Dem
51
GOP
49
Pop quiz: Which three subjects, of the ten below—all of which we wrote about this week—generated far and away the most responses from readers?
You will know the answer, presumably, by the time you read the letters. But just in case, we also put it at the bottom of the page.
One thing this exercise demonstrates is that, unlike many sites, we are not going for clickbait. If that is what we were trying to do, we'd be in trouble, because we would NEVER have picked the correct top three.
M.B. in Cleveland, OH, writes: In your reply to M.J.S. in Gig Harbor you suggested, "Trump's base minus, say, ten percent is not close to enough votes to win presidential elections."
But it certainly IS enough to beat Joe-Biden-minus-fifteen-percent, which is all too possible if enough people stay home or vote third party. C'mon, people!
G.W. in Oxnard, CA, writes: I saw interviews with Dr. Anthony Fauci promoting his new book release and it occurred to me that science is threatened should Donald Trump become president again, and this may be a greater threat than the threat to democracy. In his first administration, he undermined science in environmental protection regulations, climate change science, and viral pandemic science. As with most things, the Trump administration had no plans or agenda on science and was making it up as they went.
If Trump becomes president again, his administration will have targets for undermining science and the danger to the country. Perhaps the long-term future under an anti-science administration is not as bad as I fear, but since the public will understand the end of democracy but only us nerds will understand the threat due to the end of scientific fact, it may be worse to have an anti-science administration.
G.C. in Alexandria, VA, writes: My new yard sign...
V.M. in Cincinnati, OH, writes: I think, with regards to "Mudslinging Part III: Who's the Dotard?", the issue is not just whether the cheese has slid off the cracker, but what the size of the wafer was to begin with.
I will admit to having a bias towards Biden and against Republicans in general. I can also admit that Biden has lost a step over the years—there is no shame there, we all break down a bit over time and he is in a job that noticeably ages everyone who takes it.
But beyond the undeniable fact that the ex-Commander-in-Thief has also had a notable cognitive decline—look at his "speeches" from 2016 to today, a horrible task to be sure, but yeesh—it's that he had less to start with than most. I had the misfortune of meeting Cheeto Jesus at an event 25 years ago, and the cracker was more like a cornflake even then—he was a shallow and purely transactional thinker even then, motivated solely and transparently by greed coated in narcissism. He was, to put it bluntly, not a smart man, and he has deteriorated since then. The fact that he has deluded half the population into truly believing in his "stable genius" while he continues to vomit forth meaningless word salad at every opportunity is a truly depressing commentary on the country (and humanity). This proves (again) that the only true talent of El Jefe de Mar a Lago is to unfailingly be the biggest a**hole in any room (no small feat considering who he hangs out with, and his progeny), which allows him to just keep repeating lies until they become accepted "wisdom."
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, writes: You wrote that the narrator in the new Biden ad says, "Meanwhile, Joe Biden's been working lowering health care costs and making big corporations pay their fair share. This election is between a convicted criminal who's only out for himself, and a president who's fighting for your family."
Perhaps this ad shows the problem with American politics: Personally, I'm tired of politicians who are working on lowering health care costs, making big corporations pay their fair share and fighting for my family. I want to see politicians who actually lower health care costs, who make big corporations pay their fair share and improve the life of my family. I guess most Americans agree.
A.B. in Chesapeake, VA, writes: Joe Biden should close the debate with the four reasons we should vote for him:
- The planet is getting hotter. There is no question about that. Climate change is a real and existential threat. Only one of us is doing something about it. The other guy wants to stop all progress that we are making and go backwards until it is too late.
- Half the population of this country have lost the control over their rights to family planning. I am the only one here who is willing to preserve your right to control your body including birth control, in vitro pregnancy assistance and when to have children. The other guy is solely responsible for your loss of these rights.
- The deficit is out of control because the Republicans have given trillions of dollars of tax breaks to the wealthiest, three times. Each time, in the 80s with Reagan, 2000s with George Bush, and 2017 with the other guy, wealth has shifted to those who need it the least at the expense of the least of us. Only I am willing to work with the other side to attack this problem with compromise and balance. It will put more money in the pockets of everyone making less than $400,000.00
- I have surrounded myself with the best team to solve these problems in my second term. The other guy says he will do that, but everyone that has worked with him says he is the worst and will not work with him again. He will only surround himself with the worst in his second term..
The choice is clear. I ask you for your support.
J.C. in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, writes: I read with interest your explanation as to why Biden picked the staging as to oppose speaking order. Thank you. I'd been wondering why he did that, and you explained it well. But your explanation, including reading from left to right, got me thinking: What's it like on Arabic talk shows?
Sadly, there don't seem to be many. Some, like this one on the popular MBC network, do indeed have the hosts on the left. Whereas this one has the host on the right, because in Arabic culture you give honor to the one on the speaker's right. So, if you're interviewing the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, you'd want to have him on your right—and the audience sees him on the pride of place left of the screen.
A.B. in Eugene, OR, writes: You wrote: "Incidentally, J.B. [in Bend] has some doubt as to whether or not Trump will actually show up. We understand that thinking, and we share those doubts. That said, if Trump is going to bail out, he has to come up with a reason that doesn't make him look weak."
The reason was set up for Trump earlier this week, when his request to kill the gag order from New York was denied. He can claim that the gag order keeps him from debating. Not his fault. None of us will believe it, but the MAGAs will eat it up.
J.W.L. in Washington, DC, writes: Don't ignore the possibility that a muted Donald Trump speeds across the stage and seizes Biden's mic! Biden's manner of reacting could swing the election, one way or the other.
A.M. in Miami, FL, writes: Sadly, my suggestion each debate cycle is ignored by debate organizers. But the only real solution is shock collars. Exceed your time? Shock. Interrupt? Shock! Any candidate with a modicum of self-control would have no problem avoiding shocks, but an untrainable cur or mangy orange beast would get un-ignorable enforcement of the rules. Of course, shock collars on dogs is cruel and inhumane punishment and I would never, ever condone it. But these are politicians we are talking about, so it seems a viable solution.
(V) & (Z) respond: Is the neck the best place to apply the shock, though?
C.T.P. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I just saw this on my Facebook Timeline:
A piece of writing that so perfectly and succinctly predicted the future. It proves there is clairvoyance in art. Heller wrote this in the late 1950's. It was published in 1961:
"It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. It merely required no character."
S.N. in Sparks, NV, writes: My sister is a decades-long Republican leaning toward the far-right. She absolutely hated Bill Clinton and thought he was involved in Vince Foster's death. I have always been moderate to liberal (more liberal now), but we used to have some very interesting and enjoyable political discussions. That changed a lot with Donald Trump's arrival on the scene. Yesterday we got into a somewhat heated discussion which hopefully will be the last one we have. What I found most appalling is that she is convinced Joe Biden is suffering from dementia and thinks it is elder abuse that people are forcing him to run again.
Of course, she also thinks the economy is horrible and that crime is completely out of control. In the latter case, she pointed to the city of Milwaukee where car chases have greatly increased in recent years. It turns out that car chases are way up because Milwaukee police went from a restrictive policy years ago to a much more liberal policy now.
K.C. in West Islip, NY, writes: Back in 2004 I was driving over a bridge one day in my car, upon which I had my Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker firmly affixed. About a third of the way over the bridge, a pickup truck pulls up alongside me with two occupants who looked like they were straight out of Deliverance. The driver started honking, both of them flipped me off and then proceeded not to drive on their merry way but to swerve in an attempt to force me off the bridge. That was when I first really recognized the psychotic nature of some conservatives.
As we are all aware, they've only gotten worse under the grip of Donald Trump fostering normalcy to that sort of behavior among his cult followers. When people speak about yard signs and the lack of yard signs, I can't help but think back to that day. I have never at any point in my life felt like driving someone off the road—or a bridge into the middle of the bay—because they had a Bush, or a McCain, or a Romney or Trump sticker, flag, etc. on the back of their car. The same cannot reasonably be said for those on the other side of the aisle, as I've been a personal witness to it. So it is that those loud and obnoxious MAGAts may think they're in the majority but I think that the absence of Biden bumper stickers (and yard signs, and so on) may be not as much a lack of enthusiasm for his re-election campaign as it is a lack of enthusiasm for the prospect of being killed by some lunatic right winger. Same reason for a lack of yard signs and same reason for a lack of desire to talk to pollsters or even necessarily tell the pollsters the truth.
I can't say one way or the other whether the polls are right or wrong, but when it comes down to it there's as good a reason to believe Biden can very easily win... as long as people actually get out and vote and don't look at the polls as a reason to throw in the towel and admit defeat before a single vote is cast.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: You wrote: "...Trump is the king of dysfunction. Heck, he's the supreme commander, grand marshal and arch-emperor of dysfunction."
You forgot Grand Wizard!
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: In your answer to D.R. In Phoenix, you fingered Newt Gingrich as the chief architect of the mess we're in now, and I concur wholeheartedly. But while we're here making the list of people society ought to have cast into the howling wilderness, in addition to Rush Limbaugh and Roger Ailes, whom you named, let us not forget Pat Buchanan, who not only helped bring out Richard Nixon's worst qualities, but also continued to bring to American politics his special blend of racist populist divisiveness for decades.
D.S in Upper Arlington, OH, writes: A.G. in Scranton wrote last week that Black Republicans are generally "Uncle Toms," i.e., "self-loathing [people] who look down on [their] own people."
I do not know what race A.G. identifies with, but to me, it is offensive to describe millions of people this way. Further, this is clearly bulverism: it argues that Black people who are Republicans are so, and hence wrong, because of their psychological state, without actually addressing the question of which party's policies are best for Black Americans, or how it is ethical for them to vote based on that. Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), for example, appears to sincerely believe his policy positions and the moral reasoning behind them, and to be honest and genuine in his dealings. To claim that his beliefs and success stem from his self-loathing is to infantilize him, exactly as conservatives who speak of the "Democrat plantation" do other Black Americans. To describe him as an "Uncle Tom" is to reduce him to his race, and to implicitly state that he has a duty to care about Black people more than others, despite that races are social constructs and our moral duty is to regard all humans as created equal.
In A.G.'s view, in what way could Republicans vote that is not racist? For the candidates that a majority of Black Americans do? By this reasoning, anyone voting for a progressive (like Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, or Bernie Sanders, I-VT) over a moderate Democrat like Biden is being racist, because Black primary voters strongly prefer the latter.
Though I also disagree with the stances of Black Republicans, we should consider them on their merits, not based on alleged psychological deficiencies or purported racial betrayals. A.G.'s claims about Republican attitudes toward race have merit, but are presented in a way that commits exactly the same fallacies.
K.F.K. in CleElum, WA, writes: I am in complete agreement with your analysis of what a bad idea posting the Ten Commandments in public classrooms is. I taught elementary school for over 30 years and always welcomed children to speak about their religious traditions. This was with the aim of showing the variety of belief systems in the United States. So, if told I had to post the Ten Commandments, I would do so along with important religious writings from Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism... well, you get the point. With the bill being signed now, I would have all summer to do research for my "religions of the USA" bulletin board. In the words of John Lewis (whose hand I once had the privilege to shake) "Never be afraid to make some noise and get in good trouble, necessary trouble."
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: You wrote: "Yet another problem is that nobody is going to convert to Christianity because of a poster on a classroom wall."
Before you make such rash assertions, perhaps you should talk to experienced classroom teachers. They may tell you that nothing gets the attention of today's teenagers and shapes their lives like posting a list of rules on the wall.
Or, put another way, the people behind this law are pretending that they are doing this for the children, and for our families, and for our communities, which everybody else can see they're not. Just ask them where they stand on health care for children and school lunches.
R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: While I largely agree with your assumptions about Gov. Jeff Landry's (R-LA) motivations for posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms, I think you're off-base on one of them. I don't think that his intention is to convert anyone to Christianity. It's a flex, a signal of domination. It's saying that Christianity rules, and people can get in line or not, we don't care. When swastikas went up in the very early days of Nazi Germany, it was to intimidate, not to recruit. Same here, I think.
