Main page    Dec. 08

Pres map
Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu

New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA MI NV PA WI

Sunday Mailbag

This week's headline theme continues to confound, it would seem. We'll give a bit more help, namely that you need to "try to understand, try to understand. Oh, oh, try, try, try to understand."

We got a vast number of responses to the list of most important American scientists. We'll run some this week, and probably some more next week, and maybe the week thereafter.

And finally, we must make a version of a comment we've made a few times before: There just can't be another site where you can get discussion of politics, the greatest scientists in U.S. history, AND dog-care tips.

Politics: The Trump Administration v2.0

B.B. in Dothan, AL, writes: I believe you are correct that the U.S. will not suddenly devolve into a dictatorship. However, the democracy depends on fair play by multiple entities, so it is subject to the death of a thousand cuts. For example, the Roman Republic became a dictatorship gradually, over 100+ years. I'm not saying that the U.S. is exactly the same, but there are many similarities:

A dictatorship might not happen in the next 20 years, but the decline of institutions is apparent and shows no signs of being righted.


J.R. (U.S. citizen presently wandering about) in Seoul, South Korea, writes: Just a quick field dispatch from Seoul. South Korea is an incredibly nice place to wander around. My third visit here. Sane, honorable, kindly people and super safe. Anyone can walk anywhere, at any time, alone. There basically is no crime here. People will help you more than just about anywhere else in the world. In much of the world they overcharge foreigners, here they make sure I understand that I pay less than the listed price because of "discount."

Localized martial law was a "thing" here for a few hours, but that thing had zero chance of becoming a society-wide actual problem. I was out on the streets hours after the "problem" and life was 100% as usual. Many people here are just embarrassed that their president had a snit, did something irrational and it became big international news, Others just laughed at him being a fool.

Am a full-time wanderer with a decade out of the U.S. in 60+ countries. South Korea makes my top 5 (along with Switzerland, Norway, Finland and Japan).


P.L. in Denver, CO, writes: I started making some major purchases this year in anticipation of the Tariff President being elected. This included a German-made washer-dryer, heat pump, hot water tank and furnace. All of these were aging and I did not want to get caught in the tariff costs and potential scarcity. After the election, I purchased a new Japanese car. I do not tend to engage in politics with people I know or think are MAGA-friendly. However, I am enjoying mentioning to MAGA folks that I bought a new car because the tariffs are coming. I notice that my non-MAGA friends strongly agree. The MAGA folks have consistently had a blank look on their face. It makes me wonder if it occurred to them that costs will go up given what they were fed for months.


S.W. in San Jose, CA, writes: You mentioned "lies, damned lies, and statistics."

The complete mendacity classification scale is:

  1. Lies
  2. Damned lies
  3. Statistics
  4. Damned statistics
  5. Delivery promises
  6. Campaign promises
  7. Anything Donald Trump says

S.S. in Lucerne, Switzerland, writes: Is this a correct characterization of your item "Trump Gets an Early Christmas Grift"?

A banana taped to a wall with a price tag of $6 million; an orange taped to a wall with a price tag of $30 million

(V) & (Z) respond: We think you've hit the nail on the head.

Politics: Trump Appointments

L.C. in Boston, MA, writes: G.H. in Branchport wrote: "Can you give an opinion, in order, of the biggest threats Trump has nominated or assigned slots in his administration."

And you answered, in part: "5. Pete Hegseth: We only put him this low because, even if he is confirmed, the folks at the Pentagon are pros who are used to "handling" incompetent chest thumpers."

I would put him higher on the threat list, because one of Trump's priorities is to install loyalists in as many of the key positions of the military as possible, and unless Secretary of Defense has less power than I thought, Hegseth would be able to do that. Then when Trump tries his next autogolpe (which he WILL do, barring a fatal hamberder), the military will be more likely to support him.

(V) & (Z) respond: Note that the most important appointments at the Pentagon have to be approved by the Senate. So, for example, there's no sneaking Mike Flynn in the back door, and putting him in a position of real power.


J.C. in Washington, DC, writes: Given your recent coverage of the SECDEF nomination saga, I'd figure I'd provide a quick take for you and your readers from inside, "The Building," as those of us who work in the Pentagon call it.

Unlike what many might expect, there has not been any handwringing or alarm associated with Pete Hegseth's nomination. Why? "The Building" is a beast of complexity that, consequentially, moves at a glacial pace.

When you think of the word "bureaucracy," you should think of the Pentagon. There's a reason it takes us decades to develop and acquire weapons systems. The number of stakeholders, the internal competition between the services, as well as individual personalities in positions of significant power makes it very challenging to get anything done—and that's when everybody generally agrees on the way ahead.

To put it plainly, it is very difficult for appointees to walk into the DoD and make wholesale changes quickly. Nearly every person that has worked in the Pentagon can tell you stories of projects, initiatives, strategies, et al., that were so slow-rolled they never saw the light of day before the appointee left. This often happens with Congress, as well.

"The Building" is a huge ship that takes a very long time to turn. An appointee with experience in, or with, the Department will know that they are best served by incremental change. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) would represent a master class in how to lead the Pentagon. Unfortunately, I think this is exactly why she won't be nominated—it would be very difficult for President-elect Trump to fire her once she was confirmed.


S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, writes: I don't see Trump tapping Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), or any other woman, for secretary of defense. It would be simply incompatible with his notions of gender roles and military machismo.


L.E. in Santa Barbara, CA, writes: Your "threats list" from yesterday prompted me to write. I would make one adjustment to your ordering and place Kash Patel as second to Tulsi Gabbard, and put Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the third slot.

Last August, The Atlantic had a fairly in-depth article on Kash Patel. The title says it all: "The Man Who Will Do Anything for Trump." In one instance, while serving on the National Security Council, Patel actually put SEAL Team 6 at risk of death by lying about airspace permission having been granted by a foreign state for a rescue mission. That, and several other examples of what he did to compromise our national security, while serving in the Trump administration, are truly shocking. He is beyond frightening.

There is much, much more in this article that scares the bejeezus out of me. RFK Jr. almost seems a benign bumbler, next to Patel.

And this leads me to a second observation: I believe that you are absolutely right that the potential of having Patel in charge of the FBI more than justifies President Biden's pardon of his son. That same Atlantic article highlights a 2022 podcast where Patel was a guest and asked about what he would do, were Trump to appoint him director of the FBI in his second term—would he accept? He replied to the affirmative, so he has been thinking about what he can do in this power role for a long time, including going after government employees and the media.


