Dem
51
GOP
49
We got a lot of letters related to the Israel situation, which should be a surprise to nobody. Among those we chose to run are two that are on the long side; we think they raise some useful points.
C.L. in Boulder, CO, writes: S.P. in Harrisburg asks: "What is the fundamental reason for the college student support for the Palestinians? How is that issue so significant that it is driving the demonstrations that have been occurring recently?"
As the parent of a Columbia University 2020 grad who would probably be joining in or reporting on the campus protests if she were still a student and/or in NYC, I might have some insight into college student support for the Palestinians.
Keep in mind that these college students have grown up in the time of many movements: Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ+, land acknowledgments (of ancestral homelands), and climate change. Hearing about the dehumanization of Palestinians and their massive open-air incarceration by Israelis is reminiscent of the Black Lives Matter movement. The Palestinians' desire to be recognized and respected seems similar to many LGBTQ+ goals. While land acknowledgments in the U.S. concede a responsibility to address an unjust past, they also prompt mental connections to illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the U.S. being complicit in the continuation of those settlements. Finally, climate change is seen as an existential threat, especially to the youth of the world, but the huge death tolls of Palestinian youth have turned an existential threat into a grim reality for too many Gazan youth.
Protesting Israeli actions in Gaza and the West Bank and protesting U.S. support for those actions sounds to me like students who are continuing to speak up for their beliefs.
I appreciated this New York Times opinion column about the protests.
R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: I'll start, as I always do before diving into this fraught topic, by self-identifying as a Gen X, Midwestern-raised, second-generation, Conservative-movement, American Jew. I'm going to address the conflation of Israel with Judaism that has been observed by some (and probably not the majority) of the pro-Palestine/anti-Israel protesters. (I may end up being called a self-hating Jew by some of your Jewish readers. I'm not, but I accept their perspective as I try to wake them up with my words.)
I have been opposed to the West Bank settlements and treatment of Palestinians, and in support of a two-state solution for, perhaps, the past two decades. And yet, I have had an extremely difficult time watching some of the protests and listening to some of the rhetoric. There is a very fine line between criticizing Israel as a nation and criticizing Jewish people. It takes some nuance and education to keep the two separate. The first quality is hard to find at a protest and the second is likely absent among the non-student actors who are showing up. "Free Palestine," I can get on board with. "From the river to the sea," I cannot.
So why is it so easy to conflate Israel with Judaism? Why is it so hard for some people to recognize this not as a Jewish problem, but as an Israel problem? I would place the responsibility for that on my parents' generation. Once Israel was established, a deep infrastructure was built in the United States and Israel to indoctrinate every American Jewish youth as unwaveringly pro-Israel. As young children, we all received a religious education (Hebrew school or Sunday school) which indoctrinated our young minds that to be a good Jew, we must love and support Israel. We were sent to Jewish summer camp where this same indoctrination continued. There were always Israeli counselors at our camps, usually young adults spending a summer in America in between high school and their IDF service. As teens we joined the alphabet assortment of youth groups. I was in both BBYO (secular) and USY (Conservative-movement religious). During my 17th summer, I went on one of the many Israel pilgrimages that Jewish youth are pretty much expected to take. There is plenty of scholarship money flowing around for all of these activities, so every Jewish youth who wanted to participate could. By the time I entered the University of Michigan in the fall of 1985, I was as pro-Israel as I could be. If 18-year-old me were here today, I would be on the other side of the pro-Palestinian protests.
In short, the conflation of Israel with Judaism is something we Jews created. And now some of us are paying the price for that in terms of antisemitic attacks. Much in the way that the Islamophobes of the world blamed 9/11 on all Muslims, the antisemites of the world don't have to try too hard to blame the Gaza slaughter on all Jews. We kind of helped them to draw that conclusion with generations of pro-Israel and to-be-a good-Jew-you-must-love-Israel rhetoric and indoctrination.
Frankly, the indoctrination and powerful infrastructure (such as AIPAC and the ADL) have done much to ensure that older Jews (and lawmakers!) remain stuck in a pro-Israel stance even as 35,000 (probably more) human beings have been slaughtered at the hands of the IDF. (There are also many arguments to be made about how awful Hamas is. I'm not excusing them as I am laser-focusing this letter on the Jewish side of things.) It's a cognitive dissonance that my Boomer siblings are grappling with. I really feel that American Jews need to clean up our own mess and start telling the truth about Israel, its colonialist history, and its apartheid (or at least apartheid-adjacent) regime. Just because we were bullied and victimized for much of the 20th Century doesn't make it ok for us to become bullies and victimizers.
I've been going through layers of awakening since Oct 7. A huge wake-up call came to me in the form of an excellent documentary, Israelism. It's about an hour and a half and, in my judgment, time well spent if you really want to understand the American Jewish mindset (for non-Jews) or have your entire world rocked (for Jews). At the very least, please check out the 2-1/2 minute trailer. (BTW, it isn't streaming anywhere. You have to pay $5 and watch it on their website.) It was released last year, prior to Oct. 7, but is nevertheless extremely relevant to today's struggles.
Pitch complete. Thank you for your attention.
J.T.M. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: In my opinion, an under-considered factor in the ongoing college protests about Israel-Palestine is ideology. This generation of students has been heavily influenced by various grievance theories. It seems they are simply (inappropriately, in my opinion) applying anti-racial/colonial ideology to a situation that really doesn't fit that narrative. The issue is very complex and is being simplified by this ideology to a binary choice. This, again in my opinion, is an underlying problem with this ideology in its many guises.
That being said, I also have to add that I disagree with the blanket accusations of antisemitism. There are undoubtedly elements of it embedded in the protests. But if my above premise is correct, the protests are not inherently antisemitic. Using that accusation has, for years, been a blanket way to shut down any (including legitimate) criticism of Israel and that seems to be how it is being used now as well.
J.E. in Manhattan, NY, writes: I saw the questions—some pretty loaded—about the protests, and I want to lay out a couple of things that I think many readers who are less conversant with the history of protest miss.
My bona fides: Besides covering the occasional demonstration, my father was deeply involved in the antiwar protests of the 1960s, and his father is the reason you can plead the Fifth when questioned in front of Congress. My maternal grandparents were also deeply involved in the Civil Rights Movement as far back as the 1930s, when the very first desegregation efforts were mounted in Colorado—this was because not only were Black students barred from certain businesses but Asian students also. We have, in our family, a rather long history of this.
