Mar10

Pres map


Previous | Next

Sunday Mailbag

The mailbag was absolutely dominated by three subjects this week. The first was the State of the Union Address. The second was the Republicans' responses to the SOTU. And the third... well, you won't fu**ing believe it. We usually try to keep it to no more than six letters per subsection, but that's not going to work today.

Politics: The State of the Union

A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: I LOVE that Joe Biden came out swinging in the State of the Union Address and never let up. He acted like the pro that he is, especially when schooling amateurs like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). Did she really think she could rattle him with her get-up? Have these people learned nothing about his ability to throw some shade? His reaction to her pushing herself at him was priceless—as someone said, it was like how a parent reacts to a child's Halloween costume—faux-fear. And it only got better from there. But besides owning the MAGAts (Speaker Mike Johnson, R-LA, seemed truly perplexed as to when he should stand, sit or clap so he eventually just slumped), the President delivered on getting across to Americans all he's been able to accomplish, and it's a long list.

Biden knows he's the leader we need right now, and he's not done, not by a long shot. He made it clear that he's prepared to save democracy here and abroad and restore crucial civil rights like reproductive freedom and voting rights. These are not small or easy tasks and this job is not for the faint of heart. But he showed that he's not only up to it, he's been preparing for this his whole career.

I think what I loved most is that he showed that his age and experience are his greatest assets. He leaned into all that he's learned from having grown up after World War II and having spent decades in the Senate. There is no one else with that track record and that stands in stark contrast to the childish, petty antics of Trump and his minions. Trump can't do this job—all he's got are crazy costumes. Biden seemed to tell all of us not only, "I got this" but "bring it on!" I'm excited to stump for him again this year.


B.P. in Pensacola, FL, writes: It was, and has long been, apparent that President Biden is a total extrovert and being around and engaging with other people energizes him, and engaging when challenged is something he clearly relishes. The 10-15 minutes walking down the center aisle was like plugging a high voltage wire into the base of his spine, and the Republican responses during the speech just charged him up more. The Republicans clearly have no appreciation for this or they would have just sat mute during the entire speech. But that's not what "the base" wants. That would be seen as "just taking it" and not "owning" Biden by wearing a stupid hat or yelling at him.


P.B. in Gainesville, FL, writes: To me, the home run/knockout punch/mic drop of Joe Biden's speech was, by far, when he leaned into the Supreme Court justices and said, in that quiet intense way of his, "You have no idea how powerful women are." Boom! Left unspoken (in my mind, at least) was "Take that, you worthless parochial creeps! You are so beyond irrelevant. Don't let the door hit you on the way out." I'm just surprised no one else has picked up on this so far...

I would also add that, in general, I was expecting some kind of performance like what the President put on. All this talk in all the media of his one-foot-in-the-grave, feeble-minded antiquity have been so vastly overblown of late, and obviously so to anyone who has been watching him and paying attention. This guy is just really good at his job, and gets things done. What is the problem???

Way to go, Joe!


D.K. in Miami, FL, writes: Amazing write-up of the SOTU, as always and as expected. Cheers!

However, I was surprised to see only the fleeting reference to Biden's comments directed at the Supreme Court justices, as that moment absolutely stunned me and knocked me out of my seat in terms of how unique and outside of the ordinary course it was for a SOTU. Good for Joe!


A.L. in Saugerties, NY, writes: Just wanted to provide clarification for you that the member who was wearing the Ukrainian flag as a cape was Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ).


T.K. in Akron, OH, writes: I'm a high school teacher with a moderate-to-severe stutter. P.M. in Port Angeles wrote that they were unfamiliar with stuttering, and I imagine that other readers may be in the same boat. Having both a stutter and a job that involves a lot of talking, I may be able to shed some light on the condition.

Stuttering is a different for everyone. I compare it to depression, in that it's a symptom that has dozens of potential causes (and treatments). Everyone operates using slightly different "rules" for how the symptoms manifest. I can't speak to President Biden's experiences directly, but I can share my own and the reader can decide how much they see my experiences in Mr. Biden's. My stutter emerged in early childhood around the age of 3. As far as we know, there wasn't a single precipitating event. I did speech therapy for much of my childhood and adolescence, but I never grew out of my stutter. It is likely that I'll stutter for the balance of my life. There is no one consistent set of rules I can apply to my stutter, and this is probably the biggest popular misconception. It is highly situational. Certain circumstances (like talking on the phone with a stranger) are much more likely to manifest a bad stutter. Certain types of sounds (frictives and plosives), too. My speech is better when I'm speaking in front of groups, which partially explains more than two decades of teaching.

But really, the "rules," such as they are, can vary from minute to minute, day to day, season of life to season of life. While my speech is generally good at this point in my life, I almost quit teaching about 10 years ago because my stutter had become extremely burdensome. The best way I can describe the experience of stuttering is having an involuntary flash of tension in one's face and neck that interferes with word formation (slurring, stammering) or stops the flow of exhaled air (blocking). The tension doesn't abate until I stop talking. For a stutterer, simple speaking can be very labor-intensive. Even when I'm fluent, I'm mentally and physically working three times as hard as everyone else to speak. As a result, I get tripped up, or say the wrong word, or take a wrong turn in the middle of a sentence and have to start over.

This is exactly what I see when I see Biden speak, and his baseline fluency is so much higher than mine. When friends of mine point these examples out as cognitive decline, I have to gently remind them that I do exactly the same thing on a regular basis. Hopefully this helps, and while irregular for this venue, I'd be happy to field specific questions that anyone may have about stuttering.

(V) & (Z) respond: If readers have questions about this subject, send them to questions@electoral-vote.com and we will connect with T.K. and run answers on Saturday.


C.F. in Miami, FL, writes: Just to add a layer of formality to your explanation as to the weight of tradition in political speeches...

In most languages, political discourse has separate rules that distinguish political/oratorical speech from "regular" speech. In fact, in both French and Spanish, there are separate verb tenses and/or verb forms exclusively used in politics (and religion). In Spanish, a couple of quick examples reserved for political speech and religion is the future subjunctive tense and, in Latin America, the use of the "vosotros" (y'all/you, plural) verb form.

A quick example in the American political landscape would be John Boehner's 2010 speech on the House floor, when he screamed repeatedly, "Hell no, you can't!" He was unfairly criticized, as if it were a Howard Dean-like yell, when in fact, he was merely speaking within an oratory tradition.

The point is that oratory speech is truly steeped in tradition, so much so that it retains linguistic markers for decades and centuries after they have fallen out of use in the vernacular.


E.L. in Dallas, TX, writes: I know it was a lighthearted analysis, but I thought it is worth commenting on your Snickers vs. ice cream statement. You wrote: "We're kind of surprised it wasn't an ice cream reference, given that ice cream is his thing, but the Snickers line played well with the crowd, generating quite a few, well... snickers."

I would imagine many alternatives were considered, but to really hit the point, emotionally, a name brand had to be used. When it comes to an everyday candy bar, Snickers is, frankly, the Snickers of candy bars. It is the first one gone from an assortment of candies 99% of the time. The other 1% is due to that one crazy office worker that swears by Mounds and grabs them all just to try to prove people like them. The thing about ice cream is that every brand name will alienate some people. Many brands are primarily regional and most of the country would hardly have heard of them. Other brands are associated with certain political leanings, such as Ben and Jerry's. I cannot think of a brand of ice cream that nearly as many people would recognize as they would Snickers. Though I guess he did alienate those with peanut allergies, and they may be offended after hearing how great Snickers are for their whole life.

Incidentally, I have admitted a very non-zero number of children with peanut allergies to the hospital due to their eating Snickers. In each and every case they were aware of the peanut situation but really wanted to try a Snickers.


B.H. in St. Paul, MN, writes: You wrote: "Third, Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen is TINY. It is entirely possible she traveled to Capitol Hill in Joe Biden's coat pocket."

Oh, when she's angry, she is keen and shrewd!
She was a vixen when she went to school.
And though she be but little, she is fierce.

             —  A Midsummer Night's Dream, Act 3, Scene 2, spoken by Helena
Politics: Republicans Respond to the SOTU

J.P. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I was struck by the brutal murder of Laken Riley by a Venezuelan migrant having been seized upon by the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene and Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) and other members of their party to demonize the entire group of migrants to this country. Are there evil, violent, criminal elements among the migrants who come to this country? This is undoubtedly so. Are there evil, violent criminal elements among native-born Americans? This is also undoubtedly true. Research reported by NPR, however, indicates that immigrants commit fewer crimes than those born in the United States.

Granted, there are more native-born Americans here than immigrants, so one would expect more American-born criminals in absolute numbers. However, when one breaks it down to percentages, the story is different. Much of these data come from incarceration rates because that is where immigration status is recorded. Stanford economist Ran Abramitzky has found that "since the 1960s, immigrants are 60% less likely to be incarcerated" than people born here. Some state-level research has revealed similar results; the CATO Institute, a Libertarian think tank, looked at Texas in 2019 and found that undocumented immigrants were 37.1% less likely to be convicted of a crime than native-born Americans. Furthermore, recent studies by The New York Times and the Marshall Project showed that "between 2007 and 2016, there was no link between undocumented immigrants and a rise in violent or property crime in those communities." In fact, the Stanford study also found that "first-generation male immigrants traditionally do better than U.S.-born men who didn't finish high school." Interestingly, these U.S.-born men also make up the group that is most likely to end up in jail in the U.S. All of this suggests that immigrants have a definite and understandable fear of getting into trouble and being deported because of it. Rather than committing criminal acts, they mostly want to avoid such things and apparently are largely successful in those efforts. However, mostly because of a certain political party, the impression has been given by Donald Trump, Greene, Britt, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and many others that immigrants are committing every criminal act that ever occurs.

Given that this one case has been seized upon by the Republicans and some in the media to exemplify the general evil and danger that immigrants represent and has led them to make the argument that the borders should be completely shut down, I offer, somewhat facetiously, a different suggestion based on the preponderance of the data and an extension of their brand of logic to the data described above. It occurs to me that there are many more criminal acts, including violent ones, that are committed by U.S.-born individuals and that most of these individuals are likely to be Christians. Perhaps, then, we should be deporting U.S.-born Christians from the country and welcoming immigrants who show up at our borders with open arms. The data suggest that we are more likely to lower the crime rate in this country that way. We would be admitting people who are less likely to be criminals and deporting people who are more likely to be criminals, especially if TFG is deported with them. Problem mitigated.

(V) & (Z) respond: If you take a look at the Gallimaufry section below, you'll see Canada has plenty of sparsely populated space available.


R.B. in Cleveland, OH, writes: I can't think of a better example highlighting the amateurishness of the current GOP than Marjorie Taylor Greene literally handing an experienced veteran politician like President Biden a prop to use right before the SOTU. The faux outrage over "Lincoln vs. Laken" really comes across as a desperate attempt to save face. It really goes to show the amount of thought (or lack there of) the Republicans put into anything they do. It's truly no wonder these people are struggling to just keep the government open let alone accomplish anything of merit.


R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: Mike Johnson is clearly not ready for primetime. I am hardly an expert at reading body language and facial expressions, but the contempt in his face throughout the speech was palpable. He was clearly uncomfortable and unable to hide how he really felt. There were many moments when Biden said something that, on its face, was uncontroversial and, you would think, that any American of any political stripe would agree to, and he still sat on his hands.

Long shots of the gallery showing the (mostly clad in dark suits) Republicans sitting on their hands during lines that were clearly designed for everyone to agree with were telling. They were determined, as a caucus, to give the president nothing. This may have been a mistake. I mean, who doesn't stand up and clap to a line about reducing child poverty? Or about how America's best days are ahead of us? I'm sure MAGA-heads (if any bothered to watch) won't notice, but for the rest of us, it just looks spiteful and petty.


L.H. in Smyrna, GA, writes: This is a short note to relay something that has become obvious to me and was on display during the SOTU. Out of all the opinion pieces that I have read since Thursday night, nobody has made this observation.

Rachel Maddow and other pundits have pointed out that when Republican elected officials offer bizarre prepared statements to reporters, it is because they are speaking to an "audience of one." Donald Trump will see this and his opinion is all that counts. His disapproval will ruin their career. Even voters don't matter because their orange overlord tells the MAGAts what to think and how to vote. This behavior was on display during the SOTU address. It appears that the Republicans are afraid to take a position on anything before it is pre-approved by Trump. When the entire Republican side of the room will not stand or applaud for anything said, it is not because they do not agree. It is because they are afraid that the camera will catch them agreeing with anything that President Biden has said. If Trump sees that, they are toast.


J.L. in Glastonbury, CT, writes: While Katie Britt will never win an Oscar, the obsession with her performance and utter neglect of the substance of her speech demonstrate the depths to which our politics have sunk. America seems to have forgotten that government by the people is serious business. We have built the most powerful economy and military in the world, and now we pick a government like we're judging an episode of The Masked Singer.

What matters is how Joe Biden and the Democrats would govern, and how Donald Trump and the Republicans would govern. What will they do with power and responsibility? That's the story we have a civic duty to care about. Not how they say it. Yet it seems that politics in our time cares little for real story, and instead wants to critique the credibility of presentation. Joe Biden's presentation, Katie Britt's presentation... I couldn't care less. In a politics of performance divorced from insistent consideration of substance, it's only a matter of time before America crowns some authoritarian the winner.


A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: My advice to the party responding to the SOTU would be to make a buzz by specifically NOT occupying anywhere near the total time allotted. Everyone is so used these days to politicians speaking a lot and saying nothing. Brevity still is the essence of wit.

"Good evening, fellow Americans. All of that stuff he just said? Does it matter one bit to you when you can't afford to pay for a cart full of groceries or to fill your tank? We didn't think so, either. Good night and G/d bless you."

It would be a twenty second takedown and ruin everything the President had just said.


C.M. in Minneapolis, MN, writes: Here's a suggestion for a possible response to the SOTU. Simply hire Joe Pesci to replay his legendary scene from My Cousin Vinny, when he says "Everything that guy just said is bull**it."

Unfortunately, that about summarizes most of the discourse these days between the two parties.


D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: After the State of the Union, I started watching a foreign film and unfortunately fell asleep, which means I didn't see the Republican Response until much later. I would like to share a few of my responses:

Going beyond Britt's disturbing response, the GOP just completely botched the whole night. Their collective decision to not applaud anything that Biden said made them look childish and churlish at the same time. I know what you're thinking, "Whose ass were they kissing?" I can't tell you his name, but it rhymes with "Ponald Prump." And let me tell you, that's the whitest thing they've kissed since they last dry-cleaned their Klan robes. It was so obvious that if Biden had announced his love of babies, puppies and kittens, they would have continued to sit there like obedient but disgruntled logs.

Every president throws out lines in the State of the Union that are designed to bring the whole body to their feet, especially the stories about the Americans in the galley as guests, but no, today's GOP showed America that they would rather shove an apple pie in Mom's face than to give Biden an applause line. Of course, like all their political stunts of late, it crashed right in their faces because it didn't occur to them that looking angry and bored at the same time makes for a dull visual, so the cameras stayed away from the faces of the Trump Collective.

The one Trump Minion that the camera had no choice but to show, Lil' Mike Johnson, looking like someone's over-pious 8-year-old in their first Sunday School suit and tie. He really needs an acting coach to get his facial expressions right. The whole speech he had two expressions and neither served his purpose. The one that was most on display was when he would nod his head and grimace as if to say, "I hate to admit, but damnit the old man is right!" The less frequent expression was one where he would simultaneously grimace, roll his eyes and yet still nod in agreement. I'm not quite sure what he was trying to display there but, say what you will about John Bohner, Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy, at least they could express a proper opposition in their faces. The whole night, I felt the urge to say to Johnson: "Run along little boy, it's adult time here. You can come back once you're old enough to look over the podium."

But at least Marjorie Taylor Greene, resplendent in her MAGA garb like a good little goose-stepper, had her shtick of class clown down pat. Despite her claims that Biden is feebleminded and doesn't have two cognitive brain cells to rub together, he still managed to lead her right by her "Jewish Space Lasers" hand into a verbal trap over and over. And still she persisted in playing the court jester. In fact, I would say that the thing about Biden's passionate and vigorous speech that I will remember months from now is that yet once again Biden played them like Itzhak Perlman on the fiddle while the Republicans piddled in their seats.

(V) & (Z) respond: D.E. later wrote in to note that our write-up had landed on the same "barefoot and pregnant" snark. Also, D.E. was right about this week's opening on SNL.


J.C. in Bloomington, IL, writes: At least one good thing came from the Katie Britt rebuttal speech. I had never previously heard of a thing called the Fundie Baby Voice. Now I have.


J.L.J. in San Francisco, CA, writes: I wanted to note two things: First, The New York Times said President Biden hung out in the House chamber for some 35 minutes after his speech, gladhanding congressional members, while ignoring efforts from Secret Service to get him to leave. Apparently, Speaker Johnson (R-LA) tapped his watch numerous times and eventually had the House lights dimmed, but Biden remained. I say this because you complimented his sticking around for 10 minutes.

Secondly, I must disagree with A.S. in Silverdale, who invoked Sally Field in reference to the GOP response from Senator Katie Britt (R-AL). Sally Field is a great actress, with numerous honors and awards to back up that claim. I didn't think of Sally Field during Britt's bit; rather, I thought of a different Sally, namely the spokesperson in those old "Christian Children's Fund" commercials—Sally Struthers. Britt is not an elite actress, and neither is Struthers. Field is.


A.M.S. in Silverdale, WA, writes: I think I was coming down with a touch of food poisoning Thursday (terrible night, don't ask!), so my apologies: I meant Katie Britt reminded me of the trembling dulcet tones of Sally Struthers in her famous "save the children" infomercials! Anyway, there was something just... creepy about Mrs. Britt's delivery from her million-dollar kitchen. It was so transparently ingenuous you would think the high school drama class was sorry to see her graduate and go on to finishing school.

(V) & (Z) respond: Obviously, A.M.S. sent this clarification in with no awareness of the previous letter from J.L.J.


R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: If that politician thing doesn't work out for her at some point, Katie Britt is well positioned for a second career doing voice-overs for abused animal charity ads. Her tone and cadence are perfect for them. Maybe Donald Trump can start a new charity that she can shill for.


R.E. in Birmingham, AL, writes: While I agree with your very negative assessment of Senator Katie Britt's performance in delivering the GOP response to the State of the Union address, I am compelled to point out something: I have two senators. She's the smarter one.

Politics: The 2024 Presidential Race

R.H.D. in Webster, NY, writes: The general election is set. Whether we like it or not, we have our two choices in place.

At the State of the Union, President Biden sounded like a person fighting for his job and for the soul of the country. I really loved his delivery and content. There should no doubt that he is ready for this campaign. I think he will do well in connecting with the electorate, again doing rallies and retail politics that we didn't have in 2020 due to the pandemic restrictions.

But that doesn't mean it will be easy for him to get reelected. He needs to keep at it and remind everyone of the stark choice between him and his opponent. He also needs to play offense by touting his stellar record and his commitment to uphold the core tenets of our American ideals.

In a way, I'm glad the U.S Supreme Court ordered to keep Donald Trump's name on the ballot. I say this because the voters will have to dig into their souls and ask themselves if they really want to vote for TFG knowing the chaos he will unleash on the country in he gets back in. They had 4 years of this already. Do they want to go for seconds?

President Biden can only do so much to make the case that he should earn another term. Ultimately, it's up to us at to whether he should get it. If he does, then it will be another example of the Great American comeback he's been talking about lately... this time, his own.


R.H. in Corning, NY, writes: I'm not sure it's fair to characterize Nikki Haley as a coward for not endorsing Joe Biden after she suspended her own candidacy. I'm a never-Trump Republican, but that doesn't mean I'll be voting for Biden this fall. I can't in good conscience vote for either Trump or Biden, so I'll be voting for a write-in candidate, as I did the last two presidential elections.


J.E. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: Your commentary on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) endorsing Donald Trump made me think immediately of the old parable of "The Scorpion and the Turtle." I'm sure many readers are familiar. I couldn't help but think that McConnell is both turtle and scorpion. His immediate instinct on January 6th was to do the right thing. But in the end he couldn't help himself, "because it's in my nature."


C.M. in West Hartford, CT, writes: First, thanks for getting your readers through a particularly disheartening week incurred by The New York Times and its poll coverage (8 months out!). That said, I have a comment on the way you are reporting that Donald Trump is looking for an attractive woman to be his VP pick.

Trump may not know this, but Black, Asian, disabled, older, and differently sized women can all be considered attractive and "beautiful in their way." I know that you are only giving your take on Trump's preferences. But instead of reporting without judgment Trump's predilection on what makes a woman attractive (see: white, ideally blonde, ideally with big boobs), it might be more appropriate to write that Trump is looking for a VP who is conventionally attractive, or someone who fits his idea of an attractive woman. As I inch closer to retirement age as an Irish-American Democrat, these word choices may stick out more to me. I'm not a registered member of the woke underground, but I am concerned about our girls and young women, and the many messages they receive through a constant bombardment telling them that there is only one way to be attractive.


R.R. in Pasadena, CA, writes: I swear, some Democrats need Edna Mode to swat some sense into them with a newspaper! They panic at any indication that Joe Biden is going to lose, even polls of very questionable value. The Siena/NYT poll is just the latest... they produced another poll that appears to be slanted towads the Republicans when the crosstabs are examined. One thing you didn't note, but that I read online, is the Latino respondents were apparently almost all English speakers. That group leans Republican, but if you include the proportion that speaks Spanish only the lean switches to Democrats.

It will be much better once the real campaign begins and we start to see more of a direct comparison between Biden and Trump. The State of the Union will be the first real outing; hopefully Biden nails Republicans for their poor behavior and performance in Congress. Biden should also do well in the debates... he handled Trump last time, no doubt he'll do it again. A fair comparison between the two men should clearly show Biden is the one in control of his faculties. Maybe he's slower than 10 years ago, but he's not raging at everything and telling lies.

And, only one candidate plans to continue our democracy. Trump plans to undo it, which should be reason alone for every Democrat and independent who loves this nation to vote against Trump and his MAGA followers. Stop whining already and vote like our future depends on it.


H.G. in Charlottesville, VA, writes: There was a song in the early 90s called "The King of Wishful Thinking," which is what you all are becoming with regard to Donald Trump. I absolutely do not want to see him reelected. However, I am not sure how you all seem to dismiss so many reputable polls (NYT, Fox News, CBS News) which show Trump leading nationally. I find it difficult to believe that they are all wrong. Yes, the only poll that matters is the one on Election Day, which is what everyone who is losing in the polls always says before he or she loses the election.


M.B. in Charleston, SC, writes: Polling got broke is 2016 and has never recovered, the current polls defy rational thought. A 30-point swing among Latinos to Trump? Why? Country is headed in the wrong direction? Do anyone disagree with that? To me it is headed in the wrong direction because a majority of white people would rather burn the experiment to the ground than cede one inch of white privilege to anyone who is not a white male. That is the basis of the presidential race—economy, border, etc., all that is sideshow.


J.R. in Harrogate, England, UK, writes: I realize that this doesn't fit any particular subject discussed on the site this week...

I was talking about presidential elections and trying to explain the Electoral College to some of my U.K. friends and one of them realized that there has only been one time since 1988(!) where the Republican candidate for President has won the popular vote.

I told them they were correct... and they sat there gobsmacked whilst I made them another gin and tonic to help them comprehend the lunacy of our electoral system.

Politics: It's the Stupid Economy

R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: Well, another lecture from (V) about how great the economy is. The thing I think is always missing from this lecture is the well-reported fact that the U.S. economy is designed—on purpose—to benefit people who are already well-to-do and not benefit the average Joe. Republicans like to use a metaphor of a rising tide lifting all boats, but that metaphor is a lie. In actual fact, yachts are all anchored in the Bay of Fundy where a tide can rise nearly 50 feet, while most of the rest of us are adrift out on the Gulf of Mexico where tidal range is just a few inches.


S.K. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Probably some of the reason people think the economy sucks right now:

While inflation has begun to drop in the US and UK, the cost of living has outstripped salary increases for nearly three years, says Bunker. "Real wages today are still below where they would have been presumed to be, pre-pandemic. So, it's a race between inflation and wages.
Politics: Legal Matters

S.G. in Newark, NJ, writes: All the early news reporting about Trump v. Anderson was that the decision was unanimous.

True enough, about the easy and relatively non-controversial part of the opinion: states can't use the 14th to disqualify candidates for federal office.

But the court went beyond that, to prescribe how and when the federal government can determine that someone is disqualified. And THAT part of the decision was 5-4. Amy Coney Barrett clearly disagreed, but didn't join the liberals' dissent in order to avoid the appearance of disagreement. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for herself, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, let the majority have it for reaching out to rule on more than was necessary to decide the case.

Deciding a case on the narrowest possible grounds is a widely-accepted doctrine that in theory appeals especially to conservatives, who are supposed to value judicial restraint. A zillion Supreme Court opinions express this idea. Justice Sotomayor chose to start her concurrence by quoting one particularly eloquent one: "'If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.'"

What's precious is the source of the quote: Chief Justice John Roberts's concurring opinion in Dobbs. Is that a dagger sticking out from your back, Chief?


J.L.J. in San Francisco, CA, writes: Some issues not mentioned yet, it seems, in the broader press, concerning our hopelessly partisan Supreme Court.

To wit; let us look at the Supreme Court calendar and you'll see the final day for arguments during this term is April 24, 2024.

Then look at the published schedule and you'll see oral arguments for Trump v U.S. are scheduled for April 25th (recall the cert saying arguments were to be "the week of April 22" and most press went with saying "April 22" and not "the week of April 22").