D.E. in Lancaster, PA , writes: FBI Director nominee Kash Patel, has threatened to sue Olivia Troye, a former Trump appointee who worked with Patel in the previous Trump administration and who said that Patel lied about intelligence that put our armed forces at risk. Her statements have been collaborated by others in the previous administration. Patel, like his would be Boss/Emperor, loves to slap out lawsuits if a stiff cross breeze comes near him. He demanded that Troye publicly retract her statements in five business days. The acid-tongued response of Troye's lawyer concludes thusly:

It says: 'But to answer your specific question as to Ms. Troye's intentions as to a retraction, I think Monty Python expresses it best:' and then has a picture of the knight from 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' sticking his tongue out

Priceless!


O.E. in Greenville, SC, writes: In regards to your recent list of Trump nominees you consider dangerous, you left one out.

Imagine if someone wore a medal of an organization whose members were prohibited entry into the United States to a presidential inauguration. Imagine someone who helped work with a far-right foreign political party. Imagine someone whose mother worked as a translator for a noted Holocaust denier.

The man in question is Sebastian Gorka, who wore the medal of the Vitezi Rend to Trump's 2017 Inauguration. (Both the State and Justice Departments state that members of said order may be denied permission to enter the U.S.) His mother Susan helped translate Hungarian materials into English for noted Holocaust denier David Irving (who stated that he did not know Hungarian) for his 1981 book on the Hungarian Revolution. (Gorka's father, who earned the medal Gorka wears, was one of the sources for said book.) Gorka himself worked with members of Jobbik, the Hungarian far-right party, during his time in Hungary. (Yes, they are to the right of Viktor Orbán. Ironically, Orbán's government denied Gorka clearance for fears that he was a spy for the U.K.)

I would think someone with those views would be far more dangerous, but also draw far more scrutiny than any other appointees. Sadly, the media may be getting rather lazy of late.


D.S. in Salem, OR, writes: FYI: Attorney General-designate Pam Bondi helped sleazy law firms during financial crisis, with result that a lot of people lost their homes.

Politics: The Biden Pardon...

T.L. in Arlington Heights, IL, writes: In response to the question from S.R.G. in Grecia about why Biden pardoned his son when he did, I find it straightforward: It was the soonest time—after Thanksgiving—that the inevitable "turkey pardon" and "Hunter pardon" stories would not have shared the average person's attention span, or risked correlation.


N.N. in Andover, MA, writes: Regarding President Biden's pardon of his son, you wrote: "Forgive us for our ongoing bluntness today..."

I'll do more than forgive: I will thank you.

The widespread, hysterical portrayal of this pardon as an invitation for future misbehavior by Donald Trump and other Republicans is entirely misguided. With respect to pardons, Trump has already misbehaved, and will continue to do so, regardless of what President Biden does.

I'm glad to see that President Biden, at least in this instance, will not emulate Merrick Garland's contrived show of neutrality in dealing with Trump and his cronies. We all know how that turned out.

So again, thank you for your blunt words on this topic.


J.G. in Santa Monica, CA, writes: You wrote: "Forgive us for our ongoing bluntness today, but these people need to shut their pieholes."

Thank you.

(V) & (Z) respond: We share two letters that make this point (of several we got) to make clear that while some readers find strong language to be evidence of bias or arrogance (see below for an example), more tend to find it appropriate and/or refreshing. For our part, if we're all milquetoast all the time, we think that tends to get kind of boring.


R.B. in Merrimack, NH, writes: I began my legal career as a public defender in Chicago and then moved into private practice, where I am now a partner in an American Lawyer 100 firm. There is no question that the U.S. has a legal system that favors those with wealth, power or both. In an election where the—in my view, accurate—perception that the economy has produced significant economic disparity and—again, in my view, accurate—perception that institutions favor those in wealth and power, all the Joe Biden pardon does in feed into disaffection with politics. It also adds to the perception of low-information voters that there really is no difference between Democrats and Republican politicians in terms of how they act and the policies they would pursue. It also feeds "whataboutism." I understand as a father why President Biden did it. But I think we are poorer morally because he did. Perhaps he should have resigned and let Kamala Harris do it.


S.C. in Arapahoe County, CO, writes: Another Democrat who saw fit to comment on the pardon was Gov. Jared Polis (D-CO). From his Facebook page:

While as a father I certainly understand President Joe Biden's natural desire to help his son by pardoning him, I am disappointed that he put his family ahead of the country. This is a bad precedent that could be abused by later Presidents and will sadly tarnish his reputation. When you become President, your role is Pater familias of the nation. Hunter brought the legal trouble he faced on himself, and one can sympathize with his struggles while also acknowledging that no one is above the law, not a President and not a President's son.

It says something that even his own husband (First Gentleman Marlon Reis) called him out on this.


J.K. in Short Hills, NJ, writes: As a parent, I would have disappointed in Joe Biden if he DIDN'T pardon his son.


M.A. in West Springfield, MA, writes: Whatever hay is made of Biden pardoning his son, it increased my respect for him. Some things are more important than politics. You don't turn your back on family.

Politics: ...And the Republican Response

M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: You asked whether or not we could see a substantive difference between incoming White House Communications Director Steven Cheung's statement regarding Hunter Biden's pardon and the text generated by ChatGPT. No, not substantively, but stylistically, the points go to ChatGPT in this competition.


S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, writes: You wrote: "Can you see a substantive difference between the AI version and the real deal? We can't."

Actually...

The Steven Cheung version says nothing whatsoever about the Biden pardon or prosecution; its focus is in the prosecution of Trump's crimes, falsely casting it as a witch hunt. The ChatGPT version at least directly addresses the topic it was asked to address, and manages to hold a modicum of water while doing so. It's exceedingly general, though; swap Hunter Biden for, say, Charles Kushner, and it works equally well.


S.B. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: When I read the question about pardons from R.Z. in Van Nuys, I completely agreed with your response that President Biden's pardon of Hunter will change nothing with respect to Donald Trump's abuse of the power. The one thing I would add: Trump has demonstrated himself to be such a complete d**k anytime he can rub salt into someone's wound, I easily see the next time Trump issues some type of questionable pardon, he will make a statement citing the "Biden precedent" as justifying the abuse.


L.E. in Santa Barbara, CA, writes: For those who complain about Hunter Biden's pardon, or worry that President Biden somehow has given Trump permission to more corruptly use the presidential pardon powers, I share this meme that I recently received:

Mike Flynn and Roger Stone pose for a picture with their Trump-signed pardons


M.T. in St. Paul, MN, writes: To all the right-wing hypocrites who are up in arms about Biden pardoning his son:

  1. So Biden lied. Trump and all you a**-kissers ran on a platform of lies.
  2. Biden abused his power by pardoning a convicted criminal. I believe a prior president may have done this. I'll need to check on that.
  3. Oh, and you can go to hell.

People who have reasonably honest value systems find it difficult to do this, but when they go low, we need to go lower. By not fighting back, we are accessories to whatever these folks do. Good job, Joe.


A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: I gotta start agreeing with this sorta stuff.

We play by the rules too much, sadly. If the other team still did? That would be one thing, you know?

I am so done with losing. I will defend the high ground of normalcy, rules, laws, and order for common folks, but for these snakes I would (rhetorically and legalistically) sneak up on 'em dirty and stick 'em from behind with an old syringe kinda loco stuff at this point.

The man was persecuted by prosecution. He didn't do anything more than a dozen guys I know who were never charged and he's likely a better sort of person... you know? Hate to say that about my friends, but maybe they had far worse motives when they lied, right?

How you win a fair game matters. I truly hold that dear to me.

Winning is all that matters against cheaters because that's all that matters to them. I believe that dearly, too.

These people support Nazis.


R.M. in New York City, NY, writes: Following the Hunter Biden pardon, many outlets are reporting that the administration is considering blanket pardons for people who may be on enemy/retribution lists that have circulated on the right. Most of these named are current or former elected and administration officials.

Of course, folks on the left point to the pardons Trump gave to his cronies, but if Biden were to move forward issuing blanket pardons to elected officials, that feels like it would be crossing a new line. Trump, to his credit, actually denied the requests of several GOP elected officials who lobbied for pardons last time. Moreover, if you are a current elected official, or hope to be one in the future, how you can outrun the connotation that you did something illegal? It is different for the non-elected folks who came out against Trump, like his former administration officials, also in that they are probably the likeliest targets of any "retribution."

Trump knows he needs foils to keep running against throughout his term, and by criminally prosecuting or otherwise targeting those folks (i.e. the Bidens, the Obamas, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff) he would risk jeopardizing his ability to continue blaming them for everything.

This feels like another landmine for Biden that could have many unintended consequences. Considering how the Hunter pardon was handled, I'm not confident he or his team are making decisions that are in the best interest of the Party or the country.

Politics: Public Health

J.E. in Akron, OH, writes: Regarding the potential damage Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could do as head of HHS, you wrote: "[T]he various agencies that make up Health and Human Services have a fair bit of power to make policy changes without Congress' input."

It will be interesting to see if the change in administrations will prompt yet another change in how the Supreme Court views executive power. Back in the '80s, conservative jurists were all for Chevron and other doctrines that effectively expanded executive power at the expense of the other two branches. However, during the Obama and especially the Biden presidencies, SCOTUS got all concerned about the supposed threats to liberty from powerful executive agencies, resulting in the "Major Questions Doctrine" and the overruling of Chevron, giving more ammunition to litigants challenging agency actions. If Kennedy is confirmed, and decides to push for policies beyond what Congress has explicitly authorized, recent SCOTUS precedent could limit him. Of course, the current Court has been pretty shameless in jettisoning precedent when necessary to facilitate Republican political goals.


S.Y. in Miami, FL, writes: The commentary from one of your items struck a particular nerve with me. Within the critique of Leana Wen's fluoride piece, you wrote: "We are not sure exactly what Wen's motivation was here", and went on to offer some speculations. Nowhere in your speculations did you consider that, just maybe, Wen was writing in good enough faith that we might take her closing statement at face value: "I anticipate I will vehemently oppose many of the administration's decisions. I might also agree with some. My promise is that I will strive to be as objective as I can and always base my analysis on a careful evaluation of the science."

On questions such as the matter of fluoride in public water and countless others, I think some humility is in order. Sorting out causation from correlation is often a difficult task in environmental studies, with loads of confounding variables present. The analysis and critique on this matter, if there is to be any, ought to be primarily limited to the merits of argument. While at it, perhaps it would be interesting to examine why much of Europe has opted against public water fluoridation and understand which scientific findings or principles those governments have been following.

My bigger picture frustration here is not about fluoride in the water, but rather, a specific kind of smugness and arrogance exhibited. These characteristics permeate far too much of what is being said by progressive-minded people. I see too much pre-supposing of scientific rightness and moral high ground. I see too many ad-hominem attacks. The rhetoric is toxic, and as a lifelong Democrat, it is not a mystery to me why every swing state went red this year.


M.M. in Baltimore, MD, writes: Leana Wen's take on fluoridation was not published this week, but back on November 14. She received numerous comments (mine included) condemning her stance—rightly so, I believe. Since then, she has written three more columns about RFK Jr., all of which condemned his stance on vaccines. She must have taken all the criticism to heart. She clearly knows RFK is dangerous, but must not have realized that her fluoridation article would unleash such fury.


J.P.M. in Atlanta, GA, writes: Thanks for raising the issue of removing fluoride from water systems on your site. Being a retired public health dentist I can't help but want to weigh in here. In addition to literally thousands of studies over decades confirming the safety and efficacy of fluoride in municipal water systems, I can state without hesitation first hand that fluoride works well to save children from toothaches and early tooth loss, which distract from learning in school, and potentially compromise the health of their permanent teeth as adults.

In 1995, I had been a public health dentist for over 7 years at a large county health department that offered free dental care to low-income and Medicaid-eligible children. I would most often see pre-school aged kids from day care for their first checkup and cleaning.

Recall that, around 1999, the entire country was experiencing quite an economic boom thanks substantially to the the DotCom stock rally. The suburbs around my city were building houses at a very high rate, so Latino carpenters, day laborers, fast food workers, etc., were in high demand and so my clinic experienced quite a surge of Latino children needed health services. I have to assume there was no fluoride offered in Mexican water systems at that time, as the difference in needed dental care between the children born in our county and those from Mexico was quite dramatic.

