Dem
51
GOP
49
Today, several readers raise very good points about various subjects, points that we have not seen elsewhere.
R.R. in Pasadena, CA, writes: Your answer to S.M. in Pratt said the Biden team should let someone else (like the Lincoln Project) take the lead in pointing out Trump's dementia. You're right that it's probably better for Biden to stay away from that line of attack, for two reasons. First, it's pretty ugly to do something like that, and while Republicans lately aren't hesitating, Biden's just not that kind of person. Second, we've seen Trump and Republicans turn attacks against them to their advantage through lies, and through telling their people that something awful but true was actually a heinous lie. This would hand them something like that to play with, so it's not worth it.
However, there's one place where this would make sense. If there's a presidential debate (yeah, yeah), it seems likely that Trump will roll into one of his random stream of consciousness asides, which are becoming more and more nonsensical. If he really goes off the cliff on one of them, it would be the perfect time for Biden to look into the camera and say "And people say that I'm losing my marbles... can you believe that nonsense he just said?" It's almost perfect for cutting the idea that Biden has dementia and Trump is a stable genius off at the knees, and Biden has shown the ability to nail a zinger like that in the past. And, this is probably why Trump's team will find a way to avoid the debates; they have to know he can't go into that environment against Biden and come out a winner.
M.M. in Centralia, IL, writes: S.M. in Pratt, KS, writes: "...Even back when Donald Trump was in office, there were signs of cognitive decline. I think we all remember the 'Person, Woman, Man, Camera, TV' interview. They don't give those tests to persons with no sign of decline." [My emphasis.]
This is not true. This short-term memory test is part of the standard annual wellness check for Medicare recipients. Yes, it is one of several measures of possible cognitive decline, but it is administered at every checkup, even to the spry 65-year-olds who have all their faculties and are a long way off from concerns. The measurement of "decline" is the recording of the difficulties the patient may or may not have over a span of several years of tests. That Trump made a big deal out of "acing" this test is merely revealing of how poorly he is anchored in the real world.
My wife and I amuse our providers by reciting the Trump test when recollection of "our" five words is requested.
L.P. in Chippewa Falls, WI, writes: MAGA is dragging down economic sentiment, and it is not just me who thinks so. I have been saying this for a year. The economy is fine. By most objective measures, the economy is chugging along just great. Ask anyone out there and their opinion, although devoid of facts, is that it is horrible.
Something that I like to point out is what I hear when I listen to CNBC on the radio. It is just an audio repeat of the TV channel, so I get to listen to the commercials that are typical of daytime news shows. Basically investment gimmicks, and products targeting older folks. One of the commercials start off by saying "due to a downturn in the economy..." then they go on to explain what a good deal you will get by buying their reduced-price product and how they reduced their price because we are all suffering under this horrible economy. People are fed this garbage every day. Social media is filled with stuff claiming the economy is so bad, the economy is in shambles—over and over this garbage is repeated, but never anything to back it up. I have convinced myself that the economy is largely just fine and, dare I say, good, because I look at objective measures. I look at things like price of energy, CPI, PPI, GDP, unemployment. You know, things that have objective values.
In my opinion, people's sentiment is fueled by two sources. First, these clickbait doom-and-gloom marketing pitches that clearly work, and second, by MAGA. These people have no problem just spewing lies and their cult will believe anything they say. They never question their Dear Leader, they just take what he says as gospel and spread the cancer of doom.
I am glad I am not the only one who thinks this way and I am pretty proud to be thinking the same way as a Nobel Prize winning economist. Here is an article that prompted me to write you: "MAGA to Blame for Belief That the Economy is Bad, Nobel-Winning Economist Says.
A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: OK, so I get it, a lot of people have 401(k) accounts for retirement. But I do not understand the connection of the Dow being at record levels as an indicator of a good economy (at least for the average Joe Sixpack/Jane Secretary—and pardon the gendering here... Jane Sixpack can be a thing too, but I digress...)
My point here is that the Dow being at record levels DOES NOT translate into an increase in my buying power, which is the only thing that matters in terms of whether or not the economy is working... FOR ME (or for you, for that matter).
I make the same arguments concerning minimum wage increases (they are useless unless adopted with an automatic yearly increase pegged to the rate of inflation) because without those annual increases, inflation eats up any gains.
In short, what matters is not how many dollars you have in your pocket, but whether those dollars will buy the things you need. Consider this simplification: If you make $10 an hour and a pair of shoes cost $100, you need to work ten hours to get the shoes. Now if you make $20 an hour, but the same shoes now cost $300, you must work fifteen hours to get the same shoes... so where are you better off?
I do not see the real BUYING POWER increase—in fact, I feel as if I am falling further behind (example, my lot rent at my trailer park went up $52 a month this year... and my wages did not go up $52 a month!)
To me, a record-high Dow is only an indicator of how good the wealthy have it (what Dubya called "the ownership class") and no indicator of how the average laborer is doing. So can you explain to me why so many people seem to perceive a record-high Dow as an indicator of a good economy?
