Happy Easter!

Sunday Mailbag

This week, (Z) raised the question of whether Pete Hegseth, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir are really all that different, other than they profess different Abrahamic religions. That produced quite the response.

We think this is a very useful question to examine, relevant to both domestic politics and foreign affairs. And we want to do justice to the responses we received. So, we're going to hold them for the regular week. Hope readers like reader-driven content, because we also have the No Kings 3 reports to get to, and a couple of other items that will also be reader-driven.

Politics: This Week in TrumpWorld

J.Y. in Pinellas Park, FL, writes: Regarding the "missing" Trump press conference video, Forbes and Trump Watch have both posted videos of the full press conference:

(V) & (Z) respond: Thanks to all the readers who sent in links to the full video. We also went back and added the link to that day's posting.

---

J.K. in Portland, OR, writes: You wrote, "A Republican president can read The New York Times and a Democratic president can read The Wall Street Journal. There they will find plenty of non-bubbly voices." I wish that were still true. The voices of the NYT (as well as The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times) have succumbed; the NYT has been mostly speechless for over a decade after its conversion to grovel in front of the altar of False Equivalence. These days, one has to go to The Guardian or subscribe to Heather Cox Richardson, Paul Krugman, or JV Last to read (near) daily bubble-busters.

---

E.F. in Baltimore, MD, writes: What's Trump going to do with the $300M he's got socked away in his PAC? Why, keep it in his sock, of course. The nearest he'll come to giving any of it to candidates he supports is letting their campaigns tap into it to purchase goods and services... from Trump! They'll pay him to hold fundraisers and campaign events at his properties. They'll rent his mailing lists. They'll buy Trump-branded merchandise to give away to their supporters. They'll hire his wife and kids as campaign consultants. There's a million ways to divert PAC money into his pocket, and he'll use every one of them. Or maybe he'll just take it. Who's going to stop him?

That's HIS money, dammit! He'd be a fool to give it away!

---

W.D. in Fort Worth, TX, writes: In "Supreme Court Hears Case on Birthright Citizenship," you wrote: "On Trump's attendance today, our take is that it looks an awful lot like an attempt to intimidate the Court."

I would have agreed with that statement... but only if Trump had stayed for the entire hearing. According to reports, Trump only attended D. John Sauer's argument and then immediately left. If these reports are accurate then this looks much more like an attempt to intimidate the Solicitor General of the United States. Why would Trump do this? I can only speculate, but perhaps it came to Trump's attention that his Duke, Oxford, Notre Dame and Harvard-educated Solicitor General, despite his partisan bonafides, might not be quite as much of a firebrand during oral arguments as the basest elements of MAGA would like him to be. Or maybe Laura Loomer decided that Sauer was insufficiently loyal and said something. Or maybe Venus was in the second house of Saturn. Who really knows how Trump's mind works, but the timing suggests intimidation of SGOTUS rather than intimidation of SCOTUS. Plus, any attempt to intimidate the four justices whose opinions are actually up for grabs would almost certainly backfire. At least that's what I think!

---

M.D.H. in Coralville, IA, writes: The logical location for the Trump Presidential Library is Elizabeth, NJ, between the Jersey Turnpike and the oil refinery. That would perfectly match Trump's enthusiasm for fossil fuels, and the chemical stench from the highway and refinery would complement the moral stench of Trump's Presidency.

And thousands of drivers would have the chance to give appropriate salutes (in NJ, mostly of the one-finger variety) as they pass by each day.

---

A.B. in Torrington, CT, writes: I just wanted to point out two obvious things with the "mega skyscraper" supposedly going up in Miami as the Trump Presidential Library.

First off, the obvious. What season is it in Florida from June 1 to November 30? And what was that retired hurricane's name, the one that calls to mind a certain prosecuted pedophile? Where did that hit, again?

And secondly, the perhaps not-so-obvious lurking under the surface. The reason skyscrapers work so well in New York City is because the bedrock is called Manhattan schist, a very durable rock. The reason skyscrapers don't work so well in Florida, particularly Miami, is because the bedrock is Miami limestone, which is soft, porous and prone to erosion from acidic water. When heavy things are built on weak foundations, that's how sinkholes happen.

Now, this is just my own knowledge of things from 10th-grade earth science, so I'm not coming at this from an expert level. But I don't expect the Trump team to take any of these problems into account. I suspect they'll bribe their way out of a geological survey, use the cheapest materials and labor, and do anything to get that gaudy monument up as fast as possible.

How poetic would it be for the lasting testament to this president to be flushed down a sinkhole and returned to the hell which spawned it?

---

S.L. in Ocala, FL, writes: Trump wants badly to have his likeness on currency or coins. I think his face should be put on the penny. They aren't making it any more and DJT doesn't have any sense anyway.

---

V.L.B. in Chicago, IL, writes: I have been following you for some time now. I think my observation is accurate, that as a rule, this has been a civilized blog. But I am concerned that, particularly this year, scatological terms and mentions of genitalia have been sneaking into the text. Case in point: This week's description of what motivates Trump included his "penis."

I get it, Trump has lowered the political discussion and rhetoric to this level, but for heaven's sake, do we have to take the bait?

I will continue to use your blog for information on politics and current events.

But NSFW matters to me, and while your commentary is almost always factual and accurate, these stray remarks make it very difficult for me to forward this stuff to people I think that need it.

Kind of like the same thing for Colbert, Jon Stewart, Seth Meyers, even Jimmy Kimmel: With MSM always giving Trump and Republicans a "pass," there's no other choice but to turn to the late night hosts for commentary on the news. But again, these are late night programs, and scatological humor is often mixed in, again, making it difficult to share balanced reporting on the news to folks who need it.

What do you think?

(V) & (Z) respond: We choose our words carefully, and do not go for cheap shots or shock value. There is no question that Trump makes some decisions based on his libido. For example, his preference for attractive blondes as staffers and endorsees.

---

A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: Trump's 0.047 BA?

Fake news!

His batting average was 7,000% higher than anyone who ever played baseball.

He didn't just bat 1.000. That's what losers bat. He batted 1,000,000.000!

He struck out 953% fewer times than Lou Gehrig.

He hit 788 home runs before the first inning of his first game was over, more than anyone else ever, that's what they tell him.

Each home run was longer than the longest home run ever, 1,000,000 feet farther than center field at the Polo Grounds, that's what people are saying.

And the home runs were all off pitchers who were throwing 500 miles per hour—really, that's what they say.

Politics: The Trump Cabinet

R.H.D. in Webster, NY, writes: Kristi Noem is gone. Pam Bondi is gone. Others will likely be gone soon. But no matter who gets the ax and who replaces them, they will still be a part of Donald Trump's odious Cabinet, which has no regard for the law or human decency. They also know who they have to answer to, at all times, everything else be damned. This is The Apprentice in real life.

While we can blame members of the executive branch for what's going on now, part of the blame needs to fall on the Senate. For they had to confirm all of these people, knowing damn well they weren't qualified. Some of them are up for election this year. I hope their voters are paying attention and will give them the pink slip, just like Noem and Bondi.

---

E.M. in Milwaukee, WI, writes: I'm writing about the week's most trivial story: The outing of Bryon Noem as a not-very-elegant participant in online 'bimbofication." I'll try to be brief.

First, I'm sorry for Mr. Noem. His pastime makes for titillating headlines and does suggest a certain hypocrisy, but really, he never claimed to be a saint and is just a 50-something guy doing something harmless that meets a deeper need in him. I've met many different kinds of people in my life and I am convinced that many, many people have social or sexual "freaks" that don't necessarily fit well with their politics, religion, or social milieu.

Second, is it really surprising that the middle-aged husband of Kristi Noem might be seeking solace somewhere odd. After all, his clean-cut South Dakota beauty queen had remade herself into a character on a Real Housewives show, complete with private jet, big hair, lip fillers and not-so-secret lover.

Third, the party of family values will never be able to shed itself of hypocrisy because it's not capable of admitting that people who are complicated and odd or flawed are merely human.

---

S.G. in Newark, NJ, writes: To your list of the destruction wrought by "Attorney General" Pam Bondi, you could add: Gutted the Environmental Unit. I don't have details on how many of the lawyers in DOJ's Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) were forced, pushed, or nudged out, but I know it is LOTS of them. At the very beginning of the current administration, career senior executives in the division were reassigned to do immigration work. Most of them retired.

ENRD, once considered one of the best places to work in the federal government, used to have probably the greatest collection of environmental law specialists in the world. Since the arrival of the former "Attorney General," literally thousands of person-years of experience have left it, including people with unique expertise in a range of sub-sub-specialties. Building that up again could take decades, even if the political will for it is found.

Of course, you don't need a bunch of environmental law enforcers in an administration that is doing all it can to make sure there is no environmental law to enforce. What's ironic, though, is that much of ENRD's task is to defend against lawsuits challenging aspects of the government's environmental policies. That's a hard job when it comes to this administration's policies, but pushing out the experts won't make it any easier. I guess that for some people it's more fun to destroy an institution than to, y'know, win cases.

---

J.E. in Akron, OH, writes: You noted that several 1/6 rioters are trying to cash in by suing the government for damages, calculating (probably correctly) that the current Department of "Justice" is unlikely to mount a vigorous defense.

The federal government can only be sued civilly if it has waived its sovereign immunity. I think the Democrats should introduce legislation making clear that sovereign immunity is NOT waived for any claims arising from the events of January 6, 2021. Yes, Donald Trump would veto it, but it would be a way to publicize the issue and force Republicans to go on record as to whether they find this looting of the treasury to be acceptable.

---

M.S. in Canton, NY, writes: With regard to Lobstergate, you wrote: "It's just more evidence that DOGE, and the other 'money saving' cuts are not really about budget austerity, they're about getting rid of things that Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Hegseth, etc. don't like, and then using belt-tightening as cover for their choices."

Unfortunately, it's always been like that under Republican administrations. In the early 1980s, Ronald Reagan appointed the Grace Commission, with a goal of rooting out waste and inefficiency in government spending. What was supposed to be a serious report from experts in the business world came back mostly as a wish list of cuts to domestic programs that wealthy conservatives don't like—things like spending on food and health care for poor people. Since then, the mantra "waste, fraud, and abuse" has always been just a cover for attacking spending that does not benefit the moneyed class.

---

D.C. in Portland, OR, writes: You wrote: "We could have sworn this administration was staunchly pro-military."

Hegseth and Trump are pro-projection of di**-swinging military power, but they have nothing but disdain for the soldiers themselves. "Losers" right? Particularly the dead ones.

Politics: The Iran War

A.A. in Branchport, NY, writes: Donald Trump's "Truth" this weekend, in which he threatened that "all Hell will reign (sic) down on them" if they do not open the Strait of Hormuz, concluded with 'Glory to God.' I'm sure Trump's cult has no problem with that, and are in fact praying to their God for success.

Lacking any other cogent reason for this war of choice, I think we're missing the true reason, hiding in plain sight.

This is a religious war started and prosecuted by Christian Nationalist fanatics in an effort to destroy a nation governed by Islamic fanatics.

God help us all.

Now I am going to read Twain's "The War Prayer" before turning in.

---

E.F. in Baltimore, MD, writes: Trump's pointless speech spiked the oil markets, crashed stock futures. Follow the money. Someone who knew what was coming placed the right bets beforehand.

---

M.S. in Hamden, CT, writes: A number of reasons have been proposed for the firing of Army Chief of Staff General Randy George. One that I haven't seen mentioned is that General George may have been unwilling to carry out an order to bomb civilian infrastructure in Iran. That theory would tie together Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's obsession with the reminder by Senators Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and others that soldiers are obligated to refuse to carry out illegal orders and Trump's multiple recent threats to go after Iran's electric grid. Such a refusal is clearly more likely to come from someone high up in the chain of command than, for instance, an individual bomber pilot. This theory may even be put to the test very soon, unless we're served another portion of TACOs.

---

L.T. in Vienna, Austria, writes: Looks like Iran's Parliamentary Speaker is using the Gavin Newsom model of making fun of the Dotard:

Not sure it's the right strategy with a madman at the other end, but c'est la vie!

---

T.C. in Danby, NY, writes: You wrote: "Should Trump decide he wants to withdraw from NATO, he would therefore have two options. The first is to file a lawsuit and try to get the Supreme Court to declare that limitation unconstitutional."

There is a third option, one that is consistent with actions we've seen many times during this president's term. You might call it malicious non-compliance. Withdraw all personnel representing the U.S. within NATO (including military forces), refuse to make payments, and so on. If necessary, delay the resolution of any lawsuits for years. Problem solved.

---

G.W. in Oxnard, CA, writes: I was going to ask if you thought there would be a memorial to the current Iran war, then it occurred to me that such a memorial has been proposed. It is called "Independence Arch" by supporters and "Arc de Trump" by others. I suppose the concept is for the structure to commemorate the military victories of the Trump administration, but if the Venezuela situation, Iran, Cuba, or whatever other military "excursions" go badly in the long run, then the structure will be a source of irony. The stunning lack of self-awareness of this administration may blind them to that irony. I'm sure it is too much to hope for to have a plaque mounted on the structure with the names of those Americans who died due to the "excursions."

Politics: Edsall, Democrats and Trans Americans

R.L.P. in Santa Cruz, CA, writes: I want to thank (Z) enormously, to put it mildly, for his take-down of the "Democrats are incompetent" slander, which is not only wrong but also fails even a modest plausibility test. The historical examples (Z) cites prove beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone claiming that Democrats are, on the whole, politically incompetent doesn't know sh** from Shinola. In the future I will point anyone who says Democrats are dunderheads to (Z)'s analysis debunking that claim. Thanks again, Z. Brilliant!

---

L.O.-R. in San Francisco, CA, writes: Thank you to B.C. in Forest Park, who said exactly what I wanted to say about trans-bashing, but said it better than I ever could have. Democratic leaders are generally quiet on the subject because they fear it, while Republicans amp it up as a wedge issue. It's all the exact same playbook as the equal marriage "debate" in 2004.

Polls have repeatedly shown that the public favors Democratic policy positions over Republicans on most issues, even on the specifics of economic policy. The Democrats' policy advantage has even extended to most immigration-related policy proposals over the past year. Voters just dislike the Democrats and don't vote on policy.

---

B.C. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: I think a discussion of the Edsall article based on political viewpoint sort of misses a more basic issue at play. The problem is not a matter of righty versus lefty, or status quo versus change, or even male versus female. The problem is a deeper, more fundamental aspect of the human condition: a worldview based on religion.

I started writing this (and struggling with what I wanted to say) just a day or so after the Edsall comments were posted on Electoral-Vote. Then, (Z) posted his query about whether all the despotic dirtbags around the world (including the ones in and associated with the White House) truly believe the tenets of their Abrahamic religion or were simply using it as a tool for their own ends.

I contend it does not matter. A feature of all the Abrahamic religions is their devotees declaring "Even though God—the only real authority in this matter—is not really present and has not issued a proclamation that my interpretation of scripture is the right one, I AM RIGHT AND ALL OF THOSE OTHER FAITHS ARE WRONG."

Break out a dictionary and you will find this is the very definition of "bigotry." So, if, for whatever reason, you ascribe to an Abrahamic faith, you are a bigot. And bigots like this are always nasty pieces of work because they feel free to persecute others over mere disagreement over issues which cannot be proven or disproven by fact, experience or scientific method.

I am not deluded into thinking that we shall ever be free of religion. I am hopeful that the more clear-thinking among us will eventually return to power and help mitigate the offenses of the present American government. Until then, we will all have to continue to suffer the abuses of especially despicable charlatans like Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland, and Donny Trump.

---

J.C. in Boston, MA, writes: I realize this topic has been thoroughly covered already on the site and as such I was debating about whether or not to even write in, but I feel that there is a big aspect of the Edsall piece that wasn't really addressed in either (V) or (Z)'s commentary, or very much in the reader comments apart from B.C. in Forest Park, and it's that Thomas Edsall's premise is just factually incorrect. Kamala Harris didn't run on any significant trans or LGBTQ+ policy, and voters didn't elect Trump because the dems were too trans-friendly.

I recall exactly one statement Harris made in the topic of trans rights during her 2024 campaign; it was in a Fox News interview with Bret Baier on the topic of gender-affirming medical care for trans prisoners. When asked if she would support taxpayer funded transition surgery for prisoners Harris said "I will follow the law, and it's a law that Donald Trump actually followed." This is hardly a strong affirmation. At best, you could read this as an inclination not to roll back any rights that have been achieved so far, and at worst you could read it as a deflection of trans rights support onto Trump—as in, he's the one that actually supports trans surgery for prisoners.

But even if she had been staunchly in favor of trans rights as Edsall implies, it still wouldn't make his case because the data show that trans rights are not a motivating issue for voters. Though many may oppose trans rights, or oppose specific things like trans women in women's sports, trans rights ranked #22 for voters in 2024, meaning it wasn't a high-priority issue for most people and few if any were voting because of it. There were many other issues that were significantly more pressing for voters during that election, and I daresay that for those who put opposition to trans rights at the top of that list were never going to vote for Harris anyway, even if she had been vehemently opposed to trans rights.

---

J.E. in West Hollywood, CA, writes: I agree completely with (Z)'s suggestion that the Democrats should avoid the issue of trans people in sports, not by running away from it, but by correctly placing it outside their jurisdiction. For years I have been saying that the proper response is "Sports organizations, including the IOC, have always set their own standards. Wrestling is not like golf is not like chess, and each sport's organizing body, not the Federal government, is uniquely suited to decide what is an unreasonable competitive advantage and how to regulate it." End of discussion.

---

A.J. in Baltimore, MD, writes: (Z)'s advice to the Democratic Party is to leave alone the wedge issue of trans people's rights. I think that's probably the correct approach to national politicians like presidential candidates, and people with moderate constituencies, but there's a whole lot of left-wing politicians, activists, and citizens who will, and should, keep discussing the issue.

My personal advice to those people is to focus on fairness and individual liberties. Stay away from trying to argue the scientific foundation for trans identity and hyperbolic doomsday "trans death camp" scenarios. Everyone who can be convinced as to the former is already convinced, and as to the latter, it gives prejudiced people the ability to say, "Well, I don't want to send trans people to death camps. I just want people to use the right bathrooms. I must be one of the good ones."

A lot of Americans are taken in by this wedge issue, likely because they just think trans people are weird. There's no need to try to convince them otherwise. The bigger point is there's no rational reason to pass laws against weirdness. Lots of weird things are going on in America and they're perfectly legal. Support Americans' right to be weird.

The coercive power of government should not be used to restrict people from doing things that don't actually hurt others. Republicans are theoretically supposed to be the party of small government and freedom, so why are they so focused on restricting trans people's ability to get the treatment they want and use the bathrooms they want?

Public opinion of gay marriage shifted dramatically between 2004 and 2015. It wasn't because of arguing to Americans that they should approve of homosexuality. It was because of arguments like "love is love." You don't have to approve of what someone's doing to think that people deserve to be treated equally and respectfully.

---

D.H. in Boston, MA, writes: I think there's a larger issue around the Thomas Edsall piece about Democrats and trans rights, which is a phenomenon being called "reactionary centrism." It's similar to when news articles try to present both sides of an issue, even when one side clearly has better arguments. But reactionary centrism is more a phenomenon with opinion writers. A common pattern is for a writer to acknowledge that there are problems with Republicans, but then spend most of their piece criticizing Democrats for something. David Roberts recently did a great podcast on the subject with Michael Hobbes.

It's a long episode but very funny in places, including the opener, where David asks, "What do you know about reactionary centrism?" and Michael replies, "All I know is that whatever it is, both sides are to blame for it." They discuss some common themes they see in reactionary centrism. One is, "Democrats are about to become authoritarian, and Republicans are about to stop being authoritarian." Another is adherence to Murc's Law, treating only Democrats as having agency, while everything Republicans do is a reaction to what Democrats do.

They talk about writers who publish reactionary centrist pieces, including David Brooks, Ezra Klein, Noah Smith and many writers at the Atlantic Monthly. I think the Edsall piece fits this template too. This is not to say that everything these writers publish is reactionary centrist, and some of what they write is quite good. But once you have a sense for articles that exhibit reactionary centrism, it's hard not to see it in a lot of places. I now tend to discount arguments I see that are written in that style.

---

J.H. in Grays Harbor County, WA, writes: In the recent comments on the Edsall piece, (Z) remarked that as a historian, he teaches "students to think critically about what weaknesses or biases might be inherent to any particular document or any particular author/creator."

I matriculated at an engineering and science college and in my freshman year was taking my required American History course (now, I've always loved history, so it was a joy, not a chore). My professor (who had attended college during the "Roaring '20s") introduced his approach to history, presenting his reasoning why he had chosen our textbook (which presented only "original sources" of numerous documents, such as Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation). He advised us to always go to the original sources, not someone's interpretation. That stuck with me throughout my career, and even in retirement I want to seek the original or root source. I've made experiments using the Internet, a wonderful resource if used correctly, a "rabbit hole" when misused.

It is possible, depending upon how a search is framed, to end up with screens full of "words" which will support either view on a subject with seemingly profound and absolute rationale "truth based" sources. For example, coffee is wonderful (the sponsoring study funded by the coffee industry); coffee is bad (funded by an environmental group wanting to limit the impact of coffee growing, or a group advocating better payments for farmers); sponsors usually are hard to identify and if so, in small print. Sources and sponsors really do matter, and finding information independent of bias is challenging. I used, and still use, that principle throughout my career when embarking on new studies/research in order to do my tasks. Today, with so much information at one's fingertips, it is actually harder than in the past, when one would go to the library and be guided by a professional librarian who could aid in curating the information, separating the "value" from the chaff. I learned lots of good practices and gained lots of knowledge in college, but that was likely the most profound and fundamental single snippet I learned (and embodied).

---

J.N. in Columbus, OH, WA, writes: D.E. in Lancaster's response to the Edsall piece. is definitely one of the top 10 letters any of the readers has ever sent in. D.E. really spells it out and doesn't warm it over for the press(titutes).

Politics: Elections

T.K. in Boston, MA, writes: Put me down as looking forward to Rand Paul running for president, on the Libertarian Party ticket. IMHO, It would be the most patriotic act by a politician in many years. As the Libertarian Party candidate, he would be guaranteed ballot access in many states, and, with the right combination of his name recognition and disaffected Republicans, he could poll high enough to qualify for the presidential debates. This would split the right-wing vote, making it more likely that a Democrat would win. Just ask Bill Clinton.

---

S.M. in Pratt, KS, writes: Regarding "Democrats Need to Start Working on 2032--Now," I think your fourth paragraph requires a far greater amount of nuance.

Readers should take a look at the maps from the Census Bureau that show increase/decrease of population by county from 2010 to 2020. While no one can predict the future, it is reasonable to expect the trends of that census to continue mostly intact. What the heat maps from that census show is that urban areas increased in population and rural areas decreased, regardless of whether you are in a red or blue state. So that means that when a congressional seat leaves New York, California or Illinois and goes to Texas, Florida, Arizona or Georgia, it is leaving a rural area and going to an urban area.

While Republican gerrymandering is still a thing, it requires a pool of Republican voters for Democratic voters to be diffused into. Texas had over a hundred rural counties lose population last census, and it won't be better this time. At some point in time, there simply aren't enough rural voters to overcome the urban/suburban population, and the districts will have to reflect this. Otherwise, the districts will simply become dummymanders.

Democrats just need to take care of business when they get back in charge, and the districts will mostly sort themselves out.

---

S.C-M. in Scottsdale, AZ, writes: Interesting post and analysis. However, you assume the demographics of each state are static. As a resident of Arizona, since 2000, I have seen this state move from red to purple. Who can say other states might not move in a similar way? After all Colorado used to be reliably red and is now a blue state.

I agree that gerrymandering is a big problem and needs to be outlawed. Gerrymandering is very unpopular. I heard an interesting story from my LDS niece about the efforts of LDS women to keep the Republican legislature from carving up Salt Lake City into 4 districts to prevent that urban island from electing a Democrat to Congress. My niece leans Republican as do most LDS Church members, but even some of them hate gerrymandering.

---

R.C. in Winter Haven, FL, writes: While (V)'s analysis of the XO to restrict absentee voting hits on number of excellent points, I think it misses a fundamental element of the USPS's mission: protecting the sanctity of the mail.

I'm a retired postal employee who has worked in both management and craft, delivering mail for over 22 years.

When I was first hired by the USPS, the standards were stringent and hiring was a complex and lengthy process, often taking years from the time you made "the list" to when you were actually hired.

Once you started training, the most important element of delivering the mail you learned was protecting the sanctity of the mail. We were trained that stealing, delaying or destroying the mail could result in termination and/or criminal prosecution.

President Trump's XO pours oil on a slippery slope and ignores several elements relating to the sanctity of the mail:

1. The sender is paying for delivery—they're the "customer." Once postage is paid that item is protected from search and seizure by the Fourth Amendment.
   
   
2. Delaying delivery can result in termination/prosecution.
   
   
3. Once an item enters the mail stream it can only be removed by the Postal Inspectors, and then only to investigate federal crimes like theft, fraud, and trafficking of prohibited items.

The USPS has consistently been one of the most trusted government agencies. The reason for that is not playing favorites when it comes to delivering the mail.

The President's XO will put all levels of employees at risk of losing their jobs because the level that implements it will be responsible for violating the sanctity of the mail and potentially subject to penalties.

Politics: The Chinese Hegemony?

B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: P.S. in Plano wrote: "The Rhodium Group's depressing analyses make me fear that China lacks the will to prevent itself from continuing down the U.S.S.R.'s path."

I would offer that one of the quickest and best ways to misunderstand China is to view it through the lens of the Soviet Union. Any military, political, economic, social or intellectual comparison will likely be a shortcut to a false view. And I'm seeing this in more and more places. Whenever a conservative politician or opinionator refers to China, he inevitably emphasizes "COMMUNIST China," as if that somehow clarifies the situation or conveys meaningful information. Today's China is the end result of thousands of years of cultural development. China is complex. A simplistic Cold War mentality will not explain it.

First, in any contact with China-watchers, you will encounter the idea that from the outside, the situation inside China always looks hopeless, with problems so big it must be teetering on the edge of disaster. But inside China... not so much so. It is a very old culture and it plays a very long game. Second, it would be just as easy for a writer from a Chinese think tank to show the economic weaknesses of the U.S. economy and argue persuasively that the current government cannot address those issues and the U.S. is teetering on the brink of (another) collapse. Third, since 1979, and possibly even before, China has not been following the path of the U.S.S.R.

The Chinese Communist Party began deviating from the Soviet model in late 1934/early 1935 during the Long March, and it was Mao himself who rejected Soviet doctrine (in this instance, on warfare). After the CCP took power, Stalin's snub of Mao in 1950 made Sino-Soviet relations frosty and created a rift that did not heal (which Richard Nixon realized and exploited). In the 1950s/early '60s, China's application of Soviet-style 5-year economic plans helped contribute to economic disaster.

In the late 1970s, in the wake of those experiences, Mao's successor, Deng Xiaoping, launched a policy of "building socialism with Chinese characteristics." This meant capitalism. Communist China is one of the world's greatest and most successful capitalist nations. In the early 1980s, the U.S.S.R. was buying grain from the United States; when you have to buy food from your greatest enemy, your economy is failing. The collapse of the Soviet Union confirmed that Deng had made the correct choice in rejecting Marxist-Leninist doctrine and pursuing a capitalist economy.

When people talk about capitalism, they tend to mean either American capitalism, or an idealized version of capitalism, but beginning from (at least) the European Renaissance, capitalism has taken many forms, and has had many different relationships with governments of various kinds. Commentators confidently predicted in the 1980s and '90s that pursuing capitalism would lead to the growth of democracy in China. It didn't. Chinese capitalism has "Chinese characteristics."

Russia has had a long history of bad authoritarian government. China has a very different history, having experienced eras of civil war, warlordism, and warring states dating back over 2,000 years. China has always been better off under a powerful, centralized government, and everyone [in China] knows that. When the CCP took over, China was a nation of peasant farmers using hand tools. Under the leadership of the CCP, China has seen in 50-75 years the economic development that took Europe over 500-600 years.

I am not defending, explaining, or idealizing China or its government. I am saying it has had a different history and can only be understood on its own terms, and not by reference to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union never created a viable economy. When the U.S.S.R. collapsed, people said "good riddance" (and rushed to secure the nuclear weapons).

Go into a Walmart store and find a product not made in China. Where was your computer made? Your mobile phone? China has one of the top economies in the world, and the other great economies are dependent upon and interwoven with China's. If China's economy collapsed, so would the world's (as did the world's when the U.S. economy collapsed in 1929-33).

China's foreign policy experience also differs significantly from that of European (including U.S.) powers-plus-Japan in being hegemonic rather than imperialistic. In the 19th and 20th centuries, China was the victim of imperialistic designs or actions of many different great powers, in the Opium Wars, the Boxer Uprising, the Second World War. On the other hand, China has thousands of years of hegemonic experience dominating neighboring states, and in dealing with "inner barbarians" (i.e., Mongolians) and "outer barbarians" (i.e. Europeans) and their invasions. They have a different frame for understanding the world.

In the U.S. since 1941, we tend to view all enemies as bent on World Domination. China's central political problem has always been ruling 25% (now 20%) of the world's population. China's government is bent on securing a future for their people and country. What that will mean is anyone's guess, but probably not the European model of imperialism, which was not effective or efficient.

I don't see anyone outside of academia trying to explain these things to Americans. I hope that in responding to P.S.'s post I haven't seemed dismissive or disrespectful. I saw an opportunity to clarify the issue. And every week I am grateful for my fellow Electoral-Vote.com readers and the discussion they create.

Politics: Flying

S.G. in Newark, NJ, writes: Last weekend, I flew round trip between Newark Liberty International Airport and Piedmont Triad International Airport (Greensboro/Winton-Salem/High Point). Heeding warnings, I arrived at EWR at 6 a.m. for a 9 a.m. flight. The terminal was crowded but very calm. At one point, a pack of ICE agents in brown and camo uniforms with big sidearms sauntered by. They didn't seem to be doing anything except looking scary and bored. All the security screening was being performed by uniformed TSA agents. They were as courteous and professional as always. The line looked long but people were getting through in about 45 minutes.

On my return flight from tiny GSO, there were about five TSA agents at the checkpoint I passed through (one of two in the terminal). They, too, were courteous and professional. There was no line at the checkpoint. No sign of ICE in Greensboro, perhaps because it was quite warm there.

When I landed in Newark, another pack of similarly-clad ICE agents walked past me and out the terminal door. Once at the roadway—chaotic as it always is—at least one of the agents began directing traffic. He made a very good traffic cop. One airline employee told me it made her nervous to have ICE around.

And that's one person's experience. Flying was pretty much the way flying has been (45 minutes at Newark is not so out-of-the-ordinary). The thanks is due to a bunch of federal employees working without pay. As a former federal employee who lived through government shutdowns, I made a point of thanking every TSA agent I encountered for being there. It's not much, but it was what I could do. Only one agent said "you're welcome."

---

J.F. in Toronto, ON, Canada, writes: FYI to travelers: We flew back to Toronto (phew!) from Philly last week. AI told us that TSA pre-check would only take 3-10 minutes. It was just shy of an hour in the pre-check line. There's something called "Touchless pre-check," and that line never had more than one or two people. The ICE agents were very helpful—at least the two we interacted with.

Talkin' 'bout Baseball...

S.S. in Kansas City, MO, writes: As baseball has always been my favorite sport, and the first sport I began playing as a kid, I've devoted a lot of thought as to why the game used to be considered the "national pastime" but will likely never be again. I had never considered the national/regional aspect before and find that quite compelling. But I suspect there are two bigger problems nagging baseball—our shift from a rural to an urban society, and the nature of modern entertainment.

Since the connection to sport is developed in childhood, it is important to recognize that baseball might be the most difficult game for kids to play, and I do not mean just from a skills perspective. Baseball requires more infrastructure (and expense), particularly in urban environments. Basketball can be played one-on-one, with only a basket, a small patch of pavement and a ball. Similarly, soccer and football only require 6 or so kids and a typical empty parcel of flat ground. Hockey, of course, requires a bit more gear, but if you live where ice forms naturally, you don't need an indoor rink. However, baseball has to be played with a team of 9 (any less and you are just playing "chase the ball"), which necessitates organized leagues on a field with fences and backstops far from fragile home and car windows. While wide open space isn't hard to find in rural areas, it's a premium in most cities. The days of sandlot pickup games are long gone and there simply aren't enough of us small town kids left to keep baseball alive at the youth level. MLB has made efforts to support urban baseball but I wonder how well that is going.

The other, and probably greater, barrier to baseball regaining popularity with young people is the nature of the game itself (slow and methodical) and how young people now consume info-tainment (rapidly-paced and action packed). Basketball, football, hockey and even soccer all better match the rate of entertainment our visually-based, screen-addled culture is now hooked on. Any changes baseball could make to the game to address this will only be around the edges and are likely to have little effect.

I do not think that it is a coincidence that baseball's zenith and the advent of radio occurred at the same time. Baseball is particularly suited to radio because of the standardization of plays, unlike the other big sports which are nearly freeform. Anyone who has ever watched a baseball game can easily, and fairly accurately, visualize a "ground ball to second" or a "fly ball to deep center," but a "loose ball steal fast break layup" or a "rollout to the left, scramble, pass to the tight end over the middle"? Those could be anything! Anyone who has ever watched basketball on TV while listening to the radio broadcast knows that only about 1/3 of ball exchanges are even called by the announcers. Alas, and not coincidentally, radio seems to be on the same trajectory as baseball...

---

B.H. in Greenbelt, MD, writes: Reading your list of greatest MLB players reminded me of an incident about a year ago. I was reentering the U.S. from a foreign country. The Customs agent, who was very friendly (not always the case), noticed I was reading The Glory of Their Times by Lawrence Ritter. It is a fascinating book, published in 1966, consisting of interviews conducted in the early 1960's with players from the early 1900's. The Customs agent asked me who my favorite player was. My thoughts went to the book, and not current players. I remembered that several had said that the best player at the time of their interview was Willie Mays, and he had been a favorite of mine when I was a kid, so that was my answer. It didn't occur to me until later that since I was reentering the U.S. at SFO, Willie Mays was an astute political answer as well.

The Glory of Their Times is a great read for any baseball fan who can get a hold of it. I particularly noted that several pitchers lost their arms but later made it back to the majors as outfielders. One was Smokey Joe Wood, whom I had heard of only from the movie Field of Dreams. Wood's earliest pro baseball experience—and he was not alone in this—was playing in drag on a "woman's" team when he was only 16. Another great story was Goose Goslin. The introduction to that interview listed 14 players in the Hall of Fame whose best-known lifetime statistics were exceeded by Goslin. The first edition of the book, published in 1966, created such a stir that The Goose was elected to the HoF two years later by the Committee on Veterans. The second edition of the book reported this, along with the amazing story that Goslin was kicked out of his hotel the day of the ceremony. Apparently he didn't realize that his reservation ended that day, and the hotel called him to come clear out his room, as they had no vacancies that night.

---

S.D. in York, England, UK, writes: If the question is "best baseball players ever," and if MLB now treats Negro League performance as major-league performance, then I do think there has to be at least some room to weigh elite performance in other top-level leagues too. Not necessarily as a simple one-to-one equivalence, and not in some crude or automatic way. But it cannot just count for nothing, especially in Ichiro Suzuki's case, where it was effectively impossible for a Japanese star of his generation to come over to MLB at a young age.

Ichiro did not just arrive in MLB as some ordinary 27-year-old rookie. He arrived as a fully formed superstar. Indeed, he immediately won MVP and Rookie of the Year in his rookie MLB season. And that was not some one-off peak. That began 10 straight seasons of 200+ hits. Ten. Straight. Seasons. And during that same stretch, he won 10 straight Gold Gloves. Do you know how many players won 10 straight Gold Gloves to start their MLB careers? It's two. So what are we really saying here? From age 27 through 36, basically, he was giving us-fans the most elite bat-to-ball production in baseball, elite hit accumulation, elite baserunning, and elite right-field defence every single year. That is not just "very good" or "excellent". That's inner-circle absurd.

Oh, and at age 40, he still had a 100+ hit season.

Ichiro was a baseball robot. For a long time.

---

J.M. in Arvada, CO, writes: As a Mariners fan I didn't necessarily expect any of the Seattle greats to appear in the top 10. I was a little shocked though to see you name A-Rod as a potential top 10 candidate and not Ken Griffey Jr. or, particularly, Ichiro. I can understand not naming Junior due to the injury-riddled back half of his career and while I wouldn't say he changed the game ,I would say he certainly epitomized the 90's and 00's at a time where baseball was reinventing itself in some ways (and did it without ever even having a hint of steroid use allegations). Not mentioning Ichiro seems like a miss, though. Considered by some to be the all-time hits leader, a great defender, great arm and speed, and while he never really hit for power he showed he could. He was also the first real successful Japanese position player. Again, I'm not saying that makes him a top 10 player, but it seems like he should at least be on the list for consideration.

---

S.Y. in Skokie, IL, writes: Just read your ranking of all time baseball greats. I love this stuff. One correction, when Babe Ruth hit 57, 59, 60 homers in a season, in a couple of those years he out homered every major league team! You guys said he hit more homers than some teams.

In your discussion of great second basemen, there was no mention of Ryne Sandberg.

When Sandberg was a rookie in 1982, the Cubs had a guy at second (can't remember name) that they didn't want to bench. Sandberg played third base in his first year, before being moved to second base the rest of his career. Lou Boudreau was a Hall of Fame shortstop in his time and was on the Cubs radio broadcasts when Sandberg was a rookie. After watching Sandberg play a couple months, Boudreau said of him, "He has the softest hands I've ever seen." And Sandberg was also a great hitter. He annihilated the Cardinals in a huge pennant race game in 1984, when he hit 2 clutch home runs off of the great Bruce Sutter. St. Louis manager Whitey Herzog said of him, "That guy is a friggin Babe Ruth."

Sandberg was inducted into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. He died much too young recently and Chicago mourned; he was also a good human being who loved the Cubs fans and showed it.

---

L.E. in Putnam County, NY, writes: I am surprised that the best-baseball-players analysis had no mention whatsoever of ultimate-iron-man Cal Ripken Jr., though that stat merited mention in Gehrig's table entry.

---

R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: Further to the comment from M.S. in Canton, it should further be noted that Frank Robinson was also the second "Robinson" to break a color line: He was MLB's first Black manager with Cleveland in 1974. He managed for all or part of 16 seasons there and with San Francisco, Baltimore (where he won Manager of the Year in 1989), and Montreal/Washington.

---

M.L. in West Hartford, CT, writes: I'm curious where (Z) got his evidence that Babe Ruth did not have a good throwing arm. As (Z) notes, Ruth was an elite pitcher before becoming a full-time outfielder, which indicates that he probably threw with excellent velocity and accuracy for his era. There are more recent examples of players switching from pitching to another position, such as Rick Ankiel. This is usually done because the pitcher does not have the accuracy required to consistently throw strikes, but that level of accuracy is not required in the outfield. In Ankiel's case, he was always praised as an outfielder for having a strong throwing arm, with his past as a pitcher frequently mentioned as indicative of how good his arm was.

More direct evidence for Ruth's throwing arm comes from this LA Times article, published in 1990. Mark Koenig was a teammate of Ruth's in 1927, the season when Ruth hit his legendary 60 home runs. Koenig said that Ruth also spent the year unofficially competing with their teammate Bob Meusel for the title of best throwing arm in baseball. Koenig says that Ruth was "obsessed" with being the best. The piece includes the following quote from Koenig:

Everybody talks about the bat, but what an arm! Babe was one of the best. He threw hard, he threw accurate (sic). All his throws were so good. He hit 60 home runs and made 600 great throws. But our left fielder, Bob Meusel, had the best arm in baseball. He played the sun field in Yankee Stadium. Him and Babe went at it that whole year.

Although the interview took place over 40 years after Ruth's passing, Koenig said regarding his conclusion that Ruth was second-best to Meusel, "I wouldn't want Babe to know I said that."

---

J.S. in Hightstown, NJ, writes: You wrote that it is improbable that there are no Negro Leaguers in the 10 best players in the history of the Major Leagues. While you considered Josh Gibson who is probably the best hitter from the Negro Leagues, I think you also should have considered Satchel Paige, who is arguably the best pitcher from the Negro Leagues. Whether he's Top 10 all time in baseball can be debated, but I think he was at least worthy of being mentioned.

---

J.S. in Huntington Station, NY, writes: In the baseball gallimaufry, you mentioned that it's hard to compare pitchers and hitters. Arguably, it's hard to compare those who played different positions (e.g. shortstop vs. catcher). One way to deal with this is to consider the players who are considered the best at their positions/roles.

I believe that there is only one player who is universally considered the best of all time at his position/role, and that is Mariano Rivera, the greatest reliever. By that measure, he might even be considered the greatest baseball player of all time, yet he wasn't even mentioned in your analysis.

---

M.L. in West Hartford, CT, writes: I have three bones to pick with you regarding your list of the greatest baseball players of all time, and their names are Joe DiMaggio, Aaron Judge, and Adrian Beltré.

DiMaggio was universally considered one of the best players, if not the best player, in baseball throughout his career. There were few other players even in the discussion: Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx (and maybe Charlie Gehringer and Hank Greenberg) in the late 30s, and then Ted Williams and Stan Musial from 39 on. You pooh-poohed the idea that he would be worthy even after accounting for the three years he lost in his prime to military service, stating that this might only bring him up to 110 WAR, even though 110 WAR would equal Mantle's career total and would surpass seven players that you did include on your list. He won 3 MVPs and 7 World Series titles, and would've come within shouting distance of 3,000 hits if not for his military service. And he was a classic five-tool player. Seems like he hits all the criteria you outlined, but somehow doesn't make the list.

Aaron Judge is universally considered one of the best players in baseball today, if not the best. The only other possible choice is Shohei Ohtani; these two players are in a class of their own, and everyone else is at least one tier below. He's won 3 of the last 4 AL MVPs, and the other one was when he was hurt halfway through the year. He already ranks 11th all time among right fielders in WAR, a category he's lead all of baseball in 3 times. His three MVP seasons are three of the greatest offensive seasons ever produced; his best offensive season by WAR, 2024, was better than every season in MLB history except 3 by Ruth and 2 by Barry Bonds. He's a five-tool player; though some may question his run tool since he isn't the fastest player, I would argue that he is a very smart and effective base runner who has 65 career stolen bases and a 75% stolen base success rate to his name. A late start (his first full season wasn't until age 25) and injuries in his 20s have prevented him from compiling gaudy career totals, but if he can have a few more seasons like his past 4 seasons then he will put himself into elite company. If Trout and Ohtani are being included, then he should definitely be mentioned.

The most inexplicable inclusion was Adrian Beltré. A fine player, of course, and a Hall of Famer. But unworthy of mention among these luminaries. He only had one exceptional season before age 30. Not only did he not win an MVP, but he only made the top five twice. He won one pennant and zero World Series titles; his teams were 2-5 in 7 playoff series. He seems like a classic "compiler," someone who is not an elite player, but plays very well for a long time and builds career numbers that look more impressive than the player actually was. As a means of comparison, Beltré's WAR per 162 was 5.2; Judge's is 8.8. That's the difference between a very good player—even a Hall of Fame player—and one of the very best ever.

---

M.S. in Canton, NY, writes: You wrote: "DiMaggio was an exciting and popular player, but his career WAR was 79.1. Even if you assume he had three 10-WAR seasons instead of serving in the military (and his career high was 9.3 WAR), he would still be at 110 WAR or so. That's not enough to make the Top 20 in baseball history."

So at last we have an answer to the classic question, "Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?"

...and Chess

J.L. in Ridgewood, NJ, writes: B.Z. in Baltimore disagreed with your statement that "Protecting women is why sports teams are gendered in the first place." B.Z. says instead that women are "made to play apart" so that men don't risk losing to them.

As to one of B.Z.'s examples, chess, that's certainly incorrect. The vast majority of chess tournaments are not segregated by sex. Any man who enters a chess tournament must be prepared to lose to a woman. (I speak from experience here.)

In the top ranks of chess, there are many more men than women. Explaining that fact (nature-versus-nurture) is above my pay grade. But it's why, alongside the U.S. Chess Championship, in which Irina Krush has played, there's also a U.S. Women's Chess Championship. This gendered event is indeed, as you wrote, to protect women—to create a separate title that they can also shoot for.

---

J.C. in Oxford, England, UK, writes: B.Z. in Baltimore writes: "Sports are gendered because men can't deal with losing to women. There are many sports where women would be entirely safe competing with men, from rock climbing and running to chess, and yet they are still made to play apart. It is about men's egos, and little else."

This is a significant, though not unusual, misunderstanding of the chess situation. While there are women-only tournaments, there are no men-only tournaments (or, at least, no mainstream tournaments women are forbidden from entering if they wish).

Women have won open tournaments, and there are some very strong women chess players. Nonetheless, of the current Top 100 ranked chess players in the world, 100 are men. Of the top 100 in the USA, 97 are men. The highest-ranked woman player of all time, the exceptionally talented Judit Polgár (who rarely competed in women-only tournaments, and beat several male grandmasters, including former world champions), is nonetheless the 64th ranked player of all time. You get the idea.

The underlying reasons for this are varied, complicated and controversial. Assuming it is mainly down to some sort of biological variation in chess-playing ability would be hard to support with the evidence, and do a disservice to efforts to improve the experience of competitive chess for women and girls. But denying that the situation exists, and pretending women's tournaments exist simply "so that men don't lose," also does nobody any favors—particularly when it's used as an argument that abolishing women's tournaments would somehow be a progressive measure.

Gallimaufry

J.G. in Dallas, PA, writes: "Is Sinners really film noir?"

Hmm... That's a stumper!

Well, the male lead isn't a gumshoe... but the female lead is certainly a femme fatale.

I guess it all boils down to the most important question: How much does he regret the night that she walked through his door?

Considering she is a vampire, that should be a no-brainer. However, judging by the mid-credits scene, it really doesn't appear that way, does it?

Wait a sec! Have you even seen Sinners yet!?

In all seriousness, this is a great little topic. What is, or isn't, "film noir" is about as easy to fit into a mold as "postmodernism" or "meaning." I could probably write a very convincing 5,000 word essay on exactly why Sinners is such a great example of film noir, that it would have Roger Ebert vigorously nodding his approval.

That would all just be Fun With Words, though. In my heart of hearts, I could never classify Sinners as noir. There are plenty of dark, "noir" elements in the film, sure, but it's also oozing joy out of nearly every crevice. While I think the film is (just) a bit inconsistent with its tone and messaging, I feel at the end of the day, the filmmakers are really trying to express some optimism. At least that is my read of the end-credits scene. (Really, have you seen the movie yet?)

There is plenty of cynicism throughout, but when it finally fades to black, it ends on a hopeful note.

That is probably the least "noir" statement one could make about any film.

Just my two cents. Plus about three nickels extra.

---

L.H. in Chicago, IL, writes: You answered my question about Sam Malone and film noir with the speculation: "Now, it is possible that what you are really asking is "Is Sinners really film noir?"

I assure you no, at least not in the sense of turning my nose up at the description. It simply hadn't occurred to me to associate that film (which I have not seen) with that genre. The trailer that I've seen makes me think "horror" rather than "film noir." But now that you say it, it all makes sense.

On another note, as a former math major, I noted with interest your description of the golden ratio. As a nerd, I'd like to add to that description, not to contradict anything you said, but just to elaborate.

The ratio is indeed 1:1.618, but it is also true that it can be expressed as 1:0.618. That is, the short side can be 0.618 and the long side 1, or the short side can be 1 and the long side 1.618. If that looks meaningful, it is, in that the golden ratio solves the equation x+1 = 1/x. In words, 0.618 is such that its reciprocal is itself plus one.

There is an interesting coincidence that I believe I am the only person ever to notice. Back in the 70s, when road signs were posted in metric as well as miles, there was a road sign between my alma mater in Champaign, IL, and my home in Chicago which read: "Chicago 100 miles, 161 kilometers." Further north was another sign: "Chicago 62 miles, 100 kilometers." It made me realize that the ratio of 1 kilometer to 1 mile is very nearly the golden ratio, even though there is no reason it would have been designed that way intentionally. As the narrator in Kurt Vonnegut's "Hocus Pocus" said of such observations, "How much longer can I go on being an atheist?"

Final Words

L.L. in New York City, NY, writes: Last words of President Grover Cleveland: "I have tried so hard to do right."

If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.

---

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