Sunday Mailbag

Most weeks, we're not sure what will generate the largest response. This week, to our surprise, it was the Bad Job/Good Job items.

Politics: The 2024 Presidential Race

M.L. in Washington, DC, writes: I'm no fan of Nikki Haley, but she deserves credit for being a high-profile politician who seems to have finally realized that she can drive Trump bonkers simply by fighting fire with fire, e.g. by highlighting her relatively decent primary results in New Hampshire, and attacking Trump's damage to the Republican Party, and especially his age and questionable mental ability. Note the multiple defensive and (naturally) childish responses from Trump in this Washington Post article.

It seems to me that Nikki Haley has finally found the obvious weakness in Trump's armor, which is to simply continue making statements that rile him and that he seems to have no ability to resist defending. I don't know how long she'll hold on in the primary race, but she could continue making these kinds of statements and ribbing Trump for another month, costing her virtually nothing for each utterance, and to which Trump will feel absolutely compelled to defend and belittle. Each bloviating and babbling defense is an opportunity for him to say something damaging or, your-deity-of-choice willing, perhaps suffer an aneurysm.

The New York Times picks up on this as well. I do strongly disagree with the observation from Oldster Magazine editor Sari Botton claiming that it's beneath Haley to attack Trump's age. Nonsense. Trump wants and expects his opponents to take the high road when faced with his [far, far worse] derisions and insults; his targets fall for this again and again. No, the answer is to attack him where he can't stand to be attacked, and perhaps Haley has finally realized this. She'll bring similar attacks against Joe Biden, but he's not stupid enough to take the bait and respond with a stammering, "No, I'm not; YOU ARE!", whereas Trump just can't help himself. I suspect his advisors won't be able to stop him from responding, either. Here's hoping that Haley will continue and even enjoy peeling away at this obvious sore spot on Trump's orange exterior.

---

J.W. in Seattle, WA, writes: In her speech after the New Hampshire primary, it seemed to me that Nikki Haley has hit on the "secret sauce" to get at the former guy: Everywhere he goes he creates chaos (I would've said everything he touches turns to s**t), the cheese is sliding off the cracker (I would've said he's a psychopath) and, most effective of all, he's just too old. The last one is a two-fer since it can be applied to President Biden at the same time.

As completely expected, The Former Guy went nuts that Haley dared to say it wasn't over. And why should it be? All she has to do is stay in the race and if (when?) he's in jail or bankrupt or whatever, she'll be ready to go.

Finally, I think the upcoming election is reminiscent of two historical scenarios: One is Taft/Roosevelt/Wilson, wherein Roosevelt (the former guy) couldn't stand having Taft as the candidate and scuttled both their chances. The other is the one we've seen several times in recent years, wherein a few thousand votes in a couple states would have changed the outcome. I'm thinking all the way back to Michael Dukakis, John Kerry and Al Gore. not sure what the upshot of this is, except maybe that campaigns matter.

---

O.E. in Greenville, SC, writes: You responded to K.E. in Newport with this question: "Do you think it is fair that the people of New Hampshire should be able, entirely of their own volition, to permanently lay claim to a place right at the front of the primary election line, thus allowing a small, non-representative state to exercise grossly outsized influence over EVERY competitive presidential nominating contest? Because that is precisely what has happened."

I do not think it's fair, but it's worth noting that both Democrats and Republicans have attempted to put at, or near, the front of the line a state larger, but less representative, in order to weed out challengers to the party establishment. I am, of course, referring to my home state of South Carolina. While I do appreciate the attention we get, as well as my poll-worker salary, I have never in my history backed a winning candidate in any of the presidential primaries I voted for (of both parties). Further, as someone who remembers how the South Carolina primary was run when parties had the main say (and the many poll closings that resulted), I would much prefer a system like New Hampshire. (Sadly, as several states show, some state Democratic and Republican parties are less like their names, and more like anointings or coronations.)

---

D.S. in Nashua, NH, writes: Just wanted to make a small correction to your discussion of the New Hampshire primary election results. The three alternatives that you mention were not write-ins, but were actually on the ballot:

So, they should not have been described as write-ins.

(V) & (Z) respond: Oops, you're obviously right.

---

J.L. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Say what you want about Joe Biden, at least he doesn't wear makeup all the time. While it's too late/early for this week's/next week's Schadenfreude entry, The Lincoln Project was considerate enough to post this photo of Trump taken at a recent New Hampshire rally along with the caption "Name this foundation shade":

Some claimed it was a Photoshop filter, but there is no adjustment that can produce that outcome without also affecting the "no-makeup" areas around the eyes and middle of the ears, which are still Trump's natural bubblegum hue. So no, this photo has not been doctored or nursed.

While this portrait in pigment might not rise/sink to the level of Rudy Giuliani's melting hair dye moment (and really, whatever possibly could?), it was still amusing to see some of the suggested makeup names provided by commenters, among them: "Embalmed," "Commander in Peach," "Capitol Sunset," "Burnt mango," "Covfefe Bronze," "Leatherface" and "Char-a-Lago."

---

A.L. in Highland Park, NJ, writes: In your compilation "DeSantis Chickens Out," you did not mention that you had called his flameout well before he even entered the Republican primary. I do not recall the exact wording, but I believe you analyzed his speeches and found them grating and annoying. You stated unequivocally there was no constituency for a woke-fighter who took on Disney (and lost). Impressive.

Politics: Trump Legal

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I know the $83.3 million in damages awarded to E. Jean Carroll has sucked up most of the headlines, but what I found to be truly mouth-dropping was some advice that Judge Lewis Kaplan gave the jury after the judgment was announced. Remember that the jury in this civil trial, consisting of seven men and two women, has been kept anonymous for the duration of the trial. Like any jury, now that their service is over, they are free to reveal themselves, if they so choose. As he was dismissing the jury, Kaplan said this, "My advice to you is that you never disclose to anyone that you were on this jury." He gave no explanation for his words, but it does not take a huge stretch of the imagination to figure it out, since judges, clerks, prosecutors and jurors in cases against Trump have all faced threats of violence and harassment from his cultists.

What a sorry state of affairs that we live in a nation that the systems of governance that make it great are systematically being destroyed by one man's ego and ignorance. This madness needs to stop!

---

J.G. in Woodridge, IL, writes: As someone who was obsessed with baseball at a young age and who learned to do division by computing batting averages, I think you are off base in how the monetary verdict in the most recent Trump case was determined.

TFG is a self-professed billionaire. And $83.3 million? That number leaped out at me immediately. 83.3 million is (almost) exactly one-twelfth of one billion. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the jury decided to just dock a fraction of Trump's wealth and reasoned backwards from there to make the numbers fit the fraction.

---

R.R. in Pasadena, CA, writes: Last year, I was one of the people that wrote in about jury duty, as I was the foreperson on a civil trial. You answered a question on Saturday about how you think the jury discussion went during the Carroll trial. It's probably not quite as simple as you presented, so let me lay out what happened in my trial.

We reached the verdict (for the plaintiffs), and then were told that we had to determine the award; we didn't know that beforehand, so we were all disappointed we didn't get to leave by lunch after three weeks on duty. After lunch, we had about an hour of presentation by the lawyers, where the plaintiff attorney went through the various options for awards and the defense tried to convince us that we should only award minor damages at most. The defendant had a net worth of about $32 million, and the defense presented that a range of $1-5 million was what they thought was fair; that may have included the compensatory damages instead of just the punitive award, I can't recall for sure anymore. I think we also got instructions about awards that would be rejected, like $32 million was not allowed (you can't take someone for everything they own in this kind of case).

We went back into the jury room, determined to finish that afternoon (so, about 2.5 hours). I let everyone vent for a few minutes, as it was emotional being dragged back, and having people who were having financial issues deciding the fate of millions of dollars caused a bit of angst and crying. We went through the compensatory damages first, and awarded the values given for the property in question. Since we had those values, it wasn't too hard and everyone agreed with it (it was about $1 million total). The difficult part was the punitive damages... a couple of people wanted to award $32 million as a message to predatory real estate developers, and a couple thought that the compensatory damages were enough. I cut off the people trying to go for the whole enchilada, simply because that was not going to be allowed, and then I started asking people how they felt about different numbers to get an idea of where they would fall. In the end, we decided that $8 million was the correct number by majority vote (9 of 12 have to agree in California civil cases like this), we wrote it up, and went out to present the decision. In retrospect, I wish I had systematically gone through numbers and come up with a better average, but from the way we did it I don't think it would have been that much different. And, the dry recitation here really doesn't convey how difficult the whole process was for us; people really did have problems with how to come up with a number, and what those numbers meant, and were thankful that I got us through it quickly.

Having been there, I think I understand what happened in the jury room for the Carroll case. I don't know if they were given a maximum amount they could award, or whether $65 million in punitive damages was a number they came up with or were told. The defense asked for $24 million in compensatory damages, but the numbers had ranges for the various aspects, so I think the jury chose a number that made sense based on the ranges and what was presented at trial. The punitive number is about four times the compensatory one, so they certainly were sending a message, but also made sure it was something that was payable... if Trump is a billionaire that's 6.5% of his wealth, at most, which hurts but he can afford it. I bet at least half of that award was due to the trial performance of Trump and his lawyers (which was a similar dynamic as my trial). If you're a jerk and disrespectful, and if your lawyer acts annoyed at times (Habba was way, way beyond that, as were Trump's other lawyers), the jury will always take it out of your hide if they rule against you.

Trump would have done better if he skipped the trial and had a lawyer who was experienced and calm. Of course, he also would have done better to have dropped the entire thing after the first verdict. He's been using the same strategy in the other New York trial, and he's lucky that one isn't going to a pissed off jury as well, as Judge Arthur Engoron will follow the law instead of his emotions when he renders damages. Trump will regret it if he goes into the criminal trials with the same schtick.

---

E.F. in Baltimore, MD, writes: S.B. in Los Angeles asked if Donald Trump could redirect his campaign funds to pay off his civil judgments.

S.B. is laboring under a very basic misunderstanding. Trump doesn't want to pay Carroll anything. He likes the fact that his campaign money is legally out of reach from Carroll's collection agency. He prefers using that cash for things like repairing his flying white elephant of a jet, or paying Melania some inflated consulting fee for picking out the drapes for his campaign HQ. He'll always find a way to divert that cash for his personal use. Remember how he screamed at Chris Christie, when Christie used some of the inauguration money to pay for the transition? "That's MY f'in money!!!"

Just remember, Trump never pays for anything.

---

S.J.Z. in Darien, IL, writes: What's amazing about the Fani Willis case is the double standard. If it was a MAGA DA in a red state prosecuting a Democrat such as Hunter Biden, would there be this much pressure for her to fire her boyfriend? Look at the supreme epitome of corruption, Clarence Thomas. Is there any pressure for him to step down? If he were a Democrat, the drumbeats would be incessant and deafening. But it's okay, because he is a Republican. If there was any doubt that our entire media ecosystem exists to prop up corrupt Republicans and to destroy Democrats, the Fani Willis affair (ahem) should dispel it.

Politics: I Don't Believe in Jesus, I Just Believe in Me

B.H. in St. Paul, MN, writes: Regarding the AI photo of Donald Trump praying, the Third Commandment says "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain."

I'm a baptized, practicing Roman Catholic, and in my personal theology, God doesn't care if you say "fu**" or "sh**" or "a**hole." Those are vulgarities, not curses—you're not calling down the power of a supreme being on anyone who you call a "sh**head," you're just expressing your displeasure by invoking a taboo. God probably understands, too, when you say "oh, God!" when something goes wrong—again, you're not really saying "Oh loving and omnipotent God, please smite that driver who just cut me off," you're reflexively uttering a mild rebuke of that driver, and it's not a big deal, I think.

But I can't imagine a God who likes it when someone invokes His name to earthly ends—who says "if you love God, you'll donate all your money to my church," or "God wants you to discriminate against homosexuals and immigrants and anyone else I disagree with." None of us know what God wants; we're all in a life-long attempt to figure out how God wants us to live, and anyone who professes to know for sure should be avoided at all costs. Such people are invariably selling something.

For instance—any political candidate who says "God sent me, God chose me, God wants you to vote for me," like the guy in that picture. What's he selling?

(V) & (Z) respond: Maybe YOU aren't hoping that God will smite the driver who cut you off in traffic...

---

J.C. in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, writes: Another problem with the photo—that's only how people pray in the movies when directors don't know how people pray. Maybe how they did it 200 years ago? Nowadays, you interlock your hands. Palms straight like that is just mere Fake Intercession.

---

D.M. in Burnsville, MN, writes: The six fingers on his right hand? Simple. They're to compensate for his tiny hands.

---

R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: How did you miss calling him a "six-fingered vulgarian"!?

---

J.C. in Ashland, MA, writes: Now that Donald Trump has shown evidence that he has six fingers on his right hand, someone should charge him with the murder of Inigo Montoya's father.

---

B.W.S. in Pleasant Valley, NY, writes: Anyone who lost a male parent to COVID during the pandemic can now justly identify themselves as Inigo Montoya.

---

H.R. in Cudahy, WI, writes: Just in case you haven't seen it—the three-legged praying Trump in burning church AI!

Politics: Trump Anger...

S.C. in Tonawanda, NY, writes: I am not an expert in psychiatry or psychology by any means, but Trump seems to be quite narcissistic. You wrote: "Again, we can't believe anyone, even Donald Trump, is THAT unhinged." From my dealings with narcissists in my own life, constant anger doesn't seem at all improbable. Again, I'm not an expert, but my observations have been that a narcissist's anger is sometimes a response to stress, or a preventative measure against self-reflections that might bring up feelings of shame. Trump is on trial for a matter that would cause most people to feel shame, and is also in a situation where he's relatively powerless. Anger would be a perfectly normal and expected response from the narcissists I know if they were in a similar situation.

Also, thank you for bringing attention to Ten Lives Club. My cat, Buzzard, was a stray rescued by them fifteen years ago:

I've been supporting them as I've been able ever since, and it's really making me happy to see the donations they're getting thanks to Tyler Bass. Buzzard likes to watch videos on his tablet, and to wander around the house collecting treasure—he's fond of jewelry and Q-Tips. He likes to build up a hoard around his bed or a blanket on the couch, and take a nap with his collection.

---

R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: In regard to your belief that at least some of Trump's rage is performative because "nobody can be that angry that much of the time": Two of the hallmarks of severe narcissistic personality disorder are ruminating on, and uncontrollable rage at, perceived slights. Trump's tweet-storms about E. Jean Carroll and Nikki Haley (apparently strong women trigger him terribly) are perfect examples of this spiral—the more he thinks about them, the angrier he gets, and the angrier he gets, the more he obsesses about them. Tweeting seems to be some sort of release valve for his roiling cauldron of rage and frustration, and we will only see more of it as his mental condition continues to deteriorate. We're witnessing uncontrolled psychopathology, not performance.

Politics: ...and MAGA Anger

C.F. in Waltham, MA, writes: The item you had that dived more deeply into how a single MAGA voter saw things was definitely not a one-off. I have two friends who sound exactly like him. They are very smart people, but see Fox as the only source of real information, and the Democrats as pure evil ruining the country. One is an extremely wealthy immigrant, the other is very well-off. One even explained how the fact that Joe Biden has not been indicted or impeached shows that he must have dirt on everyone, so it keeps them quiet, proving he is more evil than people who are in trouble! Talk about confirmation bias; I almost joked that he should apply for Tucker Carlson's old job at Fox, but I didn't think that would be helpful.

This reinforces my belief that the Democrats' biggest problem is messaging. I don't believe any policy change will have any affect on most of the voters. I don't really know how this can be fixed, or if it is even possible, but creating a second angry-hateful-fear based cult using misinformation will certainly not work on the left. None of the Democrats or independents that I know, including me, think like that.

I know that Biden has started making important criticisms of Trump, but I am really worried that he will make the same mistake that Hillary Clinton made. If, after the primaries, he focuses on the negatives about Trump, he could easily lose the election. I hope that in the general election, his ads all focus on the accomplishments, stressing it was with a Democratic congress, and just let the press point out all of the problems with Trump becoming president. I really believe that Hillary would have won if she focused on making herself more likeable and simply ignored bashing Trump, since the media (other than Fox) was already constantly doing that.

---

D.R. in Portland, OR, writes: The description of Trump voters as "angry but not sure who they are angry with" really got me thinking about where we've come as a country over my voting lifetime. It seems we are coming to the end of the road that Ronald Reagan started us down. The 1980 election was about pushing back after a couple decades of strong government actions. I would characterize the message as, "Let's stop looking at government to solve all our problems; let's try to encourage more individual initiative and free-market solutions." It was probably a necessary correction at the time, but the Right started down that road and didn't stop. Now it has nowhere left to go.

For some reason, I watched a lot of the 2008 and 2012 GOP Primary debates. In '08 you had one candidate, Ron Paul, who was extremely anti-government. Whatever the problem, he would tell you that less government was the answer. The other candidates offered conservative positions, but were distinctly more interested in making government better. By '12, all the candidates sounded like Paul had 4 years earlier. They were competing to run the government by trying to be the most anti-government. Mitt Romney did his best to play that game, then pivot to a more moderate place for the general election, but that approach didn't work so well for him. By 2016, the only acceptable candidate was one who wanted to tear it all down.

Conservative voters have been led down a 40+ year path from "We need less government" to "Government is the problem" to "Government is the enemy." Meanwhile, their lives have generally not improved. Letting market forces and the very wealthy run things hasn't worked out so well. But you can't tell them that. They are ideologically unable to see the places where government could help them. The cognitive dissonance is intense. They elect people to go to Washington and collect government paychecks to do nothing but obstruct government. Then they say, "See, we were right, it doesn't work."

Meanwhile, a resurgent progressive movement is ready to declare the Reagan Revolution a total failure and get back to using government to improve lives. They offer a correction we badly need, but they too often come across as bomb throwers as well. Real progress is almost always incremental, but no one's in the mood to elect incrementalists.

And here we sit. Welcome to 2024.

---

S.F. in Silver Spring, MD, writes: I have been enjoying your site for at least 15 years, but I have never felt the need to write. But your very good posting on MAGA voter Ted Johnson made me want to say something.

I remember when the Obama-era tea-party opposition emerged with their cute little hats and ALL of their guns. And I remember reading about them and all of their "complaints," most of which were expressed in extreme generalities. I coined the phrase to myself that they all had "incoherent rage." And reading about people like Johnson makes me realize that it's well over a decade and a half later, but they are still completely incoherent. Sad!

---

E.J. in Jacksonville, OR, writes: Regarding the various articles attempting to understand the appeal of Trump... I spent a fair amount of time reading these types of articles in 2016, and again in 2020. Let me break it down for everyone: There is no shortage of grievance in this country.

I'm often inclined to say "white male grievance," because that is the predominant demographic that Trump is resonating with. However, there are plenty of aggrieved women, and yes, there are aggrieved people of color as well. The Politico article seemed to boil it down pretty succinctly as "I'm mad, and I don't even know why." People are looking to take out their anger on someone, and Trump is their vehicle. The issues are almost irrelevant at this point, it's just complainers finding stuff to complain about, regardless of what the truth is.