You might notice two more things: relying on the schedule above, Thursday is not a previously scheduled arguments day and, perhaps more important, it is the new final argument day for the whole term—thus, the Supremes have literally pushed back a day beyond the last possible moment to hear this case.

I figure that is worth knowing.


B.R. in Eatontown, NJ, writes: I really wish that you'd stop legitimizing John Roberts' incredibly stupid statement that judges, including justices on the Supreme Court only call balls and strikes. When he made it, my immediate reaction was that it is either the statement of a person who has no understanding of organized baseball, or a deliberate falsehood. And that's remained true ever since.

As those of us who follow organized baseball know, all umpires do is call the balls and strikes, using a strike zone that has been defined by somebody else (usually the organizers of the league)—the umpires do not have any role in defining the strike zone. In contrast, judges—and the higher the court the more so—have a major role in defining the equivalent of the strike zone. The Constitution is full of phrases that are extremely ambiguous, like "due process" and "equal protection" and "freedom of speech" and "interstate commerce" and so on. And the statutes are, more often than not, worse. In the end, it is up to the judges to give meaning to these phrases—to define the strike zone of what's good (permitted) and what's bad (not permitted) under each phrase. And even where the phrases are not so ambiguous, the courts have treated them as being ambiguous pretty much whenever they want to, as SCOTUS just did in the Section 3 case (as you so persuasively explained). Roberts' statement was a cute soundbite, but has no relationship to the reality of baseball.


A.J. in Baltimore, MD, writes: I wanted to respond to the issue of whether the female SCOTUS justices' opinions were concurrences or dissents, as discussed in "More on the Supreme Court Ballot Access Decision."

Whether an opinion is a concurrence or dissent is really fairly simple. A dissent means the justice does not agree with the ultimate result (i.e., whether Colorado can kick Trump off the ballot). A concurrence means the justice agrees with the ultimate result but disagrees with the reasoning behind it (i.e., whether the amendment requires enabling legislation).

However the opinions started off in draft form, the opinions that were ultimately issued were obviously concurrences in that everyone agreed Colorado couldn't kick Trump off the ballot. I'm not convinced that there would have been any doubt about this if all reporters understood the terminology. Or if they had looked at the decision itself, which labels the other two opinions as concurrences.


R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: The correct answers to the questions from T.B. in Detroit and S.K. in Atlanta are more nuanced than the ones you gave. First, whether one is a "natural born citizen" is not necessarily obvious—Ted Cruz was born in Canada to one U.S. citizen and one non-citizen, for example. Whether Cruz or a future candidate is a natural born citizen could well involve an evidentiary hearing and factual findings (did Cruz's citizen parent meet the necessary residency requirements, for example?), as well as a legal interpretation of what "natural born citizen" means; that Article II phrase is no more defined by the Constitution than is "insurrection" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment.

More importantly, that states can't interpret and enforce the U.S. Constitution is an absurd notion. Under the Supremacy Clause, they have to enforce the Constitution and laws of the United States. Essentially, the only time states cannot is when Congress has occupied the field and pre-empted States from acting (drug-approval regulations, for example, or labor relations laws).

Here, of course, Congress has not acted, so there should be no bar against State enforcement of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, the only action Congress has taken is that a majority of both chambers found Trump to be an insurrectionist in course of the 2021 impeachment: In addition to the House majority voting to impeach, a majority of the Senators voted to convict him of insurrection, just not the two-thirds necessary for removal. It would be interesting to see a federal-court action to disqualify Trump based on that congressional determination, though it would be easy to see a majority of this Supreme Court holding out for an actual law.

Had Congress passed (and Joe Biden signed) a resolution barring Trump from future office on insurrection grounds, it is not at all clear that it would have been a Bill of Attainder, since Section 3 is not a criminal punishment, or even if it were, that the Fourteenth Amendment didn't implicitly repeal so much of the Attainder Clause (Art. I, sec. 9, cl. 3) as to allow a disqualification by attainder for insurrection. Later adopted amendments can implicitly repeal earlier provisions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress may, by explicit legislation, remove state sovereign immunity in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment, on the grounds that the Fourteenth Amendment implicitly repealed the absolute language of the Eleventh. Whether a Supreme Court in the bag for Trump would agree, of course, is an open question.


R.H. in Santa Ana, CA, writes: This is WAY out of my current bailiwick (as I haven't been in Federal criminal court in decades), but some things will never change: Ken Chesebro is going to be convicted, with the only open questions being how much he talks and what will be the level of his punishment.

Every time he breaks a condition of his plea deal, his value as a witness goes down, and the length of his likely sentence goes up. If he lies to the prosecution, they have to tell the defense that he lied to them, which means his value as a witness is near-zero.

That's also a breach of his plea agreement AND it's another felony.


B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: You wrote: "Even a high school dropout can be trained to pay off a porn star. With a little practice, anyone can do it." This typifies the perspective of coastal elites who have plenty of porn stars to practice paying. Los Angeles probably even has a porn-star demographic that pollsters can track. And maybe even America's smaller glitzy metropolitan areas—Des Moines, Chattanooga, Walla Walla, suburban Tombstone, even Springfield—have enough porn stars to practice paying off.

But some of us live in the sticks, where, to our knowledge, we have no porn stars to hush; "Walpole" consists entirely of a rural post office. Most readers have a room in their domicile bigger than our PO, which is so small, you have to go back outside just to change your mind. Our high school drop-outs simply have no opportunities to practice.

Perhaps our children could practice paying off local actresses, but with COVID, and then the budget crunch, even they are in short supply. The local high school has had to combine the fall and spring productions: Last year they did Cat on a Hot-Tin Streetcar Named Desire, and this year, Little Orphan Annie Get Your Gun.

(V) & (Z) respond: Really? You can't find a single porn star in Walpole, which is well known as the porn capital of the central Maine coast? We think you're not looking hard enough.

Politics: Israel

S.A.K. in Karnataka, India, writes: I don't usually write in a lot but the comment from N.E.L. in Eugene about the deaths in Gaza has forced me to. The condescending tone of that letter is nauseating. A couple of assumptions in there need to be confronted:

  1. "Muslim societies as a whole practice gender discrimination": While that may be true in certain cases, to generalize something like that especially in the context of saving lives is B.S. Muslim societies are no more gender discriminatory than, say, orthodox Jewish societies. The writer has generalized what he/she might have read/seen somewhere in a particular context. Little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing.

  2. "It's because the rescuers in Gaza don't try as hard to save them": While the first assumption was, relatively speaking, somewhat seemingly plausible, this one is absolutely heartless. How the OP can just make such stuff up is unbelieveable. It stands to reason that he/she hasn't even an iota of knowledge about the hardships first responders and rescuers in Gaza are going through.

On second thought, though, a vast majority of Americans are prone to such make-believe stuff about cultures and people they have almost no knowledge about. Except, perhaps, from secondhand sources (and that, too, very limited). I have experienced this personally, having worked with all sorts of them (across the political spectrum), over a decade.


M.C. in Fresno, CA, writes: N.E.L. in Eugene provided a detailed description of deaths in war in trying to help understand why so many women and children have been killed in Gaza. They end by blaming those deaths on Palestinian people for not caring about women and children as much as they care about men. Never mind, I guess, that Israel continues to bomb civilian targets in violation of international law. That couldn't possibly explain the high civilian death toll. It takes real Orwellian logic to blame the Palestinians for their own murders. Shame on you for furthering that lie.


D.B. in Farmville, VA, writes: N.E.L. in Eugene wrote that they were skeptical of the "70% women and children" casualty statistic in Gaza, and then went on to, apparently, blame Islam for this in and brazenly smear the hard-working and much-suffering medical staff in Gaza by saying, with basically no evidence, that "rescuers in Gaza don't try as hard to save [the women and children]." Because they're Muslim. It may not have been intentionally Islamophobic, but it certainly came across as such and I was a bit surprised to read it here.

The reason 70% of the casualties are women and children is because well over 70% of the people in Gaza are women and children. Per the CIA World Factbook, 40% of Gazans are under 15, and 30% of those 15 and over are female. We hit 70% almost exactly even without counting boys aged 15-17. The median age, meaning that fully half the population is younger, is just 19.2.

The 70% casualty statistic is not a claim that Israel is especially targeting women and children; it's an accusation that Israeli forces are being utterly indiscriminate, which is quite bad enough (and is the reason they are being accused of war crimes).


