Jan23




Previous | Next

Civil War Averted in Texas... for Now

Yesterday, the Supreme Court announced that the Biden administration would be allowed to cut down the razor wire that Texas has strung along a 2-mile segment of the Mexican border.

The vote was 5-4. Undoubtedly you can guess that the three liberals and Chief Justice John Roberts were part of the five, and that Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito were part of the four. So, the only question is which justice between Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority. And the answer is: Barrett. The order was brief, and did not explain the justices' reasoning, but we cannot imagine what the four justices in the minority are thinking. What reading of the law says that it's OK for states to usurp federal authority to maintain the border?

In any event, conservatives are howling mad. To take just one example, among many, Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) declared that Texas should defy the Supreme Court and the White House, and should stand its ground. This really speaks to how very much some of these folks are out to lunch. Regardless of one's opinion on the border, a couple of miles of razor wire is just political theater, and isn't actually doing anything. To believe that it's not only working, but that its efficacy is great enough to justify de facto rebellion against the U.S. government, is delusional.

Of course, this whole drama isn't over. All that SCOTUS did yesterday was strike down an injunction. That lets the feds take down the wire for now, but the case is still pending in the Fifth Circuit, which already gave its tentative blessing with the now-dead injunction. So, once this is adjudicated the wire could be right back in place. (Z)

What to Do about Trump's (Potential) Mental and/or Physical Decline?

By now, most readers will have heard about Donald Trump's mental lapse this weekend:

If you don't care to watch (though it's less than 30 seconds), he said: "You know, Nikki Haley, Nikki Haley, Nikki Haley, you know they—do you know they destroyed all of the information and all of the evidence? Everything. Deleted and destroyed all of it. All of it because of, lots of things. Like, Nikki Haley is in charge of security. We offered her 10,000 people." Obviously, he meant "Nancy Pelosi." Trump has also recently mixed up Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and Kevin McCarthy and Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA), and he also predicted that Biden is going to lead the U.S. into World War II [sic].

More speculative at this point, but still a topic of much conversation, are Trump's potential physical problems. He appears to have lost weight, and he definitely looks more than a bit worn down on the campaign trail. He also had what appeared to be visible sores on his hands last week. The exact nature of the sores is not clear, but many hopeful Democrats guessed secondary syphilis.

This creates a somewhat interesting situation for Joe Biden and the Democrats. On one hand, they could make hay out of Trump's issues, in hopes of neutering that line of attack against the President. On the other hand, doing so could send the message that armchair diagnoses are legit, and could actually strengthen the case against Biden. The choice here seems pretty obvious to us, and it's clear that Team Biden agrees, because the campaign has already made its move, launching an ad showing Trump's meltdown this weekend, interspersed with clips of Nikki Haley asserting that Trump's cheese is sliding off the cracker.

It gives Biden and the Democrats a fair amount of cover that it's not ONLY Democrats who are expressing concern about Trump's mental and physical state (besides Haley, it's also come up on Fox). And Biden doesn't need to win on this issue; he just needs to muddy the waters. If voters believe that neither man has a particular advantage in mental fitness, then that would neuter one of Biden's biggest weaknesses. (Z)

Haley Gets Off to a Fast Start in New Hampshire

The voting has commenced in New Hampshire, and, as of this moment, Nancy Pelosi... er, Nikki Haley is shutting Donald Trump out. The six Republicans who live in Dixville Notch and who apparently don't care about cold temperatures, gathered to cast their primary votes about a minute after midnight last night. And all of them voted for Haley.

We do not foresee this lead holding, and we're definitely not predicting a Haley shutout. We pass it along because it's one of the many cool little elements of American politics, and it's also a reminder that tomorrow we'll have the results, after another 140,000 or so people have cast their ballots. (Z)

The Wild, Wacky World of California Politics

As the 2024 election cycle gets underway, there are some quirky things going on in California. Some of them are just a product of American politics in general; others are specific to California because of its size, its demographics and its jungle primary.

To start, there was a candidates' debate last night, with the leading U.S. Senate candidates on stage. In other words, invites were issued to Reps. Adam Schiff (D), Katie Porter (D) and Barbara Lee (D), and to former Los Angeles Dodger Steve Garvey. And it was an excellent demonstration of why Republicans can't win statewide office in California.

Garvey has three significant problems. The first is that he may be a veteran baseball player, but he's a rookie politician. Not good when you're on stage with three battle-tested pros. The second is that when there are three Democrats and one Republican on stage, you can guess who is going to have a giant target on their back. The third is that California Republicans are pretty MAGA, while California independents are definitely not. This forces Garvey to avoid taking positions on... anything.

