Previous | Next | Senate page
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
Sunday Mailbag
Some very good letters this week, particularly on E. Jean Carroll, Tucker Carlson and trans issues.
Politics: The 2024 Presidential Race
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, writes: As expected, President Biden formally announced his plans to seek a second term. While some view this with dread, or fear, I for one am happy he did and that's why I plan to vote for him again next year.
In 2020, I voted for Biden because he had the experience, good judgment, and temperament to be president at such a tumultuous time. Our country needed a capable and steady leader to get us out of extreme division, the pandemic, and 4 years of crazy in the White House. I've followed him since his days in the Senate and have seen him as being truly genuine, honest, and compassionate about folks like me.
The main reason why I voted for Biden was his integrity, and that he would instantly restore the honor and prestige of the presidency to where it should be for our nation and around the world. That is an important quality I look for in anyone seeking our nation's highest office.
I'm keenly aware that Biden's path to re-election won't be easy. There are the issues and his age to contend with. But compared to where we were 3 years ago, things are better. COVID is behind us and the economy has improved. There's more to do and that's why he's phrasing his campaign pitch as "Finishing the Job."
As for his age, a part of me wished he had stepped aside and retire. However, if he felt he was up to the job, then he was entitled to seek another term. I hope during the campaign he uses the playbook Ronald Reagan used 40 years ago and turns the table on the Republicans and their attacks on his age. Now that would truly be schadenfreude!
Electing either Don or Ron would truly be disastrous. While Biden may not be most people's first choice, he is truly the best choice!
T.M.M. in Odessa, MO, writes: M.H. in Salt Lake City asked why the Republicans do not change their nomination rules. While you gave the strategic reasons it will not happen, the real answer is that they can't.
The two parties take very different approaches to the nomination process, this manifests in several different ways. For this question, however, there is one key difference.
The Democratic Party, in theory, starts from scratch after the presidential election is concluded. When the nominating convention ends, there is nothing adopted for the next presidential election cycle. Often, the Convention will appoint a special committee to review the process and submit recommended changes to the Rules and By-laws Committee of the Democratic National Committee by a date certain. Otherwise, the process for drafting the rules for the upcoming cycle falls to the Rules and By-laws Committee, and their draft is ultimately adopted by the DNC. Now, whether based on recommended changes by a special committee or a review conducted solely by Rules and By-laws Committee, the starting point is for practical purposes the previous plan, but there is no legal requirement that the old plan be the starting point.
By contrast, in the Republican Party, the rules governing the nominating process is part of the By-laws of the Republican Party which are formally adopted at each Convention. Which makes it very difficult to change the rules, since the majority of the delegates to the national convention support the winning nominee, who normally thinks the rules are just fine since they resulted in him getting the nomination. In recent cycles, the Republicans have left themselves an out by allowing the Republican National Committee to amend the rules related to the nomination process, but such a rules change requires the support of three-quarters of the members of the Republican National Committee and the deadline for making such a change is September 30 of the mid-term years.
And crucial to that supermajority requirement is the fact that, for both parties, members of the National Committee are elected during the run-up to the national convention. So, while a lot of the Republican Party might want to make a change, the 2020 Republican electorate tended to place pro-Trump members on the Republican National Committee. Even if a lot of talking heads and Senators and Representatives and the staff of the Republican National Committee might want a way to change the rules to block Donald Trump, the Republican National Committee members do not.
A second key difference is in the approach that the two parties take to the role of the national parties and the state parties in the process. The Democratic rules for the delegate selection process are mostly set by the national party. While state parties have some choices to make (e.g., the dates of their delegate selection events within the 3-month window authorized by the national rules), the key choices such as proportionality are made by the national rules. The Republicans take the opposite approach; with the exception of a very short period of time (the first half of March), it is entirely up to the state parties to choose whether they want a winner-take-all system, a winner-take-most system (in which the winner of the state gets the state-wide delegates but the winner in each congressional district gets the congressional district delegates), or a proportional system. So the real decision is made at the state level, and most state Republican parties have concluded that using winner-take-all or winner-take-most gives them more influence at the national convention.
L.O.-R. in San Francisco, CA, writes: You wrote: "Trump wouldn't be caught dead in a church unless he was holding a rally outside of one and it suddenly began pouring."
My curiosity: Pouring what? Fire and brimstone?
B.H. in Frankfort, IL, writes: Your posts provoke thought and that provokes comments, so here's mine: The item "DeSantis' Former Colleagues Don't Like Him" reminded me of a couple stories about Mayor Richard J. Daley of Chicago, a master politician. One involves my lifelong friend, a distant descendant of the late Joe McDonough, who was young Daley's political sponsor/mentor and responsible for Daley first getting involved in politics. My friend, of course, had a city job, but had never met "Da Mayor" until he was assigned to work at City Hall as vacation relief.
One day he's on the elevator alone when it stops at the fifth floor. Daley and his bodyguards step into the elevator and Daley looks at my friend's name tag and says, "You're related to Joe McDonough, aren't you?"
And that's why Richard J. Daley won every election for mayor he ever entered. People overlooked all the corruption and malfeasance of his administrations because they felt a personal connection with him.
M.B. in Montreal, QC, Canada, writes: I have to respond to the suggestion of W.H.K. in Salt Lake City. I would never, ever vote for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. I have voted for every Democratic candidate for president—and everything else—since 1960 and would have voted for Adlai in 1956 if 19-year-olds were allowed to vote, but I could not vote for RFK Jr. He has demonstrated without the shadow of a doubt that he cannot look at data and draw valid conclusions. I would describe him as an ignoramus.
T.P. in Kings Park, NY, writes: Contrary to W.H.K. in Salt Lake City, RFK Jr.was not "branded as an 'anti-vaxxer' by Big Pharma," he was branded as an anti-vaxxer by RFK Jr. He's about as big a crank as they come, and he has about as much chance at the Democratic nomination as Marianne Williamson. This is a good thing, IMO, because while I'm going to vote against Trump no matter who the other candidate is, RFK Jr. is about the only nominee who would make me feel dirty while doing so.
Politics: E. Jean Carroll
A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Donald Trump's situation in the E. Jean Carroll case is even more precarious than reported. Right now, Carroll is telling her side of the story. Trump's lawyer can try to poke holes in it or attempt to undermine her credibility but the only person who can actually refute her testimony is Trump. If he doesn't take the stand, then the case isn't "he said/she said," it's "she said." If that's all the jury hears, in addition to the evidence of Trump's pattern of this type of behavior, they will infer from his silence that he can't refute it without lying. And remember this jury has been kept anonymous for their safety, so they already think Trump is menacing. I predict Trump will show up and testify in his own defense, even knowing that Kaplan will tear him apart on cross—that's the only chance he has of avoiding being found liable.
R.S. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: I am wondering if the news personalities, mainly cable news, are focusing on the wrong thing with regard to all of Donald Trump's worries. On Thursday, one show cut away from a very cogent discussion about the civil rape case with the big news that Mike Pence had just testified to Jack Smith's committee. It was a long time before they went back to the original subject.
I wonder if the defamation/rape case, although civil, will actually be Trump's "nail in the coffin." Firstly, it is going to end sooner than any other case, and probably before a Smith or Fani Willis indictment is announced. Second, and mostly, because even though the actual charge is civil assault, Trump would be running for President as a convicted rapist, and there can't be any worse label (nickname) than that!
R.Y. in Knoxville, TN, writes: Your summary of E. Jean Carroll's cross-examination was missed a fact about Carrol's inability to pinpoint the date. People who have been subject to singular, traumatic events, especially suppressed ones, will not recall the exact date years or decades later.
I was groped on a bus ride overseas when I was about 10. My assailant was a young adult man. I had no idea what to do with this event when it happened—I was embarrassed, and thought I had done something wrong. I told no one.
I am absolutely sure that this happened. I can tell you where I was on the bus, the color of the bus interior, and where other people were. I describe his face and expression. I could not tell you the day or date, and probably not the month.
Omissions of date and time are not markers of a story being false.
A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: I believe E. Jean Carroll. Not because I am anti-Trump (I am) but because E. Jean Carroll is believable to me. I should know. I also was sexually assaulted.
In my case, it happened in a doctor's office in 1997. I had recently moved to Louisville, KY, at the time, and I saw this doctor for continuation of hormone treatments I already was on. After waiting three hours for the doctor, I was shown into the exam room... where the doctor was intensively curious as to whether I had male or female genitalia... and he kept pressing the question.
Now, those who know anything about trans people can tell you that we do not like to own up to having our birth genitalia, nor do we like anyone to see or touch them... of course, in the case of doctors who are going to treat us, we have to grit our teeth and bear what is almost unbearable to us.
I indicated to the doctor that I was pre-op (which, at that time, I was)—neatly avoiding the direct answer, because of what I stated above, we simply don't want to acknowledge the unwanted parts of ourselves. This was not good enough for the doctor, and he reached a hand up my skirt to see for himself.
He then left the room and came back five minutes later, refusing to treat me "because it was against his religious convictions." So I got a refusal of treatment and a sexual assault in the same visit... talk about one-stop shopping!
Now, I do not care what anyone says: A doctor who has no intention to treat you has no business sticking his hand up your skirt! That is a sexual assault. I reported him, at the time, to the Jefferson County Medical Review Board. And I sat in a room of 12 male doctors, tryinng to get them to understand how this was a sexual assault upon me. And the doctor got a mere slap on the wrist.
"What does all this have to do with E. Jean Carroll?," I hear readers ask. Well... she is right. You never forget being assaulted or raped. You might forget some details, but you never forget it happened! To this day, I do not recall the name of the doctor anymore, nor the exact date. So, E. Jean Carroll strikes me as completely believable.
I, too, was motivated to speak out about what happened to me, for publication... as a result fo the #MeToo movement... and Trump's attempts to allow doctors to refuse treatment to LGBTQ (I might note North Carolina is trying this on a state level right now). For years after having reported the doctor, I did not speak of it or even think of it... but it affected me. Another reason E. Jean Carroll is believable to me.
J.M. in Silver Spring, MD, writes: You wrote: "Carroll also noted that she has not had sex, or any romantic relationships, since the alleged incident with Trump. This is unlikely to be a lie, as it would be pretty easy to disprove by calling one or more exes to the stand if she was not telling the truth."
Or Trump could pay someone to claim to be an ex and refute her testimony. Are we really going to say that is beyond his delicate sense of morals and ethics?
(V) & (Z) respond: No, it is not beyond his sense of morals and ethics. However, that would require finding someone who was willing to risk going to prison for perjury, and who could credibly withstand cross-examination. And if Team Trump were to ask the wrong person to try it, they might run to the authorities, torpedoing the whole defense and exposing Trump to even more legal liability.
A.J. in Baltimore, MD, writes: The reason why the statute of limitations for sexual assault can be revived in New York for civil suits but not criminal proceedings has little to do with the burden of proof. It's because a revival of criminal charges would almost certainly be an unconstitutional ex post facto law. In Calder v. Bull, the Supreme Court held that the provisions against ex post facto laws only apply to criminal cases, not civil ones.
Politics: With a Name Like Tucker's, It Has to Be Bad
D.R. in Massapequa Park, NY, writes: In regards to Tucker Carlson in 2024, you wrote: "There's probably not a lane for him for a 2024 presidential run" but with Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) falling further behind, Trump's legal problems potentially mounting to the point of damaged beyond repair, and no other true viable option to Trump among the base, Tucker Carlson has the perfect storm to be seen as a (dangerous) alternative to scoop up the nomination. He is a right-wing blowhard, racist to his core and, as pointed out many times on this site, it's not about experience, it's about the perception of "owning the libs." Plus, he can probably keep his cool much better than Trump.
In 2016, Democrats made the error of writing Trump off as a joke. If Tucker does decide to enter, pray for the republic they don't make the same mistake twice.
W.S. in Austin, TX, writes: You wrote: "[Fox] will have to pay Carlson's $20 million salary for a couple more years as he has a contract, but if they can replace him with a $6 million man (We can rebuild him. We have the technology.)"
I'd think it would be both possible and easy for an AI to generate a Carlson replacement for virtually no money, because:
- AIs often get their facts wrong
- AIs are often offensive
- AIs witlessly echo what is said elsewhere by human beings online
- AIs show no true capacity to assess reality and arrive at helpful conclusions
These are all obvious job qualifications for a primetime Fox entertainer, such as Carlson.
S.V. in London, England, UK, writes: You wrote: "For the smaller networks, Newsmax and OAN, payouts of a billion dollars, give or take, are not possible. They are marginally profitable, if at all, and don't have that kind of money in the bank. An adverse ruling in the Dominion case would bankrupt them."
It struck me: Could this have been the rationale for settling in the first place? The reason that Fox hosts continued to broadcast the lies, even though they themselves didn't believe them, was the fear that being honest would cause their more rabid viewers to switch to the competition and therefore adversely affect the share price. By settling for $787 million and effectively admitting that "Stop the Steal" was a big lie they've strengthened Dominion's case against the competition. Not only that, but if Dominion wins against Rudy Giuliani and Mike Lindell it gives Fox an excuse for not having to invite them on to their shows anymore.
While I'd personally love for Smartmatic to drag the Fox hosts into open court and force a multi-billion dollar pay-out, it's going to be difficult for a relatively small company not to settle for a similar amount as Dominion. Perhaps Fox considered it worthwhile to pay in order to effectively kneecap the competition. They still have other topics beyond "Stop the Steal" to keep their rabid fan base coming back for their Daily Hate.
S.Z. in Parma, OH, writes: Y'no, in construction it is quite normal to be terminated from employment at the very end of Friday's shift. To be fired on Monday, before showing up, is extra-special vindictiveness, and all the other employees notice.
J.O. in Centralia, MO, writes: By far, the best headline this week was courtesy of Politico: "Fox Nips Tuck, Lemon Squeezed Out at CNN."
S.J. in Sanford, NC, writes: I don't know if you guys watch RuPaul's Drag Race, but it has an after show called Untucked!. Unknowingly, or maybe you did know, the term untucked/tucked for drag queens refers to the position of certain males part during shows. One which could easily be used to describe Carlson Tucker. I couldn't think of a more apropos title for the firing of said anti-LGBTQ+ certain male part. I love it! Keep up the good work!
(V) & (Z) respond: That meaning did occur to us, though we weren't sure if anyone else would pick up on it.
F.S. in Idaho Falls, ID, writes: In reference to your item on Don Lemon, I was surprised when he said what he did in reference to Nikki Haley, and towards women in general. Because, if anyone should understand living with painful victimization and persecution, I'd think a gay Black man would.
I thought about all the times I endured spiteful and unfair comments at work directed towards me because I am female, and how easy it would have been if my attacker had been fired. But they were not, and I had to return to work, and collaborate with them as if nothing was wrong, knowing that they thought of me as inferior. I had to continue to behave as if I was working in the best interest of the company. Oh, I could have filed a complaint, probably every month of my 20-year tenure at a government facility, but then I would have been known as a complainer, and probably would not have survived the thirteen layoffs that I did. I had to feed myself, and I put up with a lot of this type of misogyny to do so. So, I think about the women that worked with Lemon, and I hope they have a good day.
B.S. in Charleston, SC, writes: I find it a little bit amusing that most people have been comparing Carlson's departure with that of Bill O'Reilly. That's not the former-Fox-star that I most associate Carlson's nightly diatribe with; that would be Glenn Beck.
Granted, Beck never eclipsed O'Reilly while they were on the air together. O'Reilly obviously had the primetime slot and the larger following. But as you have noted, Carlson was absolutely unhinged and detached from reality in a way that I can really only compare to Beck. And I also remember the incredible satire of Beck by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show which really helped sharpen just how deranged Beck was.
It's almost like Beck and O'Reilly were smashed together and out popped Carlson.
E.F. in Baltimore, MD, writes: In answer to B.R.J. in San Diego, Rush Limbaugh's former producer was being interviewed, and said that if Limbaugh could make more money doing a liberal show... he would.
R.V. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: I'm old enough to remember 1988, when this guy was the most controversial guy on TV (at the 5:28 mark, he tells Ron Paul, "if I had a slime like you in the White House, I'd puke on you.") But his show was short lived and he faded away after a few seasons...
Unlike the late 80's and early 90's, there is now a constant appetite for ultra-vile, mean-spirited television. Though Morton Downey Jr. would have been labeled a RINO by today's conservative media.
Politics: Debt Ceiling
B.Z. in McLean, VA, writes: You rightly point out that Joe Biden has several options if "negotiations" with Republicans on the debt ceiling fail, including the trillion dollar coin and simply continuing to service debt. There is an underlying sentiment that this could be a solution to the problem. However, if this is the route that Biden decides to take, I am confident that global financial markets will react badly, including a possible further downgrade in the U.S. bond rating, as there is a non-zero probability that courts will not sustain this decision, throwing the full faith and credit of the U.S. into further doubt. Any uncertainty and premium-grade investment ratings are not compatible and the result will be escalating debt servicing costs which will needlessly plague future generations. So I believe that the administration should use every trick in their repertoire to settle this without having to resort to these "outside the box" remedies.
J.L. in Chicago, IL, writes: I am not sure the Fourteenth Amendment is the clear workaround to the debt limit that you argue it is. I assume/hope the federal government brings in enough revenue to cover service on the debt. So, the debt can be fully honored without borrowing another penny. It also can pay debts that have matured and replace them with new debt without increasing total debt.
What it will not be able to do shortly is service the debt and meet all other expenses required by law without increasing the debt. As you note, the Constitution trumps bills passed by Congress, so seemingly requires that the spending bills take a back seat to payments on the debt. The 14th Amendment also includes the qualifier "authorized by law," in reference to the debt. Since, for over 100 years, there has been a debt limit written into law and Congress has raised it by law, there would seem to be a strong argument that borrowing beyond the debt limit constitutes debt not authorized by law.
We need to head off this crisis but I am not so sure the Fourteenth Amendment is a viable route to doing so.
All Politics Is Local
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: Some additional context for your answer to the question from J.S. in London about Democrats' position vis-à-vis the red states. I grew up in South Dakota, and George McGovern was therefore one of my Senators when I was a small child. In the 70s and 80s it was not at all uncommon for South Dakota and the surrounding plains states to send Democrats to Congress (either chamber) while electing mostly Republican governors and generally supporting Republicans in the Electoral College. The theory I heard at the time was that people wanted Democrats to bring home the bacon for the folks back home but to put Republicans in the executive to rein them in from doing too much. In fact, for almost 20 years, South Dakota's only seat in the House of Representatives was held by the Democrats, and from 1997 until 2005, both of our Senators were Democrats. Tim Johnson (D-SD) held his Senate seat until 2015, winning re-election in 2008 following a serious stroke in 2006.
What changed, from my perspective, was the GOP of the 1990s switching to a narrative that Democrats were actually bad people and that politics wasn't actually about governing a diverse country and was really a war between good and evil and that therefore there could be no compromise. However, even before that it was always strange to me how my fellow South Dakotans would be willing to support any Republicans when it was so clear that they only really cared about Wall Street.
T.B. in Nowata, OK, writes: The Governor of Oklahoma, Kevin Stitt (R), still wants to be in the mix for potential Presidential (or VP) material. He continues to try to destroy public education by a thousand cuts and has a scary henchman in Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters to assist him.
But now he has gone even further by vetoing many bills passed by the Republican-dominated state House and state Senate because of a Stitt snit over education bills. Then this headline appeared today: "News alert: Gov. Kevin Stitt vetoes OETA renewal, questioning public broadcaster's long-term value."
OETA is known as the best PBS network in the nation.
I haven't read the article as The Oklahoman has long been a bastion of right-wing rhetoric. However, even they have had their belly-full of Stitt.
As Rachel Maddow would say, watch this space.
S.G. in Newark, NJ, writes: I had never heard of Paula Hawkins or Vance Kassebaum, so I was very relieved to find out their true credentials! (Although they may be more real than "George Santos.") Jack Ciatarelli ran a very Trumpy campaign last time, and did much better than expected, which is scary.
Steve Fulop (D) seems ok, though I don't know if he's known outside the North Jersey inner suburbs, and I worry that he could be painted as an extreme lefty. Also, given the traditional ethical standards to which New Jersey politicians have adhered, Jersey may be the only state in the country (well, maybe Illinois too) where never having held public office before may be a genuine asset for a candidate (see Murphy, Phil, who did a pretty darn good job).
Legal Matters
M.A. in Knoxville, TN, writes: In regards to the question from M.S. in Missouri City about Fox paying out their settlement to Dominion, I wanted to add something. Savvy judges and lawyers can add clauses to settlements that will cause serious pain to defendants they suspect will try not to pay. My mom had this happen when my biological father tried to get out of paying his settlement for back child support.
Just a bit of background: My biological father left mom when I was a baby. When I was in junior high she finally found out where he was, at which point she sued for both child support and back child support. He tried to fight it at first, but things were going badly for him, so he agreed to settle. The judge insisted on a clause in the settlement that if my biological father stopped paying for any reason, the penalty reset and interest was added.
Eventually he filed for bankruptcy, listed mom as a creditor and stopped paying. Judgements and settlements don't count as creditors, so once the process played out, he wasn't allowed to discharge the settlement. Instead he had to start over, now with a higher amount owed than from the start. Since he'd paid off close to half of the original amount, this attempt to wiggle out of the settlement cost him dearly. I was nearly 30 before he finally paid it all off.
B.P. in Pensacola, FL, writes: As an attorney who practices in the Northern District of Florida, I wanted to offer a few comments on the actual complaint filed in the Disney v. DeSantis suit, and on the court where it is pending. The complaint is lengthy—75+ pages—but it is a really quite exquisite piece of pleading. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain "a short and plain statement of the ultimate facts" showing that the pleader is entitled to the relief requested. One might argue that a 75 page complaint is not that, but given the breadth of what's alleged and the relief sought, the better argument is that it is appropriately "short and plain." It's written in plain English, which makes it accessible to anyone reading it, and goes step by step, with quotes from various sources, to show now only that the actions by DeSantis and the legislative Republicans were unabashedly retaliatory.
It also tells another and equally—if not more—important story about the approval of the contracts that the media reports said were meant to undermine or neuter the new oversight board. The complaint carefully shows that the contracts were the culmination of lengthy planning and review that was approved by the pertinent state agencies, and were raised and discussed at two advertised public meetings that were attended by multiple media outlets. In other words, there was nothing suspicious or irregular about the contracts; rather, they were simply a step along the way of the next phase of Disney's development. What this says, without saying so explicitly, is that Ron DeSantis and his people were just not paying attention and acted without understanding what was already in process. And in what is truly a master stroke, it quotes extensively from DeSantis's own book to establish the claims which makes it particularly difficult for DeSantis to contend something different as the litigation progresses. Hoisting on petards comes to mind.
The judge to which the case is assigned, Mark Walker, is a detailed, thorough and extremely bright jurist. We are fortunate to have him as one of the judges in our district. He will review not only the cases and other authorities cited to him in briefs, but pursue other avenues of research, not uncommonly finding pertinent authorities that none of the lawyers have raised. He also, like the complaint, writes in plain and accessible language, but also is intolerant of B.S. and will call it out in blunt terms. He is the same judge who referred to the "Stop Woke" law as "positively dystopian."
It will be interesting to see the responses filed. It is unlikely that they will be as exquisitely crafted as the complaint.
Trans Matters
P.V. in Kailua, HI, writes: Regarding trans rights, K.Y. in Tumwater has a long list of things that feminists supposedly object to. I, a cis-het, XX-chromosomed, 63-year-old feminist, would like to state that K.Y. does not speak for me. If anyone wants to refer to "birthing people" or "people with cervixes," I am totally OK with that! Last time I looked, women were people.
K.Y. makes a number of statements about how trans women allegedly oppress or damage other women, but they present virtually nothing to support their claims. So let me help! I could find two publicized incidents of trans activists disrupting anti-trans events in the U.S. According to reports from right-leaning sites, the police became involved in both cases—they did not "look the other way" as K.Y. claims. The trans-rights activists did not bring guns—unlike documented instances where well-armed protesters have shown up at drag shows. An aside—I understand that "drag" and "trans" are not synonymous; that may not be clear to the protesters at drag shows.
K.Y. states "We object to awarding Woman of the Year, International Women of Courage, Women's Prize for Fiction, and the like to people who have identified as women for a hot minute." Woman of the Year is such a generic title, I'm not sure what K.Y. is referring to. Maybe they mean USA Today's award, which has 12 national honorees and one from each of the 50 states. Of those 62 women, there has been one trans woman in each of the two years it appears to have been given. I assume that the staff mathematician is indisposed, so I'll help him out—that's 1.6%. Alba Rueda, an Argentinian trans woman, was one of 11 people awarded an International Woman of Courage Award in 2023. Since the award's beginning in 2007, 154 cis women and 1 trans woman have been honored. That is 0.6%. Torrey Peters, a trans woman, made the long list of 16 authors for the 2021 Women's Prize for Fiction. She did not win or even make the short list. Non-binary author Akwaeke Emezi was long-listed in 2019. They also did not make the short list. That is 2 non-cis people nominated out of 432 over 27 years, or 0.5%. I'm not OK with this. Given a best guess that roughly 2% of the world's population is gender nonconforming, I think that they should be better represented. BTW, Torry Peters came out as trans in 2007 and began physically transitioning in 2011. Her nomination was 10 years after that—far longer than a "hot minute."
As for the world of sports, while I believe there is a nuanced conversation to be had, I would like to point out that in 1976, Dr. Renée Richards, a trans woman, successfully sued the U.S. Tennis Association to compete in the Women's Open. 47 years later, to the best of my knowledge (i.e., I looked it up in Wikipedia) there are currently no trans women in professional or Olympic sports in the U.S. Perhaps there are some that Wikipedia doesn't know about but clearly, despite Dr. Richards' demand having been met, trans women are not dominating U.S. women's sports.
More serious than awards or athletics, K.Y. states, "We object to rapists being housed in women's prisons." Boy, have I got bad news for them! There are already plenty of rapists in women's prisons. As well as the horrific statistics of sexual assault and coercion perpetrated by prison staff, the rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual assault is higher in women's prisons than in men's. We should all object to sexual assault under any circumstances including prison, but keeping trans women out of women's prisons will do next to nothing to improve safety for incarcerated cis women. Furthermore, K.Y.'s wording is such that it could be read as accusing all trans women of being rapists. In the spirit of not interpreting things in the worst way possible, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. But it was a close call.
In the interest of time and space, I will refrain from specifically addressing other of K.Y.'s objections that carry a strong whiff of straw man. I will end by saying that while the online invective hurled at J.K. Rowling is vile, any woman—cis or trans—who voices an opinion on the Internet deals with the same or worse. And though it may more pervasive for women, men also come in for abuse. Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill) and Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) have both been vocal about the obscenities and threats directed at them and their families. It is disingenuous to imply that being the target of odious behavior is unique to Rowling and other anti-trans people. Much of social media is an awful place for everyone.
N.R. in Columbia, MO, writes: I'm a long time reader, first time writer, so forgive me any mistakes, but the response from K.Y. in Tumwater was so genuinely disconcerting, misguided, and hurtful that something needed to be said. So I'm going to share my life experience, as well as try to address some of these points K.Y. makes in a way that can hopefully convince her and people who agree with her that these points are wrong, or at least that trans people are not the enemy.
Let me start by saying that my mother is a most vociferous and active feminist, and she had some doubts herself when she heard about this "trans stuff" back when I was in high school. But since then she's come around, because not only has she realized that trans lives are more important than cis comfort, but also that forsaking trans rights leaves all women one step closer to being relegated to the role of being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, shut out of modern life as we know it. Just as one example, If trans people are forced to dress a certain way pertaining to how society sees them, what's to stop the same from happening to you and I at any point in the future?
Let's add to this backstory that I am a man, insofar as the doctor slapped me on the bottom: declared "it's a boy!" And I've been more or less content with that ever since; but if one more thing was different in my brain I would have set down the path to transition years ago and never looked back. Though I know plainly cisgendered men who are also feminists, my thoughts on my own gender identity and expression have made me say, more keen on the matter of taking feminism very seriously. (Say, K.Y.: How many feminist texts have you read cover-to-cover? How about in your second language? How about your third?) So please, don't take this as a man trying to mansplain feminism. My girlfriend suggested I send this post in, and two of my best friends in the world are women, and we have spent hundreds of hours over the years educating each other about these things. We even took Women in Literature together back in high school!
Speaking of best friends, my other best friend just came out as trans. She has gone from despondent and miserable to happier than I've seen her in years. By the way, her mom got arrested while wearing a vulva hat to a protest meant to protect a Planned Parenthood once, and is one of the only people more feminist than my own mother. She was also the first person to know her daughter was trans, second only to myself, and was 100% supportive. So please, don't state that feminists are anti-trans like it's the law of the land, as it is, at best, your personal opinion.
Said friend is now actively worrying that she is going to be on the receiving end of an act of genocide, seeing as Missouri is seemingly moving in the direction of making trans people effectively illegal and shutting them out from public life, seemingly to the goal of rounding all trans people up and "eliminating trans 'ideology'" once and for all. This is of course all in addition to making HRT untenably difficult to access, which is completely unconscionable, in addition to being reminiscent of the anti-trans violence that happened in the Weimar Republic. Why do I say the removal or hormone replacement is "unconscionable," however? Well, if you had seen a drug make more than a dozen of your friends and acquaintances go from borderline suicidal to happier than you'd ever seen them in your life, wouldn't you say the same thing?
So from my perspective, you, the so-called feminist, are actively abetting an attempt at literal genocide in the name of making yourself more comfortable. In doing so you are: (1) actively enabling the dumb culture war issues that everybody with a lick of politics knowledge knows are a waste of time, (2) letting people like Ron DeSantis or Missouri AG Andrew Bailey (R) get closer to rounding up all trans people and letting infringe upon the rights of cis women to boot and (3) denying both the existence, validity, and necessary medical treatment of people who should be your allies in the fight against oppression.
K.F. in Austin, TX, writes: K.Y. in Tumwater asserted that [some] feminists are "anti-trans" as they object to a whole long list of awful-sounding characterizations and behavior, e.g. referring to women as "menstruators' and "birthing people."
I suspect K.Y. would be surprised to find that many "pro-trans" voters would agree, and find this degree of "wokeness" offensive about as much as the "anti-trans" people do.
It's possible to be okay with just letting people be who they want to be, without altering our entire language and society to get around the relatively uncommon exception.
I'm curious who K.Y. thinks is characterizing things this way. To me, most of this list reads like a straw-man argument, or some talking points coming out of the partisan media.
There are extremists on both sides of any issue, but they are just a disproportionately loud minority. Politicians and the media do a great job of amplifying the extremists for attention, money and votes. Unfortunately their profit and gain is to the detriment of our civil discourse.
Royal Affairs
C.J. in Lowell, MA, writes: Regarding your response to the question about American fascination with British royalty, I think your answer might unfortunately speak for many Americans, but it does not speak for me. I am also fascinated by British royalty and have spent a lot of time compiling genealogy for European royal houses, but it's the history, pageantry, and constitutional position that get my attention.
I, for one, absolutely hate the tabloid coverage they are subject to and would much rather read about their public duties and charitable activities. I often watch the State Opening of Parliament and plan on watching the coronation even if on at an unusual hour in my time zone. I think there still is a role for the monarch when the political system becomes stressed and I think it's ridiculous that we've gone all the way from Divine Right of Kings to the other extreme in which it is considered scandalous for the sovereign to even express an opinion. I think there is something to be said for having a Head of State who commands the respect of the whole nation and not just of his party. God Save the King!
E.D. in Dansville, NY, writes: George Washington was named after his great-grandfather, George Reade, who helped settle Yorktown. George Reade's daughter Mildred Reade Warner was one of George Washington's great-grandmothers. She also was eight times great-grandmother to the late Queen Elizabeth and to... ME. Queen Elizabeth died on my birthday. I watched the whole funeral procession. My children are the same generation as the future King Charles III. I'm not at all interested in the 'dirt" but I always hope posting on these sites, I'll find relatives in this country. Of course, the one I'm most drawn to is Prince Harry because he is married to Meghan. She is a distant cousin to Mookie Betts, who is my favorite baseball player since Shane Victorino retired. My father is 100% English. My mother's family Scotch-Irish. These are the people who made us.
The Sporting Life
P.D. in Leamington, ON Canada (Originally from Madison, WI), writes: Just a note for D.S. in Haverstown. Normally I don't engage with those who so clearly are deluded but as a lifelong Packers fan I just have this to say:
(V) & (Z) respond: We believe it was Albert Einstein who said: "The definition of insanity is rooting for an NFC North team that is not the Packers."
M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: Before the move to L.A., owner Dean Spanos wanted San Diego to build the team a new stadium, which had to be approved by the voters. It seemed as though every other election there was a ballot initiative, and it always went down in flames. I, for one, couldn't figure out why the team didn't refurbish the stadium they already owned. It wasn't until Spanos gave up and made the decision to move the team that the real reason they wanted a new stadium came out: If they made the stadium's seats wider and made more room between the rows, the number of seats that would fit in the old stadium would fall below the league requirement for a stadium to host the Super Bowl.
The point-man who acted as the team's liaison with the city, who crafted the message for the voters, was none other than Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio, although at the time he was identified as the team's attorney. He probably could have persuaded voters about the stadium had he been the least bit honest about why the Chargers needed a new one. Now, whenever I read about him working on some Republican effort to do this or that, I snort and suspect it's unlikely to succeed with Tony at the helm.
California Love
M.C in Reno, NV, writes: When reading the question from R.L. in Alameda listing the common patterns of speech for Californians, I wanted to scream internally that R.L. had not included, like, the word "like", at the top of the rankings. Luckily, like, your students, like, did. I hate this "disfluency." I lived in California for 20 years and I, like, loathe it. But I do it. My wife does it. My kids do it. The whole, like, world, does it, and it's a cancer upon our language.
"Like" has, like, taken over the world. So much so that R.L. doesn't even identify it as Californian any more.
I'm trying to quit. Does anyone out there have any resources for how to, like, stop?
(V) & (Z) respond: The quiz question (Z) often asks after this lecture is: "What word is, like, the #1 signifier of California speech according to students in this course?"
J.E. in San Jose (sometimes pronounced Sanna Zay), CA, writes: R.L. came up with their own list of California speech characteristics. However, R.L.'s brush was too broad for my taste.
You need to get past at least San Luis Obispo before people start "the"-ing highways. Show some NorCal pride, R.L.!
Conversely, "hella" is a Bay Area phrase, which explains why an Alamedan would know of it. In my trips to the water-stealing half of the state, I always code-switch away from this term, lest I be outed as a Northerner. Seeing (undoubtedly) (Z)'s response causes me to rethink this. My own local bias is clearly showing here.
Only Bay Areans hold "Frisco" disdainfully. But the larger issue is the rise of "San Fran." I feel powerless to stop it.
Lots of locals call it "Cali," although I refuse. I want R.L. to be right here, but alas.
And finally, yes, we do conflate everything east of the Rockies. I still don't believe Virginia is a Southern state, although Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) is really testing me.
The one thing missing from both lists is our dialect, which removes the letter "T" when it is after an "N."
C.C. in Palo Alto (but originally from New York City), writes: As a transplant from the East Coast, I'd like to weigh in that the strongest indicator of a Californian accent to me is "uptalk," the anti-confrontational phrasing of everything as an implicit question (?).
Beyond that, prefacing highway numbers with "the" is limited to southern California, "hella" originated in Oakland as far as I know, and S.F.'s parochial "the City" affectation is cringe.
"Gonna" has been US-wide slang for at least a century. Maybe cite "finna" to show some awareness of more recently widespread contractions? Also, the taboos against saying "Frisco" or "Cali" turn out to be somewhat white-people specific, so as with the regionalism above folks should take care not to universalize.
D.S. in Palo Alto, CA, writes: One recent emergent term for "cool," as you put it, and not just in Cali, is "fire." It can't disappear fast enough.
Gallimaufry
P.F. in Fairbanks, AK, writes: Each time you apologize for being late or, in the rare occurrence, that you had to miss a day, I appreciate your dedication more. As volunteers, you should be appreciated even more.
That said, I don't think apologies should be necessary. Certainly, there's an element of simply being polite and respectful to the people who rely on you for news and commentary. But those who read your blog should hopefully be understanding people who, themselves, are not expected to provide a product 7 days a week without a break. I appreciate the diversity of holidays that you mention at the top of some blogs, but notice more that you do not take any of them as opportunities to take a purposeful break.
I don't mean to lecture you on your personal and professional choices—quite the opposite, actually—I want to convey my feeling that you should never have to apologize for making the personal or professional choice to dial back, take a break, or receive some grace for the myriad of life's unexpected happenings.
Perhaps take a beach day and ask ChatGPT to cover for you and see if your loyal readers can spot which day it was?
(V) & (Z) respond: We appreciate the kind words! However, the day ChatGPT is able to cover for us is the day we retire from blogging.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, writes: You wrote that a new Morning Consult poll "has Republican primary voters supporting Donald Trump over DeSantis 58% to 21%. Our staff mathematician said: 'Wow, a 37% gap is a really big number.'" So to the surprise of everybody, your staff mathematician said something rational. I guess it was the first time in his life that he was sober. Now he knows what the word "sober" means. Or did you hire a new staff mathematician?
(V) & (Z) respond: That was written by (V). And what you must understand is that, due to the time difference, (V) writes much earlier in the day than (Z) does.
J.A. in Dripping Springs, TX, writes: Is it wise and/or safe to discuss your schedule II controlled substances meds where the staff mathematician can read about it? your office hasn't been ransacked recently, has it?
(V) & (Z) respond: Several of the codeine pills did disappear mysteriously. Thank goodness you wrote in, otherwise the staff dachshunds might have gotten the blame.
L.O.-R. in San Francisco, CA, writes: Dear Q,
Welcome to the electoral-vote staff! I hope you have time to make a contribution before they get you.
Final Words
P.C. in Yandina Creek, QLD, Australia, writes: Hard to outdo Voltaire, who on his death bed was asked by a priest if he renounced Satan. His reply: "...now, my good man, this is no time to be making enemies..."
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers