Dem
51
GOP
49
Make sure you read the Civics section, as it corrects for some of the answers we wrote yesterday that could have been better.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I just read that, at a campaign rally in Ohio, Donald Trump said, "If I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath... It's going to be a bloodbath for the country." I think we should take him at his word.
In the past, (V) and (Z) have put forth the argument that if Trump gets reelected, it won't be all doom and gloom because Trump has shown how incompetent he is during his first—and, let's pray, only—term in office. Normally, I agree with that. Trump and his minions don't have the intellectual capacity to do extremely serious damage to our country. I was reminded this week, that one of his Cabinet said that Trump would often get up while talking to foreign dignitaries and wander away because he had grown bored with the conversation. Fortunately for us, overthrowing Democracy requires a lot of crossing of T's and dotting of I's, not something that you will find in Trump's—and, frankly, most Republicans'—skill set. An attempt to overthrow the government by Trump would probably resemble more the nut jobs that occupied the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon and who forgot to pack clean underwear for their siege.
That being said, when I read things like what Trump said in Ohio, then I feel less assured than (V) and (Z). I think they are not taking into account that Trump's state of "mind" right now, where even he has to feel the walls closing in like never before. He clearly is experiencing a serious cash-flow issues, what with the heavy fines and legal bills he is facing and will continue to face. In many ways, Trump is like a cornered animal with each of his itty bitty widdle paws caught firmly in a steel-jawed trap. He is beginning to lash out wildly and blindly. This will continue to escalate as those walls move slowly closer. Everyone knows that an animal is the most dangerous when they're cornered. The fact that Trump is falling back on his 2020 playbook of threatening violence if he loses shows me he is thinking that there is a distinct possibility that he's not going to win.
People like to talk about how, in the aftermath of the 2020 election, the guardrails to our democracy held; but did they? Every time Trump and his minions met a guardrail for a fair election they either ignored it or just moved around it. If the guardrails has held then there wouldn't have been a bloodthirsty crowd trying to kill the vice president and members of Congress on January 6th. The only guardrail that held was the Capitol Police Force. That's much too close a call for me to let myself go laissez-faire because Trump is in much more desperate straits than he was in 2020. Let me just say that my faith in Trump's incompetencies is strong, but my faith in the guardrails of democracy not so much so.
Of course, if the puppet Supreme Court gives Donnie his wish by giving him blanket presidential immunity, then what they all fail to recognize is that President Biden, who took an oath to defend our nation against enemies foreign and domestic, will have a whole array of ethically shady options open, so that he can be our country's final guardrail. That raises a hell of a lot of moral and ethical issues. Let's go for the less severe option. If there is blanket presidential immunity, what's to stop Biden, if he really believed that Trump was fermenting some "bloodbath" against our country, from jailing him without a trial? Of course, I know that it's Biden's basic decency that will stay his hand, but if the cornered animal begins to lash out wildly and cause serious damage, then doesn't Biden have an obligation to prevent further damage no matter his qualms? Trump and His Supremes don't seem to recognize that they've put us on a slippery slope that slides both ways. We shouldn't have to be thinking about these issues, but sadly we are, due almost solely to Trump himself.
When I read the nonsense that Trump and his brown-shirt ilk constantly spew, I find myself thinking of the words attributed to King Henry II of England. To paraphrase, "Will no one rid us of this troublesome orange idiot?" That is by no means an endorsement of sanctioned or unsanctioned political violence, even in the face of said "bloodbath." I personally find it abhorrent to wish anyone, even Trump, a speedy death. It goes against my grain. Still, of late, I have grown so exhausted with his divisiveness and bile that I find myself contemplating whether wishing that his final bucket of KFC meets its destiny sooner rather than later is muddying my moral compass too much.
K.S. in New Orleans, LA, writes: I've been rereading the site from 2020 to remember your coronavirus coverage. I follow your links to the then-current news articles, and, I'm also just going back to news sites in general for that period.
Your coverage was outstanding. I particularly was impressed by "Trump Speech Falls Flat," from March 12 of that year. I know you've never shied about pointing out a naked emperor, but that piece was prescient.
From the very beginning, you pointed out how Trump and his team completely cocked up their response to the pandemic. In some media today, we hear that Trump's policies possibly contributed to around 500,000 extra deaths from the coronavirus. This recent take is especially brutal because it posits that those extra deaths represented a plan. I don't think I'd go that far, but some of the points were interesting.
So it astounds me that Joe Biden is not full-on making hay out of it when the pasture grass is so high and plentiful. He's mentioned the virus a few times, and how his response was what we needed—and quick—after Trump failed. But he should contrast his leadership on COVID with Trump's incompetence much more often.
Biden could even be snarky magnanimous: "He did start Operation Warp Speed which gave us a vaccine very quickly as those things go. I don't mind calling it the Trump vaccine. I wonder why he doesn't call it that."
C.F. in Fort Wayne, IN, writes: In your item "It's a Monday Afternoon Massacre at the RNC," you wrote: "When you put a bunch of sharks in a tank, and then the food runs out, the sharks start eating each other."
This made me think of a very similar comment recently made by Scott O'Connor, Republican from Arizona and son of the late Sandra Day O'Connor" "Nothing from MAGA land surprises me anymore. They eat their own, and everyone else is a communist."
That is certainly a very concise description of what is going on with the Republican Party today.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: The CNBC interviewer asked Donald Trump about "entitlements" generally, rather than Social Security or Medicare. In Trump's pea brain, "entitlements" means "welfare," not realizing Social Security and Medicare are entitlements and make up the bulk of entitlement spending. So, yes, of course he wants to cut welfare and police how it's distributed (he also mentioned fraud, which is another right-wing welfare bugaboo).
P.K. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: You wrote that Democrats suffer from defections to third parties because their left flank expects too much: "One problem the Democrats have that the Republicans don't is that a lot of Democrats want it all." You argued Republicans "overlook [Donald Trump's] many, many character and policy failings. Many Democrats don't do that" (with respect to Joe Biden).
Respectfully, I see it differently. As you've noted, Biden had a higher percentage of primary support than Trump. The loss of conservative support cost Trump and Trumpists many elections in 2018, 2020 and 2022, including the presidency. I think a consequential number of Republicans do not overlook Trump's deficiencies, and the GOP has paid an electoral price. The Libertarian candidate typically nets 1 million to 1.5 million more votes than the Green Party in presidential elections; I would argue the GOP regularly loses more "purist" votes from its right flank than Democrats do from their left.
Both parties employ the same strategy, but deploying different issues: try to lock down the center with crime and taxes (GOP), or healthcare and education (Democrats); motivate the base using abortion (both), immigration and culture war issues (GOP), or climate, racial and economic justice (Democrats). If the left is more vocally dissatisfied, it could be that the GOP is better at making noise and taking fast action on their "base issues." Democrats tackle complex issues with genuine policy, not performative antics, but that's harder both to message and deliver on. I disagree that the GOP doesn't lose disaffected conservative voters over spending, privacy, and other issues, however, and I expect more defections as Republicans start to waffle on abortion limits, IVF and contraception.
R.C. in Des Moines, IA, writes: My views generally lean left-of-center and occasionally very left-of-center. Something you wrote on really got my attention:
One problem the Democrats have that the Republicans don't is that a lot of Democrats want it all. If Biden does something on abortion or Israel or something else they don't like, they start threatening to stay home or vote third party. Sometimes they actually even do it. This has been true for years with other Democrats, going back to the 92,000 people who voted for Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000, thus allowing George W. Bush to win the state by 537 votes and giving him the presidency.People like this are the equivalent of children stamping their feet and holding their breath until they get what they want. Those children hardly ever succeed. That Florida vote is a major reason, maybe THE major reason, for why we have had so many problems the last 23 years and have not moved toward sufficiently progressive positions. So many of these problems can be traced back to the presidency of George W. Bush. Progressives need to understand that they are a relatively small minority in this country and most Americans do not want all of what progressives want. Take what you can get and move on to advocate for your beliefs later on down the road. Isn't moving little by little in your direction better than moving directly in the opposite direction of your position? Progressives need to grow up.
A.T. in San Francisco, CA, writes: You wrote: "Sure, they could vote for Jill Stein or Cornel West, elect Donald Trump, and then cry in their wine when he signed a bill to ban all abortions nationwide. Biden knows that very few of them will take the risk."
Ha! Good luck thinking that; many, like me, are already out the door, and said buh-bye to Joe Biden since it's clear he's more interested in playing to the Nikki Haley types and staying c**ked to Benjamin Netanyahu.
I'd prefer to vote West if he's on my state ballot, but I'm fine with Stein.
If it means reelecting Trump, so be it. Sometimes a little short-term pain is needed for long-term gains.
J.Z. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: On reading your post about the undying Democratic/third-party urinating tournament, I was struck by your uncritical repetition of the old Ralph-Nader-handed-Bush-the-presidency fallacy. This quite surprised me as it demonstrates an uncharacteristic (in your work) acceptance of a convenient bit of propaganda that has been repeatedly debunked for nearly a quarter century—repeatedly and convincingly, albeit not widely.
You wrote:
One problem the Democrats have that the Republicans don't is that a lot of Democrats want it all. If Biden does something on abortion or Israel or something else they don't like, they start threatening to stay home or vote third party. Sometimes they actually even do it. This has been true for years with other Democrats, going back to the 92,000 people who voted for Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000, thus allowing George W. Bush to win the state by 537 votes and giving him the presidency.This is all factual... well, in terms of the narrow statistics that are usually (cherry-picked and) presented, but is sadly missing two key facts. First is that every other third-party candidate also won over 537 votes in Florida, and second, and most importantly, that 308,000 Democrats voted for George W. Bush. Take a moment and let that settle. It's almost as forgotten as the millions of Bernie Sanders supporters (14 million, I believe) who turned out for Hillary Clinton in the general, but that's another story.
Jim Hightower wrote about Nader, the not-tried-but-still-convicted spoiler in Salon.com at the time. The salient point:
Now it gets really ugly for the Gore campaign, for there are two other Florida constituencies that cost them more votes than Nader did. First, Democrats. Yes, Democrats! Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush. Hello. If Gore had taken even 1 percent of these Democrats from Bush, Nader's votes wouldn't have mattered. Second, liberals. Sheesh. Gore lost 191,000 self-described liberals to Bush, compared to less than 34,000 who voted for Nader.(V) & (Z) respond: We feel bound to point out that party registration, and even self-identification as a "liberal" are not necessarily meaningful, especially in a Southern state in the midst of a partisan realignment.
L.S. in Black Mountain, NC, writes: R.H. in Corning wrote: "...I'm a never-Trump Republican, but that doesn't mean I'll be voting for Biden this fall. I can't in good conscience vote for either Trump or Biden, so I'll be voting for a write-in candidate, as I did the last two presidential elections."
Did doing this make R.H. feel good about voting? People like this, who are so fixated on casting a "pure" vote, on voting "in good conscience," will pat themselves on the back but not see that in 2024 (as in 2016), they could help elect the one who is promising to destroy our democracy. There is no moral judge in the sky or elsewhere keeping track of whether or not you vote your conscience; the only one who cares about that is you. It is beyond naive to think that you are "sending a message" if no one is listening—you might as well stay home. If you care enough about that message to return TFG to the White House, be prepared to live with the consequences.
We are taught that "every vote matters," but that depends. Sometimes you have to vote strategically, not conscientiously, for your vote to matter. Sometimes you have to vote against someone, not for someone, for your vote to matter. If R.H. writes in a candidate on their ballot, that vote will NOT matter because that candidate cannot win. If R.H. votes for Biden, that vote WILL matter because it will help the candidate who can defeat TFG, and that's the goal. If you are never-Trump, then vote like you mean it. Since you are also never-Biden, this is where the lesser of two evils comes in.
Purity and conscience have their place, but politics is not that place. I know, because I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, and I still feel guilty and angry. Save your purity for when the stakes are not so high.
An often-quoted line from a Mary Oliver poem goes "What will you do with your one wild and precious life?" Amend that to "What will you do with your one wild and precious VOTE?" I say put it where it MATTERS.
R.H. in Macungie, PA, writes: R.H. in Corning can't, in good conscience, vote for either Donald Trump or Joe Biden. So, R.H. is leaving the choice between them to other voters. In New York, this might not matter. But I would ask: Could you at least bring yourself to vote AGAINST one of them? Between Trump and Biden is there not a choice of the lesser evil? Are both so odious that R.H. can't decide which would be worse for our nation?
R.P. in Alexandria, NY, writes: In any other election year, I might agree with R.H. in Corning, but not this time. Here's the reason why: R.H. and "uncommitted" are making an assumption based upon a false sense of security that if Donald Trump regains the White House there will be future elections. I trust that if Joe Biden is reelected there will be. I have no confidence in this if Trump gets back in power.
