn't? Did McConnell get a proxy vote because it was a committee vote and not a floor vote? I'm confused.

(Z) answers: There are two things that are being balanced here. On one hand, for any action involving the entire Senate, a senator must vote for themselves. On the other hand, when it comes to committee work, all senators serve on multiple committees, some of which meet at the same time. Since a member cannot be in two places at once, they must have a means of voting at committee meetings, at least on some things, without being present.

The way this plays out is that a senator may vote by proxy when it comes to amendments introduced in committee. However, they are not allowed to vote by proxy when it comes to advancing bills (or nominations) to the floor of the Senate. And they are not allowed to vote by proxy on the Senate floor, either.

In the House, there is no proxy voting at all, even in committees. There was for a short while during the pandemic, but they got rid of it. Since there are 435 members, they are spread a little less thin than the senators, and so there is somewhat less likelihood of a member having dueling committee meetings.

---

 

B.S. in Huntington Beach, CA, asks: I understand why defense lawyers go before the public to proclaim their clients' innocence, but I am perplexed by the behavior of prosecutors who attempt to try the case in the court of public opinion before the trial begins. Prosecuting Attorney Jeanine Pirro went public immediately after the arrest of David Hearn in the Reflecting Pool caper to announce all kinds of evidence proving his guilt. Of course, all charges were subsequently dropped.

Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? Is the Justice Department not bound by legal ethics to present their case before a court rather than to the public? Does a presentation of all particulars of evidence to the public prior to trial not constitute a tainting of the trial? What am I missing?

(Z) answers: Yes, there are some ethical considerations here, though prosecutors in high-profile cases often put pieces of their case out before the general public as a means of trying to influence would-be jury members. They are careful not to say anything that would get them disbarred, and they try very hard not to say anything that will piss off whatever judge is in charge.

In Pirro's case, however, she clearly had no intention of trying the case, nor any expectation she might win. She put her "evidence" out there for the benefit of a jury of one, sitting in his office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

---

 

E.H. in Washington, DC, asks: I am writing to express my concern regarding U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro dropping the case against David Hearn. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the case was dismissed with prejudice. If that is the case, would a future U.S. Attorney be able to refile the charges against Hearn, potentially causing him further legal costs?

Where the President will find more of a lackey than Jeanine Pirro I don't know, but surely there's someone out there.

(Z) answers: We will indeed have to correct you. First, the case can only be re-filed if it is dismissed without prejudice. Second, the judge in this case has not yet decided what kind of dismissal this will be, and plans to hear arguments from both sides before rendering judgment.

And I would say that both Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche are more lackey-ish than Pirro. It's close, but at least Pirro shows occasional integrity.

---

 

T.W. in Norfolk, England, UK, asks: The comment on the migration of moderate Democrats towards being independents is illuminating. Given that allows candidates with a more left-wing progressive outlook, like Abdul El-Sayed, to more easily win their primaries, and given the current historic unpopularity of the U.S. government, which really ought to be eminently beatable, does this mean there's a very strong risk of the Democrats grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory (again)? Is it likely to be a case of "When will they ever learn?" after the dust settles in November? What do your tea leaves say?

(Z) answers: Might El-Sayed lose a race that Haley Stevens would have won? It's certainly possible. There is no way to speak with any confidence until the votes are tallied, and until we see some exit polls.

More broadly, however, I don't think the Democrats are in danger of "blowing" this election. Sometimes, voters aren't choosing the more popular party/candidate, they are choosing the least unpopular party/candidate. And when many voters feel like they have to hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, they tend to choose the party that is not in power.

Politics

 

P.M. in Port Angeles, WA, asks: With the increasing resistance to data centers, I ask this: what is the actual purpose of these massive computational structures?

(V) answers: Data centers are collections of servers that do whatever the company that owns them wants them to do.

Google, for example, has captured a large part of the entire Internet on its servers. It needs this so it can search it upon request. People estimate the Internet at above 100 zettabytes (a zettabyte is 10^21 bytes, or a trillion gigabytes). Google has to store that somewhere. It has many datacenters for that. Facebook stores a lot of data, too. It too has datacenters for that. Amazon has a lot of data. So do Apple, Netflix, etc. A lot of companies have tons of data to store somewhere. Sometimes it is in-house, but often it is easier to rent space in someone else's datacenter. Many small and medium-sized companies want a website but don't want to manage the IT infrastructure, so they rent a (possibly virtual) computer at a datacenter. When something is in the cloud, like Apple's iCloud, it is just in somebody's datacenter. This site rents a computer in a datacenter in upstate New York for about $1000/year. We run Linux, but we could run a different operating system if we wanted to. They keep the machine running, but we log in using a secure protocol to manage the content. We don't have to think about power, cooling, OC-12s, etc. They do all that.

As an aside, while Amazon is widely known as an online store, it generates a sizable amount of its revenue from renting computers at its datacenters to other companies. Fun fact: The person who runs that operation, Amazon's Chief Technology Officer, Werner Vogels, got his Ph.D. under my co-supervision.

AI is another story. AI companies also have massive amounts of data, typically obtained by searching the Internet to train their models. AI also does a lot of computing whereas, say, Google, just needs a lot of storage. The computers in an AI datacenter use special chips that are (relatively) power-efficient at doing the kind of computing they need, but even so, they still consume massive power. The best of these chips are made by Nvidia, which is why the U.A.E. had to pay Donald Trump a billion dollars to get permission to buy them so it can construct its own AI infrastructure.