It's sadly easy to dismiss child cavities as trivial, but imagine your child crying with a toothache for several days where you have to skip work to get expensive treatment. Primary teeth function as placeholders for a person's permanent teeth, as the upper and lower jaws expand about an inch in length from childhood. When "baby" or primary teeth are lost early, the permanent adult teeth can experience gum issues, alignment problems with diminished chewing function. All easily prevented by the use of fluoride in municipal water supplies.

Such casual ignorant cruelty to withhold fluoride, given its proven health benefits to innocent children, rates a special circle of hell for those quacks and morons opposing its use...


E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, writes: You wrote Kash Patel's bogus "supplements" that help people "detox" from the COVID vaccine. You asked:

Who's the target audience here? The kind of marks who might give their hard-earned cash to Kash probably refused the vaccine in the first place. People who took the vaccine are probably not looking to undo its effects. We don't see the market here, but who are we to argue with someone whose first name means "money"?

I think you're greatly underestimating the ignorance and gullibility of the American people and the MAGA folks in particular. I could easily see people who were forced to take the vaccine once by "them lib'rul COVID Nazis" buying something like this to "detox" from its effects. Also, some people might think, "Oh no! I was just around someone who got the vaccine and they 'shed' it all over me. Better take Kash's supplement again!" Recall that these were the same folks who took horse dewormer rather than get a simple shot.

If only there were a supplement that America itself could take to "detox" from ignorance and gullibility.


C.N. in Athens, OH, writes: I love the site and check it almost daily. I have been following you for at least 4 presidential election cycles but never felt the need to comment (until now). Specifically, I wanted to address this quote regarding Kash Patel. "His company, Warrior Essentials, claims the product removes toxins from cells, restores circulatory health, and restores DNA stability. After all, who would want to walk around with unstable DNA? It couldn't be more bogus if he tried."

While I have no doubt Kash Patel is a grifter and that very little at Warrior Essentials works as advertised, "unstable DNA" is very much a real thing. I just gave a lecture on it last week in my graduate course on cellular and molecular biology.

The more formal term is "genomic instability," and it is an established feature in cancer, as well as a host of rare genetic disorders involving DNA repair mechanisms. These natural supplement dealers tend to use scientific buzzwords without understanding the science or having any evidence for their claims, but the concept of stabilizing DNA is not bogus (although the product almost surely is).


A.A. in Kingwood, TX, writes: I join (V) in his outrage over insulting the beloved VAX computer. That's where I learned programming back in the early 80s, and it pains me to see that awesome computer associated with a snake oil salesman.

Politics: LGBTQ Matters

E.C.L. in Blacksburg, VA, writes: I haven't read Tennessee's specific law, the one before the Supreme Court that you wrote about, but every other permutation of a law prohibiting gender care for minors has specific carve-outs for basically everything that isn't transgender gender dysphoria; most notably, intersex conditions.

You wrote:

What makes it hard to oppose the Tennessee law based on sex discrimination is that the Tennessee law bans turning boys into girls and girls into boys equally. Supporters of the law say that it clearly does not favor one sex over the other, which is what the court cases about sex discrimination are about.

That really isn't true. Because they'll still prescribe hormone therapies for boys with breasts (gynecomastia). They'll still prescribe puberty blockers for girls under 10 with precocious puberty. They'll still prescribe testosterone-reducing drugs for girls who are too manly (hyperandrogenism). All of these are basically standards of care. And they'll still perform surgery on those with ambiguous genitalia when they are too young to consent (plus, they still allow circumcision, the most common irreversable genital surgery in the U.S.). So I think it's really specious to claim this class of law isn't violating the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.


D.S. in Palo Alto, CA, writes: Chad Chronister, Donald Trump's failed nominee to lead the DEA, was also recorded many times supporting the Pride movement and the LiGaBeTiQIA movement (I think it needs the Hebrew-style implicit vowels when pronouncing; major accent on the QI) in general. Not really what the lily-pure MAGAte would want. Too bad; I like him.


A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: First, I want to thank R.L. in Alameda for speaking up and speaking out. We in the trans community need a lot more people like R.L! And, while I appreciate being singled out for showing courage... I am not really sure I am all that courageous. It's just that life never really gave me any other choice!

I transitioned fairly young (for the time) at the age of 25, in 1997. I had already been living most of my life as my true self, but was working as a "male" until January, 1997, when I transitioned there, too... and promptly lost my job over it. The funny thing there was that they had said I could... and then, when I did, they fired me. And then started giving false and misleading references to potential future employers. I finally decided to sue for wrongful termination and won; that got appealed twice and finally settled out of court. The company in question essentially ended up financing my final surgery, which I had in Thailand, in 2002.

As bad as things seem right now, I, and my generation of trans, have been through much worse. We were denied the means to a legal livelihood, or were forced to take the jobs/shifts nobody else wanted, in order to stay employed. You might be surprised at some of the things I did to survive—fortunately none of them were illegal.

We didn't have allies back then. We were not even a part of the then GLB community (yes, it was "GLB," and in that order) In fact, the GLB community of the time were among our worst adversaries. They would smile in our face and then stab us in the back. I prefer enemies who announce themselves as such. So, there's something to be said for the upcoming situation for my community... at least we will know who our enemies are this time!

As many of you know, I ran for the state Senate in NC, becoming the first-in-NC-history openly trans woman to do so. So I am very visible and public. And even I downplayed the trans stuff when I ran, and on a political level, Democrats can support us without being overly vocal about it.

Kamala Harris missed the opportunity to address the anti-trans ads. As I pointed out a few days before the election, about how it was the SCOTUS in 1976, through Estelle v. Gamble, that had made taxpayer-funded trans surgeries possible, and that only two federal prisoners had ever received such care. On a state level, there have been others, but that is then financed by state, and not federal, tax dollars.

We needed to respond, and still do need to respond, that Estelle v. Gamble established prisoners' right to adequate medical care, and that later cases established "adequate" as being "care equivalent to what one would receive if not behind bars." Unfortunately, we can't put that on a bumper sticker. And that is our biggest problem. The attention span of the average American is probably shorter than that of a fruit fly, and we need bumper-sticker responses that we don't have. And James Carville can go to hell.