I like voting; on that, I totally agree with R.H. My father was a World War II vet who told me, not long before he died in January 2001, "I fought fascism, but I see it coming here." The least we can do is honor that legacy.
M.A. in Knoxville, TN, writes: I wanted to add to your response to S.A. in Seattle about Joe Biden's slip-ups. At the end, you wrote:
And if we may be even more blunt, barring something that destroys him physically (heart attack, stroke), Joe Biden is going to be the Democratic presidential nominee. He is not going to "discover" that he's not mentally up to it and step aside, nor are the delegates to the DNC going to make that decision. Biden-skeptical Democrats would be well advised to reconcile themselves to this, and to stop chasing shadows.I've had experience dealing with someone with dementia and wanted to point out that if he really did have dementia, he would be LESS likely to withdraw due to it. That's because people with dementia rarely realize they have it, or if they do realize, they don't appreciate how bad it is. As it gets progressively worse, their lucid moments are shorter. So if Biden really has dementia he's highly unlikely to withdraw due to it, either because he doesn't realize he has it or he's so far gone he has too few lucid moments to make that decision and stick to it.
For the record, I don't think he has dementia, he just has occasional slip-ups. Frankly, he has fewer of them than I do, and I'm a couple of decades younger than him and don't have a stutter.
J.L.J. in San Francisco, CA, writes: Relating to Joe Biden being unable to remember the term "fax machine" and other lapses: Eons ago, as a young, vibrant man on top of my game, I was talking on the phone with my mother. We were talking about Thanksgiving, and then this came out of my face: "what is that thing you put on the table... that big cloth thing, what is it called?" Her response: "a table cloth."
To this day, the reason I remember it so well is because my mother has never let this down, and mocks me for it mercilessly. You'd think I was Joe Biden and she was all societies of Earth, as no other person has ever done anything like this, ever, in their lives. I regret to admit I've made numerous other verbal errors or blanked on terms and so on. As I get older, especially as I watch Biden, I worry more about how everyone perceives this sort of thing that has otherwise been perfectly normal over the course of my whole life.
S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, writes: Having only about half as many years as Joe Biden, I can attest to the difficulty in remembering years. There are certain "signpost" years that are easy, because they had multiple events that I can batch together. For example, 2016 had, besides Trump's election, the start of my second post-college job, my best friend's wedding, and the Cubs' world series win; helping to remember this, Back to the Future Part II (a childhood favorite of mine) was off by only one year in their Cubs win prediction. But off of these signpost years? It's all reconstruction, as you described.
(V) & (Z) respond: Yep, that Cubs win meant that Trump's election was only the second most unbelievable event of 2016.
J.T. in San Bernardino, CA, writes: I've experienced the loss of two grandparents due to Alzheimer's. A key symptom of Alzheimer's is dementia (it's important to note that dementia is a symptom of many illnesses, and not itself a diagnosis).
With that out of the way, the best way I've heard neuroscientists explain the difference between dementia and plain old memory-lapses is this: "If you forget where your keys are, it's a memory lapse; if you forget what your keys are for, it's dementia."
Joe Biden didn't forget what a fax machine is. He didn't forget whether he was vice president. We've got a lot of armchair doctors who have no idea what they're talking about trying to pin a diagnosis on a person they've never personally met by picking over a transcript of a conversation they weren't party to. It's absolute nonsense.
If anyone wants to know more about how dementia actually works, rather than playing dress-up with their lab coat and stethoscope (looking at you, Robert Hur), there was a great episode of the TED Radio Hour with neuroscientist/author Lisa Genova that does a great job of laying it out in accessible language.
S.L. in Glendora, CA, writes: I have been married twice, and I can't remember the year of either marriage without giving it some thought. My second marriage was the same year as the Rodney King riots, so I have sometimes googled that to find the right year. I can't remember the day for my second (current) marriage. It was Father's Day, but I can't remember if that was the 14th, the 15th, or the 16th. I'm not exactly sure how many years I have been married. I don't remember what year either of my parents died. I don't remember what year I started my first teaching job, or any other job, for that matter. I do remember what year I retired, though. When I am at the pharmacy picking up prescriptions for my husband and my daughter, sometimes I have to think a moment to remember their birthdates. Just today, it took me a couple minutes to think of the words "dental floss." (What is that long, stringy stuff you use to clean your teeth?) I sometimes call my dog by my daughter's name. But fortunately, I have only once called my daughter by the dog's name. She was not amused.
I am not suffering from dementia. I can remember all the words to all The Beach Boys songs that were popular when I was in eighth grade.
C.H. in Sacramento, CA, writes: To T.K. in Akron: I also stuttered from a very early age, and it affected my personality I am sure. Kids can be brutal when making fun of someone, and it taught me to be very precise in evaluating my choice in friends. There was a time I couldn't even get the air sound out to say "hello" when answering the phone. There were particular consonants like "B" and "D" that I couldn't say without bouncing those sounds.
The wonderful aspect of this is that I was able to avoid these words by finding synonyms, greatly expanding my vocabulary. I was also confident in myself, as you are, to seek a job in sales where to this day I speak with a lot of strangers. The most fascinating thing about my story is that, one day in my fifties, I woke up with a thought of what a bad habit it was to stutter. I swear to God, my stuttering stopped! Only if I'm really tired and/or depressed about something does it slightly appear again. But the synomyms help and it doesn't even last a day. I wish for you the same miracle.
P.K. in Marshalltown, IA, writes: After reading the letter from T.K. in Akron, as well as your response, I must say "bravo" to Electoral-Vote.com and the EV community. I learned things and then you opened up the forum to allow for T.K. to respond to further questions for sharing as appropriate with the readers. I don't get this in a lot of places. I also don't get good book recommendations in a lot of places and I appreciate that service you offer.
While I'm at it, I'll weigh in on the "asterisk" issue. Sometimes the proper use of a curse word (or similarly a string of invectives) is what gets one's attention and truly makes the point. I can still recall, nearly 50 years after its occurrence, the effective use of a vulgarity by my high-school German teacher, a Catholic nun in the Order of Saint Ursuline and a distant cousin of mine. While our class was acting up in some fashion, she muttered "scheiss" under her breath and yet everyone heard it and refocused on her. Language is powerful. Pick your moments and battles as to when you will use particular parts of it. Keep up the effin' great job, (V) and (Z)!
(V) & (Z) respond: We hope to have the questions and answers about stuttering next weekend. That means that if any reader has a question for T.K. in Akron, there is still time. Send them to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "Stuttering."