(V) & (Z) respond: Because it is one of the few well known, basically objective ratings that describe the state of the economy. Same reason people use BMI as a proxy for "health" or number of Oscars won as a proxy for "artistic quality."
A.T. in Katy, TX, writes: In "Trump Is Rooting Against America," you took issue with Donald Trump's wish that the economy would crash, because he doesn't want to be another Herbert Hoover. You wrote: "As usual, with so much of what Trump says... this makes no sense" and then go on to describe how it would actually be Biden as Hoover if the economy tanked like Trump wanted.
What was missed is that Trump wants a crash this year because he doesn't want one NEXT year, when he believes he will be President. THAT would make him Hoover. This may be attributing too much understanding, but I would think someone in the business world for so long (even if not good at it) knows the economy goes through ups and downs. So if he is expecting a "down" he wants it to happen now, so he can blame it on Biden and not when he thinks he will be in office and get blamed for it himself.
(V) & (Z) respond: You're right. We misunderstood his comments (easy enough to do).
R.H. in Santa Ana, CA, writes: It is all-but-certain that Judge Arthur Engoron is going to smite the Former Guy in the checkbook for $200-$400 million.
People commonly say "He'll just appeal," as if that's a Get Out Of Jail Free card, but it's not that simple.
In order to appeal, a judgment debtor typically has to post a bond, in order to assure the judgment creditor that that debt will be paid if and when the debtor loses (or abandons) his appeal. The questions are whether TFG can appeal the coming judgment without posting a supersedeas bond, and if not, how big will that bond have to be?
A quick Google search didn't give me the New York Appellate Procedure rule on those bonds, but I'm sure some of your New York lawyers can answer those questions. (That search yielded quite a few companies offering to write those bonds, so it seems that appellate bonds are indeed a thing in New York).
Typically, if one wishes to appeal an adverse money judgment, one must post a bond with the court that rendered the judgment, in an amount sufficient to satisfy the judgment (plus interest, plus costs) if the appeal is unsuccessful.
Where is Donald Trump going to get $200-$400 million in cash to forestall the collection of that judgment? If he can't post the bond, the judgment creditor (in this case, the State of New York) is typically allowed to immediately commence collection actions, typically by seizing any of the debtor's funds in bank accounts and then seizing and selling any personal property and then by seizing and selling any local real estate, then by seizing and selling any real estate found in another state or foreign country.
The creditor can also seize any income the debtor has, above a certain minimal amount. The owners of Trump-branded properties around the planet would be told to send their licensing fees to the receiver appointed by Engoron, instead of to the Trump Organization (or whatever entity owns the Trump trademark they're paying to license).
Some jurisdictions impose a cap on those bonds, so he may be able to avoid having to post the full amount of the judgment award, but it seems he will have to post a bond.
This will of course be met with a bankruptcy filing—probably before Super Tuesday.
Interesting times, indeed!
D.M. in Berlin, Germany, writes: On Friday, (Z) wrote, about the DFEOTUS*: "He's not going to win on appeal, which means that, one of these days, it will sink in that he's ruined himself and he's destroyed the thing that gave him his identity and his sense of self-worth. Oh, to be a fly on the wall the day that the realization finally, and completely, dawns. Of course, if one was a fly on the wall that day, one would have to be on the lookout for flying bottles of ketchup."
The DFEOTUS is a narcissist. It will sink in that he has, in everyone else's eyes, lost; but I'm convinced it will never sink in that he did this to himself. It is simply self-evident to him, as a narcissist, that he is perfect. It does not occur to him that anybody might be smarter than him; that is not thinkable. It does not occur to him that anybody might be a greater expert than him in anything that matters (to him—but I repeat myself); sure, they may have studied their subjects for much longer, but that's because they don't possess his natural smarts, so they can't grasp it all in an instant the way he believes he does. Trump cannot fail, he can only be failed; Trump cannot be wrong, he can only be wronged. For the rest of his life—one way or another, in that his heart might give out from the stress—he will try to imagine who wronged him, who so perversely denied his self-evident perfection to the point of putting him into serious discomfort, and he will scream in their general direction both with his voice and with his CAPS LOCK key.
...and with numerous flying bottles of ketchup.
* — Disgruntled Former Employee of the United States
S.O.S. in Madison, WI, writes: "Oh, to be a fly on the wall the day that the realization finally, and completely, dawns. Of course, if one was a fly on the wall that day, one would have to be on the lookout for flying bottles of ketchup."
You are, of course, correct—far too dangerous for a defenseless fly. However, I hear tale/tail of 2 intrepid Dachshund agents complete with a trench coat. Seems like a no-brainer for an undercover operation.
A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: You wrote: "Oh, to be a fly on the wall the day that the realization finally, and completely, dawns."
I would hope that room would be about 100 sq. ft. with grey bars, a single bed, and a stainless steel commode.
I do not believe that they provide condiments with "mystery meat."