The zinger of the night served to illustrate all three of these problems. Porter asked Garvey if he would vote for Donald Trump in 2024; a question Garvey most certainly does not want to answer, because he'll either anger the MAGA crowd or the independents. So, he said he would wait until Election Day: "At that time, I will make my choice." Porter replied with an obviously pre-scripted line (that nonetheless landed with devastating effect): "What they say is true: Once a Dodger, always a Dodger."

Similarly, Garvey is excellent at identifying issues of interest to Californians but, like Trump, is unwilling to share his alleged plans for addressing those issues. When the discussion turned to homelessness, Garvey said that he's gotten to know many homeless people, and that he's "touched them and listened to them." That's... not the best phrasing. Lee, who has spent time unhoused, found the comment patronizing. Schiff, for his part, said: "This will be my one and only baseball analogy for the evening: Mr. Garvey, that was a total swing and a miss—that was a total whiff of an answer." In short, all three Democrats let Garvey have it with both barrels.

That said, the various players involved here have very different rooting interests. As we pointed out yesterday, Porter is rooting for Donald Trump to dominate the primaries, in hopes of keeping Republican voters home when it's time for Californians to vote. The more Republicans who take a pass, the fewer votes for Garvey, and the better chance that Porter finishes in the top two and advances to the general.

By contrast, Schiff is rooting for the opposite. He would be delighted if Garvey finished in second place, because then Schiff could put it in cruise control, and begin picking curtains for his Senate office. The DCCC isn't going to say it publicly, but they are on the same page as Schiff. To a greater or lesser extent, there is only so much money available for the 2024 cycle. The more that the Senate race sucks up, the less there is for the House races. And so, if some hundreds of millions of dollars end up expended to decide which Democrat between Schiff and Porter goes to the Senate, then it could mean the loss of several winnable House seats.

The problem of limited resources and tough-but-winnable races also has the DCCC doing something it does not usually do. Since the blue team really, really wants to knock off Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) in his D+5 district (CA-22), the DCCC is already backing a candidate. So, former state legislator Rudy Salas (D) is getting a bunch of financial assistance, while his main Democratic opponent, state Sen. Melissa Hurtado (D) is... well, on her own. Of course, if she wins, things between her and the DCCC will be awkward, to say the least.

And that's this week's political wackiness out of the Golden State. (Z)

More on Chevron

Last week, we had an item on the Chevron decision, which may soon be overturned by the Supreme Court, creating potential chaos when it comes to the regulatory state. And over the weekend, we answered a question about what that might mean for FDA-approved drugs.

This, of course, is not our area of expertise. And over the weekend, we got several letters from readers who know the various dimensions of this issue far better than we do. Those letters were a little long for the Sunday mailbag, and it's an important issue, so we decided to run them today. To start, reader B.R. in Eatontown, NJ, who is a lawyer, on the overall legal picture:

I decided to write in about the current case before the Supreme Court challenging the broad authority given administrative agencies in the executive branch in drafting regulations. I felt that you were guilty of considerable overstatement about the potential impact of the Court's decision, if it reverses the current approach. That's not to say that there wouldn't be a major impact to certain aspects of the modern administrative state, but it will not go to the underlying principle that Congress can delegate various decisions to administrative agencies. Thus, it will NOT, to look at Saturday's question, mean that the Justice Department would no longer be able to schedule drugs.

While there are some who believe that the Constitution's allocation of legislative power to Congress means that Congress must write every single detail of what is allowed or prohibited into a statute itself, and that any delegation by Congress to another branch of the government of the power to decide what the law will be is improper, this is a very strict view of the separation of powers doctrine. However, the Supreme Court, in its early days under Chief Justice John Marshall, rejected this view, just as they rejected most restrictive interpretations of the Constitution. (He recognized, as he wrote in one of his more important decisions, that "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding... intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.") Instead, in 1825 the Court held that it was permissible for Congress to draft statutes that establish the "important principles" while delegating to another branch the ability to establish rules "to fill up the details." This holding has been reaffirmed in case after case over the years since, and is NOT under attack in the current case before the Court.