If it is any solace to anyone, I continue to believe that Trump will not win in 2024. Negativity is a good way to get people riled up, but it is generally not a winning electoral strategy. I can make the argument that the candidate offering the most optimistic message wins in November, and I believe that holds at least back through the 1980s. Unless someone can offer a sound strategy for dealing with people with unending grievances, it's best just to accept the world for the way it is and move on your merry way.

---

M.A. in Tacoma, WA, writes: After reading the "OK, This Is a Pretty Good 'Understanding MAGA Voters' Piece," I started thinking. Most anger—or in this case, rage—comes from fear. The greater the anger, the greater the fear that generates it. So, what are they afraid of that crosses economic, class, cultural, and political affiliation divisions? The future. There is no way to soothe this fear of a future they can't influence or control. So they rally around a man who promises the past. A man who tells them they should be afraid.

We are in a period of dawning awareness and chaotic change. And, the future is coming. It may not even be the future they fear. But it will affect them, and their children. It will change their lives.

---

B.H. in Frankfort, IL, writes: It's disturbing how deeply the fascist strain is in the military. For a retired lieutenant colonel to proclaim there was no insurrection on 1/6 indicates a profound delusion and desire for authoritarian government. These attitudes are deep in law enforcement, too. They see fellow law enforcement officers being attacked, and they side with the attackers. More reasons to worry about our republic.

Politics: Immigration

N.D. in Austin, TX, writes: T.N. of Nashua wrote to explain "how utterly oblivious the left is about why the right is obsessed with illegal immigration."

Let me concede from the first that concerns about property destruction along migrant paths, about the challenges for schools and of integrating migrants into the economy, are legitimate. And I agree that the existing immigration system functions poorly. But to compare the situation in which many immigrants find themselves to a Salvadoran with tattoos who wants to go to casinos in Monaco is flippant and insulting (as an example of why countries limit immigration). Perhaps we should forgive the writer for living so far from the border. I do not have that luxury.

There are three main reasons people cross the border illegally:

1. They believe that they or accompanying family members who are at risk of prison (which very often qualifies as torture), serious bodily harm, or death. Generally, they have been threatened if not beaten and/or tortured, often for just not supporting their government. For example, I have worked with a young woman severely beaten for reporting election results accurately, a mother who watched her daughter killed by soldiers, and small businessmen whose government's response to peaceful demonstration was to send tanks. I could cite many others.
   
   Why don't asylum seekers at the border just present themselves at INS offices at crossings? Some do. But most believe they will be turned away to wait for long periods and to try to survive in northern Mexico while being ignored and exploited.
   
   Do all applicants who seek asylum merit it? Of course not, and most do not achieve it.
   
   
2. Economic reasons. These folks have no recourse in the asylum system. Many times they are also desperate and fear for their families' future. What most Americans don't recognize, or refuse to recognize, is that members of this group are frequently joining established communities of undocumented migrants who are working here. And, no, they don't all live in "sanctuary cities". Lots of undocumented live in places that are frankly hostile to them, such as Texas, Arizona, and throughout the South, wherever low-wage jobs are numerous and union requirements aren't—especially in agriculture and food processing, but also in restaurants, hospitality, and construction. Most Americans have benefited from their contribution to the economy in the form of lower prices.
   
   In contrast to the assertion of the former president that "they don't send us their best," after many years of working with immigrants I confidently state that almost all of those I have known work hard at demanding jobs. Lazy, unmotivated people generally don't make it all the way across Mexico, dodging that country's immigration services, police, and criminals all the way. And lazy, unmotivated people don't last long trying to pay US-level bills.
   
   
3. Reunion with families. This accounts for almost all the unaccompanied minors—they are often seeking parents, sometimes siblings or other close relatives. These children are also frequently at risk of being forced to join a gang (boys) or being forced to become the "girlfriend" of a gang member, or are just fleeing some criminal group's perceived grievance. Not all of those seeking family reunification are children, either—I have also met mothers seeking to find their children.
   
   A word about those Salvadoran tattoos. No Salvadoran unaffiliated with a gang gets a tattoo. And the tattoo gangs originated in the U.S. and were deported to Central America. Calle 18 actually refers to 18th Street in Los Angeles, and Mara Salvatrucha was born in the same place.

Finally, a word about all those who insist that people immigrate "the legal way." Asylum applicants are by definition complying with the law when they seek out INS personnel to inform them that they fear persecution in their home country. This country rations opportunities to express that fear; that's why desperate people cross the river (some of them after having traversed the even more dangerous Darien Gap).

I think what astonishes me most about immigrants is their faith in the goodness, fairness and liberty that they believe they will receive in this country. While we must set reasonable standards for who is allowed to stay here, let us at least acknowledge what a tribute it is to this nation that people have such faith in the ideals that we tell the world we hold. My concern is that those who express concern that people follow the legal path then go out and vote for people who obstruct any improvements to the system. Look at what's happening in Washington right now as the House obstructs the deal between the Democrats and the Republican senators.

In sum, I find immigrants far more positive about the U.S. than those natives who cannot wait to vote for the only presidential candidate found to have violated immigration laws.

---

R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: Not being in Texas anymore, I'm not in any special position to know, so I'm open to being corrected. I had also heard that Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) was using the Texas State Guard at Eagle Pass, but in his official statement of his defiance of the Supreme Court order, he states: "The Texas National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and other Texas personnel are acting on that authority, as well as state law, to secure the Texas border."

Either he is confused about which entities (currently) under his control he's using, or he made a serious tactical error in involving personnel that could be ordered out from under him. He could have been more vague and said the Texas Military Department, which is the agency that oversees the Texas Army National Guard, Air National Guard, and State Guard, but he didn't; he specified the Texas National Guard.

Also, while I do stipulate that most of the media is not necessarily going to grasp the difference, I trust the Texas Tribune to know the difference and they say "National Guard" as do people they have quoted, including Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX), who called for immediate federalization of the whole Texas National Guard. Side note: It would be very satisfying for Joe Biden to federalize the very units who just set up the razor wire and then order them to turn around and take it all back down again. If I were writing this story, that's what I would have happen next.

In any case, Biden could certainly call up Texas National Guard units and send them to Eagle Pass to force the issue. Pitting the National Guard against the State Guard wouldn't be super PR, but it also isn't exactly unprecedented either. And on top of that, apparently all but one of the GOP governors (Phil Scott, R-VT) have signed a document of support for Abbott and his approach. And if they decide to send troops, as some have in the past, not all of them have the option of a strictly state-sponsored militia (I know South Dakota and Wyoming only have National Guard units) and are going to be subject to their units being called into federal service.