A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: I've read Judge Scott McAfee's order and I'm stunned at the significant breaches of judicial canons. If anyone has tainted this case, it is he. He was ruling on a motion to disqualify DA Fani Willis, a motion in which the court found the defendants had not met their considerable burden of proof. By page 8, the judge had completed the only task before him. He held:
In addition—and much more important—the Court finds, based largely on the District Attorney's testimony, that the evidence demonstrated that the financial gain flowing from her relationship with Wade was not a motivating factor on the part of the District Attorney to indict and prosecute this case. While a general motive for more income can never be disregarded entirely, the District Attorney was not financially destitute throughout this time or in any great need, as she testified that her salary exceeds $200,000 per year without any indication of excessive expenses or debts. Similarly, the Court further finds that the Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the District Attorney's conduct has impacted or influenced the case to the Defendants' detriment.His job was done at that point. And yet, he insisted on editorializing and belittling the DA for her "poor choices" as if she were a naughty child instead the duly-elected district attorney of Fulton County. He seems to have taken a page out of Robert Hur's playbook: He couldn't give Donald Trump what he wanted but he would give him some ammunition to wound the prosecutor.
If having Wade on the case gives the DA's office an appearance of impropriety, such that it may impact the likelihood of conviction, then the office has to address that. The court has no more business wading into that morass than he does Trump's choice of attorney. The Court's bootstrapping of the vague standard "appearance of impropriety" is demonstrated by his conclusion: "As the case moves forward, reasonable members of the public could easily be left to wonder whether the financial exchanges have continued resulting in some form of benefit to the District Attorney, or even whether the romantic relationship has resumed." Huh? That has nothing to do with this case or these defendants—that could occur in ANY case brought by her office. If defendants want to raise this issue at trial and argue to the jury that somehow Trump isn't guilty because Willis' boyfriend is on the case and has taken her out to dinner, let them have at it. The judge's role is not to save the DA's office from mismanagement.
Finally, there is this conclusion, buried in the middle of page 16: "There has not been a showing that the Defendants' due process rights have been violated or that the issues involved prejudiced the Defendants in any way."
IN ANY WAY! And yet he goes on to rule that Wade must step aside to avoid "potentially compromising the merits of the case." Again, he doesn't work for the DA—if they want to "compromise" their case or blow it up altogether, it's not his job to save it.
And if there have been ethical violations, that is the province of the state bar, not this court.
But what is most ironic is the judge's criticism of Willis' speech at her church—right before he went on a local radio show to further explain and defend his ruling. Talk about hypocritical, and a violation of judicial ethics! I have been practicing law for almost 30 years—I have never seen a sitting judge speak to the press about a current case he is presiding over. Even Lance Ito, for all his grandstanding, didn't give interviews while the O.J. Simpson case was pending! And not a single outlet has raised an eyebrow about that. There is a stunning lack of understanding of how the legal system is supposed to work. This case, like the other Trump cases, will continue to be bogged down by these sideshows.
M.S. in Houston, TX, writes: I'm not happy at all about Scott McAfee's handling of the Fani Willis case. Yes, Willis screwed up in terms of the optics of the matter, but either what she supposedly did was actionable and McAfee should have removed her—PERIOD—or it wasn't and he should have cleared her. Also PERIOD. This business of "an odor of mendacity remains," and "he remains suspicious as to whether Willis and Wade 'testified untruthfully'," tells me he wants to have it both ways. He can't actually prove anything, so he just wants to bitch about it. If "the judge doesn't particularly trust her," the it sounds like McAfee should recuse himself for being unable to separate his personal 1920s moral primness from his legal opinions.
In fact, the whole thing makes me suspicious that McAfee—a Republican appointed by a Republican governor here in the Deep South—is attempting to force Willis into a decision that would allow him to delay the trial until after the general election. Because that's what Republican officeholders are like these days, especially when they're running for reelection.
S.M. in Louisville, KY, writes: You chose to lie and fall in line with a conservative judge. It was not proven that Fani Willis was dating before the hire, despite what you claim.
Clarence Thomas and Aileen Cannon are judges who are currently trying to help overthrow the government. Their actions are public record. We are in the fight of our life against fascism. It's not surprising that a Black woman who stood up to fight is being knocked down by white men (including you). It's a joke.
I am retiring from reading your blog.
A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: You wrote: "The [Republicans] might start with the understanding that women voters are not morons, and that they will not be fooled by hand waving, magic tricks, false anecdotes and empty verbiage."
I am a husband (1), father (+1), father-in-law (+2), grandfather (+3) and grandfather in law (+1). I may not always agree with them, nor they with me, but I have learned that there are only two words that I need to know to maintain the peace, "YES, DEAR." Included in that list are, if I can count accurately, are at least 7 bachelor's degrees, 3 master's degrees, and 2 teaching certificates, but I may have lost track of a couple of diplomas. I am fortunate enough to be able to say that I have numerous acquaintances and co-conspirators of the feminine persuasion.
You may be able to fool them once, but you won't get away with it a second time and there will be hell to pay if you even think you can try it a third time.
A.S. in Chicago, IL, writes: In regards to your post that says that women aren't stupid, I would refer you to exit polling at CNN which says that a majority of white women supported Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020. Also, a majority of white women supported Republicans in the 2022 Congressional elections. When you include minority women, yes, a majority of women are opposed to Donald Trump. However, many women stood by over the years and watched their reproductive rights slowly being chipped away in state after state. Many women couldn't be bothered with voting for a competent woman for president. (And no, don't tell me Hillary Clinton was a lousy candidate; we have uninformed voters.) So, unfortunately, women are where they are due to their own lack of making informed choices about their lives. A misogynist and sexual assaulter has the support of a lot of women. Just look at Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC).
M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: Something that the vast majority of men miss about women are all visual clues women use to assess other women, i.e., hair, makeup, clothes, jewelry. Ever notice how every woman in the Trump administration had long, shoulder-length hair? Ever see a beauty pageant contestant with a flattering, sophisticated short haircut? No, because this ideal of longer hair is an American male beauty standard. Similarly, makeup is a huge indicator of social class and speaks volumes about a woman's cultural identity. Ever see all those TikToks of Gen-Z girls wearing those immense, super-fake false eyelashes, something more suited for a Halloween costume? They are signaling who they are, what scene they're into, and what's important to them.