E.C.R. in Helsinki, Finland, writes: In yet another American denial of the obvious, H.E.L. from Eugene neglected to consider the well-known demographics of Gaza when blaming the demographics of the death toll in Gaza on sex-selective rescue operations. Using only readily accessible figures from Wikipedia, one learns that as recently as 1991 the number of births per woman in Gaza was 8.3 and in 2013 it was 4.4. Since then it has not suddenly fallen. Median age in Gaza in 2014 was 18 and 44% were 14 or younger so one can forecast with high probability that the median remained 18 in 2018. Recalling the definition of median (half above and half below), from these figures alone it becomes clear why 70+% of people trapped in rubble are either children (50%) or women (50% of 50% or 25%).

Rather than blaming the Gazans, H.E.L. would do well to consider whether the Israeli government is worried about a demographic time bomb due to Gaza women's higher fertility. In the past, numerous Israelis have discussed the inconvenient truth that there are too many Palestinians and their population is increasing faster than Israel's. Perhaps the Israeli government is deliberately "culling the herd." Israeli officials have repeatedly referred to Gazans as animals and traditionally, if one wants to prevent the animals from breeding, one kills the females including girls. Since women and children are disproportionately likely to shelter in schools, the repeated targeting of schools is easily, if monstrously, explained.

(V) & (Z) respond: We do not normally comment on letters like these four, but we are going to make an exception here, because nearly all of these authors lectured us for running the original letter without any pushback (see "Shame on you for furthering that lie;" two others had subject lines along the same lines).

So, we will explain that we ran these letters to give the other side of the story that H.E.L. told last week. However, we will point out that H.E.L. did include documentation for the claims being made, which we linked to. While that documentation might be objectionable, it is not correct or fair to claim that "basically no evidence" was offered. Also, the generalizations being made here strike us as being similar, in terms of being a mix of evidence and supposition, to the ones the authors are criticizing H.E.L. for making.

All Politics Is Local

L.C. in Boston, MA, writes: You wrote, in regard to Steve Garvey's second-place win in the California U.S. Senate primary: "This means that Schiff can now book a nice, long vacation so he'll be well-rested when his Senate term commences on Jan. 3 of next year."

Not so fast: Remember Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley in 2010.

(V) & (Z) respond: That was a special election, and special elections notoriously attract unusually small, unusually wonky electorates. This will be a general election. They are not comparable.


S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, writes: To add to your answer to M.B. in Menlo Park regarding whether Steve Garvey may have coattails in November, remember that Donald Trump will also be on that ballot. Garvey's coattails are not longer than those of "Dear Leader," so the former ballplayer's presence will be negligible.


M.B. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: So! Whatever is left of the California GOP should be, by now, all-in on Donald, right? Well, no. As of Saturday night, he's drawing barely three-quarters of the vote in the Republicans' closed primary. Ouch.


J.E. in Manhattan, NY, writes: You've mentioned that the people voting "uncommitted" and the ones who are angered at Joe Biden's tacit support—and that is what it has been—for Israel's campaign of ethnic cleansing (if not outright genocide) aren't a large part of the electorate. You've also noted that foreign affairs don't tend to affect U.S. politics much. I will offer a counterexample: Lyndon Johnson.

My father is pretty dialed in to Wisconsin politics, and as we all know, Wisconsin is a pretty important state for Biden to win. I asked him about the uncommitted campaigns and what they hope to accomplish. As he outlined it to me, the push to vote uncommitted is (per my father) a way to give Biden and the Democrats political space to change the policy on Israel; at a minimum to stop sending more weapons to them or to stop allowing them to buy them from us. (While it is true that Congress has authorized such, the president has a lot of leeway in determining whether such weapons get there and when.) Far from an empty gesture, I think it opens up some debate space for the Democratic leadership now.

It's also important to note that while many people in say, Dearborn, MI, are not likely to vote for Donald Trump, they might still stay home. This is going to matter in November in Michigan, the mathematics of the Electoral College system being what they are. Biden really is risking his presidency over Gaza. I know you have noted some quieter methods Biden might be trying to rein Benjamin Netanyahu in, but the fact is if the U.S. wanted the Israelis to stop, our government could do quite a bit that would affect them quickly. Biden doesn't need Congressional approval to freeze Israeli government assets, for example, which would surely get their attention. (It's been done before; Jimmy Carter ordered that very move against Iran).

Biden is, basically, risking his presidency by not taking a stronger stand against the Israelis. Saying "Trump is far worse" isn't going to bring back people's relatives nor is it much of a selling point in situations like this one. As far as the Palestinians are concerned, we already have a horrific campaign of ethnic violence—that is what it is—being waged by the regional power against people who literally cannot leave; most Americans don't realize that Gaza has been, effectively, an open-air prison for years. Trump would be, in that respect, little different.

And, I might add, the "Trump is worse" argument loses a lot of steam when Biden's policies start to look like Trump's, especially in regards to issues like immigration. If you offer people only the somewhat lesser of two evils you aren't just going to get unenthusiastic votes—you are going to get people feeling disenfranchised enough that they stay home.


J.K. in St. Paul, MN, writes: Reporting from Minnesota, I would be leary of reading too much into the larger Democratic "uncommitted" take from the Minnesota primary.

Granted, my pool is small, but what I've heard from friends and acquaintances is that they want the option of someone else. I think it's a pipe dream of a brokered convention, or of someone brilliant declaring their candidacy in May and taking the nomination, despite the reality that neither will happen.

However, when the convention comes and goes with Biden as the nominee, they will vote for him. They want someone "better" than Biden, but they know full well that protest votes in the general will not result in "better."


J.D.Z. in St. Paul, MN, writes: I am a Minnesota voter, and I can (very, very partly) explain Biden's performance: I didn't vote for him. I intend to vote for him in November, but this week, I decided to take the advice of this site and throw my support behind Nikki Haley. See the attached picture for an explanation:

A sticker in the style of an 'I Voted' sticker, but that says 'I Ratf**ked'


M.G. in Arlington, VA, writes: Hello from North of Richmond (alas, I am not a rich man). I just want to say thank you to my fellow Virginian J.L. in Richmond for asking the exact question I thought of too late to write myself last week, about how to use our primary votes to do the most good. And thank you to (V) & (Z) for their advice. So, I did it. I asked out loud for a Republican ballot and voted for Haley. Afterward, when the poll worker tried to hand me my "I Voted" sticker, I politely refused and said "I'm not proud of this one." I went home and took a shower. I still feel dirty.


C.K.W. in Haymarket, VA, writes: I worked the polls in Northern Virginia on Tuesday, and we had a higher volume than anyone predicted, somewhere between 50% and 100% more than normal, depending on which veteran poll worker you asked. The ratio of Republican to Democrat ballots cast was about 4:1, and the precinct is definitely not that lopsided in general elections, so perhaps there was low turnout by Democrats since Joe Biden is incumbent and/or the Democratic primary is not seriously contested.

But, perhaps there were quite a few people who normally vote Democratic who requested Republican primary ballots. Virginia does not require any party affiliation for voter registration. Several people flat-out told me they were Democrats who were voting for Nikki Haley and implied they intended to vote for Biden in November. Poll workers can't engage in these conversations, so I had to respond with "Have a nice day." The loudest voters, who felt the need to shout out to the entire room their loud opinions, were vociferously anti-Biden to the point of being obnoxious. Poll workers had to shush them. Northern Virginia is not representative of the entire state, but I do believe that are indications of a very high level of anti-Trump sentiment, and also some rabid-anti-Biden sentiment, but it seemed that the rabid anti-Biden folks were fewer in number.


E.R. in Irving, TX, writes: Regarding Rep. Colin Allred's (D-TX) chances at unseating Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), you wrote: "Texas is not nearly as red as California is blue." Clearly, you don't live here or have any meaningful sense of Texas politics.

Any Republican will beat any Democrat in a statewide election in present-day Texas. The hatred for "liberals" runs so deep here that most rural and suburban Texans would vote for Adolf Hitler over Jesus Christ as long as the former had an (R) after his name and the latter had a (D).

And before you think that Jesus would have a chance in an evangelical state... that would presume that his followers think and act like he reportedly did, which, here in Texas, they don't.

WTF?

G.R. in Tarzana, CA, writes: The umbrage expressed by M.R. in New Brighton, regarding your use of the term ratfu**king, seems both out of place and over the top. The complaint is typical of those who are apoplectic about the impact "bad words" have on those who ears they fall upon, without much consideration regarding the venue and the audience. While it would nice to know that elementary school children are interested enough in politics to have found your site and read it daily, I doubt that is true (perhaps the staff demographer could provide better insight regard the make-up of your audience). And once kids have reached their pre-teens, they've been exposed to and most likely have themselves used, much worse language then words that have a specific meaning such as ratfu**king."