In order to understand what is involved in the current case, a little history is necessary. Even in the relatively early days of the United States, at least some of the enacted laws delegated to the executive branch a certain amount of discretion about how to put the laws into effect. With time, that became increasingly true. By the latter part of the 19th century, some such laws were written in pretty broad fashion. Thus, for instance, the Federal Trade Commission, created in 1914, was authorized to declare as improper "any unfair method of competition or unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce." Clearly, that was a very broad delegation to the agency. Over the course of the 20th century, Congress created more and more administrative agencies, and in doing so delegated more and more authority to agencies to determine what conduct would be allowed or prohibited under standards that became very broad. As this happened, it became necessary for agencies to first interpret the statutes and decide what was meant, before they could adopt regulations implementing those interpretations.

From the earliest days of what became the administrative state, the laws had authorized the agencies to pursue actions in court to compel entities to follow their directives, on the one side, and for entities to challenge agency directives in court when entities believed directives were improper, whether because the statute itself was unconstitutional for some reason, or because the directives were inconsistent with the statute, or because they were not supported by evidence, or some other basis. The courts adopted a number of guidelines to define how they would approach these cases. One of the key guidelines arises from the fact that administrative agencies almost always focus on a single subject matter, typically a matter that is very technical in nature and highly specialized, and the members of the agency and, more importantly, its staff, develop expertise in that area that layperson judges could not hope to duplicate. Thus, the guideline provides that judges will give deference to the agencies on questions where the subject matter expertise of the agency was involved. For example, on questions that require understanding of the sciences involved in aviation, courts will defer to the FAA's determinations on those questions.

As the statutes became so broad in standards that agencies had to first interpret the statute before adopting regulations, the question arose whether the courts should afford the same sort of deference to agencies with regard to their interpretations of statutes. In 1984, the Supreme Court heard Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., to resolve the question. In its decision, SCOTUS announced what has become known as the Chevron rule, holding that courts should give that same deference to the statutory interpretations, at least when the statute is ambiguous. It is curious, especially considering what happened subsequently, that the Court went in this direction, given that by 1984, the Court had already become pretty conservative. The opinion was written by Justice Stevens (who by that time was becoming more liberal), and joined by Justices Brennan and Blackmun (who both were on the liberal side). But it was also joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justices White and Powell (none of whom would be confused with a liberal, especially on business-related issues). There were no dissents (Justices Marshall and Rehnquist, both due to illnesses, and O'Connor, due to a conflict of interest, all did not participate).

This decision has always been logically somewhat in conflict with one of the most fundamental principles in law, namely the principle that one of the primary functions of judges is to decide what the law is, including what statutes mean. This was one of the core pronouncements of Chief Justice Marshall in the first really important SCOTUS case, Marbury v. Madison, and has been firmly followed by the Court without the slightest waver in all its cases since. And it is not justifiable by the same rationale that is the basis for general judicial deference to administrative conclusions, namely that the agency has greater expertise than the judges. Statutes are not adopted by agencies, but rather by Congress, where members have no more or less expertise than judges. These, along with other less principled arguments, have meant that Chevron has always been seen as open to attack.

In the end, even if the current Court eliminates Chevron deference, it does not mean the end of the administrative state or even the end of the ability of agencies to adopt regulations. It simply means that regulations will be somewhat more subject to reversal by judges than before. In fact, it may mean that regulations will be somewhat less subject to modification every time a new president who comes from the other party is elected. Since it will be for the courts to say what the statute means, once a court does so, it will not be subject to change simply because of the change in party.

Personally, I think that SCOTUS's major questions doctrine, as recently established in the 2022 decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, is likely to be much more problematic than any change to the Chevron doctrine. It is a total wildcard, completely subject to the whims of judges as to what is important and what is not. The Chevron doctrine only goes to how statutes should be interpreted by agencies when adopting regulations, while the major questions doctrine completely eliminates the ability of agencies to adopt regulations on the topic.

Next up, reader R.K. in Indianapolis, IN, who is far more able than we are to speak to this weekend's question about scheduled substances:

I am a licensed and practicing pharmacist, and your response to D.K. in New York City has factual errors due to what I believe is a core misunderstanding of what it means for a drug to be scheduled.

There are three meaningful classifications of drugs for legal purposes: Over the Counter, Legend, and Scheduled. OTC drugs are available over the counter without a prescription. Legend drugs (like blood pressure meds) are available only with a prescription. They are considered unscheduled and are perfectly legal. Scheduled drugs are drugs that have additional restrictions placed on them due to the risk of addiction/abuse (showing ID when picking up, limits on how early you can get them, etc.).

Within scheduled drugs, there are 5 classes, I-V, with III-V not having any real legal distinction between them. Class I are drugs that have no medical use and are essentially illegal outside of research (LSD, meth, etc.). Class II are highly addictive and have serious restrictions on them in addition to being kept in a safe (Adderall, narcotic pain meds, etc.). III-V are moderately addictive with lesser restrictions (most sleeping meds, tramadol, testosterone, etc.).

Referencing the initial question about Chevron, the Controlled Substances Act gives the initial list of scheduled drugs (including the Class I/illegal drugs) and Congress has added things to it by law so those would stay the same. Some states also have set specific schedules for drugs outside of federal law (Gabapentin is an example there). That would also remain unchanged as we follow the more strict laws. Anything else would depend on the new drug approval process, which is unknowable at this point, but would likely include a drug's classification and schedule as part of the approval process.

Pharmacists almost to a fault are cautious types, so we would likely continue as previously normal under a post-Chevron world until we received direct communication and instructions from some official entity, like the DEA/FDA, board or pharmacy, or our employers.

And finally, reader J.C. in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, on a potential consequence of Chevron's demise, if federal departments' autonomy is reduced:

I read with interest the item about the Chevron case. I was, very briefly, a JAFO—Just Another Observer—for National Marine Fisheries Service, a department of NOAA, which is itself a department of the Department of Commerce. Turns out that being out at sea for 2 months in the Bering surrounded by people who hate your guts because you represent the Fed, in 30' seas and 24-hour shifts, is not as much fun as it sounds, so I quit.

To my mind, these cases represent another grave threat—the collapse of all of our fisheries. To back up what you were saying about experts, managing fisheries is very complicated. You have to gather data on the local population of a species this year, and how it's changed in past years; what the populations of its predators and prey are; what the climate is like; what the weather is like; what the impact of global warming is; how the nanoplankton like marine bacteria and viruses might impact things; what the impact of fishing has been in the past; recruitment levels of that species (how many eggs become swimming adults); how many boats are out there this year; and what the palate trends of America's plates are. And then you have to predict what will happen next year with all of that. And then do that for every species in the area. In other words, it takes experts—not members of Congress. I had a whole course in undergrad to just introduce the topic. (I picked the Grey Whale fishery. My paper recommended that they had reached sustainable levels once again.)

This is what observers do—they do 24 hour randomized shifts to gather data on fish count and otoliths (ear bones that determine age) so that the actual scientists can analyze everything and make sure there is a fishery next year. That TV show Deadliest Catch is literally about that—the King Crab fishery is so depleted they have only two days to go out, even if there's a storm—and some years there's no quota allowed at all. If we don't manage it, we lose all our fish. Consider, no more seafood on America's plates, and no more marine ecosystem in America's waters. (The former is the American perspective as part of the Department of Commerce; the latter is the Canadian way—their observers are part of their department of the environment.)

The threat is real. We've seen fishery collapses before, such as the Grand Banks. Fish is the last wild food humans, and Americans, eat. Yes, fishermen don't like the "Fish Cops" that they have to pay for, but without them—within a few years they wouldn't have a job. And extinction is forever. And once the marine ecosystem collapses, well, when they made the apocalyptic film Soylent Green a half century ago, they didn't realize that half of our oxygen comes from the oceans.

Thanks to the three of you for sharing your expertise! (Z)

Looking Back at 2023, Part VI: What Did We Write About? (The Questions)

We're going to look back at 2023 for one more week, and then we will start looking ahead to 2024, with some predictions. As a means of looking at the main topics of coverage on this site last year, we've put together a little quiz:

1. Which of the these words/names appeared most frequently in 2023?

1. Biden
2. Trump
3. Republicans
4. Democrats
5. People

2. Which non-president politician was mentioned most frequently in 2023?

1. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL)
2. Dianne Feinstein
3. Kamala Harris
4. Kevin McCarthy
5. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

3. Which unpleasant member of the House of Representatives was mentioned most frequently in 2023?

1. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO)
2. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL)
3. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA)
4. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)
5. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY)

4. All of these U.S. Senators were mentioned at least 50 times, except for:

1. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
2. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
3. Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA)
4. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
5. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)

5. Which of these controversial people was mentioned most frequently in 2023?

1. Tucker Carlson
2. Adolf Hitler
3. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
4. Elon Musk
5. "George Santos"

6. Which state was mentioned most frequently in 2023?

1. California
2. Florida
3. Iowa
4. Texas
5. Virginia

7. Which country was mentioned most frequently in 2023?

1. Canada
2. Israel
3. Mexico
4. Russia
5. Ukraine

8. Which political word was used most frequently in 2023?

1. Abortion
2. Debt
3. Immigration
4. Insurrection
5. War

9. What non-political word was used most frequently in 2023?

1. Baseball
2. Bible
3. Dachshund(s)
4. Orange
5. Turtle

10. Which among these was the only historical figure who did not warrant a mention in 2023?

1. Winston Churchill
2. Frederick Douglass
3. Amelia Earhart
4. Napoleon
5. Socrates

Tiebreaker: If you read every word we wrote in 2023, at an average reading speed, how many hours would it take, rounded to the nearest hour?