P.M. in Palm Springs, CA, writes: With the Ten Commandments now required to decorate the walls of public schools and higher institutions of "learning" in Louisiana, I am reminded of my experience there in high school in the late 1960's. My New Orleans public high school was considered progressive at its time, having been one of the first schools integrated in the South, and because of its academic reputation, attracted some forward thinking educators and students. I ran afoul of the administrators repeatedly during my tenure. I was friends with the school's openly LBGTQ students. They were just cool fun people to hang out with. While it was cool that in 1966 they could be open about their orientation in our school, I was called to the office and on two occasions advised to seek different "friends." I didn't. By my senior year, I was dabbling in civil rights and anti-war New Orleans politics. I was no longer standing for the Pledge of Allegiance, again getting called to the Office. I told them that the words of the Pledge were now longer true in America and besides, being an atheist, I could not repeat the "under God" part. They said, that's fine, but could you just stand and not say anything to avoid making a scene.
When I walked down the aisle at graduation the school counselor, who had to caution me about my choice of friends, personally smiled and winked at me. She later went on to be a vocal advocate for LGBTQ students. How Louisiana has regressed with the Republicans. And I cannot imagine my university in Louisiana, where we protested and occupied buildings protesting the war in Vietnam, displaying the effing Ten Commandments.
J.D. in Rohnert Park, CA, writes: Christian nationalists believe they are doing the work of the "Christian founders." Of course this is historical BS, since most of the "founders" of the Constitution were deists or, at very least, skeptics of fundamentalist religion.
However, there is even a higher level of confusion, or perhaps hypocrisy. I appear to be descended from Mayflower Puritans, who left England because of the religious tyranny of the Church of England. The motivating conflict was less over religious principle than over religious persecution by the state. After living through centuries of religious wars, our founders understood how state enforcement of religion had led to division and ultimately to persecution and violence. That's why religious freedom from state interference was included in the Bill of Rights. Christian nationalists obviously didn't get the message, and are pushing for authoritarian enforcement of Christianity in schools. This perspective is as UN-American as anything could be.
K.Z. in San Antonio, TX, writes: I think you buried part of the story that will be interesting: The Louisiana law specifies the Protestant Ten Commandments. Jews, Catholics, and Protestants all have slightly different versions.
I will be intrigued to see how the five conservative Catholic justices explain themselves on this case.
R.G.N. in Seattle, WA, writes: Perhaps the Ten Commandments posted in Louisiana public schools should be written in the original language of Hebrew. Not only would it be difficult for Christian nationalists to read, non-Christians would have a good laugh. The conservative justices on the Supreme Court are originalists, are they not?
J.E. in Akron, OH, writes: As a Christian, I wholeheartedly agree with you that the stunt in Louisiana "cheapens both the Commandments and the Bible." If teachers in Louisiana are going to be forced to play that game, perhaps alongside the Ten Commandments they could post, in large font, the text of Matthew 6:1: "Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven."
F.L. in Allen, TX, writes: The Ten Commandments law in Louisiana reminded me of another church and state imbroglio.
Back in the 1920s, all children (in Louisiana, at least) had to buy their textbooks. Naturally, poor folks—mostly Black students—couldn't afford them. Gov. Huey Long (D-LA) passed a state law saying that the state would buy books for all the students. His political opponents sued, saying that, as children in religious schools would get books as well, it was a violation of the separation of church and state. Long argued that the books were being given to the children and not the schools. It took 3 years to get to the Supreme Court, where Long, himself, argued his point—and won.
But wait, there's more.
Every year, the state would borrow money from the banks in New Orleans (run by Long's political enemies). It had always been a pro forma arrangement. This time, however, the banks told Long that, as they felt the book law was illegal (despite the SCOTUS ruling), they could not loan the state the money for the entire budget. Long replied that if that was the case, all previous loans were illegal and would not be repaid. There was a standoff.
Feeling he had been beaten, the Governor went across the street to a diner and, pulling his hair out, ordered a chicken salad sandwich. Just as it arrived, a banker rushed in and said the banks had changed their minds. "Take that back," Long told the waiter, "and bring me a steak!"
D.O. in Portland, OR, writes: In your item on bump stocks, you noted several times that machine guns are banned for civilians. This is not true. They are federally legal, and many states (including deep-blue Oregon) allow them as well.
They are regulated rather strictly, and it can take a couple years to complete the application to purchase one (and a couple more years for each additional one). There have been no new machine guns added to the civilian stockpile since 1986 (unless one is a dealer/gunsmith/engineer), so they are quite pricy these days.
Due to the strict regulations and high price, extremely few crimes have been committed with them in the nearly 90 years since the program was founded—I'm only aware if two, one of which was committed by a corrupt police officer.
M.S. in Westchester County, NY, writes: The reason that some of your readers are confused about the bump stock case is simple; this was not a Second Amendment case. It was a case of statutory construction. Machine guns are strictly regulated. The bump stock permits a regular rifle to become a machine gun. The Supreme Court said the ATF reasoning was deficient in establishing a rule that outlawed bump stocks, by declaring that the bump stocks turned the guns into machine guns. In any real world, Congress would take the bait and "cure" the situation with new legislation so that bump stocks would still be outlawed. But the Republicans held up that bill in Congress.
B.P in Tokyo, Japan, writes: As an avid fan of reading Supreme Court opinions (there surely must be others, right?) and your site, I clicked on the link you provided for Justice Amy Coney Barret's (dis)concurrence and was pleasantly surprised to see that for the first time, all the female justices joined in the same concurrence. Could this be the start of a new mini-Supremes? And I can easily see Justice Brett Kavanaugh putting in some guest vocals when the originalists go too far in the past to justify a decision.
S.G. in Newark, NJ, writes: Thanks for highlighting Amy Coney Barrett's concurrence in Vidal v. Elster. As you point out, it is some evidence—only some evidence—that the bloc of 6 may not be as solid and stolid as appears. We have occasionally seen other evidence of this. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and John Roberts have all gone off on their own when the peccadilloes of their particular versions of originalism/textualism/conservatism have not quite aligned with the rest of the six.