What has this to do with politics? Well, to adult women voters, all the female Fox talking heads look like bimbos. And who listens to bimbos or takes them seriously? They are there to capture male viewers. The GOP seems to think that's the purpose of running female candidates, too. A woman can look another over, and in a matter of seconds determine whether or not she is someone serious or just a bozo opportunist (Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene, R-GA, is merely the most egregious example).
Add into the mix how many more college educated women there are now, is it any wonder the GOP falls flat with women voters routinely?
J.B. in Aarhus, Denmark, writes: "Misogynist and confirmed rapist" should be the caption under every picture of Donald Trump. It is simple, eloquent, and to the point.
Thank you, (Z).
R.H. in Santa Ana, CA, writes: The TikTok ban is, of course, a sticky wicket.
As Noah Smith noted, there's no chance the Soviet Union would have been allowed to buy CBS in 1970, but as Matt Taibbi noted, granting Joe Biden the power to declare a website "controlled by an adversary" also grants that same power to Donald Trump, should he ever be president again.
Trump is a harebrain whose sole saving grace is his incompetence, but just imagine what Stephen Miller would do, were he to be given that power.
Trump would tell Mark Zuckerberg "Nice little website ya got here. Sure would be a shame if something was to happen to it. Gimme a hundred and fifty bucks and I'll protect you..."
Miller's approach would be far more subtle and much more evil.
He'd do something like compel Facebook to share its user data with Konstantin Kilimnik.
M.B. in Cleveland, OH, writes: The high school juniors and seniors I teach, many of whom are 18 or approaching it, are uniformly "unenthusiastic" about this election (most polite word I can think of). My own children, 18 and 21, have used the word "depressed" when they consider that their first election is a choice between Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
And the item that gets the most action from Congress is banning TikTok? The Democrats in congress are absolute morons. They need every young person's vote they can get, and yet they actively attack their main source of entertainment. There is no better way to convince this demographic that the only way out is to skip the election or vote for a third-party candidate.
With any luck, the issue gets tied up in the courts, drops off the radar by November, and the Democrats escape (yet another) self-inflicted injury.
D.T. in Columbus, OH, writes: I really doubt that Joe Biden's recent "open mic" was deliberately staged. The biggest hint that this was an authentic accident is Biden's choice of phrase. If this was a deliberately staged comment, Biden's staff would have chosen a better quote that "come to Jesus."
It feels a bit awkward for a Christian president to suggest the Jewish prime minister (of a predominantly Jewish country) should "come to Jesus," even though that was not intended literally.
That expression (used in a non-religious context) is not particularly well known outside of America. To observers in other parts of the world, at first glance this might give the impression that Biden was inexplicably dragging religion into the discussion.
The intent was pretty clear to most people. But it is still an awkward choice of phrase, that probably did not land as smoothly as some other quote might have.
Biden has a staff of smart professionals. If they wanted to leak a quote, they know how to pick the best option. That's what makes me think this was an authentic, off-the-cuff comment, rather than a staged accident.
D.G. Los Angeles, CA, writes: I was quite dismayed reading the mailbag entries under the heading Politics: Israel. The collection, mostly in response to a comment from N.E.L. in Eugene, included almost exclusively vitriol and toxic comments against the State of Israel under the guise of admonition of its conduct of its war against the terrorist organization Hamas.
To be clear, Hamas is unequivocally committed to the genocide of the State of Israel. Check its charter.
I really hope that this collection was chosen because of its commonality of response of N.E.L and does not accurately represent the opinions of the majority of the readers; if it is truly representative, it shows a low level of knowledge and understanding of the subject among, supposedly, a most knowledgeable group of politicos. If so, can you imagine how more ignorant the rest of the world's population is?
I blame the Israeli government for this total and colossal failure of presenting its case, but that had always been a sore point in Israel. Ever since Joseph Goebbels and the Nazi Propaganda Ministry, "propaganda" is a dirty word for the Jews, and governmental public relations is treated similarly with disdain.
That said, what I read in these submissions, and unfortunately several other left-leaning commentaries, represent a regurgitating of tropes that are driven by a lack of knowledge of the rules of war, what the term "genocide" actually means and when is it applied, a tinge of antisemitism, lack of historical perspective, short and selective memory, and lack of desire to be fair.
The basic tenet for the rules of war and the treaty is that the prime directive of the leadership of a warring society is the protection of its citizenry. Hamas has not only abdicated that responsibility, but it uses the civilian casualties as a cynical tool in their war plans: The more civilian casualties they can claim, the better, and the gullible West will respond.
Civilian casualties, if avoidable, are always regrettable. Ask yourself: How many civilian casualties were there during the battles with ISIS in Fallujah, Raqqa, Ramadi, Mosul? How many of these bleeding-heart protesters were marching the streets of London, Paris, New York, Detroit, then? Why didn't they demand a cease fire then, and allow ISIS to recover?
How about protesting the war in Afghanistan? Or when Bashar al-Assad slaughtered tens of thousands of his own people during their uprising? Nah.
NEVER in the history of warfare has ANY army ever done so much to attempt to prevent civilian enemy casualties, alerting the enemy civilians that the area where they live is about to be attacked, and please, please, please, evacuate! With leaflets, hundreds of thousands of phone calls and text messages, asking the civilians to leave the area to not be a casualty. They even used dummy bombs on the roof—"roof knockers"—to alert the residents that the building, which also houses Hamas infrastructure and offices, is coming down in 10 minutes. Did the Allies do that in World War II in Dresden? Or Berlin? Or Hiroshima, or Nagasaki? Did they give advance warning to the population and provide them with a safe corridor out of the combat zone? Neh. Not by a long shot. (And if you saw the jubilant celebrations of the civilians in Gaza on 10/7, you can't say they were all innocents.)
Think of this: By taking all these steps, clearly trying to reduce the civilian casualties, announcing their targets, the Israeli Defense Force endangered the lives of its own troops, letting the enemy know where they are going to attack next.
And what did Hamas do to minimize the casualties of its people? Did Hamas use the tunnels to help shield their civilians? Not a chance. They hid themselves in the tunnels, while exposing their civilians to the crossfire. Here are facts: The tunnels they had dug are longer than the London underground, or New York subway! During the Blitz in London, did Churchill hide like a rat in the underground,, or make sure the Londoners could find shelter there?
And you have the nerve to accuse Israel of war crimes? Of genocide? Despicable. Go and protest Hamas for blocking and raiding the food aid convoys once they passed inspection, using it for itself rather than feeding their wards, the civilians.
And to those who complain (whining bitterly) that "Israel kept Gaza as an open-air prison," cut it out! Egypt has a border with Gaza, and was completely capable of opening their border to the Gazans, but they did not do that. Go complain to Cairo about the "open-air prison."
Israel was justified in keeping the border secure. Hamas has violated EVERY ceasefire with Israel since it took hold of Gaza in 2006, still Israel provided jobs for 20,000 Gazans daily, at Israeli wages. Egypt? No. Israel for years provided Gaza free electricity, fuel for their power plant, water supply, and in return got missiles directed at its civilian centers. Good trade? Nah.
So all those good bleeding hearts extreme "progressives," know the full story before parroting the Hamas propaganda.
S.A.K. in Karnataka, India, writes: Regarding your response to the 4 letters calling N.E.L. out, the evidence N.E.L. put out there was the cherry-picked. They clearly failed to read up on the demographics of Gaza and ended up making a lousy argument.
What made it worse was the patronizing tone of the letter along with the more than subtle Islamophobic BS (the dystopian portrayal of Muslim societies, the utterly shi**y and frankly evil argument about rescuers in Gaza not trying as hard to save women and children in the rubble).
The supposition I made about Americans' lack of knowledge about cultures alien to them is a lot more plausible than what was served up by N.E.L.
D.M. in Boston, MA, writes: I have watched Joe Biden's answers from Jonathan Capehart's March 10th interview of the President multiple times, and I can't figure out what Biden is trying to communicate. He is saying, "there is no red line" and he is saying he won't cut off military aid. But he seems to insist that Netanyahu must do better... whatever that means. Biden stumbles over the question, interrupts himself, and then says something about "we can't have another 30,000 Palestinians dead."
Biden's incoherence on this subject has nothing to do with dementia. His incoherence is a result of his incoherent position on Gaza. How did the 30,000 people die? Does it have anything to do with the 2,000-lb. American-made bombs that were dropped on them? Did Hamas shoot the 30,000 people? Does Biden want to send more bombs? What did he think the bombs would be used for when he sent the last batch?
When I listen to Biden talk about Netanyahu, I am reminded of the ineffectual parent in line at the grocery store. Their kid is destroying everything in sight and the parent mutters something about "you better behave or else..." but the parent never looks up from their phone. Nobody believes the parent, not the checkout clerk, the other customers, or the kid. The parent lacks the plan or the will to do the things necessary to alter their child's behavior. And every empty threat that isn't backed with consequences is another reminder to the child that the parent's words are feckless noise and can be disregarded.
T.K. in Mason, MI, writes: You made a reference to Republicans promoting Donald Trump to Donald Christ. Did you know that Trump's father's name was legally Frederick Christ Trump, his older brother's name was legally Frederick Christ Trump, Jr., and his paternal grandmother's birth name was Elisabeth Christ? In a way, it's surprising that he was given the middle name of John instead of Christ.
Although the former president certainly resembles a John more than he does Christ.
E.G.G.-C., Syracuse, NY, writes: The "Donny Lama" title made me snort loudly! Thank you for that line. Made my day (and I will steal it and reuse).
E.F. in Goodyear, AZ, writes: Call him Benedict Donald.
P.J. in Washington, DC, writes: I did not grow up in West Virginia but I have had time to study it (warts and wisdom) at close range for some time. Your item about Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) "having" a Senate candidate for the state is exactly the kind of view-from-30,000-feet arrogance that explains why the Democratic Party of West Virginia (that I am in, BTW) is continuously ignored or harmed by the National Democratic Party. The simple lesson is this: People don't need a lot of education to know when they are being talked down to. With those few words, you modeled exactly why Democrats are seen as elitist and out of touch. THAT is how you get Donald Trump elected, and then end up confused (or worse, emotionally detached) by the aftermath of his election.
My strong suggestion and urging to you and all your readers is to stop being an impotent voice and speak in the language of challenge and hope. Take a long, hard look at the state of West Virginia and consider that it is simply rural, union-strong, hard-working, badly neglected by both parties, proud, good-natured and... justifiably ANGRY. The only reason (I think) most people follow Trump out here is because he listens to them and tells them what they want to hear (of course, that includes blaming Democrats and everyone else for their being so badly screwed).
P.L. in Denver, CO, writes: I live in Colorado where we frequently have a lengthy list of ballot initiatives. A couple of things I have noticed: First, often they are very misleading. I do my due diligence to study up on them—including what public figures are supporting the initiative. If the impact is still not clear, I don't vote for it, since nothing will change and I won't be making things worse.
Second, we have a particular problem here that I have to admit I contributed to. Over the years, we have had many initiatives that codify some specific dollar or percent funding for something. As a result of the good intentions, our legislature's hands are severely tied by these initiatives when it comes to budgeting.
Periodically, someone comes along and tries to weaken the process. I ran into this in the last week. People are hired to stand at the grocery store and collect signatures for the initiative to get on the ballot. I was approached by a person who was collecting signatures for more "transparency" in the ballot initiatives. I quickly pulled out my phone to check who was promoting this. It was clearly someone who wants to create more obstacles to placing something on the ballot.
Even with these issues, I am supportive of the citizen initiative process.
T.P. in Highland Park, NJ, writes: E.R. in Irving wrote: "[M]ost rural and suburban Texans would vote for Adolf Hitler over Jesus Christ as long as the former had an (R) after his name and the latter had a (D)."
I do not dispute that there are plenty of Texans who would do that very thing. However, Ted Cruz vs. Beto O'Rourke was 50.9% to 48.4%, and Donald Trump vs. Joe Biden was 52% to 46.5%. I regularly see these proportions described as "most," but some informal polling in my acquaintance group (using a non-ideological question—"20 Cokes and 18 Sprites in a cooler, how would you describe the relationship of Cokes to Sprites without numbers?") produced zero people who would naturally use that term to describe that sort of a relative relationship. "About half and half" or "More Coke than Sprite" was typical.
Why is it that "most" seems to mean about two-thirds or so in almost all usages, but describes 50.9% when it comes to voter choice? I have seen this in a great many places when describing political or opinion polling. It is true that 50.3% to 49.7% is still a win for the 50.3%—but that kind of gap looks a lot more surmountable than "most" implies.
J.B. in Hutto, TX, writes: D.S.R. in Tempe asked asked about the difference between a "democracy" and a "republic." Both essentially mean the same thing—a government in which the people are the sovereign power. The words differ only because one derives from Greek and the other from Latin. The word "democracy" comes from the Greek words demos (people) and kratos (rule)—in other words, "the people rule." The word "republic" comes from the Latin res publica, which literally means "the people's thing" or "the people's concern." So there is no real difference between the terms at all.
In my opinion, in the answer you gave, your use of "democracy" would be specifically a "direct democracy" and your use of "republic" would be a "representative democracy."
W.K. in Centreville, VA, writes: Re: "In a democracy, the people make the decisions directly. In a republic, the people elect representatives to make decisions."
I am surprised that this distinction was given without any more context. Especially as "democracy vs republic" is practically a current Republican Party canard at this point, used, for example, in support of the Electoral College, in dismissal of the popular vote, in support of legislatures overriding their electoral result, in opposition to early voting and mail-in voting, in support of voter suppression and intimidation, and just generally used to imply that the current Democratic Party is "not actually American."
Those two definitions are simply for "direct democracy" and "representative democracy," respectively.
The idea that "republic" by itself means "representative democracy" is a uniquely American strain of thought which utterly fails when applied to other states throughout the world and history. Everywhere other than Federalist No. 10 and the wonky rhetoric that descended from it (and which didn't really become relevant again until the modern ultraconservative faction of the Republican Party started weaponizing it), a "republic" simply means a state that is a "public thing," existing "for the public" or "in the name of the people," rather than existing as a private holding. Or with less technicality: A republic is a state that is specifically NOT a monarchy. (And it's worth noting that a dichotomy between "republic" and "monarchy" was itself very important in early American thought).
For example, the U.K. is not technically a republic, even though it is certainly a representative democracy (and this is not uncommon). Or, in contrast, many states both historical and current are in fact republics despite either not being democracies at all (most historical republics) or else not meeting typical standards for "functioning" democracies.
So although you are correct to say that "the U.S. is definitely a democratic republic," the reasoning stated lacks proper context and reflects current anti-democratic propaganda.
R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: Your response to B.D. in San Mateo, while accurate, was also incomplete. Should Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) be chosen as Donald Trump's running mate, you are correct that New York does not have a resign-to-run law, and so she wouldn't have to vacate her current House seat in order to run for VP. But B.D. also asked whether running for VP would make her ineligible to run simultaneously for re-election to the House. The answer to that is also "no," as only six states bar running for two offices when at least one of them is federal; New York is not one of those states.
M.M. in Plano, TX, writes: H.B. in State College is correct. I have watched a dozen presidential addresses to Congress, and there are usually two announcements: one by the doorkeeper (or sergeant-at-arms) ar the door, and another after the president makes his way down the aisle to the "well" of the House, when the speaker bangs the gavel, calls the House to order, and presents the guest (the president) to the body.
One particularly memorable speaker's intro came at Bush 41's speech after the Gulf War, when Speaker Tom Foley took extra time to congratulate the President and "through you, the men and women of our Armed Forces" on the victory in Kuwait.
I was surprised that Mike Johnson did not follow the precedent set by Foley, Dennis Hastert, Newt Gingrich, Sam Rayburn, Carl Albert, etc. It is a sign that he is a weak speaker, unlike his 50 predecessors, who regarded themselves as equal, in the legislative sphere, to the president in the executive.
(V) & (Z) respond: We stand corrected.
C.J. in Redondo Beach, CA, writes: I believe I know what H.B in State College was getting at. Not only does the sergeant-at-arms introduce the president, the Speaker of the House also typically does once the president arrives at the rostrum. Biden just began to speak and you can even see that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Kamala Harris were slightly thrown back for a beat. It looked like Johnson said something to Harris, to the effect of: "I guess we should sit."
G.L. in Memphis, TN, writes: Occasionally I get to tell my father's story, which parallels that of "Polio Paul."
My father was born in 1899. He came down with polio in 1935, while serving in the U.S. Army in the Philippines. He was paralyzed from the mid-chest down, meaning he could not breathe without assistance, so he was put in an iron lung. He was told that to get out of the iron lung, he would have to learn to breathe with his pectoral muscles, and stay out of the machine for 24 hours straight. He did it. They fused his spine so he could sit up straight in a wheelchair, and he was discharged from the Army and returned to the states.
He married his childhood sweetheart from the one-room school where his parents homesteaded, and priapus served him well, as I have 2 siblings. He learned to drive a car using hand controls. He wrote. He taught early reading in a private school. He lived a life fuller than many.
And when the polio vaccine was released, I, and his students, were marched to the Health Department to get our shots. No one who objects to vaccines can have lived a life like my father's, nor like mine. They cannot understand the pain their words cause to those who suffered when vaccines were not available.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: Finally, able to walk and breathe as much free air in whatever place or dimension or plane of existence "Polio Paul" Alexander transcended to.
Thank you for that. I was going to go to bed early. Instead, I'll contribute something of worth to the world.
A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: You wrote: "One wonders if this self-appointed medical expert [RFK, Jr.] would have had the balls to say such [anti-polio-vaccine] things to Paul Alexander's face."
Just an FYI, I personally actually appreciate your "strongly worded sentence(s)" and you candor!
P.V. in Kailua, HI, writes: While I feel badly for L.N. in Springfield and B.B. in Newtown for having fallen victim to the Streisand Effect, S.M. in Morganton, GA (a.k.a. M.F. in DeSantisistan) made me literally laugh out loud. I am fond of swearing myself, though when not in the comfort of my own home, I try to watch my garbage mouth (yes, in fact, it is the same one that I kiss my mother with). I find swearing fascinating, especially how it differs between cultures. The strongest American profanities are based on fornication. In comparison, French swearing is more likely to involve excrement. French Canadian swearing is blasphemous with "tabarnak" (tabernacle) being considered extremely profane (to Electoral-Vote.com's Canadian readers, pardon my French).
When I lived in France, I would go see American movies in "version originale"—that is, subtitled rather than dubbed in French. The swearing translations were always amusing, with the French often seeming milder. "Oh sh**!" was sometimes translated as "C'est la vache!"—literally, "It's the cow!" A lot of French slang is based on cows (German slang uses pigs in a similar way). (Z) mentioned Jules (played by Samuel L. Jackson) in Pulp Fiction, which I saw in Paris. In the diner scene where Jules tells "Pumpkin" to return his wallet—the one that says, "Bad Mother F**ker" on it—the epithet was translated in the subtitles as "peau de vache," which means "leather" (literally, "cow skin"). WTF? When I told a French friend that I thought that this really watered-down the dialogue, he—being fluent in English—assured me that "peau de vache" is a very fitting translation of BMF and, in this instance, a good pun (for those of us who think such a thing exists).
And since we are speaking of Sam Jackson and editing one's language, the "clean" TV version of his famous line from Snakes on a Plane never fails to crack me up.
A.M.S. in Silverdale, WA, writes: Given the reference to my favorite bad mother trucker last Sunday, I feel it is my patriotic duty to share this cinematic gem!
(V) & (Z) respond: Readers will have to click on the link to "Pulp Fiction but only f-words" because YouTube won't allow age-restricted videos to be embedded.
J.H. in Boston, MA, writes: Here in Boston, you cannot make yourself understood on the street at all unless you sprinkle every sentence liberally with f-bombs. So I imagine all your Bostonian readers were rolling their eyes at the reader who wrote in to ask you to stop cursing, even when it's mentioning relevant political terms like "ratfu**ing" and even if you censor with asterisks.
When I saw that this reader was from Minnesota, I couldn't help but think of one of my favorite movies, Fargo. Throughout the movie, no one ever curses, even though they are under great stress or even mortal peril. Then in one scene, one character is so angry that he does drop an f-bomb, and everyone around him is absolutely horrified.
I have some family from Wisconsin/Minnesota, and I can attest that cultural attitudes about swearing in the upper Midwest are just different.
I have no actionable suggestions for you about swearing. Just random thoughts and movie references.
G.T.M. in Vancouver, BC, Canada, writes: Many years ago, we had to rush one member of our officer training class to the nearest military medical facility because of intense stomach pains (unknown to us, he was having an acute attack of appendicitis).
When we arrived the duty doctor took one look at him and called for the duty ambulance crew to take him to the nearest hospital for an emergency appendectomy.
When the ambulance crew returned, the doctor asked them why it had taken them so long to respond to his call for them. When they replied that they were "taking a coffee break," the doctor spent about 15 minutes remonstrating them and informing them of his opinions of them, their parents, their grandparents, and anyone else who was involved in their actually being alive and in the Army. Not once did the doctor resort to words like ****, *****, ******, *******, and ********. BUT he was so forceful in his expression of his displeasure that the 40+ year old nursing sister who was also on duty actually blushed.
There were days when I wished that I had the same command of English (or even "American").
J.H. in Portland, OR, writes: I've been sitting on ratfu**ers.org for some time and thought it would be a good time to forward it to https://electoral-vote.com. Enjoy.
(V) & (Z) respond: We are honored!
M.A. in Knoxville, TN, writes: While I personally find it silly to get as bent out of shape about terms like ratf**king as some commenters have, I'd like to provide a solution for those people that doesn't require dumbing down the website for the rest of us. There is an extension for Chrome (It will also work in other Chromium-based browsers, like Edge). The extension is called Advanced Profanity Filter and lets you add custom terms to it. So if you don't want to see ratf**king, you could chose to replace that with whatever you prefer, from ********** to "messing with," depending on what you're comfortable with seeing. If you're using Firefox, the extension is available for it, as well. If you're using a mobile browser to access the site you'll want to go with Firefox, as Chrome and other Chromium-based mobile browsers don't support extensions.
Since (V) & (Z) use the same censoring every time it'll be easy to use this to "clean up" the site for you personally without impacting anyone else.
J.L. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: My nephew Nate Z. in New Jersey is 11 years old and loves history. Not only can he name every president in order and every state capital (many 5th graders can do at least some of that), he can name every war America has fought in and when it took place, a majority of amendments in the Constitution, famous people and events and when they happened, major moments in sports history (baseball mostly), and a host of other facts that will likely make him a multi-week Jeopardy! champion someday. Because I know he'd love to see his name on your website, I wanted to share this story from my sister-in-law that she shared with my wife and me on Friday:
Nate had an allergy doctor visit today, and we were passing time while his arm was all itchy from allergy test droplets. He requested we play trivia and chose the history category. I looked up some questions online and got to one about, 'What was the code name for Germany's invasion of Soviet Union during World War II?' His guess: Stalin-grab. (This was the incorrect answer, but I think we should rewrite history.)I agree!
G.R. in Tarzana, CA, writes: As a Packer family, with season tickets at Lambeau dating back to its opening day, we LOVE your answer regarding Aaron Rodgers' predecessor.
J.W. in West Chester, PA, writes: In your item about Aaron Rodgers, you wrote the Jets would be out of contention the day after the first game. As a Jets fan, I must disagree. If last year thought us anything the season could be over four plays into the game. So, if we get to play five this year, that's a win!
B.P. in Arlington Heights, IL, writes: Many, many years ago, I was reading Roger Ebert's "Questions for the Movie Answer Man" column when I read a question about a recent appearance he'd made on The Late Show with David Letterman. The question was attributed to Earl Hofert. Now, as anyone who watched Letterman every night (and everyone really should have been watching him every night) knew, Earl Hofert was Dave's late uncle, who he referred to on occasion. At the time, I was a frequent poster at Usenet, and wrote a post about it as Alt.Fan.Letterman. Within a day or two, I got an e-mail from Ebert himself, telling me that he'd done exactly what you wrote about: He had submitted a question to himself that he wished to answer, and had provided the name of Dave's uncle as the person asking the question. I actually corresponded with him for a couple of days after that.
It would have been hard for anything to raise my level of admiration for Ebert, who is the best movie critic I've ever read, but the fact that he knew the name of Dave's uncle, and that he was also apparently a lurker at Alt.Fan.Letterman, did manage to make me admire him all that much more.
(V) & (Z) respond: (Z) also corresponded with Ebert on occasion, mostly about the minutiae of Beatles films.
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: B.C. in Walpole can't find porn stars in Maine, but The Village Voice (apparently resurrected online) is there to help, having just published on a guide to the Top Maine OnlyFans accounts. No longer will Mainers be deprived of locally sourced pornography and the opportunity to support its providers.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: I'd make the trip to Walpole to attend a performance of Little Orphan Annie Get Your Gun!
J.G. in Garner, NC, writes: Thanks for posting the joke about my dad, Richard Garwin. He was a visiting professor at Cornell in the 80's, and I clearly remember his coming home from a visit then and telling that joke he heard about himself. After a 70-year career consulting on science and technology for the U.S. government, he has become slightly more politic in his advice. However, his delivery of technology truths has tended to be direct and less than finely attuned to social or political consequences. He is still alive at 95 and still consulting internationally (by videoconference).
Richard Feynman, the brilliant and quirky Nobel prizewinning physicist perhaps best known for his analysis of the Challenger explosion, really is dead and had some recorded final words: "I'd hate to die twice. It's so boring."
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.