If you would like to take your best guesses, the survey is here; please respond by 9:00 p.m. PT tonight, as we are going to reveal the answers and the readers who did best on Wednesday. (Z)

Looking Back at 2023, Part VII: Bad Jobs

For the past several weeks, we've asked readers to write in with criticisms of our 2023 work, either general, or focusing on specific items. After all, it's nice to be lauded for good work, but it's also important to try to figure out how to do better. Anyhow, here are a selection of some of those comments:

General:

• B.C. in Phoenix, AZ: I guess the only "bad job... adjacent" idea I have for the site in 2023 is a lack of serious condemnation I've seen for Bibi Netanyahu. That guy is as bad, in his own way, as most of the worst Republican politicians.
  
  Now, I apologize up front if I've somehow missed the post where you called him a "sh**head."
  
  
• D.W.B. of Waynesville, NC: Since you asked for criticism, my biggest concern/gripe is not over a particular issue or item, but in the more frequent delays and cancellations of updates in general. I am trying to be lenient about health concerns and job situations getting in the way, but I cannot help but feel that perhaps, with the big election on the horizon, maybe an extra hand or two may need to be employed to ensure delivery of product—and not just more reliance on the company dachshunds.
  
  
• D.G. in Athens, GA: Multiple items where you trashed Mike Pence and made fun of him for his religious convictions and failed to give him proper credit for his actions as VP on 1/6. I may not agree with his politics, or his religious habits, but it is clear to me that 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. He deserves our thanks for his actions on 1/6. He deserves our respect for being a good human being.
  
  
• J.M. in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, Canada: There are posts every now and then that drive me insane, largely having to do with the framing. I (for the most part) do not think either of you tell outright lies or make stuff up. Instead, I think there are posts that engage in deceptive framing to suit a political agenda/worldview. I don't keep notes on these (I'm not THAT obsessed) but I do remember thinking your entire coverage of the situation in Afghanistan was bending over backwards to be kind to Biden.
  
  The flipside of the framing issue, being story selection, is also not good at times. Many times I have read about some event on a Monday that seems moderately important, expect to get your take on Tuesday's post, and it just isn't there. These stories are, at least to my memory, exclusively those that paint Democrats and/or left-wing figures in general in a bad light. I don't recall any "Republican does something bad" story where you missed the opportunity to dunk on them (in many/most cases fairly), but recall several for Democrats.
  
  
• J.B. in London, England, UK: Over the 18 years or so that I've been reading you, I think you've slipped from being a well-balanced platform with a slight left(ish) bias, to one that is almost completely out-and-out anti-right wing.
  
  Fair enough, at one level; so am I. But there's a world of a difference between objective reporting and then (subjective) analysis of it, and utter hostility. Yes, TFG is risible and an obvious target, but over the past year or so, I think you've allowed your very evident and understandable disdain for him to prejudice your evaluation of everything else right wing. But to be fair, still only a little bit. You're never—I hope—going to be the Fox "News" of the left.
  
  
• T.B. in Nowata, OK: The parroting of "Bad Economy" stories, especially during the first half of the year, was not good. The Republicans still plan to run on the bad economy under Joe Biden; objectivists need to be truthful. Donald Trump inherited a good economy from Barack Obama; it started faltering by late 2018 and into 2019, and then crashed in 2020 during the pandemic. Not all was Dingleberry Don's doing, but he could have lessened the sharp drop-off and better prepared the country for the supply-chain disruptions. Biden got the blame for the massive inflation, caused chiefly by product and manpower shortages as the egg moved through the snake. The infusion of cash was a small contributor to the inflation, and recall, there was a stimulus during the Trump admin, too. In the end, the economy is way better today than it was during the Trump years and those that continue to say it's not are not honest brokers. Is everyone doing better? No, but wages are rising faster than inflation, so hopefully help is on the way.
  