B.B. in Dothan, AL, writes: Another reason why blanket immunity is a nonstarter: A president could easily avoid impeachment-conviction simply by assassinating those senators likely to convict him. He could not be tried on those murders until and unless he is impeached on them, which would require a subsequent impeachment in the House. Should any senators signal they would convict for assassination, simply use whatever criminal actions you want (that's a nice family you have there, hope nothing ever happens to them). The president could never be tried criminally because he could use any and all crimes to prevent impeachment and conviction. Rinse and repeat.
R.S. in Vancouver, WA, writes: You forgot to include the most important part of Trump's claim for double jeopardy from the impeachment. Impeachment was conducted by the United States Congress, a branch of the federal government. The US has 51 semi-independent sovereigns, the 50 states and the federal government. Double jeopardy applies individually to each sovereign. The Feds and Georgia can prosecute separately for the same crime.
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: No one seems to be pointing this out, but while Trump is arguing in the D.C. case that he cannot be prosecuted criminally unless he had been convicted by the Senate in an impeachment trial, he is arguing in Georgia that trying him there subjects him to double jeopardy because he was tried by the Senate in an impeachment trial. It cannot be both.
It doesn't matter that Trump was acquitted by the Senate; double jeopardy means you can't be tried twice for the same acts whether or not you have been convicted or acquitted in the first trial. The arguments are utterly two-faced: "If I've been impeached and convicted, you can't try me on double-jeopardy grounds, and if I'm acquitted, you can't try me on immunity grounds." Both arguments are absurd, of course, but the brazen dishonesty and inconsistency—and the lack of commentary about it—is stunning.
E.F. in Baltimore, MD, writes: Trump isn't so ignorant that he doesn't know what caused the Civil War. But he believes that his followers ARE ignorant enough that they'll believe anything he tells them, especially if it's unproveable, and polishes the facade of infallibility and perfection that he loves to affect.
That said, he's also simultaneously threatening a new Civil War if he's cheated out of another term. So in effect, he's saying that only he can prevent the NEXT Civil War.
B.R. in Eatontown, NJ, writes: I must beg to differ with your analysis in "Trump Says He Could Have Prevented the Civil War." You suggest he would have failed to negotiate a resolution. But given his track record when he was the greatest businessperson ever, I would suggest he would have succeeded. He would have given away the house, but he would have gotten a deal. So, if he had represented the North, he would agreed the South could have slavery in perpetuum. Just look at the incredible deal he negotiated for New York City's landmark Plaza Hotel. Or the deals he made in Atlantic City for his marvelous, tremendous casinos.
I fully expect that the next pronouncement of the Greatest Negotiator the World Has Ever Known will be that he would have succeeded in avoiding World War I and II, all in one masterful deal.
(V) & (Z) respond: In fairness, he does speak Hitler's language.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: In response to J.T. in San Bernardino, you wrote: "We assure you that he (Trump) was pressed on what exactly his plan for avoiding the Civil War would have been, he would have had no answer."
I rarely do this but I have to strenuously disagree with you both! If pushed to reveal his plans for preventing the Civil War, Trump would have said something along these lines:
I will reveal those plans right after we roll out Infrastructure Week and the unveiling of my new and improved healthcare plan. But I assure you, you will be amazed at how great this Civil War plan is. Some are saying that this is the greatest plan to prevent the Civil War ever. It's true. Greatest ever. Who needs Caromattox or Sgt. Eisenhower to stop the Civil War when you have the greatest president ever—me—coming up with something better than Obama's loser plan. He's destroying America. It's true. You may not know this but just yesterday, I got a call from John Wilkes Booth—you know, the President of the Confederate Union—and I could hear the tears in his eyes. Through the phone. It was amazing. Tears just pouring out of his eyes. And he said, "Sir"—he called me SIR, you know—he said, "Sir, that is the most perfect beautiful plan I've ever heard. Ever. I never would have believed that a U.S. President would have ever been so smart"—he really said that—"would have been so smart as to give the South such generous reparations for the slaves while letting us keep them. Genius!" So beautiful, my little Pistol Man. That's what I call him. Pistol Man. It was a perfect phone call. So perfect. He makes the same little whimpering noise that Putin makes after I tell him our nuclear codes, you know. Putin says, "Sir," too. So much winning. Anyone tired of winning, yet?Come on, you know I'm right!
B.C. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: I knew I could count on the resident E-V.com historian to answer the Orange Donny's claim that Honest Abe could have avoided the Civil War if only he'd read The Art of the Deal. I'm gonna print out copies of that post and keep a few in my pocket to hand out to anyone who thinks Donny is remotely qualified to be president.
J.E. in Manhattan, NY, writes: I want to protest a bit about your characterization of the Houthis and the airstrikes the U.S. has launched.
I don't agree with the Houthis' political goals—they are a theocratic movement on the whole, and uninterested in democracy. That said it's notable that they weren't just attacking random ships for the lulz. They were taking a specific action to damage Israeli shipping. They also specifically attacked Israel in the wake of the latter's campaign of ethnic cleansing in Gaza (and I use that term precisely; the Israeli leadership has been very, very clear that ethnic cleansing is what they want to do, despite Netanyahu being forced to walk that back).