If, however, the concern is the sensitivities of adults such as themselves, well... if they are reading this site, it suggests that they have already taken a deep dive into the cesspool that is our current state of politics, as well as the common domain of one of our presidential candidates, so that the term ratfu**king, which again has a specific meaning, is far from the most excessively crass term being bandied about in their bailiwick. That said, because I ultimately care the about sensitivities of others, whether rational or not, should you decided to post the letter, I would like to apologize to M.R. for my use of ratfu**king three times in this missive. Oh, wait, that makes it four times. Hmm, would my repeated use of the term ratfu**king in this letter itself be an example of ratfu**king?


L.O.-R., San Francisco, CA, writes: I must disagree with L.N. in Springfield, who chides you for using "crude and offensive" language. In fact, I wish you'd just use the word (without the asterisks)—but only when it is the best word to use. Using slang is actually a sophisticated use of language, not an assault on language, as L.N. would have it. I have never understood the bizarre line we draw between allowed and disallowed language and am happy to see folks push against the arbitrary line. That said, I don't like a setting where a huge part of the language is "crude and offensive," but that's because it's lazy, lacks playfulness and wit, and is boorish.

I'm reminded of the 6 months I spent in Spain when in college. For the first two months I understood almost nothing anyone said to me. Of course, half of that was because Castillians speak extremely rapidly and enunciate poorly. But after I made some Spanish friends, they taught me all the "tacos" (slang for "slang") and I realized that I also wasn't understanding anyone because no one had ever taught me how people actually talk. I was introduced to a much richer, more humorous, and wonderfully nuanced language than I'd ever known before—and, yes, a language that could be extremely crude.

Please, just use the most expressive and interesting word for the situation.


A.D.S. in Calgary, AB, Can**a, writes: For those people who have trouble with words and replacement symbols in words: I know it's a big deal, because in my 58 years of being a conscious human on the planet (I don't count the first couple) I've heard and heard and heard about this.

When I see an asterisk, I just say the word in my head anyway, so I don't understand asterisks. It seems childish and silly. It seems to cater to a small group of people who just cannot deal with the simple fact that some words mean things that aren't pleasant.

For the record, there are lots and lots and lots of us who just don't care. Many of us would just like your insidious, repetitive subset to just get over it. Get. Over. It.

Feel free to post an asterisk anywhere in this comment you feel would be appropriate.

(V) & (Z) respond: Three things. First, we have honored your request, and added asterisks to the one obscene word you used. Second, we've gotten letters from readers who say their young teen kids read the site, and so they appreciate the asterisks. We've also gotten letters like that from religious readers, who say the same. So, we honor their views, since the asterisks do no harm. Third, that general policy is, in this section, in conflict with our policy of trying to retain letter writers' authorial voices. So, in these letters, we are allowing them to stand as written, without adding any further asterisks. If you are a reader whose parents would not approve, please skip to the next section. And definitely skip the next letter.


M.F. in DeSantisistan (today; normally S.M. in Morganton, GA), writes: Y'all, (V), (Z), and the regular contributors, are some of my favorite assholes. If you motherfuckers stop using the best of the English language to really bring home the shitstorm we face in the U.S. every day, I will be very fucking disappointed.

It has been shown that the use of profanity has a positive relationship with honesty. Rather than policing others' language, I would ask the writers to the complaints department what their relationship is with honest expression.

I come here because I expect honesty. I know I am getting it cause y'all don't play games with language. Thank you for that. Please do not fucking change.


A.J. in Baltimore, MD, writes: It amazes me that people willing to come to this site to read about the offensive behavior of Donald Trump on a daily basis are so put off by some four-letter words. I think complaining about profanity makes someone sound like a dinosaur, or at least someone who was raised to deeply internalize Puritanical values. The idea that a professor would avoid using the term "ratfucking" in lecture—assuming the concept was relevant to the class—simply because it contains a naughty word is laughable. Personally I think the site should give up the asterisks. No one is reading who doesn't know what words (V) & (Z) are referring to, so there's no point to them.


J.C. in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, writes: Please continue to cuss with asterisks. I grew up not doing that, but learned the benefits of it from my Christian Intervarsity chapter at Occidental College—mother chapter to the one at UCLA. You are being entirely appropriate in hiding the word for those less comfortable with cussing, there is no other word that is appropriate, and there are times when cussing is called for (and times when it isn't, such as when one is calling another names). One of the best of times it is called for is in Spike Lee's great line, "Put some extra mozzarella on that Mother F***in A$s $hit." There is no way that line—and that scene—would have worked without those exact words.

(V) & (Z) respond: Nor would it work for Jules in Pulp Fiction to be a Bad Mother Fudger.


D.S. in Albuquerque, NM, writes: Your site is a haven of civility and thoughtful discourse in a sea of divisive insanity and gratuitous nastiness. I'm surprised that a few of your readers—and I take it they're not fans of Hip-hop or Pornogrind—would object to your "crude" language. Just go anywhere else on the web and you'll find a lot worse. So I'd like to reply to one complaint in particular and provide a brief take on the coarsening of speech that has permeated our political culture over the years.

In response to self-described language prude B.B. in Newtown, I must admit that I agree with the sentiment, if not the solution, they propose. I like nice, respectful conversation myself (when I'm not being sarcastic) and try to avoid cursing as much as possible. But as a practical matter—and in terms of the zeitgeist as a whole—I think it's been a while since the "decorum train" left the station and plunged off a cliff.

The use of bad language to shock the bourgeoisie has been with us for generations, but it really got revved up with the culture wars of the 60s. As a kid I remember being both amused and a little taken aback when Country Joe led his iconic "Gimme an F!" chant at Woodstock. Though it might have been fun, entertaining mischief at the time, it was ultimately a cheap shot, a weaponization of offensive speech to make a simplistic anti-war "statement" and piss off the other side as a bonus. (Oh well, that sort of thing, minus the fun, is now a specialty of the right wing—just ask "musician" Ted Nugent.) Sticking to that era for a bit, a fellow I knew back then once got pulled over by a traffic cop for displaying a bumper sticker written in flowing script, that said "**** for Peace." I don't know if it had any effect on ending war, but he got cited for obscenity and later skated off with a fine and no jail time, the dang dirty hippie...

A few years later, this time coming from the other side of the divide, I was kind of shocked when the Watergate tapes revealed that everyone in the White House cussed like longshoremen, giving us the phrase "expletive deleted." Before then, I thought that the Oval Office, as the seat of Executive power, was like a secular church where everyone spoke in hushed, reverent tones. So much for that naive fantasy. Nixon and his buddies, as it turns out, used the F-word like a comma.

And speaking of vulgarity, since 2015 Donald Trump has taken our political discourse—from minor infractions like Nixon's expletives or then-V.P. Joe Biden getting caught saying "This is ****ing great!" to his boss—all the way down to the level of a WWE face-off, where sweaty, muscle-bound cretins get an inch away from each others' faces to scream profane insults back and forth at the top of their lungs. We all seem to have gotten accustomed to this wretched mentality of "professional wrestling" inanity, violence and crudeness that has been forced on us ever since one crass, boorish conman from New York arrived on the scene. That's the kind of debasement of both language and manners we're stuck with in the "Trump Era," like it or not.

So this writer is now asking you to show people like convicted felon Roger Stone some respect by not calling them a (censored) bad name? Sometimes a person is so odious that only an obscenity can adequately describe them. Stone is a racist, democracy-destroying goon who has avoided prison so far only because Trump pardoned him. I'm sorry, the term "ratfudger" is inadequate to describe the evil of this psychopath, not to mention all the other rotten ratf**kers like him out there. So let's call a ratf**ker a ratf**ker and be done with it. And if that gets anybody's knickers in a twist, they'll just have to get their news from a less offensive source. Good luck with that, and they might want to steer clear of sites like The Rude Pundit, which is nothing but bad words.

To the writer's other point, I agree, we need to keep nasty language away from the ears of innocent little children, something we should always try to do as caring adults. But seriously, at what age do you think someone growing up in these times first hears the F-word? Probably in the womb, the way things are going. In an ideal world, we'd all be as polite and well-spoken as Canadians. But here in the U.S. we speak rude crude 'murican, so I think your use of asterisks is well within the bounds of 21st-century etiquette. And keep up the good work—you guys are Effing Great!