There are a few companies whose business is compiling data on everyone. Peter Thiel's company, Palantir, comes to mind here. They are in the data business, not in the IT business, so they asked Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Oracle, and other companies that run data centers for a price quote and picked one or more based on price, response time, availability, backup management, security, and whatever other factors they care about.

---

 

D.R. in Hillsboro, VA, asks: Is it AI that is unpopular among citizens, or is it the data centers that are needed to run AI?

And is it the resource intensity and climate impact of data centers that is unpopular, or is it that people just don't want them for neighbors?

(Z) answers: A little from column A, a little from column B, a little from column C.

Some Americans are just generally suspicious of change, particularly technological change.

Some Americans dislike AI because they think (with reason) that it will take away jobs and/or that it will cause people (especially young people) to get dumbed down.

Some Americans dislike data centers because they have a big impact on usage of water and electricity. This can mean that there's not enough available for everyone or, more commonly, that prices go up.

There are also plenty of people in more than one of the above categories.

---

 

N.S. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: In this week's Political Bytes, you described Texas Attorney General and Senate candidate Ken Paxton (R) as "running scared" for his refusal to debate his opponent James Talarico (D).

In 2022's, Arizona gubernatorial race, Democrat Katie Hobbs refused to debate her Republican opponent, Kari Lake. Her reasoning was essentially that it's not wise to play chess with a pigeon, because the pigeon will just knock over the pieces, defecate on the board, and strut around like it won anyway. Though I completely understood her reasoning, I remember thinking Hobbs was going to get hammered for this decision, likely to the point of it deciding the election in Lake's favor. I was very pleasantly surprised when Hobbs emerged victorious, albeit by a tiny margin (50.32%-49.65%).

In her reelection bid this year, Hobbs has again refused to debate her opponent, the possibly even-more-out-there-than-Kari-Lake Rep. Andy Biggs (R).

Do you think Hobbs' refusal to debate Lake in 2022 was a wise decision, or is it more likely she still won despite her refusal, and would've won by a larger margin had she debated? And do you think her decision to not debate Biggs will affect this year's gubernatorial election in a similar way? Finally, is there any sort of corollary to be drawn from Ken Paxton's refusal to debate James Talarico, in terms of how it will affect the Texas Senate race?

(Z) answers: First, I think that Hobbs' reasons for not debating are a little different from Paxton's. In both cases, they took a pass because they are not very good public speakers. However, Hobbs had a second, probably more salient reason. There was little doubt that Kari Lake would pull a Trump, and would spend the night Gish Galloping (or pigeon pooping). It is exceedingly difficult to counter a Gish Galloper, particularly if you are not a skilled debater. This is why Ben Shapiro (to take one famous example) chooses college students to "debate" against, then Gish Gallops all over them, then posts videos with titles like "HILARIOUS! Ben Shapiro DESTROYS LIBERALS At Berkeley!"

I suspect that, these days—with even Donald Trump having skipped a debate—it's not a major liability for a candidate to take a pass. The biggest problem is not that people will judge them for it (though that might happen in Paxton's case, because it makes him look weak), it's that they lose an opportunity to change the trajectory of the race. If a candidate believes they are the solid frontrunner AND that they are more likely to perform poorly than well on the debate stage (and all of this describes Katie Hobbs, both in 2022 and 2026), they are better off skipping the debates.

Paxton is going to have to think long and hard about whether HE is also a solid frontrunner, or a frontrunner at all. He may need a debate or two to try to sell himself to the people of Texas. And if he only figures that out in, say, October, it may be too late. If Talarico is consistently up 5 points by then, then he will say, "I tried very hard, for many months, to get my opponent to debate. At this point, he's desperate, and I cannot accommodate him because I need to be meeting voters on the campaign trail."

---

 

J.P.G. in Montreal, QC, Canada, asks: I've been following this site from the beginning, back in 2004 I believe. I'm writing about something which has bugged me for quite some time. Earlier this week, discussing the Tennessee primary, (V) wrote that whoever the Democratic nominee would be was irrelevant, and he wondered why anyone wasted their time pursuing such a hopeless nomination.

This is a comment that I've frequently seen on this site, but it leaves me perplexed. Sure, in terms of pure "winning percentages," the comment is accurate. But as a site created to promote voting rights and democracy, isn't it in fact highly admirable for people to decide to run for office, even if they know they have little chance of winning? By doing so, they are allowing the minority (usually about 40% of the electorate) someone for whom to vote, and also preventing the winner from claiming a 100% mandate (which is the usual trademark of authoritarian regimes).

Personally, I believe that when Democrats refrain from running a candidate in a Southern or Midwestern state, they are committing gross negligence and depriving the voters of a legitimate option to at least express their opposition to the majority position in their state of district. I'd be very interested to know the thoughts of (V) and (Z), as this type of comment has frequently appeared in their columns over the years. Running candidates in those races would also expose the voters to another line of thinking, and perhaps bring some of them to at least start questioning the indoctrination spoon-fed by Fox or talk-radio.

 

J.M. in Arvada, CO, asks: You often mention races where one party has no chance of winning, yet there will be a competitive primary for that race for the destined-to-lose party or the nominee for the general election will go all-in even though they have no shot. Setting aside the people who are perennial candidates that just like to run for office, is there any sort of strategy in these attempts? Is there a thought process of "I'll run for Senate in Tennessee, I'll get killed, but then my name will be out there so when I run for state Senate or state AG, I'll have a leg up on my competition"? Or are these really just people tilting at windmills for no reason?

(Z) answers: We write about many races where one side or the other has no real chance of winning. It is difficult to find fresh ways to say the same thing over and over again, particularly if we're writing about 10 such races on the same day. So, sometimes there's a little sarcasm or dramatic license—writing about tilting at windmills, or having a death wish, or something like that. However, we would prefer that every race, from president down to deputy assistant dogcatcher, have (at very least) candidates from both of the major parties, for the reasons laid out here. And we agree it is basically malpractice when a party fails to come up with someone. As the Great One, Wayne Gretzky, observed, "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take."

There are many reasons that someone might mount a seemingly hopeless bid. For ego. To sell books or promote some other business venture. To learn how the system works from the inside. To start building name recognition and infrastructure for a future run for office. To be there just in case the bottom falls out on the other party's candidate (e.g., Roy Moore). Also, and this is important, most states eventually switch polarities. Vermont used to elect only Republicans. Texas used to elect only Democrats. A candidate can never be sure, when they file, if they might be the first step in a new era in state politics, as may well be the case with Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), or Sens. Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock (both D-GA), or Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH).

---

 

R.C. in Des Moines, IA, asks: Why do political parties announce they are expanding their target list maps like the DCCC just did? Doesn't this just give the other party more time to figure out how to counter the strategy?

(Z) answers: Well, it could be a head-fake, designed to trick the other party into wasting resources on "safe" races. That said, the primary purpose of those target lists is to encourage people to donate. And that will not happen unless the DCCC/DSCC/NRCC/NRSC announce loudly which candidates could really use some extra support.

Civics

 

F.G in Bethesda, MD, asks: Elon Musk went ranting about actress and activist Anne Hathaway in support of a now viral speech from 2018 supporting women's rights, marriage equality, LGBTQ rights, and opposing Donald Trump.

Should she sue him for defamatory statements, including calling her a "marionette"? This is the same guy who happens to have a trans child but doesn't care about her.

(Z) answers: It is not defamatory, at least not legally, to say mean things about someone.

Elon Musk is a drug addict, a bigot and a bully. Those are all factual assertions, and we can make them because truth is an absolute defense in defamation cases, and there is abundant evidence of all of these things.

Musk is dumb, ugly and obnoxious. Those are all opinions, and we can say those things because they cannot be proven true or false.

Musk is nine feet tall, speaks Vietnamese fluently, and dyes his hair green. Those are all factual assertions, and are plainly false. However, we can say those things because there is no plausible argument that writing these things harmed him.

To be actionable, a person must make a statement that is not factual in nature, and that they knew was false, or that they would have known was false if they had not shown a reckless disregard for the truth. On top of that, it must be shown that the statement actually damaged the person.

The nasty things Musk says about Hathaway do not clear the bar for defamation. First, to call her a marionette is clearly an opinion and not a statement of fact. Second, it would be hard for her to show she was damaged, since few people take the online ramblings of the world's second-biggest windbag seriously.

Also, note that Musk knows very well where the line is, and is careful not to cross it, since his deep pockets make him a very attractive target for an ambitious lawyer. The world's biggest windbag, Donald Trump, also used to know where the line is, and used to be careful not to cross it, for the same reason. However, The Donald has gotten a little sloppy as of late, which is why he'll be funding a very nice retirement for E. Jean Carroll.

---

 

M.Y. in Alto, NM, asks: My Facebook feed is full of elected Republican politicians, including Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), that just continually say outlandishly false things about Democrats. You know, they're Marxist, communist, support open borders, hate America, all that.

You've noted that for a libel suit to prevail: (1) the statement needs to be false, (2) the defendant needed to know it was a false statement when they said it, and (3) the statement had to do real damage to the plaintiff.

This rhetoric seems to check all the boxes. So why aren't they filing a libel suit?

(Z) answers: A public figure, particularly a politician, has an extra-high bar to clear when it comes to succeeding in a defamation case. This is because political discourse is inherently adversarial, and is all-but-certain to involve exaggeration for dramatic effect. If Mike Johnson, for example, calls Abdul El-Sayed a communist, the courts don't regard that as an assertion of fact, but instead as normal political hyperbole, and thus not actionable.

---

 

M.M. in El Paso, TX, asks: You wrote: "Most former prisoners are working-class white men." Is that correct? Because my impression is that the vast majority of incarcerated individuals are people of color. Is it just that the white guys get parole while the others don't?

(Z) answers: We went back and clarified that. Working-class white men make up about 30% of the prison population. However, they are vastly more likely to have their voting rights restored, as compared to non-white prisoners, such that white men (of all social classes) comprise about 55% of the felons who have regained voting rights.

---

 

T.J.R. in Metuchen, NJ, asks: How is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) worth only $49K? She has been a Congresswoman for 7 years now, with a salary of $174,000 per year, adding up to $1,218,000, or roughly $730,800 after taxes. I'm not saying she's rolling in it. But $49K beggars belief.

(Z) answers: It is not cheap to be a member of Congress, particularly a member whose home base is an expensive housing market.

AOC must maintain a home in New York City, one of the two or three most expensive housing markets in the nation, because that is where she lives during the many days and weeks that Congress is not in session. She must also maintain a home in Washington, DC, or its environs, because that is where she lives during the many days and weeks that Congress IS in session. The average apartment price in New York City right now is about $3,500 a month; the average in D.C. is about $3,000 a month. That's $6,500 a month right there, and so accounts for $78,000, or about 44% of the Representative's salary, right there. We don't know if she has a home and a mortgage, instead of a rental, in one or both of those places, but even if she does, the monthly amount would be the same (or likely higher).

Of course, it is also necessary for those residences to have things like electricity and Internet, and some sort of TV service. That likely adds something close to $1,000 more a month to the price tag. Plus, AOC has to dress professionally, which is not cheap, particularly for women. She also has to pay for travel back and forth to New York City. And she used to help support her mother; she may still be doing so.

AOC does have a fiancé, and presumably Riley Roberts contributes to the family budget. Still, it is entirely plausible that the Congresswoman is only able to put aside $7,000 or so a year, once she's covered all her other expenses.

History

 

C.J.R. in Avondale AZ, asks: I have been watching Silo recently. It got me wondering: Are we still teaching "The Allegory of the Cave" to young people?

(Z) answers: When I was a freshman in college (1992-93), I took Philosophy 1. The professor, who was visiting from a university in Europe, spent three lectures trying to explain the allegory to a class of 200 UCLA students (in other words, a reasonably elite group). Nobody appeared to have heard of it before, and nearly everyone seemed to be struggling to understand it.

From this experience, I would speculate that today, in a world where "the classics of Western thought" are even more de-emphasized than they were 3 decades ago, nobody outside of Philosophy majors is learning about anything Plato had to say.

---

 

D.D. in Bucks County, PA, asks: (Z) wrote: "At the height of the Gilded Age in the U.S., a period that also featured much social upheaval and frequent changes of leadership, the top 1% held about 31.4% of the wealth. That figure declined through the 1980s or so (ahem, the Reagan presidency), at which point it began trending upward again."

What were the reasons and/or events that caused the wealth inequality to decline after the Gilded Age? (I'm assuming Franklin D. Roosevelt's policies played a large role, but I'm sure there are other reasons.)

(Z) answers: FDR's policies helped, but do keep in mind that the New Deal came roughly 35 years after the Gilded Age ended, so he was building on momentum that already existed.

For the wealth gap to close, wealth has to move from the upper classes toward the working classes. And in the early decades of the 20th century, there was pretty substantial pressure on both ends of that. By that, I mean it became a little harder for the ultra-wealthy to concentrate vast wealth, particularly thanks to trustbusting and to the income tax. And it became a little easier for the working class to gain more wealth, particularly thanks to minimum wage/maximum hours laws, and due to greater unionization.

---

 

J.L. in Calw, Germany, asks: In response to C.L. in Fairbanks, (Z) wrote: "And nobody is changing their mind, at this point, on the JFK assassination... I usually avoid these three subjects..."

Perforated bovine, Batman! "Usually avoid"? Are you getting "questions"/comments about JFK conspiracy theories? JFK died in 1963. It's 2026. Feel free to check with the staff mathematician, but that was over 60 years ago. Who the !@#$% cares? Is there really anyone still obsessed with this? How many JFK emails is Electoral-Vote.com getting?

(Z) answers: We don't get many JFK assassination e-mails, unless we specifically mention that incident. But if we do, and in particular if we write something like "historians have reached a consensus that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone," we will get multiple dozens of e-mails pushing back, and advancing various "alternate" theories.

Gallimaufry

 

T.J.C. in Cambridge, MA, asks: When do you start showing polls for Senate races?

(Z) answers: Later in August.

---

 

R.V. in Pittsburgh, PA, asks: Are either (V) or (Z) Howard Stern Show fans? I'm a 30-year listener, and I think his show has been the most entertaining in the Sirius XM days. I think he is a great interviewer; the recent interview he had with Taylor Sheridan is just one example. I have never even watched any of Sheridan's shows, but it was a very fascinating, nearly 2-hour interview. Unlike TV talk interviews, where most celebrities and the host just do some shtick for 10 minutes, Stern has a REAL conversation with his guests.

I also admire Stern's self deprecating humor. He often makes fun of his 20+ years' worth of visits to a psychiatrist. And he pokes fun at his looks almost daily.

It will be a sad day when the Howard Stern Show is no more.

(Z) answers: I have been a listener, off and on, since Stern came to L.A. in the very early 1990s.

He has clearly grown into a masterful interviewer. A lot of the bits that he (or, usually, his staff) put together are very funny, especially since he leans much less into gross-out/sexual stuff these days, and more into things like phony phone calls and other practical-joke-type stuff. He's a great improviser, the self-deprecating moments make him accessible and real, and the portion of the show where Robin Quivers reads the news and Stern riffs on it is always a highlight.

I do think there are some things, especially these days, that he beats into the ground. For example, I don't particularly need to hear any more long-form segments on Ronnie the (former) limo driver's sexual peccadilloes, or Jon "Hit 'em with the" Hein's eating habits. But no show is perfect, I suppose.

---

 

N.N. in Murray, KY, asks: As a lifelong Laker/Dodger fan, I wanted to get your personal opinion on the Dodgers' visit with Donald Trump. I've never even been to California, and since you're local, would love to get your take, because I'm struggling with my fandom. I'm MUCH more of a Laker fan (yes, I know Mark Walter now owns both teams), but this is really bothering me.