But we should interpret cautiously Barrett's shot across Justice Clarence Thomas' bow. Barrett's disagreement with Thomas is not a disagreement about the interpretive method known as "originalism," which pretends to align today's understanding of legal texts with what was in the minds of those texts' authors. Rather, in questioning the "theoretical justification for using tradition" to hold that the Names Clause is consistent with the First Amendment, Barrett was disagreeing with the method Thomas used to pretend to discern the First Amendment's original meaning. Nothing in Barrett's opinion suggests a wholesale rejection of originalism as an interpretive philosophy.
It's worth noting that Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a concurring opinion with an even more full-throated denunciation of Thomas's reliance on "history and tradition," which Barrett did not join, even though Kagan and Sotomayor (but not Jackson) joined the part of Barrett's opinion with the "theoretical justification" jab.
The Supreme Court has something of a tradition of looking to tradition and history to help interpret the Constitution. When they feel like it, the Justices beautifully channel Tevye, arguing, essentially, "this is the way it was done long ago, so that must mean this is the way the Founding Parents or their immediate descendants understood what the Founding Parents meant." But when they don't feel like it, they channel Tevye's grudging acceptance that the world has changed. For readers of your site, the important thing to understand is that sometimes history and tradition will lead to policy results they like, and other times will lead to policy results they don't like. The thing to watch with Justice Barrett is whether her willingness to reject reliance on history and tradition varies with her ideological preferences.
E.R. in Arden, DE, writes: Anytime Donald Trump attacks Joe Biden for giving a path to citizenship for undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens, Biden should call his predecessor out on his hypocrisy: Trump's married two foreign brides who've become citizens (plus Melania's parents) and Trump employed numerous undocumented workers at his resorts in violation of the law. This ties into the hush-money trial optics where Trump thinks he's above the law.
Also, given Trump's affinity for former KGB agent Putin, the fact that Trump's father-in-law was an informer for the Czech Communist intelligence agency and passing information from Ivana Trump to the communist bloc is something that should be more widely known.
J.C. in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, writes: You responded to I.K. in Queens on getting a Green Card if you're the spouse of a U.S. citizen. It really is completely up to the CBP officers that you get.
Readers may recall that, 3 years ago, my family came to the States temporarily for me and my U.S.-citizen children to get vaccinated during the height of the pandemic. My Filipina wife, holder of a B1/B2 Visa, was denied access at Seattle Port. CBP explicitly stated that the State Department is wrong when they tell visa applicants the rules, and encouraged separation of family (in this case, American children ages 1 and 3), and all this under Biden (though assuredly without his knowledge).
J.H. in Lodi, NY, writes: You wrote: "A new poll from Monmouth indicates that Biden's XO [on border enforcement] has relatively broad support."
In other words, XOXO for his XO.
J.S. in Seattle, WA, writes: I found "Pollsters Are Trying Harder but Still Worried"... interesting, because just a week ago I received a piece of mail that illustrates another polling strategy that pollsters are trying.
The mailing had two QR codes, one with my name under it and one with my husband's. The accompanying message introduced the polling organization, Washington Opinion, and requested our participation in their opinion survey by clicking the QR Code on our phones get to the survey. My husband never does any sort of survey ("NO! Never!") but I was curious, so after googling the organization to make sure it was legit, I followed the instructions and took the survey. It asked a number of general questions about how I feel about various topics—both political and non-political—and asked me to describe myself on a scale from "very liberal" to "very conservative." It asked if I would be interested in participating in future, more focused surveys and I responded "yes," and selected "healthcare" from a list of topics for upcoming surveys. I received a follow-up e-mail shortly after submitting the survey which thanked me for participating and said that they may contact me to participate in the future. I'm wondering if they will actually decide to contact this self-described "very liberal" woman again.
M.B. in Cincinnati, OH, writes: I'd like to give you my personal polling experience in the hopes that it may answer some questions.
Every now and then, I would get an e-mail from YouGov to answer some political polling questions. In the spirit of research, I decided to take the political poll and see what sort of questions were asked. The first few questions were full name, birthdate and county/state where you are registered to vote. Call me paranoid, but there is no way in tarnation I'm giving any website or caller my name, birthdate and county where I'm registered to vote! I understand why they think they need this data, but that's a good way to get your identity stolen. I don't know if other pollsters ask this sort of thing, but I think enough people are leery of these personal questions to ignore polls that ask.
A.T. in Tucson, AZ, writes: You wrote: "Is polling dead? Gee, we hope not."
Really? The sooner it dies, the happier I would be. I find the absolute disregard for the value of people's time to be unethical at best. The modality is irrelevant. A call, a text message, whatever, is still an interruption to a person's time. Worse, the pollsters profit off of bothering people by then selling the data. This is very much like any other telemarketer, who are pretty much (rightly) universally reviled. Polling dead? Gee, I hope so.
S.C.-M. in Scottsdale, AZ, writes: I was glad to see your item "Lies, Damned Lies and AI," about AI. As a 49-year IT veteran (I retired in 2021), I am hardly surprised that the neural net based AI LLMs systems have a real hard time with the truth. In my view, they are very complicated search engines. All LLMs use statistical methods to determine their next work output. Calling these systems "intelligent" is an abuse of the term, but it appears to have stuck in the popular vernacular.
Since most of these general purpose LLMs "learn" from the Internet, it is a puzzle to me how they separate true information from disinformation. I can see how a neural network could be a useful tool for processing data (say, radiographs) from a vetted set of information and being used as a clinical tool. Of course, no one really knows how these systems actually come up with the answers which raises all kinds of legal and ethical questions. How can these systems be used as experts when no one knows how they really work?
Cynically, I see the interest in AI as only a way of collecting venture capital from investors who are really naive about the technology.
J.H. in San Luis Obispo, CA, writes: I certainly agree with your comments in the "AI, Useful Idiot" subsection of "Lies, Damned Lies and AI," and think it is important that we understand the nature of the current LLMs (such as ChatGPT). To that end, I recommend to you a recently published article titled "ChatGPT is Bull**it."
While the title is certainly provocative, and I initially thought it might be a humorous take on LLMs, it is instead a serious discussion of the nature of LLMs, and the incidence of what is usually called "hallucinations" (a term which has never sat right with me in this context). A quote from the introduction:
The problem here isn't that large language models hallucinate, lie, or misrepresent the world in some way. It's that they are not designed to represent the world at all; instead, they are designed to convey convincing lines of text... To the extent that they sometimes get the right answer to such questions is only because they happened to synthesize relevant strings out of what was in their training data.
J.L. in Albany NY, writes: In "AI, Useful Idiot," you noted that Russia (among others) is using AI to influence the election. This screenshot from Twitter has been making the rounds on Threads. Apparently, the Russian bot didn't have their ChatGPT credits renewed and, instead of spouting propaganda, wound up spreading error messages:
It's too bad that more bots can't malfunction like this, but it illustrates how easy it is (relatively speaking) to use AI to spread an influencing message. Just buy some credits, whip up a script to grab short messages from the AI, and then post them online.
It makes me wonder how much worse this will get as AI photo generation and AI video generation both improve in quality and get easier to automate.
M.P. in Leasburg, MO, writes: I just wanted to pass along something I do each time you all publish complaint letters. I hope readers will adopt the concept. I make sure to share your website with two friends or co-workers for every unsavory written message. My hope is a net gain of one reader; one to cancel out a literary anus and the other as an added reader to the site!
I also neglected to share an additional comment last week about vehicles on the highway. As an EV driver myself, 5 years ago, I was seeing a few Teslas and some hybrids here and there. I am pleased to report that I now see a much larger variety of EVs in general on a daily basis. I also see an exponential increase in the Teslas and hybrids as well.
As for Missouri being in play, many of us have given up on that for at least the next two or three election cycles. Looking at our electoral map, we have just a few solid-blue areas around the urban areas of Columbia/Jefferson City, the St. Louis area and the Kansas City area. With 114 counties and only about 5 of them (all urban) now solid blue, it seems impossible. Sadly, unless the Democrat for Governor has a BIG name, they just can't pull any of the ruby-red rural vote. I feel like former governor Jay Nixon (D) got a boost because he was originally from Washington county, which up to through his second term (2012) was barely Democrat and so was Jefferson County outside of St. Louis. They are both more red now.
I was kind of surprised that Trudy Busch Valentine didn't take a stab at the governorship this term. But Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) would be a BIG Republican name to come over the top, if he primaries Lt. Gov. Tim Kehoe (R). That means, theoretically, even a well-known Democrat won't have a reasonable chance for at least two more terms. I do find it fascinating though, that Missouri now seems more red than Mississippi! County wise, they have way more solid blue counties than we do.
(V) & (Z) respond: Thanks for the proselytizing! And for the phrase "literary anus"!
M.G. Arlington, VA, writes: Your mention of Eugene Vindman's "Confederate" flag mini-scandal was not inaccurate, but it was simplifying to the point of being misleading. I found this article that lays it all out very clearly.
The fact that this happened at all speaks way more to the "carpetbagger" issue than anything else, but unless you're really looking to make hay out of it, or you're some kind of academic historian specializing in U.S. history, it's quite a nothingburger.
M.M. in San Jose, CA, writes: In "A Bad Night For Good," you note that in GA-02 Chuck Hand lost to Arthur Johson (by about 30%). Chuck Hand was sentenced to 20 days for his participation in the January 6 riot. You write: "Several challengers with that particular 'credential' have run this cycle, and they've all been trounced, even when not facing an incumbent."
I have been following this story and have found 6 cases like this:
- Jason Riddle (NH). The incumbent Democrat has dropped out. Jason must win a primary on September 10.
- Anthony Kern (AZ). He is currently polling about 1% against Blake Masters and Abe Hamadeh.
- Jacob Chandler (AZ). Known for the horns and paint of a shaman, he announced his candidacy, but failed to make the filing deadline.
- Derrick Evans (WV). He lost to Carol Miller by 26%.
- Hand (GA). He lost to Johnson by 30%.
- Katrina Pierson (TX). She defeated Justin Holland (narrowly) in the race for the Texas state house. Holland filed impeachment charges against Texas AG, Ken Paxton. Pierson was not charged in J6, but "served as a liaison between the White House and organizers at Donald Trump's 'Save America' rally on the Ellipse" according to The New York Times.
Bottom line, the January 6 folks have 1 win, 4 losses, and 1 left to play. Offhand, I would say that their success record is typical for random novices running for office. (My cousin ran for senate in Vermont and finished 3rd, and he had nothing to do with January 6).
C.J. in Queens, NY, writes: To S.W. in New York City: When you write that New Yorkers are thrilled congestion pricing was paused, please specify if you mean New York the city or the state. Because as far as I can see, people who don't actually live in the city are thrilled. Those of us actually in the city, though, we're tired of subsidizing the suburbs and metro area.
We who actually live in the city pay our city taxes, paying extra to live here. Meanwhile, people from New Jersey, Connecticut, the suburbs, etc., all get to come here and congest and pollute our city without paying an extra dime. We are tired of subsidizing their inefficient single-family-home crap, and tired of dealing with their cars. If they need to drive into New York City that often, then they can pay New York City taxes. Not to mention the fact that any time the city deals with a crisis like the migrant crisis, the suburban nimbys refuse to help at all.
You're right, our horrific New York Democratic party has sucked the blood out of the MTA for decades. That's because they were doing exactly what they're doing here: making NYC pay the price as they try (unsuccessfully) to win over the suburbs.
N.H. in Merrill, WI, writes: Your response about Alan Dershowitz and mention of Jerry Seinfeld has me thinking about a theory I've been formulating. In the last decade, we've witnessed a lot of celebrities fall into the same pattern: (1) start out nominally liberal, inoffensive, or open-minded because that's what can gain you the broadest set of fans, (2) expand your already extreme wealth and hoard it above/beyond all possible human need, (3) acquire media or a friendly platform to control the narrative around themselves, (4) rail against wokeness/PC/Cancel Culture, (5) espouse conspiracy theories, (6) embrace conservative politics, and (7) refuse to accept criticism and instead use it to galvanize their shifting worldview. Donald Trump paved the way, but has been followed in this same pattern by Dershowitz, Elon Musk, Kanye West, Joe Rogan, Aaron Rodgers, Kyrie Irving, J.K. Rowling, Dave Chappelle, Caitlyn Jenner and now Seinfeld.