(V) & (Z) respond: You are correct; our error in thinking it was ONLY the Texas State Guard.

Politics: Impeachment

J.F. in Sloatsburg, NY, writes: In response to D.S. in Layton, you wrote that the only difference between presidential and other (i.e., cabinet) impeachments was that the Chief Justice served as presiding officer. This is only partially correct.

Presidential impeachments have always been conducted in a way that resembles a trial, with the full Senate sitting in judgment. For any other impeachment, this is not necessary. The Senate is permitted to set whatever processes and procedures it deems appropriate for the impeachment. What this has generally led to is the impeachment being delegated to a committee (sometimes Judiciary, sometimes a temporary committee assembled for the purpose) which reviews the evidence and reports back to the full Senate with their recommendations, which are then voted on, without the full-dress trial we saw in the Bill Clinton and Donald Trump impeachments.

The relevant case here is, ironically enough, Nixon v. United States (1993), though the Nixon in question was a judge, no relation to the ex-President. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the procedures the Senate adopts to handle an impeachment are a political question and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the courts.

Politics: Be the Change You Want to See

M.G. in Boulder, CO, writes: Recently, K.F. in Framingham asked: "While we will embark in the good fight in 2024, in the event that #45 becomes #47, will (V) and (Z) stay with us as we suffer through another four years of the Orange Menace? (V) & (Z) answered: "We will be around." Presumably as resistance.

Electoral-Vote.com followed up with "Does Trump Own the Legal System?," which points out that the clear danger that is Donald Trump is more dangerous than has generally been recognized. Later, (V) wrote, "Trump Is Already Changing the World," pointing out current and long term international trends reacting negatively to a possible second Trump administration.

I think all of this points out that, instead of spending the next four years as part of a resistance movement, it may now be time for us, as individuals, to take a more active role in this election. I was wondering how to do this and what campaign workers do beyond addressing envelopes, writing postcards, and donating money. A friend recommended Paul for Pete: Politics. Theatre. Life. One Man's Adventures (or, How I Became a Septuagenarian Fanboy) by Paul Mason Barnes, who worked on the Pete Buttigieg campaign. Barnes' career takes him all over the U.S., so readers get a picture of the nationwide campaign; it also tells why and how he got involved, and the various roles he played in the campaign. Barnes is a seventy-something freelance theater director who was working, campaigning, and maintaining a 40+ year partnership (his partner had a stroke and was recovering during the period the book covers). His book is a memoir of the time he was involved with the Buttigieg campaign, so, in addition to talking about his experiences in politics, he has things to say about theater and the way it resembles politics, and about life, love, and friendship.

Like Electoral-Vote.com readers, he has tried to talk with Trumpy relatives. Like many of us, he has learned that misinformation and fantasy can't be countered with facts and, with some regret, he also learned where the "block" and "unfriend" buttons are. He has shared workspace with workers from other campaigns (Biden workers tend to be open and friendly with a "we're all in this together" attitude," Bernie's crews were... not that way), and he knows about the suddenness of a campaign's ending and the depression that follows. He has learned what he wants in a candidate (authenticity comes first) and a campaign (Buttigieg staff and volunteers were given 10 "Rules for the Road," principles to adhere to: respect, belonging, teamwork, boldness, responsibility, substance, discipline, excellence, truth, and joy).

My father once pointed out that prevention is always easier and cheaper than the cure. If you are looking for ways to be part of Trump-prevention, Paul for Pete might give you some ideas about how to start.

All Politics Is Local

W.V. in Andover, MN, writes: In reply to D.T. in Columbus, my home state of Minnesota operated as a caucus-only state from the mid-1950s until 2020, when it adopted a separate presidential primary in addition to the traditional caucus system.

As a local party activist, I've loved caucus night for over 50 years. We attend by precinct (or by community, in smaller locales), usually in school classrooms, or the cafeteria or gyms. Government bodies don't meet, and school sports events are not held, on caucus night in Minnesota. Each party has four possible activities those nights: hearing from potential or declared candidates (usually for the legislative district, but maybe for local office, and sometimes for Congress or state office); electing precinct officers; discussing resolutions (personal and organizational-written, such as their labor union) the attendee wants to see move towards the state convention three months later; and electing delegates to the state Senate district/organizing unit conventions where endorsements will be made. District officers and directors are elected, and resolutions are passed to forward to the state convention's resolutions committee. Caucuses are Minnesota's backbone for party politics in both major parties. Any costs for room rental and janitorial services on caucus night are borne by the local party unit.

This year, our caucus night begins at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 27th—one month away. By law, since 2020, we conduct a presidential primary one week later, on March 5th (Super Tuesday), which the Secretary of State's office and county election offices conduct, just like the general primary in August and the general election in November, with 45 days early voting and polling stations in the customary precinct sites. The presidential primary is no mere straw poll. At least on our side (Democratic-Farmer-Labor), it determines the breakdown of national convention delegate distribution, although the actual delegate and alternate names are partially chosen at the subsequent congressional district conventions and partially chosen at the state convention, where party leaders fill some of those remaining slots.

An interesting "to-watch-for" in Minnesota's presidential primary this year is whether MN-03 Democrat Dean Phillips manages to win any delegates from President Biden.

---

M.S. in Canton, NY, writes: Amen to your choice of Alaska as the most wonky state politically—or at least, so it was 40+ years ago. I lived in Fairbanks for a year that included the 1982 election season, and the politics was like nothing I had ever seen in the Lower 48. Judging from the TV and radio ads, the most important qualification for office was how "Alaskan" you were. Literally every ad included a prominent statement of how long the candidate had lived in Alaska (since this was only 23 years into statehood, hardly any adults other than American Indians and Alaska Natives had been born there). Meanwhile, the governor's race in particular seemed especially devoid of issues. I saw exactly one ad in which a candidate for governor took a stand on a local or national issue: the Republican courageously came out against crime.

---

K.T. in Columbus, OH, writes: I think you overestimate Secretary of State Frank LaRose's (R-OH) prospects in the race for the U.S. Senate. LaRose is not only the face of two failed referenda, but he dropped the ball more than once in his official position of Secretary of State. Trump will probably drag Bernie Moreno across the finish line, which is fortunate because Dolan would probably be the strongest candidate in a general election.

---

K.J. in Seeley Lake, MT, writes: You wrote: "What Donald Trump does here is crucial. If he decides to be pragmatic and backs [Tim] Sheehy because he could flip the seat, that could seal the Democrats' fate."

You better check a bit further into Sheehy. He's not all he's cracked up to be, and Montanans are getting a tad weary of carpetbaggers. He has skeletons in his closet, with more appearing daily. I'll put my money on Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) any day, in addition to the fact that abortion will, in all likelihood, be on the ballot come November.

The Sporting Life

B.W. in Suwanee, GA, writes: Friday is hands down my favorite day for Electoral-Vote.com and this week was no exception. I absolutely love "This Week in Schadenfreude" and "This Week in Freudenfreude" and this week's Freudenfreude piece really tugged at my heartstrings because I'm such a big cat person (I am a Leo, btw). Since Ten Lives Club is a registered 501(c), I was able to send them $50 and get a company match.

Thank you for the story!

---

J.K. in Portland, OR, writes: I look forward to your Friday posting for the schadenfreude and freudenfreude items. This week's pairing has to be among the best you've ever had. Ron DeSantis being incapable of going out gracefully, even if he makes a lame attempt at doing so, shows clearly that he is a Feynmanian example of turtles all the way down. And the observation that the good sports fans of Buffalo remember that one of the major reasons for sporting contests is to have a respite from the all-too-real everyday struggles of everyday life is high praise from writers who observe and analyze those real-world tests of our species.

---

A.A.S. in Cary, NC, writes: I agree that politics is becoming like sports with the fanatical fan bases, and even I (a sports-hater) call politics "my own personal spectator sport." Nonetheless, with sports permeating our whole news and society (to the point where even Google News forces it down everyone's throats ever since removing their personalization tool), I really don't want to read so much about it from the Internet's most serious political and civic news site.

I've been reading you since 2004, when I voted for the very first time as an 18-year-old college freshman, and I've noticed the site has recently been getting a little too goofy with sports. It's fine to use your metaphors occasionally on a rotating basis, even if a whole lot of it is "inside baseball" to me. But a whole Freudenfreude on sports, when it honestly should be something civic-related, is a very bad harbinger. (No, that Freudenfreude post had nothing to do with politics, sorry.)

Going forward, will Schadenfreude also stop being about politicians, like Giuliani's bad-hair-dye day, and instead be about vocal sportspeople looking like the fools they already are? Just how much of your regular posts beyond will be subsumed into sports, a completely different, and honestly unrelated, category?

It would be fine not to have Schadenfreude and Freudenfreude some weeks. (Just blame a slow news-week or the staff Dachshunds!) You could also easily pluck some political or civic news from the international scene, like the work the E.U. is doing to get Ukraine aid while the U.S. falters.

---

A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: Your reference to Scott Norwood's heartbreaking miss of a pretty short field goal, one everyone simply knew he (with such great talent and accuracy that season) was going to make, reminded me of the ESPN 30 for 30 entitled, "The Four Falls of Buffalo", which, of course, was a reference to both Niagara Falls and the repeated, over and again, failures of the Buffalo Bills in the early 90s to simply win a single game at the very end of incredible seasons.

When Scott Norwood publicly apologized to his fanbase, that fanbase erupted in cheers and chants of his name. The moment, honestly, made me tear up.

Yes, people who threaten men far more talented than they could ever be, over a sport that those "men" who threaten might have once played at a most amateur of levels are, indeed, losers.

I know this sort of crap happened long before Dear Leader infected the hearts and minds of those we once knew as sane, friendly, and just wrong about a thing or two. Hate, expressed in the form of threats these Gravy SEALS would never possibly be man enough to issue in person or with their name attached thereto, is now all the rage. Sorry for the pun. It was unintended.

I hear things from people about people they've never met or been harmed by, laws they've never read, ideas they've never thought through, sensible stances they would once have willingly agreed with, and in support of a supposed right that trumps the rights of schoolchildren to live, and from people I once thought were merely misguided about taxation and a few, unimportant, social issues. Now, they all fear the purity tests. They have to not only agree but outdo their most conservative friend or family member.

It is getting so, as you two have often observed, it is hard to tell what is real and what is parody. These people are Republican cartoons now, each having to push the envelope so they can be "the most conservative" kid on the block.

It is funny and sad that so many of the people Sasha Baron Cohen mocked, as his brilliantly racist and hyperbolically sexist Borat, had no idea that they were being made fun of by him. "Throw the Jews Down Well," they all sang. And you wonder why I ask you to warn me and mine when it is time to leave. Perhaps you were saying, when mentioning that Dear Leader doesn't have the huevos to be a real strongman, that people like me should feel a little safer knowing that tonight. But I do not. Hitler was probably not a coward, but he rarely got his own hands dirty.

Dear Leader will allow others to enable him to be a strongman. Letting the little and forgotten men with their assault rifles do all of the ugly killing and dying and rounding up and gassing... then, and only then, he'll feel safe enough to become a strongman. Those little men are willing. And they are legion.

---

J.H. in Lodi, NY, writes: For fans of the Buffalo Bills and other teams that don't reach or win the Super Bowl, advice in the form of a conversation between Hermione Granger and her friend Harry:

"That's the trouble with Quidditch. It creates all this bad feeling and tension.... Well, it does! It's only a game isn't it?"

"Hermione," said Harry, shaking his head, "you're good on feelings and stuff, but you just don't understand about Quidditch."

"Maybe not, but at least my happiness doesn't depend on Ron's goalkeeping ability."

---

C.S. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: I am an observant Jew and bandwagon football fan and therefore have no loyalty to either Santa or the Eagles. Bad things do happen in Philadelphia, but I do have a sense of dedication to my adopted hometown, therefore I feel the need to set the record straight on the snowball incident even though I was not even born yet. This news story came out last month from our local NPR station. The Eagles were having a crappy season in 1968, but not crappy enough to get the #1 future draft pick, a certain O.J. Simpson (probably a good thing, in addition to his being from USC). No one was hurt, and Santa, a last minute fill-in, received applause and enjoyed the attention afterwards.

Philly phans are bad, but not that bad. Though, I would never wear my Mets gear to a Phillies game.

---

M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: You wrote: "Matt Dolan, whose family owns the Cleveland Guardians, and who really likes the U.S. elections schedule, since his Octobers and Novembers are ALWAYS wide open."

Nope, not biting...

Bad Job, Good Job

A.S.W. in Melrose, MA, writes: I'd like to respond to M.G. in Arlington about Elon Musk. While the things he has done at Tesla are very good and important, I think we need to be clear about what he is. Having spoken to various people who have worked with him, I can tell you that he is not some kind of über-genius, and he is certainly not a saint. What he is, is a talented salesman with a nose for what's cool, enough engineering acumen to understand what has a chance of working, and a near-infinite belief that all of his ideas are pure genius. In the case of Tesla, those traits let him accomplish what people have wanted to do for a long time, namely to build and market a high-end electric car that would be both cool and effective enough to make electric cars fashionable. Of course, he also had good timing—electric cars were already building toward a moment, the technology was near ready, and Tesla existed with a promising product and a price tag of just $10 million—but there's no question that Musk's backing and dedication brought them and the rest of the industry over the threshold. So, yay Elon!

Still, you have to shake your head at the number of folks who do something notable, become big enough that they don't have to listen to the people around them, and then descend into battiness. Think James Watson and Brian Josephson; Michael Crichton and J.K. Rowling; Curt Schilling, for heaven's sake! (Hmmm... a surprising number of Brits on that list. Must be their connection to Canada.) Now Musk has gone the same way, and has embarked on a path that is every bit as poisonous as the old one was helpful. And while I am certainly rooting for Tesla and SpaceX to continue in their success, I don't think there's any contradiction in rooting against the person Musk has become due to the things he chooses to do today. Unfortunately, given the pattern we've seen before, it's likely that his new destructions will continue to occupy his energies while his old pursuits wither on the vine, or at best, get by without him. What a pity.

---

B.G. in Palo Alto, CA, writes: I want to take the opposite position from M.R. in New Brighton and commend you for your item "Could Mongolia Teach the U.S. How to Run Elections?"

Electoral-Vote.com is first and foremost a site about the processes and systems of democracy in the U.S. We are at an interesting moment in history where widespread recognition of the flaws of traditional first-past-the-post voting is setting in, as well as questions about the transparency and verifiability of elections, and how new technologies may help or harm public trust in elections. States and localities are experimenting with new voting and election methodologies, as are foreign democracies. I very much want to see more breadth and depth of coverage of this topic on Electoral-Vote.com, especially (V)'s and (Z)'s expert analysis of it all. I also want the U.S. to discard any NIH (not-invented-here) tendencies and to recognize and adapt best practices from our fellow democracies, regardless where in the world they came from. Such recognition and validation can only strengthen democracy worldwide, and improve goodwill, trust, and cooperation among the global family of democracies. Electoral-Vote.com should work to encourage that by spotlighting more of these innovations.

Finally, to address M.R.'s specific complaint, all we have to do is study the Mongolian system to first determine if peer pressure to share ballots is really even a problem, and if it is, how Mongolian has society dealt with it. Let's respect our democratic peers in the world, learn from them, and in so doing, validate, strengthen and support all of our democracies.

---

K.T. in Oakdale, NY, writes: I couldn't help but write in when I saw that a reader thought your coverage of Mike Pence was too harsh. At one point, that reader supported this assertion by writing: "Pence is actually a good moral human being who I just disagree with on many policy items. At the penultimate peak of his career, when faced with an impossible situation, he ultimately made the right decision at great cost to his personal future aspirations in the best interest of our nation."

I'd like to thank you for the good job you've done in covering this issue and not assigning virtue to a man who I believe did the right thing for the wrong reasons. Putting aside the long history of statements and positions Pence has given us to question whether he is a "good moral human being," even in this one instance why should we believe he wasn't looking out for himself? The "election was stolen" lie was more fringe at that point and hadn't yet fully gripped the wider majority of Republicans as it was fresher in people's minds that Trump-appointed judge after judge had rejected this in court, and so Pence knew he risked legal consequences if he did what Trump asked. After all Pence looked the other way regularly during Trump's reign, like the caging of migrant kids, just to stay on the good side of Republicans. And we're supposed to believe he suddenly grew a conscience? Or maybe, just maybe, he was still looking out for himself when the political winds looked to be blowing elsewhere (as the election demonstrated).

---

L.H. in Chicago, IL, writes: Just commenting on your bad job/good job roundups.

In the "bad job" category, one reader chastised you for your outright disdain of Trump and for carrying that over to the entire right-wing. I took umbrage at that, because I had noticed the exact same characteristic of yours back when Trump became a real candidate. And I thought it was the exact correct way to handle his presence in the news. It's not that you've abandoned editorial objectivity, but that objective reality demands treating that person with the disdain he clearly deserves. It's the mainstream media themselves who forego objectivity when they present Trump's rants as just more political speak.

The commenter himself concedes this point, but then complains that you have gone on to show the same snark for the entire Republican Party, or to what he refers to as the entire right-wing. Well, the entire right-wing has fallen in line behind Trump and is essentially his mouthpiece, so again, this is totally warranted. When someone demonstrates themselves to be ridiculous, then ridicule is not biased.

Thank you for being you.

---

L.S. in Greensboro, NC, writes: I enjoyed reading the "good jobs" piece. It is fascinating to see how many different ways you touch different people.

However, I was amazed that no one brought up the single greatest positive purpose carried out by Electoral-Vote.com. You are the only outlet that continually keeps us informed about the nefarious Canadian plot to take over the United States. When the wily 'Nades finally invade, only (V) and (Z) will be able to say "We told you so!"

(V) & (Z) respond: It's the Lord's work.

---

M.B. in Granby, MA, writes: I'm not sure there's much you can do to improve the site.

The reader critiques you've posted have more to do with you not being perfect or the tweaking of readers' personal prejudices. I generally don't enjoy Sunday when readers write. It's usually too long; didn't read. Others probably enjoy reading other readers. You can't please everyone.

What's of bedrock importance—something missing from most commentary in the world today—is your intellectual humility, an academic ethic unfortunately not endemic in all academic writers. You don't tend to make strong claims about what you don't know about. You also apologize and clarify or retract statements that turn out to be incorrect or misleading.

---

D.J.M. in Salmon Arm, BC, Canada, writes: Regarding "Looking Back at 2023, Part VII: Bad Jobs": Admirable to face the critics. Rarely seen.

---

M.S. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: Reading through your most recent "Bad Jobs" item must be reminiscent of reading student comments in faculty course evaluations. No matter how positive the overall tenor of those are in any given semester, the ones the will stick in your head are the ones that are negative. We've all had a bad day at the office, or given the less-than-crisp lecture. Kudos to you for not only asking the question, but having the guts to put the negatives out there.

---

T.P. in Martinsville, NJ, writes: I am really disappointed at the criticism by D.W.B. in Waynesville regarding late posts and days off. I have commented to friends so many times how amazing it is that you voluntarily produce this blog, let alone every day with comprehensive postings. I can't imagine ever being upset over a late posting or skipped day. I'd ask anyone who does complain if they could commit to a PAID job that way. I encourage you to take more days off and anything else that would help to guard against burnout and to keep the blog going!

---

BC, Walpole, ME, writes: Okay, lessee how ya did:

• Didn't condemn Netanyahu. Yeah, I can see how he is a big part of the problem there.
  
  
• Didn't sing the praises of exemplar citizen Elon Musk, who selflessly works for the good of us all. Hmmmm. Maybe that's a feature, not a bug.
  
  
• Trashed Mike Pence. Seems like you gave Pence exactly what he deserved, awarding him credit for what he did at the crucial moment, but pointing out correctly that there were a lot of moments he missed, and that his candidacy for the GOP nomination never had a constituency.
  
  
• "Mis-framing" Joe Biden's failure in Afghanistan, a situation that took at least four presidents to create, and that he was given just months to resolve, based on a commitment made by his predecessor. I gave him a bit of a pass myself. Occupying Afghanistan brought down the Soviet Union; it was pretty obvious from the very start that our war would not go well there. (When we invaded Afghanistan, I commented that Afghanistan is where empires go to die, and I also quoted Kipling: "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains / And the women come out to cut up what remains / Roll to your rifle and blow out your brains / And go to your God like a soldier.")
  
  
• You've developed a distinct left-wing bias. Hmmm. I would say that you haven't moved at all, but that the right wing of the Republican Party moved much farther right. Actually, I would say that the right wing took the express train to Crazyville, and most of the Party with it. The right wing has enabled the entire GOP to embrace a candidate who was impeached twice (recalling there have only been four presidential impeachments in the history of the republic) and is now facing 91 indictments in addition to the civil cases he has already lost. So "completely out-and-out-anti-right wing" seems about right to me.
  
  
• You stand accused of "parroting the 'bad economy' stories"; I thought you've been better balanced on this matter than, say, The Washington Post or The New York Times (my wife reads the one and I read the other). WP, in particular, has been much worse on this count than Electoral-Vote.com.
  
  
• I get the genocide criticism, but you are academics and you're not basing your view on how horrible the situation is, but on what academic and international law standards define precisely as genocide. So, for example, a massacre, no matter how bad, does not a genocide make. Texas did not try to round up all the Native Americans and kill them, which would be genocide. It tried to drive them out of the state. Yes, it is utterly horrific, but it's not genocide. I hate to say this, and I do not say it in jest: "You've still got time to change your mind."
  
  
• The publication of three anti-choice readers was better than anything I've seen elsewhere. They stated their views clearly, and they were not fanatical, shouting or crazy. The best part, though, was that the pro-choice readers responded respectfully, and some good dialogue followed. I don't see that a lot, especially on the abortion issue. Like for the last 40 years.
  
  
• December to Rhymember was weak this year. It is hard to quickly compose a timely satirical poem. I started a couple of times and saw that I was getting nowhere. (I did manage to write a handful of Indigenous Peoples Day carols for Oct. 12.)
  
  
• Delays and cancellations. I can get behind that criticism, though to be fair, this is not your day job. We want our Electoral-Vote.com and we want it when we wake up. Reminds me of the 1960s, when I delivered the morning newspaper. Sometimes the company delivered the paper late to the carriers. By 6:00 a.m., the old geezers would be standing in their driveways wondering where the hell I was. (In fact, some mornings now, I go out and stand in my driveway, laptop in hand, and wonder where the hell Electoral-Vote.com is.)

So dammitall, get the name of M.A.'s home town right.

Gallimaufry

J.C. in Chicago, IL, writes: Regarding your roundup of the Ron DeSantis drop-out coverage, you may not have read the final details of the East Cupcake scandal: The Great Hall Pass Hullabaloo.

---

D.D. in Scotts Valley, CA, writes: Per a press release from Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH): 85% of all land border encounters with individuals on the terrorist watchlist occurred on the northern border—while only 15% occurred on the southern border.

Only 85%???

(V) & (Z) respond: If a gang of thieves robs a house, they always send one guy to enter through the back door. We assume that those hockey-playing poutine eaters embrace a similar philosophy and don't put all their eggs (maple syrup?) in one basket.

---

K.C. in St. Augustine, DeSantisWorld*, writes: Thank you for recommending Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK. I just began reading, but have already learned that Oswald was more than a stereotypical loner. The details regarding his increasing isolation from society, starting in early childhood, are depressing and enlightening. He showed a deep interest in communism for many years, corroborated by many sources, which disputes the claim that he espoused communism only as a "cover" while "working for the CIA."

Because I'm such a fan of this site, I'm still reeling from the betrayal—your hasty and unsubstantiated accusation that I'm a Canadian double agent. Eh? Take off, you hosers! My solace during this soul-crushing time is eating back bacon, drinking beer out of my replica Stanley Cup, and staring wistfully at my Pierre Trudeau-autographed "Goin' Down the Road" poster.

In Geddy Lee We Trust!

* - Demoralized after the humiliating campaign, he'll remove his stealth high heels and focus solely on DeSantisWorld. Swell. Does anyone have a bunker I could hide in for the next three years?

(V) & (Z) respond: All you have to do is name some names of your Canadian "friends" and all this will be behind you.

Final Words

S.H. in Hanoi, Vietnam, writes: I kept forgetting to send this picture in, but reading through Saturday mailbag reminded me of it for some reason.

The following is the gravesite of one Ms. Sheila Shea, who passed away in 1986 in Concord, MA, at age 43 due to cancer. She is buried in Sleepy Hollow Cemetery—final resting place to Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Louisa May Alcott, among other notable 19th-century historical figures. Sheila had a bit of a wicked sense of humor, and so:



The directors of Sleepy Hollow Cemetery took Shea's estate to court over this, noting the august names of the company she would keep. Allegedly, the presiding judge had to point out that Emerson and Thoreau almost certainly would have had a laugh over Shea's impertinence rather than finding her offensive.

At any rate, this picture was taken in the 1990s, long before the Internet could be used to easily verify these stories. I spent much of the day wandering through Sleepy Hollow trying to verify the gravestone's existence, and was delighted to learn the story was almost exactly how it was relayed to me.

If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up in school, at work, etc., please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share some other way.

---The Votemaster and Zenger