(Z) answers: It is hard to ascribe too much meaning to it, as the players who attended undoubtedly had different motivations. Baseball has the largest number of political conservatives among the four major sports, so undoubtedly some of the players were there because they are Trump supporters. Others went because it's a chance to see the White House and meet the president, and they would go regardless of who happens to be in office. Some went because they are a team, and they don't want to rebel against the team concept.

I would suggest you should judge the organization, rather than one decision made by the players who currently play for the organization. And this is an organization that broke the color line in baseball, and that was among the first two teams to have LGBTQ-themed events. It's an organization that cultivated Latino fans back when other teams found that demographic undesirable. It's an organization that famously treats its players, its staff and its alumni well. I am most certainly not a Dodgers fan, but it's hard to think of an organization in professional sports that's more classy than they are (though the Lakers are high on that list, too).

Reader Question of the Week: London Calling, Part III

Here is the question we put before readers several weeks back:

T.B. in Waterloo, IA asks: I'm turning 50 in September and to celebrate, a friend of mine and I are going to London for a week. (She turns 75 the same day I turn 50.) This is a lifelong dream of mine, as going to London has been #1 on my bucket list for the last 30+ years. To say that I'm excited is an understatement. I was wondering if any of your readers have suggestions for sites to see, or restaurants to visit (perhaps with favorite dishes to try)?

And here some more of the answers we got in response:

A.G. in Los Angeles, CA: Just to put us into perspective, when we travel we tend to book food before any activities, and we have been to many 1 and 2 star Michelin restaurants. In London, two spots we loved are:

• The Barbary (16 Neal's Yard, London): Excellent North African food. Reservations are HIGHLY recommended, otherwise you get seated at a comically small table. I can't remember what all we got, but everything that our server recommended we loved. This place functions as more of a tasting menu, so you will likely get a lot of smaller dishes.
  
  
• Samaia Georgian Restaurant (195 Castelnau, London): We still consider doing a day trip here whenever we visit Europe. My wife is Georgian and we loved this place so much we went for dinner twice despite only being in London for a few days. Can't miss the khinkali with beef/pork or lamb (I suggest googling "How to eat khinkali") and the khachapuri (most famous is the classic acharuli). Make sure to get wine from the country that invented it. Reservations are also highly recommended.

Cheers and enjoy London, T.B. in Waterloo.

---

M.P. in Leasburg, MO: It has been many years since my visit to London but there are a few experiences from the entire adventure that stick with me to this day. When going to see the Changing of the Guard at Buckingham Palace, we chose to get there early so as to get a good spot. There was only one other gentleman there when we arrived. It seems that everyone thinks the best place to watch must be right in front of the palace. I thought it odd that this elderly man was way down at the end of the palace just standing there all alone.

My husband always says I have never met a stranger. He is mostly right. I decided the elderly gent must know more about the event than we did so I approached him and asked him for his suggestion on the best views. He was very stately when he replied, "Right here, of course!" So, I went back to the group and we joined him on that end. He was very kind and turns out, he was retired military and he came to watch the changing every day. He gave us a play-by-play on who and what we were seeing along with some really interesting history regarding the Gurkhas marching in the event! Long story short—facing the palace, go all the way down to the end on the right. I suspect the old cat is long gone now, but maybe you will meet someone with similar insider information. Oh, and, the high-speed train ride to the Cliffs of Dover was exciting as well.

---

C.B. in Highlands, NJ: I've been fortunate to visit London many times so here are my suggestions:

• OXO Tower is a must for either lunch or dinner.
  
  
• Go to any pub on a Sunday for pub-lunch; it's a time-honored tradition that will not disappoint. I recommend Goat Tavern, right outside of Kensington Place on the High Street. The steak and Guinness pie is amazing. Pair it with a John Smith's bitter beer; it's not really bitter-tasting, but creamy and delicious.
  
  
• Have a picnic in Kensington Garden or St. James Park; both are lovely and right next to each other. They are both very well cared for and give a great sense of peace while soaking up all this great city has to offer. There are many shops to pick up a great meal to go (or take-away, as they call it).
  
  
• All of the museums and monuments... with only one week, choose a few.

The most important thing is to LOOK RIGHT when crossing the street! Those Brits drive on the wrong side of the road!

---

D.D. in Seattle, WA: The British Library is an absolute must-see. It has amazing collections of books, musical scores, religious documents, and the Magna Carta. It is a newer building and easily accessible. There is fascinating sculpture on the grounds. Clos Maggiore in Covent Garden is a great French restaurant for either lunch or dinner. It has beautiful rooms, professional service, excellent modern European food, and a phenomenal wine list.

---

P.W. in London, England, UK: First, I hope London is everything you ever hoped for. Having lived near it all my life (56 years and counting...) and working there every day for 26 years, I think the most important thing to do if you only have a short time here is not to let yourselves be sucked into the touristy things. Sure, see Buckingham Palace, Westminster, Leicester Square (if you have to, but it's going to disappoint...) and other such obvious stop-offs—we all need to tick our boxes when we travel—but I would try and get off the beaten track a little, even if it's to visit what some would class as the "second division" sights.