G.L. in Memphis, TN, writes: Last week's mailbag had several letters on discrimination based on "identity issues," including left-handedness. It made me realize how my upbringing parallels the experience of gay and trans persons today.

I was obviously left-handed as a child, as I started to write with my left hand at age 4 or 5. My father would not accept this, and (successfully) punished me into using my right hand—for some things. Recent medical issues necessitated explaining that I am actually left-handed, contrary to appearances, and immobilizing either of my hands is problematic. I am just very good at disguising this aspect of who I am.

What surprised me was the shock medical personnel displayed on learning that I was punished (tortured?) into behaving right-handed. Now I fervently wish that gay, lesbian, trans, and others can be accepted for who they are. And I hope that soon we will all express our own shock and dismay that it was not always so.

Politics: Media Matters

K.F. in Framingham, MA, writes: "Media Matters: So Much for Speaking Truth to Power," you wrote, "The corporate-owned, previously left-leaning media have not exactly been clothing themselves in glory recently. The fourth estate is supposed to keep the politicians honest, but..."

Do you see legacy media as we know it going the way of the dinosaur? Will independent media take its place? How can those who care about the First Amendment and in advancing the cause of a truly informed electorate push back against the big money corporate media and billionaire-backed social media that can so easily flood the zone with normalization, both-siderism, and just pure disinformation? If only everyone was required to read Electoral-Vote.com everyday. One can dream.


B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: You wrote: "Whatever is going on, there have been a number of eye-roller opinion pieces in the [Washington] Post recently, and not all of them from the usual suspects."

I'm a daily reader, and I concur.


S.Z. in Parma, OH, writes: Gentlemen, in regards to this line of argument: "However, others, including Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL), are arguing that abandoning [Twitter] will make it a right-wing paradise with no push-back at all."

The greater examples of this are the standard practices on mainstream televised news: ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS all have Republicans speak. These Republicans all speak in bad faith. They lie, twist, bring up absurdities and miscomparisons, and they get to finish their mendacious nonsense. These networks, shows, and reporters ought to cut them off, and immediately denounce their lies. If Congress critter Foghorn Liesalot always does the same performance, he should never be brought back. The news media has grievously failed us. The late night chat show comedians have displayed more truth telling.


M.M. in Charleston, IL, writes: I was just wondering what has happened to Political Wire lately? It feels like a lot more of his stories are comments from right-leaning or Republican people. I used to visit Taegan's site multiple times a day, but now I just get mad every time I go there. Maybe I'm just too used to being in a left-wing bubble, but I've been reading for years, and something is definitely different.

I love your site, too. It is now my go-to news source, although I've had to take a little break from all the horrible news since the election.

(V) & (Z) respond: We have no reason to believe Taegan has made a deliberate change in the direction or tone of the site. It's probably because the advent of a second Trump administration means most of the news is coming from the right.

Politics: Ex-eX-Twitter Users

E.D. in Saddle Brook, NJ, writes: Your item about Democrats leaving eX-Twitter is very late to the party. I've used eX-Twitter for about 15 years, mostly avoiding politics there. The decline was rapid once Elon Musk started making changes. The site barely worked for months after he started laying off employees and not paying bills. The issues were largely solved by a lot of users leaving, reducing load on the site. With each change Musk made, you could see more users flee. Things like the lack of moderation and the removal of features to block users have vastly made the site unusable for many people. Anyone that dealt with any sort of harassment is now dealing with it at a far greater level. If you've been using the site for years, it's been very obvious for a while now that a large portion of the users left a year or more ago. I've rarely checked the site in the last year or so, because there's just not many people left posting there. It's also very obvious that a ton of the active accounts are bots.

Any talk about pre-Musk political skew on eX-Twitter is largely a distraction. You choose who you follow, and the site boosts posts based on your interests. You will see a feed that skews toward your beliefs because you are choosing what you see. Post-Musk eX-Twitter skews heavily right-wing partly because the more liberal crowd left a while ago. The bigger issue is Musk wanted to be the center of attention and asked his staff to tweak the algorithms to ensure that happens. Musk's account has a multiplier on it that causes his tweets to be scored way higher than anyone else's by the algorithm, ensuring that most of his tweets get seen by just about everyone that hasn't blocked his account. He spends a ridiculous amount of time every day tweeting and re-tweeting posts from far-right sources. This causes far-right tweets to be seen by the vast majority of users, regardless of the user's beliefs and feed curation choices.

I think eX-Twitter still has some value for non-political interests, even if it's a shadow of what it used to be. If you're looking at politics, the site is engineered at the core to spread Musk's beliefs over everything else. It's a waste of time trying to counter that.


D.E. in Ashburn, VA, writes: (V)'s analysis of liberals' exodus from eX-Twitter in favor of BlueSky doesn't mention the main reason I and many of my friends have left the platform: because we do not want to financially support Elon Musk! The fact that eX-Twitter is full hate and lies is actually secondary, although it's clearly part and parcel of the Musk package.

Politics: Bring on the Whippersnappers

M.T. in St. Paul, MN, writes: A group of 12-15 of my friends gathered recently to discuss the current state of America, primarily focused on politics, but ranging into other topics. One item discussed was that maybe it is time for older folks like myself to either lend a hand to the Millennial and Gen-Z generations, or get out of the way. I was encouraged to see your item on moves by people like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to gain more of a say in the Democratic Party. While the folks from these generations are smart and aware of their world, they often are fatalistic. That's my conclusion after teaching college students for a little over 10 years. Then I read your article speculating on the 2028 Democratic candidate. You mentioned Govs. Tim Walz (DFL-MN) and Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI). I think this could be a powerful ticket. Someone who is a bit older and experienced, but willing to work with and listen to younger people.

Like Andrew Jackson and FDR, Trumpism will eventually be replaced by something. I just hope these younger generations have the freedom to build a movement.


E.S. In Providence RI, writes: Regarding replacing ranking members in Congress, the first to step aside should be Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), who should hand the Judiciary Committee lead to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who will be much more aggressive in fighting Trumpist extremism.

It's also time for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to step aside (as Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi did) and turn the minority leader job over to someone younger, more energetic, more articulate, and more telegenic. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) would be ideal.

