Saturday Q&A

The two most common subjects of questions this week were... Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Christopher Columbus. Those two men don't have too many similarities, although they might have one very important one, depending on which source you believe.

For anyone still working on the headline theme, we will tell you that while we were able to find a language (Welsh) in which "Troi" is a word, we could not find a language in which "Worf" is a word. Even the language where you might THINK it would be a word, it's not.

Current Events

T.G. in Daleyville, WI, asks: I just passed my 79th birthday (born in 1947) and realized that the U.S. has been at war for the vast majority of my life. Not only at war, but at war with other-colored folks, for the most part. Bosnia and Serbia are exceptions, but I can't think of any others.

The heart and soul of the 30% of the country that is MAGA is unvarnished, and unreasoned, hatred of other-colored people. Donald Trump understands this and knows that he is regarded as the last best hope of Making America White Again, so he can do literally anything to anyone and pay no price from MAGA. Trump is the orange-headed stepchild of Barak Obama, as without the white backlash to a Black president, he would be just another obnoxious real-estate magnate.

Are we doomed to have race forever dominate what we do, both externally and internally, as a country, or are we witnessing the death-rattle of the old Confederacy? MAGA clearly regards this as an existential battle for the soul of America, there are no rules of engagement, and Trump is their last best hope for a white-only country. My hopeful feeling is that MAGA is fighting a rear-guard retreat now, and will be reduced to cargo-cult status when Trump dies. Dare to dream...

(Z) answers: Will there always be tribalism of some sort? Yes. The human brain is hardwired for it, and many of the people who desire power are well aware of that fact are very willing to take advantage.

It is possible, however, that the dominant form of tribalism in America, several generations down the line, will not be race-based. Race-based tribalism is pretty deeply embedded in American culture, and has been for 400 years or so, but it could maybe be supplanted by tribalism based on, say, religion, or immigration status or something like that.

And there are certainly eras in which tribalism is more, or less, intense. We are in the middle of a particularly intense era right now, but that won't be true forever.

---

M.G. in Boulder, CO, asks: What, in your opinion, is the best we can hope for as an end to the Iran-Israel-U.S. war? How do we get to that point?

(Z) answers: Iran's leadership, which is not stupid, has figured out two things about Donald Trump. The first is that his main goal is to get gas prices down as fast as is possible. The second is that he cares only about appearances and not about follow-through. So, the final deal, whenever it comes to pass, is going to get the oil flowing again. There may be steps taken to temporarily stop Iran from charging big tolls and driving up prices, short-term, but their power to control the Strait of Hormuz and to charge big tolls long-term will be unhindered. The deal is also going to have largely meaningless, unenforceable "limits" on Iran's nuclear program, so Trump can claim a "win" and then move on to the next culture war, or the next actual war (e.g., Cuba).

What this means is that, under current circumstances, one cannot hope for any improvement in the United States' position, vis-à-vis Iran. All one can hope for is that the Trump administration concludes the inevitable losing deal soon, thus ending the killing and other harms being done by the conflict as rapidly as is possible.

As to Israel, I am no expert in this subject, and whatever I write is going to produce angry e-mails. That said, it is clear that U.S. aid to Israel needs to be more conditional, and can't be a blank check. It is similarly clear that Israel cannot be trusted to govern the people of Palestine in a just and humane fashion. That effectively takes a "one-state solution" off the table as a viable outcome. It is also clear that individual Middle Eastern nations cannot be trusted to honor and respect Israeli sovereignty. That effectively takes a "two-state solution" off the table as a viable outcome.

And so, as an admitted non-expert, I think there is much to like in the 23-state solution that Rahm Emanuel talked about in the speech he gave this week, and that is backed by liberal Zionist groups like J Street. The short version is that steps would be taken to establish an independent Palestinian state, but that the other 21 nations of the Middle East would sign a pact where they all recognize Israel's sovereignty and right to exist, and where the members would be bound to help defend Israel if member violates the pact.

This seems plausible for two reasons. First, peace and normalized relations with Israel are probably more valuable to the other Middle Eastern nations, in terms of economics and access to technology, than hostile relations are. Second, agreements like this have worked in the past. One thinks of the 1815 Congress of Vienna, or of NATO, for that matter.

---

R.D. in Croydon, PA, asks: How often has it occurred where a president has not signed a bill into law after the bill was passed by the House and the Senate and 10 days have passed?

(Z) answers: This is not an easy question to answer, due to the lack of information from some periods in American history.

First, note that the general story for various forms of veto/veto-adjacent maneuvers is "rare in the early years of the republic, pretty common from the 1870s or so to the 1970s or so, then increasingly rare again." For example, George Washington issued two vetoes of any type, while John Adams and Thomas Jefferson combined for zero. On the other end of the spectrum, Grover Cleveland had 584, Franklin D. Roosevelt had 635 and Harry S. Truman had 250. Among recent presidents, Donald Trump has had 12, Joe Biden had 13, and Barack Obama and George W. Bush also had 12.

Unsigned bills that became law are rarer than vetoes, but the same basic trendline holds. The first known instance of an unsigned bill becoming law came during the James Buchanan administration. He did it that way one time, and so did his successor, Abraham Lincoln. On the other hand, Ulysses S. Grant did it 136 times and Cleveland did it 283. There was also a spike in the last year of Woodrow Wilson's presidency, with 28 unsigned bills becoming law. This is obviously because Wilson was incapacitated, and could not sign. If the people running his administration (mostly his wife) decided to reject a bill, they could return it unsigned. If they wanted it to become law, they could just sit on it. This allowed them to avoid committing a crime, since there would be no forgery in either case.

The Library of Congress tracks details on legislation, though their database is imperfect, and becomes more so when you go back beyond 1970 or so. According to their records, however, there have been eight bills that became law without a presidential signature since that year—one for Richard Nixon, one for Gerald Ford, one for Ronald Reagan, two for George H.W. Bush, two for Bill Clinton and one for Barack Obama. That means that when Donald Trump allows the 21st Century Road to Housing Act to become law without his signature, it will be a first for him.

---

J.A. in Forest, VA, asks: Is there any chance that Trumpty Dumpty has by now spent more than $5 million in legal fees fighting the court-ordered payment of $5 million to E. Jean Carroll?

(Z) answers: Unlikely. Top-flight legal talent, outside of highly specialized areas of practice that are not relevant here, bills for $2,500 an hour or so. $5 million would be enough to pay for 2,000 hours, which would be an awful lot of time to spend on a pretty basic appeal. Further, Trump does not pursue top-flight legal talent. He prefers cheaper lawyers, who he then tries to avoid paying.

---

A.P. in Kitchener, ON, Canada, asks: You wrote that Donald Trump has made over 21,000 securities trades while serving as president, while Joe Biden made only 13. What 13 trades did Biden make?

(Z) answers: If you really want to know, you can look at Biden's financial disclosures, which are easily found on the Internet. If I were to list them here, you would find it pretty boring.

I suspect that what YOU suspect is that Biden made stock trades. He did not. All 13 of his securities trades involved index and mutual funds. That adds an extra layer of insulation, because it is considerably easier for a shady president to influence and/or profit off of the purchase/sale of one individual stock than it is for them to do so off of a collection of stocks. Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton also made zero trades involving individual stocks while they were president.