R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, writes: M.R. in New Brighton needs to understand that the English language has a long history of swearing, either for emphasis or for comedic purposes. Potty-mouthed writers are routinely taught in Anglophone colleges throughout the world, and there is nothing unusual about writing with swears being used in classrooms. Geoffrey Chaucer wrote The Canterbury Tales in the 1300s in England and even then he used profanities for comedic effects. "The Miller's Tale" is a story about two young men, Absolon and Nicholas, who are trying to seduce Alison, who is already married to another man. She thinks of a way to humiliate one of her suitors and invites him to her window for a kiss late at night. Here is a famous passage from the story in Middle English:

"This Absolon gan wype his mouth ful drie.
Derk was the nyght as pich, or as a cole,
And at the wyndow out she putte hir hole,
And Absolon, hym fil no bet ne wers,
But with his mouth he kiste hir naked ers
Ful savorly, er he were war of this.
Abak he stirte, and thoughte it was amys,
For wel he wiste a womman hath no berd.
He felte a thyng al rough and long yherd,
And seyde, 'Fy! allas! what have I do?'"

To summarize it in Modern English, Absolon went to meet Alison at night outside her window in pitch-black darkness thinking he would be able to kiss her. Instead, she insulted him by exposing her anus out the window. He kissed her butt instead, and realized it because he felt the coarse hair from her private area.

If you haven't figured it out, "ers" is Middle English for "arse," which is a profanity for the buttocks. I had to read Chaucer in college myself and his writing has been widely taught in English-speaking schools for centuries. It's common and normal for writing with swears to appear in the classroom.


B.W. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: I'm a little surprised at the recent discourse around your occasional use of (partially-redacted and entirely contextually-appropriate) swear words.

Use of terms like "ratfucking" is both educational (any reader curious about the word's origin will learn historic context) and colorful (which can aid with engagement—and therefore comprehension—when discussing dryer subject matter).

Swear words are a unique quirk of culture—they have existed throughout history, and have evolved over time. While the most current off-limits language tends to be that which marginalizes or ridicules people (e.g. slurs), some of your readers' concept of offensive language seems to be stuck in roughly the Victorian era.


B.C. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: Last week, you wrote: "We think this is an unusually strong set of letters. We shall see if the readers agree." While that may appear to be a casual invitation to respond, because (V) and (Z) are educators, I have no choice but to consider it an actual assignment.

I am a fan of Electoral-Vote.com because the site masters and readers provide, in a very entertaining manner, information and insightful commentary about the following subjects: the science of polling, the meaningful aggregation of the various polls and the evaluation of the quality of the polltakers; background on the meaning and consequences of the decisions made in our political and legal systems; the lessons of history as they pertain to the events of today. I try to refrain from commenting on those things, because they are not my areas of expertise.

Perhaps pretentiously, I believe one of my strong suits is the study of the effects of the confluence of language, scripture and science in everyday life. As a result, with the exception of two items in the March 3 postings, I have only one thing to say: "Good stuff!"

The first exception concerns the admonishment by some about the use of profanities on the site. I would remind those folks that the surest way of enhancing the deleterious effect of a word is to confine it to the back-room of our vernacular so that when it is used the shock value is increased dramatically. For example, 50 years ago, the derogatory term "ni**er" was in such common use in certain areas of the country that Mel Brooks could use it frequently in the dialog of his movie Blazing Saddles. Now, today, you can see it is somehow inappropriate to even write the word.

Also, the meanings of words change all the time, and when used in different contexts. When someone says "F**k you!" or "I've been f**ked out of that deal," they are almost certainly not talking about anything related to sexual intercourse. Perhaps, if the word "f**k" were used more often it would elicit a more neutral, ho-hum response relieved of the nasty connotations.

The second exception is when some writers complained of race baiting or some other racial offense when the site masters suggest white Republicans do not approve of mixed marriages. Maybe some Republicans do not have a problem with it, but when we are talking about The Party of the Orange Donny, I would refer those Republicans to the old adage: "You are judged by the company you keep." And if you believe even the mere suggestion of something about you warrants a righteous pushback, I would tell you to get over yourself. I have absolutely no problem with someone saying my hard-left stance on almost everything makes me Evil Commie Socialist Degenerate Vermin, and if someone were to put that on a T-shirt and send it to me, I would wear it with pride.


A.G. in Plano, TX, writes: As an attorney, I have two rules of trust when dealing with other lawyers: I do not trust a lawyer who doesn't drink, and I NEVER trust a lawyer who doesn't cuss. Because substance abuse in my profession is a serious problem I can let the refusal to drink slide sometimes, but if you've practiced law for any reasonable length of time and don't cuss like a sailor, then you're doing it wrong.

Similarly, politics—especially modern politics—has reached such a level of absurdity and viciousness that, much like practicing law, cussing seems not only appropriate, but required. So I commend you for letting a few choice words sneak into your commentary when appropriate. And frankly, your reference to "that sumbitch Fillmore" almost caused me to spew coffee across my desk.

(V) & (Z) respond: We hope you heard the voice of Sheriff Buford T. Justice in your head, as you read that part.


M.D. in Peterborough, England, UK, writes: The correspondence you have received on the term "ratfu**ing" from US-based readers helps to confirm my longstanding suspicion that Americans are very much more prude-ish than Brits about coarse language, perhaps contrary to expectations.

(V) & (Z) respond: In fairness, you Brits ARE a bunch of wankers.


R.C. in Des Moines, IA, writes: I don't find it offensive that you sometimes use four-letter words. But I do take a small exception to the comment you offered in response to some of the people who are offended or put off: "There is no way to make that joke work without the four-letter word, and we just couldn't leave a reference to all the Johns hanging..."

Yes, you certainly could have left that reference hanging. Why? 1) It's obvious and that kind of joke has been made tens-of-thousands of times in the past in all the various forms of art and media; 2) It's not particularly funny. It's kinda funny I guess, but is if funny enough? Not really. Every joke that comes to you while writing does not need to be included for readers.

(V) & (Z) respond: For what it is worth, we had multiple people write in and say that particular joke brightened their day at a time they needed a lift.


B.B. in St. Louis, MO, writes: Reading your difficulties describing the behavior of Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX), I suggest that a little Yiddish may resolve the problem. In your original version, simply change the last sentence to: "Note that opening your coat so people can see the putz you've got under there is also what a flasher does."

In more polite company, you can substitute the word "schmuck." Similarly, I'm not certain that you would raise many eyebrows describing political operatives engaged in maus-schtupping.

Robocalls

B.C. in Richmond, VA, writes: For 15 years I worked at one of the largest telecoms in the country, and then for another 5 years I worked for a different one of the largest telecoms in the country. While at the latter (5-7 years ago), I was on a team that was highly invested in (but not directly working on) the project that several big telcos were working on to stop robocall spam. That project is why your phone will sometimes flag a call as "suspected spam" or whatever nomenclature your carrier uses.

Essentially, how it works is when big company A receives a call from a number belonging to big company B, A sends B a message through a back channel asking: (1) Do you still own this number?, (2) Is it an active number?, and (3) Is it calling our number right now? If the answer to all three is "yes" they let the call through. If the answer to any of them is "no" they either flag it as spam on your phone or block it, depending on the carrier.

All of the large phone companies have something like this set up, based on guidelines that Congress passed a few years ago. The problem is while the half dozen or so large phone companies that have set up systems like this, there are hundreds of "mom and pop" telcos that haven't, usually because they lack manpower or funding. The spammers know this, and use blocks of numbers assigned to these smaller companies as the numbers they pretend their calls are coming from (known as "spoofing"). The large companies, unable to verify anything about the calls, have to let them through.

Of course, Congress could solve this by: (1) mandating a national system and (2) funding it for smaller companies. Presumably they haven't because they're too busy naming post offices and schools, as they're clearly not getting much else accomplished at the moment.

In the Navy...

G.W. in Oxnard, CA, writes: The temporary port into Gaza is proof that Navy construction battalions (Seabees) live up to their motto, "Seabees can do." Also, the U.S. Navy is one of the most capable humanitarian relief organizations in the world, even though their primary mission is military. Americans should be proud of those things.


D.B.Y. in White Lake, MI, writes: The building of the piers for Gaza reminds me of the Mulberry piers of World War II. There would finally be a use for the Independence class littoral combat ships as breakwaters à la the Royal Navy's Emerald-class cruiser cruisers at Normandy.


D.M. in Burnsville, MN, writes: As a vet (U.S. Army, 1965-67), I concur with your evaluation of the smarmy (my word would have been slimy) antics of Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX). One can only wonder how he managed to talk his way past the several fitness boards and reviews to achieve (almost) flag rank. Perhaps the Navy ought to re-evaluate itself and the methods it uses to prune its command tree.

History Matters: General

J.M. in Arvada, CO, writes: This line in your answer about Super Tuesdays:

In many ways, the story of American political history is the story of the South trying to lay claim to more power than their population would otherwise entitle them to."

might be the clearest, simplest (as in, ease of understanding, not the insulting version) way of explaining national American politics, from the Constitution to MAGA. Obviously there are more factors than that, but that really encompasses a lot of them in one easily understood statement.