Politics: George Helmy

S.A.K. in Karnataka, India, writes: The item on soon-to-be-former Sen. George Helmy (D-NJ) was such a warm read. Helmy's speech, specifically his drawing attention to the plight of the Gazans, has to be the only instance where a non-Muslim brought this issue up on the floor of either the House or the Senate in such a forceful manner.

In light of Kamala Harris' defeat at the hustings and the narrative being bandied around that the Democrats need to get closer to the center, this speech counts as courageous for me. I can foresee an opponent in the primaries bringing this speech up and portraying the Senator as someone who opposes Israel and supports terrorists. I don't think that scenario is too far-fetched.

I fervently hope he wins whatever future electoral race he runs. Politics in the U.S. needs more people like him and less like Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Ted Cruz (R-TX).


C.J. in Redondo Beach, CA, writes: You left off one of the best short-term Senators ever.

Horace Tabor was appointed to serve out the last 5 weeks or so when Henry Teller was appointed Secretary of the Interior by President Chester Arthur. Tabor was involved in a mini-scandal that hadn't broken out of Colorado, where he secretly divorced his previous wife and had a small civil ceremony to marry his paramour. So Tabor decided to really have some fun and threw a big blowout wedding in Washington that was the event of the social season. President Arthur, numerous senators, and the elite of the capital were there. But the scandal of the divorce and secret wedding shortly afterward came out with huge headlines and Arthur and plenty of Republican politicians took heat for attending. After the abbreviated term was up, with Tabor gone, Teller said, "I thank God he was not elected for 6 years. Thirty days nearly killed us."

All Politics Is Local

C.S. in Linville, NC, writes: I wanted to give your readers a brief update from a region that was severely damaged by hurricane Helene. Weather has gotten cold this past week. The situation is dire for many people, including in my neighborhood, who have been displaced to tents, RVs, or cars, or are living in gutted houses as they wait to rebuild. Many people in this region were already living paycheck to paycheck and will never be able to rebuild.

I walked the Linville River near my house today, and was saddened by the enormous volume of trash that has entered our once-pristine headwaters. Much of the trash is high up in trees, left there from record high flood waters, and it will sadly live there until it eventually degrades into smaller and smaller pieces of trash and re-enters our watershed.

Our road shoulders now serve as staging areas for tree debris and building debris and garbage separated into muddy piles. Contractors from all over country have rushed to help (and earn FEMA money) and fill the need for someone to take trash from next to houses and road shoulders to big fields where giant tub grinders can turn a whole tree into wood chips in a matter of minutes. The same is being done with building materials, from there they scoop it and haul it to landfill, where it will live out its days and half-lifes.

The pollution of our once clean waterways will be one of many sad legacies Hurricane Helene left in its wake.


A.R. in Raleigh, NC, writes: I know y'all say that recounts are unlikely to make changes. Here is a data point you could use in the future: After a machine recount for a statewide race in North Carolina, there was NO change to the vote difference between the candidates. Each lost the same number of votes: 110 of them.

It's Not Rocket Science... Except When It Is, Part I

R.P. in Kāneʻohe, HI, writes: I'll nominate Edward Osborne Wilson for the list of Americans who contributed most broadly to scientific progress. The breadth and depth of his contributions not only to science, but also to the all-important task of communicating science to the general public, is unmatched within his field. If there had been a Nobel Prize for Biodiversity established within his lifetime, he would undoubtedly have been its first recipient. Although some of his work and writings have been somewhat controversial, his dedication to explaining the importance of Biodiversity is, by far, his greatest legacy.

If Wilson's name is not as widely known as the likes of the Wright Brothers, Watson and Crick, Einstein, and Edison, it is only because Wilson was too far ahead of his time. Biodiversity is unambiguously the most valuable resource on the planet for humanity. It provides us with almost all the oxygen we breathe, all the food we eat, half of all new medicines, and it sequesters a quarter-trillion tons of carbon annually (among many other such ecosystem services). All told, annual economic value provided by Biodiversity is something on the order of $150-$170 trillion annually (more than the entire global GDP), and yet we spend five orders of magnitude less money discovering and documenting Biodiversity (80-90% of which is still unknown) than we spend on other sciences, such as physics and space exploration.

The fundamental nature of matter, energy, and the universe are going to be around for a very long time. Biodiversity, and the 4 billion years of accumulated genetic and ecological wisdom it represents, will be severely diminished within the next century as we continue down the path of the Earth's Sixth Great Extinction event. If humanity survives long enough to recognize the importance of Biodiversity before it (which includes Homo sapiens) is lost, then the contributions of Wilson will finally receive the recognition they deserve.


E.L. in Saratoga, CA, writes: I'm not sure where I would rank him, but Edwin Hubble certainly had a massive impact on the field of astronomy, first by demonstrating that many of the "nebulae" were really galaxies far from our own, and then by discovering the expansion of the universe. One could argue that he pretty much created the field of cosmology.


P.H. in Daytona Beach, FL, writes: Howard Florey. Never gets a mention anywhere.

Instead, Sir Alexander Fleming gets it for observing fungus spores on oranges—Penicillium—in 1927.

But it took a true practical, persistent genius like the modest, bespeckled Florey—an Australian pharmacologist and pathologist who won the Nobel Prize Medicine in 1945 (shared)—to make practical use of that observation. With his team stationed in the UK, Florey saved millions of Allied troops injured on the battlefield stop all kinds of infections by distilling Penicillium and developing Penicillin, and an effective dose delivery mechanism.

And around 80 million lives since, saved, probably much more.

As the Axis countries did not have access to this wonder-drug, they perished in far greater numbers.

That was one of the four main reasons that World War II in Europe was won by the Allies, in my view. The other three were: (1) the Willys Jeep, which not only enabled battlefield commanders great mobility, but was modified dozens of times for certain critical tasks; (2) Alan Turing & Co. cracking the Enigma code at Bletchley Park; and (3) Corporal Hitler, who could not think strategically enough about his several rash decisions. (Reminds of another German-Bloodline Leader, Herr Drumpf.)

(V) & (Z) respond: Note that Florey did part of his studies in the U.S., and was obviously part of the Allied war effort, so we are accepting that he counts as an American scientist.


M.H. in Boston, MA, writes: I would add Vannevar Bush and remove Watson and Crick. Bush was an important scientist in his own right, but his legacy is the creation of National Science Foundation, taking the World War II zeal for making the U.S. dominant in science and converting it into a lasting postwar approach to public funding of basic research through grants and training fellowships. A good summary is here.


K.M. in Portland, ME, writes: Rachel Carson... I wonder if this is one of the two names you have in mind.

I suspect Carl Sagan is one of the two names, and, if so, I'm left with interesting questions about how we ought to make sense of and try to weigh up "scientific impact" (e.g., direct or indirect). And the initial question was about "influence," which seems possible through a range of pathways.

Stephen Jay Gould also comes to mind.


B.S.M. in Copenhagen, Denmark, writes: What about Nikola Tesla? He was born in Croatia to a Serbian family. Later, he moved to the U.S., so I consider him an American immigrant.

I went to the Tesla museum in Belgrade years ago. It was a small museum, but fascinating.


M.S. in Canton, NY, writes: I imagine that one of the American scientists you expect readers to be surprised to find missing from your list is Benjamin Franklin. I won't argue with your call, but it's notable that Franklin made the most important 50/50 guess in the history of science—and, unfortunately, got it wrong!

Franklin hypothesized that electricity is a flow of charged "fluid" from bodies of one electric charge to bodies of the oppositive charge. Having no way of telling which was which, he labeled one of them "positive" to be the source of the flow, and the other "negative" to be the target. A hundred or so years later, we learned that actually electrons flow from a negatively charged source to a positively charged destination. However, to this day, the convention in electrical engineering and related fields is to show current flowing from positive to negative. Oops!


A.M. in Brookhaven, PA, writes: My opinion is that Ben Franklin was the most influential scientist in U.S. history. Inventing bifocals and lightning rods, along with his work with electricity, clearly make him a scientist, even if only part-time. And his influence extends beyond the world of science. It was his reputation as a scientist that helped get America recognized with countries like France and Spain which helped win the revolution. Otherwise the U.S. would have remained part of the British Empire and likely would have meant that we would now be part of Canada... eh.

(V) & (Z) respond: The two individuals we removed from the list were... Tesla and Franklin. In the former case, we concluded that his "persona," for lack of a better term, has caused his impact on science to be overstated. That impact is not zero, mind you, but it's not Top 10-worthy, either. As to Franklin, we see him as being somewhat analogous to Leonardo da Vinci: Clearly multi-talented, clearly a serious scientific thinker, but someone whose scientific impact has been overstated, in part because of their inherent genius, and in part because of their accomplishments in some OTHER field (painting and politics, respectively). We cannot accept that, for example, inventing bifocals and the lightning rod was as impactful as, say, unlocking the secrets of the atom.

Who Let the Dogs In?

K.F.K. in Cle Elum, WA, writes: To S.S.-L. in Battle Creek: Please make sure you have the time and money to own a dog. Not only can vet costs get expensive, but you will have to make arrangements for any time you are going to be away from home: doggy daycare, dog and house sitters etc. The other possibility is if you find somebody you can exchange dog sitting duties with. Medium and large dogs need a fair amount of exercise. Mine needs an hour each day, minimum.

Make sure to socialize your dog early with both humans and other dogs.

(V) and (Z) alluded to this, but be prepared, especially if you are getting a puppy. You just don't know what kind of a personality your dog will grow into. This is especially true of mixed-breed rescues, of which I've had three at this point.

A fenced yard is a great asset. But don't count on a gorgeous landscape. The gravel "yard" in the photo covers a bevy of holes dug in an effort to catch voles:

A mixed-breed, 50-pound dog sits in a planter, next to a yard covered with gravel


L.R.H. in Oakland, CA, writes: We've had two dogs, one smart and difficult—she was unpredictably dog aggressive—and one who was not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but easy and sweet. I have what I hope are useful thoughts about dogs and training them:


D.C.W. in Fredericksburg, TX, writes: The best advice I can give is to stay very close to your dog and watch them. Know their habits and watch for hints of distress. We have had many dogs through the years, usually three at a time of various ages, all rescues. Mostly dachshunds (the best!) and dachshund mixes. Two of our boys acquired two different maladies that, if not caught by us very early, would have been fatal.

We've had the typical back issues that required surgery or other treatment. But one boy acquired a Neospora parasite from some freeze-dried raw beef patties (I think; I cannot prove). This is a cattle-canine closed-loop parasite that is usually fatal—it causes nerve damage, paralysis, and seizures. Not curable, but we caught it immediately because we noticed this active, healthy dog swaying back and forth with a blank look in his eyes one morning. He lived 4 more years to age 16 and had a good life, with the aid of lots of meds.

The second one is a 3-year-old super-squirrel hunter who all of a sudden sat down a couple of times while "hunting." Overnight he passed massive amounts of blood-filled urine and clots. He had a sudden autoimmune reaction to something that immediately started killing red blood cells and clotted his blood. It, too, can be fatal, as my vet told me, and he has seen many dogs die form it. He got steroids, antibiotics and (compounded for his size) blood thinners and fluid IV right away. He is doing well now, 3 weeks out, and we are starting to taper the meds. Might have been a bee sting, but the trigger is not known.

(Z) and (V) are correct. A good, accessible, hands-on vet is the best thing. Mine will e-mail me, night or day, in response to a problem. Worth every penny (he does have two kids in college...).

And love, love, love. These fur kids are the light of my life and keep me sane and focused during the other mess we are all going through. Watch them, play with them, pet them, let them lick you, reward them with little treats, enjoy their peculiarities, feed them only good dog food—no people food, brush their teeth if they will let you, and they will reward you mightily. Thanks for adopting!

(V) & (Z) respond: Good luck with your sick pup!


R.R. in Chewelah, WA, writes: From my own personal experience with rescue dogs, I would highly recommend doing a DNA test to find out just what mix you're dealing with. You can't tell by looks. I have a little dog who looks for all the world like a cocker spaniel (she's not), but she's half herding mix and that's the half that dominates (nippy little snot!). And if you can afford the extra expense, do get the test that uses a blood sample, not the oral swab. I had mine done through my vet. Ince you know the breeds, do read the different breed descriptions; they can go a long way towards explaining some behaviors. Oh, and your vet may be able to recommend local training classes.


M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: For a first dog from a shelter, don't choose the sad, shy, fearful dog because there will be socialization and behavior issues that you don't need first time around. Pick one that is at least 18 months old because it will have finished teething and won't chew on everything in the home and yard. Also, house training is easier at that age (as opposed to a puppy) if it isn't already trained. Obedience class will teach you how to communicate clearly with your new dog and is as much about training the owner as the dog. Shelter dogs are usually surrendered because owners have not successfully house trained and/or corrected obedience problems. Once the new dog is home, be aware that they will try to escape because they are trying to go "home." That includes pushing past you when you open the door, diligently seeking out any opening in a fence, or climbing over it. Keeping them on a lead indoors, with you attached to the other end, for several days helps with orientation and bonding, too.

The folks at the shelter will have many more suggestions to help make it a successful adoption, and definitely ask them about kennel training (think "den" = safe space, not "cage" = confinement).


M.N. in Lake Ann, MI, writes: I've owned a lot of dogs, most of them rescues/shelter dogs. I will second the "find a good vet" advice, and add to that: Be aware that many vet offices today are owned by veterinary pharmaceutical companies, so it may be worth checking who actually owns the place you are thinking about utilizing. This is not to say that all, or even an,y of these places are bad, but rather just know what you are getting into and be aware you might face some "up-selling." If you and the dog like the vet and the staff, you will generally be good to go, regardless of the owner of the business.

I have mostly lived in places where there are no dog parks, and in a few places where the dog parks that do exist are of questionable health status with the potential for contaminated soil, with distemper being the largest problem. Be cautious of these if the new dog may not be fully vaccinated. My current hometown has some dog-walk groups which serve both as human networking groups, and also as dog socialization, similar to the dog parks if you don't have access to one.

And finally: If you have the means to do so, it may be worth running genetic testing if you have a rescued dog who is of unknown ancestry and/or unknown history. One of my rescues was labeled as a Jack Russell, which heritage would suggest the potential for some specific health problems. She turned out to be mostly beagle, which actually suggests entirely different health issues, including a genetic predisposition to back issues similar to what dachshunds can have. This led to a lot of changes in our house and in our play styles to mitigate the chances for problems. She is now 10 years old and doing great.


J.O. in Williamsburg, MA, writes: When we got our 35-pound mixed terrier, she was not fully socialized—had ben running wild in Houston for some time. She reacted badly to men's work boots, hats and sunglasses. The trainer I went to suggested going to Home Depot or some such with some small treats, and asking men (in our case) who were using the store to give our dog a treat to help socialize her. That was a very good tip. 90% of the gents cooperated.

Christmas Carols

C.F. in Waltham, MA, writes: You wrote: "You really should specify which version of A Christmas Carol you were watching. As (Z)'s grandmother often observed, there's the Alastair Sim version, and then there are... all the others."

I tend to watch maybe a half dozen different Christmas Carol versions during the holiday season, and I'll definitely watch the one you mentioned (1951 version) since I don't think I've seen that one.

This year the first two I watched were Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol and The Muppet Christmas Carol. So, you'll forgive me for not mentioning it.

I do like the Patrick Stewart version and, somewhat embarrassingly, the Bill Murray comedy Scrooged.

So, now you know, and I hope it gave you a smile.

(V) & (Z) respond: The Murray film is a fine comedy, but it's not really A Christmas Carol. As to Patrick Stewart, (Z) saw him do the play as a one-man show on three different occasions. As chance would have it, (Z) also saw the annual South Coast Repertory staging of the play on Saturday Night. For those who live in proximity to Orange County, CA, it's highly recommended.


D.C. in South Elgin, IL, writes: (Z)'s grandmother (RIP?) wins the Internet for today; Alistair Sim's version of Scrooge is the ONLY Christmas Carol permitted in this residence.

Disney's animated version of perhaps 15 years ago is pretty watchable, although Jim Carrey, notorious Canadian, is too manic. As ever.


J.M. in Arvada, CO, writes: I'm sorry to disagree with (Z)'s grandmother but when it comes to A Christmas Carol, but there's the Muppet version, and then there are... all the others.

(V) & (Z) respond: We knew we had Canadians reading the site. We didn't know we had godless communists reading, as well.


M.C. in Nashville, TN, writes: With all due respect to grandmothers, the best A Christmas Carol screen adaptation is the George C. Scott version.

(V) & (Z) respond: Whatever you say... comrade.

Gallimaufry

S.C. in Farmington Hills, MI, writes: Might we have a bit of sympathy for our neighbors to the north?

A Peanuts cartoon altered so that Charlie Brown is lamenting 'GOOD GRIEF LINUS. CANADA MUST FEEL LIKE THEY LIVE IN AN APARTMENT ABOVE A METH LAB WITH ALL THIS CRAZY.'


R.M. in Gresham, OR, writes: A.M. in Toronto wrote: "Allow a Canadian to suggest that a very small group of Republican senators may discover they have spines of steel, a moral conscience, a love of country before party and an unshakable belief in the American experiment, and band together to be legislative freedom fighters that keep [Donald] Trump honest and faithful to his oath of office."

Funniest thing to come out of Canada since Bob and Doug received a beer in a tree on the first day of Christmas. If this comes to pass, I will personally deliver A.M. in Toronto three french toasts. Hell, I'll bring the entire list if they adopt me!


R.H. in San Antonio, TX, writes: VTDigger found that at least three towers first proposed in 2021 have been built on the Canadian border, and it's possible more are on the way: "Eye in the sky: The feds have quietly built surveillance towers along the Canadian border in Vermont, New York."

(V) & (Z) respond: And to think there are people who say that Joe Biden is NOT the greatest foreign policy president of all time. Not since James Madison has a president been so attuned to the threat from the Great White North. Of course, it helps that Madison personally warned Biden.


J.M. in Stamford, CT, writes: Please put me on the early-order list for the Electoral-Vote.Com Action Figure as soon as it hits the market.


A.S. in Black Mountain, NC, writes: I never realized! From now on it will be:

Capital A dot Capital S dot

Black Mountain, NC

Or should that be:

Capital N dot capital C dot?

Just asking.

(V) & (Z) respond: Initials get periods, states do not. Note that we only mentioned this because a reader asked, however. Also note that fixing readers' signatures to be stylized correctly takes no time at all. Much, much harder is when folks forget to put their city and state.

Final Words

R.B. in Cleveland, OH, writes: From Franklin Roosevelt's final public address to the American people: "The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. Let us move forward with strong and active faith."

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

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers

Web Analytics Made Easy - StatCounter