Now, the Houthis could be launching attacks—in fact, I'd bet money on this—to gain domestic support. I can't come up with a situation in which they are in a position to make a lot of difference to the Israelis, ultimately. They can't field an army anywhere outside of Yemen and they haven't got an air force; nor have they the ability to field hundreds of cruise missiles or their equivalent. Yes, they can cause damage and kill a few people, but that's not an existential threat to the Israeli state. (In fact, terrorism isn't really an existential threat to ANY state, unless that state is really, really weak to begin with, and at that point you have a revolution going on.)
In any case, the Houthis were doing something few other governments have done—take concrete action against a government that is engaged in a war of ethnic cleansing. I think Americans should think long and hard about whose side we are on, given that a bunch of theocrats in a second- or third-tier group of theocratic insurgents has managed to be on the right side of history when we have not.
Yes, the Houthis have Iranian backing, but the old Yemeni government has the backing of the Saudis, and Yemen is very much a proxy war between those two. It's also true that Saudi Arabia—and in fact, all of the US allies in the Gulf—are authoritarian regimes. I doubt many of the people there are interested in normalizing relations with Israel now, even if they might have been able to be convinced of the merits before.
I bring this up because Americans especially have this blind spot—it's almost as if they cannot imagine that there is ever any reason to see the U.S. as the bad guy. But in a great irony here—I'll quote William J.H. Boetker, who has all the classical blind spots of many center-right people, but wasn't wrong here: "A man is judged by the company he keeps, and a company is judged by the men it keeps, and the people of Democratic nations are judged by the type and caliber of officers they elect." If we are to name our allies in the region, there are currently no democracies among them save Israel and Turkey, and both countries have been doing their best to destroy any reputations they had in that regard. Given that, I ask any American to ask themselves why anyone would believe us when we say we are interested in human rights, given that the U.S. has opposed democratic change. Every. Single. Time it threatened to happen to one of our allies, and has a long history of toppling democratically elected governments when they had the temerity to disagree with us even slightly.
And before someone says "Do you condemn Hamas?" let me turn the question around: "Are you saying that what Hamas did justifies the collective punishment and killing of thousands of Palestinians? How many dead Palestinians will satisfy you? If 'we' in the west are supposed to be better, why can't we act like it?"
P.M. in Albany, CA, writes: Your lead sentence in the item on the Houthi airstrikes is: "Until yesterday, the U.S. had managed to avoid perpetrating any acts of violence as it tried to stabilize the increasingly unstable situation in the Middle East."
I'm not sure that shipping 10,000 tons of armaments and military equipment to Israel, which has been using those weapons, can be included in "avoid perpetrating any acts of violence." One might even consider these weapons shipments as evidence against the idea that the U.S. has "tried to stabilize the increasingly unstable situation in the Middle East."
But the U.S. Department of Defense certainly did take credit on Christmas Day for "strikes on three facilities used by Kataib Hezbollah and affiliated groups in Iraq," and then on January 4 for "U.S. forces in Iraq" assassinating "Mushtaq Jawad Kazim al-Jawari, a leader of the Iran-backed Harakat al-Nujaba". How do these not count as U.S.-perpetrated acts of violence in the Middle East?
E.C.W. in New Orleans, LA, writes: I have extensive, first-hand, experience with our activities in Djibouti and Yemen against our Houthi rebel friends. We know precisely who they are, what they want, and who arms and directs them. Our recent actions on that front were consistent and appropriate. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) is an ass, and little rankles me more than when the GOP plays politics with our foreign policy/military. I wish Coach Tuberville would resign and seek counseling immediately for the same reasons.
J.C. in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, writes: I think it's important to remember that there are two Houthi groups. The original is a very ancient tribe in Yemen. They, along with other tribes in Yemen, would get promises from the federal government for infrastructure improvements like roads and hospitals, the government would renege, the tribe would do kidnappings where they kidnap a Westerner and follow Arabic customs of treating him with great generosity and kindness, the government would capitulate and follow through on their promises, and the guy would be released. It bore more than a passing resemblance to how our own country treated the tribes. There was a time when Yemen was THE place to go to be kidnapped. Then came al-Qaeda. The Houthi Tribe, along with others, were the ones who were attacked as collateral damage by Obama's drones.
The Houthi Movement is named after founder Hussein al-Houthi, and is, as you described, an Islamst revolutionary insurgency.
We should specify which Houthi we refer to.
R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: A rite of passage for most Jewish teens is the summer pilgrimage to Israel. An alphabet soup of Jewish youth organizations, including USY, BBYO, NFTY and others (their full names are not relevant to this letter) sponsor these trips. I took the USY trip during my 16th summer in 1983. My son went in 2017 when he was 17. There are also trips for young adults who didn't go as teens, such as Birthright, which is how my ex-wife went in her mid-20s after converting to Judaism.
These trips can be formative for Jewish youth. Unfortunately, they tend to have a strong bias towards "support Israel no matter what" and "Arabs can't be trusted." It solidified in me this attitude (which I had been taught from my parents) such that it would be another couple of decades before I made the shift to supporting a two-state solution as the only viable means of ensuring peace and safety for both Jews and Palestinians. (In my youth, we lumped everyone from the region who wasn't Jewish as "Arab," a word that we don't see much anymore). My son, growing up in mine and my mother's households, was already predisposed to the two-state solution and an end to violence. He recalls that much of the pro-Israel rhetoric that he was fed during the trip made him feel uncomfortable.