W.N. in Denver, CO, writes: When it comes to books about the Mexican-American War, you must include South to Freedom: Runaway Slaves to Mexico and the Road to the Civil War (2020), by Alice Baumgartner. Incredible amount of research documenting the slaves' flight south to be free.


S.D. in Homer, AK, writes: Adding to the interesting if depressing commentary regarding Japanese-American internment during World War II, few people know of the internment of another group of Americans during the war: the Unangan (Aleut) people of the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands. After Japan occupied the islands of Kiska and Attu in the Aleutians in 1942 (leading to the imprisonment in Japan of the 42 residents of Attu Village), American military officials decided to force Alaska Native people from all villages in the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands to evacuate. They were interned in miserable, substandard camps. Residents of St. Paul and St. George, the two Pribilof Island communities, were forced to live in a leaky abandoned fish cannery at Funter Bay on Admiralty Island in southeast Alaska. Many died there and were buried next to the camp site:

A cramped, hastily constructed cemetery

While ostensibly done to protect Americans from Japanese invasion of undefended communities, there certainly was a racial element in the decision; the kinda-sorta Japanese-looking Alaska Native people were interned while the white civilians of Unalaska/Dutch Harbor were not required to leave.


D.M. in Burnsville, MN, writes: A.H. in Newberg relates a story of how his grandparents' German-American Church in rural Minnesota was threatened with arson if they had not changed their Liturgy from German to English. This is in one of the many intermingled-mixed German/Scandinavian communities in the "Lakes Region," dotting thousands of lakes between some arbitrary line between the Twin Cities and Fargo-Moorhead. (The predecessor to the USDot created than line when it decided to run I-94 between these two homely metropolitan areas).

Every word written by A.H. rings true to me, as someone who grew up just southwest of that line. But further, in the southern part of Minnesota, my mother (a German immigrant's daughter born 1917 in Brown County, a German enclave of sorts) told me that even when she went out as a child, grown people would "pick on her" as being "pro-German."

Furthermore, a large web of POW camps spread across Western Minnesota through Missouri, as far east as Illinois and west as Nebraska was set up during World War II for captured Germans. Many ended up staying. The hub was in Algona, IA and the good people there have set up a museum.

History Matters: The Fillmores

S.R. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, writes: I found your disparaging comments about Millard Fillmore particularly funny because he actually is a fairly infamous figure in the academic world of Japanese Studies. He definitely ranks in the top three most influential American presidents in Japanese history. Fillmore is remembered for dispatching Commodore Matthew Perry (not the Friends actor) to Japan to force the country to open to foreign trade in 1853. His actions caused a crisis in Japan, eventually bringing down the 250-year-old Tokugawa shogunate and leading to the reinstatement of imperial rule. Learning from Perry and the West, Japan then began an era of colonial expansion, eventually leading to the Asia-Pacific War. To remind the Japanese of American might, Perry's flag was flown aboard the USS Missouri for Japan's surrender in 1945. All started by that shifty bastard Millard Fillmore.


T.J.C. in Boston, MA, writes: You were right on the nose identifying Millard Fillmore as the identity of Biden's reference to "My Successor." There was a war over Crimea, the Supreme Court was losing all credibility with the nation, the Texas border was all over the place, immigrants were arriving by the thousands, and Congress was so deeply divided it was coming to blows.

(V) & (Z) respond: See? You have to get up pretty early to fool the staff historian.


S.B. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Do you realize with all of your caterwauling you're going to create a counter-movement!?

A poster that says 'Make America Fillmore Again'


J.H. in Lodi, NY, writes: Although she may be pretty unknown as First Ladies go, Abigail Fillmore was not without accomplishment. She did one great thing that the librarians, such as I, and other literate souls can and should appreciate. Refusing to live in a home without books, she established the first White House Library and got her husband to push through congressional funding for it. Back in John Adams' day, the room had been reserved for doing laundry.


A.B. in Lichfield, England, UK, writes: Abigail Fillmore as fifth-worst First Lady? Clearly founding the first White House library, and then using it to host a literary salon involving (among others) Dickens and Thackery, was the cause of more long-term negative consequences than many of us could possibly have imagined. Donald Trump must be right; these deep-state intellectuals have long been the root of all American evil—and seem to have been undermining the country with their sneaky metropolitan elitist pursuits since at least the 1850s.

(V) & (Z) respond: We are glad it was not necessary for us to connect the dots for you...


L.S. in Greensboro, NC, writes: I presume you chose Abigail Fillmore as one of the worst First Ladies because she oversaw the installation of the first White House kitchen stove, thus replacing cooking by fireplace, the way God intended Americans to cook their food. Thus she started the long decline of this one great nation, which continues to this very day.

(V) & (Z) respond: ...or for you.

Who Let the Dogs In?

G.S. in Doylestown, PA, writes: Thanks for "This Week in Freudenfreude: Man's Best Friend," about Jon Stewart and his dog Dipper. I was watching The Daily Show that night and Jon's tribute to Dipper and dogs in general, and your Freudenfreude piece, brought happy and sad memories to me as well as, dare I say, most of your readers. As Jon and you both suggested, we know when we bring a dog into our lives that we will probably outlive our often-goofy canine housemates. We trust, though, that the peace of the reciprocal love and loyalty will, as with all our most deeply committed relationships, with time, offset the sadness. In my case, that has certainly been true.

I understand that Donald Trump has never been what we might call "a dog person," so I wonder sometimes whether he ever had a dog that he loved and whether it might have made a difference.


C.M. in Belfast, Northern Ireland, writes: When I finish perusing your excellent website, the overriding emotion I feel is usually satisfaction at having read superb political commentary, head-shaking disgust at the antics of the right-wing crazies blighting the American political sphere ,or relief that I live in a country that doesn't share a border with those nefarious Canucks. So imagine my horror at having finished your Freudenfreude section on Friday and subsequently collapsing into an incoherent, weepy mess. God damn you and bless you both in equal measures!

Gallimaufry

N.M. in Brisbane, QLD, Australia, writes: Last week's question from B.W. in Grayslake about Illinois license plates brought back memories of my own daring exploits with vanity plates. I was once a resident of Illinois, and like any self-respecting citizen and politics enthusiast, I couldn't resist the temptation to test the boundaries of the State's vanity plate system. In the early 2010's, I decided to see just how far I could push the envelope. So, I boldly requested (and shockingly received!) a vanity plate that raised some eyebrows:

It says 'FN GLDEN,' which is clearly a short form of 'Fu**ing Golden'

Now, I won't spell it out, but let's just say it was a less-than-subtle nod to a certain former Illinois governor and his infamous remarks. Surprisingly, the Secretary of State's office didn't ask for an explanation when I placed the order. And yes, I did indeed display this license plate as my legal vehicle registration for several years.

Of course, all good things must come to an end, and eventually, my masterpiece was retired to the walls of my home workshop, where it now hangs proudly alongside other relics of my rebellious past.

But enough about my antics; I wanted to share with B.W. that the Illinois Secretary of State does indeed have a web form where you can lodge a complaint against potentially offensive vanity plates. Although, judging from my own experience, I'm not entirely convinced that they conduct a particularly thorough review process.


C.C. in Dallas, TX, writes: Thanks so much for introducing us to TheRighting news aggregator. The linked articles have to be the greatest fanfiction I've ever read!


M.C. in Santa Clara, CA, writes: Given this new intel, where we see 50% of their troops amassing below the red line, we should prepare for the attack somewhere in the North East Sector:

A map shows that 50% of Canadians live in a small area north of New York.

Be Prepared! Duty Now For The Future!

(V) & (Z) respond: We thank you for this report. It will be invaluable.

Final Words

G.W. in Oxnard, CA, writes: Last week, F.H. in Ithaca provided a joke about guillotines. Here are two versions of the joke I tell to my engineering students. First, version one:

A priest, lawyer, and engineer were to be executed by guillotine.

The priest went first. The blade went down and stuck before reaching the priest's neck. The priest said. "It is the will of God that I be spared, so you must let me go." So, they let him go.

Next, the lawyer went, and the blade stuck again. The lawyer said, "the law's the law, you can't punish a man twice for the same crime, so you must let me go." So, they let him go.

Next, the engineer went, and the blade stuck again. The engineer looked up and said, "you know if you put some grease right there, that sucker will come right down!"

Second version:

A priest, lawyer, and engineer were to be executed by guillotine.

The priest went first. The blade went down and stuck before reaching the priest's neck. The priest said. "It is the will of God that I be spared, so you must let me go." So, they let him go.

The engineer went to the executioner and said, "If you let me go, I'll tell you how to fix your guillotine so you can execute the lawyer."

If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.
Back to the main page