Dem
51
GOP
49
One of those weeks with an unusually broad variety, we would say, even if the letters are subsumed under only 10 headings.
J.G. in Berkeley, CA, writes: In response to the letter from L.T. in Buffalo, I just wanted to make sure people know that you can order mifepristone and misoprostol ahead of time, just in case you need it in the future. AidAceess is one place you can do that.
M.N. in Lake Ann, MI, writes: I am a female who has had a sterilization procedure and is childfree. Like L.T. in Buffalo, I went from wanting several children to maybe only wanting one to questioning if kids were for me and finally to realizing that I was way better at caring for dachshunds than small humans. Be aware that there are already a lot of barriers around women getting sterilized, particularly if that woman has not already had children. For full disclosure, I had the procedure in a red state, but one that wasn't as red then as it is now. Before I could be "approved" for the procedure, I was required to sign numerous release forms, meet with a psychiatrist, sign more forms, meet with a psychologist, and wait 30 days after that. Even then, the (male) surgeon tried to talk me out of it on the day of surgery. Friends who have gone through the procedure after having kids but who were under the age of 40 when getting the surgery mentioned similar experiences, and one had to get permission from her husband. I have family and friends who have had vasectomies and they have not had to do any of this. I can't recommend or not recommend getting sterilized now, as that is an intensely personal decision, but I don't think L.T. is wrong to be concerned about the future landscape of women's health care. I do not think it is time to panic, but it is definitely time to pay attention and to vote like your life depends on it.
S.K. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Legality concerns aside, I'd suggest to L.T. in Buffalo that if she thinks she might ever want sterilization, she start looking now for a doctor who will do that, so she'll know where to go if and when she makes that decision. I understand some Planned Parenthood locations might perform the procedure. As a childless woman living in a blue city in a blue state, I could not find a doctor to do it for me. Not in my 20s, nor in my 30s. Us women can't possibly know what we want, you see. Good luck.
C.H. in Atlanta, GA, writes: As one of the three readers who attempted to provide more nuance to the anti-choice movement, I wanted to write in with my thoughts about L.T. 's concern about continued access to abortion, sterilization, and birth control services.
First of all, I want to say that I agree with the analysis and response from (V) and (Z). My anti-choice views extend only to its use as a post hoc form of birth control because of the destruction of a new life created. Elective sterilization and hormonal birth control, while explicitly forbidden by my faith tradition, are out of the bounds of what I believe is the proper purview of the government to regulate beyond ensuring they're safe. If there isn't the destruction of an actual human being at play; the government has no place getting involved.
I am aghast that the Supreme Court is even considering the ludicrous case on mifepristone. The question there is a moral question for legislatures to decide and a medical question for physicians to answer. The case in Texas concerning Kate Cox was also unbelievably cruel—no one should be forced to continue a pregnancy of a non-viable fetus. I hope that I gave nuance in my previous answers on this topic that abortion is a proper medical procedure when the pregnancy is likely to result in a fatal outcome for the child or that the mother's life is at significant risk. The anti-choice crowd is diverse and I think it's wrong to view all of us as a monolith.
I'll close with pointing out that I am and will continue to be a life-long Democrat. I knowingly vote for pro-choice candidates despite the moral implications of voluntarily choosing to end a human life because I believe the totality of a human's life should be supported by a robust social safety net. My vote is inaccessible to the very zealots that concern L.T. Their lip service to the anti-choice community is repugnant when they simultaneously advocate national bans on abortion while slashing funding for programs like WIC and SNAP—programs that supported my low-income and single-parent father while raising me and my sisters.
T.M.M. in Odessa, MO, writes: The key thing for pro-choice readers to remember about the mifepristone case is that Fifth Circuit (which is so far to the right that you can't see traditional conservatism from there) affirmed the even-further-right trial court on the FDA's relaxation of the regulations governing mifepristone, but reversed the trial court on the FDA's initial approval. The Supreme Court then took the appeal by the FDA and the manufacturer from the Fifth Circuit's ruling but declined to take the cross-appeal filed by Mrs. Senator Josh Hawley (Trumper-MO). So, the decision to take the case was actually a good thing from the pro-choice position.
It would have been better to have gotten a summary reversal but the case does involve some significant issues about administrative procedure and the FDA. Given the conservative majority, there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court will strike down the Fifth Circuit's ruling, but there is hope that the only slightly nutty conservatives on the court will realize how bad a ruling for those wanting to ban mifepristone would be for a variety of reasons (some legal, some business-related, and some political) and that one of them will join the Chief Justice, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson in reversing the Fifth Circuit.
R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: There is another important point to be made about the mifepristone case that SCOTUS just agreed to hear. First of all, I'm not a lawyer. Most of what I know and understand comes from the Strict Scrutiny podcast. Kate Shaw, Melissa Murray, and Leah Litman are law professors who do an excellent job of explaining the law (with a focus on SCOTUS) to us non-lawyers.
More and more, the Roberts court has been taking cases based on hypotheticals. The notion of standing (that there must be an injured party in order for there to be a case) has been thrown out the window. In last year's 303 Creative case, they ruled in favor of a website designer who might, hypothetically, be asked by a customer to design a wedding website for a same-sex couple. What is notable here is that the owner of 303 Creative didn't even design wedding websites at the time of the initial challenge to Colorado law. No same-sex couple had approached her asking for her services. This was a completely made-up, potential injury. There was no victim. All agreed-upon definitions of standing indicate that this plaintiff had none. Yet SCOTUS took up the case anyway and ruled in her favor.
In the mifepristone case, a group of doctors, calling themselves The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, sued the FDA in, as you noted, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's court based on the notion that a hypothetical woman might have a hypothetical pregnancy in which she hypothetically obtains mifepristone and hypothetically becomes ill from taking the medicine. Then she might hypothetically go to the emergency room in which one of these doctors might hypothetically be compelled to perform an abortion. Again, there is no victim here and no damage. This case is entirely hypothetical. There was no pregnant woman seeking to end her pregnancy with mifepristone. There was no ER visit. None of these doctors was compelled to perform an abortion. No normal court would have heard this case.
This court will twist itself into pretzels in order to rule in ways that please the far right. They are originalists when it suits them. But they will find other rationales when it doesn't. Throwing standing out the window sets a dangerous precedent. This opens the door for anyone to sue anyone else, not because they believe they have been wronged, but just because they want to.
Also, on a related note, I don't think it's hyperbole to compare the story of Kate Cox to The Handmaid's Tale. Here we have actors from two branches of the government (Texas AG Ken Paxton and the Texas state Supreme Court) deciding that Cox has to remain pregnant whether she wants to or not. Never mind that she wants another child (she has two already) and that giving birth would very likely prevent her from having another successful pregnancy. Or it could kill her. (Yet these people call themselves pro-life?!?) The only thing really missing is that threats from the state to her doctors don't include having their hands chopped off if they do what is medically necessary. (Ok, they haven't kidnapped Cox, put her in a red cloak, given her to Ken Paxton and renamed her Ofken... yet).
While creating The Handmaid's Tale TV show for Hulu, the only real mistake Margaret Atwood made was setting it in New England rather than Texas.
D.E. in Austin, TX, writes: Frankly, I think Donald Trump can strike gold if he goes after Obamacare. He has a knack for discovering grievances. Obamacare is a mess. It is out of control and it's not good health care. I have 125 Obamacare "plans" to choose from, each with what I would call their own "mini micro" network that you have to deeply research to see if they have enough doctors who might meet your needs (keeping in mind you never really know what life will throw at you). The cost is high and you get very little benefit until you reach the out-of-pocket max. The plans might say they "cover" various specialties, but often when it comes down to it, they might have a doctor that does cover it but he's far, far away and appointments are weeks out. And that doctor may say you need a specific treatment, he will prescribe it, but the plan will have an approval department that's very slow and that will disapprove of what the doctor says you need. The doctors are frustrated and will tell you this to your face. Obamacare doesn't work because: (1) there is no clout as opposed to when you get insurance through your employer or via medicare; (2) the programs are run by the states. You can appeal a denial, but if you win you just get what you were supposed to have anyway. It's very much worth it for Obamacare plans to deny treatment and see if they get appealed. If the appeal goes into the next plan year the cost that go towards your deductible/out of pocket max are now for the next year. You also have to keep the same "bad" plan so that if you win you get that treatment plan.
Democrats have allowed Obamcare to degrade to this minimal functional state—I mean, they never talk about it. Republicans will just let this situation fester. Its a ripe time for Republicans to claim that Obamacare is a mess and to try and pin it on Democrats. Republicans, of course, want no federal plan at all, which actually is only just a little worse.
T.P. in Cleveland, OH, writes: Someone in Trumpworld may be thinking more about imagery than desperation with this latest grift. (Though probably not TFG, whose grasp on faith is notoriously upside-down.)
Dividing the garment of the Orange Jesus into pieces and putting it in little reliquaries to sell all over christendom seems like a good allusion. They want people to think, "If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole."
They may make a little money here, but the base is a lot more Matt 27:35 than Matt 9:21-23. These guys could find themselves getting ripped apart as the end draws nigh.
D.M. in Berlin, Germany, writes: You wrote that the DFEOTUS* "loves money more than Scrooge McDuck does."
This is a surprisingly widespread misunderstanding. For Scrooge McDuck, having ever more money is an end in itself: He wants to get money in order to have money. Trump, in contrast, once stated he sees money as "a way of keeping score": His goal is status, and being thought of as a rich and successful businessman is merely a means to that end. McDuck counts his money; Trump just makes up how much he wants you to believe he has. McDuck scrupulously avoids spending his money except on the safest of investments (and the occasional emotional outburst); Trump spends it on prestige objects like huge façades, luxury items and solid gold toilets. The Donald's buildings have TRUMP written on them in huge golden letters; the money bin bears not Uncle Scrooge's irrelevant name, but a dollar sign, which tells the whole world that McDuck prioritizes money over himself—a thought entirely alien to Cheeto Jesus, who couldn't even imagine that Apple isn't named after its current owner.
* - Disgruntled Former Employee of the United States
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, writes: Earlier this year, I responded to a letter suggesting that Chris Christie could win the GOP nomination and be elected president. My response was it wouldn't happen. Now, I wish to do the same with the letter from S.S. in West Hollywood about Nikki Haley.
I agree that Haley would be a formidable opponent for President Biden, or any Democrat. But that would be under a normal political climate. These are not normal times.
I'm here to say that Nikki Haley will not be elected president for the same reasons Christie won't be. In order to win, the Republican nominee will need the base of the GOP. As a refresher, who makes up that base? None other than the MAGAniacs. I submit some of these folks will never vote for someone other than the Orange one. If he's somehow not the nominee, they will either stay home or vote a third party candidate, especially if he runs as one. That will in turn help sway some swing states to the blue column.
We also must remember that Haley has not been placed under the intense scrutiny of the media yet. She would have to answer tough questions and defend her positions. One example is her Solomonesque stance on a federal abortion law. Try threading that needle in the general election.
Finally, like it or not, certain people will never vote for Haley because she is a woman, and one of color. If you thought whatever Hillary Clinton faced in 2016 was bad, that will intensify with the South Carolinian and it will be ugly.
So while some may dream of a GOP nominee that's anyone but Trump, it ain't happening.
E.S. in Maine, NY, writes: You wrote, of the Joe Biden impeachment inquiry: "In other words, the truth is that this is just a giant, state-sponsored PR operation. Or, if you prefer, a propaganda operation. We are happy to change our tune on that, if and when evidence of malfeasance by Joe Biden comes to light. But Republican politicians and operatives have been looking under every rock for such information for nearly 4 years, and haven't come up with anything. So, we don't expect we will have to eat our words."
While I agree they have nothing, remember that it was after many months (years?) during the many investigations of Hillary Clinton that the fact that she used an private server for her e-mails came to light. And if we really look at the facts of that it was a nothing burger. Still, Donny and the Republicans were able to ride that into the White House. They are hoping that lightning will strike twice. And, of course, for some the appearance of an investigation is enough, while anything that keeps the focus of off Donny is a plus, as well.
K.H. in Kerrville, TX, writes: I normally don't comment on other people's opinions. They have the right to feel the way they want to, but D.C. in Brentwood made a comment that I just flatly disagree with: that Dean Phillips isn't being taken seriously because of "narrative."
No, Dean Phillips isn't being taken seriously, because he's not a serious candidate. He is—like Marianne Williamson—in it for reasons other than actually winning the nomination. I don't know what those reasons are, but my main guess is ego.
You want to know what Dean Phillips is really about? Watch his interview with Pod Save America (the interview itself starts at 44:20) and tell me he's a "serious" candidate.
That one interview alone solidified my opposition to Phillips for all time. I especially like his facile argument that if President Biden has enough delegates to clinch the nomination next summer—but is still trailing in the polls to Trump—he should "step aside" for Phillips. That's totally democracy in action. To top it off, Phillips had 55 minutes to discuss "policy-" the moderators gave him every opportunity to do so—and he passed on it at every juncture.
Do I wish a "serious" candidate had run, just in case something catastrophic happened to President Biden? Sure. But I imagine there is already a plan in place to nominate Vice President Harris on the floor if something like that were to happen.
And, yes, I'd vote for Phillips over Trump, if he were somehow to become the nominee. But he won't be. He saw an opportunity to get some exposure and took it. Good for him. But he isn't "owed" a serious discussion as a candidate for the Democratic Party, any more than I would be if I were to run for the nomination. You have to earn it—and, so far, all I've seen from him is an ego trip.
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, writes: Your post about Vivek Ramaswamy's toilet issues reminded me of this video I saw a few years ago, ans the same scenario played out in a public meeting about diseases in Texas:
My challenge to everyone is to see how far you can get through this clip without laughing.
This should be a lesson to everyone with a microphone to make sure you don't take it outside of the space where you need it.
J.E. in San Jose, CA, writes: The hot mic caught Ramaswamy's only chance to have his name appear in the same sentence with the phrase "Number One."
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: Before school one August, I met with a learning specialist so that she could prep me for teaching "Freyda" (not her real name), who had "profound hearing impairment in both ears." Freyda should be allowed to sit in the front of the room (impossible; no front; all the desks were in a circle), Freyda should be given accommodations for note-taking in class (impossible; my whole career, faculty was always being told never to lecture, and then everyone continued to assume that our only teaching method was lecture). That sort of thing. The briefing was helpful and I felt confident Freyda and I could work things out. The course was Advanced Placement United States History.
When she finished the briefing, the specialist closed her file, put it in her briefcase, and said, "There is more. There is something else you have to understand. Freyda is not only deaf, she's stubborn and uncooperative. She doesn't like to be helped, and when you try to help her, expect push-back. Otherwise, I think you'll really like her."
Freyda turned out to be an excellent student and a great kid. Especially if I didn't push her. At the beginning of class, she was supposed to give me a small device on a lanyard; it had a microphone which broadcast to a receiver in one of her ears. But some days she didn't feel like using it, and she would become prickly if I asked for the device. When she wanted me to have it, she placed the lanyard around my neck; when she didn't want me to have it, she didn't and I let her make that decision, having her grades as evidence that she was mastering the material and the skills.
One day a week we had an extended class period, and I always gave the class a 5-minute break at the end of the regular period. During one of those breaks, I ducked out to the men's room at the end of the hall. When I came back and was ready to restart the class, I scanned the room to make sure everyone was back. When I came to Freyda's face, she burst out laughing. I went to her and asked, "What's the joke?" (She was apparently highly skilled at lip-reading.) She said, "You have no idea the broadcast range on that mic you're wearing."
I mentioned this to my friend the physics teacher. He said, "Yeah, Freyda likes to play that joke on male faculty members. You're not the first." Freyda scored a 4 on the AP, and was elected president of one of the student clubs her senior year. After that, I lost touch. Your reference to the Frank Drebin/Naked Gun bathroom scene reminded me of this real-life incident.
B.R. in Eatontown, NJ, writes: In your item about the much-deserved designation of Rudy Guiliani as the Schadenfreude champion of the year, you stated "court judgments generally can't be discharged via bankruptcy." Whatever the merits of the statement may be with regard to the specific claims against Guiliani, as a general principle that statement is wrong, and could serve as a disservice to your readership in their personal situations. As a practicing attorney with more than passing familiarity with the relevant law, I felt compelled to send in this clarification.
In fact, most judgments can be discharged (gotten rid of) by a bankruptcy. In fact, whether a claim has reached the judgment stage or not rarely matters when it comes to determining whether it can be discharged in bankruptcy—instead, what matters is the nature of the claim.
For instance, contract claims, including claims by credit card companies and other financial institutions, can be discharged. That is true whether or not a judgment has been obtained on the debt. The primary exception to discharge of contract claims is if the debt is secured by an interest in collateral of some kind—such as a mortgage loan or an auto loan. Then, the actual debt can be discharged, but the creditor will be allowed to take control of the collateral and sell it. Likewise, most tort claims (claims not arising from a contract but rather from violation of a duty imposed by law, such as the duty to drive a car safely) can be discharged. So claims alleging negligence almost always can be discharged (and the vast majority of tort claims allege negligence). Again, it doesn't matter if the claim has become the subject of a judgment already or not. The primary exception to discharge of tort claims is that claims involving willful and malicious conduct cannot be discharged.
It is because of this later exception that Guiliani will have problems discharging the claims by Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss. A punitive damages award is by definition based on the defendant having acted in a willful and malicious manner; so it is hard to imagine how a judge would allow that award to be discharged. And even the compensatory damages awards in this case would most likely not be dischargeable. Claims involving defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress require proof that the defendant acted in ways that more likely than not would be considered willful and malicious. There is a slim chance that these could be discharged. But that won't affect the $75,000,000 punitive damages award.
So while the ultimate conclusion of your discussion—that the verdicts against Guiliani will most likely not be subject to discharge in bankruptcy is correct, the broader implications of the your discussion is not.
While writing, I'll note that Guiliani has asserted that he will file a motion seeking a new trial and/or appeal. Given his litigation strategy of refusing to provide legitimate discovery, and then compounding that mistake by making statements in the court hallways showing that he still hadn't learned to keep his mouth shut, it's hard to imagine that any of these moves will meet with any success. He's boxed himself into a corner, and it seems unlikely he'll somehow get out.
(V) & (Z) respond: Thanks for the clarification. We were running late yesterday, and writing fast, and based on the research we did, what we should have written is something like this: "This particular type of judgment is not likely to be dischargeable via bankruptcy; the case is very similar to Alex Jones', and he failed when he tried to BK his way out of the defamation judgment against him."
F.Y. in Ann Arbor, MI, writes: This is a bit of a rhetorical comment, and probably a fantasy, but I've wondered for years now whether Time Magazine has come to regret their 2001 "Person of the Year" selection and if they might even consider rescinding it.
I never liked that choice in the first place, given the number of real heroes from that day.
I suppose I could understand their reluctance to give Bin Laden the "honor," even though they had previously picked Hitler, Stalin—twice!—and the Ayatollah Khomeini.
If they're up for a re-do, my vote goes to Todd Beamer and the rest of the Flight 93 passengers and crew.
M.C. in Newton, MA, writes: I think there's a pretty big assumption in the question from J.H. in Louisville, and assumption that doesn't match up with my experience. It has been a while now, but when I was in college (mostly during W's second term), it wasn't the faculty teaching progressive ideas. Instead, a small number of outspoken far-left students were the ones preaching their ideology to the rest of the student body. I feel very confident that this is the campus origin of the current anti-Israel sentiment. If it's framed in the "oppressed"/"oppressor" structure, I'd guess that's mostly because of how the rabble-rousers' preferred news sources present the conflict.
J.H. in Boston, MA, writes: Your explanation to J.H. in Louisville how academic instructors are not a monolith, nor even is it typical for them to believe "oppressed are always right," was good.
I would add that, even if you dig up the most woke, blue-haired, fringy leftist college student protester, you can find, I don't think "the oppressed are always right" would be a good summary of what their typical beliefs.
Instead it's more along the lines of "it is not your job, as a beneficiary of the systems of oppression, to stand in judgment of the methods of the oppressed to struggle against their oppression."
If you were oppressed, disenfranchised, evicted, dispossessed, bereaved, or hopeless, if you lost a loved one and wanted revenge, how far would you go? How interested would you be in members of the oppressor class telling you "that is not the right way to express grief, rage, hopelessness, etc."? Are people who sympathize with your grief or stand in solidarity with you somehow saying you are always right? No. That's not it.
T.R. in Vancouver, BC, writes: In your response to the question from J.H. in Louisville about whether and why college students today tend to see the world through a simplistic lens of "oppressors vs. oppressed," you said that most professors don't teach such a worldview, and that even if they did their influence on students' political opinions is minimal. I'd like to call your attention to this month's Harvard-Harris poll, specifically to pages 56-57 of the "Key Results" PDF.
Respondents were asked whether they support the ideology that white people are oppressors; whether this ideology is helpful to society; and whether "Jews as a class are oppressors and should be treated as oppressors." A majority of 18-to-24-year-olds answered yes to all three questions, and that is the only age group of which this is true.
The poll doesn't give information about education level, but it seems like a safe bet that these views are more common among college students than other 18-to-24-year-olds. If so, and if they aren't getting this worldview from academia, where are they getting it from and why is it so prevalent in that specific demographic?
(V) & (Z) respond: The fact that you have to make "a safe bet" about the study's findings tells you that their numbers are squishy. Also problematic, in terms of the conclusion you reach, is that 18-24 is treated as a single cohort. Someone 18 or 19 hasn't started college yet, or has barely started. Someone 23-24 has very possibly graduated. If the question is "are colleges indoctrinating people?," these two groups are not at all comparable.
In any event, we will 100% guarantee you that peers, the Internet/social media and family, probably in that order, have VASTLY more influence over students' worldviews than college professors do. Anyone who thinks that college classrooms are some sort of brainwashing centers hasn't been in a college classroom anytime recently. Or maybe ever.
L.R.H. in Oakland, CA, writes: J.B. in Hutto asked a highly reductive question involving a single axis of the human condition and academic influence on students.
I didn't become a Marxist after taking a class in East Asian history with John Schrecker, Brandeis's best-known Marxist instructor when I was an undergrad there. I wish I had notes from the lecture he gave the week that Chairman Mao died.
On the other hand, between Schrecker's class and a class a few years later on Japanese literature with professor of English Alan Levitan, I did consider graduate school in East Asian studies. They were both brilliant teachers whose classes I loved. I still read Japanese and Chinese literature in translation. And I bought, and still use, the Szechuan cookbook that Schrecker's first wife wrote with their Chinese nanny.
C.S. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: For context (new word of the year), I am an observant Jew, a Zionist, a (Never Trump) Republican, and have worked in higher education student affairs and student conduct for over two decades. Your analysis of the college presidents' testimony nailed it. Hate speech is generally protected, even at private institutions, which tend to model their policies after public institutions. Vandalism, disruption, harassment (which has specific guidelines), and direct calls for violence are not protected.
For Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) specifically, and the performative right generally, this was a twofer—go after elite higher education and DEI/Muslims, while not actually doing anything to combat the evils of Hamas (funding for Israel) and antisemitism. Unfortunately, my fellow Jewish friends across the political spectrum are falling for this performance. I also believe it will lead to further antisemitic backlash of the old trope that powerful and rich Jews are controlling the levers in Washington and universities by withholding donations while other marginalized groups face hate speech. What has also been missed is (African American) President Claudine Gay of Harvard was about to answer similarly when asked about mass murder of African Americans. Stefanik's own webpage even notes this exchange.
R.O. in Santa Fe, NM, writes: I am appalled at the threat of firing leveled against university presidents who testified (Penn's president is gone). You may not like my reasoning, though. First, I see little difference between outsiders who are megadonors (fat cats threatening to withhold donations) and Moms for Liberty (too much time on their hands, filled with religious zeal). Neither are aware of how the institutions they are attacking work, don't wish to know, but want change above all. The presidents' failures came from being ill-prepared for the predation of Republicans like Elise Stefanik.
Second, lots of physiological and psychological evidence shows that human brains develop back-to-front, with completed frontal lobes present at a median age of 24 for women and 26 for men. Of course the medians are part of distributions in which some mature faster and, sadly, some never do. A good definition of adulthood is a firm grasp of the connection between actions and consequences. The students on campuses who made these outrageous statements are mostly not adults, and I doubt that they had any thought that their actions would get their presidents fired. Most administrators will not admit this for fear of hurting the fee-fees of students.
R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: In your otherwise excellent analysis of how and why the university presidents failed so spectacularly during their testimony before Congress, you omitted one important point: All three were prepared for their testimony by attorneys from WilmerHale, one of the finest law firms in the nation. Something went wrong during their prep. They should have been expecting, if not the precise question that tripped them up (re: genocide), at least something in a similar vein, and they should have prepared for how to respond. When one of my clients does poorly during a deposition or at trial, I look first to what I missed during prep, and then ponder the stubbornness of some clients. Here, while it's possible that WilmerHale did a poor job of prepping the presidents, I think it's at least as likely that the presidents were unwilling or unable to incorporate the advice that they were given.
J.M. in Silver Spring, MD, writes: R.M.S. in Lebanon asked asked you why Elon Musk's behavior has gone from left to right on the political scale (and perhaps off the rails, too). I have an answer you didn't list: Money. While Barack Obama embraced him (and Tesla), Joe Biden has snubbed him and failed to endorse electric vehicle incentives for vehicles made in non-union factories (such as Tesla). This has, no doubt, cost Musk a lot of money and it's easy to imagine that he is pissed off about that and is taking his revenge.
M.C. in Friendship, ME, writes: In an episode of the NPR program "Hidden Brain," there was talk of studies which seemed to indicate that when people got powerful some sort of "empathy gene" in them switched off. Watching Musk and many Republicans, I can believe that.
S.S. in West Hollywood, CA, writes: I think you missed the most obvious and likely explanation on why Elon Musk changed from being a reasonable and compassionate person to one who supports Trump and embraces far-right conspiracies. It's the same reason once good people in my life changed too. He started watching Fox "News."
S.K. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: I understand one prominent theory is that Musk went extreme-right-wing when one of his children came out as trans and severed ties with him.
D.A. in Long Beach, CA, writes: I've always thought that every James Bond villain was over the top and couldn't possibly exist in real life. Until Elon Musk.
P.F. in Las Vegas, NV, writes: M.D. in San Tan Valley asked: "In our nation's history, how many state county sheriffs have made such a leap from county lawman in charge to being elected a U.S. Senator? U.S. Congressman? Governor? Presidential cabinet or staff member?"
Here in Nevada, Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo was elected Governor in November 2022, and was sworn in at the beginning of this year. It was the only gubernatorial pickup for the GOP in that election. And while many attributed it to an anti-crime sentiment, most Nevadans suspect it had far more to do with Governor Steve Sisolak's (D) pandemic response, which included shutting down the Las Vegas casinos and putting an enormous number of Nevadans out of work for a while. The casinos were only closed for a couple of months, but it took years for them to resume pre-pandemic levels of employment. Even now, most Las Vegas buffets have not re-opened—a particular complaint of mine (although not enough to have gotten me to vote for Lombardo).
(V) & (Z) respond: We are extremely annoyed with ourselves that we forgot about Lombardo.
J.F. in Pasadena, CA, writes: Carl Hayden was Sheriff of Maricopa County, AZ, for 5 years (1907-1912) and was then elected to the House for 16 years, and then to the Senate for another 42 years.
J.E. in Whidbey Island, WA, writes: In 2004, King County Sheriff Dave Reichert was elected to the House of Representatives in WA-08.
D.C. in Delray Beach, FL, writes: Check out the career of Bart Stupak, a nine-term Democrat who represented MI-01, which includes the Upper Peninsula (aka God's Country) and who was a policeman in Escanaba and a Michigan State Trooper.
(V) & (Z) respond: Once we move from "sheriff" to "all law enforcement" the list definitely gets much longer. To take another example, former representative and wannabe Florida U.S. Senator Val Demings was a former cop, too.
J.C. in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, writes: In your great brief history of religion in the United States, you mentioned Protestants and Catholic Christians, but left out the other major stream of Western Christianity: the Friends. While there were many Quakers in Rhode Island due to the religious tolerance you mentioned, Pennsylvania was also of course famously founded by a Quaker for Quakers—who then had an outsized influence on the course of American history considering their relative numbers.
S.B. in North Liberty IA, writes: I understand that wages have gone up as much (if not more so) than prices of many goods. However, I am tired of reading (V)'s constant comments about people "forgetting" they make more money now than they used to and they're just upset that eggs are more expensive. He adds the qualifier "in many cases" but the generality still applies.
I am very aware of my current salary and how it compares to previous years, as I'm sure millions and millions of people are. The insinuation that one would just forget how much they make when they see how much bacon costs is silly. Besides, should raises not improve quality of life over a period of time? People should be able to earn more money as they progress through their careers, so the fact that they may technically still be paying the same for things actually causes everything to zero out and they don't make more many over time.
Just my two cents. I think the craziness over inflation is overblown and I will be voting for Joe Biden in November. But I wanted to call out the comment that I deem to be unfair.
M.O. in New York City, NY writes: Do tell why you say Mazi Melesa Pili's demographic is "unusual"? Seems like you are trying to thinly veil some bias you are afraid to state clearly. Get over it; there is nothing unusual about her background, or do you believe that Israelis and Jews cannot be Black?
Disappointed, as usual.
(V) & (Z) respond: Just for the record, we did not get a single complaint from readers who are American immigrant Ethiopian Jewish woman veterans of the Israeli military.
O.Z.H. in Dubai, UAE, writes: I love your site and read it almost every day. But, very humbly, may I ask that you consider dispensing with the gimmicky stuff like "A December to Rhymember"? Perhaps I am totally off-base here but me, and the 6-7 friends of mine who read this site always just skip over these sorts of things. We read this site because we want to be informed and appreciate (V) and (Z)'s analysis of current political events and discourse. Oftentimes, my aforementioned friends and I will read breaking news and the first thing we will text to one another is "cant wait to here EV's take on this."
But these odd segments that you include like Rhymember just sort of make the whole thing seem a little unserious and flip. One minute we are reading about a woman who has tragically had her right to choose torn away from her and the political consequences thereof, and then we are reading quite silly re-lyricizing of popular songs to make fun of conservatives. It dumbs down your message and, frankly, who wants to read that? Have you taken a poll of your readers? The question should be "how many people read that segment and how many people roll their eyes and just skip over it"?
J.F. in Ft. Worth, TX, writes: Way back on June 19, (V) wrote an item about states with supermajority legislatures. The general takeaway from this item, as with so many items on your site, was "one-party rule is bad, bad, bad, and that ain't good!" From the item: "When either party has a supermajority in both chambers, it can do whatever it wants to, without regard to anyone or anything. This allows them to ram through controversial legislation that is often quite unpopular in the state." This struck me as odd because I certainly hadn't *heard* of any legislation in the 9 Democratic supermajority states that was "rammed through", "controversial", or "unpopular in the state". All the examples cited were from Republican supermajority states.
So imagine how surprised I was to read this week's item from (V) talking about states with political trifectas. I was expecting another round of "one-party rule is always bad" messaging, but was instead shown all of the (objectively?) good things that states with Democratic trifectas are enacting.
I have never thought that one-party rule at either the state or federal level was inherently bad and have pushed back on narratives saying that it is. Obviously, it depends on the party and the people elected from that party. Thank you for Thursday's item highlighting the fact that one-party rule is not always, by definition, a bad thing.
M.G. in Boulder, CO, writes: Congratulations to (V) and (Z) on another successful semester, at least nearly done, and another successful year of E-V.com postings. Between you, you missed only a couple of days, and most of those because of (Z)'s kidney infection. I was glad to see you decide to take the time you needed. (You probably should have taken more.) Once again, you've given us outstanding work we can all be proud of. The weekends give us a chance to contribute, and your use of reader expertise has given me even more respect for your readership than I already had. You deserve us, and we're clearly doing a pretty good job of trying to deserve you.
I'd also like to take a minute to acknowledge another group whose membership at least somewhat overlaps with that of your readers. Postal workers usually go unfairly unrecognized. When I went to mail a package Friday, there were only 2 clerks serving a line so long that those already in it were laughing at the expressions of incoming customers, several of whom took one look and walked back out. In previous years, 4 to 5 workers were at counter stations, with 1 to 2 more handling packages. Yesterday pre-paid packages were stacked as high as anyone could reach and the already busy 2 clerks were hastily pointing out bare spots where more could go as they continued to serve customers. With 3 hours to go, one was still smiling while the other demonstrated tireless competence and smooth expertise. No government job should look like a form of torture. It's one more thing we need to encourage the overburdened Biden administration to take in hand.
(V) & (Z) respond: Thanks for the kind words, and agreed on all other counts!
R.C. in Des Moines, IA, writes: My vote, in case anybody is keeping track, for best submission of December to Rhymember—and it's not even a close call—is the submission by D.L. in Oaxaca de Juarez. I'm not sure I've ever seen a more succinct or apt distillation of the state of America.
F.H. in St. Paul, MN, writes: Finally! Some Moody Blues love! Oh sure, it's from The New York Post, it counts. It's a simple game you all have been playing. Floating, often-heard question: Were the Beatles the only band that took part in the British Invasion? The Beatles are a better band? That's the voice in some of your wildest dreams buddy. That thought is simply beyond me. But hey, time is on my side, at some point, the balance will shift higher and higher in the Moodies favor. I'll be watching and waiting. So go ahead and have a lazy day and give that some thought, perhaps some Tuesday afternoon.
As for (V), and (Z), more curling references would be nice.
(V) & (Z) respond: R.I.P. Denny Laine. As to your concluding suggestion, we're going to have to skip that one, because we just don't have the stones for it.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: You wrote: "So, it's looking like it will be a Blue Christmas at Mar-a-Lago."
No, it will still be Blood Red:
D.H. in San Francisco, CA, writes: Perhaps of interest: The song "Let It Snow" was written by written by Sammy Cahn, born Samuel Cohen, and June Styne, born Julius Kerwin Stein, both of Jewish heritage. I just learned this last Saturday at a presentation at Stanford by Rob Kapilow of "What Makes It Great" fame. Similarly he detailed half a dozen other uber famous "Xmas" songs conceived and written by Jewish composers.
(V) & (Z) respond: Yep, not to mention what is probably the most famous Christian-themed rock song, namely "Spirit in the Sky" by Norman Greenbaum. And on the TV, there are two of the most assertively Christian-themed shows of the 20th century, Little House on the Prairie and Highway to Heaven, both of them created, written, produced and starring Michael Landon, a.k.a. Eugene Orowitz, whose Star of David-adorned crypt makes quite clear that he remained Jewish throughout his adult life.
D.A. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: You quoted someone as saying "They're Jewish enough to HAVE the gefilte fish [in a jar in the cupboard??!!!???], but they're not Jewish enough to actually EAT it."
You need to understand something, (Z). Nobody is Jewish enough (or gentile enough) to eat gefilte fish from a jar. There is only one word for it: "feh". It's inedible.
You want gefilte fish? You gotta make it yourself... mostly. Here's the easy way: Go to your local fish store, buy a quantity of whitefish and pike (equal portions) and have them filet it and then grind it up. See if you can get them to put in a few onions into their grinder too. Then go home, grind some onions if necessary, and mix it all up, according to whatever recipe your Bubbi left you. (I simply add some pepper.) Then make little hamburger-patties of them and put them into a large shallow pot (pan?) with boiling water. My wife insists on putting carrot slices on top of each one. (I put up with that.) Cook until they're done (doesn't take long).
Take them out and eat them hot, or put them in the fridge and have them cold. They're best when they're hot... or cold... or lukewarm. Heaven. Enjoy with or without horseradish.
Mind you, I'm a dedicated anti-Zionist, but I am equally dedicated to the proper preparation and consumption of gefilte fish.
K.J. in Chicago, IL, writes: One day the Bears will beat the Packers and win the Super Bowl. Afterwards, when people time travel to the past and re-read Electoral-Vote.com, those Bears jokes will fall flat. So it's probably best to just leave them out.
(V) & (Z) respond: Allow us to apologize, right now, to denizens of the 25th century.
M.S. in Knoxville, TN, writes: This was the obituary of Nancy Carol Miller, in full:
Our dear mother, grandmother, sister, and aunt has left us to be with Elvis. RIPPublished in the Knoxville News Sentinel on May 28.
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.