This is the time of year when teens and their parents need to apply for their favorite program (and the scholarships which seem to always be available to Jewish youth) and start making plans. I just checked the three organizations named above and, according to their websites, their trips are on. Each of the websites have a section detailing how they are going to keep the teens safe in a nation at war. However, if I had a 16- or 17-year-old today, there is no way I would allow them to go anywhere near Israel right now. How can it possibly be safe? I have to wonder if applications are down and whether or not these trips will actually happen.
I see plenty of impacts. I'll name two. First of all, an entire cohort of American teens will (likely) "miss out" on this indoctrination. In a year or two, many of them will be attending college and will begin to meet (often for the first time because many Jewish communities are very insular) people who aren't like them and don't automatically support Israel. In lacking the experience of the teen trip to Israel, many may actually turn against Bibi's Israel and the Democratic Party with its no-strings-attached support of Israel (although hopefully that is beginning to change). We are already seeing hints of this on campuses now (I assume these trips were canceled during COVID, so this kinda makes sense to me).
I'm sure there will be an economic impact as well, both here and in Israel. These trips involve tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of Jewish youth and young adult chaperones. The teens will need to find something else to do this summer. The chaperones will need to find alternative summer employment. There must be hundreds of businesses (hotels, hostels, tour guides, restaurants, etc), not to mention the orgs themselves, who will be without the income generated by these trips. I don't have a way of determining how significant of an impact this would be on both economies, but I can assure you it is not nothing. War is good for weapons manufacturers and nobody else.
All of this is in the name of Bibi's dream of rooting out Hamas killing all Palenstinians and Making Israel Great Again, turning Israel into a pariah state.
One final thought. It is really sad to me that (like so much of political life in America) this has turned into a simplistic binary. My ex-, who commutes solely by bicycle, recently told me that she had changed her route last week because there was a Free Palestine rally that she decided to avoid. Like me, she supports a Palestinian state. However, a Free Palestine rally comes with the implication that Israel should be eliminated and that she would not have been safe as a Jew going anywhere near that rally. I want there to be a free Palestinian state. I also want there to be a free Israel. And I want both to stop killing each other. Where is that rally?
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: C.T. in Tucson writes: "[I]n my view China will collapse within a decade—their demographics, financial instability and insular political system will doom it." There is a commonplace observation among China watchers: From the outside, China always appears to be on the verge of collapse; from the inside, no crisis is evident. The author is absolutely correct: When one looks at the numbers, China looks doomed. But China has always been that way. Yet, nobody who has studied China closely would bet against China's staying power.
While I'm here: It scares me when conservatives refer to China as "Communist China" and talk as though they're going to launch a new cold war. China has a capitalist economy. It's not the conservatives' type of capitalist economy, or capitalism on the American model, or even the Hong Kong model. But it is capitalist. The Soviet Union never had a viable economy; it never had the economic might of a great nation. China does. Cold War polices we pursued against the USSR will not work against China for that and many other reasons.
I am also alarmed by the view of some people that China is about to take Taiwan by military force, a view that has been signal-boosted by most news media to the point that it is now perceived as a fact. True, China has been poised to take Taiwan by military force ever since 1949. That is foundational to the PRC's military posture. But as Sun Tzu (The Art of War) warned, "He will be victorious who knows when to fight and when not to fight." A direct attack on Taiwan would require a cross channel invasion—a massive amphibious assault, one of the most difficult challenges in warfare, followed by urban fighting, the other most difficult offensive situations in warfare, against a large population that would probably prefer death to surrender. In addition to being bad for business, war is just not a very good way to get Taiwan back. Chinese military planners have been working on the problem for over 7 decades. They're not going to start a war unless they are certain they can win it on their own terms. And they have Russia as a warning: If Russia takes Ukraine, there will likely be little left that is worth taking. The PRC wants Taiwan, not rubble and ashes that were once Taiwan. Because of its history, China is far better at playing the long game than Europeans, and infinitely better than Americans.
In addition, I want to thank all the readers who sent responses for Most Admirable Person. Not initially interested in the question, I found myself both amused and moved by the nominations. This site has the best readers and the best editors.
J.B. in Waukee, IA, writes: As an Iowan who grew up on a farm, one thing I'm well qualified to talk about is the weather. Your item about the weather for the Iowa Caucuses is a little mixed up. The blizzard with up to 12 inches of snow occurred last Monday evening into Wednesday, followed by 1-3 inches of snow on Friday. As of this writing, most of the highways in the state are either seasonal or partially covered with snow (generally considered passable). Only about 20%-30% of highways are considered completely covered or "Travel Not Advised." By this time on Monday, I'd expect that number to be near 0%. We're well prepared for snow and snow removal in this part of the country. So I don't expect the snow to keep people from caucusing, as it won't be a factor by next week. The bitter cold may keep some away, but the caucuses are held indoors with generally not a lot of waiting outside, so maybe not.