In any case, there's a couple of things about protests—both those of the past and those of the present—that people should understand.
First the "outside agitators" characterization is really a way of delegitimizing any protest at all. White officials in the South were quick to blame "outside agitators" and "communists" for the demonstrations led by Black people. There were two implications: The first was that absent any outside influence, Black people were perfectly happy to tolerate the daily indignities and horrors (things like lynchings and rape) that white citizens had no qualms about visiting on them daily. The second implication was that Black people were so stupid that they could never protest themselves or advocate for themselves. In the current moment, there's this idea that students of any stripe "don't know enough" to be protesting, as though "wars of ethnic cleansing are bad" is some kind of super-complex policy wonk argument. It isn't. And many students are taking a principled stand that what the Israeli government is doing now and has done in the past is wrong, especially given that the U.S. has been complicit in it for decades. This includes, by the way, a very large number of Jewish students, and Jewish people, who have said that this is not something to do in our name. And let me cut off one line that I hear far too much of: "Why weren't they protesting Hamas/Russia/[insert here] before?" Well, Hamas isn't getting any money from my taxes. The Israeli government is. Hamas wasn't getting aid and support from any government that I, as a protester in the U.S., can affect. The Israeli government is. That Hamas is a bad organization for a lot of reasons doesn't make a war of ethnic cleansing in my name a good thing.
Second, and related to the first, while there is antisemitism in leftist spaces, it's not the fundamental position of the protesters (see above about the involvement of Jewish students, and organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace). Within many leftist movements there was, and continues to be, active discussion of how to root that out, just as there is active discussion in rooting out racist ideas. More importantly for this discussion, the Israeli government and the Jewish people are not the same thing. Jewish people have the right to exist. The Israeli government? Not so much in its current form, any more than the South African government or the government of Alabama in the 50s had the right to exist in that way. Conflating the two is exactly what antisemites do, and it's a deal with the devil that Israeli government propagandists have made for a very long time. I don't conflate being Jewish with Israel because while it may be the point of origin for the Jewish people, that does not mean that creating an ethnostate based on 19th century notions of blood and soil is or was a good thing. And such notions were explicit in much of what (to name one) Theodor Herzl wrote about founding Israel to begin with. If other readers have trouble understanding this position, I would ask if the same reasoning applies to Black people as to Jewish people. After all, Black people have suffered as much as Jewish people over the centuries—Jewish people weren't shipped en masse to work in the fields of the South. Should we create a Black ethnostate in Africa? We tried that. It turned out that being colonized isn't something people take well even if the colonizers can say they have ancestors from that same part of the world. (James Baldwin, by the way, was very clear about why western powers supported the creation of a Jewish state at the expense of the Arabs living there. It's worth listening to him.)
Third, many readers ask why students don't protest in "the right way"—let me offer a little history here. During the anti-war and civil rights protests 60 years back, there were a lot of casualties and the fact is the same notion got trotted out. A protest is designed to register people's dissatisfaction with the status quo and to show the powers that be that continuing their course of action is a bad idea by making it hard to continue said policy. Or, as my father put it, the purpose of a strike is to stop production. The purpose of protests of various kinds is similar—it is not to politely ask, it is to demand and disrupt.
It's worth noting that the civil rights protests weren't aimed at convincing white people that Black people deserved to be treated as humans—most white people, according to the polls, were against giving full civil rights to Black people right up until the mid 60s. What they did do was force desegregation and the passage of the Civil Rights Act because the U.S. was being internationally embarrassed. At the time, the U.S. was vying for influence in the global south, and it's rather hard to convince countries full of brown people that you're worth working with if within your borders people who look like them are effectively not allowed full citizenship. Eisenhower didn't send troops to force desegregation because it was the right thing to do, he did it because it was clear that segregation and, more broadly, the treatment of minorities in the U.S. was making our government look very bad.
And I should add that literally none of the current protests so far became violent until one of two things happened: the cops were called or right-wing pro-Israel counterprotestors showed up. The windows at Columbia weren't broken until the police came to smash their way in. And the recent unrest has been effective; the Biden administration would have done nothing to even mildly criticize the Israelis without it. It's also notable that the response from universities is more extreme than it was in the 60s—when my father was involved in demonstrations at UW Madison, few were threatened with expulsion, for example. Nobody calls the police on ineffective protests (or those with whom the powers that be agree—Has anyone noticed that the Proud Boys seem able to hold rallies without ever getting roughed up? Though I suspect it's because of the not insignificant numbers of cops who are members of similar organizations).
Fourth, the idea that this is only a thing at "elite" universities is simply wrong. Columbia gets the press, but there are other, public schools that have had large demonstrations, UCLA being one, CUNY being another. The same was true in the 1960s—the largest and earliest demonstrations were at schools that served working class or first-generation college students (the first teach-ins were at places like the University of Wisconsin Madison, ca. 1961 and '62). Columbia, Harvard, Yale and all the Ivies were really late to that party and they are late to this one. The reason Columbia and places like it get press is because when you've lost the students at Columbia (or Harvard), you've lost a very important group of people because they were the ones being groomed for leadership positions in the future. The foreign policy establishment especially is drawn, by and large, from a very small number of institutions and organizations (go through the bios of important State Department officials and it's fascinating how small their world really is). When you lose the political support of people you are grooming to take certain jobs, it means that you're going to have to change tack on policy and there are lots of reasons people are reluctant to do that.
Also, from a Palestinian perspective, whether Joe Biden or Donald Trump is in the White House currently makes no difference. I don't think electing an outright fascist (Trump, here) is a good thing for anybody, but on this particular issue there is one candidate who matters and the goal is to convince him that continuing to offer tacit and material support to the Israelis is not a good plan. When people say that Biden may lose as a result of this, I ask if that isn't the whole point of a leader who is responsive to voters? That he might change his mind if threatened with an electoral loss? I—and many others who feel that the unconditional support of Israel for decades was a bad idea—are well aware that Biden may decide loss of the youth vote and Black voters can be made up somewhere else, and of the odd consequences of the Electoral College. It's also possible that the maintenance of hegemony is far more important to Biden than even his own re-election. But all of this is on Biden, not the protesters.
R.V. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: I'm not sure what to make of the student protests going on throughout the country. For a group (age wise) that you have to beg and plead just to get them to vote in elections, now all of a sudden they're passionate about peace in the Middle East? A cynical person would say many of these students are just protesting to get noticed - perhaps become an influencer, get noticed by a casting agent, get likes and clicks, "hook up" with other students, etc.
Sure, they have every right to protest, but these are not the protests that occurred during the Vietnam War on campuses. Not only was that an unpopular war, but those kids were drafted and sent there to fight. You saw the reasoning during Vietnam protests; what, exactly, is the end game with the 2024 protests?
And as far as them chanting "Fu** Joe Biden," well, if these students think a Donald Trump presidency will make their lives better in any way shape or form, perhaps they should put down the pot and turn down the loud music, because Don Trump doesn't give a DAMN about anybody other than his fat self. Trump would probably encourage the military to shoot protestors; he would WANT another Kent State. Students will really have plenty to protest if Trump gets elected again. You could pick from abortion, climate, Middle East, student loan forgiveness, etc. because Trump ain't forgiving any debt, and wait until you see what the federal government will look like when Trump purges thousands of workers to install Trump-friendly robots in their place. There is not one thing these students are going to like about a second Trump term—not one G** D*** Fu**ing thing.
K.I. in Sacramento, CA, writes: I was a student at Columbia College (class '86) when the April 1985 anti-apartheid protests occurred. Then, as now, the protest went on for 3 weeks and the door to Hamilton Hall was chained up and renamed "Mandela Hall." The incessant chanting, day and night, was:
"Trustees!
You know!
South African stocks have got to go!"The campus remained open for classes. The standoff ended through negotiation of lawyers on both sides without the need for police action. No windows were broken. No students were expelled. Columbia actually agreed to divest from companies doing business in South Africa. Cooler heads prevailed and Columbia avoided a public relations embarrassment.
The end to the current protest seems a microcosm of the exaggerated polarization in society now, as compared to the good old 1980s.
B.S. in Charleston, SC, writes: Wow, that comment from M.O. in Sacramento was... inflammatory. And I have to take issue with two implications from these sentiments.
First, 34,500 people have died in Gaza so far, with approximately 12,000 of them being children. Think about that... For every one person killed during Hamas' attack on Israel, 10 children have died in Gaza. Collective punishment is still a war crime, and there simply is no justification for the staggering number of innocent people dying in Gaza. Those numbers are only going to increase over the next several months as famine sets into the region.
But the second, and frankly most disgusting, issue is the conflation between criticism of the Israeli government and antisemitism. It is absolutely acceptable to call out the Israeli government—run by a corrupt politician desperately clinging to his power by aligning with far-right extremist factions—for unleashing a brutal campaign of death and destruction upon a people who don't even support the militants who unleashed the attack in the first place.
How does criticism of a government (that is supposed to be secular) now equate to antisemitism? Or can Israel do no wrong, deserving truly unconditional support through any of their actions?
I welcome the day when a politician asks a very simple question: What benefit does our support of Israel bring the United States? At this point, all I see are negatives. (And please, spare me the evangelism.)
J.E. in San Jose, CA, writes: M.O. in Sacramento has proved you can infer anything from others' actions.
Exhibit A to disprove M.O.'s allegations is this item from November about why Israel is not practicing genocide, a piece I continue to reference to the few who will consider opposing viewpoints. It doesn't mean they are behaving, but when you use a strong word for less-strong circumstances, it diminishes that word's power.
Having said that, M.O., I am not here to say you are right or wrong. I appreciate your point of view because it inspires me to consider my own. I do want to ask whether you are getting your information from a variety of sources. Turning away from people you disagree with is not going to help you understand other points of view. You don't have to change your mind just because someone disagrees of course. But how do you think they feel after taking the time to hear your opinion, when you share it?
Unlike some topics du jour, being objective is definitely a both-sides issue and, again, not unique to M.O. It can be a real challenge to understand what is happening without applying one's own bias to it. But it can be done, if you truly want to have empathy for others. I hope M.O.'s letter can inspire us all to be better, no matter how good we are now.
As for me, I still am neutral on the topic. It just looks like another holy war to me, of which all sadden me. I enjoy learning about the political aspects of them, which is probably why I enjoy the coverage on this site more than elsewhere.
Despite my desperate attempts to receive balanced news, it has been a challenge to understand the pro-Israel side, except for Electoral-Vote.com. And, I would say objectivity—in some cases, devil's advocacy, you might say—cannot be found elsewhere.
S.H. in Hanoi, Vietnam, writes: M.O. in Sacramento gets in at least one cheap shot at (Z) while alleging an antisemitic bias in Electoral-Vote.com's coverage about the war between Israel and Gaza, and the ensuing U.S. campus protests ostensibly aimed at a ceasefire. As there are likely many non-Jewish readers of the site, I want them to hear feedback from a Jewish reader with a different take. While I don't presume to speak for my fellow Jewish brothers and sisters, I not only don't agree with the substance of M.O.'s letter, I'm offended by the borderline belligerent tone.
As I have written before, I have appreciated (V) and (Z)'s efforts to make some sense of the situation to readers who do not follow Middle East politics closely and who have little knowledge of the deep history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. They have both made clear, on more than one occasion, that they are not experts in this field, and that the purpose of the site is (mainly) to discuss the U.S. domestic political situation. They do this so well that I have been reading this site on a daily basis for years, and it has become part of my daily routine, as it has for thousands of other readers who not only appreciate the analysis, but also the moral clarity, as well as the lack of browbeating seen in M.O.'s letter, with which they approach any given topic.
With that said, I also want the non-Jewish audience to be aware that there have been a few instances in which we Jewish readers have had to catch our collective breath—and in this case, my guess (though it is a guess) is that I am speaking for the majority of the Jewish readership of E-V.com, whatever their views about the situation in Gaza—which, to be clear, has a very wide range within the Jewish community, especially the US Jewish community.
Perhaps the most disturbing (though very subtle) moment where it felt like Jews were being characterized in what can only be described as an icky manner came when (Z) wrote the item "Columbia Mess Turns Into a Political Football." In that piece, (Z) noted that Robert Kraft, a wealthy Columbia alumnus who is Jewish, had pulled his funding to the university.
It was the framing of this news that gave pause, as (Z) explained the potential impact of this decision by saying that "the fact is that there are a lot of well-heeled donors who are pro-Israel, and not so many who are pro-Palestine."
While there may indeed be several well-heeled university donors like Kraft who are "pro-Israel," the sentence creates two impressions: first, Jews exert disproportionate influence through money; and second, there is very little official institutional support for Arab-oriented viewpoints on U.S. campuses. American gentile readers who have not been educated to hate Jews may not immediately see the connection, but this type of impression is precisely the kind of imagery in which Jews were portrayed for centuries in Europe, and is in some sense the analog of Donald Trump's portrayal of Mexicans as drug-addled rapists.
The second assertion, that the donor money is all one-sided in favor of Israel, is also a highly selective reading of the current state of U.S. university funding. In fact, the funding of US universities from authoritarian Arab governments almost certainly dwarfs the total amount that comes from Israel and Jewish donors: This article from University World News notes that "[b]etween 2014 and 2019, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates donated at least US $4.4 billion to numerous U.S. colleges." To take but one example, Georgetown University has a well-established program with the government of Qatar, and this is only the most prominent example of various institutes, endowed chairs, and whole departments that have been underwritten by Middle Eastern governments whose relationship to the conflict between Israel and Gaza can only be considered pro-Palestinian.
While there may not be a one-to-one correspondence between these donations and, say, overt support for Hamas, the key takeaway is that U.S. institutions of higher education are not only not controlled by Jews, there is considerable and ever-increasing university support coming from countries that have little sympathy for a Jewish state and, in several cases, Jews in general.
Let me be very clear: I don't believe (Z) actually thinks this about Jews; my point was this is how it came out on the page, and how readers not highly sensitized to this might have some unhelpful subliminal images reinforced as the heated rhetoric around Israel, Gaza, and the campus protests continue to swirl.
Another example where the conversation seemed to shift from legitimate critique of Israel into something more sinister was in the decision to publish the letter from J.C. from Ulaanbaatar in the April 7 Sunday mailbag without further comment. J.C. advocated for a "United Israel of Palestine," which is euphemism for the elimination of the Jewish homeland in much the same way that "anti-Zionism" is euphemism for Jew hatred, and which contains various misrepresentations of Arab-Israeli history worthy of the type of reasoning this readership would normally associate with a Trump supporter's justification for the January 6 insurrection. A second letter that day, also by J.C., characterized Christianity as a critique of Judaism, which is an assertion that contains what I would regard as antisemitic reasoning, but which may have been missed by the casual reader unaware of the history of early Christianity and the end of paganism in antiquity, as well as the subsequent history of European Christian antisemitism (but which nevertheless reared its head this week in Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene's (R-GA) comments on the antisemitism bill).
I am aware that (V) and (Z) cannot be in the business of refereeing every single letter that comes their way, and I have generally applauded their restraint as they have taken a "let the readers decide" approach to evaluating the merits of reader comments. But they do sometimes feel compelled to either reply directly to some letters, and they do feel the need to place certain published comments in context. In my opinion, their decision to let J.C.'s gaslighting stand on its own, without pointing out to readers just how radical a proposition it is, and one that almost certainly be not be published without commentary if the proposition were the elimination of some other ethnic or religious group's homeland, was difficult to swallow. It is certainly possible that other Jewish readers read these letters differently than me, but I found their inclusion disturbing.
Finally, I would note that (V) and (Z) often turn to expert readers on particular topics—there have been the comments from R.E.M. and other lawyers on legal matters, the analysis of the politics of the British government from readers in the U.K., the perspectives of A.B. in Wendell on matters relating to the trans community, and so forth. I haven't seen thus far anyone provide such commentary from within the Jewish community sought out as an authority on, for instance, the rank antisemitism that has swept U.S. college campuses—and there are definitely Jewish U.S. collegiate readers of this website. Similarly I've read no UK-style explanations about Israeli politics, for which there may indeed be, if not experts, then at least highly informed laypeople.
It's possible I've misunderstood the way in which (V) and (Z) reach out, and that these perspectives are more driven by the readers themselves than (V) and (Z) asking for opinions. And because I have been so sensitive on this matter since October 7, perhaps I've overreacted. But it feels like an omission. And to be clear, I'm not asking for propagandistic advocacy, but rather the kind of informed analysis that makes Electoral-Vote.com my daily reading, which at present I have zero plans to give up, whatever M.O.'s assertions of bias to the contrary.
(V) & (Z) respond: For the record, (Z) wrote the sentence you quote very carefully, so as to capture the reality at UCLA (and surely at other places) that there are both Jewish pro-Israel donors and conservative Christian pro-Israel donors. If you doubt it, look and see who the hospital is named for.
As to recruiting people to comment on the Israel situation, there is no question that a lawyer can speak to the law, that a trans person can speak to the experience of trans people, or that a Briton can speak to happenings in British politics. The situation in Israel is so heated, however, that there is enormous risk of ending up with someone (or several someones) whose commentary is less about illumination, and more about soapboxing. And we don't quite have the expertise to judge which is which. Further, if we give a platform to one or more Jewish perspectives, then what about Palestinian perspectives? But then, finding someone would run into the same problem. That said, note that there are something like 5,000 words' worth of perspective on Israel from self-identified Jewish readers on this very page right now.
M.B. in Overland Park, KS, writes: I hope I'm not the only one that thinks that the overuse of the term antisemitic has become supremely annoying. It certainly seems that anyone who says anything mildly critical of Israel, no matter how mundane, is now routinely labeled as such.
And this from otherwise seemingly intelligent people!
I, for one—not that I can even claim to be an intelligent person—don't have any problems parsing a criticism against Israeli actions from the religious followers of Judaism as a whole. This name-calling and accusatory stance is being flung by far too many. I stand up for, and have sympathy for, my Jewish friends, colleagues, and family members. However, as of late I've been, just as (Z) has been by M.O. in Sacramento, called a bigot without justification solely because I say something that is critical of Israel, or don't whole-heartedly embrace the premise that Israel is completely justified in its killing of innocent people in retaliation for a terrorist attack. Suddenly, simply being non-supportive of the Israeli government is now considered antisemitism to these folks.
I've lowered my opinion of a good many people due to this far-too-casually-flung accusation. It can't be a "My country, right or wrong" world any longer. And for most people I've heard this accusation from, it's not even their country at all. These are people I previously had thought of as being quite educated and whom I believed had a well-developed sense of balance and fairness. These knee-jerk accusations of antisemitism have caused me to see these people in a similar manner to those Fox enthusiasts that chant "USA" repeatedly, and always seem to be whining that there is a war on Christmas.
Let's stop calling each other antisemites when we're generally supportive of another's religious beliefs to be protected, but disagree with an extremist government and extremist segment of a religion using their powers to oppress others. It's not bigotry to be opposed to Israel. It's not bigotry to be opposed to the killing of Palestinians. I'd be opposed to any country, group, or organization taking the actions Israel has taken. Accusing your friends and supposed allies of antisemitism is not going to win their continued support, nor make you appear to be a fair-minded person in their future perceptions.
K.C. in West Islip, NY, writes: I was pleased to be able to take a walk down memory lane when you linked to the posting from (Z)'s first day at my favorite source for political insights.
As soon as I clicked, my eyes drew directly to where you referred to Donald Trump as "not a serious candidate." Oh how I wish that assertion had been true then, as I wish that assertion was also true now. I think it speaks volumes to just how dangerous that thinking is, as we're seeing poll after poll showing anywhere from a tight race to Trump mopping the electoral floor with President Biden.
I think this needs to be a constant reminder to those seeking to punish Biden for not being progressive enough by withholding their votes or voting for someone like Bobby Jr., Jill Stein or Cornel West. Let's be serious, for a moment—and this moment, this election, is as serious as a heart attack. There's a time for making a statement and a time where making a statement is irresponsible. In a two-party system as it is, sometimes you vote for someone but at other times you must vote against someone. Donald Trump won an election he himself didn't expect to win because so many people simply couldn't believe he was a serious candidate and the monster which was born that day needs desperately to be defeated.
Many have written to the Sunday mailbag talking of why they're voting third-party, and not to reanimate a dead horse, but I think it's absolutely incumbent on everyone who has a stake in our future to get the full picture of why those statement votes are not in the best interest of America and Americans. If we don't free this country from the grip of the MAGA movement it'll cease to be a movement and be the permanent norm. What may well have started out as a "not serious" candidacy has turned into arguably the biggest internal threat our country and her people—male, female, straight, LGBTQ+, old, young, Black, white, Asian, indigenous, you name it—has ever faced.
E.M. in Milwaukee, WI, writes: I am certain that you and many readers already know this, but...
If Donald Trump wins the 2024 election, not only will he attempt to make the U.S. a fascist state, but I promise that he will try to be "president for life." Authoritarian rulers never truly step down until they are in the grave (See: Putin, V. and Mugabe, R.). Trump will fear prosecution for the rest of his life and the Constitution be damned about it!
J.N. in Columbus OH, writes: You wrote:
Anyhow, for the third election in a row, Trump has set up his own, political Catch-22. Trump claims he will accept the election result, if it is honest. This ostensibly fools some people into believing he is being fair and reasonable. However, the "proof" of an honest election for him is a Trump victory. So, while he theoretically would accept an "honest" Biden victory, there is no satisfactory proof, for him and his acolytes, of an honest Biden win. So, there is no actual circumstance in which he will accept a Biden win. Catch-22!Heck, there isn't even any proof satisfactorily for him to prove a TRUMP win! He's still on record bashing the 2016 election for fraud.
R.T. in Arlington, TX, writes: Lately, I've been trying to gird my MESH (mental, emotional, social health) to handle the possibility of a second Donald Trump presidency. I can't live in hope that a 2024 Biden win is anything more than a coin toss, and even if Trump loses in 2024 he will likely come back again and again until he wins or he dies. I'm not saying we should let him win this time to just get past him, only that we have a long time ahead with him in our headspace. Even if he wins this time and becomes term-limited, he wouldn't follow tradition and step out of the light for his successor. So, president or not, it looks like we are stuck with him for a long while.
So, what to do? Here are some first stabs at keeping my sanity: (1) DT is mercurial and will do some bad/dumb things, but he is not receptive to outside influence, even by people that should be trusted advisors. That is some protection from cunning manipulators like the Heritage Foundation. (2) The American system of government has strong built-in mechanisms to resist change. Power is distributed across the three branches, the senior civil service, and the top echelons of the military. So things can only change so fast, whether for good or bad. (3) Some of our worst fears, like the federal deficit crashing the economy, just never seem to manifest themselves. COVID was a tough stretch, but we came through OK.
D.A.Y. in Troy, MI, writes: Seeing the discussions in Saturday's questions and the general discourse about the polls, I am reminded of my mother's stories about cooking for her brothers. They would complain bitterly about how bad a cook she is and how could she be allowed to cook while they greedily shoveled said food into their mouths.
I do wonder if there is sizable number of people who fully intend to vote for Joe Biden and the Democrats in November, but tell pollsters otherwise because they are unhappy about certain things. What one says to a pollster does not have any real consequences, so it is a place to safely vent frustrations. Weaker polling numbers might also drive some policy decisions.
I see the special elections as a better indicator of where the country is and the Democrats are consistently over-performing the polls by sizeable margins. I will be paying close attention to the special elections in Republican seats. If those races are a lot closer than they should be or if the Democrat pulls an upset in one or more of them, then the Republicans could well be in for a very long and painful night on November 5th.
M.A.K. in London, England, UK, writes: You wrote:
Todd Blanche is a good enough attorney to know that you want to keep both the judge happy and the client happy. The problem is that with this particular client, that is none too easy. During the gag order discussion, Blanche had to concede a number of points that were raised by the judge and that were critical of Trump's behavior. This was necessary, since Blanche has already pushed his luck in terms of credibility with the Judge. But admitting to Trump's bad behavior in open court visibly angered the former president.English lawyers have a code phrase reserved for when their client is insisting they say something to the judge which will actually harm their case; it's something along the lines of "Your Honour, I have been instructed that...", or "My instructions are that..." What they're really saying when they deploy it is, "I am obliged to say this incredibly stupid thing because my client has specifically instructed me to say it even though I advised him it was incredibly stupid, but I want you to know that I also know it's utter twaddle and I'm only saying it because I have to." Do American lawyers not have something similar? It seems like it would have seen a lot of use in this trial if they did...
M.L. in Franklin, MA, writes: You had me laughing and smiling all day! Vonshitzinpants, who famously creates cruel nicknames that demean and insult those who oppose him, is owned by his former fixer with the worst nickname of them all. (V) and (Z), can you retire all other names for The Defendant and just call him Vonshitzinpants for the rest of the year? I'll even accept vSIP.
I'm still smiling.
D.M.R. in Omaha, NE, writes: I REALLY hate defending Trump, but you wrote "Trump, who reportedly did not attend any of his other children's high school graduations..."
According to Snopes, this rumor is false and Snopes claims that they have documented proof that Trump did indeed attend graduation ceremonies for all of his kids.
In part: "An extensive search by Snopes provides documented evidence of Trump attending all of his children's high school and college graduations."
M.M. in San Jose, CA, writes: Since Trump Media and Technology Group merged with Trump's special purpose acquisition corporation (SPAC), and began trading under ticker symbol DJT, investors have been astonished at how well the stock performs. In spite of having demonstrated losses of around $60M/year and minimal prospects for the future, the stock is trading at close to $50/share. By conventional valuation methods, the stock is worth about $7/share—mostly for its cash in the bank. What is keeping the price high? Who is buying it? Can the price continue to defy gravity?
The short answer is that no one knows. A reasonable conjecture is this: A person or group wishes the price to stay high. This is easy enough if you have the money. DJT has an unusually small float (stock that is available for trading). It's about 50,000 shares right now, because most of its shares are restricted and can't be sold yet (notably, Trump himself has to hold on until September before he can sell). To keep the price high, just offer to buy at $50/share and keep buying until you own the entire float. Then no one can offer shares at a lower price. This can be done for just $2.5 million (i.e., less than recent civil judgments)! Probably Trump himself could do it.
So what happens in September? Undoubtedly, the floodgates will open and lots of shares will be sold. The holder of the float will lose their entire investment. A choice presents itself: Either our floater holds on until Trump can offer his stock for sale, or they offer the float a few days before that happens. Either way, Trump avoids the embarrassment of being delisted in the middle of a campaign. Probably that is why they made the investment to begin with. Either way, none of the shares can be sold for $50 because everyone knows they are worth $7 and no one will offer. Or will they?
Buying DJT stock in September could be a way to make a large, unrecorded campaign contribution and perhaps gain favor with the candidate. Buying all the stock at $50/share would cost about $4 billion, though, which is a pretty enormous campaign contribution. More likely there would be some buying from the general public as a way of throwing something in the collection plate.
So what could make DJT valuable, actually valuable? If Trump becomes president and uses Truth Social as his main communication outlet (like Twitter in his first term), that could force enough users to Truth Social to make it profitable. Advertisers would return and users would pay the higher subscription fees. We'll know by January 20, 2025.
J.L. in Paterson, NJ, writes: I agree with your answer to E.S. in Atlanta that a president with immunity could find at least one soldier to carry out an assassination of an opponent. Alternatively, the president could find a civilian (a zealot or a hired hitman) to do the deed in the District of Columbia. The pardon power doesn't extend to state crimes like murder, but the president can pardon someone convicted in a military court-martial or in the District's courts.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: I'm no JAG officer, but as an Army veteran who sat through a number of training sessions on the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and my responsibilities under it, I'm going to strongly disagree with your characterization of a presidential order to assassinate someone. It is illegal, under state law, federal law, AND the UCMJ, to murder someone, and getting an order to do so is not a defense. It doesn't matter whether the person issuing that order is never held accountable for it, or indeed can't be held accountable for it, it's still illegal for me to follow it. As example, I point to the enlisted folk who were tried for mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. The concept of an illegal order is not about the culpability, or lack thereof, of the person issuing the order.
(V) & (Z) respond: And yet, Osama bin Laden was killed on orders from Barack Obama. Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis were killed on orders from Trump. Clearly a president can order an assassination, if the circumstances are right.
A.L. in Highland Park, NJ, writes: Thank you for your piece on Gov. Kristi Noem's (R-SD) recounting of her dog-shooting incident, and the various responses to it. Yes, Noem has a tin ear and should have realized how the story would land. On the dog-killing spectrum, she landed closer to Michael Vick than to Atticus Finch.
However, this is not isolated to Noem. I had a similar experience of proceeding blithely, not realizing the times had changed (I cringe as I recount this story). When I was a student, instructors in Statistical Physics would routinely start off by mentioning how many of the pioneering names in the field had perished by their own hands: Ludwig Boltzmann, William James, Paul Ehrenfest, Gilbert Lewis (there are probably others).
The instructor would pause, and then say something like "we best proceed with caution." Chuckles.
A few years ago, I was teaching an undergraduate thermodynamics and statistical physics course. Of course I repeated the bit about the suicides and "let's be careful as we approach this topic, ha ha." I flashed a picture of Boltzmann's tombstone with the carving of his famous equation that links 19th century thermodynamics to 20th century quantum mechanics. There was absolute silence. I squirmed in discomfort. Thankfully, this was near the end of lecture, so I hurriedly made my exit. Later I was discussing this with a TA, and mentioned Boltzmann was at the height of scientific and popular renown at the time of his suicide. He said, "yeah, dude was obviously in a lot of pain." I realized how differently mental health is thought about today, and how my comments might have sounded to someone who was struggling with depressive thoughts.
Society in general has (thankfully) become more empathetic. The big-ticket items are obvious: systemic racism, misogyny, homophobia and transphobia are exposed and rightly condemned. So are animal cruelty, and making light of mental health struggles, as Noem and I respectively found out. The difference is I completely understood, apologized, and fixed my approach, while Noem seems to be doubling down on puppy-killing justifications.
E.R. in Colorado Springs, CO, writes: I was surprised and disappointed about the special attention you gave to the Kristi Noem dog story this weekend. I will grant you that it was a big story across social media, but one of the reasons I enjoy your site so much is because of your consistent ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. By simply waiting a day to post, you seem able to take a bit of a step back and provide more meaningful context to the stories you cover. Combine that with the fact that you have a strong understanding of politics and history, and you routinely provide some nice perspective so often absent from the breathless, superficial media coverage we are all inundated with.
But with the Noem story, you seemed to move away from your strength. During a week when we had a former President on trial for felony charges and a ground-breaking case being heard at the Supreme Court regarding potential immunity of presidents, you chose to make an exception to your self-imposed posting ban to cover the story of a small-state governor shooting her dog long ago.
Really? Not only does this seem like one of those issues that virtually no one will remember in a year, but it is intrinsically insignificant. It's just something that gets people riled up. It reminds me of the flavor-of-the-week culture war fodder (Elmo, M&Ms, stoves, fake meat, etc.) routinely employed so often by the right these days. Please continue your efforts to stay above the fray.
(V) & (Z) respond: Readers can evaluate the rest of your letter for themselves, but we will tell you that you can be 100% certain this incident won't be forgotten in a year, or even in 10 years. Look at the Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) dog story, or the Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) dog story, which have lingered for years. And those dogs lived.
B.H. in Frankfort, IL, writes: The late columnist Sydney J. Harris wrote, "Stupidity is not knowing the consequences of your own actions." There are so many levels of stupid in the "Noem shoots pets" story, it's hard to know where to start. I have never trained a hunting dog, but I have heard from trainers who say they don't start training a dog to hunt until they're 2 years old and through the adolescent stage. Apparently Noem never talked to a trainer. If she knew the dog was unruly, why wasn't the dog on a leash? In a crate? As far as the unfortunate goat is concerned, intact male goats smell bad to humans and behave aggressively. So, if you're not breeding goats, then have the goat castrated. Horses? A vet will humanely euthanize an old, ailing horse, but the Governor didn't think of that.
These MAGA folks are all from the "Ready, Fire, Aim" school of problem solving. Now, Cricket the dog and the unfortunate goat and horses will get their revenge. Noem's chances of ever holding national office are about the same as the White Sox's chances of playing in the 2024 postseason.
I also have to think about Noem's daughter, who exited the school bus and asked her mother, "Where's Cricket?" Stupid parents also pay a price. They just don't know what the price is or when it will come due.
P.K. in Marshalltown, IA, writes: As someone who still misses his beloved shihpoo Ernesto Dynamite, I was thinking of politicians, dogs, and the cinema. Mitt Romney's dog incident is something out of Vacation and he takes the role of Clark Griswold. Kristi Noem is something out of John Wick.
W.S. in Austin, TX, writes: Granted that this is probably true:
Speaking of dogs, it was obvious to us that when the news broke about Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD) shooting her dog, her VP hopes were officially done.Still, it's interesting to combine it with this:
a long-standing rumor that Trump lost effective control of his bowels many years agoAnd speculate about what Noem might do, should she be made VP and then discover that Trump cannot be housebroken.
(V) & (Z) respond: It is worth noting that according to the legal theory being advanced by Trump's lawyers, a VP who "solved" that problem in the manner you imply would become president, and thus immune from prosecution for their crime.
H.K. in Seattle, WA, writes: You wrote: "Any organization that pushes D.E.I. hard is effectively going to discriminate against white men."
This is not quite right, although I can see why "certain people" might feel that way. Any organization that pursues D.E.I. effectively is going to stop discriminating in favor of white men.
M.L. in West Hartford, CT, writes: In today's post, you wrote: "Any organization that pushes D.E.I. hard is effectively going to discriminate against white men." I disagree. Some white men may experience it as discrimination, but that may be because, as the saying goes, "To those accustomed to privilege, equality can feel like oppression."
The intent of DEI programs is to help to level the playing fields for those who are not white men, and have therefore been discriminated against in this country for centuries (and continue to be).
I have no doubt that you can probably find examples where individuals or institutions have taken DEI programs in directions that most of us would not agree with. But it seems to me to be an overreaction to say that any organization with a strong commitment to DEI programs and processes is discriminating against white men.
W.R.S. in Tucson, AZ, writes: "Any organization that pushes D.E.I. hard is effectively going to discriminate against white men. Hiring is generally a zero-sum game, after all."
This appears to assume that in the status quo people are fairly represented in hiring practices. If white men are currently receiving preferential treatment, even unconsciously, then promoting diversity isn't discrimination against them. It's the removal of an unfair advantage.
Additionally, hiring is, in my understanding, only a portion of the DEI concept. Another part (the I, Inclusion) has to do with creating an environment at the office that lets all employees know they will be heard and supported. It can hardly be called "discrimination against white men" to create a workplace culture where, for instance, black women feel their voices are heard, understood, and appreciated.
Saying that pushing DEI hard de facto causes discrimination against white men sounds a lot like a right-wing talking point. And I say this as a white man who is currently trying to find a better job.
(V) & (Z) respond: We were not expressing our opinion here, we were setting up the very next sentence, which was: "Not surprisingly, D.E.I. has led to a backlash."
D.B. in Mountain View, CA, writes: F.F. in London asked about American exceptionalism in innovation, and claimed that there aren't any European top tech companies. ASML in (V)'s adopted country of the Netherlands, is the maker of more than half the world's photolithography machines (used in chip-making) and is a top tech company by any definition.
T.C. in Columbia, MD, writes: In response to F.F. in London, England, I would note that TSMC, Samsung and other high-end chip makers are all heavily dependent on photolithography machines researched, developed and manufactured by ASML, headquartered in Veldhoven, the Netherlands.
Without ASML, TSMC wouldn't have anywhere near the dominance they have. Sure, they have excellent engineers working for them, doing extremely interesting work, but they are utterly dependent on ASML to deliver the next generation of chip fab hardware with which to create their interesting products. Intel prefers to do their chip fab manufacturing R&D in-house and... they simply aren't able to keep up with what TSMC is acquiring from ASML.
Let us not forget that, when the USSR went shopping for tech which would allow them to make their submarines much quieter, back in the 1980s, they went to Toshiba of Japan and Kongsberg of Norway. Kongsberg is currently one of the leading companies with regards to autonomous ships.
If you want a quiet submarine, you probably want to talk to Saab Kockums AB in Sweden. Their Stirling engine Air Independent Propulsion system allows conventional (non-nuclear) submarines to stay submerged for significantly longer periods and with considerably less noise than other such technologies. There was a famous wargame where one of their subs managed to sneak past the defenses of the U.S. Navy and "sink" the USS Ronald Reagan (aircraft carrier). You could argue that they are THE world-class developers of this kind of this tech.
As (V) commented, it's a rather different world in Europe, vs the U.S/Japan. But they do have their market leaders in the tech world.
E.M. in Milwaukee, WI, writes: F.F. in London asked about the reasons that Europe is not an information technology leader. I have known many technologists in Europe and agree with (V). It is perhaps helpful to realize that the French are not socialist because they are radical. They are socialist because they prefer a life where the government protects them from risks. Some European thought leader once said that the reason that there aren't many risk takers in Europe is that most of them emigrated to the U.S. long ago.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: I saw a TV newsmagazine story quite some time ago that hypothesized that risk-taking behavior had a genetic component and that the very existence of the U.S. in the 1800s drew a lot of those risk-taking genes out of Europe. Similar sorting happened within the U.S., as all the risk takers moved to California (first in the Gold Rush, later during the Depression, etc.), and that consequently, the Eastern Seaboard is much more "settled" (for lack of a better word).
My brother, who lived in Boston for awhile, says that in Massachusetts, most people stay pretty close to their family of origin while in the Black Hills (home of another gold rush in 1876), most of the people I went to high school with left the state at some point or another. Whether this phenomenon is actually genetic or not, it is a thing, so much so that I just shake my head every time y'all joke about Kristi Noem being desperate to get out of South Dakota. It's really not that hard.
C.L.C. in Petaluma, CA, writes: In regards to your evaluation of presidents from Harry S. Truman to Ronald Reagan, the precedent of pardoning Richard Nixon rightly ruins the legacy of Gerald Ford. Ever since then, presidents feel that they are above the law. We should use the Roosevelt Principle: "No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor."
A straight line exists from Ford to Trump trying to overthrow the United States of America on 1/6.
This reminds me of the recent death of Joe Lieberman. History remembers Lieberman as the arsehole who killed the public option. History remembers Ford as the arsehole who put presidents above the law. These horrendous acts simply outweigh everything else they ever did. The thing is that they should have seen how history would view their actions. They have none to blame but themselves. At least they did not shoot a puppy!
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: Let us not forget that tough guy St. Ronnie also let Marines die in that truck bombing of our barracks in Lebanon with no retaliatory action, and was also very complicit in the heinous, prolonged torture and eventual (after 2 days of drugging and torture) murder of a former United States Marine named "Kiki" Camerena Salazar, a DEA agent who happened to trip across evidence of Iran Contra.
Kiki, his life, his work, his horrid death, and his family were featured in The Last Narc, a series on Paramount Plus. The haunted, tortured souls who knew of this, witnessed this, even performed other torture/murders to fight their side of "The War on Drugs" (War on American Addicts and Veterans with PTSD and Prostituted Girls), their actions, their voices, the pained lives they will probably take with their own hands... all remind me of things I'd rather not remember and things I see in the mirror, hear in the night, and am told by others they see in me and some of my friends from the service and the streets.
Kiki, a United States Marine, died because St. Ronnie and the Christian Right needed to fight their moralistically corrupted war on people who are suffering so that they could feel better about themselves, pack Black people into a prisons-for-profit system that they own stock in, punish young sluts, and force (yet again) raped children to carry their rapists' rape babies to full term.
I didn't used to hate. Now? Every damned day.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: You referenced the Hawley-Smoot Tariff of 1930, once again sending the hearts of U.S. history teachers everywhere racing. Hawley-Smoot, the answer to the question, "Is there any way we can directly export our depression to the rest of the world?"
D.C. in Portland, OR, writes: Finally! My favorite site dips a toe into the editor wars!
The correct answer of course is vi—less "fully featured" or not, (Z)!—because of its command concept which provides a unique "brain-to-text" control not possible with other models.
As an aside, I've heard it said that the very definition of "nerd" is someone who has a favorite text editor, regardless of what it is (except perhaps if that editor is MS Word).
E.M. in Milwaukee, WI, writes: It was charming to learn that both (V) and (Z) edit the site using Emacs derived tools (at least some of the time). My MS thesis was based on software for BibTeX databases running on Emacs lisp. And Richard Stallman spent summers in the room next door... what an odd fish! Never once introduced himself and worked on a Sun workstation in text mode (ick!).
J.M. in Silver Spring, MD, writes: Having read your Q&A on keyboards and editors, I had to chime in on this "computer religious" discussion. I commend both (V) and (Z) on their fine taste in both platform and editors. I am a recently retired software developer of 30+ years. I have never owned any Microsoft products and my first Apple product was a Macintosh SE (double floppy!) from 1987 and they have served me well ever since. As to editors, it's Emacs all the way, baby! :-)
M.D.H in Coralville, IA, writes: I've used many different keyboards over the decades, starting with manual typewriters and IBM Keypunch machines (yes, I learned FORTRAN on punch cards in the Neolithic Age of Computers). The Unicomp keyboards have an excellent reputation and a distinguished lineage: They literally use the original engineering drawings and tooling from the days when IBM made them. Friends with Unicomp keyboards love them. And they are very durable.
However, my most heavily used keyboard for several years has been a Logitech K400. That might be an unexpected choice because it's marketed for couch potatoes using TV-connected computers to watch streaming video. It's basically a wireless keyboard combined with a touchpad (so it's an all-in-one input device).
I use it for my job as a Computational Biologist supported in my lap by a lapdesk atop a small pillow, in front of a desk where my laptop and a large external monitor sit. What I like about this arrangement is that as my focus shifts between email, Slack, etc. on the laptop's display and my current analysis on the external monitor, I can slide my chair left and right without changing the relationship between my body and the keyboard. I also use a trackball, which sits next to the keyboard on the lapdesk.
I've used vi and now gvim for decades. What gvim by itself can't easily do, I do with one-liners combining perl, sort, uniq, cut, and friends. On Windows, I always install Perl and the Perl Power Tools; PPT is a collection of Perl implementations of many common Unix/Linux tools, so many Unix tricks I've known for decades are available to me.
J.S. in Germantown, OH, writes: As a former university physics grad student, I can't tell you how saddened I was that in your response to J.H. in Portland, neither of you admit to using LaTeX (or even raw TeX) to somehow generate your daily posts.
R.M. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: Forgive me... but when I saw this, the first thing I thought of was Electoral-Vote.com:
S.R.G. in Grecia, Costa Rica, writes: I am also a great fan of Catch-22. Fun fact... the original title was Catch-18, but the great Leon Uris book, Mila 18, was just going to press at around the same time. Heller's agent pushed for the change at the last minute, and the catchphrase we know so well was born.
G.M. in Laurence Harbor, NJ, writes: I, too, consider Catch-22 to be my favorite work of fiction. I first read it in high school, in 1963, as I was trying to get in the good graces of a girl who did it as a book report. It later brought me hours of solace, rereading it, as I slogged through my year in Vietnam. Recently, I came across the description of Chaplin Tappman and realized how well it described the ethics of Donald Trump. I can't find it; but it started off with something like, "He realized it was the simplest thing to do..." It continues to describe how Chaplain Tappman realized he could apply his beliefs to any situation by just altering the facts.
K.S. in Baltimore, MD, writes: Thanks for sharing about the drones/land mine project.
Maybe you already know, some Dutch folk have been using rats for this, for years, and have cleaned up lots of areas.
(V) & (Z) respond: For anyone who is not familiar, the rats just find the mines. They are not heavy enough to detonate them, and so are not sent out on de facto suicide missions.
E.G.D.-S. in Davis, CA writes: From a website I follow:
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along. We're planning to do a run of tombstone photos, so if you have those, it's particularly welcome.