Of Trump's trades, by contrast, 3,692 (and counting) involved individual stocks. This is where the potential for unethical behavior is greatest. It does not help Trump's case that of those 3,692, 3,642 (98.6%) have come during his second term. I can think of three explanations for this: (1) Trump is much less concerned about oversight this term; (2) Trump has found more opportunities to profit, say by taking advantage of announcements related to the Iran War; or (3) both of these things. I struggle to think of an innocent explanation for why Trump would be trading in individual stocks at all while in office, much less of an innocent explanation for why such trades would jump seventyfold in number between his first and second terms.

---

T.J.C. Boston, MA, asks: Why doesn't Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) simply proceed to act as if Mitch McConnell has passed? That would immediately put the onus on Republicans to prove the Governor wrong.

(Z) answers: I can think of a few possibilities, but the one that I favor is that Beshear is incentivized to maintain the current status quo. By loudly demanding answers, he appears to be interested in accountability, which is good for his image, in anticipation of a 2028 presidential run. But by not actually forcing the issue, he keeps the seat occupied and thus McConnell's vote neutralized, which is good for the Democratic Party. It will become even better for the Democratic Party if the Republicans can't get a defense bill (or any other budget bill) out of committee, because the Senate Appropriations Committee will be tied 8-8 without McConnell's vote.

Incidentally, the most popular conspiracy theory is that the Republicans want to keep the seat "occupied" until August 3/4, so that there will be no special election. They fear that if there IS a special election, the winner will either be Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) or a Democrat. I think this really does not stand up to scrutiny. It seems unlikely that Massie or a Democrat would win, and even if they did, their "term" would take place almost entirely during a period when the Senate is not in session.

In any event, even if you buy the conspiracy, I think Beshear and the Democrats are better served by letting the seat be occupied by someone who cannot vote, then by trying to force the issue and trying to get Massie/a Democrat in there for a month or two.

---

J.L. in Albany, NY, asks: Among all the mystery surrounding Mitch McConnell's status, a video has come to light purporting to show McConnell being loaded into an ambulance.

A few things to note: (1) He appears to be covered with a blanket except for his toes; (2) There's no oxygen being given to him as he's being loaded into the ambulance; (3) There also seems to be no rush among the emergency personnel.

All this points to speculation that Mitch passed away in his home and they weren't rushing because there was no hope of reviving his corpse.

Let's assume this is true, for the moment. Would Republicans (staffers, politicians, etc.) pretending that McConnell was alive and talking be violating any laws? Would they be risking legal or civil consequences? Or can staffers Weekend At Bernie's their politician for months with no repercussions?

(Z) answers: I think it would be difficult to find a crime to charge these people with. Certainly not one that would survive not only a grand jury but also a petit jury.

Also, these are smart people. Even if they are conspiring, they are clever enough to leave themselves plausible deniability and not to do anything obviously illegal, where there would be ironclad proof of that illegal behavior. For example, I noted this week that Senate Minority Leader John Thune (R-SD) had a spokesperson tell reporters that he (Thune) had a "substantive" conversation with McConnell. That implies a two-way conversation, but it only implies. Further, it wasn't Thune who actually said it, so if it turns out to be a falsehood, he can always say that the spokesperson misunderstood.

---

D.G. in Fairfax, VA, asks: If members of the Senate were able to vote remotely, do you think McConnell would have arranged with his staff for 'him' to continue voting indefinitely?

(Z) answers: Absolutely not. That WOULD be a crime, and would be provable. Further, once the truth came to light, any legislation passed or actions taken would be subject to legal challenges. It's just not worth it.

---

J.L. in Baltimore, MD, asks: No matter how the McConnell matter ends up, Republicans will look bad for stonewalling for so long. Do you think this will help Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Charles Booker in November?

(Z) answers: It depends on what the truth is. If it becomes clear there was some sort of conspiracy, then Booker will have a local example of "the Republicans are corrupt" to run on, in addition to the national examples that many Democrats will be using this year. That probably would help him.

On the other hand, if McConnell is alive and coherent, and he eventually releases a video or does an interview where he explains that he needed his focus to be on recovery and not on PR or dispelling conspiracy theories, that would be hard to turn into effective political fodder.

Politics

A.J. in Ames, IA, asks: As you wrote, "they are all Communists," coming from the GOP, is going to be the preferred campaign slogan this year. So how does a rational intelligent person explain to the average non-political person (I used to say "explain it to me like I'm a sixth grader" but I sometime wonder if that might be too advanced) the difference between the Democratic Socialist candidates versus your good, old-fashioned communist?

(Z) answers: Here is what I say to students when addressing this question, which I always do during my Cold War lecture:

In the early 1950s, Joe McCarthy proved that accusing Democrats of being communists works. And Republicans have been using that trick ever since (show slides that support this observation).

There is no officeholder in America today who is communist. And if you talk to someone who claims otherwise, I suggest you ask them: (1) Can you explain communism to me in a few sentences?, and (2) Can you explain to me how [PERSON X] qualifies? I think you will find that the person will be unable to answer one or both questions.

Now, communism is the most extreme/pure form of socialism. Just like all salmon are fish, but not all fish are salmon, it is also the case that all communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists. And indeed, whether they realize it or not, all Americans (or virtually all Americans) are socialists. In communism, the government owns and controls the entire economy. In socialism, the government owns and controls parts of the economy. And in the U.S., and virtually the entire rest of the world, there is universal agreement that some things work best when they are socialized. Examples include fire departments, police departments, public libraries and public schools. In the U.S., it also includes Social Security, which is the single-most-popular program the U.S. government operates, with over 90% approval.

The great majority of the disagreement over socialism comes down to a handful of sectors of the economy, most obviously healthcare (at least in the United States). Socialists, and in particular Democratic Socialists, think the government should be in the business of guaranteeing healthcare to everyone. Many Americans think otherwise. However, this policy perspective does not make the Democrats Socialists into communists. If it did, nearly all of Europe would be communist, as nearly all of Europe (and much of Asia, incidentally) has some form of government-backed healthcare.

Socialists, including Democratic Socialists, also tend to favor higher taxes on the wealthy. However, this does not make them communist, either. If it did, then General and Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower would be a communist, because he oversaw the highest income taxes in American history.

---

P.D. in Smithfield, RI, asks: I suppose it's a good exercise to profile up to 25 Democrats who could potentially win the nomination, but you could really narrow this extensive list down to the only three that have an actual shot of getting both nominated AND elected: Andy Beshear, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA).

(Z) answers: Let us take a look at the last four Democratic presidents, and where they stood in the July 2 years prior to their first election (a sample size that conveniently overlaps with the modern era of the Iowa caucuses, which began in the 1970s):

1. July 1974: Jimmy Carter had just entered the race, and nobody took him seriously. Even after 2 years of hustling and heavy-duty retail campaigning, he only got 28% of the vote in the Iowa caucuses, finishing well behind Uncommitted (37%).
   
   
2. July 1990: Bill Clinton was about to enter the race, but was regarded as a yokel from a dinky state who had blown his chance at stardom with a long and boring speech at the 1988 DNC. However, George H.W. Bush's reelection seemed inevitable, given his 90%+ approval rating. So, the leading Democrats all demurred, with their eyes on 1996. The dynamic was obvious enough that Saturday Night Live even had a sketch of Bill Bradley, Dick Gephardt, Lloyd Bentsen, Tipper Gore (speaking for her husband Al) and Mario Cuomo "debating," with each of them explaining why they should not be the Democratic nominee. This cleared the path for Clinton, who proved to be a gifted campaigner, and who benefited when Bush's approval ratings collapsed (due to the economy) and when Ross Perot entered the race. Even then, Clinton finished fourth in the Iowa caucuses, behind local favorite Tom Harkin, Uncommitted and Paul Tsongas.
   
   
3. July 2006: Barack Obama was a rising star, but was still deciding whether to take his shot in 2008, or to hold off to 2012 or 2016. He did not declare until February 10, 2007, though he did win the Iowa caucuses.
   
   
4. July 2018: Joe Biden was in the middle of many months of hemming and hawing, and he did not file paperwork with the FEC until April 25, 2019. Despite his high name recognition and extensive political and fundraising network, he was seen as someone whose time had passed, and so finished fourth in the Iowa caucuses and fifth in New Hampshire.

In short, probably best to put the brakes on talk of knowing who the Democratic candidate will be. It is 122 weeks, and thus 122 lifetimes (in politics), to Election Day 2028.

---

R.C. in Des Moines, IA, asks: I read that polling from April shows Americans opposed to the Arc de Trump by a margin of better than 2-to-1. While I understand polling may not have been available for most of these projects, has there been significant public opposition to any big monuments like this in our past? I'm thinking of any of the monuments in Washington D.C., the Statue of Liberty, Mount Rushmore, etc.

(Z) answers: You have to divide these monuments into two groups. A lot of them, including Mount Rushmore and the Statue of Liberty, were privately funded, and so not likely to raise voters' pique. That said, those two projects were popular enough that the Congress did vote to donate the land for Rushmore (over Native American objections), and the public did donate money for the base of the Statue of Liberty.

As to the more public-funded projects (such as nearly all the monuments in D.C.), they were all built well after the event they commemorate (whether that event was a war or a lifetime). For example, the Washington Monument began construction in 1848, the Lincoln Memorial was dedicated in 1909 (the centenary of Lincoln's birth), and the national World War II memorial was built from 2000-04.

All of these projects, though partly funded by the government, were also supported by private fundraising. All of these projects were built after there had been plenty of time for the "historical dust" to settle, and for there to be broad agreement that commemoration was warranted. And for all of these projects, the decision-makers were not honoring themselves (excepting that there were a few World War II veterans still in Congress who supported funding for the World War II memorial).

For these reasons, the non-Trump national memorials were all broadly popular. If polling had been done, the response wouldn't have been within a mile of 2-to-1 against.

Oh, and I know that Trump's projects, at least some of them, are ostensibly privately funded. But nobody really believes that, because either he's going to hit the Congress up for money eventually, or because he's going to give special favors to the "donors."

---

P.H. in New York City, NY, asks: In your take on the Texas U.S. Senate race your review of the poll numbers and the candidates is straightforward and that's fine as far as it goes. However, there is a factor that pollsters, political commentators and even you ignore in many races but especially in Texas. The reality is the polls treat the candidate's chances of winning by percentages as if all voting happens in a fair and open voting system. The reality is very far from that and perhaps no further than in the state of Texas. I've lived in Texas, my family and closest friends are still in Texas, and we can all affirm that the voting discrimination and suppression in Texas is both vast and effective. I still believe Beto O'Rourke would very likely have beaten Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) if Texas had fair voting.

I am not saying the polls should be "unskewed" by commentators but I do think the whole "polls keep getting it wrong" problem is in large part because of assuming anyone who wants to vote can. All over the country they have reduced voting sites, purged eligible voters from the rolls, made it illegal to bus people to polling sites, made sure there is no early voting, made it illegal to hand out water in line, made it harder to register to vote. Add to that the intentional economic hardships to voting of having irregular work hours, having no child support, having no elder support and the list goes on and on and on.

My question is, how can this be better and more honestly covered? Because covering a Democratic candidate as being 1 or 2 points ahead and therefore having a chance of winning is not actually accurate.

(Z) answers: Polling predictions are based on comparing current responses to past results. So, even if there has been, and will be, extensive voter suppression in Texas, that is already baked into the numbers.

---

S.W. in New York City, NY, asks: You've written about diminishing support (polling) for Republicans among Latino voters. As this latest shooting, where Lorenzo Salgado Araujo was basically murdered by ICE agents, occurred in Houston, do you think this killing may have on Latino voters in Texas?

(Z) answers: ICE is claiming that Araujo tried to ram officers before he was shot. There is pushback against that narrative from witnesses, but for now, things are at least partly up in the air.

That said, I cannot help but think of Rodney King. In his case, there were problematic acts on both sides, but the incident still unified L.A.'s Black community, and helped speed California's evolution from purple to blue. My best guess, then, is that even if Araujo turns out to be partly culpable for what happened, the incident will nonetheless energize the Texas Latino community to the detriment of the party currently in power.

In particular, it's going to be much harder for wannabe senator Ken Paxton (R) to answer the inevitable questions he'll be asked, in a way that keeps all of the voters he's courting happy, than it will be for wannabe senator James Talarico (D).

---

J.S. in Germantown, MD, asks: Given the Graham Platner debacle, it is now likely that Republicans will maintain control of the Senate. Is that better for Democrats politically? Given that there was never a chance of passing legislation through overriding a veto or getting enough votes for impeachment, is it politically better for the House to send bill after bill to die in the Senate? Even more so if J.D. Vance has to cast the tiebreaking vote? It would show Americans that Democrats are trying to work for the American people and would remove any cover that Republicans could use going into 2028 that things would have been different but for Trump's veto. Your thoughts?

(Z) answers: I think you are assuming facts not in evidence. Early polling suggests that any Platner replacement will still be competitive with Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). Plus, the Democrats have many opportunities to strike Senate gold.

In any event, the Democrats will benefit enormously from taking over one chamber, because then they can launch investigations and can pass bills, which they can then run on in 2028—"If you want [BILL X] passed, you have to vote Democratic!"

However, the blue team is far better off if it has the Senate, too, for three reasons. First, because a bill that passes both chambers is much more "real" than one that passed only one chamber, and it's much more compelling to say "All we need is a Democratic president, and [BILL X] can become law." Second, because the Senate approves nominees to executive and judicial offices, and so the Democrats would be able to stop the real stinkers, and to keep any vacant Supreme Court seats open. Third, because Donald Trump cares more about "wins" than he does about Democratic or Republican policies, and he's also susceptible to flattery. It is not impossible that the Democrats can horse trade with Trump, and get his signature on some of their priorities. For example: "We will vote to fund the Arc de Trump if you will agree to sign the Donald Trump Healthcare Subsidies for Poor People Act." A Republican Senate would not fall for that, but Trump might.

---

P.F. in Fairbanks, AK, asks: I understand that the wheels of justice turn slowly, but I feel justified in my disappointment of how slowly and impotently and ineffectively the wheels turned for Trump45 under the Biden Administration. For Trump himself, the punishment was reelection, and for his enablers it was a second shot at corrupting the institution—only this time with 4 years' experience learning where the weak spots are.

The Supreme Court is frightening. I say that as an American who carries many privileges and few reasons to fear authority. I believe, without exaggeration, that they will never allow Trump's abuses of power to be punished (or even fixed), no matter how nakedly they occurred. And with 2-1/2 years left for Alito and Thomas to plan their retirements, that time may not come in my lifetime.

So when I read about the opportunities the Democrats have if they retake the House, Senate, or both, my momentary feeling of relief is always dashed by a sickening feeling that they, too, will, will turn too slowly and too timidly to deliver any sense of justice. And when we look ahead to the eventual day when a reforming candidate reaches the White House, I can't help but assume that said president will, for the sake of unity, tell us to turn toward the future, forgive and forget, and pretend it was all a bad dream.

All of that to ask: Deep down inside, do you really think a Democratic majority of any kind will actually hold anyone accountable in any meaningful way? Is it safe to assume that Trump will see no real consequences in the little time he has left to live? Are we just self-soothing by believing dawn is on the horizon?

(Z) answers: As Martin Luther King Jr. said, quoting abolitionist Thomas Parker, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

It tends to take time before there is broad sentiment for any sort of dramatic action. It looks to me like most people, and in particular most Democrats and independents, have learned that not punishing Richard Nixon, and not punishing most of the ill-doers in the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, and not punishing Trump, has had disastrous consequences that threaten the very fabric of the democracy. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and the people seem to be persuaded that these are desperate times.

I would direct your attention, in particular, to gerrymandering. In the last year or so, the often spineless Democratic Party, urged on by the base, has become positively Machiavellian. I think it is entirely plausible this trend will continue in other areas, once the Democrats regain power on the national level.

Civics

R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: You've written many times that the U.S. Senate is a gerrymander of the entire country. Can you explain what you mean by that, and are there possible remedies to correct it?

(Z) answers: Fundamentally, the point of a gerrymander is to make some people's votes more meaningful than others. This is the effect that two-senators-per-state has. A person's vote for senator is MUCH more valuable if they live in a small state (since they may be of a few hundred thousand people deciding, as opposed to one of ten million), and is MUCH more valuable if they live in a swing state (since their vote might actually affect the outcome).

The state where a voter has the most "Senate power" right now is probably Maine or New Hampshire, since the populations there are pretty small, and since elections can go either way. The state where a voter has the least "Senate power" is undoubtedly California, since it's very populous and since it's guaranteed to elect a Democrat anyhow. In Maine or New Hampshire, if you and 10,000 of your best friends decide to cast write-in votes for Binface, that might actually affect the election. In California, if you and 10,000 of your best friends do that, it won't matter one damn bit.

There is no practical solution to this problem. By the terms of the Constitution, every state gets two senators, and the number cannot be changed.

---

B.R.D. in Columbus, OH, asks: I very much appreciated (L)'s response to the SCOTUS Alabama decision, especially the Supreme Court's scorn for the work done by the lower courts. Way to protect the judicial system, SCOTUS! It was especially good to get (L)'s thoughts on what the "love of the law" means.

My question is about moving forward. Not so much in terms of reform or change (although I appreciated getting her thoughts on that), but in terms of overturning decisions. My sense is that the careful and blistering dissents being submitted by the liberal judges (perhaps I should say "by those judges who love the law"?) when they have a chance to do so are being written so that they give future judges toeholds for overturning or reversing decisions. So many of these nakedly partisan decisions seem based on "bad law," it seems to me. But I have no legal training whatsoever, and I may be letting my own partisan lens cloud reality.

What does (L) think? Are the liberal judges writing such careful dissents to prepare the way for overturning decisions? Might that be why they also object to the shadow docket?

(L) answers: It's pretty common for Justices at the Supreme Court and appellate court level to use their dissents to signal how the law can/should be interpreted, in their view, in a given situation. With this Supreme Court, it's mostly Republican dissents that are getting the traction. Some of it is just wildly inappropriate, like Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, out of nowhere, telling Aileen Cannon to declare Jack Smith unlawfully appointed, which she then dutifully did. Thomas also finally got his wish when the Court overturned the Chevron case, which instructed lower courts to defer to agency decisions. He'd been outspoken against Chevron in dissents for many years. Most recently, he advocated for overturning Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized the fundamental right to marry for same-sex couples.

All of this is to say that dissents can and do percolate down through the system, and then can sometimes percolate back up through the system. So, maybe someday, one of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's notable dissents will form the basis of a majority opinion.

---

M.H. in Salt Lake City, UT, asks: I am not a lawyer, but I know enough constitutional history to know that Marbury v. Madison (1803) changed the way the Supreme Court operates. How did the Court function prior to 1803? What was its jurisdiction? I ask because one of the many proposals to reform the Court is to change its jurisdiction. Is this opening up a can of worms? Wouldn't this just create chaos, with 13 different federal circuit courts each having the ability to rule on constitutional questions for its district?

(Z) answers: Before 1803, the Court heard cases in the areas assigned to it by the Constitution (disputes between states and disputes involving foreign countries/citizens), and it also acted as the local appeals court for D.C. and so heard some cases related to federal governance. There weren't many such cases back then, such that most years before 1803 featured a single-digit caseload (and the year immediately before, 1802, featured zero cases).

Naturally, Marbury changed that. The court heard 19 cases that year alone, which was then a record, and then was in double digits every year thereafter, save one (1811), before permanently climbing into triple-digit territory in the years after the Civil War.

The usual plan, if the Supreme Court is stripped of jurisdiction in some cases, is to establish a new level of the federal court system that would take over. The most common proposed name for this new level is "Constitutional Court," and it would hear most of the cases that SCOTUS hears now, but would be structured as to be less partisan (either judges would be drawn from a pool, or there would be some sort of mandatory turnover as a result of term limits or retirement ages). The Congress is unlikely to sign off on a situation where the U.S. is operating under thirteen very different interpretations of laws.

History

R.W. in Decatur, GA, asks: In "Lies Across America, Part I: Christopher Columbus," you wrote, "It should also be noted that Columbus was—again to use a technical term—a moron." I have heard the anecdote on several occasions from different sources that Columbus saved himself from indigenous people in the Caribbean by predicting an impending eclipse and using it to leverage his safety. Is this story true? If so, was it Columbus himself that predicted the eclipse or could he have learned about it from an almanac or the like?

(Z) answers: This is a true story; the eclipse took place on March 1, 1504. And, as is usually the case, Columbus's success was because he was able to rely on the work and insights of more capable people. All ships back then carried an almanac that let them know when there would be full moons, eclipses, and so forth. Columbus did not attempt to hide what he'd done (since he felt it made him look clever), and said that the almanac he relied on was the one compiled by rabbi and astronomer Abraham Zacuto.

---

J.C. in Fez, Morocco, asks: Jumping on how stupid Columbus was, I would add that he never even came near or saw North America. It was a few years later that John Cabot did so, and then Ponce de León the first European in what is now the United States.

But I'm confused. In your great history of Columbus and how he became famous and then infamous, I thought I'd read previously, including from you, that he is celebrated today only because Italian immigrants needed a figure to show that they were truly American. Is that not true, or no longer considered true?

(Z) answers: He became an important symbol in the Italian-American community in the late nineteenth century, which helped contribute to the enthusiasm surrounding the World's Columbian Exposition of 1893. However, his early years of fame (which really began in the 1730s, with the creation of "Columbia" as the embodiment of the explorer's virtues) were not driven by Italian Americans because there were virtually no Italian Americans at that time. They didn't come in large numbers until the middle years of the Industrial Age (1860s/1870s/1880s).

---

P.R in Arvada, CO, asks: I enjoyed your item on Christopher Columbus. It was both amusing and informative. One thing that always confuses me, though, through watching shows like Who Do You Think You Are or Finding Your Roots, is how people's DNA can tell us what religion they were. It may be able to tell us what regions of the world their ancestors lived in but their religion?

If we take Sephardic Jew as an example, my assumption would be that this tells us two things. One, that they have ancestors that lived in the region of Spain and Portugal, but they also have deeper roots back to the region where modern day Israel is. The problem with this, though, is that not everyone in either of those regions were Jewish. I was under the impression that people migrated from Israel to Spain/Portugal over an extended period and probably included all kinds of people from the area and not just Jewish people. We don't refer to anyone else in this way, e.g. there are no Anglo-Saxon Pagans. So, why do we say that peoples DNA shows that they are Sephardic Jew or Ashkenazi Jews when all we can really say is that their ancestors migrated from a specific region in the Middle East to a different region?

(Z) answers: The further back in time you go, the thinner the evidence, and the more you have to rely on assumptions and guesswork, often rooted in a general understanding of how a particular society worked.

Let me give you a non-Columbus example. It is generally believed, among historians, that Jesus of Nazareth was of average height for a man of his time (about 5'4"). And historians believe that because none of the historical sources for Jesus' life mention his height.

"What, what?" you might say. Well, if Jesus was noticeably short, then the people who did not think highly of him would probably have mentioned that. Think of how often the Brits made fun of Napoleon's stature (despite the fact that the Little Corporal was not actually short). If Jesus was tall, the people who thought he was the bee's knees would have mentioned it, or would have had him towering over the Pharisees, or something like that. The lack of allusions to Jesus' height suggest that he was neither particularly short nor particularly tall, which leaves us with "probably average."

Similarly, Columbus' DNA reflects the Middle Eastern-Iberian combo characteristic of Sephardic Jews. People of that time tended to stick with the ethnic group indicated by their DNA, and that particular group overwhelmingly practiced Judaism. So, it's a pretty high-percentage guess that, at least to his peers, Columbus was seen as a Jew. Whether he practiced and/or was a believer is unknowable, without further evidence.

To take another example, suppose you had a body from Columbus' time (say, the 1490s) with DNA characteristic of an Englishman. It's fair to guess that person was at least outwardly a Catholic, because nearly all Englishmen and women were, in that era. The reformation didn't begin until 1517 (so, no Protestantism), and there weren't too many Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims or Jews running around Jolly Olde England (the latter group having been expelled in 1290).

---

D.E. in Fremont, CA, asks: I was born on Columbus Day in 1954. I had a lovely pop-up book with the Niña, the Pinta and the Santa Maria sailing ships, which I proudly took to school for show-and-tell several years in a row. Notwithstanding those fond memories, I have no trouble rethinking Columbus as a nasty fellow on an ill-conceived mission. My question: What can I read to get as much of the unvarnished truth about him as is known?

(Z) answers: It is easy to find polemics in either direction. For example, Christopher Columbus The Hero: Defending Columbus From Modern Day Revisionism is going to give you one version of the story. Christopher Columbus and the Afrikan Holocaust: Slavery and the Rise of European Capitalism is going to give you a very different version. The book that I think most likely to give you what you want is The Nine Lives of Christopher Columbus (2025), by Matthew Restall. As the title suggests, the book not only looks at the historical figure from multiple vantage points, it also explores what happened with his memory (which was the main subject of the item we published this week).

---

D.F. in Norcross, GA, asks: After reading the question from M.F. in Des Moines about Baron von Steuben, it brought to mind a question that has always puzzled me about the man who was so instrumental in training Gen. George Washington's continental army.

I've most often seen him referred to as Friedrich Wilhelm August Heinrich Ferdinand (Freiherr), Baron de Steuben, though I've also seen him referred to as Friedrich Wilhelm Ludolf Gerhard Augustin, (Freiherr), Baron von Steuben.

While I know Freiherr (Free Lord) and Baron are titles, I guess my question is two-fold. First, is there a general consensus as to which order of names is correct? And second, why the discrepancy?

(Z) answers: Is the name of the current president Donald Trump, Donald J. Trump or Donald John Trump? They're all correct, of course, with each used in different contexts.

People like von Steuben, back then, often rendered their names differently depending on a number of factors. One of those was practicality; if you're going to be signing 100 commissions, you don't want to write 10 names each time you sign. Another was language; as noted in the Columbus piece, people tended to "translate" their names into the local language, as practicable.

That said, the main thing going on in von Steuben's case is that when he arrived to help with the Revolutionary War, he made his name more French, as that was the custom back then, and because it showed refinement and strength (because France was THE embodiment of both military power and cultural cachet at that time). And he also made his name more "noble," as that was more likely to cause American soldiers to respect him.

The General never really settled on one version of his name, though he did tend to use the more simple and more French versions most frequently in the latter decades of his life. One historian's trick that is sometimes useful with questions like this is to look at a person's grave, as that will usually give the version/spelling of their name that they preferred, at least at the end of their life. But that doesn't work here, as von Steuben's grave just says "Steuben."

Gallimaufry

B.S. in Huntington Beach, CA, asks: There have been a number of surprises and upsets in the World Cup this year, with some favorites being pushed to the max, and others losing outright. You sent your condolences to football fans in Germany and The Netherlands on their losses, but not congratulations to Paraguay and Morocco on their notable and stunning successes. I believe the parity we are seeing on the world stage during this competition is a positive outcome. Is that success not to be acknowledged, if not celebrated? I have nothing against the losers, but certainly congratulations are due the winners.

(Z) answers: We got quite a number of e-mails along these lines, a couple of which accused us of being racist.

First, in American sports culture at least, it is not especially appropriate to wish well to everyone involved in a sporting contest, as it comes off as wishy-washy and insincere. See what happened to Elmo when "he" presumed to extend well wishes to both the Knicks and the Spurs before the NBA Finals. Or what happened to Jill Biden when she tried to invite the runner-up Iowa Hawkeyes to the White House to join the LSU Tigers in celebrating their victory in the NCAA Women's Basketball Tournament.

Similarly, in American sports culture, it is not especially appropriate to single out intermediate victories for commemoration. Gridiron football teams, by and large, do not pop open the champagne after winning a wildcard game. They do it after winning the Super Bowl. And in this case, Germany and the Netherlands had reached the end of the line, while Paraguay and Morocco had merely won intermediate victories.

But most important is this. We have one correspondent in Morocco, and have good reason to believe that J.C. in Fez is not a native. We do not recall ever getting a message from Paraguay. On the other hand, we have many hundreds of readers in Germany and the Netherlands, many of whom we hear from regularly, some of whom were responsible for the World Cup questions we have answered in the Q&A.

---

R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: Retired MLB pitcher Andy Pettitte has not been elected to the Hall of Fame. Why not? I think he is a shoo-in for it. He had an extremely long and productive pitching career, stretching from the mid 1990s to 2013. Over the course of his career, he won 5 World Series titles, and never had a losing record in any season he played. He was a 3-time All Star, and still holds the MLB record of 19 post-season wins, the most of any pitcher in history.

One of my best friends is a die-hard Yankees fan, and he insisted to me that Pettitte had the most wins of any pitcher in the 2000s. I didn't believe him, but I looked it up, and it's true. Pettitte won 148 games from 2000 to 2009. You could make a strong case he was the most successful pitcher of the 2000s.

I also admire Pettitte because I think he had a perfect temperament for professional sports. I never saw him engage in showboating, and he always seemed very composed while playing. He didn't have the off-field drama many other athletes have.

All of these factors combine into a Hall-of-Fame caliber career. Your thoughts?

(Z) answers: Pettitte's main problem is that he was good for a long time, but was rarely great. He never won a Cy Young, he finished second only once, and he was a legitimate contender only one other time (he finished 5th in the voting that year). He was also named to the All-Star team only three times, and he finished his career with 60.2 WAR. Usually, it takes 70 WAR for a pitcher to be a likely Hall of Famer and 80 to be a slam dunk (and even then, it took both Mike Mussina and Bert Blyleven, with 82.8 and 94.5 WAR respectively, 6 years and 14 years to be admitted).

Meanwhile, the arguments you list in his favor are not strong ones, particularly in the eyes of contemporary Hall of Fame voters. World Series are a team accomplishment. So are pitcher wins. And "the leader in [stat X] over [decade Y]" is, to be frank, kinda statistical sleight-of-hand. There are many stats, first of all, and so there are many "decade leaders." The player who had the most hits in the 1990s, to take one example, is Mark Grace, and the only way he's getting into the Hall of Fame is with a ticket. Also, a decade is a visually pleasing construct, but an arbitrary one. Having the most wins from 2000-09 is no more or less impressive or important than having the most wins from, say, 1998-2007. And yet, Bartolo Colón and his 142 wins over that timeframe are in the same boat as Grace. And that is despite Colón's one career home run.

Further, you really can't make a case for Pettitte as the most successful pitcher of the 2000s, as his contemporaries included Roger Clemens, Pedro Martínez, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux and Roy Halladay. Even if you are using championships as part of Pettitte's case for being successful, the Yankees only won one WS in the 2000s, and Clemens was there for that one and was the better pitcher than Pettitte in that year (by a lot), and in that decade (also by a lot). Martínez and Johnson also won a WS in that decade.

And that brings us to the final issue with Pettitte's candidacy. Though Clemens is the much better pitcher, he is being held out of the Hall because he's pretty obviously a 'roider, even though he never admitted it or failed a drug test. Pettitte actually admitted to using performance enhancing drugs. He downplayed it by saying he did it only once, but who knows if that is true, and in any case, the Hall of Fame voters do not forget and do not forgive PED use, particularly when a player is borderline anyhow (David Ortiz is the exception that proves the rule).

Pettitte might be admitted one day, by one of the Veterans' Committees. But, even if so, he should really be in line behind, among others, Tommy John, Kevin Brown, Rick Reuschel and Luis Tiant, not to mention all the guys from the current era who are not yet eligible, but should sail right in (Clayton Kershaw, Justin Verlander, Max Scherzer and Zack Greinke).

---

J.L. in Chapel Hill, NC, asks: What newspapers does (V) rely on in the Netherlands? Does he read the Volkskrant, NRC, something else, or no Dutch news sources? Does he only use them for local news, or as an additional perspective on affairs in the US and globally?

(V) answers: I read nos.nl and nu.nl online for Dutch news. Occasionally De Volkskrant online for major news. Also, for a non-US perspective, two British sites, the BBC and The Guardian.

Reader Question of the Week: Mental Dis-Ease, Part VI

Here is the question we put before readers many weeks ago:

J.B. in Radnor, PA, asks: How does one keep their sanity and avoid becoming depressed from getting so deep into all the demoralizing news in U.S. politics, and the country as a whole?

And here is a final round of the answers we got in response:

G.O. in Atlanta, GA: I think about my mother.

She grew up in China during the Cultural Revolution under Mao, and suffered through widespread famine, brutality, and persecution.

By incredible luck, the exact year she was to leave high school, Mao left power, and a proper exam for eligibility into college was reintroduced. Only via that exam, and the subsequent work and serendipities that followed, was she able to leave to study and settle in the United States.

One day, during the first Trump term, my mother and I discussed my sister, who was inconsolably disturbed by U.S. politics. My mother confided in me, "I don't get it. You just survive. We all just survive."

I realized my own standards for a country I deemed fit to live in were much narrower than hers. No matter the challenges of her situation, my mother always moved forward and built a life for herself, just as so many around the world in devastating conditions do.

In the years since, I've worked to not take this lesson as an excuse to be ambivalent and tolerate what is occurring in the United States. What I try to take away is the bravery and resolve to believe that no matter what comes, I can handle it. We will survive.

---

D.C.W. in Fredericksburg, TX: I exercise in my garage gym daily on a spin bike or treadmill. To pass the time, I watch DVDs of old TV series. Favorites are M*A*S*H, Northern Exposure, 30 Rock, Law and Order and Columbo. Since 2016 I have not been able emotionally to enjoy my very favorite, The West Wing, for obvious reasons. That show to me is the best in writing, casting, performance, bantering and messaging. The live debate in the last season is a masterpiece. I know most of the dialog, but always catch something new and nuanced when I view it again. It moves so fast, the closed captioning cannot keep up.

I decided on Flag Day to start watching that series again from the beginning. With seven seasons, it will take me quite a while, watching one episode a day, to get through them. But after the first episode, seeing all my old friends and knowing the scripts and moves by heart, I was again lifted up. That show is fiction, but it shows what is possible. The next 150 days or so should be great. I have missed it, but I'm back with it and loving it. And those workouts to The West Wing are the fastest 45 minutes of all.

---

P.S. in Portland, ME: Re-watch The West Wing and feel free to cry.

---

J.K.H. in Richmond, VA: First, play with your kids. Take them to a pond or river and wade in it. Take long walks with them and tell them stories where evil was defeated and progress was possible.

Second, cats! Cats are the better angels of our nature. Petting a cat who is purring loudly is better than any sedative. (Added plus: look for all the cat posters on BlueSky, esp. "#Caturday")

Third, gor those with access to britcoms and of a certain advanced age: binge-watching Last of the Summer Wine. The Yorkshire countryside coupled with older Brits having fun as they get older and face mortality raises one's spirit a little.

---

B.M. in Papillion, NE: How do I cope with the current situation? Well, I have neighbors who are all in on MAGA. I poke fun at them, but with some subtlety, and in a way that (V) would appreciate. My RaspberryPi board awakens every night just past midnight. My Python script using the "selenium" package logs into one of my wireless access points to change an SSID. (If you, dear reader, don't know, this is the name you see when connecting up to a WiFi network.) Thus I am broadcasting several demeaning identifiers, as well as the only "presidential countdown SSID clock" that I am aware of:

---

S.D. in York, England, UK: I don't need the world to be calm for me to be calm. I just need to know what I can do next, and then do it.

---

C.B. in Hamden, CT: I am in general not successful at overcoming despair; the core of my professional life (scientific research) is one of the areas in which the disaster wrought by Trump II is irrevocable—nothing any future administration can possibly do will fully repair the long-term damage. But something that helps is a piece of advice I got from an acquaintance who is deeply involved in civil rights issues. The key to not getting overwhelmed, he said, is to identify the single thing you are best positioned to do, and do that one thing with all your heart and soul. Don't worry about the infinitude of other things—others will have to deal with the rest, and putting time and effort into fretting about the Big Picture rather than the thing you personally can do is a net loss to the cause.

In my case (in addition to voting and donating), I focus on the students at the elite university I am privileged to work at. One way or another, these kids will run the world in 20 years' time, and I try to set up situations in which I can have meaningful interactions with them that go well beyond the details of the courses I teach. That is to say, I try to actually do what the bad guys accuse us of doing: transferring my values to the next generation (although a local joke is that we do a lousy job of this—there's a whole legion of jackasses in public life who graduated from our place). Not by arguing about politics, or imposing my beliefs in any direct way, but by having deep conversations on topics around which my life and work have generated legitimate expertise: science, music, some areas of history and culture, antisemitism, and other topics. Such conversations have no direct impact on the current disasters, and as (Z) knows well, they garner neither reward nor respect from university administration. But they are the true essence of "liberal arts education," a utopian concept that I deeply believe in, and it's the most important thing I can do.

---

D.C. in Carbondale, IL: Absolutely every response has been helpful, confirmed my instinctive solutions, and provided additional great ideas. This week I've conceived of one more mechanism. I went to our first community summer outdoor concert of the season. The crowd was milling about and self arranging in a theater arc among the shading trees. As I planted my folding chair on the lawn and put up my feet next to my partner, I sighed deeply and noted "This is very relaxing!" The relief in my body was visceral, and reminded me of the healing I felt after the Covid shutdown lifted and I began spending Friday evenings with my friends for "Driveway Picnic," socially distant outside but still together for a few hours each week.

I'm pretty sure that as social primates our bodies produce beneficial, stress-relieving hormones when we're in proximity. Last night I watched a documentary about Woodstock that served as a prime example that imprinted a whole generation. The advent of TV and the internet atomized our daily lives severely, until many of us spend most free time in our bedrooms in front of individual screens.

Get back out there with nearby friendly humans, regularly. Notice how it feels. Oh, and it probably helps if music is involved.

---

C.Z. in Sacramento, CA: Randy Rainbow is my antidepressant:

"A Very Stable Genius Part Two!"
"WHERE THE HELL IS OUR CONGRESS?"
"It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like F This"
"RFK!"
"Big Phony Schmuck!"
"Not What They're Paid For"

---

R.C. in Eagleville, PA: It was 1989, and my young daughter came to me with tears in her eyes, asking, "Daddy, why do they keep saying our name on the TV?" My father's youngest brother was one of the Americans held hostage in Beirut. The hostage takers singled out my uncle for execution, giving 48 hours for their demands to be met. Mercifully, negotiations succeeded, the execution never took place, and years later, the hostages were released.

Having been trapped in the center ring of a media circus, I've seen the psychological damage it can cause anyone. My family was understandably at DEFCON 1, literally living through a "final countdown." Many in the media saw it as their mission to bring their audience to DEFCON 1 with us. To combat this dis-ease, seek out information without the hype. I've learned that consuming the news with a dollop of snark is the best way to handle it.

---

D.J.M. in Salmon Arm, BC, Canada: Read Electoral-Vote.com in the morning and recite the serenity prayer. (V) & (Z) please grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Then have a timbit and a double-double.

---

JC in Shawnee, OK: The only upside to having a completely deranged major political party is that I do not have to follow the news. I know how I will vote for the foreseeable future.

---

P.W. in Springwater, NY: When Donald Trump was running for re-election in 2020, amid all the talk of rigged elections, I decided I had to "do" something other than sitting on the sidelines and complain. So, over the years, I became an election inspector, volunteered for local Democratic candidates, and joined the local Democratic committee. When Trump was elected in 2024 and it seemed like the country was at risk for losing its democratic form of government, I became active in our local Indivisible group, going to rallies, posting on social media (which I rarely had before) and calling/e-mailing our local representatives in the Senate and House on a regular basis. I still do all of this because it's important to me that my voice is raised in protest to the insanity surrounding us and it's helpful to share this work with others who share my values. Is it working? I don't know yet, but to me, action is an antidote to anxiety.

But I also a volunteer for my local health department and raise puppies for a guide dog organization because there I know I am making a contribution to my community and can actually see the results. Plus, I spend time with dogs, the guide dog puppies and my own three, who are simply happy to be with me and bring peace and joy into my life. And most days I take time to read or to garden, to cook, to play Wordle, to watch or listen to baseball (Mets fans are conditioned to expect the worse) and keep in touch with family and friends, even if it's just a text. And I swim—both for exercise and mental health.

Sometimes I think I'm doing too much and maybe I should focus more on just a few things (and do those better?) but I'm never bored and no day is ever the same#8212;except, like many of your readers, each day starts with tea while reading Heather Cox Richardson and Electoral-Vote.com. What I don't do, except on rare occasions, is despair. I have faith that in the long run, America will return to trying to become a more perfect union and the disease or Trumpism will pass. Maybe that's naive, but for my own sanity, I have to believe that; I have to play a small part in working towards that.

---

S.S. in Venice, FL: 69 cruises since 2019. 10 more lined up so far. Oh, and the booze package doesn't hurt...

---

J.P. in Lancaster, PA: I treat my mental dis-ease by a rather childish method. I have gotten on the mailing/texting list of Republican politicians. I suspect it is because I have written to Republican politicians expressing my dissatisfaction with them and their "leader." Initially, I tried to keep my communications with them brief and as well reasoned as I could. When I got replies from them, usually weeks later, they were usually not specifically addressing the issues I had raised or the arguments I put forward. I wasn't surprised by this, given the number of communications they must receive. However, being ignored eventually got frustrating, as did the platitudes that were tossed in my general direction. I knew that no matter how well reasoned my arguments/points might be, the individuals I was writing to would not be persuaded to change their behavior or agree with me. So, I decided to have some fun.

I wrote them and gave them my arguments, as before, but I started to sprinkle in some of the invective that their leader and at least some of them have enjoyed spewing into the press and the airwaves. I assumed that like my previous, tamer communications, they would not be read and/or understood and/or result in any change. However, I could at least give them some of them what they have been giving so gleefully to the rest of us. Even if they didn't read what I wrote, I felt a bit better. Then, after one of my more insulting texts, I was unsubscribed. Some person, or maybe AI, had scanned what I had written and retaliated by removing me from their texting/mailing list. I was amused and kept doing what I had been doing periodically, mostly when I got a text from one of their people. I have been unsubscribed 5 more times. The last time I was unsubscribed within 1 minute of sending my text. I immediately texted them back and accused them of being wimps and dishing it out while being unable to take it. The texts have continued, in some cases from individuals who claimed to have unsubscribed me. I have continued to amuse myself by writing them back while being snarky.

Occasionally, the snark gets a response, unlike my more reasonable communications.

---

G.J. in Spokane, WA: When Donald Trump was elected in 2016 I, like so many Americans, felt compelled to do something positive in response. So, drawing on my lifelong love affair with quotations, I compiled Assuring Alexis: 306 Quotes of Encouragement and Hope for Withstanding the Trump Era. The "306" figure refers to the number of electoral votes that Trump received that year, and the price of the anthology, available in Kindle format, is $3.06.

Little did I know that this anthology would be as pertinent as a resource a decade later. The title refers to Alexis, a young Black woman who was studying outside the United States when Trump was elected. The day after the election she told her parents that she didn't want to return home to a country she feared would be dramatically different from the one she had left.

Her fears were well justified and the quotations remain as appropriate today as a source of encouragement as they were a decade ago, perhaps even more so. The task before us is set by another Alexis, the astute Frenchman who visited the United States in the 1830s. De Tocqueville wrote that "America is great because America is good and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." So let us join together not to "make America great again," in Donald Trump's words, but to ensure that it never ceases to be good.

Any royalties from the book will be given to charities focusing on press freedom, refugee resettlement, and education scholarships in Kenya.

---

L.R.H. in Oakland, CA: I stay on an even keel through a combination of luck and choices.

First, I have a resilient temperament, which I attribute entirely to luck (okay, life experience plays into this, but mostly I think it's luck of the draw). Second, no TV news; I read The New York Times and various reliable online sources only. Third, I try to take action in various ways. Lastly, I have a satisfying retirement career that keeps me occupied and positive.

---

G.S.C. in South Pasadena, CA: I feel the answer has two parts: Part 1 is how we deal with the anxiety our times create. Part 2 is how do we get peace? Those are two different issues and should be addressed as two separate issues.

Anxiety is one's fear or apprehension of what's to come (or is living through). When trumplethinskin first won, I went into a depression that lasted about a month. I found no joy in anything; I was just going through the motions. Then a friend shared one of Electoral-Votes.com's articles, which helped. It helped a lot! Your site explained that, with all the blah-blah that trumplethinskin makes, it's likely he's just talking to the wind or will be stopped by the way the system works. [trumplethinskin, v.2 has nullified much of the constraints that you said would protect us in trumplethinskin, v.1, but that's another story.] But, also, I am now wiser when I'm encountering this blah-blah and know what to be concerned about and what can be pushed off to the side—at least for the moment. The secret is that if problems are faced rationally, you do not need to feel like you are going off the deep end.

Peace is a whole different thing. I think I heard of this concept on NPR, not sure, but the subject of the interview was "What do you do for peace?" That is, what do you do so that when you are doing it, you can just focus on that thing, whatever it is, and everything else just is not there? Although I have many hobbies, perhaps too many, the one thing I can do for hours is to play with the photos I've taken on various travels. They are a sort of diary of the trip, sort of a "viary" if you will. When I visit a location, the first photo will be duplicated and turned into a placard showing the location's name and where it's located. I then select photos from the many I've taken of the location and save them for sharing online. I also take the time to enhance each photo so that it's better than just a snapshot.

My dad loved stamp collecting and specialized in Bavaria. I never knew why or how he got so entranced in it. But now, looking back, I realize that is where he got peace.

And with Electoral-Vote.com, I can quench my anxiety.

---

E.L. in San Diego, CA: I'm an engineer and businessman by profession, a musician by avocation. Although retired, I am still active full time.

I used to read the news first thing in the morning. After my retirement a decade ago, I continued to do so. Soon after the last presidential election, though, I realized that reading the news (and "the news") in the morning ruined my whole day. So, I changed my routine.

I now start my day with constructive activities: physical exercise followed by breakfast and my brain workout (sudokus and crossword puzzles). I then take a deep dive into my music endeavors and non-political reading, which consumes the rest of my (happy) morning,

I force myself NOT to read ANY news before noon. I read or watch the news online. No TV or radio. I always start by reading Electoral-Vote.com, my most trusted source of political news since 2004. Thank you (V), (Z), (L) and (A)!

I attend weekly meetings with a group of well-informed friends to discuss national and international affairs (no MAGAs allowed). Our unwritten rule: Always end the conversation on a high note.

I selectively provide significant financial support to political candidates, media outfits, and activist groups and organizations committed to defeating fascism. (I'm past the age for effective direct involvement.)

My afternoons are spent working on two major charitable projects that I conceived and are dear to my heart. One of them deals with promoting the art of music, the other with combating discrimination and antisemitism.

I do not socialize with MAGAs and do not discuss politics with anyone who cannot distinguish fact from fiction or is a single-issue voter or ignorant of history or incapable of rational and civil conversations.

My wife and I are politically aligned (I can't imagine a "politically-mixed" marriage surviving these tempestuous times). We exchange thoughts daily. To sleep better at night, though, we suspend all talk about war or politics after dinner and focus on the things that make our lives worthwhile.

In closing, I should clarify that the coping mechanism I just described is not intended as an escape from reality. We are living in very dark times indeed. It's impossible to avoid feeling depressed or angry at times. Still, as a survival strategy, it has helped me keep my anguish in check and enhance my emotional capacity to weather the storm.

Hope these ideas, with individual adaptations, are helpful to other readers.

---

M.T. in Lionville, PA: I sometimes read old science fiction. Here's a paragraph from H. G. Wells' In the Days of the Comet, published in 1906:

Now, the whole world before the Change was as sick and feverish as that, it was worried and overworked and perplexed by problems that would not get stated simply, that changed and evaded solution, it was in an atmosphere that had corrupted and thickened past breathing; there was no thorough cool thinking in the world at all. There was nothing in the mind of the world anywhere but half-truths, hasty assumptions, hallucinations, and emotions. Nothing...

It sounds a lot like today, doesn't it? Yet we survived for 120 years. A lot of bad things happened in between, but overall things are better now than then.

Another thing: we say, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't." We probably also should say, "If it sounds too bad to be true, it probably isn't." The more emotional a piece of news makes a person, the more likely it's false or distorted. Making people emotional is a first step to extracting value from them, whether for good or for evil. Recognize that appeals to emotion are manipulating you.

---

D.R. in Lincolnton, NC: You think people are pissed of now, look at the reign of the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten, 1353-1336 BC. He radically changed the official religion, government and art (I learned about him in art history class). Among his many heresies, he required that all religious devotion previously exhibited toward the gods be directed toward himself.

He was called at the time a heretic, fanatic, criminal and possibly insane. After his death the monuments he built were destroyed and his name was excluded from the list of rulers compiled by later pharaohs.

I think about Akhenaten frequently of what happens after Trump is gone. In fact, I even thought about him during the George W. Bush administration.

If the ancient Egyptians could survive a disastrous leader, so can we.

Here is the compleat set (to use the Beatles' spelling), for those who might like to review:

• Mental Dis-Ease, Part I
• Mental Dis-Ease, Part II
• Mental Dis-Ease, Part III
• Mental Dis-Ease, Part IV
• Mental Dis-Ease, Part V
• Mental Dis-Ease, Part VI

Here is the question for next week:

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)?

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

---

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