Tomorrow is non-politics questions day. If you have one or more such questions, please send them to questions@electoral-vote.com.

6-3

That might be the shortest headline we've ever written. And yet, it is very much on the mark. Although Chief Justice John Roberts insists that his Court is not partisan, and that it's just calling balls and strikes, one cannot take that seriously anymore (if one could EVER take it seriously). Yesterday, SCOTUS handed down four major decisions. Three were decided 6-3, with the vote breaking down along ideological lines. And, in each 6-3 case, the majority opinion was written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito.

The most... explosive decision is the one in Mullin v. Doe, which involves a decision by Stephen Miller the Trump administration to rescind Temporary Protective Status (TPS) for individuals from Haiti and Syria. TPS was created in the 1990s to allow people from dangerous and violent countries to remain in the U.S., rather than face the perils they may encounter on returning home. There are currently 17 countries on the list, and while it was people from Haiti and Syria who brought Mullin v. Doe, the administration has also announced the revocation of TPS for people from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Honduras, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Venezuela and Yemen. So, folks from those countries will be affected by the decision as well.

There were three potential bases for ruling against Miller the administration on this one. They are:

1. The law creating TPS—which was passed by Congress, mind you—sets out a procedure that must be followed before TPS can be rescinded. If that procedure is not followed—and it wasn't here—then a petitioner can go to court and get the decision reversed. This is the basis on which Mullin v. Doe was decided at the lower levels of the court system; each of those decisions blocked the White House's efforts to kill TPS.
   
   
2. Decisions on TPS cannot be based, even in part, on race. Given that Donald Trump has regularly used racist language to refer to black refugees in general, and Haitian refugees in particular ("They're eating dogs and cats"), there is abundant reason to believe that race played a factor in the administration's TPS decisions (and in case you are wondering, the four countries that are still on the TPS list are El Salvador, Lebanon, Sudan, and Ukraine).
   
   
3. Revoking TPS for these folks, particularly the Haitians, will uproot a couple million people, many of whom have lived in the United States for decades, while serving no useful policy purpose. We don't want to suggest this came up in Court, because it didn't, but it is instructive that Mike DeWine, the Republican governor of Ohio, a state that is home to many Haitian refugees, said: "I've stated many times, the policy to kick all these people who are working out of Springfield, out of Ohio, out of our country, I think is a mistake... The situation in Haiti is today worse than it's ever been, so it did not get better. No one who knows anything about Haiti can dispute those facts."

Alito's opinion addressed all three of these. To wit:

1. Courts have no role in overseeing TPS decisions (so much for Congress' power to, you know, pass laws).
   
   
2. There was no race or racism involved in the administration's decisions. Or, at least, it cannot be proven that race or racism was involved. There could have been other reasons.
   
   
3. The Court cannot concern itself with the impact of its decisions, and will rule based solely on the letter of the law.

And there you have it. Reports are that the administration plans to begin deportations as early as next week. If they follow through (and if the plaintiffs do not have a new cause of action up their sleeves, which they might), then we shall see how well it plays with the voting public to see people torn away from their families and their communities to be sent to a dangerous place they barely know. As a reminder, Ohio has a key U.S. Senate race this year, which affords voters an excellent opportunity to register their feelings.

The second big decision, meanwhile, was in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado. As this is also an immigration case, current DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin is once again the petitioner. At issue here is whether a person has to be physically present in the United States before they can formally request asylum, and thus be extended the legal rights that entails.

The argument here is a little simpler than in the first case. Presidents of both parties have used the excuse "you never actually entered the United States" to keep the number of asylum-seekers manageable (and politically palatable). Republican presidents have generally used that excuse more liberally (no pun intended), but Barack Obama used it, too (though not Joe Biden, in case you are wondering)

The counter-arguments are that: (1) that technicality will encourage more people to break the law and sneak in illegally (which is dangerous for all involved), and (2) that way of looking at things has historically kept some obviously worthy asylum-seekers from entering the country (perhaps most famously the Jewish refugees on the MS St. Louis, who were forced to return to Europe, and many of whom became victims of the Holocaust.

Actually, there's another argument against the White House's position, though it's a little weedy. The law governing asylum-seekers specifies that it applies to anyone who "arrives in the United States." However, a different subsection addresses people who are "physically present in the United States." This implies that "arrives in the United States" and "physically present in the United States" are not the exact same thing, which in turn implies that entering American waters, or arriving at an American border checkpoint, are enough to qualify for asylum, even if a person has not set foot on U.S. soil.

Alito's majority ruling waves all of this away, and finds that if you are not on U.S. soil, you are not "in" the United States, and so the law does not apply to you. When Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor read her dissent, she did not hold back in sharing her view that the majority ruling is morally and legally bankrupt. Cameras are not allowed in the Supreme Court, but witnesses said that Alito was absoutely livid while Sotomayor was speaking.

In contrast to Mullin v. Doe, it's hard to see how this decision could backfire on the White House. Asylum-seekers, unless they happen to have relatives in the United States, do not have the attention or sympathy of American voters the way that people who are already in the country, and already functioning as productive members of their communities, do. So, expect the White House to go all-in on keeping asylum-seekers from setting foot in the U.S. (the technical term for this policy is "metering"), unless those asylum-seekers happen to be white South Africans.

The third 6-3 decision did not involve Mullin, because it's not an immigration case, it's a gun case. Specifically, Wolford v. Lopez, which was triggered (pun intended this time) by a Hawaii law that prohibited people from carrying guns, without explicit consent, onto private property that is open to the general public (e.g., restaurants, banks, grocery stores). The three liberals, who must be used to losing by now, argued that the right to carry guns does not mean the right to carry guns anywhere you want, anytime you want, for any reason you want. By contrast, Alito's opinion found that the Hawaii law interferes with "the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives," and so is a violation of the Second Amendment.

There fourth big decision yesterday broke the pattern because it was 7-2 and the majority opinion was written by Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. This is Monsanto v. Durnell, and it was being watched closely by the MAHA types. It is also really, really weedy, but we'll try our best.

The cause of action, in this particular suit, was a claim filed by Missourian John Durnell, who said he developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma due to the glyphosate in the weed killer Roundup, to which he was regularly exposed for 20 years. Durnell argued that the evidence that glyphosate is carcinogenic is strong enough that there should have been a warning label on Roundup packaging, and the absence of such a warning was a violation of Missouri state law. His lawyers put up a strong enough case that Durnell was awarded $1.25 million by a jury, while a different group of (class-action) lawyers were able to get Monsanto to agree to a $7.25 billion settlement for other Missourians who say they were harmed by Roundup.

Monsanto, which is now owned by Bayer, based its argument before the Supremes on the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which was first adopted in 1947, and has been updated several times since. The corporation said that FIFRA (since its 1972 update) gives the EPA sole authority to make rules for pesticide labeling, and that any state laws to the contrary are not valid. And since the EPA has never ordered Roundup (or any other pesticide) to be labeled as carcinogenic, then Monsanto/Bayer are in the clear. Seven justices accepted this argument, and so set aside the $1.25 million verdict and the Missouri decision. This will likely kill most or all of the pending lawsuits based on glyphosate exposure, which is why MAHA is furious. Oh, and in case you are wondering, the two justices in the minority this time were Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The Monsanto decision notwithstanding, 6-3 remains the dominant theme of this term of the Supreme Court. In addition to the three 6-3 rulings yesterday, there were four 6-3 rulings released on Tuesday. The decision gutting the Voting Rights Act was also 6-3. In fact, this term has already featured more 6-3 decisions than the entire last term, and we still have some very big decisions left on deck. Heaven help us if the birthright citizenship case is decided 6-3; there could be riots in the streets. (Z)

In Congress: Once Again, Mike Johnson Shows He's Mr. Irrelevant

We will begin this item by reminding readers of something we wrote yesterday, and that we also wrote many times before that: The SAVE Act cannot pass the Senate. Any attempt at doing so would be met by a Democratic filibuster. Yes, Senate Republicans could kill (or carve-out) the filibuster, but there clearly aren't 50 votes for that. And even if there were, there aren't 50 GOP votes for the Act itself, which many red-state senators know would be bad for red-state voters.

Donald Trump (apparently?) refuses to accept this reality, and so keeps demanding passage of the SAVE Act as a condition for... everything. This week, of course, he put the kibosh on the bipartisan housing bill at the last minute, and demanded that only the SAVE Act would be enough to secure his signature on the housing legislation.

Some of the Trumpiest Trumpers in the House have gotten the message. Leading the charge is Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), who has convinced several of her colleagues to completely gum up the works in the House, in an effort to force passage of the SAVE Act. Note that the SAVE Act has already passed the House, so Luna's looniness is aimed only at putting pressure on the Senate—pressure that, again, is not going to work. Nonetheless, Luna and a few other True Believers have been blocking every effort to deal with any other House business, meaning progress on a number of bills being pushed by Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has ground to a halt.

Johnson has very little control over his conference, and was completely unable to persuade Luna, et al., to end their empty posturing (it is instructive that even Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-TX, is angry with the miscreants). So, the Speaker called up Trump and asked him to intervene. Trump, who reportedly speaks to Luna more often than he speaks to Johnson, agreed and got on his social-media-platform-for-the-perpetually-unreasonable to send out this:

House Republicans should unify, and stop voting down "Rules" or, threatening to do so. Giving power to the Radical Left Dumocrats in the House to control what goes up for a Vote will make our outcomes worse, not better. No more grandstanding, please! They are the Dumocrats, and we can't let them WIN! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP

Allow us to just pause for a moment and note that the man who is supposed to represent the whole country is referring to the opposition (i.e., about half the country) as "Dumocrats," and it doesn't even raise any eyebrows at this point.

We would imagine that now that Luna and the Loonie Brigade have their marching orders, they will fall in line. However, we're not actually going to know for... some indeterminate amount of time. Johnson already canceled several votes scheduled for today and sent his members home for the weekend. And because the July 4 holiday is around the corner, it's possible the House will remain recessed, and will not actually be in session again until July 13.

The Senate, meanwhile, will definitely be in recess until July 13. And this means that Donald Trump's "I'm not signing" temper tantrum might work, at least in the short term. The basic idea behind presidential approval of bills is that the chief executive has to convey their decision to Congress within 10 days. If they sign, they return the signed bill. If they veto, they return the vetoed bill. If they do neither, then they communicate nothing, and that means "I did not object to the bill," and it becomes law.

However, if Congress is not in session, then a bill cannot be returned to them. And so, in that circumstance, a non-signature is called a "pocket veto." The bill is not only dead, but on top of that, a pocket veto cannot be overridden. It is not entirely clear if "not in session" refers only to "the current session has reached its end" or it means "not in Washington right now." That has not been established definitively, and might have to be litigated.

Of course, if Trump pocket vetoes, Congress certainly could pass the legislation again, perhaps in slightly modified form. Would enough Republican members be willing to do that, knowing Trump's feelings on the matter? Would Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) be willing to bring the bill to the floor again? And, if not, would there be enough GOP votes for a discharge petition? These are all excellent questions.

If Trump does successfully kill the housing bill, and if Congressional Republicans do refuse to reverse that choice, then it's a real gift to Democrats. They would point out, over and over, that the bill was overwhelmingly bipartisan, that it passed by a huge margin, that it's what the people want, and that there's ONE PERSON who is stopping it from happening, and ONE PARTY whose cowardice is allowing that to happen. We find it very hard to believe that Republicans running for reelection in swingy districts and states, in particular, would be willing to bestow such a gift on the blue team, but then again, we are often surprised by what the modern Republican Party does. (Z)

Democratic Presidential Candidate of the Week, #24: Gov. Tony Evers (D-WI)

.

• Full Name: Anthony Steven Evers
  
  
• Age on January 20, 2029: 77
  
  
• Background: You don't get much more Wisconsin-y than Tony Evers. He was born in Wisconsin, raised in Wisconsin, educated in Wisconsin, married in Wisconsin, and he's spent his whole professional life in Wisconsin. When he has a blood test, they must get cheese out of his veins.
  
  It would be hard to say he came up the hard way, as Evers descends from a family of doctors. That said, they are also Midwesterns who value rolling up your sleeves, and so as a youngster he worked in a nursing home. He attended Plymouth High School, in Plymouth, WI, and in contrast to many future politicians, he was not a high achiever. In fact, he spent most of his non-class time just across the street from campus: "I used to hang out on smokers' corner every day, just to find out what was going on." Evers says he learned a lot from that, though he also developed a four-pack-a-day habit that was difficult to quit.
  
  He earned his bachelor's degree in Education at UW-Madison, and then, thinking he would join the family profession, commenced training as a physician. The year he spent in medical training in Graz, Austria, is the only time he was a non-resident of Wisconsin. That year also persuaded Evers that medicine was not for him, so he returned to UW-Madison to earn an MA in education, and then began his teaching career; his subject was biology. Over the next decade, he worked his way up the ranks, and also earned a Ph.D. in Education Administration, again from UW-Madison, such that he served as an assistant principal, a principal and a district superintendent.
  
  
• Political Experience: Evers' political career began with a run for... the office overseeing education in Wisconsin. He ran for Superintendent of Public Instruction of Wisconsin in 1992, and lost to John Benson, and then he ran again in 2000 and lost to Elizabeth Burmaster. However, he and Burmaster became friendly during the campaign, and she asked him to be her deputy. When she was done, after two terms in the post, Evers ran again, and this time won. He was twice reelected, and ultiumately served in that office from 2009-19.
  
  In 2018, while still serving as Superintendent, Evers announced a run for governor. He knocked off the incumbent, Scott Walker (R), in a close one, 49.5% to 48.4%. With the state's legislature heavily gerrymandered in favor of Republicans, and knowing that Evers was taking over the governor's mansion, the GOP did much to limit Evers' powers to implement policy and to seat his own appointees in executive offices. He has resisted those efforts with some success (though not complete success), thanks to some wins in federal court, the blue-ing of the Wisconsin state Supreme Court, and aggressive use of the line-item veto, which in Wisconsin conveys a power unique among American governorships. In 2022, Evers won reelection by a slightly larger margin, 51.2% to 47.8%, over Tim Michels.
  
  
• Signature Issue(s): Education, obviously. The only education-related issue that is really prominent in the Democratic platform is student-loan forgiveness. However, the United States has been cutting corners on schooling for decades, and that's a problem. Evers could plausibly be the guy who argues that investment in education pays $4 in tax revenue for every $1 spent, and that such investments are what allowed for the U.S. to dominate the second half of the 20th century (and to win the cold war).
  
  
• What Would His Pitch Be?: "A principal with principles." (We didn't make that up; that was his campaign slogan when he first ran for office.)
  
  
• Instructive Quote: "An investment in our kids is an investment in our future. It strengthens our economy through workforce development, attracts new jobs, and builds new industries in our state."
  
  
• Completely Trivial Fact: Evers' hobby is collecting bobbleheads; he particularly favors bobbleheads of Milwaukee Brewers players. This interest inspired the National Bobblehead Hall of Fame and Museum, which conveniently happens to be located in Milwaukee, to create a set of four gubernatorial bobbleheads: Evers, Andrew Cuomo (D-NY), Mike DeWine and Gavin Newsom (D-CA). They'd probably like a mulligan on one of those.
  
  
• Recent News: Evers is currently busy doing tour stops on his annual "Pothole Patrol" tour, where he puts on a vest, picks up a shovel, and helps fill in potholes in the state's roads. This week's appearance was in Green Bay, where it can sometimes be hard to even see the potholes, because of the radiant glory of the NFL's finest football team.
  
  
• Strengths for the Democratic Primaries: (1) He's milquetoast, and won't generate too many "The Democrats are wild-eyed socialists" stories; (2) He's from the Midwest; (3) He's a straight, white, male in a year where some Democrats want as non-boat-rocking a candidate as is possible.
  
  
• Weaknesses for the Democratic Primaries: (1) He's, um, old; (2) He's not exciting; (3) Did we mention he's old?
  
  
• Polls: It will be a while until we get to a candidate pollsters are asking about. However, Evers does have the approval of 48% of Wisconsinites in general and 91% of Wisconsin Democrats. That makes him the most popular Democrat in the Badger State, by a fair margin.
  
  
• Rank, Initial Poll: #24
  
  
• Rank, Readers' Preferred Candidates: #28
  
  
• How Does the Readership Feel?: We asked readers for their thoughts on Evers running for president; here are some of those responses:
  
  
  • J.L. in Los Angeles, CA: Who?
    
    
  • S.P. in Harrisburg, PA: If the Democrats want to nominate an old white guy and want another octogenarian in office, this could be the guy. That said, would young voters rally around him, as they do around Bernie?
    
    
  • K.B. in Madison, WI: I've lived in Wisconsin since 1992, but didn't really zone in on Wisconsin politics until the nightmare named Scott Walker became governor in 2011 (Act 10 still negatively affects the state today). When State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers squeaked out a one point win over Walker in 2018, I celebrated with many of my fellow educators.
    
    Evers has saved our state from becoming a full blown Wisctucky. Some examples off the top of my head: His veto of a bill banning gender-affirming care for minors saved countless young lives, he fully supported the public school system of Wisconsin throughout both terms, and he's vetoed several bills that would have restricted access to reproductive health care in Wisconsin.
    
    With that said, I don't see him as a viable presidential candidate at all. I believe Barack Obama said he's 'more Clark Kent than Superman' at a rally 2-3 years ago, and I couldn't agree more. Evers is mild-mannered/not fiery, and on top of that, he's too old. I deeply appreciate all of the positives Evers gave Wisconsin, but mark me down as a hard pass for a 2028 presidential run.
    
    
  • I.K. in Queens, NY: Tony Evers seems like a good governor, and a friend of mine was ferociously backing him in Kamala's Veepstakes. But he'd be turning 77 years old the week of the 2028 election. I know we live in a gerontocracy, but I think a third octogenarian president in a row may be a bridge too far for voters. Not to mention, the Republican smear machine would make him the second coming of their senile version of Biden. I think Evers's window has passed.
    
    
  • M.M. in San Diego, CA: Born in 1951, Tony's a bit too long in the tooth; however, he was an undergraduate student at the UW-Madison during their tremendous antiwar demonstrations. Certainly would like to know more about his experience in that milieu!
    
    
  • S.N. in Sparks, NV: Tony Evers will be 77 years old on January 20, 2029. I hope he enjoys being retired.
    
    
  • J.C. in Honolulu, HI: Tony Evers running for President, or even getting the Democratic nomination for that matter, is about as likely as the Minnesota Vikings winning the Super Bowl. Evers is a nice man but boring. Similar to Walter Mondale. Evers may be selected for Department of Education in the next Democrat administration... if there is a Department of Education in 2028.
    
    
  • E.S. in Providence RI: Evers has been a "good soldier," but as he would be 77 in January 2029 he is not what the Democratic electorate is looking for.
    
    
  • A.G. in Scranton, PA: I don't have much to say about Governor Evers. Unfortunately for Governor Evers, I think I speak for the nation when I say that.
  
  
• The Bottom Line: Feels like Joe Biden v2.0, to us. Competent, knows how to work the system, very boring, and there would be constant news stories about his age, particularly if he tripped over his tongue at a press conference or a debate.

Next week, it's #23, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA). If readers have comments about Khanna running for president in 2028, please send them to comments@electoral-vote.com.

250 Candles: It's Time to Determine the People's Choice

We are planning to do something useful and appropriate for the United States' 250th birthday. We think it should be something generally positive, but also a counterpoint to the rah-rah performative patriotism of the current presidential administration.

We asked for suggestions from readers, and we got a lot of good ones. That said, we need to make sure the idea is something we can execute upon, and something that can produce a month's worth of installments (roughly 20-25 of them). So, we've narrowed it down to these ten ideas:

1. Airing of Grievances: A close-up look at the 27 grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence.
   
   
2. 250 Years: Highlighting one lesser-known invention, event, battle, person born or other development for each year of the 250 years of U.S. history.
   
   
3. America Is Already Great: Readers write in with one thing that makes their neighborhood, town/city, county, or state great.
   
   
4. National Statuary Gallery: Reimagining the Capitol's National Statuary Gallery (2 statues for each state). Who would make the cut if we were picking?
   
   
5. Average Joes (and Jills): What did the life of the common man and woman look like in eras past?
   
   
6. Signers of the Declaration: A look at each of the fellows who signed the Declaration.
   
   
7. Documents in American History: Twenty-five documents that every student of U.S. history should know.
   
   
8. Lies Across America: Things about U.S. history that most people get wrong.
   
   
9. The Book of Lists: Twenty-five lists covering a wide range of historical, cultural, economic and political topics.
   
   
10. Rushmores: Who would be on the Mt. Rushmore of American musicians? Of American women? Of Supreme Court Justices? Of American Generals? Of civil rights activists?

We would like readers to register their views in two different ways; if you're up for doing so, the survey is here. Please get your votes in by Monday at 9:00 p.m. PT, because we need to start prepping. (Z)

Never Forget: Short Stories, Part IV

On Fridays, we do collections of shorter reminiscences:

E.B. in Freeport, ME: My Uncle Jack, born and raised in Oxford County, ME, served in the Army in the European Theater during World War II. I learned his story from his son, my cousin. He began his service in the Eighth Air Force, repairing the cameras used in reconnaissance photography. Important work with little risk of harm. However, when a buddy was slated for transfer to the infantry, Uncle Jack volunteered to take his place, since his buddy was married with children and he was not. He later described this as the stupidest decision he ever made. He ended up a corporal in George Patton's Third Army and saw action in the Battle of the Bulge after Patton famously rushed his troops to Bastogne in Belgium to relieve the surrounded 101st Airborne (some of whom apparently said that they didn't need the help!). Uncle Jack did not openly talk about combat, but some of his six children pieced together bits of that story, including that he once woke up in his foxhole with his feet frozen in ice, and later witnessed a buddy get his head blown off. He was also hit with a grazing wound in the buttocks but refused the Purple Heart since he had seen others suffer so much worse.

One story he was quite willing to talk about involved his actions after V-E day. He found himself in Paris and heard that the Glenn Miller Orchestra was looking for a stand-in drummer since their usual drummer wanted time off to spend with his wife who had arrived in the city. The Orchestra, sans its namesake leader—who was lost over the English Channel in December 1944 when his plane went missing—held auditions. Uncle Jack was chosen over two other drummers and played three gigs with the band in the ballroom of an opulent Parisian hotel, to large celebratory crowds. He more than held his own, and the full-time members showed their appreciation by giving him a standing ovation at the end of the show. Upon his return stateside, he likely could have been a professional drummer, but chose a remunerative profession instead so he could put food on the table for my six cousins. I knew him as a kind, soft-spoken man with an easy smile.

---

K.S. in Harrisburg, PA: I'd like to talk about a non-military person; my mother. Joan was born in England and was in her late teens during World War II. Her father was career army and when the "Yanks" came over, her father's job was to assist them in setting up their bases. This meant my mother's family lived near an American air base. When the Americans had dances, they would send a troop carrier into town to pick up the young ladies who wished to go to the dance. At the end of the evening, some of the Americans would take them into the pantry and send them back home loaded down with tins of food, making it more likely that the girls' severely rationed parents would be open to allowing their daughters to return. One of the airmen was my father and after several dates, he proposed and they were married on 1-23-45 (my father was an accountant and loved numbers).

Hearing these stories, I couldn't help but feel sorry for the British soldiers. They had been fighting for 3 years before the Americans joined the fray, suffered a major loss and near disaster at Dunkirk, and now had these Americans ("overpaid, oversexed, and over here") to deal with. My mother said even the American uniforms were a softer material; making snuggling during the slow dances more enjoyable.

Despite being close allies, not all of the Americans welcomed my mother with open arms. Many people knew a girl who had received a "Dear Jane" letter, due to the girl's intended falling in love with a British girl. My mother often heard, "So you stole one of our boys" said only half-jokingly. Joan, who had raised 5 children, 4 of them being boys, would reply, "Yes, but I gave back 4 in return."

---

F.L. in Federal Way, WA: I'm an American man who married a Russian woman in 1993. She had a delightful 10-year-old in tow. Two years later, just before we had our own daughter, her parents immigrated to the U.S. as refugees; Aaron was Jewish and an absolute gem of a man. I'll spare you what Russians say about their mothers-in-law, except to say that it's true.

The day after Germany declared war on Russia, Aaron had earned the equivalent of an MS in radio electronics. I was amazed to learn that he made a beeline to the recruitment office of the Red Army! Surely, a Jew would be sent to the eastern front as cannon fodder, and would be first in line to go over the proverbial top.

Yet, he was a good Jew and someone in the heavens recognized that. He was sent to the middle of Siberia for the rest of the war to work as a radar operator. He was more in danger of dying from the cold than a bullet. Despite being a Jew, he was also very popular, not only because he was a nice guy, but because he was a teetotaler. Soldiers were given the "Commissar's Ration" of 90cc of vodka per day. Aaron gave his share to his friends, asking nothing in return except, perhaps, the name of that tubby little Пухляш (Pukhlyash) in the corner.

He served 27 years and became a lieutenant colonel. They had four children, one being the woman who became my wife. It was a tempestuous marriage, but we separated amicably and I now live with my daughter, who is a quarter Ashkenazi.

---

L.C. in Amherst, MA: My grandfather was a 23-year-old bank teller when the U.S. entered the First World War. When he showed up at the recruiting center, it was mobbed. There were just two people trying to process at least a hundred men, almost all of whom were relatively uneducated country boys. The recruiting sergeant stood up and shouted, "Anybody in here read and write?" My grandfather raised his hand. The recruiting sergeant said, "You. You're a corporal. Come here."

My grandfather didn't go overseas. He served as a clerk in a military hospital in Georgia. He told me that young men came in sick with the measles and died like flies.

---

L.V.A. in Idaho Falls, ID: Growing up, I was often regaled by my father's tales of his and his older brother's roles in World War II. Now, bear in mind, that my father was a storyteller who often took embellishment to a new level, but based on what I've heard from other relatives, I hope I was able to "sort the wheat from the chaff."

My uncle Alfred, known as "Jack" and born in 1917, was a Navy Seal (prior to 1962 and during the War they were Scouts and Raiders and Underwater Demolition Teams that pioneered beach reconnaissance, obstacle clearing, and combat swimming). He was in the Pacific during World War II and much of his (dangerous) mission was to clear beaches and underwater approaches to beaches of explosives (before the wider use of SCUBA gear) the night before the landing occurred. Despite what movies portray, many times Marines had to wade ashore from the landing craft. On at least one occasion, they were told to clear the wrong beach. The subsequent landing was costly. My uncle received a Silver Star for his actions, which I've seen and had a profound effect on me as a teenager. He lived out his life in Long Beach with his wife Edythe and passed away in 1995.

Thanks to all of you. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Bruce Almighty Is Jim Carrey's Biggest Blockbuster

We had two hints last week. The first was: "the solution is a real E. Nygma." The second was: "It's SMOOOOOOOOOOOKIN!"

And here is the solution, courtesy of reader B.B. in Avon, CT:

The theme is Jim Carrey roles.

• The Iran War: Donald Trump Did Not Ace This Test—Ace Ventura, Pet Detective
• In Congress, Part I: The President Is a Real Scrooge—Scrooge in A Christmas Carol
• In Congress, Part II: House Democrats Continue to Chip Away at GOP's Grip on Power—Ernie "Chip" Douglas, a.k.a. The Cable Guy
• Political Bytes: From Harry S. Truman to Barack Obama—Truman in The Truman Show
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Trout Mask Replica—The Mask
• This Week in Schadenfreude: Death to Algae!—Death in High Strung
• This Week in Freudenfreude: I Am the Eggman—Ivo Robotnik (Dr. Eggman) in Sonic the Hedgehog

The hint mentions E. Nygma, also known as The Riddler, another Jim Carrey character, in Batman Forever.

Thanks for an early Christmas present!

Precisely. "It's SMOOOOOOOOOOOKIN!" is a famous line from The Mask, and Bruce, from this item's headline, is the character Carrey played in Bruce Almighty (also from this item's headline).

Here are the first 60 readers to get it right:

M.B. in Albany, NY M.T. in Simpsonville, SC E.M. in Jersey City, NJ M.M. in Dunellen, NJ J.W. in Victoria, BC, Canada P.S. in Atlanta, GA C.W. in Atlantic Beach, FL M.M. in Dunellen, NJ N.H. in London, England, UK B.R. in Arlington, MA R.D. in Cheshire, CT P.R. in Havertown, PA S.K. in Ardmore, PA P.A. in Redwood City, CA M.S. in New York City, NY J.F. in Fayetteville, NC G.W. in Avon, CT R.N. in Cleveland, OH G.M.K. in Mishawaka, IN N.G. in Shrewsbury, MA T.M.M. in Odessa, MO J.R. in Austin, TX J.S. in Huntington Station, NY T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts S.S. in Lauderhill, FL M.U. in Seattle, WA A.C. in Kingston, MA M.S. in Canton, NY T.F. in Minneapolis, MN R.E. in Birmingham, AL

M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO D.B. in Pittsboro, NC T.K. in Manchester, MO J.H. in Lake Forest, CA E.P. in Windham, CT P.Q. in Metuchen, NJ S.W. in Winter Garden, FL M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada J.M. in Silver Spring, MD S.I. in Minneapolis, MN B.M. in Chico, CA P.P. in Vero Beach, FL D.D. in Portland, OR D.C. in Portland, OR M.D. in San Nicolas, Aruba M.W. in Altea, Spain M.K. in Long Branch, NJ M.C. in Falls Church, VA C.F. in Miami, FL D.F. in Corcoran, MN D.H. in Portland, OR R.A.G. in Seattle, WA K.H. in Albuquerque, NM D.M. in Oakland, CA K.R. in Austin, TX J.C. in Kenosha, WI S.F. in Pemberton Borough, NJ A.J.C. in Williamsburg, VA B.G. in Houston, TX W.S. in Winter Springs, FL

The 60th correct response was received at 8:37 a.m. PT on Friday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word in some headlines and more than one word in others, it's in the category Wild Card. For a hint, we'll share that we really wanted to mention Darwin and Twain in a headline, but it just didn't work. Oh, and note that "6-3" and "Never Forget: Short Stories, Part IV" are not part of it. We don't want to make a game out of those subjects.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line June 26 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Next's Year's Pulitzer for Non-Fiction Is Already Locked Up

Rihanna Teixeira, like so many Americans, found herself with some credit card debt that proved difficult to conquer. She cast about for various ways to raise money, and eventually connected the fact that (1) she grew up in an evangelical household with the fact that (2) evangelicals love Donald Trump. So, she decided to write a book.

The book, which you can find for sale here, is entitled Scriptural Evidence That Trump Is Set Apart by God: Biblical Proof that Trump Will Save America. We were only able to review the sample of the book that is avaliable online, so it's probably best to share a few reviews from people who have been able to read the whole thing:

I'm a doctoral student, and I know firsthand how intense, difficult, and, honestly, grueling quality research and writing can be. Yet, this book centers such rigor. The author meticulously combs the pages of the ancient text, and thoughtfully synthesizes the all of the evidence proving why our dear leader is truly anointed for such a time as this. And to her credit, when the evidence isn't robust enough, it's clear that she refused to include it. This is true scholarship. This is sound science. This is what real faith looks like. Kudos!

---

One of the more thorough and factual books about scripture as it applies to modern times I have ever read (especially in reference to our God appointed president, Trump). So wonderful I insisted my coworkers also read it. They loved it too. Even the one that never reads thought it was a great and accurate book.

---

I DEVOURED this book. Could not put it down. The Bible is so clear on this topic, and the author definitely knows what she is talking about. I'm looking forward to reading more from her. 10/10 - no notes.

---

The only book I've read that actually cites every Bible verse that shows how [Trump] is set apart by God. A must read!

All of those reviewers gave the book five stars on Amazon.

That said, there are also some negative reviews. Here are a few of those:

Should be listed as a fantasy fiction read for cult members. I want my friends money back and my time back from just trying to read it objectively. I tried to see if I could get anything meaningful from it and that was a strong miss.

---

Actual bad writing on top of a delusional claim.

---

I am not sure if this author read the same scriptures that I grew up learning.

---

Terribly written and completely inaccurate.

These are all one-star reviews, of course. Indeed, at the moment, the book has only one review that is NOT either five stars or one star.

We are rather skeptical that the negative reviewers read the book carefully. In fact, we are skeptical they read it at all. That is because, as many readers will have guessed by now, the book is blank.

So, that's the hypocrisy of (some) evangelicals, and Trump with his carefully cultivated god-image, that are being skewered. And, as a bonus, AI takes a beating, too. Its summary of the Amazon reviews is: "Customers find the book enlightening and well-researched, with one review noting how it thoughtfully synthesizes all the evidence." It would seem that Alexa (Amazon's AI bot) is not endowed with a sense of humor, or irony.

Oh, and while doing all of this skewering, Teixeira managed to bring in enough money to cover her credit card debts. One wonders how well she'll do when Christmas rolls around, and people need stocking stuffers. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Clearly, Harald zur Hausen Deserved His Nobel

Harald zur Hausen, for those readers who do not recognize the name, is the scientist most responsible for the discovery that cervical cancer is caused by human papilloma virus (HPV). He shared the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine with Luc Montagnier and Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, who were responsible for conclusively connecting HIV with AIDS.

Zur Hausen died in 2023, and so did not live to read a new paper published in The Lancet that would undoubtedly have delighted him, as it makes clear that his work has realized its full potential. His research led to the development of the HPV vaccine, which is now almost universally administered in vaccine-friendly countries. In the U.K., 90% of girls ages 12-13 were given the vaccine when it became available a little over 10 years ago. And from 2020-24, a period of 5 years, the number of deaths from cervical cancer, in that cohort, was... zero. Among older British women, there are also substantial drops, depending on the age of the women and the prevalence of the vaccine.

The U.S. politics angle here is presumably obvious. "Health" and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy has called the HPV vaccine "dangerous and defective," and during his confirmation hearing he refused to say the vaccine is safe. He, and some of the people around him, want to keep the vaccine from being administered. On the other hand, the professionals in his department—you know, the ones who are doctors, as opposed to being lawyers—are working hard on the federal government's stated goal of getting 80% of U.S, adolescents vaccinated against HPV by 2030. And their efforts are being supplemented by blue states which, by and large, are the ones with the big populations. So, there's reason to hope that some young lives can be saved on this side of the pond, despite the quackery of Kennedy and his ilk. (Z)

---

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