Wealthy narcissists feel validated by the size of their bank accounts. Moreover, everyone's wealth becomes a measurement of their value. Folks without (as much) money are less important and their opinions less valuable than those with more. Cancel culture poses the single greatest threat to them, because it is a mechanism for the unwashed masses to hold an individual accountable for their behavior. Wokeness/DEI/CRT is the same—If you're empowering someone who has less power, they will (in the narcissist's view) be more capable of calling out transgressions in society and upset the natural order.
The next step is for these individuals to control their own narrative: Dominate a friendly cable news channel, pop culture empire, social media network, etc. Conspiracy theories become litmus tests to identify the true believers, fuel the victim complex, and create an emotional shield to deflect criticism. People don't hate them because they are a jerk and treat people poorly, they hate them because of their beliefs. Lastly, they fully lean into the conservative political ecosystem, as money can't buy you happiness, but having an army of fanatics at your disposal can reinforce your perception that you are better than others and fight off your detractors for free. Doesn't hurt that those folks seem to be the most willing to part with their money.
R.A in Halifax, NS, Canada, writes: While I don't have a theory on Alan Dershowitz, I think another individual to go through a similar transition is Elon Musk.
As a huge space fan since childhood and someone who followed Elon and his companies closely since the late 2000s, it pains me greatly to see how he has evolved but also how he is perceived by others. Elon started as a liberal, albeit with a libertarian bent, which is common among Silicon Valley types. He has stated that he voted for Barack Obama and for Joe Biden the first time (I think Hillary Clinton also, but am not sure).
From what I saw, things started to change when Bernie Sanders was ascendant. Billionaires became the enemy and Elon Musk is a well known billionaire. This led to Elizabeth Warren calling Musk out by name and criticizing him for various reasons. Elon appears to have very thin skin and takes things quite personally and is willing to respond publicly. Due to his heavy use of Twitter for this, he started following individuals who would agree with his responses to Warren and other progressives; this created a feedback loop where he got introduced to right-wing Twitter. This mostly fed into his existing libertarian-leaning views and is why he still voted Democrat during this time.
Where he really jumped the shark to the next tier, in my view, was at the start of the COVID pandemic. At the beginning, California officials mandated that he shutdown his Tesla factory temporarily. Due to the nature of how Elon runs his businesses on the edge, this would have caused loss of production for too long and would have produced cash-flow issues. This seems a fair concern, but he also needs to follow the rules. He could have worked with the officials and seemed to do so, since the situation got resolved, but he was very vocal about it and it really tipped him over into his libertarian ways and he fully immersed himself in the right-wing bubble on Twitter from that point forward.
I still follow Elon, as I am interested in updates on his companies, although it can be very painful to read his Twitter feed a lot of the time. Sometimes there are glimmers of his liberal views still in there and sometimes he has good points on others things, such as AI safety. The problem seems to be that he then dives back into right-wing Twitter and loses sight of realistic solutions.
I can give an example of this: He seems to be obsessed with illegal immigration in the U.S., which is fair. But when the bipartisan bill came up, he got tweeted snippets of the legislation that talked about how the president could declare an emergency and let people in if needed (or something like that). Then he agreed with people who declare that the whole legislation is bad and should be thrown out—no call for amendments or a looking for a solution. It seemed like he was a useful idiot for the right-wingers who wanted to kill the bill at Donald Trump's behest.
B.C. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: I want to shout out to (V), (Z), D.H. in Peoria and J.E. in Boone in support of the idea of requiring young people to give 2 years of some sort of national service.
I'll put up my own career path as a textbook example of the brilliance of that idea. I dropped out of college after my freshman year and learned a trade. My employment suffered as a result of an economic downturn, so I returned to college while doing odd jobs. My experiences in the working world, along with my greater maturity, allowed me to cop a scholarship and complete my degree with very little loan debt. After graduation, I went back into my trade and one day my boss approached me.
He said something along the lines of "Hey, I know your college degree has almost nothing in common with the work we do, but I think we could use your knowledge to put a new system in place which could benefit the company greatly. You interested in a new position?" The guy was a perfect example of a statement I heard decades ago about how "Success is the genius of relating the normally unrelated." The process was a success, and I improved upon it later by bringing into the business other unrelated things like computers.
So my own, personal success and comfortable retirement is due to having a taste of the real working world before seriously embarking on the adventure of college. Yes, for their own good, let's require kids to perform some sort of social service for a couple of years! We could call the program the Socialist Work Corps! (Er... maybe not. I'll leave the name selection to others.)
D.R. in Tetovo, North Macedonia, writes: The question from J.E. in Boone asked about "requiring young people, say from age 18-20, to give 2 years of military, Peace Corps, Americorps, or other type of national service."
As a current Peace Corps volunteer, I'd like to say that the Peace Corps would not be an appropriate place for the vast majority of that age group. Although the minimum age to join the Peace Corps is 18, there is also a requirement to have either a bachelor's degree or five years of professional work experience. The last thing the Peace Corps needs is a huge influx of people right out of high school who would lack the maturity needed to be effective volunteers.
Bringing back the Civilian Conservation Corps of the New Deal might be a better idea if Congress decides to require some sort of national service from young people.
S.B. in Winslow, ME, writes: I really appreciated your item on Lynn Conway. She's a fabulous example of a transgender woman who had so much to offer the world, and did, and was ostracized for simply being different than others.
With over 500 anti-LGBTQ+ pieces of legislation in progress across our country, most of which are against trans people, your article was a refreshing relief this Pride Month.
J.O. in Williamsburg, MA, writes: I am most appreciative of the item on Lynn Conway and her life's work. We need to know life stories of those who do heroic work, especially on items that shape our society. Who knows who in the upcoming generations will be inspired to reach out and up, and to work for additional equity and tolerance? We sorely need more of both of those characteristics.
B.H. in Greenbelt, MD, writes: Thanks for the inspirational item on Lynn Conway. One thing caught my notice: She worked for DARPA in the 1980s. I don't know if you had to hold a Secret clearance to work at DARPA then, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were required. If she was investigated for a clearance, there's no way her background wouldn't have been discovered. And in that case, more than one person put their career on the line to get her hired and cleared. Thanks to people like that, and Lynn Conway herself, I'm not worried about our country's future.
P.C. in Austin, TX, writes: Thanks for your item on Lynn Conway. I had no idea that she had passed away. She was and continues to be an inspiration to females, trans people, and males.
I worked for IBM for a LONG time, and stumbled upon the "anybody is welcome" teleconference (I think this was during the COVID pandemic) during which IBM officially apologized for the very poor treatment Lynn received at the hands of IBM. The awkwardness was palpable, but it was a necessary step. Lynn was gracious to attend, accept the apology, and tell a bit about her story, as painful as it might have been for her.
IBM has generally been ahead of the times when it comes to breaking down barriers to disadvantaged classes, even if they've made some mistakes along the way. Lynn's firing was clearly one of those mistakes. (It was quite obviously IBM's loss, so doubly a mistake.) As we all should, IBM recognizes that talent comes in a wide variety of packages, and the wrapping isn't what matters. I clearly remember a very normal meeting where I just happened to glance around the room and the diversity was exhilarating, and that it wasn't a "diversity awareness" event, or anything unusual made it more so: just people who looked different with different cultures, backgrounds, experiences working together to get things done. Perfectly, boringly normal.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: Ashamedly, before I awoke to the facts I hadn't bothered to research, I thought transgenderism was just a new, silly, made up thing for those predisposed to wanting to be special and apart somehow. Even worse, as a very liberal and open-minded person, I often used this faux knowledge of mine as a bridge to reach across a growing chasm to family and friends, making myself "one of the good ones" and "one who gets it" in order to open their minds and hearts to those parts of liberalism I find most important.
Your story served to deservedly shame me, those like me, and those who are openly hostile towards this supposed "trend."
Allowing someone else the dignity of being identified as they wish is something even the most conservative people do when they call "Charles" by "Charlie" or "Susanne" as "Sue." It takes nothing away from a person to offer another person kindness and those who think it too much to ask ought never be allowed to complain about discourteous young people or ever lay a hand upon a rude child... because they are rude children themselves, if calling "Mark" by "Jackie" is too much to ask of them.
I deal with this nonsense in my own family and am very, very proud to say that my transgender niece Catherine had the courage to come out due to my example of being kind in the face of open and blind hostility. She's an incredible girl and I love her no matter what name she's known as. Terrible, terrible liberal uncle, teaching that love, kindness, and respect for others are good qualities... say those in my family who align themselves with the party of family values.
If it is too much to ask to call "Mark" by "Jackie", I shudder to think how these people will ever deal with someone really trying to take something from them, other than thier sense of self righteous indignation.
P.V. in Kailua, HI, writes: "The code word is 'Rochambeau', dig me?"
What? No Hamilton fans in the house?
I would add to your theory as to why rock-paper-scissors came to be called "Rochambeau" in the United States. When commencing the Japanese game janken, the players call out "Janken Pon!" In Hawai'ian pidgin (actually a creole) we pronounce it as "Junk-ana-po" which is what we also call the game. Both versions rhyme with "Rochambeau" which, in this context, is sometimes written as "Ro Sham Bo." Like "Janken Pon" and "Junk-ana-po," "Ro Sham Bo" is called out when playing, with the three syllables matching the shake-shake-throw action of the game. The similar sound and cadence of "Rochambeau" to the original (or variant) Japanese would make it a natural Westernization to anyone encountering the name regularly, which presumably Ella Gardner did. In addition, "roche" is French for "rock," though "chambeau" means "lovely field" and not "paper scissors."
R.M. in Ocala, FL, writes: I grew up in Honolulu, and when I was a kid we played a version of rock-paper-scissors we called "Junk-ana-po". We would chant "junk-ana-po, I canna' show" and produce our choice on the last beat. I always wondered where that strange chant came from. Everywhere else I went, the game was played by simply chanting "one two three." But googling "Rochambeau" and then clicking on this provided the answer. Our chant was a derivation of the Japanese game chant: "Janken pon, Aiko desho!" I wonder if any other of your Hawaiian readers have wondered the same thing.
(V) & (Z) respond: We got numerous letters like yours and the one from P.V. in Kailua, above. Who knew we had so many readers who grew up in Hawaii?
J.B. from San Bruno, CA, writes: The question from J.H. from Boston about Rochambeau's connection to rock-paper-scissors prompted a memory I've had from a few summers ago of being nearly physically pierced by the sternest glare I have ever received for interrupting the Yorktown Battlefield National Monument park guide to ask if Count Rochambeau was the guy who came up with that rock-paper-scissors thing.
(V) & (Z) respond: Presumably they've heard that question a few times before.
E.M. in Poughkeepsie, NY, writes: Like J.H. in Boston, I had never heard of rock-paper-scissors being called Rochambeau, so the way you used it to introduce your article about Roger Stone had me very confused. The game I know as Rochambeau ' comes from South Park:
If I ever meet Roger Stone I would look forward to playing it with him, and I'll go first.
T.L. in West Orange, NJ, writes: Regarding bribes for teachers, for many years during my teaching career (high school physics), part of the first night's homework was to read through the various policy documents and e-mail me a question related to them. I then took all the questions that felt like they were of general interest and answered them in a Q&A document that the entire class could read.
Invariably (especially given the average income level of the parent body), I'd get a question every few years that asked if I took bribes.
Most of the time my response was "you couldn't afford me." However, a couple of times there was that one wise-ass student in the back of the room who'd say something akin to "Really? Try me."
So, towards the end of my career, my response to changed to "Sure, I'll take them. You won't get anything in return, but if you want to just hand me stacks of money I'm not going to refuse."
S.L. in Glendora, CA, writes: I taught in an upscale public school district. Students drove nice cars and had healthy allowances. There was an apocryphal story regarding bribery where a high school student clipped a $100 bill to his test before he handed it in. But it didn't do him any good. The story goes that the teacher announced to the class that a $100 dollar bill had floated out of pile of test papers when he picked them up, and since he had no way of knowing whose money it was, he would just keep it.
L.V.A. in Idaho Falls, ID, writes: Your response to the question about bribing a professor reminds me of an anecdote related to me years ago by a student in a similar context.
A professor was administering a final exam and after an hour began collecting final exams. At 5 minutes past the hour the Professor announced "Last Call." At 10 minutes past the hour the single remaining student tried to turn in his exam and was told "Sorry. Too late". The student said "Do you know WHO I am?" The Professor promptly and indignantly responded "NO!" The student then stuffed his exam in the middle of the pile of exams on the desk and fled the classroom.
My immediate response, which got a further laugh from my student, was that the professor should require students to collect their final grade at his office with their student ID.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: I just had to chuckle at the idea of "nature's credit card." It also reminded me of an old joke about the guy who wanted to use a card at a strip club and was confused about where to swipe.
(V) & (Z) respond: We can't take credit for that line. We stole it from The Golden Girls.
J.N. in Stockholm, Sweden, writes: You wrote: "...with Julia Roberts for the straight guys and gay women and George Clooney for the straight gals and gay men."
You are INFURIATING in your outdated straight, white-old-man thinking.
I have read your site for well over a decade. I am so tired of your attempted "gay" humor. Please, stick to REPORTING.
(V) & (Z) respond: We do not defend ourselves in this space, but we do add context that would only be known to us. First, you are the same person who made this same exact complaint earlier this month.
Second, the sentence was written by (V) as "with Julia Roberts for the guys and George Clooney for the gals." (Z) then edited it to the published version, because: (1) He anticipated getting e-mails noting that there are plenty of gay Democrats, and (2) He has been in a number of inclusivity training sessions that warned against using heteronormative language. We're not even sure what the joke here would be but, in any case, your broad-brush slur was misplaced, unless you believe that someone who is 49 is an old man.
Note that the 13-year-old staff dachshunds, who sometimes take a bit of time to get going in the morning due to a touch of arthritis, are of the opinion that 49 is quite old, indeed.
I.R. in Zurich, Switzerland, writes: I remember I wrote in about this before, but recent developments prompt me to write again, to voice my concern about the naming of the "Freudenfreude" section.
My mother tongue is German, and when that section was introduced, I pointed out that is not a German word, and even if it were, it wouldn't be the opposite of "Schadenfreude" (if there even is one). Now, I don't have a problem with coining new words per se, and the way it was used in the beginning didn't sit wrongly with the German language. However, you more than once used the word for a section celebrating the life of a (just) deceased person. And that is just the wrong context for Freudenfreude. Because the way the word is coined, it could mean one of two things in German: (1) being really, really happy about something, or (2) being happy about someone else being happy. I can't see being super-happy about a death as a good headline, and also don't think I should be happy because, well, the relatives are not happy about that death.
So, "Freudenfreude: Lynn Conway, 1938-2024" in German basically reads: "Ding-Dong! The Witch is Dead."
So, please, in order to not come across as very, very wicked or depraved to German speakers, retire that word!
(V) & (Z) respond: There was an extended discussion when we adopted that name, and the German-speaking readers overwhelmingly gave their blessing, even while recognizing it is a neologism. Also, if schadenfreude means something like "taking satisfaction in another's misfortunes," then its opposite would be "taking satisfaction in another's successes." That is our thinking, and we think the piece we wrote is entirely consistent with that framing. We also know that the relatives of a deceased person are generally pleased to see their loved one being recognized on their passing, especially if that person was sometimes overlooked in life.
P.R. In Arvada, CO, writes: I had a couple of thoughts about the letter from R.H. in Colusa. First, R.H. states, "You have a (presumed) candidate who is (or, at the present rate of decline, will be) unelectable, and a veep who is even worse." Given the Republican tendency for projection, I have to wonder if they know whom Trump is picking for his Veep or if they are just pointing out that not a single person on the shortlist is any good. They have to be talking about Trump, right? Biden is what he has been for a long time now, but Trump gets worse every time I see him.
The other thing I thought though was just how sorry I feel for R.H. What on earth happened to make them so consumed with bitterness? When did they lose their compassion for their fellow Americans? Something must have happened to them and I have nothing but sympathy for them. I just hope they can work through it and live the rest of their years in peace.
B.R. in Eatontown, NJ, writes: We just learned everything we will ever need to know about R.H. in Colusa from their latest response. R.H.'s reliance on Newt Gingrich (with or without the description as "a REALLY intelligent man") or anything from Hillsdale College says everything I need to know—and none of it is complimentary.
S.K. in Chatsworth, CA, writes: Newt Gingrich a "really intelligent" man? Hillsdale College? Millions of serendipitous Blue 'kan-ban' ballots at 3:00 a.m.? (What is kan-ban, anyway?)
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that R.H. is a white male who watches Fox News and voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020, and thinks the whole January 6th incident was blown out of proportion. Why he hate-reads Electoral-Vote.com is anybody's guess.
P.W. in Springwater (with Libby, Reesie, Duncan, and Oshie), writes: I hope the reason for a one-man operation is a good one (eg., vacation and not illness) and please, no worries. In fact, the later posts are very much appreciated by my dog crew since the morning game of fetch starts before, rather than after, reading Electoral-Vote.com. Go figure.
Thanks for carrying on!
(V) & (Z) respond: Yesterday, of course, we explained what is going on. But we still wanted to share the picture of your doggies.
A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: Hopefully, (V) is just taking a break and there is nothing serious. I am usually reading Electoral-Vote.com at +/- 5:30 PST or PDST every morning.
On rare occasions EV is not up yet, but I, in my senior years, have become patient, and know that sooner or later EV will magically propagate my monitor with all the news that's fit to print. When there is a technical issue or some other issue you always inform us of the situation, you establish some anticipated point of your resumption, and you always come through. I am patient, I will twiddle my thumbs awaiting your return, and even at 3:00 in the afternoon I will be waiting for the resumption of service. You have never failed me.
So, in the words of Kansas: "Carry on my Wayward Son." Stay well, stay safe, and STAY SANE!
(V) & (Z) respond: The big question is whether 5:30 a.m. is too early to crack open an IPA to enjoy while you wait. Heck, who are we kidding? It's never too early.
C.C. in Portland, OR, writes: In response to M.S. in Knoxville providing a picture of a Scrabble-themed tombstone, here is a similar one from Lone Fire Cemetery in Portland, OR:
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.
In third place was Lynn Conway. In second was Rochambeau. And in first place, in a rout, was the Ten Commandments in Louisiana's classrooms.