Bye, "George"

As expected, now-former representative "George Santos" (R-NY) was expelled from the House of Representatives yesterday, following the third attempt at the maneuver by his colleagues.

Back in 1861, three members—John B. Clark, John W. Reid and Henry C. Burnett—were expelled for being Confederate sympathizers. In 1980, Michael J. Myers was expelled after being convicted of taking bribes, and in 2002 Jim Traficant was expelled for the same. That makes "Santos" the first member ever to be expelled for misdeeds so egregious that his colleagues didn't feel the need to wait for the criminal process to play out. It's the latest in a career full of firsts for "Santos," including being the first Major League Baseball player to hit 60 home runs in a season, the first Westerner to visit China, the first person to storm the beaches of France on D-Day and, of course, the first person to figure out that peanut butter and chocolate are a pretty good combo.

After getting tossed out on his ear, "Santos" entered temper-tantrum mode, and refused to talk to reporters. But really, who cares? He's gone either way, and everything that comes out of his mouth is dishonest or inaccurate, so there's really no need to hear from him about what it all means. And if you do care, well, we suspect he'll be selling his first post-expulsion interview to the highest bidder. So, just wait for his upcoming appearance on Extra or TMZ.

The vote was 311 votes (206 Democratic, 105 Republican) to expel, 114 votes (112 Republican, 2 Democratic) to sustain, with two "present" votes and nine members not voting. That means the bar for expulsion was easily cleared; under these circumstances, 280 votes were needed. The two Democrats to support "Santos" were Bobby Scott (VA) and Nikema Williams (GA), while the two "present" votes were Al Green (D-TX) and Jonathan Jackson (IL). All four of those Democrats are Black; you can decide for yourself if that means anything (like, for example, that they might have perceived racial undertones in actions being taken against a Latino congressman). All four members of GOP House leadership, incidentally, voted to sustain "Santos."

Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) is a loyal party woman, and there's every chance the Democrats will win the special election in the D+2 NY-03. So, she is going to exercise her authority to call a special election as soon as is practicable. Under New York law, there will be no primary; the local party organs will each choose a candidate to run. The Republicans have a fairly long list of candidates they are considering, none of whom you've ever heard of (unless you're from New York, maybe). The Democrats will likely go with Tom Suozzi, who represented the district for three terms before undertaking an quixotic campaign for the governorship of New York. It is expected the special election will take place sometime in February.

Once "Santos'" seat is again filled, then the question will be whether he continues to be an anchor around the neck of his fellow Republicans, particularly his fellow New York Republicans. Politico's Nick Reisman and Emily Ngo argue that the slowness with which "Santos" was held accountable will prove a liability for some members, even if they voted to expel him yesterday. There's also every chance that some members who voted to sustain will come to regret that vote. Indeed, between that and possible redistricting (i.e., gerrymandering), Republicans could end up having a very bad Election Day in New York in 2024. (Z)

Sandra Day O'Connor Is Dead at 93

See? We told you it's obituary week, though we did not anticipate this particular passing, of course. Anyhow, as readers have surely heard by now, Sandra Day O'Connor, the first female U.S. Supreme Court Justice, passed away yesterday.

We are not especially fond of writing standard obits, in part because they are a little bit dry, and in part because we can hardly do better than outlets who have been polishing their obits for the last 30-50 years (you can bet, for example, that the first draft of the The New York Times' obit of O'Connor was written sometime in the early 1980s). If you would like a standard obit, then here are some pretty good ones: The New York Times, Politico, the Associated Press, CNN, CBS and the BBC.

What we are going to do, instead, is the same thing we did for Dianne Feinstein, namely share 10 anecdotes about the deceased that we hope are interesting and/or illuminating. And so:

1. This Is a Man's World, Part I: Born in 1930, to a cattle ranching family, the young woman then known as Sandra Day began doing work normally reserved for men at an early age. While living at the Lazy B, she became skilled at branding and castrating cattle, driving tractors and firing rifles, among other things. Take that, Joni Ernst!
   
   
2. Not Bad if You Can't Get into UCLA, Redux: When we wrote about Dianne Feinstein, we noted that she chose Stanford because her father wanted her to go to Cal. In the case of Day, she went to Stanford because that's where her father wanted to go, but never got the chance. While an undergrad at the school, she took a class with law Professor Harry Rathbun. She said this class, and Rathbun's teaching of it, is what inspired her to pursue the law as a career.
   
   
3. Nice Ratio, Part I: Day's Stanford Law School class ('52) had just two women, as compared to several dozen men. When it came to dating, that certainly gave the women the pick of the litter. Day dated one of her classmates very seriously for a couple of years, to the point that the classmate proposed marriage. Day turned him down, but did end up crossing paths with him again later in life, as her would-be husband was... future chief justice William Rehnquist.
   
   
4. Nice Ratio, Part II: Eventually, Day fell in love with a different classmate, John O'Connor, and married him. When John traveled to the Lazy B Ranch to ask permission from Day's parents, Day's father tested the young man by serving him a plateful of freshly castrated bull testicles. Clearly this was a recurring theme of Sandra Day's life. John O'Connor wasn't nuts about the feast, but he was still a baller, so he managed to pass the test(es). Thus was the foundation laid for a marriage that lasted 57 years.
   
   
5. This Is a Man's World, Part II: That women lawyers were something of a novelty in the 1950s might have been good for Sandra Day O'Connor's social life in law school, but it wasn't good for her career prospects. The only clerkships she could find while in school were with seedy lawyers, including one in New Mexico whose biggest clients were a bookie and a brothel owner. After graduating, every law firm she applied to either rejected her outright or said they would only hire her as a legal secretary. She eventually found employment with the government, working as both a deputy DA and a lawyer for the U.S. Army. Later, she and her husband founded their own firm.
   
   
6. All The Way With Sandra Day?: Today, everyone pretends that judges are apolitical, even though we all know they are not. In past generations, it was entirely expected that judges would be political, such that most Supreme Court candidates came from the ranks of political officeholders, and not from law school faculties or long-serving private practice lawyers, or long-serving members of the federal judiciary. When Sandra Day O'Connor was tapped for SCOTUS, she had a little bit of judicial service on her record, but mostly in courts and on cases that did not reveal much about her leanings. She was chosen by Ronald Reagan because of her service in the Arizona state Senate; a tenure that included her becoming the first woman to serve as state Senate Majority Leader. To date, O'Connor is the last Supreme Court Justice to have previously served in elective office. Incidentally, she was approved 99-0, and the only senator who was not there to vote, Max Baucus (D-MT), sent her a copy of A River Runs Through It to apologize for his absence. Clearly, it was a different time.
   
   
7. The O'Connor Court: Eras in Supreme Court history are generally named for the sitting Chief Justice. By that standard, O'Connor served 5 years on the Burger Court, another 20 on the Rehnquist Court, and a few months on the Roberts Court. However, for much of her time in office, the term "O'Connor Court" was in wide use, as she was the swing vote on countless important cases. Those cases include Planned Parenthood v. Casey (affirmed Roe), Grutter v. Bollinger (race-based admissions are OK), McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (can't display the Ten Commandments in government buildings), and Bush v. Gore (Bush elected president). She later lamented the Court's role in the 2000 election, as well as the fact that conservatives managed to unravel much of her most important jurisprudence (she was furious about Dobbs).
   
   
8. This Is a Man's World, Part III: Everyone knows that Ruth Bader Ginsburg (a.k.a. "The Notorious RBG") became something of a rockstar, but O'Connor actually preceded her in that. In her first year on the court, O'Connor got 60,000 letters, something never seen before. When RBG joined the Court, she and O'Connor became fast friends, and they often appeared at conferences and other events together, commonly to speak on subjects related to women and the law. O'Connor also made a habit of getting to know all female law clerks hired by her colleagues, and helping to mentor them. That said, despite all of this, O'Connor hoped that one day women lawyers and judges would be so unremarkable that her trailblazer status would be forgotten. "I look forward to the day when I am thought of as the 102nd Supreme Court Justice rather than the first female Supreme Court Justice," she said.
   
   
9. A Dish Best Served Cold: Another rockstar in 1980s Washington was John Riggins, who was then the star running back for the Washington football team. In 1985, Riggins encountered O'Connor at a party, after he'd had a few drinks. He yelled at her: "Come on, Sandy baby, loosen up. You're too tight!" O'Connor was classy enough not to tear into someone who was drunk. However, a couple of years later, she was giving a speech at an event where Riggins was in the audience. She explained to the crowd that there was something she'd been wanting to say for years: "Loosen up Johnny, baby!" Reportedly, the line brought down the house.
   
   
10. What Retirement?: O'Connor stepped down from the court to take care of her husband, who had been diagnosed with (and who eventually died from) Alzheimer's disease. However, she really wasn't the type to retire. Throughout her tenure on the Supreme Court, she was bothered by the state of Americans' civic education. In particular, she was bothered by billboards she saw in the 1970s that said "Impeach Earl Warren." She thought that such reckless talk spoke to ignorance of how American institutions work. Luckily, these days, we've moved beyond such recklessness (Note to editor: Double-check that last sentence).
    
    Anyhow, once O'Connor was done with her duties on the Court, she poured her energy into creating the website Our Courts, which is now known as iCivics. It is now used by nearly 10 million students every year.

Clearly, it was a life well-lived. May Sandra Day O'Connor rest well, because she certainly earned it. (Z)

Saturday Q&A

A busy week and, as you can see above, a busy day.

Current Events

K.H. in Kerrville, TX, asks: Are we really in danger of becoming an authoritarian or autocratic state in the U.S.? And, if you believe so, what will that look like?

(V) & (Z) answer: Here's the thing. Donald Trump and his Federalist Society enablers have cooked up a lot of authoritarian-type plans, but thus far, they are all things that would, at least nominally, exist within the constraints imposed by the Constitution. For example, reclassifying federal employees to make sure that most of them are loyalists would be an extreme abuse of the Constitution, but it would NOT be setting the Constitution aside. Same thing with, for example, having the AG pursue political enemies.

We think that if Trump tries this, he will run into a LOT of resistance from the bureaucracy, from the federal courts, and even from Congress (as was the case the first time he served, although Congress didn't resist ALL that much). Further, at some point, he will have to choose between "Constitution" and "forget the Constitution." For example, if reelected, he would eventually reach the end of his legal ability to serve. And either he would leave office on Jan. 20, 2029, which is not a very authoritarian thing to do, or he would try to set aside the rules. If he chose the latter, he would face blowback from government officials and from the general public like nobody has ever seen before. And we do not believe, for one moment, that Trump can so thoroughly corrupt the military that they help him to stay in power and to subvert the Constitution.

In short, we foresee the possibility of 4 years of serious boundary-pushing, and probably some serious damage to democratic institutions, but a Hitler/Mussolini/Franco-esque coup does not seem plausible. Also, if we may suggest a possible silver lining, the excesses of a Trump v2.0 presidency might just be enough to persuade Americans that the time has come to make some repairs to the Constitution.

---

P.L. in Denver, CO, asks: Let me start by saying I am not a person who buys into conspiracy theories. The current news is that Hamas had detailed intelligence that was used to plan and execute the October slaughter in Israel. I also remember that Donald Trump provided Putin with Israeli intelligence.

Now comes the conspiracy: Could the info that Trump shared have gotten to Hamas?

(V) & (Z) answer: We have no comment on whether Trump gave information to Putin. However, if he did, then any information Putin has about Israel goes straight to Iran. And any information Iran has about Israel goes straight to Hamas. So, if you believe that Trump spilled the beans to the Russian president, then it is all-but-certain that information quickly ended up in Hamas' hands.

---

R.M. in Pensacola, FL, asks: So, after a third attempt to remove "George Santos" from the House, it was finally successful. But, I'm having trouble trying to figure out why exactly "Santos" got the boot, while every single Republican who voted to remove him from office, will support Donald Trump (R-FL). Both lie all of the time. Both have dozens of indictments currently against them. Both used their campaign(s) and/or position in office to enrich themselves.

From everything that I've seen, "Santos" sucks up to Trump as much as possible. Why did Trump not extend an olive branch, and why did "Santos" get thrown off the boat while Trump just keeps being Trump?

(V) & (Z) answer: The answer to all of your questions is "self-interest." There may have been a few members of Congress, we suppose, whose votes were based on something loftier. But the vast majority of Democrats who voted to expel did so because they want +1 D in February. The vast majority of Republicans who voted to expel did so because they don't want "Santos" weaponized against them next year. The vast majority of Republicans who voted to sustain did so because they fear +1 D in February.

As to Trump, any member who votes against Trump (say, in an impeachment) is effectively ending their career, and is very possibly putting their family in danger. Not so with "Santos." And Trump did not try to save "Santos" because there's nothing in it for Trump, and because he doesn't have that particular kind of muscle, meaning that when he failed, it would leave egg on his face.

---

S.M. Watertown, MN, asks: In the CNN report detailing "Santos'" expulsion, a reporter asked "if he would still stay and use nonmember privileges." What are nonmember privileges?

(V) & (Z) answer: Former members of the House get a few perks. They can use the House gym (though they have to pay for it). They can eat in the House cafeteria and read books in the Senate library. They can park in the House parking lots. They get free postage (i.e., franking) for 90 days.

---

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: I was watching the vote to expel Rep "George Santos" from the House and after the votes were cast, a bipartisan delegation from Arizona arose to recognize the passing of Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. During the speeches, one Representative mentioned that Justice O'Connor brought that "unique Arizona pragmatism" to the Court. Since I've heard politicians refer to "that unique Texas pragmatism," "that unique Pennsylvanian pragmatism," "that unique Missouri pragmatism," "that unique Virginian pragmatism," "that unique..." oh, well you get the idea, I started wondering is there an unique pragmatism to each of the fifty states? Does an unique pragmatism extended to the territories and districts? Just how is this unique pragmatism confer on the residents of these states? Does one have to be a native to display their states unique pragmatical aspects or can this be obtained by carpetbaggers as well? But most importantly, from a purely pragmatical perspective, what are the unique qualities of pragmatism that each state exudes and can there, practically speaking, really be that many flavors of pragmatism? Pragmatic minds need to know!

(V) & (Z) answer: This reminds us of Star Trek, a show that has many good qualities, but that almost always reduces every single planet they meet to a monoculture, with the same language, art, food, literature, etc. planet-wide.

We have no doubt that every single state has certain distinctive cultural elements, but also that there are many distinctive sub-cultures within each state. And so, a phrase like "distinctive [X] pragmatism" is just lazy code for something like "blue-collar" or "salt of the earth" or "non-urban." We are very skeptical that anyone who uses such phrasing could enunciate what makes Arizona pragmatism different from Texas pragmatism or Missouri pragmatism.

---

C.W. in Carlsbad, CA, asks: Bravo to (V) and (Z) for watching the entire Newson-DeSantis debate on FauxNews. I tried and failed. The reason I finally turned it off was not the shouting or the carefully-crafted charts Hannity's team put together. What turned me off was the advertising. Indeed, the one ad that finally got to me (and forgive my inability to come up with the name of the sponsor) was a constructed scene where a young (white) man was attempting to get some kind of service from some very snotty (dark-skinned) woman, who insisted on having him answer a question on his vaccination status. I don't know if this was put together by some right-wing legal enterprise or just some wacky advocacy group with money to spend, but the point was clearly to raise the temperature on the "us-vs-them" theme so prevalent today. With that, it was curtains for the debate in this household. I wasn't going to give any such groups a second more of my time. I suppose the fact that I can't remember the name of the sponsor is actually a win, but watching that station was quite a culture shock, and for me it was the ads that had the most profound effect.

Which leads me to wonder if there were a "fifth column" to the debate (the sponsors), and it would be interesting to know whether you or any of your readers actually paid attention to those ads during the debate.

(V) & (Z) answer: Fox has a very low opinion of its viewers' intelligence, which is why so much of the channel's programming is manipulative and/or fundamentally dishonest. The Foxers don't think their viewers will pick up on their trickery. They are right about this, more often than not.

Fox's advertisers are aware of this, and proceed along the same lines, which is why virtually every ad on that station is also manipulative and/or fundamentally dishonest. And yes, we are aware that, in general, advertising is manipulative and/or fundamentally dishonest. However, there's a big difference between a McDonalds commercial that makes a Big Mac look extra delicious and a commercial for some supplement or investment or type of bedding that promises miracle results. So yes, we did watch the ads, and yes, we did find them reprehensible.

If readers have additional thoughts, we are happy to have them.

---

G.T. in Budapest, Hungary, asks: In your item on inflation, you included a table of historical food prices with the actual and "adjusted-for-2022-dollars" price of selected food items. Please explain what this adjustment really means. And what good is it to adjust for inflation?

(V) & (Z) answer: The Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates inflation of commodity prices by using Consumer Price Index (CPI), which attempts to adjust for changes over the course of the year, and also over different geographic regions. That is why the inflation rate differs for different goods within the same year.

The point of adjusting for inflation is to try, as best as possible, to compare apples to apples. In 1939, Gone with the Wind grossed $393.4 million. Unadjusted, that would be Top 10 for 2023 (specifically, #5, between #6 Oppenheimer at $325,370,875 and #4 Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 at $358,995,815). However, it's not a fair comparison, because the average movie ticket costs $10.53 today, whereas in 1939 the average was less than $1. So, the gross of GWTW is usually reported in inflation-adjusted dollars, as $3.44 billion. That makes it the highest-grossing film of all time.

It is true that adjusting for inflation produces the most instructive and accurate results when done over a long timeframe (10+ years). But when presidential terms last only 4 years, well, it's necessary to live with some imprecision.

---

P.H. in Tallahassee, FL, asks: What am I overlooking here, guys?

Shouldn't Joe Biden just go to a nearby McDonalds, buy a Big Mac, and then post his receipt on Tik-Tok, with a comment something like: "Both working class presidents and billionaire presidents know how much a hamburger costs, and it isn't fifteen dollars unless you buy the most expensive limited edition top-of-the-line sandwich. And, most Americans know that also."

Also, Biden has a team that tries to respond to online issues. Seems to me this should have been a no-brainer. They could follow Biden's quote with any of several snippets that highlight the true situation about the economy, unemployment, or current fiscal trends (perhaps rotating them in several different Tik-Tok video endings).

(V) & (Z) answer: We see two issues here. The first is that it's a bad look when a president gets into a de facto pissing contest with a private citizen. Yes, Donald Trump did it regularly, but other presidents tend to shy away, because of the power differential.

The second problem is that it could encourage a right-wing response along the lines of "I Did That!" (gasoline pump stickers with Biden's face) or "Let's Go Brandon." Right-wing media and politicians could encourage people to push back against Biden by flooding social media with receipts showing how expensive [X] or [Y] is these days.

Politics

C.S. in Charlotte, NC, asks: There is a lot of talk about Joe Biden's health and the possibility of something happening to him while he is president. I wonder what would happen if Donald Trump, being nearly as old and arguably in worse physical shape, experienced a health event (short of outright death) before the November election? Would voters care?

(V) & (Z) answer: We can only guess, but we suspect that two things would be true. The first is that Trump, aided by multiple co-collaborators, would work to hide the seriousness of whatever health problem he experienced. This is what he did when he got a case of COVID that proved to be far more serious than known at the time.

The second is that Trump's base largely wouldn't care, as long as he's still alive.

---

J.K. in Boston, MA, asks: When Nikki Haley first declared, you folks used rather confident language in your assessment that Haley was going nowhere. Do you stand behind that still or did you read the electorate wrong or underestimate her? Your analysis seemed right on at the time, but she is doing well at the debates and lots of people seem to be coalescing around her needle-threading message that Trump was great but fresh blood is needed.

(V) & (Z) answer: We stand by our assessment. The only part of the GOP primary horse race where there is any movement is in the jockeying for second place between Haley and Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), so that's what everyone is writing about. But it's still second place, and a DISTANT second place. As we've written, including this week, Haley's only hope is that: (1) Trump somehow departs the race, and (2) the Republican Party coalesces around her as his successor. Both of these things are longshots, and both of them combined is an EXTREME longshot. Also, keep reading.

---

D.K. in Iowa City, IA, asks: If Nikki Haley did win the Republican nomination, would many Trump supporters not vote for her in the general election?

(V) & (Z) answer: If Haley did somehow become the nominee, we have no doubt that some Republicans who cannot abide voting for Trump would vote for her. However, we also have no doubt that there are some Trumpers who would not vote for a woman, or possibly a person of color, or—most importantly—a person who is perceived as having been disloyal to The Donald. Also, Haley hasn't really been under the microscope, and if and when she ever is, people are going to learn she has some not-so-popular ideas (like about abortion), which would hurt her with independents and Biden-disliking Democrats.

---

F.C. in Sequim, WA, asks: It is so difficult to get a constitutional amendment passed in normal times. And times being what they are... is it possible where the Democratic Party could just take some of the ideas that folks want changed in the Constitution and just build them into their party platform? I would think that some of these ideas would appeal in a very positive way with the swing vote. Term/age limits may be at the top of the list?

(V) & (Z) answer: First, the Democrats can put whatever they want into their platform. Second, while age limits might be a popular idea, term limits are not (at least, not among Democratic voters). Third, Democratic voters tend to be FAR less forgiving of unfulfilled promises than Republican voters. So, if the blue team puts a bunch of pie-in-the-sky stuff in their platform, it's more likely than not that it will backfire.

---

J.H. in Boston, MA, asks: Your comment about Donald Trump's failure to observe nonpartisan niceties of the office like portrait unveilings reminded me of another presidential tradition. Apparently, since (I think) Bush senior, every president has left a letter in the desk to his successor. It is known that Barack Obama left one for Trump. Is it known whether Trump left one for Joe Biden? Given the circumstances in 2020, it's hard to imagine...

(V) & (Z) answer: It was widely reported that Trump left a letter for Biden that Biden described as "shockingly gracious."

That said, we would be remiss if we did not share our suspicion that—since Trump is rarely gracious, and since he's a terrible writer, and since a letter like that runs entirely contrary to Trump's views on the 2020 election—it's at least possible someone wrote and left that letter on Trump's behalf.

Civics

C.S. in Tucson, AZ, asks: If posting the 10 Commandments in schools becomes a government sanctioned practice, wouldn't it follow that any religion's equivalent be allowed to be posted?

While I would be amused by the display of Wicca commandments (or whatnot), my hunch is that postings such as this would bring something other than smiles to the faces of evangelicals.

(V) & (Z) answer: It absolutely does follow. Sandra Day O'Connor knew it, and wrote it into her decision in McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (see above). This is how left-wing activists sometimes push back against right-wing imposition of religion in schools/government offices (for example, after the Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that a Christian had the right to fly a Christian flag outside of Boston City Hall, the Church of Satan sued, asserting that they should be able to fly a Satanic flag).

Those who would display the Ten Commandments but not other religions' ideas tend to make the argument that the Ten Commandments have some sort of historical basis in American culture and civics, while other religious creeds do not. However, this is nonsensical sophistry. The Founding Parents were abundantly clear that government was government and religion was religion and never the twain shall meet. Further, there have been plenty of non-Christians in American society for the last 250 years; it's not like it was a 100% Christian nation until, say, 1920.

---

L.S. in Greensboro, NC, asks: In your response to D.R. in Grayling, you wrote: "And once he's appeared on primary ballots, something that will begin to happen in just a couple of months, he won't be able to mount an independent run, even if for some reason he should want to, thanks to sore-loser laws."

However, in 1980 John Anderson ran in the Republican primaries (I know, because I voted for him in the Wisconsin primary) and then ran as an independent in the general election (I know, because I voted for him there, too.). So what is the difference now? Have the rules changed since 1980?

(V) & (Z) answer: Fewer states had sore-loser laws back them (and some states still don't have them). So, there were only about a half-dozen states where Anderson might plausibly have been booted off the ballot. However, those states chose not to enforce their rules, in part because they concluded Anderson made a legitimate political maneuver, as opposed to just trying to take multiple bites at the apple.

We strongly suspect that if Trump tried to do what Anderson did, a lot of states would decide to enforce their laws. Then the Supreme Court would get to decide if sore-loser laws are actually legal.

---

T.V. in Portland, OR, asks: When I see members of Congress interviewed on TV, I have noticed that they wear different lapel pins: some have green backgrounds, others are red, etc. According to rollcall.com, a new set of lapel pins is made for every congressional session. Only 435 pins are made—one for every member of the House. What happens when a member resigns or is expelled? Does the (former) member of congress need to surrender their pin when leaving? When a new member is admitted mid-term (either through appointment or special election), how do they obtain a pin if there are only 435 made?

I know "faux" congressional pins can be purchased in the Capitol Visitor Center gift shops for less than $35. I have also seen congressional lapel pins being sold on-line for $900 but I would seriously question their authenticity.

(V) & (Z) answer: They don't actually limit the order to 435; they manufacture several dozen extra because sometimes pins get lost, or sometimes seats come vacant. To take one example, then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) thought he lost his pin, got a replacement, and then found the original. So, he had the pair made into cufflinks.

New members get a pin, even if they join mid-term, and exiting members, including "George Santos," get to keep theirs. Any other policy would be impractical; if the Clerk of the House called "Santos" to get his pin back, is there really any doubt he would claim he lost it?

History

R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: Now that "George Santos" has the distinction of being one of a handful of expelled congresspeople, I wanted the opinion of the historian on him. How does he compare to other unsavory U.S. government figures? Do you think he is in the top five of worst criminals ever elected to the federal government? My mother believes his conduct is indicative of being a sociopathic scam artist. People like him try to create their own false realities to win trust over victims in order to steal from them. He reminds me of people involved in multi-level marketing scams. I have met a few who are very friendly and act like they are interested in a romantic relationship, but when I refused to buy stuff they were selling or work for their companies, they completely cut me off.

(V) & (Z) answer: "Santos" probably is a sociopath, and he's certainly a grifter, and his misdeeds are clearly shocking to modern sensibilities, if only because they were so brazen. However, he's not in the top 100 worst criminals elected to the federal government. Probably not the top 1,000.

The first reason we say that is that "Santos'" grift was clumsy, but ultimately kind of amateurish. There are vast numbers of people who have served in the federal government whose grifting was more egregious and involved more money, from James G. Blaine and Oakes Ames to Albert Fall and Frank W. Boykin to Donald Trump and Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NY).

The second reason we say that is that while stealing money is scummy, the harm done is generally less serious than with other misdeeds. There are federal officials who have taken aggressive steps to protect slavery while also undermining the democracy (John C. Calhoun), instigated mass death among Native Americans (Andrew Jackson), assaulted fellow members of Congress (Preston Brooks), conducted illegal raids against suspected communists and socialists (A. Mitchell Palmer), ruined peoples' lives with false allegations of pro-Russian sympathies (Joseph McCarthy), instigated illegal bombing campaigns of non-combatant countries (Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon), lied to get the U.S. into a war (Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush), illegally sent arms to Iran (Ronald Reagan and his underlings), and tried to overturn a presidential election result (Donald Trump and his underlings). And this is hardly a comprehensive list. In any case, against this record of harm and wrongdoing, stealing a few credit card numbers is kinda small potatoes.

---

F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: Henry Kissinger is dead. Is he the most influential immigrant from Germany in U.S. history? Who are the 10 most influential immigrants from Germany in U.S. history?

(V) & (Z) answer: He's up there, but he's not #1. Here's how we'd rank the Top 10, keeping in mind that you asked about immigrants from Germany, and not Americans of German descent:

1. Frederick Trump (born in Kallstadt, Palatinate, Kingdom of Bavaria): Patriarch of the Trump family.
   
   
2. John A. Roebling (born in Mühlhausen, Kingdom of Prussia): Transformed American urban architecture, particularly with his successful design for the Brooklyn Bridge.
   
   
3. Oscar F. Mayer (born in Neresheim, Kingdom of Württemberg): Played a key role in the development of American industrial food production.
   
   
4. Carl Schurz (born in Liblar, Rhine Province, Kingdom of Prussia, German Confederation): Senator, general, journalist, diplomat, Secretary of the Interior and confidant of Abraham Lincoln, his fingerprints were all over American politics during the quarter-century from 1860 to 1885.
   
   
5. Thomas Nast (born in Landau, Rhine Palatinate, Bavaria): Inventor of political cartooning and scourge of corrupt Gilded Age politicians, particularly "Boss" William Magear Tweed.
   
   
6. Wernher von Braun (born in Wirsitz, Posen, Prussia, German Empire): Scientist who played a key role in developing the United States' nuclear and space programs.
   
   
7. John Peter Zenger (born in Rumbach, Rhenish Palatinate): Played a central role in establishing freedom of the press when his trial for libel produced the finding that the truth, even if unflattering, is not libelous.
   
   
8. Henry Kissinger (born in Fürth, Bavaria, Germany): Architect, for better and worse, of much of the Cold War order.
   
   
9. John Jacob Astor (born in Walldorf, Electoral Palatinate, Holy Roman Empire): America's first mega-businessman and first multi-millionaire, he played a key role in the development of both the U.S. economy and the city of New York, and his descendants have played an important role in American culture and business ever since.
   
   
10. Albert Einstein (born in Ulm, Kingdom of Württemberg, German Empire): Scientist who reinvented physics and made it possible to harness the power of the atom.

Readers will notice the absence of any women on the list. That is because the first important wave of German immigration came in the mid-19th century, as people fled the Revolutions of '48. This was a time when women had a limited public role, both in Germany and in the United Sattes. The second important wave came in the early-to-mid-20th century, as prominent scientists fled the Nazi regime. This was a time when women had a larger public role, but were still not well represented in the sciences.

There are numerous women of German descent who have had an impact on American culture and history, including novelist Sylvia Plath, public intellectual Gertrude Stein, First Lady Pat Nixon, and aviatrix Amelia Earhart, but they weren't immigrants.

---

M.R. in Santa Rosa, CA, asks: Could the staff historian recommend a good book, or series of books regarding the history of Native Americans? Relatively user-friendly, non-scholarly?

(V) & (Z) answer: When (Z) was in college, the dominant trend in Western history was called New Social History, in which historians tried to explore the "clash of cultures" that took place in the American West, and to try to make sense of it all. The preeminent works in this area, to this day, are It's Your Misfortune and None of My Own by Richard White and The Legacy of Conquest: The Unbroken Past of the American West by Patricia Nelson Limerick. Both were assigned as required reading in his undergrad course on the history of the West, so they are surely accessible to non-experts.

If you want something that just tries to help you understand, as best as possible, the various tribal groups and confederations (keeping in mind that there were considerably more Indian nations than there were, say, nations in Europe), then take a look at Indigenous Continent: The Epic Contest for North America by Pekka Hämäläinen and An Infinity of Nations: How the Native New World Shaped Early North America by Michael Witgen. The former book is more current and more accessible, so if this is the direction you go, start with that one, and then decide if you're hungry for more once you've finished.

And finally, there is An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. The title is meant to communicate that Dunbar-Ortiz takes an approach similar to that of Howard Zinn, meaning that she is trying to correct for the biases of standard U.S. history by turning the entire story on its side, and telling it from a very different (and very lefty) perspective. It's very readable, but you might want to consider pairing the book with, say, the White book, so you get a sense of the different perspectives. Note that White is not an apologist, by any means, but he's also not looking at the subject through a strongly left-wing lens.

---

B.S. in Springfield, IL, asks: I noticed that Amazon Prime has a free Great Courses offering on the American Civil War by professor Gary W. Gallagher, 48 sessions roughly 40 minutes each. Do you recommend it?

(V) & (Z) answer: Yes. Gallagher has been teaching the Civil War for close to 50 years, and (Z) has never seen someone who is better at it (although Z's mentor, Joan Waugh, is neck-and-neck).

Gallagher tells a well-rounded story, but he's also a military history guy, which means there's a lot of military coverage in the course (far more, for example, than when Z teaches the Civil War). In (Z's) experience, "lots of battles and generals" piques the interest of about 75% of people, and reduces the interest of about 25%.

---

J.H. in Lake Forest, CA, asks: I'm wondering why Abraham Lincoln gets criticism for his suspension of habeas corpus as you (and, apparently, Constitutional scholar Monica Lewinsky) have done. Article I, section 9 of the Constitution reads:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Surely the Civil War was the ultimate example of "Rebellion" and this must be exactly what the Framers had in mind when they wrote this part of Article I. Did Lincoln's premature death preclude any court examination of his wartime actions and, if he had faced scrutiny, don't you think he would have been completely exonerated?

(V) & (Z) answer: You might be inferring criticism from us that isn't there; certainly the resident Civil War historian understands why Lincoln did what he did.

In any event, some people have bought into a narrative that Lincoln was a power-hungry tyrant who constantly trampled on the Constitution. This is primary due to the exceedingly mediocre series of anti-Lincoln screeds written by Tom DiLorenzo, who is to historians as Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) is to statesmen.

That said, Lincoln's suspension of the writ WAS put to the test, most obviously in Ex parte Merryman, where Roger Taney ruled that the Lincoln administration must free John Merryman, since Merryman had not been charged with a crime. Lincoln decided, not without reason, that Taney was hopelessly compromised, and was also wrong. So, Lincoln ignored the ruling.

As a general rule, historians and legal scholars have concluded that Lincoln was in the right here. There's also a rather abstruse legal issue in play that, at very least, gives the 16th president a little extra cover. Back then, Supreme Court justices (including Taney, the Chief Justice) also "rode circuit," which means they served as both appellate judges and as Supreme Court justices. When Taney ruled in Merryman, he did not make clear whether he intended to rule as chief justice or as a circuit judge, which meant there was some lack of clarity about his authority to hear and resolve the case.

---

D.C. in Brentwood, CA, asks: On the White House's page of presidential portraits, from Nixon on, every President's photo has them in front of a flag. Bush 41's is not the U.S. flag, and I can't make out what it is, but it's probably something patriotic. Before Nixon, all the other Presidents do not have a flag in the background, whether they are shown in paintings or photos.

I'm going to assume that means something, and that the something changed the sense of nationalism in the country around the time of Nixon, which hasn't reverted since (in fact, growing to the point where Trump unironically hugged a flag). Was this part of the anti-communism stuff at the time, where the effect today is fear of universal healthcare, or was it something else?

(V) & (Z) answer: First, let's address your (implied) question about Bush. If you look at the uncropped version of his official portrait, you can clearly see he is standing in front of both the American flag and the other flag. And the other flag is the Flag of the President of the United States. If you go back and look, you'll see it also appears in the portraits of Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter (barely), Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

And the flag-worship thing definitely began during the Cold War, particularly in the 1950s. Why did it take another 15-20 years to work its way into presidential portraits? Hard to say, but here are a few theories. First, the several presidents leading up to Nixon were generally not comfortable with rah-rah patriotism (particularly Dwight D. Eisenhower). Second, once Nixon did it, he may have created an expectation, not unlike politicians today who feel they have to wear a flag lapel pin. Third, and finally, color photography was still pretty new in the 1950s and 1960s, and a picture with both human flesh and with vivid red, white and blue in it was hard to get right. If you look, it wasn't until Carter that the photograph really nails the color balance.

Gallimaufry

A.M. in San Francisco, CA, asks: About 2 weeks ago, the size of the text on your website shrunk. It has become very difficult to read. Plus the size cannot readily increased for reading because of the hard line breaks.

Can this be fixed? I am now scanning your site with "super" reading glasses or a magnifying glass.

(V) & (Z) answer: We have made no changes to the programming of the site, and we've also gotten a bunch of e-mails like this, from both desktop computer users and phone users. We can only conclude that some third party (Microsoft, Google, etc.) made a change in their software.

If any reader has suggestions as to what readers can do to address this, please send them along.

---

A.G. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: I am curious why you seem to hate Bill Maher so much? He calls out silliness from both sides of the spectrum, arguably even more on the far-left. He is also willing to invite people he vehemently disagrees with and advocates talking to people with whom you don't share similar political views. Sure, he does say some controversial things at times, but I still don't understand the hate.

(V) & (Z) answer: There are very few people we hate, and certainly no TV comedians.

That said, Maher was never of interest to (V), and he's no longer (Z)'s cup of tea. It's not necessarily any one thing, but (Z) is bothered by some of the bigoted things that Maher has said in the name of being anti-religion, by some of the racist things he's said in the name of being a gadfly, and by the general impression that he's become a cranky old man whose primary avocation is to tell the kids to stay off his damn lawn.

---

P.R. in Arvada, CO, asks: I saw that Mark Cuban has sold (pending approval) 51% of the Dallas Mavericks to Miriam Adelson. How long do you think it will be until they become the Vegas Mavericks?

(V) & (Z) answer: That was (Z)'s initial thought, too, to the point that he sent a text message to a friend about it. However, Cuban appears to have taken steps to keep the Mavericks in Dallas. Also, the Adelsons are already squeezing about as much money out of Vegas as they can; it would seem their plan is to help establish Dallas as a Las Vegas alternative, with gambling and all. So, if we had to bet, we'd say there will be no Las Vegas Mavericks. Las Vegas Grizzlies? Maybe.

Remember also that when Steve Ballmer bought the L.A. Clippers almost 10 years ago, everyone said he was going to move them to Seattle. And yet, they are still in Los Angeles, and are about to move into a brand-new multi-billion-dollar arena.

Reader Question of the Week

Here is the question we put before readers last week:

M.B. in Cleveland, OH, asks: As I was walking through the halls of the high school where I teach, I overheard two students debating which event set back civilization the most. One student was arguing for the appointment of Adolf Hitler as chancellor of Germany; her friend was arguing for the burning of the library at Alexandria. They both had pretty good justifications. What does the electoral-vote.com readership think? What single event, at any time in history, had the biggest negative impact on civilization?

And here some of the (many) answers we got in response (if you are a big fan of guns, germs, steel or Jesus, you might not want to keep reading):

J.L. in Walnut Creek, CA: I won't pretend to know what world event had the greatest negative impact on history, but I did want to comment on the original discussion between the students at M.B.'s school regarding the appointment of Adolf Hitler vs. the burning of the Great Library of Alexandria. Specifically, I wanted to touch on the Library burning, which has been mythologized to near-legendary status. It certainly makes for a good story that there was a repository of advanced human knowledge, the losing of which significantly set back humanity's progress. I suppose given the "what if?" nature of that story, it is understandable that its loss is imagined to be of monumental impact, but the truth is far more mundane.

In reality, there was probably very little of importance lost from the Library of Alexandria when it was burned by Julius Caesar's troops. Although the Library was large, it was not the only large library in the ancient world. The Library at Pergamum rivaled Alexandria in scope and size, including number of copies. In fact, those volumes that were lost in the fire were largely replaced by Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony) after the original burning took place, and he culled those replacement copies from Pergamum and other libraries of smaller size around the Mediterranean. Indeed, at least at times of the Library's pre-burning existence, the collection was built by purchasing texts from other libraries, but also by forcefully taking any texts found on incoming ships, copying them at the Library, and then giving the copies back to the ships while retaining the originals for the Library. In other words, the texts that were lost in the Library fire largely existed in other locations around the Mediterranean. The main exception to this may have been critical commentaries of those texts written by Alexandrian scholars, which may not have existed elsewhere since they were produced and retained in Alexandria itself.

After Egypt was fully annexed by Rome, the rebuilt Library's fortune mainly followed the general trend of the city itself. As Alexandria's fortunes eventually waned over the following centuries, the Library's importance also diminished, to be replaced by other libraries throughout the Roman world until the collapse of Rome.

---

D.H. in Boston, MA: I don't think I can argue against Hitler gaining power (and thus causing the Holocaust) as the event that set back civilization the most.

However, in terms of library destruction, the Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1258 was far worse than anything that happened to the Library of Alexandria. In particular, the House of Wisdom was destroyed. According to Wikipedia, the Library of Alexandria housed up to 200,000 scrolls at its peak. Meanwhile, 400,000 scrolls were removed from the House of Wisdom as a preventative measure before the Mongol attack, and still the Tigris river was said to run black with ink from the books that were destroyed.

---

D.F. in Ann Arbor, MI: Wow, what a quality high school M.B. must teach at! I can't imagine ever hearing such a debate in the halls of my school. Congratulations to the teachers there who inspire such considerations!

As for the event that set back civilization the most, I don't consider Hitler's rise and the subsequent events of World War II to really even be a contender. Tens of millions of people died, to be sure, but when I think of "civilization" I think of the levels of scientific knowledge, cultural advancement, personal safety and freedom, etc. that exist at a given time. I don't think those things were materially different in 1945 than they were in 1933. The creative and scientific explosions seen around the world over the next 50 years support that.

I think you have to look much further back to a period when human civilization was still young and fragile. I vote for the explosion of Mount Thera in the Aegean Sea in 1600 BCE that nearly ended both the Greek and Egyptian civilizations. If not that, then perhaps the eruption of Mount Toba, 74,000 years ago, in modern-day Indonesia. One of the largest explosions in Earth's history, it result in a 10-year volcanic winter and a 1,000-year cooling period that nearly caused the extinction of the nascent human species. But it's hard to say that humans had any kind of "civilization" at that point so Mount Thera probably meets the standard better.

---

C.D. in Guernsey, Channel Islands: The event that harmed civilization the most was Theodosius declaring Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. A harmless doomsday cult instantly became an instrument of intolerance, forced conversions, and unquestioning conformity. For more than 1,000 years in Europe and environs, scientific and societal inquiry was frozen, lending money at interest was banned, and wars of conquest were considered holy. Even when Christianity started getting questioned in Europe, its repressive reach across the globe was extended through colonization. If Christianity had never been melded with imperial power, the world would be a much more diverse, culturally rich, and probably more scientifically and socially advanced place.

---

S.B. in Los Angeles, CA : The Dark Ages either stagnated or actually reversed the ongoing progress of civilization like no other event in human history. The progress of classic antiquity was stalled and/or lost for nearly 1,000 years from 500 A.D. until the emergence into the Renaissance in the late 1400's-1500's. While there are certainly many contributing causes, the fall of the Western half of the Roman Empire was a significant factor. Theodosius was the last emperor who ruled over the whole empire. After his death in 395, he gave the two halves of the empire to his two sons, Arcadius and Honorius; Arcadius became ruler in the east, with his capital in Constantinople, and Honorius became ruler in the west, with his capital in Milan, and later Ravenna. Had the Empire remain united, the strength of the institutions in the Eastern half might have bolstered those same institutions in the West and allowed them to confront and manage the different situations which eventually brought down the West. As characterized in the movie, Gladiator, when the emperor queried of his general and friend and then his answer: "And what is Rome, Maximus? I've seen much of the rest of the world. It is brutal and cruel and dark. Rome is the light."

Imagine if Rome could have held it together and marched on with human progress for a thousand years! We would possibly be enjoying reading the daily "suffragiorum dot veni" or some other insightful movie or literature by holovision from the Martian capital city of Nova Roma!

---

D.C. in Kent, OH: Speaking as someone who deals with graduate students every day, those sound like two very smart high school students. As for an answer to the question, I'll go with the Plague of Justinian (541-549), the first worldwide outbreak that, by some estimates, killed up to half the known world's population. Living in cities would never be the same again.

---

M.D.H. in Coralville, IA: The Black Death: One of the most devastating pandemics in human history killed a huge fraction of the population of Europe and Asia in the 14th Century with enormous effects on every aspect of society. Even before the Black Death, much of Europe had a major famine; the plague coming after the famine brought about even greater turmoil.

My late father, who was a history professor, said the biggest difference between the past 500 years in the Western Hemisphere versus places like Africa and India was who got diseases from whom.

---

K.H. in Albuquerque, NM: I find it informative to recall that my father used to say that the greatness of a scientist was proportional to how far back they set their field. For example, Aristotle's On the Heavens (c. 350 BCE) placed the Earth at the center of the universe, setting back astronomy about 1,900 years until Copernicus came along with his theory of a heliocentric universe (c. 1540).

Applying this to the question at hand gives us a useful metric: the greatness of an event should be proportional to how much negative impact it had on civilization. I nominate Johannes Gutenberg's innovation of a printing press with movable type (c. 1455). Ever since he published his first 180 copies of the Bible, printing has been used to distribute and amplify both information and misinformation. On the positive side, it's a significant contributor to the rapid spread of the Renaissance, the emergence of modern science, the Enlightenment, the industrial revolution, and the information age. However, mass printing and widespread literacy is also a significant contributor to the seemingly endless wars during the Reformation, the vast technical advancements in weapons of war, the Great Divergence with its subjugation of most of the global population, and the rise of modern ideologically driven nation-states that enabled the deaths of tens of millions of their citizens.

We can only hope that the invention of nuclear fission and/or the internal combustion engine will not prove greater than the printing press in their negative effects on civilization.

---

P.S. in Louisa, VA: Columbus visiting America. This precipitated the wiping out of many civilizations in the Americas.

---

E.H. in Stevens Point, WI: I would choose the fall of the Inca and/or Aztec Empires (does that count as one or two events?). Even with superior technology and deadly plagues on their side, the Spanish needed allies willing to betray the local governments in order to conquer the empires. If things had played slightly differently, it is not impossible to imagine the empires fighting back, acquiring stolen firearms and using terrain to their advantage. European dominance of the world might have been slowed, leading to an influx of new ideas from the Americas—think of the advancements in Europe due to trade with China, for example. Civilization benefits when ideas and cultures are shared—so the large-scale destruction of Meso-American civilizations by the Spanish was a blow to the world as a whole.

---

A.T. in San Francisco, CA: Probably worst thing to happen was formation of East India Company. It played a huge role in devastating South Asia and China, and it was also heavily involved in the African slave trade.

In terms of sheer numbers of people negatively affected as a result, Hitler and the burning of the library of Alexandria don't come close.

---

J.C. in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia: I think one can argue Thomas Newcomen's steam engine, as it's the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, without which we don't have climate change. But perhaps better is what (Z) mentioned, the cotton gin, as it was a formative cause of the Industrial Revolution, as well as exacerbating the enslavement of countless humans, the fallout of which we still deal with today both in the U.S. and throughout Africa. (Though not directly from the cotton gin, there's also the genocide of 15 million Congolese by King Leopold's enslavement.) While the Industrial Revolution might be as inevitable as Thanos, it still had a beginning.

---

M.M. in San Diego, CA: I'm going to opine that the first mass produced revolver in 1836 set civilization way back because wherever it was available, the murder rate skyrocketed. It's much harder to kill someone if you have to do so by close, physical contact. Suddenly, any irritated coward could stand off at a safe distance and fire away, repeatedly. How many potential Edisons, Einsteins, Ehrlichs, et al., were lost to the world, eh? The cost to society is unknowable.

---

R.G. in Baltimore, MD: Obviously, the Great Pig War, the last military confrontation between the United States and Canada (1859-1872) over control of the San Juan Islands. Casualties included one Canadian pig, but no humans (Canadians or Americans). The greatest danger during the standoff was probably boredom and copious amounts of alcohol.

---

S.W. in New York City, NY: I look forward to reading the many interesting and thoughtful responses to this question-of-the-week (event causing the biggest negative impact on civilization) but, eliminating natural meteorite disasters that annihilated dinosaurs, ice age changes, etc., I nominate World War I. Besides the incredible loss of life that it caused, it also set the stage for World War II and its aftermath, which we are still dealing with today. Prior to World War I, it seemed as if the world was a very different place where people could travel, relocate, explore without the political restrictions and changes that appeared after it (among many other changes caused by this war).

---

J.E. in San Jose, CA: The invention of the assembly line, which removed the largest barrier to car ownership, which reduced dependency on public transportation. Necessitating people to be among other random people is the secret to all of us getting along.

---

J.W. in Madison, WI: I nominate December 31, 1928: the date the Frigidaire corporation was issued the first patent for the formula for Chloroflourocarbons (CFCs).

---

M.T. in Oceanside, CA: What an intriguing, important question! Thank you, M.B., for asking! I think the Manhattan Project, the development of nuclear bombs, and the dropping of those bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has to be the series of events that most significantly impacted civilization because they literally created the ability for humans to destroy civilization. If I have to boil it down to a single event, it would be the bombing of Hiroshima. The entire world was changed forever.

---

S.J.B. in Rolling Meadows, IL: I truly feel the election of Donald Trump has had the most deleterious effect on the entire world. Disrespect for our fellow humans and selfishness have taken on whole new acceptance level and emboldened the moron among us worldwide. I don't see us evolving away from these "acceptable" deficiencies in character for generations.

Tell me I'm wrong.

---

R.K. in Cambridge, MN: In response to M.B.'s question of the week, I am choosing not to weigh in, but I really want to challenge all the readers of the website to consider their preconceived ideas about the American educational system. I spent 40 years working for a public school district; 34 of those years I was in a high school classroom daily; for 25 years I was our high school's debate coach, and while I never heard this topic debated in the halls of my high school, I heard students discussing and debating (formally and informally) many, many topics between themselves that give lie to the notion that our schools are incapable of developing articulate, thoughtful young people perfectly capable of delving deeply into subject matter far beyond cars and movies. It is more common than many people realize. So I am profoundly grateful to M.B. for sharing this experience of reporting on this discussion of the Alexandria library vs. Hitler. In fact, it could be a great topic for a formal debate.

Here is the question for next week:

M.B. in Cleveland, OH, asks: OK, now that we've heard about the worst event in world history, what was the best event, the one that propelled civilization forward the most?

Submit your answers here!

---

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