Go to Brick Lane and dive into one of the curry houses there—any one will do—for a cheap and cheerful London take on India's finest. Stroll around the City (the City of London, its financial district); much like Wall St., it has fascinating juxtapositional architecture, small winding lanes, so much history you'll be coming up for air and you can laugh at us all in our single-breasted suits and umbrellas—I'll be one of those. Yes, do St. Paul's. Yes, do one or two of the parks (Regents, especially). Yes, visit Speakers Corner, but there's lots more to London than Union Jack t-shirts and hop-on, hop-off buses.

Go south of the river and tour the Globe, wander around Seven Dials, find some peace and the world's finest art in the National Gallery, wander around Holborn, stroll through Kensington and marvel at the huge houses sold to the Oligarchs, buy books at Foyles Charing Cross, even visit St. Pancras station to watch the Eurostar arrive whilst sipping Prosecco in the champagne bar. I hope you take home a lifetime of memories from those corners of this magnificent city that people don't always mention.

---

M.W. in Marlborough, CT: I polled my family about their favorite sites/activities after we visited in May, and among the obvious choices (Westminster Abbey, Victoria & Albert, Portrait Gallery) was one I didn't anticipate when planning the trip: Evensong. An Anglican choir is England's gift to the cultural world. If you are not religious, it is one of the best free concerts you will ever attend. And if you are a believer, the transcendent beauty of the human voice in a hall with ethereal acoustics will make you believe a little bit more. Pick any pretty church (London has many) and go any evening around 6:00.

---

S.S. in Toronto, ON, Canada: My very favorite place in London was what was then known as the Geffrye Museum and is now the Museum of the Home. I had done all the usual (wonderful) touristy things and I had some time on my hands one afternoon. I don't remember how I found it, but I took the bus there from where I was staying in Hackney. This was in the year 2000, and I think the only (or certainly main) thing to see was what is now called the Home Galleries—you get a look into the main room of a home from each period from the Jacobean era until mid-twentieth century. That has probably been expanded and updated by now; looks as though it has been significantly enhanced and modernized since I was there. But that's where I'd head in London, even if I only had a day or two there.

---

P.L. in Minneapolis, MN: There's lots to see and do in London, and I'm certain you'll be able to compile an excellent list thanks to the readers of this site, but definitely check out Novelty Automation in Holborn. As its curator explains, it's "an antidote to the corporatisation of fun."

---

A.B. in Amman, Jordan: So, right... I might be based in Amman these days, but I spent a good chunk of my career working right in the center of London, and regularly dip back into the city for both work and pleasure. Let's begin by acknowledging that the perspective on what to see and do from someone who used to work in central London might be very different from the perspective of someone from Black Hawk County, IA, who's on a once-in-a-lifetime bucket-list trip, but I'll do my best to come up with some tips and thoughts for someone who's never been to the city before, and will understandably want to visit the BIG sites, but may also have some interest in quirkier places:

Museums and Art Galleries

Yes, the British Museum is absolutely worth it (though as an archaeologist, I might be biased), but try and pace your visit, and it's worth remembering that some of the most spectacular items are in quieter galleries. So yes, you'll probably want to see the Rosetta Stone and the Elgin/Parthenon Marbles, but just one row of galleries west of the Egyptian galleries (and Rosetta Stone) are the Assyrian Galleries in rooms 7-10, which contain some of the most spectacular sculptures in the entire museum—and they're always much, much quieter than the Egyptian Galleries. Upstairs, the crowds rush for the Egyptian mummies; the sensible visitor will be spending some quiet time with the Sumerian objects in Room 56 or the Sutton Hoo treasure in Room 41. As with so many tourist sites around the world, getting just slightly off the beaten track offers fantastic rewards.

Of the three big South Kensington museums—the Science Museum, the Natural History Museum, and the Victoria & Albert Museum (colloquially the V&A), the latter will almost certainly be the one of most interest to visitors of T.B. & friend's demographic. It's a genuinely great museum of applied art and design through space and time; the Science and Natural History museums are generally overrun by schoolchildren (though do provide great places for families to visit).

But do try and visit one or two of London's quirkier museums. Sir John Soane's Museum—within walking distance of the British Museum—is a good bet. It's the former home of an architect and antiquarian who accumulated a vast and eccentric collection of art and antiquities; his house has been kept as it was on the day he died in 1837, but it's so much more than the oddities of a late Georgian/early Victorian collector (though it's certainly that, too).

Your taste in art galleries will depend to a large extent on your taste in art, but since T.B. and friend will presumably stop by Trafalgar Square at some point if they're doing the tourist rounds, then if art is their thing they might as well visit the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery while they're there—both world-class collections, with the Portrait Gallery also giving some interesting insights into British history. If they're into modern art, then Tate Modern—just across a pedestrian bridge from St Paul's Cathedral—is the obvious stopping point.

But for something a little bit more obscure yet fascinating, consider the Guildhall Art Gallery in central London, on the same square as the city's medieval guildhall. It's not the biggest art gallery in London, but there can't be too many galleries that have the archaeological remains of a Roman amphitheater on display in the basement—and it also has a temporary exhibition through October on connections between London and the U.S.

One point to keep in mind... national museums and galleries in the U.K. are free to enter (it's the temporary exhibits that charge); but smaller private museums often have an entry charge. That at least makes the great museums and galleries cost-effective places to visit, because tickets to the next category can really add up...