G.T. in Cincinnati, OH, writes: Regarding your comment: "That being the case, then the poor weather would favor the candidate whose supporters are most devoted. And that's surely gotta be Donald Trump, right? Plus, his supporters tend to drive trucks, which are better in snow than cars."
Actually, unloaded rear wheel drive pickup trucks are the absolute worst vehicle to drive in snowy or icy conditions. Just a heads up for those from California.
P.S. in North Branch, MI, writes: I am a lifelong progressive liberal living in deep MAGA territory here in Michigan. The fallout from last week's attempt to oust Kristina Karamo, leader (?) of the Michigan GOP, continues to grow.
There are now two websites claiming to be the official sites. The renegades are now trying to raise money so they can go to court and gain access to the bank accounts. The party here in the state, at least from my perspective, is effectively gone. There are multiple pretenders but not much else. I do not see how any of this fall's candidates will have support to run their campaigns.
The Michigan Democrats are following the sage wisdom of "When your opponent is shooting themselves in the foot and ripping themselves apart, stay out of their way." But, they do need to get their act together. The Democrats are being presented with the greatest gift ever. This fall they can run well funded and organized campaigns across the state and have a strong chance of flipping more seats both nationally and statewide.
I, for one, am cautiously hopeful.
G.W. in Dayton, OH, writes: It wasn't necessary to go as far away as St. Louis to find French settlers near Indiana. The first European settlers in Indiana were the French who founded Vincennes in 1732. Vincennes remained culturally French into the early 19th century.
(V) & (Z) respond: It all begins to make sense.
C.S. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: I typically enjoy these features though I don't always participate. I was deplored to see Benjamin Netanyahu, despite all of his warts, used in the same sentence and ranked behind (in front of?) Vladimir Putin. (For the record, it's also hard to comprehend Matt Gaetz being in the same section as Putin.) Not listed in the top (bottom?) 10 are the members of Hamas and their burning of children alive, the rape of women and girls, kidnapping of babies, and using their own people as human shields. They are just plain evil. However, If I could go back and vote for most deplorable, it would be all the antisemites who are now brazen in their hatred towards the Jewish people and the Jewish state since October 7.
J.H. in Tulalip, WA, writes: I'm going to have to agree with A.C. in Buffalo that Dolly Parton is the best human ever. If Dolly were God, I wouldn't be an atheist.
S.E. in Haiku Maui, HI, writes: Taylor Swift??? Really? If we are choosing an entertainer, why not choose someone with a lifetime of career achievement, someone who appeals to multiple generations rather than teenage girls, someone with more songwriting skill on his little finger than her? Someone who has around 40 albums in his catalog, most of which are his original compositions. Someone whose music makes people smile and laugh and escape momentarily to a warmer place? Someone who was a devoted husband and father, and friend to everyone with whom he crossed paths. A pilot, boat captain, bestselling author, avid reader? Someone who performed in t-shirts, shorts and flip flops rather than glitter and sequins. I'm talking about Jimmy Buffett.
(V) & (Z) respond: The Buffet fans among the readership must have been too busy searching for their lost shakers of salt.
B.C. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: I have to admit, I was flabbergasted by the idea that Liz Cheney could be 2023's Most Admirable Person on anybody's score card. Evidently the idea is she is so brave and selfless because she has spoken out against the outrageous threats to democracy the leaders of her party are making. Really? I suggest she is saying those things because, after 1/6, she made the miscalculation that it would be the end of TFG and the other MAGAnuts; a matter of self-interest on her part because she figured the "regular" Republicans would come back into power.
She voted for the Orange Donny's reprehensible 2017 Tax Cut for the Rich. In addition, she voted to repeal Obamacare; a pretty easy thing to do when you are worth somewhere between $8 and $14 million and, with your government benefits, probably spend more on dog food than health care. (Even if she doesn't even have a dog!) When she retires, she will also get something of a government pension and will collect much more from Social Security than I will ever collect.
To get my vote for Most Admirable, you must be something more than a rich, beautiful pop star or a well-heeled politician checking the political wind direction. No, you need to be doing something that is noble and is also an existential threat to you as an individual, as is the case with Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Alexey Navalny.
I am saddened that so many people have such a privileged person's definition of "hero."
(V) & (Z) respond: Look for a small update to the list on Tuesday.
D.M. in Holden, MA, writes: D.A. in Brooklyn, writing about the most deplorable person of 2023: "Joe Biden. I could have said Bibi Netanyahu or Vladimir Putin, but they are form an unholy trinity of 'Immortal Deplorables.' Joe Biden. Joe, Joe, Joe. How could you allow the slaughter in Gaza? You may be a 'nowhere man,' but you're better than that. How could you?"
Thank you for be willing to post this comment about Joe Biden's deplorable behavior. No doubt many of your readers will react very negatively to this comment. It takes courage for you to be willing to print it and anger your readers.
Joe Biden's militarism and warmongering have been infuriating. Give him another term and I fully expect him to bloviate his way into a shooting war with China. I have voted for a Democrat for president in every election since I was 18. It will be very difficult for me to vote for Biden this year. At some point, the American imperial project needs to end. Our mass exportation of violence and suffering is completely unacceptable. I certainly dread another 4 years of Trump. But I refuse to endorse the endless, expensive, pointless violence of politicians like Joe Biden. Joe Biden's choices have consequences—not just for Gazans, Israelis, Ukrainians, and Russians. The consequences include some number of voters abandoning him and his endless quest to achieve peace through violence rather than diplomacy.
O.Z.H. in Dubai, UAE, writes: I'm surprised Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) didn't end up with at least an (dis)honorable mention in the Most Deplorable poll. People like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and Rudy Giuliani are all either true believers or are suffering some sort of derangement. Stefanik is neither and so her MAGA act is purely and cynically calculated for political gain, regardless of the fact that she doesn't really believe it and the harm she (in all probability) knows it is doing to the country.
P.M. in Innsbruck, Austria, writes: I know it's not something you usually do, and there are tons of other worthy causes, but just in case you want to remind your readers—who voted Putin to most deplorable in 2023—they still can support Ukraine's fight (besides lobbying their congressperson). An overview can be found here. (And to tell about times a-changin': Here writes an alternative-service, swords-to-plowshares, let's-sit-down-and-talk-EU-softie who, since last year, has donated monthly a fancy dinner's worth of money for ammunition and drones.)
B.N. in Canton, MI, writes: G.W. in Oxnard nominated Jesus Christ as the person who has done the most harm to civil society. I hate to feed such obvious baiting, but it's hard to ignore that is exactly backwards.
In the world before Christ, the following concepts were marginal: male and female equality, poor are people too, racial equality, the worth of people of low station, the value of children (even children of other people), the importance of people over dogma and policies, the duty of the powerful to the dis-empowered, forgiveness is a virtue and revenge is a poison. All of these positions were not just suggested, but actually commanded, by Jesus.
Christianity has been misused through the ages to terrible effect, but so has every other noble concept (see "Freedom Caucus"). The incontrovertible fact is the Christian Church and the teachings of Christ have been powerful, if not driving, forces behind: the abolition of slavery, institutions dedicated to the preservation and expansion of knowledge, the concept of universal education, the establishment of public hospitals, innumerable charitable organizations (Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc.), the drive for civil, political, and economic rights (especially in the U.S and South Africa), and so much more. A would without this influence would be so much darker than the one we have.
B.H. in Sherman Oaks, CA, writes: I would suggest that the complaints of G.W. in Oxnard are perhaps not so much with Jesus as with his followers. As G.W. noted in the list of Christian misdeeds, these acts were committed not by Jesus, but by Christian churches and individual Christians. Yes, Christians have committed destructive acts in Jesus' name and misguided beliefs about his teaching, but Jesus himself was absent from the scenes of the crimes. I submit that an honest reading of the Sermon on the Mount gives the lie to whatever justifications Christians have invented (and are still inventing) for acting badly. As Max Von Sydow noted in Hannah and Her Sisters, "If Jesus came back and saw what's going on in his name, he'd never stop throwing up."
D.D. in Portland, OR, writes: Thank you for regularly sharing such thoughtful, diverse views from your readers. Last year's discussions of abortion was a high water mark for this blog, in my opinion. That said, when I saw you run the letter from G.W. in Oxnard that Jesus Christ caused the most damage to our civil society, I gotta say I was let down.
G.W.'s argument, which can be boiled down to "cuz you know, the Inquisition was bad," barely meets the intellectual bar set in my freshman college dorm. Wanna badmouth Jesus? Go right ahead! For example, why couldn't he turn wine into water as a healthier alternative? Miracle of loaves? Man don't live on bread alone!
But I digress. Undoubtedly, you'll post several responses from folks more thoughtful than me, and next week you may post something from G.W. as a last word. Please just keep this cycle brief.
P.S.: Jesus did not make me uncivil. Yo' mama did!
N.N. in Murray, KY, writes: Thanks to G.W. in Oxnard for nominating Jesus Christ for the person who has done the most damage to civil society. Couldn't have said it better myself!
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: I hear this argument (that the people who gave us the Second Amendment intended it to be used to resist an overly assertive federal government) a lot and I don't buy it, at least not as a driving force or primary reason. Sure, the same folks who wrote the thing certainly did take up arms against a tyranny and believed it was good, right, and proper to do so, and were certainly not shy about sweeping rhetoric about bloodying the roots of the Tree of Liberty and whatnot. But any time a group of citizens attempted to use violence/military force against the established government, they rallied the militia and/or army to put down those insurrections. George Washington even personally commanded forces in the field against the Whisky Rebellion.
Jefferson's flowery rhetoric aside, it's imminently clear that the primary purpose for the Second Amendment was to enable and protect local and state militia organizations as the primary source of military power in the new nation. I mean, that is explicitly what they said in the Amendment itself. Maybe, in the back of their minds, was some fear that some oddly colored doofus would gin up a bunch of mob violence to try to illicitly take power (or continue to hold it after the end of his term) and that maybe the citizenry might have to take matters into their own hands, but really, the whole purpose of the Constitution, from Preamble to Signatures, was to do their best to create a government structure that designed out the possibility of tyranny and so therefore would never need to be corrected via rebellion. As for Jefferson and his Tree of Liberty, that's clearly intended as inspirational rhetoric and a justification of the Revolution and not, as it is often presented, a serious policy proposal.
(V) & (Z) respond: Just keep in mind, the Bill of Rights was not written at the same time as the Constitution, nor by the same people. Further, the Bill of Rights was written specifically to put at ease the minds of people who were worried that the newly created federal government might be too powerful. It is true, and we wrote this, that the primary purpose of the Second Amendment was to enable citizen militias. But resistance to tyranny, as an added benefit, was certainly on the minds of at least some of the folks who made the Bill of Rights a reality. It was also entirely possible that said tyranny might not come from the federal government, but from state or local governments.
M.S. in Santa Clara, CA, writes: You wrote about the possibility of Nick Saban potentially running against Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) in 2026, and asserted that the concern was which is more important: Football success (Saban) or the R after the name (Tuberville). I think you missed a more important factor within the State. On a flight out to Huntsville many years ago, I chatted up a lady on the plane who asked me if I knew what defined interracial dating in Alabama. She said, "when someone from Auburn marries someone from Alabama." I didn't know what to make of it then, but I think a better indicator of who wins would be if said voter responded to "Roll Tide1" versus "War Eagle!" I don't know if Nick Saban has the desire to serve in the Senate. But six National Championships versus zero for the incumbent tells me he would have a good shot at it.
R.E. in Birmingham, AL, writes: You correctly noted that Nick Saban's political affiliation is not officially known. However, he marched with Black players when that was a thing, made a commercial promoting COVID vaccines, and has a charity for kids. In Alabama, that makes you a de facto Democrat. Nobody here complains because, you know, football.
A.L. in Allen, TX, writes: You offered the following trivia question:
Even before last night, Michigan was one of four schools to have won national championships in football, basketball AND baseball. Can you name the other three?And your answer:
The other three schools are Ohio State, UCLA and Florida.I'm certain that my view on this is debatable, but I would like to offer another school that merits at least honorable mention. As may not be surprising, the meritorious school is my own alma mater, Oklahoma State University.
OSU has 53 NCAA team championships, including basketball (1945 and 1946), baseball (1959) and football (1945).
And now to play devil's advocate: The NCAA process for designating their football national champions has been nearly inscrutable over their years... 'nuff said.
(V) & (Z) respond: For readers who aren't familiar with the history of college football, there have been literally dozens of different entities that have awarded college football championships over the years, sometimes years AFTER the championship was "won." As a result, there are years that have four or five or even six "champions." Sports historians tend only to count championships awarded by major entities (AP, UPI, National Championship Foundation, BCS), while universities that were recognized by lesser entities tend to adopt more liberal guidelines, for obvious reasons. OSU's 1945 football championship was awarded by the American Football Coaches Association... in 2006.
T.K. in Boston, MA, writes: You should not be slighting our Canadian friends. A better trivia question is which schools have own the four major sports championships: football, baseball, basketball and hockey? The answer is only Michigan.
(V) & (Z) respond: "You should not be slighting our Canadian friends"? You must be a new reader.
R.C. in Des Moines, IA, writes: As a companion to your trivia question, the only two schools to have won national championships in football, basketball, and ice hockey: Michigan State and Michigan. And MSU is the only school to win multiple championships in those three sports.
Go, Green!
A.D. in East Lansing, MI, writes: Here's a better stat: the only schools with MULTIPLE championships in football and basketball are Florida and Michigan STATE.
Just sayin'.
D.C. in Kent, OH, writes: RE: "Michigan was one of four schools to have won national championships in football, basketball AND baseball."
As a University of Arkansas alum, I'm upsettingly reminded that we were one out away from joining this list in 2018.
J.W. in Lake Oswego, OR, writes: You missed at least two basketball/football/baseball national champions. Most recently, LSU completed the trifecta just last year by winning the women's basketball championship. That goes along with several football and baseball championships. I won't chide you too much for being imprecise that you meant men's basketball only.
You also left off Stanford, which claims football championships in 1926 and 1940, a couple baseball championships in the 1980s, a men's basketball championship in 1942 and three women's basketball championships (don't think any other school has all FOUR of those). Agreed, the poll and pre-poll eras of football championships are odd, but those were the systems in place. The '26 Pop Warner Stanford squad was as dominant as those '54 Bruins, for its time!
B.Y. in Salem, OR, writes: As a lifelong Chargers fan, it warmed my heart to see you mention the most underrated quarterback in their admittedly pathetic history. Stan Humphries bravely led my beloved Chargers to the promised land of Super Bowl XXIX and gave me the happiest 15 minutes of my, at the time, young life.
D.P. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: The reported last words of Socrates: "Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius. Please, don't forget to pay the debt."
Good lesson in that; never allow yourself to die before everyone has gotten the cock to which they are entitled.
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.