  
• M.A. in Park Ridge, IL: Please stop referring to my town as "Pea Ridge," IL.

Specific:

• R.P. in Binghamton, NY: "The War in Israel, Part X: Genocide in Gaza?, Part I"
  
  This is by far the worst I have seen on your site. You go through all of the indicators of genocide and still, somehow, conclude that it is not a genocide? HOW! All of the things are happening, all of the warning signs are there! The Israeli government is clearly ethnically cleansing Gaza, if not worse! Absolutely amazing to me that intelligent people like yourselves will go through all the motions and arrive at a different conclusion... It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck bbuuuttttt by some weirdly contrived special conditions, we are going to look at this one differently. Gotcha.
  
  
• D.M. in Weert, The Netherlands: The worst item you have written is the one on how the war Israel is waging in Gaza would not constitute a genocide. I am particularly thinking of the part where you said "just some statements by people in government do not constitute a policy." Nowhere in the established U.N. or other definitions is ever stated genocide needs to be a formal government policy. There are many examples of ethnic cleansing which are not formalized government policy, a cursory search on the Internet already points to Rwanda, invalidating your argument. You have tried to couch the item in how sometimes in a field established voices are wrong, and you may well end up just like those established voices. By the title of the piece, you suggested that there would be a part II whereby you would make the other case, where you would showcase how Israel's actions could constitute genocide. I have waited for some time but since no such article appeared, making it look one-sided. Therefore I believe you have a blind spot on this issue, and I would argue this item is the worst in all your items last year.
  
  I still read your site, don't worry. For me it doesn't reflect badly on you as people. It's just a bad job.
  
  
• J.T. in Marietta, GA: I could only roll my eyes to see you repeatedly critique presidential candidates' logos and other design issues while simultaneously continuing with that dreadful masthead logo and layout. Physician, heal thyself.
  
  
• M.C. in Fresno, CA: For me, the weakest content was the publishing posts from the three anti-choice readers. Giving them a platform like this to spread their pseudo-religious nonsense used to harm women ventured into an attempt at "balance" that you often decry from other outlets.
  
  
• M.G. in Abingdon, VA: "A Fool and Their Money?, Part II: Nuthin' but a 'G' Thang."
  
  The Elon Musk hate is misinformed and really tedious. The man is doing more than any other person to solve some of the very most pressing real physical issues facing humanity at this time in history, in particular climate change.
  
  If we have a clean energy source like fusion or wind and solar, we still won't be able to utilize it fully if cars run on fossil fuels. But if the cars are electric, they can immediately switch from dirty coal to clean solar. It will take 20 years to replace the fleet, and Musk has pushed the whole industry hard in that direction so that the cars will be ready when the clean energy hopefully gets here.
  
  
• M.R. in New Brighton, MN : My nomination for the worst of 2023 is an idea you proposed in the item entitled "Could Mongolia Teach the U.S. How to Run Elections?" It's a proposal to change the way we conduct our elections. In this scheme ballots are given a number and the voter makes a note of that number while voting. After Election Day, images of all of the ballots are posted on the Internet and they are searchable by ballot number. This would allow a voter to see their ballot and show it to others. For the first time in our history many voters would experience social pressure to show their ballot to someone, perhaps a spouse, a good friend or an employer. What effect does this have? How do I vote if I know there is somebody in my life that will want to see how I voted tomorrow?
  
  You end the item saying that "All in all, it seems like an intriguing idea worth exploring." I beg to differ, this is quite simply a terrible idea. A secret ballot, a 100% secret ballot, is fundamental to democracy, I remain amazed that you would ever consider tossing it aside.
  
  
• C.A. in West Palm Beach, FL: Not to pile on, but since you are asking, the "December to Rhymember" feature is by far the weakest item on the site. Fun features are a good thing to lighten the overall mood and I generally like the lighter/different items, but this particular item is lacking in fun and quality. They might be fun for each writer, but not so much for the reader. Snark is one thing, but a lot of the products come off as childishly derisive and not befitting the overall quality of the site. Finally, the rhymes and rhythm are often so tortured that - even if one were to overlook the silliness of the content, these works are generally painful to read. Just not good. With good hopes and spirit for the season, I usually force myself to read through the first day or two of this feature. Then I simply skip and ignore it for the rest of the month. Unfortunately, the odd submission will still catch my eye. You and your readership will be better served by transitioning this feature into something very different in the future.

We'll have some of the "Good Job" comments tomorrow. (Z)

Back to the main page