Heritage Sites

I'm not going to tell a first-time visitor on a bucket-list trip to completely avoid Buckingham Palace, but even if it's still open for T.B.'s visit (it closes to the public at the end of September), it's overpriced, and you can get more bang for your buck elsewhere. Kensington Palace (the official London residence of Prince William) is by far the better royal palace to visit if visiting palaces is your thing. Yes, the Tower of London (also still officially a royal palace) is likely worth a tourist visit, but be warned that the crown jewels can seem anti-climactic, and the site can get very busy; I'd recommend focusing on the broader history of the Tower.

Electoral-Vote.com readers are presumably by definition interested in politics. So I can highly recommend a visit to the Houses of Parliament (technically the Palace of Westminster) if you can find a day when Parliament isn't in session. Details are available on the ticket site. For all the faux-medieval Victorian flummery, I find it an oddly moving place to visit.

When it comes to churches, the bucket-list visitor with an interest in the ecclesiastical will likely—understandably—want to focus on Westminster Abbey and St Paul's Cathedral. That's fine, but if this is an area of interest, consider visiting some of the surviving Christopher Wren churches in the City of London (the City is the tiny square mile area at the center of London encompassing the original Roman and medieval cities). Many of them are absolute gems. Walking between the Wren churches can also give a real feel for the Square Mile (though best not to do it on a Saturday, when the business district can feel almost abandoned).

Eating

You can eat almost any cuisine at almost any price point in London, so this is inevitably going to be very, very cursory, but for quirky lunches from a range of affordable street food stalls, the best places to go for the first-time tourist are probably Borough Market (just at the southern end of London Bridge) and Spitalfields Market (to the east). Borough has a broader food offer, and Spitalfields has some quirky non-food stalls and shops.

If you want to do the over-the-top quintessentially English once-in-a-lifetime-special-treat dining experience, then perhaps consider the Grand Divan at Simpsons in the Strand. One of London's oldest restaurants, it re-opened this year after a major refurbishment, and has become one of the hottest dining tickets in the city. If you want your roast beef carved on a silver tray by the side of the table while you're seated on a leather banquette—and are willing to be convinced that traditional British dining is significantly better than its reputation might suggest—then this is the place to go.

But otherwise, TimeOut's constantly updated list of the 50 best restaurants in London (which covers a range of styles and prices) is always a good place to start.

My Favorite London Walk for Tourists

These things are subjective, but I really like the riverside walk from the Monument to the Great Fire of London (just north of London Bridge), down across London Bridge (from where you get good views of Tower Bridge and the Tower of London, though London Bridge itself is a nondescript modern structure) to Borough Market, then along the Thames—passing Southwark Cathedral, the reproduction of Drake's Golden Hinde, and then the Clink Prison Museum—walking down Clink Street and then along Bankside, until you pass by Shakespeare's rebuilt Globe Theatre, and on to the almost-adjacent Tate Modern art gallery, and then across the pedestrian-only Millennium Bridge towards St Paul's Cathedral. That's roughly 1 1/2 miles (excluding wanders through food markets and art galleries), and nice and flat, and should give first-time visitors in their 50s and 70s a good feel for the oldest part of the city.

Places to Avoid

Piccadilly Circus and Leicester Square are awful, pointless tourist traps. Piccadilly Circus is sometimes unavoidable if moving from Point A to Point B in the West End, which is fair enough, but I can't for the life of me fathom why anyone would go anywhere near Leicester Square (unless it's to go to the nearby Cork & Bottle wine bar, which has been around since 1971, and is one of the few interesting independent outlets in the immediate area).

Only clueless tourists eat in Aberdeen Angus steakhouses. Avoid them.

I can't really imagine why a tourist would want to go shopping on Oxford Street; it's frantically busy and almost nothing but chains. There are so many interesting independent shopping areas across the city. That said, if you feel compelled to do one of the grand department stores, then Selfridges on Oxford Street is a better bet than Harrods (shudder).

I also think the London Eye is wildly overrated (as are the adjacent tourist-trap museums like the London Dungeon). I can't see why anyone would spend that much money to go on an oversized Ferris Wheel.

Anyway, good luck and enjoy!

---

M.D. in Edmonds, WA: I'm sure that other readers will join me in recommending Sir John Soane's Museum.

My wife and I have visited this truly remarkable dwelling/museum three times in the past 20 years and found it nearly as memorable as the British Museum—and much less daunting if you are pressed for time and perhaps a bit footsore some afternoon.

---

S.D.L. in Monrovia, CA: We have enjoyed the sightseeing boat ride up the Thames (Westminster to Greenwich). You'll view the historical landmarks while experiencing the raw power of the river up close. Disembarking, you can visit the great Observatory, roam around its grounds, and even step on the international dateline. The Tube takes you back easily.

---

J.M. in Arvada, CO: London was a long-time bucket-list item of mine and, like T.B., I didn't reach it until later in life (my 42nd birthday in my case). First and foremost, use the Tube. I've seen some Americans who have concerns about it (thinking of it like the New York City Subway) or who feel like it's beneath them (both figuratively and literally) or whatever but it's fine, it's easy, and it's fast. Except between Leicester Square and Covent Garden; that's faster to walk.

The first time we went we got London Passes for both of us and there was enough included in them that it paid off. On our next trip, though, we didn't bother (and I've been back a couple of times for work and never considered it). One typical tourist thing we avoided was the London Eye, taking the advice that the viewing floors at the top of The Shard were easier, cheaper, and better, and we enjoyed that. We also did the free Garden at 120 in the square mile of London for another view.

I highly recommend the Churchill War Rooms and the Tower of London. Tower Bridge was a fine add-on to our Tower of London day since it's right there, but I wouldn't go out of my way to do it. Obviously, the British Museum is a must-see, but the V&A Museum is quite good in its own right. The V&A also opened a new East Museum in April that I have not yet seen. They opened their East Storehouse (different location) last year and I saw it in October. It's a unique way to see a museum's inventory, in some way it's a museum of a museum. It probably isn't worth trying to work it in on your first trip, but it's a great follow-up. Unless you're a David Bowie fan, the East Storehouse has all of his papers and collection he left to the V&A but that requires a separate ticket to get in and I understand they sell out fast.

I'd also recommend a Thames Cruise from somewhere in London (we usually get on at Embankment) down to Greenwich. Depending on your interest in nautical history and/or astronomy, you can spend as little or as long as you want in Greenwich. For us, it's our favorite part of the city and I've been back every trip. The Royal Observatory, the Old Royal Naval College, the National Maritime Museum, the Cutty Sark and the Queen's House are all worth touring. Greenwich Market is also a great market to explore for an hour or so.

While you're in Greenwich you can get traditional pie and mash at Goddards at Greenwich, which is on one corner of the market. We're not much for fine dining (at least, not at central London prices) but on my last trip for work in October my wife joined me and it was recommended that we try J Sheekey in Leicester Square and we're glad we did. They've been serving London theatergoers since the 1890's and it was great. My wife considers it one of the great meals she's had in her life. I thought it was very good, but I wouldn't put it quite that high.

Last, but not least, if you're a football (soccer) fan, London obviously has many options. If you have a specific team you want to see, I highly recommend finding the time to do it. If you just want to see a game and experience English football, though, my recommendation is to look at lower-league teams and not the big names like Arsenal and Chelsea. There are 8 professional teams below the top level in London, all accessible by Tube. My personal favorite to go to is Wealdstone down in non-league, but you have to be a real football sicko to do that. I'd recommend QPR, Leyton Orient, or Wimbledon.

---

C.S. in Tucson, AZ: Side trip to Liverpool and hire a guide for a Beatles tour. It will be the best money you've spent in a long time. Maybe forever.

Bonus suggestion: Do NOT take a side trip to Stonehenge.

---

D.D. in Bucks County, PA: I travel to London a lot. It's become a bit of an adopted home. There are way too many options to list, but here are some of our recommendations and favorites:

Sites

• The National Gallery, a stunning collection that is a trove of treasures and rotating exhibitions
  
  
• Churchill's War Rooms, a museum for history buffs that you could spend hours in
  
  
• Royal Observatory Greenwich, which has gorgeous views overlooking London, as well as astronomical exhibits, and it's the home base of the Greenwich Meridian
  
  
• The Hunger Games on Stage, a fairly faithful re-creation of the first film in the series, which is staged in a specially-built arena-line theatre in Canary Wharf
  
  
• Natural History Museum (no explanation needed)
  
  
• British Museum, which has artifacts from all around the world, many of which arguably shouldn't be there, but it's your only opportunity to see them
  
  
• Cecil Court, which is rumored to be an inspiration for Diagon Alley in Harry Potter (although these claims are disputed), and which is an incredibly storied and picturesque alley for shopping for art, antiques, books, culture, and curiosities

Restaurants

• Giovanni's of Covent Garden, run by a married couple that takes service, conviviality, and Italian food seriously, and which is frequented by West End theatre and film stars
  
  
• Fumo, part of a British family of restaurants, but the decor is wonderful, and the family-style Italian is inspired and fun
  
  
• Old Compton Brasserie, for those who want to be in the middle of the Soho scene, it's extremely LGBT friendly and has the best sticky toffee pudding we've had
  
  
• Park Chinois, an over-the-top dinner-and-a-show experience in Mayfair with incredible Chinese cuisine
  
  
• Honest Burger, a local sit-down burger chain, but the rosemary-salted chips are addictive
  
  
• The American Bar in the Stafford Hotel, a bar filled with history, photos, mementos, and excellent food and cocktails in the beautiful St. James neighborhood

---

J.H. in North Salem, NY: My wife and I visited London in 2002 BC (before children) and had a spectacular time. Two experiences stand out as ones I would repeat if I ever have the opportunity to return. One is the Imperial War Museums, which is a must for military history buffs (which I am) but was also a huge hit with my wife who is most definitely not interested in warfare. In particular, the immersive experience of the exhibits of a World War I trench and a World War II bombshell were extremely memorable.

The other must-do recommendation I have is to see the Royal Shakespeare Company perform one of the Bard's plays. The running subtitles on the sides of the stage made it much easier to follow the performance—difficult enough because of the meter and Elizabethan language of the text, and doubly so since it was also spoken with true British accents. It's the best Shakespeare I've ever seen and could only have been better had it been performed in the original Klingon.

---

G.R. in Carol Stream, IL: As someone who has always wanted to see England but probably never will, I urge you to do some research and let me know what these are:

1. spotted dick
2. marmite
3. toad in the hole
4. bangers and mash

Thank you in advance.

One more week of this before we move on to something new.

---

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.
• Guidelines for questions (Saturdays) and letters (Sundays

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

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger