Dem
47
GOP
53
We're keeping it lean, given the dual questions/letters posting.
R.B. in Cleveland, OH, writes: Thank you for the insight last weekend regarding President Doughface. Recent events with the Elon Musk shutdown, however, have clearly demonstrated that Trump should further be known as PINO̵President in Name Only.
P.W. in Springwater, NY, writes: The budget fiasco of the past week has been a study in idiocy, but in the end, it worked out as I suspected it might—a bill that kicks the can down the road with more Democratic than Republican support. What did surprise me, although I really should NOT have been surprised, was Co-President-elect Elon Musk seemingly taking the lead on throwing the monkey wrench into the works. Wasn't it just about 2008, that someone with the initials DJT started agitating that the newly elected president was not legitimate because he had been born in Africa? Wasn't there a lot of "Sturm und Drang" about seeing the "real" birth certificate? And remember who go the better of that nonsense? Oh, the irony—now someone really born in Africa is about to become Co-President and, once again, DJT has been overshadowed.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: So, the Abomination's pick for Attorney General, Matt Gaetz, got shot down by the Senate, forcing Gaetz to withdraw his nomination. Then, after Co-President-elect Elon Musk riled up the true believers about the government funding bill, the Abomination tried to jump on the bandwagon, looking like a Johnny-Come-Lately follower instead of a leader. His preferred bill, with the elimination of the debt ceiling, went down in flames. The bill to fund the government was essentially the original bill and contained nothing of his demands, and was approved by a huge number of representatives. His opponents have effectively accused him of being subservient to another "Alpha male." Add to that, the political reality, that the day after his inauguration, the Abomination will be a lame duck.
In Iron Man 2, Ivan Vanko says of Tony Stark, "If you can make God bleed, people will cease to believe in Him. There will be blood in the water, the sharks will come." Has the Abomination been significantly wounded by these series of huge missteps and self-inflicted wounds? Are the sharks beginning to circle? Once the Political Predators get a nibble out of that pudgy, bloated orange flesh, they might find they've acquired a taste for it. Cue up John Williams' Jaws theme, "dun, dun... dun, dun... dun, dun, dun, dunnnnnnnnnn!"
T.B. in Waterloo, IA, writes: All of this talk of Elon Musk and Donald Trump got me wondering: Who is the dominant and who is the subversive? Right now it's looking like Trump is the submissive.
Inquiring minds... really don't want to know.
(V) & (Z) respond: On Friday, we almost wrote that Musk was the top and Trump was the bottom, but we thought that would get us in trouble.
S.S. in Athens, OH, writes: You wrote: "Musk's co-President-elect (or maybe it's his assistant), Donald Trump..."
We need to be clear here: While he may think so, Trump is not "Assistant President-elect"; he is merely "assistant to the President-elect."
The lesser responsibilities of that position leave him time for playing golf. And beet farming.
R.C. in Des Moines, IA, writes: If Donald Trump dislikes being called co-president, then we should honor that and start referring to him as Elon Musk's executive assistant.
S.C. in Farmington Hills, MI, writes: Will that be all, sir?
S.B. in Johannesburg, South Africa, writes: I take issue with Elon Musk being described as Co-President-elect. I think the more appropriate title is Regent Musk, as the King is incapacitated.
Oh, and as a South African, I can say we are delighted that he has removed himself from our gene pool.
P.O. in New York City, NY, writes: Given Elon Musk's newfound influence in government, Trump may need new signage. Being a good citizen I wanted to help him, since he is very busy I'm sure:
M.A. in Knoxville, TN, writes: You wrote:
There was a time when we suspected Trump would get sick of Musk, and would push the South African aside. Now, however, we're not sure that's possible. Trump may have no choice but to kowtow to Musk, for fear of being targeted by the Twitter flamethrower and a fortune that is rapidly approaching $500 billion.I think Trump can still toss Musk aside and get away with it. Much of Musk's powerbase of sycophants on Twitter are also MAGAs and were MAGA before they became Musk fanboys. Musk's descent into becoming a right-wing a**hole was powered by their fawning attention on Twitter. He'd tweet things that MAGAs approved of and get tons of ego-stoking replies from them, so he'd tweet more things like that and more and more...
If Trump turns on Musk in a way that leaves MAGAs feeling Musk did something to wrong Trump, it'll get ugly for Musk on Twitter quickly. On top of that Trump will soon be in charge of the Federal government, which has multiple investigations already ongoing into Tesla. Musk's fortune is almost entirely due to the vast amount of Tesla stock he owns. If Trump directs his new heads of the NHTSA and SEC to go after Tesla hard, that could crater Tesla's stock. That gives Trump the power to make Musk no longer the richest person on the planet.
J.O. in Columbia, MD, writes: There is not going to be a breakup between the Musk/Trump bro-ship anytime soon. Anyone who has been paying attention over the last 10 years knows that you can boss Trump by keeping him on edge̵see The Case of V. Putin, Trump Tower Moscow and the Pee Tape. Like Putin, Musk holds one thing Trump wants and one thing Trump fears, both of them being eX-Twitter.
Trump formed Truth Social with the clear intent to cash out by getting then-Twitter—or someone—to buy it out. Trump can't really cash out by selling his own Truth stock because insider sales have to be declared, so the price would tank. Today, nobody but Musk (or The Onion?) has the cash and motivation to buy it out. Trump won't abandon Musk while he sees this as a possibility.
Through his ownership of eX-Twitter, Musk has access to Trump's private feed. Whether Musk has done this or intends to do so, Trump knows this is a possibility, and that any embarrassing—or legally dangerous—content just might get leaked.
So, Musk is dangling one carrot and threatening with one stick. We saw this show before; the difference this time is that Putin was quiet and Elon Musk doesn't do "quiet."
J.S.M. in Chicago, IL, writes: Just like Elon Musk, I'm a naturalized American who grew up in Pretoria, South Africa, during the 70s and 80s. As such, I must ask you to please stop referring to him as a South African. Yes, the Co-President-elect was born and raised there, but he is an American now (or, more precisely, a South African-Canadian-American). From my perspective, Musk has much more in common with American dipsh**s than he does with South African dispshits. America created this monster and America should take responsibility for him.
J.B. in Bend, OR, writes: While Elon Musk's threats to primary Republicans who don't vote "appropriately" on Cabinet nominees or the funding bill are worrisome, in that he's immune to either electoral or financial repercussions, I'll note his real vulnerability: He's a complete novice when it comes to the political game.
Here's the reality that he doesn't realize: There's nothing significant to be gained by stalling the funding bill or forcing confirmation of nominees, which means he's wasting political capital on things that don't really matter. By doing that now, rather than waiting until he can influence votes on more important issues, he's tipping his hand to people who are very skilled at making sausage and giving them plenty of time to figure out how to deal with him.
I can easily imagine several members of Congress quietly conspiring to come up with many devious ways prevent Musk from taking away their power. These people know how to create delays, how to use procedural rules, and how to create fatal flaws in proposed legislation without getting any blame or even appearing to be involved.
Musk is a political novice, and just as bad, he surely thinks he's the smartest guy in the room. That's not a recipe for success.
E.S. in Providence, RI, writes: The best thing President Biden could do for America is to deport Elon Musk to South Africa, revoke his passport, and bar him from re-entering the country as a national security threat.
If the president does it, it's not illegal.
M.G.F. in Minneapolis, MN, writes: Last week, B.C. in Soldotna wrote with some back-of-the-napkin math explaining why United Healthcare's $22 billion in profits isn't really that much per customer. Their analysis is missing a few variables that cast the insurer in a bit worse light. First, looking at "profits" neglects all of the insurer's expenses that are directly intended to deny coverage. The company employs hundreds of employees specifically to deny or delay valid claims. This math similarly neglects all the expenses from healthcare providers that are required to first comply with, and then fight, the insurance company's claims procedures. That spending inflates the prices charged for medical procedures. For every dollar we spend on "healthcare," at least 25% is estimated to be spent on billing and claims administration. Speaking for myself, I personally spend more time talking to medical coding and billing professionals than I do talking to medical professionals; and that's usually fighting over office visit coding where the argument clearly is costing every company involved (insurer, provider, and my employer) more than providing the original care cost. And finally, it neglects the inflated salaries and bonuses paid to for-profit insurance executives compared to their non-profit peers.
Admittedly, some of these costs don't amount to much on a per-customer basis, but it all adds up. To that point, it's worthwhile to point out that even though $22 billion isn't a huge number on a per-patient basis, it is still a staggeringly huge number. For example, it's roughly the same as the patient out-of-pocket costs for all cancer care in the U.S. If we removed all the profit from the health insurance market, that's far more than $22 billion that can go back into patient care instead of billing procedures and profits. If all that we do with that money is eliminate the out-of-pocket costs for cancer patients, that's still a great improvement—far from "the average person is still screwed," caring for the most harmed patients is literally what insurance is supposed to do.
K.S. In Baltimore, MD, writes: I'm sorry but the math from B.K. in Soldotna does not add up for me. B.K. said to Google it, so I did and found United Healthcare's 10K statement and on page 39, the $22 billion looks like net profit to me.
Net profit comes after expenses. So AFTER United Healthcare has paid for some of the procedures doctors have prescribed, like colonoscopies (and denied others), they are still making that $22 billion. That would presumably also be profits AFTER they pay their executives fat salaries and fly them off to fancy hotels in Manhattan for meetings.
The roadblock to reform, in my view, is not poor math. Who blocked Hillary's attempts? Who morphed into the "tea party" when Obama, in attempt to compromise, adopted Romney's Republican idea as a basis for the ACA? Who is opposing Medicare expansion? It's the Republicans, apparently in the stranglehold of the health insurance companies like United Healthcare, that are "only" making $22 billion a year in profit.
Kindly enlighten me if I am missing something here.
D.A. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: B.C. in Soldotna wrote that United Health Care only makes $440 in profit per customer, per year, and concludes from this that health insurance companies are not the problem. However, B.C. is not taking into account the total costs of running the UHC business, paying the myriads who scrutinize and "deny, delay" etc., not to mention their pricey defense attorneys, and all the corporate overhead. Nor does B.C. take into account the hours and hours of time that MDs, RNs, PAs, etc. are required to spend on paperwork. The U.S. health care system is such a mess that I'm sure there is no single cause. But focusing exclusively on corporate profit (or C-suite salaries) hides the damage that these corporate behemoths are inflicting on the system.
E.W. in Silver Spring, MD, writes: Several comments last week took to defending, or at least partially defending, health insurance companies. The problem isn't just there, but the for-profit nature of the whole system. Every piece needs to turn a profit—from the hospitals, to the clinics, to the pharmacies, to the medical device manufacturers, and the pharmaceutical companies. Each step is extracting a profit for their shareholders, so the $440/person United Healthcare makes is their profit after factoring in everyone else's.
To get an idea, here's my story. I take medication daily to stay alive. It was developed more than 45 years ago, and the R&D has long since been paid off.
In 2010, I was in Europe and ran out. I got the script transferred to a nonprofit pharmacy nearby. I spent 20 minutes pleading with the pharmacist to find a way to take my insurance, there was no way I could afford the pills. She simply couldn't. She apologized multiple times as she rang up the 'market price' for the medication. It was roughly $8. The copay I was so desperate to pay was $15. I have never in my life gone from terrified to livid so fast.
So I had a brilliant idea when I got back to Maryland: I'm going not use my insurance to buy my pills. The same 30-day-supply market price in the U.S.? $150. Back to livid. I couldn't win.
Buying the script with (most of) the profit stripped out, and removing profit from the pharmacy as well as the health systems infrastructure, reduced the market rate of my meds 95%. Of course the insurance isn't paying 95% of it. In lieu of government price regulation, the insurance companies do reduce prices by purchasing in bulk, but the copay still can't drop to that $8 mark, because the pharmacy, and everyone else, needs to turn a profit on the sale.
Health insurance companies are a good example of the problem, but high priced executives, and profit for shareholders permeate the whole healthcare system. None of this even taps into the other added expenditures of a for-profit system, that only exists here, like advertising, which alone is $25 billion.
A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: It seems clear the Georgia appellate court was determined to find a way to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, even if it meant violating its own rules to do it. Like all appellate courts, it sits not as a finder of fact, but only as a check on the court below, to ensure that the trial court did not make a clear legal mistake and that there is evidence supporting the lower court's decision. Instead, it usurped the trial court's role and used the wrong legal standard to get DA Willis off the case. The 2-1 majority ignored the law, which requires an actual conflict of interest before an attorney can be disqualified. An "appearance of impropriety" is insufficient. Judge Scott McAfee held that the defense had not proved that there was an actual conflict of interest, and the appeals court did not reverse that aspect of the decision. For that reason alone, the trial court's ruling should have been affirmed.
Instead, the appeals court latched onto McAfee's extracurricular comments about Willis' private behavior and his opinion of them, comments that had no legal basis and were highly inappropriate. It was during that detour that McAfee stated there was an "appearance of impropriety" that could only be rectified if Special Assistant DA Nathan Wade stepped down, which he promptly did. Willis could have appealed that aspect of the Court's ruling, but instead made the strategic decision to get on with the case sans Wade.
The appeals Court used both McAfee's finding of an "appearance of impropriety"—which, again, is not a basis to disqualify an attorney—as well as Willis' decision not to appeal that finding, to bootstrap its way to an extralegal, unsupported decision to disqualify Willis. Regardless of the defendant's identity, the Georgia Supreme Court should take this case, if only to get their appeals court back in line. The decision is a gross misuse of their appellate power and is not grounded in the law or the facts. The dissenting judge rightly takes his colleagues to task for veering way out of their lane.
(Z) is correct that the case is not dead, but it may yet be starved to death. If the appeals court ruling survives a petition to the Georgia Supreme Court, it goes next to the executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys Council for the State of Georgia, Pete Skandalakis, who can choose a new prosecutor or decline to move the case forward at all. Even if a new prosecutor is appointed, they can drop the charges. It's hard to predict what this case will look like by the time Trump leaves office.
R.T. in Arlington, TX, writes: I don't see how it should be a surprise that Ken Paxton would sue an out-of-state doctor. Aside from the performance art aspect (he sues everybody for everything all the time), you had to know this would happen because nothing is ever settled until it is litigated these days. The Texas legislature and governor passed an extreme law. Others sought out a loophole, so the Attorney General has to try to close the loophole. He may win or lose, but he was obligated to try.
From my own experience with professional licensing of engineers, I can tell you that jurisdiction is anything but clear-cut, because we license trades and professions at the state level, when the body of knowledge/area of competency has no connection to the land or geography in general. Here is a hypothetical to illustrate this: I am domiciled and do most of my actual work in State A. The client (customer, patient?) who hired me works in an office in State B, but the headquarters of their company is in State C. The related project site is in State D. I likely travel to State D some during the project. The ultimate owner of the project is headquartered in State E. Modular construction for the project takes place in a fabrication plant in State F. Pieces of machinery for the project are manufactured in States G through Z, and a half dozen foreign countries.
In this scenario, any and all of these jurisdictions could assert jurisdiction and require me to carry their license. I tested this once by sending letters with this scenario to the licensing boards of all 50 states. One third never replied. One third replied to say they never respond to hypotheticals. The remaining third had no consistent understanding of what their jurisdiction should be with a strong preference for either: (1) where the project site was located or (2) where the work was being performed.
All along, most trades and professions should have been regulated by a single national authority for that profession or by local agencies applying a single set of national regulations and requirements.
E.S. in Eugene, OR, writes: Attorneys who sue media on behalf of Donald Trump are violating ethical rules and laws in the states in which they are licensed, and should be brought before the bar for filing cases they know to be meritless.
S.M. in Austin, TX, writes: As a civil litigator, who has devoted my entire career to helping ordinary citizens, I take major issue with the following statement: "This is also a clear example of why the general rule in civil cases in Europe is better. There, the loser pays the winner's costs. Then frivolous lawsuits like this end up costing the person who filed them, not the target."
Adopting that rule would have a chilling effect on personal injury lawsuits, consumer protection lawsuits, environmental lawsuits and civil rights lawsuits. You want a world where the victim of discrimination has to decide between protecting their rights versus being subject to a judgment for attorneys' fees should they lose? No lawsuit is perfect, and all can be lost.
We already have protections against frivolous lawsuits. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 and its state law equivalents.
M.N. in Madison, WI, writes: You wrote "We don't foresee reform anytime in the near future, but if you want to hope and rally for something that is at least plausible, and within the power of Congress, hope and rally for the Department of Justice to be spun off as a quasi-public agency, along the lines of the Federal Reserve."
While I agree that depoliticizing the DoJ would be good, presidents in general, and the President-elect in particular, have been perfectly willing to toss out the heads of other similarly "protected" agencies when it suited them. This will only ever be respected by Democrats (and not always by them either), and never Republicans, to the net detriment of the American public.
(V) & (Z) respond: That's why we chose the Federal Reserve as our example. Once a person is appointed by a president, they cannot be removed, thus insulating them from political pressure.
L.E. in Santa Barbara, CA, writes: I just wanted to thank C.J. in Corvallis and acknowledge the contribution to last week's mailbag. Her comments so clearly articulated the way I have been feeling since November 5. Perhaps it's the fact that I am the same age and remember how hard we, and those who went before us, had to fight to get a modicum of control over our own bodies and lives that her comments evoked such a strong emotional response from me.
C.J.'s comment, "The many articles about what the Democrats need to change seem akin to blaming the rape victim," resonated hugely. I have been walking around saying that all the stupid thought pieces about what Kamala Harris or Tim Walz or the Democratic Party should have done was like saying, "Well, she shouldn't have been wearing shorts to the beach, you know—it was just asking for trouble."
So, C.J., thank you, and know there are those of us out here whom your comments really spoke to.
N.N. in Murray, KY, writes: As a man, I must applaud C.J. in Corvallis for a great letter! I have thought many of the same things, and am glad that someone intelligently summed it all up better than I could have. Thank you.
Q.F. in Boulder, CO, writes: I find myself in a depression I cannot shake. It is, in large part, the revelation that America is not filled with the Americans I thought it was—caring, upstanding as reflected in our soldiers during World War II, whose generosity and kind-heartedness was a hallmark of the way we treated others. I thought we, as Americans, respected women. That we stood for what is right, through a shared morality taught by every major religion.
I have lost connections to immediate family over politics. I cannot enjoy any website forum, regardless of the subject, without finding references to the corrupt felon and his cult that I inevitably MUST refute. So I stop visiting websites. I have no close friends, no local family, and no current church. I work remote, so truly I feel like a stranger in a dangerous land.
And that's silly. I shouldn't feel that way about this country. But we're so backwards—single-payer healthcare comes to mind. I cannot condemn Luigi Mangione, though I do not advocate violence. Is this all there is, are we truly the failed country I now see? I avoid the news, but I also have to avoid social sites now, too. Even your site has started to be something I have trouble reading, and yours is the only political site I reach for with the morning coffee. Help?
(V) & (Z) respond: We thought the most useful thing would be to run your letter, and let readers respond.
O.S. in Muncie, IN, writes: You compated Luigi Mangione, the alleged shooter of the United Healthcare CEO, to other historical figures such as Charles Guiteau. I think a more apt historical parallel to Mangione would be abolitionist John Brown. Both were intensely controversial figures who appeared at divisive moments in history and committed acts of violence in the name of ultimately noble causes. Both of their actions spoke to an underlying tension that much of the rest of the country felt. News of the shooting has led to many Americans sharing their own stories of being denied care, and quite a few people have expressed sympathy towards Mangione. I just thought this was an interesting thing to think about.
L.F. in Edina, MN, writes: You write that the perception of Joe Biden's administration may change in the future, as happened with Harry S. Truman. No doubt historians will reevaluate him, but the people who are living now are a different story, if Truman is your model. My parents (and grandparents) were Franklin D. Roosevelt supporters who began with positive feelings towards the president they inherited. That all changed when Truman fired General Douglas MacArthur, who was a real hero to their generation. Growing up, all I heard about "that #@$& little haberdasher" was that single fact. The family voted Republican ever after. So did many of their friends and neighbors, especially those who had served, or knew those who served, in the Pacific theater.
Of course, they are all dead now, so historians can reevaluate as they please. I expect Biden's legacy will have parallels. People who are here now will mostly remember the doddering old man who didn't know when to step back. (Along with the alarm when we realized we had no idea who was actually running the show.) Once we all die off, he may be judged differently, but it's going to take a while.
J.M. in Portland, OR, writes: In "This Week in Freudenfreude: Be the Change You Wish to See in the World," you wrote:
The quote in the headline is supposedly from Mahatma Gandhi, though it doesn't appear in any of his published writings. We're actually pretty sure he borrowed it from Winston Churchill, who got it from Mark Twain, who stole it from Abraham Lincoln, who heard it from George Carlin. That said, our research into the matter is still ongoing, and it's possible there are one or two holes in our hypothesis.This reminded me of a book: The Boomer Bible, by R.F. Laird.
I strongly recommend it. It is the only text that has ever made me cry laughing, AND it's quite educational.
A.B. in Davidson, NC, writes: I really liked this week's freudenfreude. I wanted to pass along a wonderful PBS documentary I watched a few years ago called For This and Future Generations..., about Montanans rewriting their state constitution in the summer of 1972. It has some great interviews with participants and, if I remember correctly, there is some discussion of the "clean and healthful" environment clause.
The title comes from the preamble of the constitutional convention and I find it really touching. It shows an ethos that I wish was more common today: "We the people of Montana, grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution."
D.R. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: In case any readers are not yet listeners, the podcast If Books Could Kill just released an episode on What's The Matter With Kansas? by Thomas Frank.
While the podcast normally debunks the kind of pop science books marketed to mainstream audiences, this episode uses Frank's book as a jumping-off point for some interesting poli sci discussions, up to and including the most recent election.
T.F. in Austin, TX, writes: In your item "Gaetz Is a Loser," you wrote: "Similarly, once the report is released, it's clearly going to include information that strongly indicates: (1) hiring of many prostitutes, and (2) sex with underage women."
They're not "underage women." They're girls.
You're usually good about wording things appropriately, so I assume this was unintentional. The phrase is all too commonly used by the media and by the men who seek to minimize their victimization of girls. But if they're "underage," they're girls, and victims of statutory rape.
(V) & (Z) respond: If we use "girls," even in this context, we will get complaints about sexism, observing that we would never refer to 17-year-old males as "boys."
D.S. in Layton, UT, writes: When you accurately quote Matt Gaetz as saying "But at least I didn't vote for CR's that fuck over the country!," does that indicate a policy change regarding the use of profanities?
(V) & (Z) respond: Similarly, there is no policy on profanities that does not leave some readers unhappy. If we censor, we get unhappy e-mails, if we don't censor, we get unhappy e-mails. So, we censor, except when the words were uttered/written publicly.
S.O. in Madison, WI, writes: "English nonsense"? Avery the Wire Fox Terrier would have a word:
Yes, the balloon is face height—around 6 feet—yeah he gets 'em. 'Nuff said.
B.H. in Sherman Oaks, CA, writes: M.S. in Roseville tells us "...at Christmas, hardtack is often on my plate, along with lingonberry sauce, pickled beets, pickled herring, and Jarlsberg cheese."
Oh, M.S., you poor, poor thing...
And to think I used to complain about fruitcake!
S.Z. in Parma, OH, writes: Many of your public enjoy reading about your hounds; you mentioned their ability to secure food. We have had four greyhounds. They are wonderful. Most generally, they can be described as polite, mellow, and not prone to much activity. Our first, Captain America, would push or pull a chair to get to the top of the table, or ice box. We got him in the month of December. I was given smoked salmon for Christmas by a choir member. He took the bag off the table, and I tried to retrieve...well, some of it. Another time, I came home with some cake with a heavy topping of whipped cream. In an eye blink, he tongued off a portion of the cream. I had the cake in my hand, and did not see the swipe.
Cassius loved pasta noodles. Both Cassius and Karma would whimper to have some turkey vegetable soup. They all very much enjoyed my cooking. And I have to mention Argos. We had him for such a short time. He would take food out of Karma's mouth. Only Karma is left, and she is not yet nine. The boys never made it that far.
D.D. in Portland, OR, writes: I was feeling a bit low when I read the prediction from J.M. in Philadelphia, detailing how a certain warthog-faced buffoon's immigration policy will play out. Was going to say something like, "I wish I could disagree with you, but I can't. At least I wish the prediction did not seem obvious, yet it does."
Then, as a gift from above, you responded to E.D. in Saddle Brook with a play on Prince Humperdinck's line from Princess Bride, "I always think everything could be a trap, which is why I'm still alive."
Thank you for keeping up the insight and snark! There's a shortage of perfect blogs in the world. It would be a pity to damage yours.
(V) & (Z) respond: Glad we could help rescue you from the pit of despair.
M.S. in Hamden, CT, writes: In the mid-twentieth century, Yale had two particularly eminent chemists, John Kirkwood and Lars Onsager, who were close friends. Indeed, they were buried next to each other. When Kirkwood died in 1959, his headstone displayed his basic biography, plus a gazillion honors he had received. When Onsager died in 1976, his headstone listed only one honor, a Nobel Prize. After his widow died fifteen years later, Onsager's children added a modest asterisk after "Nobel Prize" with a footnote saying, "*etc."
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.