In view of some of the things that came up in last week's Q&A, we got a fair number of questions about teaching. We're toying with devoting most or all of this week's Q&A to teaching, how universities work, the education system, book banning, and things like that. This is in anticipation of several education-themed items next week. So, if you have any questions in this area, now would be an excellent time to ask them.

The War on Trans, Part I: Politics

The House Republican Conference cannot agree on whether or not to crash the world economy (see below). But they can agree that trans female high school athletes are the greatest threat to the American way of life since... communism? The destruction of the ozone layer? Changes to the appearance of the purple M&M? So yesterday, they voted unanimously to forbid transgender women and girls from participating in female athletic programs.

This is just a show bill, of course. It's not going to come up in the Senate, much less pass that body. And if it somehow did, Joe Biden has already promised a veto. This is actually the fourth Congress in a row where the legislation was submitted for consideration. However, this is the first time it's come up for a vote and, obviously, the first time it's passed the House. That is probably instructive when it comes to the state of the Republican Party, and its ability to deliver substantive legislation.

We have been exceedingly dismissive of these sorts of bills. There is, of course, the shameful willingness to target a vulnerable group for political purposes. But that's not even what we're talking about right now. What we mean is that even if you believe that transgenderism doesn't exist, and even if you believe that trans girls/women are pulling some sort of fast one when it comes to joining the swim team or the softball team, there have to be at least 10,000 other issues more important this one. It is painfully clear that this is a wedge issue that exists for the sake of being a wedge issue, not because there's a pressing problem that really needs to be addressed.

This week, The New York Times had a piece that confirmed that very obvious inference. In short, about a decade ago, the anti-gay stuff stopped working for conservative political activists. In part, that is because gay became (largely) OK. In part, it is because the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, leaving the anti-gay-marriage movement nowhere to go. After all, if you can't get your right-wing policy through SCOTUS, you're sure as heck not getting it through Congress.

So, these activists began casting about for another issue they could use to galvanize voters behind Republican candidates. There is nothing wrong with that, per se, but note that it's definitely putting the cart before the horse. In other words, it's not a case of "What serious problem needs to be fixed?" It's a case of "What problem can we claim to be concerned about, so we can get votes to 'fix' it?" These activist groups literally focus-group tested various possible wedge issues, and they decided that trans issues were the winner.

We once wrote an item where we assumed anti-trans stuff would quickly go the way of the dodo, since anti-gay stuff had already done so. We wish we had thought more carefully about that, because there are three pretty clear "boxes" that anti-trans stuff checks. First, many religions, particularly many variants of Christianity, and particularly the American variant of right-wing evangelical Protestantism, are rooted in an understanding that there are two very distinct genders with very distinct social roles. It should be noted that "rigid walls between genders" is not the only interpretation supported by the Bible—Jesus hung out with gender benders like eunuchs, for example—but it's the interpretation that right-wing evangelical Protestantism has settled upon. And from that has derived a significant amount of conservative policy activism, from anti-divorce and anti-polygamy activism over a century ago to anti-trans activism today.

Second, anti-trans carping also has the potential to win over older voters, even those who do not usually vote Republican. No matter how old you are at this particular moment, you at least heard of gay people while you were growing up, since they weren't all in the closet, and since there were numerous notable historical gay and lesbian figures whose sexuality was no secret (Oscar Wilde, Tennessee Williams, Michelangelo, Alice B. Toklas, etc.). On the other hand, it is entirely plausible that one could have made it to the first, or even the second, decade of the 21st century without having heard of trans people. In other words, trans is much newer and there's been less time to acclimate than is the case with gay/lesbian/bi. Change is hard, and the older someone is, the harder it's likely to be. There's a reason for that aphorism about old dogs and new tricks.

And finally, there's the "think of the children" angle. Understandably, people get extremely protective when it comes to their kids. And the three big policies that anti-trans politicians tend to focus on—bathroom bills, high school sports, and banning gender-affirming treatments—can be and are framed as attempts to protect children.

In short, what we have here is an issue that connects with the Republicans' traditional, evangelical base, but that also has the potential to win over older voters and parents who might not otherwise cast their ballots for Republicans. There aren't too many issues left like that, no matter how much spinning you do.

This, of course, is how the game is played. And if you're a political organization, particularly one that is in the minority and is dependent on the support of groups whose size, relative to the overall populace, is shrinking, then you have to find ways to rally voters to your banner. But it's clear this has very little to do with good governance or with addressing the problems that face 21st century American society, and has a great deal to do with finding and exploiting wedge issues for the sake of maintaining political power. That is how House Republicans can be unanimous on bills about girls' high school sports, but can't get anything else passed. (Z)

The War on Trans, Part II: Commerce

One more item on trans issues, which also speaks to the "venal opportunism" angle. Anti-trans stuff makes great ammunition for the culture wars, when the right opportunity presents itself. And while we are often reluctant to give oxygen to these things, there's been a culture wars battle going on for the last couple of weeks that is a near-obsession for some folks on the right. The enemy, in this case? Anheuser-Busch.

What, exactly, is the problem? Well, companies these days have decided (with good reason) that one of the most effective forms of advertising is to pay social media influencers to use and endorse your products. And so, Anheuser-Busch paid trans social media star Dylan Mulvaney to drink some Bud Light. Uh, oh.

This has led to an unbelievable amount of gnashing of teeth and rending of garments by many right-wingers. Fox, who never met a culture wars battle it couldn't turn into 20 "news" stories, 10 op-eds, and at least 12 hours of primetime programming, has reported gleefully about all the people who say they will never drink Bud Light again. Will these people still drink Budweiser? Or how about Corona, or Stella Artois, or Rolling Rock, or Michelob, which are also produced in the U.S. by Anheuser? We don't know (but keep reading).

Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), who also never misses a culture wars battle, has also sworn off Bud Light. He said he doesn't want to enable "woke culture," although his decision likely has little in the way of practical consequences, since nobody would want to drink a beer with him anyhow. Musician and friend-of-Trump Kid Rock was so outraged that he posted this video to social media:

The Kid Rock stuff is only the first 33 seconds of that, though if you keep watching after that, it also has the Mulvaney footage that set all this off. Kid Rock, for his part, is one of the biggest phonies in the country. He pretends to have descended from hardscrabble, blue-collar, redneck roots when in fact he grew up in a mansion as the son of a successful car dealership owner. And the musician lives up to his reputation for phoniness in that clip; it's framed to make it look like he blasted the kegs of beer all by himself, but if you watch you can see the muzzle flash from a second gunman, helping to cover for Kid Rock's poor aim and terrible shooting posture. No word on whether or not the second gunman was shooting from a grassy knoll, however. (Note: Two postings in a row with a conspiracy theory! New staff writer Q is apparently having an influence.)

Anyhow, just as some companies have decided there is financial wisdom in working with trans people, there are others that have decided there's money in catering to anti-trans people. This next item was first brought to our attention by reader C.T.P. in Lancaster, PA, who opined that it's an excellent illustration of Poe's Law (it's hard to tell extremism from a parody of extremism), and who thinks (as we do) that it feels like a Saturday Night Live commercial:

Even with C.T.P.'s insistence that it's real in hand, we were skeptical. But we dug and dug, and it really is. Conservative Dad's ULTRA RIGHT 100% Woke-Free American Beer has a website and everything, and they are accepting orders and money. It's obviously possible to put up fake websites for fake products, but if you start taking people's money, you're breaking the law. So parody sites like that conveniently find a way to avoid taking orders. The fact that this one is not doing that was the final piece of evidence that this guy is serious. We'll bet the beer he produces is just top notch.

And it's not just pi**-poor (and, probably, pi**-flavored) beer. A new group, Consumers' Research, has just jumped into to the culture wars to help anti-trans and other anti-woke consumers figure out where to shop. People can sign up to get text alerts to warn them about dangerous woke companies. In addition to Anheuser-Busch, their website warns about Nike, American Airlines, Coca-Cola, BlackRock, Ticketmaster, Major League Baseball, Levis, American Express, State Farm Insurance, Uber and Jack Daniels, but of course there are many more.

If you were shopping for, say, peanut butter, and there were three brands on the shelf, it would be nice if you could type all three brands into their app and get their wokeness rating back. But that's not how it works. Instead, when you sign up, you give them your cell phone number and whenever their hardworking researchers discover another woke company—for example, because they saw a Black person or a trans person in a company ad—they send you a text message alerting you to the dangerous company.

Interestingly enough, the executive director, Will Hild, is close to Leonard Leo, the former vice president of the Federalist Society. The service is free, so what's the business model? Do they sell the e-mail addresses and phone numbers they collect? We don't know. We do know that they have rich donors who ponied up enough money to support an $8 million ad budget, used to advertise the service. Do you think it's all about grifting the rubes, as usual? Sounds like a business model to us.

We do not doubt, mind you, that the people who are signing up for anti-woke e-mail lists or who are voting for anti-trans politicians, are being motivated by some real feeling. That feeling may or may not be admirable, and it may or may not be misplaced, but it's definitely real. But these folks who are harnessing those feelings, and who are using them to attract votes or sell crappy beer or persuade you to hand over your e-mail address and phone number so they can do who knows what? Again, venal opportunism. (Z & V)

Updates, Part I: Yesterday's News

There have been further developments in relation to a couple of things we wrote yesterday, so we thought we better bring you up to speed.

To start, we noted that District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil had told Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg that his former lieutenant, Mark Pomerantz, had to obey the subpoena issued by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and the House Make America Great Again Committee. While Vyskocil is a Trump appointee, we thought her order was sound, and weren't sure if Bragg would see value in appealing it.

Well, Bragg did see value. And he did appeal it; something that had actually already happened when we wondered if he would (although the appeal was filed so late the news didn't break until Thursday morning). The appeals court has already granted a temporary injunction, which doesn't mean anything other than "we'll tap the brakes until we hear the case." The Committee's briefing is due today and Bragg's response is due Saturday, which means a ruling will presumably come early next week. So, stay tuned.

We also had an item yesterday about Speaker Kevin McCarthy's (R-CA) budget bill. We observed that the existence of an actual bill, one that has significant support among the members of the House Republican Conference, is worth noting. At the same time, we wrote: "Needless to say, a bill like this is only vaporware until it comes up for a vote and passes."

There is another way we might have expressed that latter sentiment. The bill needs 218 votes to pass, and in general, it's not too hard to get the first 180 of those. It's the other 40 or so that tend to be a real pain in the rear end, because if you cater to the extremists, you lose the moderates. And if you cater to the moderates, you lose the extremists. This is what was so impressive about the last 2 years of the tenure of Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as Speaker; she was regularly able to navigate this perilous circumstance because she's better at whipping than Indiana Jones.

Well, guess what? It turns out that the optimism coming from Team McCarthy may well have been misplaced. In a surprise to nobody, a bill extreme enough to get the Freedom Caucus on board turns out to be too extreme for moderates like Nancy Mace (R-SC) and Tony Gonzales (R-TX). Oh, and actually, the bill isn't extreme enough for the Freedom Caucus; they want even more aggressive cuts to food stamps. Because, as we noted yesterday, there's no bigger political winner than taking food out of the mouths of poor children. McCarthy's leadership team says the bill will be voted on as-is, because they know that if they open it up to renegotiation, everyone in their conference is going to start making demands related to pet projects or pet issues. But if the Speaker sticks with the bill as is, well, according to one high-ranking GOP staffer "The whip count on this is not good."

So again, stay tuned. Nobody ever said that Kevin McCarthy is a skilled herder of cats, because every indication is that he is not. This could very well blow up in his face, and if it does, then he will really and truly have backed himself into a corner. And then what does he do? (Z)

Updates, Part II: Shady Judge Behavior

These are the stories that just keep giving. Or the stories that we just can't get away from, we can't decide which. In any case, there was "news" yesterday relating to the two judges that are very much under the microscope right now, namely Clarence Thomas and Matthew Kacsmaryk.

The reason that we put news in quotation marks is that while the specific details of these two stories were not well known before yesterday, any thinking person (and even many USC grads) could have predicted them. To start, Clarence Thomas' "benefactor," the billionaire Harlan Crow, insists that he never had any business before the Supreme Court, and that he therefore could not possibly have been trying to purchase influence. Thomas, to the extent that he's spoken up, had said the same.

Turns out—wait for it—that's not remotely true. Sure, there's never been a Harlan Crow v. United States before the Court. But Crow is a politically active billionaire. And consistent with that, he's closely involved in all sorts of right-wing activist groups. He is part of the leadership of the anti-tax Club for Growth (CfG). He's also an active member of the NRA, the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institute. And, as you can imagine, Crow has donated generously to each of these entities, in addition to being a member.

These groups have business before the Supreme Court all the time. Some of them, most obviously CfG, are in the habit of instigating lawsuits in hopes of getting the Supreme Court to establish favorable policies that cannot possibly make it through Congress. All of them are in the habit of filing amicus briefs in cases they have an interest in. So for Crow and Thomas to claim there was absolutely no way that the vacations and the other benefits could have been lobbying is an outright lie. It is improbable that the quid pro quo was explicit, but it didn't need to be. And keep in mind that Crow did not become Thomas' "friend" until several years after the Justice was seated on the Court.

As to Kacsmaryk, the latest news about him is that he appeared on multiple far-right radio programs and—surprise!—shared far-right views about things like LGBTQ people and abortion. For example, he lamented "the homosexual agenda" and "permissive policies on contraception" and spoke of the need to return to a "traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage." It is not against the rules to express strong political views prior to becoming a judge, of course. However, a candidate for a federal judgeship is required to disclose all the things they wrote and all the interviews they did in advance of their confirmation hearing. And Kacsmaryk didn't.

You know who is to blame for this? It's not Kacsmaryk, at least not really. Yeah, he might have conveniently "forgotten" about the interviews. But it's also entirely possible, and really more likely, that he didn't remember them. Remember, he was a dedicated, active, far-right activist for years before he became a judge. Someone like that does hundreds of these things, especially since there are so many right-wing "news" programs on TV, and radio shows and podcasts that are hungry for content.

No, the people to blame for this are members of the Senate who did not infer that, by virtue of his job and his politics, Kacsmaryk must have publicly said many extreme-right-wing things. We're talking about people like Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who said yesterday that she was "duped" by Kacsmaryk, and called it "the ultimate bait and switch." Either the Senator is lying, or was willfully naive (in other words, she took steps to keep herself ignorant, so she had plausible deniability). Whatever the case may be, it does not reflect well on Murkowski. The vote on Kacsmaryk was 52-46; the 46 were all the Democrats and independents there that day, along with Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). Had Murkowski and two other Republicans who claim to care about an independent, "balls and strikes" judiciary voted against Kacsmaryk, who clearly does not fit the bill, then he would have gone down to defeat. The fact that only Collins actually did vote against him tells you where the "balls and strikes" Republicans really stand, despite their protestations, because the Judge's politics were not a secret. They are why he got nominated in the first place. (Z)

2024 Presidential Race News

There were three different stories related to the 2024 presidential race yesterday. None of them is big enough to appear at the top of the page, we think, or even to be worthy of its own item. But, they are all at least worth noting.

We'll start with the second Republican candidates' debate. The RNC already announced that the first one would take place in August of this year, in Milwaukee. Yesterday, Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel announced the location, albeit not the date, of the second one.

For now, we will tell you that the RNC has decided on California. That is a very interesting choice, given that the state is generally ill-suited to the RNC's needs. California is not very much in tune with the Trumpy version of the GOP; that even includes most of the red parts of the state. Further, to the extent that there are parts of the state that are red and Trumpy, they are far from some pretty essential things, like airports, and media outlets, and, you know, running water. Also, for a presidential candidates' debate, a site of appropriate dignity and formality is needed. Normally that means "college campus," but in this case, that's not going to fly. Even if the GOP tries for one of the religious schools, like Pepperdine or Azusa Pacific, the student protesters are going to be out in droves. And if they were to try for UC Berkeley or UCLA, well, you might as well just call out the National Guard right now.

In view of these considerations, there's only one plausible location the RNC could have chosen, and certainly (Z) managed to guess it the moment he saw the headline "GOP to host second presidential debate in California." Care to take your best shot? We'll tell you where the debate will be at the end of this item.

Moving on to presidential news item #2, Joe Biden is reportedly going to make his 2024 campaign official next week. Since this is technically just a tease, and since we all know he's running anyhow, it's hard to treat this as BIG news. And, of course, Team Biden has teased announcements before and then backed off. That said, the anniversary of his 2019 announcement (April 25) arrives next week, and Biden insiders say it is "no longer helpful or necessary to not just say the obvious: He's running." So, the moment probably will indeed arrive next week.

And then there's presidential news item #3. It's probably lucky for the candidate that the news broke the same day as two other semi-significant items, because this one was least likely to get its own write-up. Anyhow, coming off a disastrously unsuccessful campaign for governor of California, radio entertainer Larry Elder has decided he will now pursue an even bigger, whiter mansion to live in. He promises to initiate a "new American Golden Age," whatever that means. We suspect he has conveniently forgotten how Black people like him were treated during the last "Golden Age," whenever that was.

We really haven't the faintest idea what Elder's goals are here. Obviously, he isn't going to win the Republican nomination or the presidency, and he'll be lucky to even show up in polls. He already gets on right-wing cable programs without needing the cachet of "Republican presidential candidate." And his far-right ideas now have wide currency in Republican politics. Who knows what's going on here, but we do not foresee writing about him very much. Like, the 195 words here might well be the majority of our Elder-related output for the year.

To wrap it up, and to return to the first segment of this item, the second Republican presidential debate will be held at... the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. It's in Simi Valley, which is the retired cop capital of America, and so about as friendly a surrounding community as the GOP is going to find in the Golden State. It's reasonably close to two airports (Burbank and LAX). It's not especially close to any colleges. It's set up in a way that access can be choked off fairly easily (there's basically one road leading in, and that's it). It's hosted Republican debates before. And it allows the Republicans to remind everyone that they are the party of St. Ronnie, even if they have relatively little in common with him these days when it comes to policy. Presumably, making this connection is why McDaniel & Co. chose California in the first place.

If you guessed the Nixon Library, that's a good thought, but: (1) the GOP doesn't particularly want to remind anyone they are the party of Tricky Dick, (2) the Nixon Library is in Orange County, which is nowhere near as white or as conservative as it once was, and (3) there are probably 10 universities within 15 miles of the Nixon library, most of them either public or small liberal arts schools. It would be protester central if and when Trump, Ron DeSantis and a host of other anti-abortion/anti-trans/anti-education folks showed up. And the Nixon is not nearly as easily to shut off from the general public. So, Ronnieland it is. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: What Goes Around, Comes Around

Sometimes, many readers submit the same story for consideration for this feature. This week, the popular suggestion involved news that just broke yesterday, around noon PT. Surely, we must have set a record for the most times an item was suggested in a 12-hour span.

This particular story involves MyPillow Guy Mike Lindell. In the cocaine-fueled phase of his life, and in the pillow-tycoon phase—phases which may or may not have overlapped—he could probably get away with saying any damn thing he wanted to say without suffering any consequences. But then, in a turn of fate that will leave generations of historians mystified, he became a public figure. A minor one, to be sure, and primarily a target of scorn and derision, but a public figure nonetheless.

As is turns out, public figures have to be much more careful about what they say. Fox just learned a lesson of that sort this week (not that they will take it to heart since, after all, they have no heart). And yesterday, Lindell learned a lesson of that sort, too, as an arbitration panel ordered Lindell to write a check for $5 million to Robert Zeidman.

"Who is Robert Zeidman?" you are probably asking. Well, he is the person who adds an extra dollop of schadenfreude to this item. See, Lindell is still at huge risk of taking it in the teeth from Dominion Voting Systems, Smartmatic and other entities he has (allegedly) defamed. The $5 million, while related to Lindell's election fraud claims, actually has nothing to do with defamation.

The secret of Lindell's success in business is not the quality of his products (middling, at best). No, it's his marketing acumen, and his willingness to make dishonest claims about his products. For example, he has for years and years run commercials claiming a "special" sale price—two pillows for the price of one. Obviously, if you can always get two pillows for the price of one, that's not the "special" sale price, that's just the price. He was sanctioned by the Better Business Bureau for that after he refused to knock it off, which is part of the reason that his business carries a rare "F" grade from that organization.

Anyhow, in order to generate interest in his various election-fraud-related TV specials, Lindell put on his marketing hat (which, let's be honest, is probably made of tinfoil), and decided to announce a $5 million prize for anyone who could prove that his election data was fake. Zeidman is a data analyst and, while he's a self-described "conservative Republican," he is not a "stop the steal" conservative Republican. So, he decided to take on what was announced as the "Prove Mike Wrong Challenge."

Although serious data analysis takes multiple weeks, according to Zeidman, Lindell's data was "so obviously fake that I spent a few hours before I could show it was fake." And so, Zeidman applied for the $5 million prize, was denied by the Pillow magnate, and turned around and sued. And now, he's on his way to being $5 million richer for just a few hours' work. Lindell has already promised to take the matter to court, but: (1) his case was already weak, which is why he lost, and (2) he seems not to understand the meaning of the word "binding" in the context of the phrase "binding arbitration." If Lindell was smart, which he isn't, he would try to settle for small discount, like maybe $4.5 million. But he's undoubtedly going to fight this out until the end, which means he'll likely be writing that $5 million check before the year is out. Zeidman should just make sure to get his money before Dominion and Smartmatic get to Lindell. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: 10,000 Is a Big Number

The record for the largest number of votes cast by a U.S. Senator is held, not surprisingly, by the longest-serving U.S. Senator, namely Robert Byrd of West Virginia. In his 51+ years, he voted 18,689 times. That's about what one would expect, as the Senate takes about 350 votes a year. In turn, that means that to join the 10,000-votes club, you have to be a senator for something like 30 years, give or take.

Before yesterday, there were a grand total of 32 senators who had cast at least 10,000 votes. And it had been a while since the club had added someone new (which, we assume, entitles a senator to a velour smoking jacket with the monogram of the 10,000-vote club and access to the secret 10,000-votes lounge on the third floor of the Capitol, with drinks served by David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler). The latest addition came about five years ago, when Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) crossed the line. About 3 years before that, it was Richard Shelby.

As you might imagine, all of those 32 bearers of the coveted velour smoking jacket were white men. After all, the country has only recently entered into a phase of its history where someone who is not a white man could be elected to the Senate. And even more recent was the arrival of an era where someone who is not a white man could hold their seat for three decades. But yesterday, the club handed out jacket #33, the first to go to non-white-male.

The senator who broke that particular glass ceiling is... Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA). Yesterday, she cast vote number 10,000 in support of a proposed amendment to the Fire Grants and Safety Act. It's not surprising it was Murray; she has just commenced the 31st year of her tenure and, to use the parlance of Washington, she's a "work horse" and not a "show horse."

After the vote, Murray's colleagues paused to recognize her accomplishment and her long period of service with a round of applause. "We're not supposed to clap, but every once in a while breaking protocol is appropriate as it is now," said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). "So it is a remarkable accomplishment for a truly remarkable public servant. Her accomplishments go—if she just cast 10,000 votes that would be pretty good—but her accomplishments go way beyond that and often dwarf it." Among other things, Schumer was undoubtedly thinking about the fact that Murray was already the first female president pro tempore of the Senate in U.S. history.

The woman who would have beaten Murray to the president pro tempore honor, and who probably would have beaten her to the 10,000 vote mark, is Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who is at about 9,700 votes right now. Obviously, she is not likely to join the club, given her health issues. However, Susan Collins will join in a few years, and Murray's junior colleague Maria Cantwell (D-WA), in the likely event she is reelected next year, will join a couple of years after that. That's progress, right before your very eyes.

Incidentally, for those who did not recognize it, the bit about the velour jackets and the secret lounge is a reference to the Saturday Night Live five-time-hosts' club. That allowed us to write around the use of the word "member," which carries more than one connotation when you note that an all-male club has 32 members. And, on that note, have a good weekend, all. (Z)

---

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 or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger