Dem
47
GOP
53
One more week of educational (and other assorted) nightmares.
Also, we thought that this week's headline theme was tricky, and we were right. We'll give one more hint. If you want to solve it, "Turn off your mind, relax and float down-stream.
D.B. in Fort Lauderdale, FL, writes: Following Donald Trump's "fiery call with Denmark's Prime Minister" and his rant in Las Vegas about a "substantially enlarged country," one can no longer take his calls for American expansionism as bluster and catering to some supposed nationalist base. Trump sees himself as going down in history as the Greatest American President, but even he realizes that this is not a universally shared opinion. So, he is going to prove it to everyone and for all time. He is going to enlarge the country territorially, so that it is the largest country in the world, and he is "universally" recognized as the genius who did it.
If Trump annexes Canada (3.855 million square miles) and Greenland (836,000 square miles) to existing United States territory (3.8 million square miles) then, at 8.5 million square miles, the United States becomes the largest country in the world, far outpacing the Russian Federation (6.6 million square miles). In square footage (how he thinks), it would also far outpace the expansionism of other U.S presidents—Thomas Jefferson (the Louisiana Purchase), James Monroe (Florida), James K. Polk (Oregon, Texas, and the Mexican Cession), Andrew Johnson (Alaska), and William McKinley (Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and, for a while, the Philippines). Not to mention those pikers Washington, Lincoln, and FDR, who added not a square inch to U.S. territory. Ipso facto, he becomes the greatest president and probably the greatest figure in human history—the one who built the largest country. Remember, we are talking about a real estate guy!
Of course, none of this is going to be accomplished with the acquiescence of the people involved. (Not to mention Panama, territorially small, but symbolically large.) If he pursues this fever dream, then it means destroying treaties and alliances, the use of military force, and the loss of any shred of the fragile basis of world peace that is grounded on national sovereignty. There is a madman in the White House and he risks destroying us all in service to his megalomania.
B.C. in Manhattan Beach, CA, writes: As I listened to the firehose of news about President Trump's executive orders and related activities, it occurred to me that cruelty is not a side effect (a "bug"), or even a feature of many of his actions. It's the goal.
Two items from Saturday illustrate this:
First was an announcement that Trump was not simply going to discontinue granting humanitarian parole to new immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua—he is planning to revoke the previously-granted parole and to deport the persons who had been granted parole. I have not (yet) heard what his plans are with respect to persons who are in the midst of obtaining "green cards" pursuant to the Cuban Adjustment Act (and similar laws applicable to persons from other countries). But to eject these persons after they have done everything asked of them—particularly by sending them back to countries where most people agree the conditions are less-than-ideal is unnecessarily cruel.
Then came the announcement of a freeze on (almost) all foreign aid (with exceptions for military aid to Israel and Egypt). One of the effects of this freeze is that the non-governmental organizations that administer many of these programs will be forced to lay off their employees. Those employees will not necessarily be available to be rehired if/when the foreign aid is reinstated (for instance, because the courts decide that the president is not allowed to impound congressionally-authorized spending). The result is that there will be increased suffering in countries that have been receiving foreign aid. Once again, cruel with no particular benefit to Trump or to America.
It seems as if Trump (or members of his administration) are sadistic, and just enjoy inflicting pain on others.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: When, last year, I looked back to Trump's first term, I remembered mostly the incompetency and the stupidity. What I had forgotten was the cruelty for cruelty's sake. I sure am remembering it now.
C.M. in Raymond, NH, writes: Over the last week (has it only been a week?), you've noted the relative influence of Steve Bannon and Elon Musk. Bannon has the ear of Trump's base, and Musk has Twitter.
But I think you are missing the very important Musk/Rogan connection. As you've also noted this week, Joe Rogan has the number one podcast, and Musk is a pal of Rogan's. Bannon may have the ear of the older alt-right, but Rogan drives the bros that put Trump back in office. Rogan's influence is massive, and I think is a big part of the blue-collar support for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Trump. If Musk turns against Trump, and Rogan comes with the South African, or even becomes just skeptical or critical, it could destroy Trump's support much more than anything Bannon could do.
P.W. in Springwater, NY, writes: I'd like to push back a bit on everything I've been reading this week related to the Biden vs. Trump pardons. It seems that while many pundits are appalled by the Trump pardons, especially those for the January 6 rioters, they are also offended by the preemptive pardons Biden issued before leaving office. To my mind, this is apples and oranges. While the pardons President Biden issued may be unprecedented, what was also unprecedented was a presidential candidate, then president-elect, threatening to retaliate and go after his political opponents and/or their relatives. Plus the First Felon (FF) has a track record for seeking retribution, and with followers (e.g., Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan) eager to do his bidding. This seems to have been forgotten, or at least down-played—bothsidesism at its worst.
The pardon system was abused (broken?) long before Joe Biden sought to protect Hunter Biden, Anthony Fauci, Liz Cheney, etc. Although this was probably not the first instance, I recall the outrage when Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich on his way out the door. And I don't think it's unfixable. Amending the Constitution might be a heavy lift, but a future president could say up-front that he's informed all his relatives, friends, donors, etc. that presidential pardons are not up for sale, and stick with it. Might he change his mind? Sure, and there's been a lot of noise about Biden "lying" to the American people by pardoning Hunter after saying he would not. But what choice did he really have, in light of how the investigation was conducted all the subsequent threats? My fervent hope is that once the FF leaves the Oval Office permanently the idea of threatening political opponents with jail time (or executions) will also go away and some semblance of decency can be restored.
D.S. in Palo Alto, CA, writes: The tell-all accounts of the first TFG/TCG administration started within a year of the inauguration, and most were published long before Joe Biden returned sanity to the place. Late 2025 would be my prediction for the first one. Maybe written by Vivek Ramaswamy. It could easily be much earlier. Look for an Anonymous2 to show up any time now.
L.S. in Ann Arbor, MI, writes: I saw the question from J.F in Washington, DC asking for a book recommendation regarding why people are easily pulled into the world of conspiracy theories. I'd like to add one more book to supplement the answer you gave.
I have a friend who reads over a hundred books each year and posts her own top-10 list at the end of the year. This week she shared this: "I'm always hesitant to declare in January that I have found one of my best books of the year," yet she's already confident that The Quiet Damage: QAnon and the Destruction of the American Family (2024), by Jesselyn Cook (2024), will make her 2025 list. According to my friend, Cook balances the personal stories of five families with broader research and societal perspective about the QAnon phenomenon and conspiracy theories in general. Cook is compassionate, while still being very clear about the harm that QAnon causes. The book includes end notes with references. My friend observes, "If we know what people find there, we can work as a society to provide it (answers, security, community, information) in other ways. We have a long way to go, but we can't get there without understanding where we are and how we got here. This book feels critical to that journey."
O.R. in Milan, Italy, writes: You wrote, of the inaugural address: "[Trump] also delivered the speech in his default style, almost wholly without affect."
This is another dreadfully annoying trait of his. It proves the man does not give a hoot about his audience. He has always been, and remains, a disrespectful dumbass.
Even in ancient Greece and Rome a statesman had to show he knew how to deliver a speech, or he stood no chance in hell of convincing his audience he was worthy of their trust. Rhetoric and declamatory skills were drilled from an early age. I thought U.S. schools also had public speaking and debate classes? This guy, however, doesn't even have the ambition to try improving his teleprompter skills—and certainly not for lack of opportunity, given all his rallies.
I am no fan of the speeches given in the 1930s and 1940s in Germany or Italy. Yet their delivery was so much superior to what Trump produces on the best of days, that he just seems a weak, faded copy of a wannabe statesman/dictator/savior.
No matter how many will kowtow before him—he's just a carcinogenic softener-replete plastic copy of what he wishes would pass as a marble statue.
He just hasn't got it. Neither have those who are so ignorant as to cheer him on.
S.R. in Kansas City, MO, writes: I felt some kind of patriotic duty to watch the inauguration. As I did so, tears were streaming down my face. I am so very, very sad.
T.C. in Danby, NY, writes: When I see the picture you used on Tuesday (or any other picture showing Melania Trump during the inauguration), my first thought is, "Spy vs Spy," the long-running comic strip in MAD magazine.
The question is, where is the other one?
(V) & (Z) respond: We suspect that it wasn't too hard to find people at the Trump inauguration who often dress in all white.
M.S. in Hamden, CT, writes: I think you missed the mark in your analysis of Melania's outfit. Her hat worked quite well as a sort of prophylactic. When Trump came in to peck her on the cheek, the brim of Melania's hat precluded his close approach and he ended up delivering an air kiss. No further analysis needed.
J.J. in Johnstown, PA, writes: When I first saw Melania at the inauguration, I immediately thought of this:
Seems appropriate.
D.R. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: I can't stop staring at the image of Elon Musk giving the "Heil, Hitler!" salute, from behind the presidential seal no less. Wow. To paraphrase Talking Heads, we may ask ourselves: "My God! What have we done!?"
J.L. in Albany, NY, writes: Regarding Musk's "salute," there's something that some online have been claiming that I feel is important to address. Some people on the right have said that Musk is autistic and thus didn't know this is a bad thing to do. They claim that any criticism of Musk for doing this is abelist against autistic people.
Now, I'm an autistic person myself and in my nearly 50 years I've never done this "salute." Nor will I ever do it.
I struggle with many socially related things. I routinely miss nonverbal cues like eye-rolling. I can think people are being sincere when they are being sarcastic. I can require explicit clarification on things that might seem obvious to others. Many social situations involve shades of grey that are difficult for me to parse out.
You know what's easy to parse, though? That particular "salute." That's very clearly a bad thing. There is zero chance that Musk "accidentally did a Nazi salute" because he didn't realize it was bad due to autism. In fact, I find the people trying to blame it on autism to be offensive. Not more offensive than NazElon, but definitely offensive on their own for trying to excuse his actions.
Of course, another component of autism is that we hate hurting other people. When we do and we realize it, it can cause us distress. If I somehow (in a fit of insanity, perhaps) flashed said salute and thus insulted a bunch of people, I would be extremely apologetic. I'd be apologizing to everyone and would be making it clear that I didn't endorse that group at all. Musk, on the other hand, responded by attacking the left for daring to suggest that he was a Nazi. Hey, though, it's not like he's retweeted antisemitic conspiracies or supported the far right party in Germany that's essentially "Nazis in all but name."
Oh, wait. He did.
J.T. in San Bernardino, CA, writes: My wife showed me a social media post yesterday where someone said: "If Musk's gesture wasn't a Nazi salute, then use it at work tomorrow."
G.A. in Nashville, TN, writes: As the parent of a transgender college student, I expected all of the protections provided to my son by the Biden administration to be erased on Day 1, and that is exactly what happened. I will admit that Vice President Trump is, at very least, a man of his word.
I did not expect the passport gender marker removal, but that is on me for being so naive. I am thankful that my son's passport is still valid for another 6 years, and hopefully by that time the policy will have been reversed by a new administration. It is sad that such a kind and harmless group of people have been singled out by the MAGA party, but that has been their modus operandi pretty much from Day 1. Identify someone weak and different who you can ridicule to make your base feel better about their pathetic lives.
What I am honestly most outraged by is the federal hiring freeze put in place by President Musk. This is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt, along with the return-to-office mandate, to eliminate as many federal employees as possible. If you eliminate the employees, the work they do not does not just go away, though. The solution, of course, is to hire "contractors" so that the private sector can get a legal kickback for various Federal jobs. Note there is no freeze on hiring such contractors.
Perhaps the dumbest part of this freeze that has directly affected my son is that, as a result, the Tennessee Valley Authority, which provides electric power to around 10,000,000 people in Tennessee and surrounding states, has eliminated internships for engineering students this summer. My son is an engineering student at a state university here in Tennessee, and TVA is the single largest employer of new engineers in this area by a wide margin. I hear constantly from the MAGA crowd how we need more STEM majors and less humanities majors, yet they cut off their best source of recruiting new talent? Not to mention that these are well-paying internships that allow many students to pay for their schooling without incurring additional student loans.
They will never understand the nuances of government because they simply don't care. They know their base doesn't care, so why should they? Their mission is to destroy our government and they are off to a great start in achieving that goal.
S.N. in Sparks, NV, writes: I am semi-retired and had hoped to do some international travelling in future years. When my passport expires in 2027, I will not renew it. As a trans person, I am not going to lie about who I am and I am not going to travel with a document containing false information. Therefore, I have begun planning for three potential international trips within the next 2 years, even though I cannot afford that. Of course, there is also the possibility of the State Department pulling my passport at any time if some zealot is running the passport office. I don't know how realistic this last threat is, but I have to consider it.
I am beginning to feel trapped in a sh**hole country (to borrow Trump's phrase).
J.L in Albany, NY, writes: Donald Trump's executive order defining gender has an interesting side effect if you read it literally. It defines "females" as people who have the large reproductive organs at conception and "males" as people who have the small reproductive organs at conception.
One problem: There are no reproductive organs at all upon conception. These develop much later (around 6-7 weeks). At conception, every embryo is just a single cell. Maybe Trump's Executive Order could have sorted genders by XX vs XY chromosomes (and likely would have ignored all the other pairings that could happen that make this a grey area, as well), but it didn't.
Given that no reproductive organs exist at conception, there are no "females" or "males." I guess we're all non-binary now thanks to Trump!
(V) & (Z) respond: The XO was carefully crafted. It defines female as "a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell" and male as "a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell." This is techinally correct.
E.W. in Silver Spring, MD, writes: As I was reading some of the executive orders, I had a flashback to middle-school sex education. If you haven't guessed already, the XO I was looking at was the one addressing gender at birth. However, that's not what the XO actually says. Instead someone (or was it an AI?) mixed up the conservative abortion argument, "life begins at conception," with the conservative gender argument, "gender is assigned at birth," and Trump has now declared that gender is assigned at conception based on physical characteristics.
Here's the problem: During the first six weeks all human embryos start developing female sex organs. Thus, beginning at conception, we all have female sex characteristics. At six weeks, just under half of all embryos begin developing male sex organs.
Trump's XO has declared all Americans female. So I would like to congratulate Ms. Trump on not only being the first female president, but also the first president with an all-female cabinet.
D.H. in Clay, NY, writes: Please note the language on gender now establishes that personhood begins at conception, with all that implies. Two train wrecks in one XO.
R.H. in Wayland, MA, writes: I make my living as an immigration attorney and your response to M.J. in Granger was inaccurate. 8 U.S.C. 1324(a) criminalizes alien smuggling, not being in the U.S. unlawfully. Entering the country without inspection is a misdemeanor (although rarely prosecuted because U.S. Attorneys would rather prosecute felonies—Trump v1.0 managed to clog up federal courts in the Southwest when he insisted on prosecuting illegal entry). Overstaying your visa is not a crime. Removal (i.e., deportation) is a civil proceeding. Eight or ten years ago, something like 60% of the undocumented population were visa overstays and not illegal entrants. I'm sure the surge of migrants in the last few years has changed that figure, probably dramatically, but I don't have up-to-date figures on that.
The term "illegal" should be dropped, not only because it's demeaning (a feature, not a bug, for the xenophobic right) but because there's a lot of gray. Take the common case of someone who enters illegally, applies for asylum, and is ultimately granted asylum. Legal or illegal? Plainly legal. She has the right to live and work in the United States. What about on the day before she was granted asylum? She entered illegally but U.S. law (8 U.S.C. 1158(a)) gives people the right to apply for asylum regardless of their manner of entry (a provision the government often gets away with violating). Furthermore, the provision on unlawful presence specifically excludes asylum applicants (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(iii)(II)). Can anyone availing themselves of a right guaranteed by U.S. law (and international law, but who cares about that?) and not considered "unlawfully present" under the law really be called illegal? "Yes!", according to Stephen Miller and the rest of the Trumpists. My answer is "Not until an immigration judge orders them removed and the appeals are complete." Even then, the term "illegal" should be avoided because it is demeaning.
L.B. in Marietta, GA, writes: You wrote: "These things being the case, Trump has not ordered that people be expelled from the country, whether they are in the group that already had birthright citizenship, or in the group that will be born on or after February 18, 2025. He's just ordered that paperwork be withheld from newborns. Since most people, through age 4, have little need for birth certificates or social security cards, this looks pretty toothless to us."
Actually, Social Security numbers are needed for young children. If you file your return claiming your child as a dependent and don't provide their Social Security number (SSN) on your return, the IRS will not allow you to claim them as a dependent. Of course, it could be that there are a lot of non-citizen parents who don't file income taxes, and thus don't need to claim a dependent.
M.S. in Houston, TX, writes: In an answer to the question from J.N. in Baltimore about Donald Trump's XO on birthright citizenship and the withholding of documents to affirm citizenship, you wrote: "Since most people, through age 4, have little need for birth certificates or social security cards, this looks pretty toothless to us."
I beg to differ on this, and I doubt I will be the only one. It's extremely common these days for parents (those who think ahead) to register newborns with Social Security because that magic number is necessary for a bank or investment broker to set up an account in the child';s name, as for gifts or college savings. I have seven grandkids born since the turn of this century and every one of them had received a Social Security number before they were a month old.
By the same token, virtually all public school systems these days require a birth certificate (or sometimes a baptismal record) to register a child for kindergarten. That's certainly the case here in Texas, and I'm sure it is in California as well, because two of my grandkids live in the Bay Area.
K.K. in San Mateo, CA, writes: I read this editorial yesterday with some trepidation, along with similar articles in Nature and Science, detailing the Trump administration's new restrictions on NIH activities, including scientific communications, purchasing of supplies for ongoing research, and grant reviews.
As a university-based cancer researcher, I've already seen some of the consequences unfolding: Saturday, multiple long-scheduled National Cancer Institute (NCI) task force meetings of gastrointestinal cancer oncologists, surgeons, and other specialists from around the world (who are all convening in San Francisco for the annual American Society of Clinical Oncology's Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium) were abruptly canceled. (Brief background: these NCI task force meetings are the platform for identifying unmet needs in a given cancer type and developing clinical trial designs to address these. Holding these meetings is nearly cost-free, as the participating researchers all attend on a volunteer basis and cover their own travel costs. No meals or beverages are provided; everyone knows to BYO coffee.)
While I'm glad in the moment to have a weekend morning unexpectedly free for my Electoral-Vote.com weekly catch-up reading, the next time this group of specialists will all be together for such a meeting will be a year from now. While at the conference this week, there was also a buzz from various lab-based colleagues at the NCI (who had traveled out for the conference last weekend before restrictions were announced) about the pause on travel and purchasing supplies for their labs. I assume they'll find a way to feed their mice and other animal colonies, but what about all the medium and other reagents needed to maintain other living resources like cell lines, which represent the investment of years? And supplies for other ongoing time- and resource-intensive experiments? This purchasing freeze apparently also includes supplies and medications needed to treat patients enrolled in ongoing clinical trials; if these run out, there will be direct impact on cancer patients' treatments.
Another NCI colleague who was scheduled to present a grand rounds talk to an audience of hundreds here in California next week was told he cannot travel to give the talk (which was probably scheduled well over 6 months ago, based on the lead time usually required for something like this). Even more alarming: When he replied that he'll give the talk by Zoom instead, he was told that's not allowed right now, either. No outside communication without approval. It will be interesting to see what transpires by February 1, which is the apparent date when "further notice' is to be expected.
Anonymous writes: I hesitate to write this, as I am now in real fear for my job. I'm going to be somewhat vague as to my specific division and role, but I work as a contractor in HHS, and I get the same communications as the "full" employees. In less than 5 full days, HHS appears to have been singled out by the new administration. All external communication has been halted. This includes publications in the Federal Register (which is how laws are turned into rules, and also how violations of rules are published and communication, and more), public health warnings like Morbidity and Mortality Weekly, meetings to determine scientific research grants, and even much of the contractor communications with HHS staff. My team is involved in software development for direct health care, and our alpha and beta testing activities, along with help desk and e-mail listserv communication, have been suspended as of Friday. All employees have been informed, via an e-mail after 5 pm Eastern time, that they must return to the office. I am completely uncertain how this will apply to me and my job, if at all, but there are a fair number of colleagues who work remotely and literally have no office to return to. There have been tests of a new e-mail distribution method that would allow a single address to send a single e-mail the entirety of the Federal workforce with one click; I can't help but wonder if that will consist of two words: "You're fired!"
I don't know why many of these directives are singling out HHS, but the fact that NIH, Dr. Anthony Fauci's old department, is part of HHS, does leap to mind. I will say the majority of the direction we have been given is not well defined, but contractors, at least, have defaulted to what is likely over-complliance so as not to endanger contracts and jobs.
I am providing this information because before the inauguration, and even now after, there has been a lot of speculation of "how much damage can they do, there are career workers who will keep humming along." But my experience is making me wonder if HHS will exist in 2 years, or even 2 months, and that is without a secretary who is actively hostile to the mission. The President may not be competent, but someone up there is good at throwing wrenches in the works and there are already real consequences.
(V) & (Z) respond: We only grant anonymity under extraordinary circumstances; that is clearly the case here.
G.W. in Oxnard, CA, writes: Convicted Felon Trump (CFT) suggested eliminating the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It has been said that CFT is a good salesman, but he has forgotten one of the core principles of good salesmanship: Stop pitching when the sale is made. CFT has the job, it is bad strategy to attack a popular federal agency that is crucial to a lot of disaster-prone red states. He is fixated on the lies he told about the FEMA response to Hurricane Helene. If CFT was the salesman people say he is, then he would be saying that FEMA will be working so much better under his administration.
Eliminating the agency is clearly a nonstarter in Congress, because every state suffers disasters on occasion, and some suffer disasters almost annually, and the red states definitely do not want to have to raise taxes in their state to build an infrastructure to replace FEMA. Disasters are likely to be more common with increased climate change and the CFT administration seems dedicated to the goal of aggravating climate change.
L.S. in Weaverville, NC, writes: I started my day today glancing through the headlines on BBC America, because I can't bring myself to look at American news without being at least one step removed from the source any more. The first headline that caught my eye was "Bishop asks Trump to Show Mercy to LBGT People and Migrants." That story led me to watch the part of Bishop Mariann Budde's homily where she spoke directly to Trump and to those rows of people sitting directly behind him and asked him to hear, really hear, the word of God.
It was powerful. You can actually see on his face the moment when he consciously makes a decision to tune her out. You can watch his heart harden right before your eyes and you know, without doubt, that you are looking at a man who is lost in so many ways. If anyone needs to hear the words of Jesus, who said "love your neighbor as yourself, welcome the stranger, feed the hungry, take care of the poor," it is that man.
Bishop Budde spoke with love. She never raised her voice, never turned to anger, never condemned. She only asked for mercy. It takes massive bravery to speak truth to a power that is deaf and blind to the suffering it's causing. It also takes a deep understanding of the human heart to keep trying, to recognize that though a heart is hardened, that doesn't mean it can't be softened. We are the only voice that God has in this world; we are the only hands to do God's work. Listening to the Bishop reminded me that there's a lot of work to be done in the next 4 years and beyond. I am grateful for that reminder.
J.K. in Afton, MN, writes: I have been a follower of Electoral-Vote.com since Bush-Kerry, but have never sent anything in. Finally, here goes. My dear wife has for years has been calling out DJT as being a bully suffering from TDS (Tiny Di** Syndrome). I always just shrug it off, even though I certainly believe it be true. He is certainly a coward and not someone who believes in anything other than himself, as he has always had the funds to defend his actions. Now along comes Bishop Budde, a woman of God who is only interested in serving God and the community. Making it even more difficult for Donald is that she is the opposite gender. Yet she somehow, even though being thoughtful, loving, empathetic, and merciful, carries a big stick. What is a Donald to do?
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: Deportations to New Jersey? How do I get on that list?
Do I have to stock up for the LGBTQIA+ community? I have done that a bunch. Could you please tell Trump for me, so I can leave this red-state nightmare in which I am living?
Caldwell, or east of there, please, but I can make my way from the Water Gap if you just drop me there.
(V) & (Z) respond: We believe that if you want to be relocated around the country, on the taxpayer's dime, you actually have to contact Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL).
L.C. in Brookline, MA, writes: You wrote: "The Republicans' message is fundamentally positive: Americans are a good people and if it weren't for these criminal immigrants, all would be well. The Democrats' message is fundamentally negative: The country is beset by dozens of major, major problems, like the ones listed above. Turns out, people like the positive message better."
This is just incorrect—Republicans' message is not positive by any stretch of the imagination. They bully everyone who is not them, and when they can't find an example of something bad done by an immigrant, they make stuff up. Either way, it's always negative. To get their voters to feel good about themselves, they tear down everyone else—thoroughly a negative process, just like making a (very obscene) sculpture by removing material instead of casting it.
M.S. in Canton, NY, writes: "The Republicans' message is fundamentally positive"??? From the way your piece is written, I can't tell if you are just laying out Thomas Edsall's opinion or endorsing it, but in any case it seems totally wrong-headed. Did I dream that the current president won the election by airing grievances 100% of the time? Isn't his most famous speech known by the nickname "American Carnage"? Didn't Fox rise to its position by proclaiming, 24/7, "Things are terrible!" If that's now what is considered "positive," either the word doesn't mean what I thought it did, or else George Orwell's predictions were right.
B.S. in Tucson, AZ, writes: I love the website but you missed the mark with this by a mile.
The Republicans have won the culture war for now, but not because their message is positive. Quite the opposite. They have used fear and negativity to motivate the masses. That's what sells, just as it does on Fox. There is nothing positive about their message.
S.O.F. in New York City, NY, writes: Regarding your piece on losing the culture wars, I agree: I think the Democrats, and more broadly the left, have lost. I'd like to interject another reason for why that is beyond Democratic messaging: Activism on the left has not changed since the 1960s. This is the case even though, in 2015, we were shown an effective alternative with the marriage equality moment. If you look at activism before that moment and after, the standard procedure is speak truth to power, mobilize in the streets, resist, and basically draw a red line in the sand on these issues and get loud. That's the way it was done in protesting the Vietnam War, and that's the way it's done now on issues like social justice and Gaza.
By contrast, the marriage equality activism of 2015 was a softer power. The main features were: Don't demonize people for being on the wrong side of the issue, give people space to get to the right side of the issue on their own terms, and don't challenge anyone's political identity in the process. If you remember, Barack Obama during this time was on the wrong side of this issue, yet he was not labeled a bigot by activists. The tip of the sphere(s) were kindly old LGBT couples, many of whom you would characterize as living a traditional American lifestyle. While this issue eventually came down to Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy's vote, if you look at the polling, people from across the political spectrum moved on this issue—it was effective. Even conservatives got to the point where many of them realized that you can still be a conservative and accept gay marriage. This approach, however, has never been replicated. In fact, if you listen to activists over the last 10 years, this approach has largely been rejected as ineffective. Despite this, it's probably the last success the political left had on any culture wars issue.
D.A.Y. in Troy, MI, writes: As you wrote this week, the Democrats have the problem that they have a large number of issues important to them, while the Republicans have effectively condensed themselves down to crime (because of a lot of their issues, like racism and class warfare, can be cloaked as fighting crime). The Democrats need to do the same, and bring all their issues under a single umbrella.
My suggestion is the Democrats should cast themselves as the pro-human party. They could make note that the "Demo" in Democrat comes from dêmos: Greek for "people." All the issues they fight for are for the benefit of American humans and they should brand it as such.
Trump and the Republicans have made themselves the perfect foil for a pro-human party. At his inauguration, Trump had a collection of tech billionaires with long histories of abusing their workers and operating under the assumption that humans are obsolete and an unacceptable drain on resources. The primary targets of Musk's DOGE are the human workforce of the government and the programs that help humans in America. Trump's first acts, and many of his cabinet picks, are particularly inhuman and intent on inflicting suffering rather than solving the (supposed) suffering he was elected to address. It will be easy to cast the Republicans as anti-human.
That's not to say the Democrats should become Luddites in this rapidly changing world. However, their agenda should be to return technology to its proper place of serving mankind rather than being a means for the billionaires to rob the masses.
And if the Democrats present their agenda as the pro-human agenda, it would make it harder to attack it without coming off as anti-human. It is similar to how Republicans' making everything about crime made it hard to attack them without coming across as pro-crime.
So, vote Democratic: the only party for humans.
R.C. in Des Moines, IA, writes: I have to agree with R.L. in Alameda when they say that Democrats need to match Republicans on every talking point and with attention-getting language displaying a willingness to fight. Even if this comes across as performative to some, there will be a certain number of people who will hear this kind of talk and think, "at least that person is fighting for the regular guy like me," or something along those lines. Some Democratic voters may be appalled by this tactic, but they won't suddenly become Republicans. Maybe some of them would be inclined to vote Green or something, but maybe when they realize doing so is throwing their vote in the garbage and would only help Republicans, they will think twice, hold their noses, and vote for Democrats?
F.C. in Sequim, WA, writes: We need to stop this guy as quickly as possible. Everyone seems to think "We'll get him in 2026." That will be too late if we don't stop the Congress Critters before then. Every congressperson should be having their feet held to the fire NOW! They jump when the madman says "jump." They should be looking over their shoulder 10 times a day to see who's watching them. Make them more afraid of the voters than the madman. I hope you are all done licking your wounds! We got to move!!!
M.S. in Houston, TX, writes: In reply to D.E. in Lancaster, and fears over the development of AI, I have to say that I've been an avid reader for 75 yers, especially in science fiction, and that there are also a very large number of Sci-Fi novels set centuries in the future in which AIs, sentient and otherwise, are just part of the background of everyday life. That includes using an AI to manage traffic on an automated highway filled with driverless vehicles moving at high speeds 6 inches apart.
So I have absolutely no problem with the concept of artificial intelligence. What's more, there's no way you can stop its development if you wanted to. To quote Robert Heinlein, "When it's time to railroad, people are gonna railroad."
Where I differ with the tech bros is that I see no need to rush things. This isn't a political race for bragging rights, like getting to the moon before the Soviets. AI development is global. So take it slow. Let AI develop gradually and at its own pace, with plenty of spitballing and experimentation along the way. That's what happened with steam power, and electrical power, and internal combustion, and electronics generally, and with computers. And that method has worked just fine with all of them.
M.N. in Madison, WI, writes: In response to D.E in Lancaster: In addition to getting in on the Next Big Thing™, companies are so eager about AI because they see it as a way to reduce their #1 expense—staffing. Of course, in a very Tragedy of the Commons fashion, none of them have thought past their own interests and asked what happens when AI replaces all staff at every company and no one can afford to be their customers anymore. We can't count on the government to step in, since Donald Trump and the Republicans are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Ultra High Net Worth set, and even the current iteration of the Democratic Party is too business-friendly to seriously impede it. At the rate things are going, it seems likely that Trump, in his quest for the "best" and "biggest" everything, will get to add "Greatest Depression Ever" to his list.
H.M. in Hannover, Germany, writes: In response to the question about AI from D.E. in Lancaster and your answer, here is a rather frightening recent rant from Sabine Hossenfelder:
One can save some time by skipping the clips from politicians and starting at 1:43.
S.C.-M. in Scottsdale, AZ, writes: D.E. in Lancaster seems to have a misunderstanding of what current AI technology is based on. LLMs sit on top of what are called neural networks, which are trained by inputting large amounts of data generally taken off the Internet. These systems are very complex search engines and are not "intelligent" in the generally understood popular definition of the term. I think the AI enthusiasts want us to believe that is not true.
Neural networks take in a given input and then produce a basically statistically generated output with the input being examined by nodes in the neural network. There can be many nodes in a neural network. ChatGPT is rumored to have billions of nodes in its network.
These systems can be very useful when they are used in specific domains, such as face recognition or radiography diagnosis. I see them as potentially helpful tools, but also ones that, unfortunately, can be abused. The accuracy of a neural network's results are a factor of their training set. A good training set can produce what seems like astonishing results. I have also learned these systems are often tweaked by real people to improve their performance after the training and before being deployed. This is not magic.
One of the ethical and legal problems with these systems is no one really understands how they come up with a given result given a particular input. Think of the legal and liability issues if a neural network is used to for cancer diagnosis and gets it wrong. Who, or even what, is liable for the missed diagnosis? Think of a neural network based air traffic control system. It may successfully keep airplanes from running into each other better than the current human based system. But who or what is liable for an accident when it fails?
Another issue revolves around copyright and IP protection. If a neural network uses copyrighted material to get a result, does the owner of the copyrighted material have to give permission to use the material?
Finally, the collection and processing of the information used by a neural network consumes vast amounts of electric power. One of the reasons you may position datacenters in Abilene, TX, is it is in pretty close proximity to the vast wind farms and potential wind farms in west Texas and even Oklahoma. While a nuclear plant takes many years to develop and build, wind farms can be brought online relatively quickly and at less cost per KWH generated.
Of course, the whole AI bubble may blow up in everyone's faces in a few years because the hype around these systems exceeds what they can really accomplish, which will dry up the investment dollars.
D.H. in Boston, MA, writes: As an amateur renewable energy watcher, I was interested to see the question from J.R.A. in St. Petersburg about where Texas might get the power for new data centers. It's likely that most of the new power will come from wind, and especially solar, with battery storage used to smooth out the supply. Here is one article on the state of renewables in Texas at the start of 2025. To quote that article: "In absolute terms, Texas has installed around 19,000 MW of solar, 14,000 MW of wind and 6,200 MW of battery capacity within the past five years." That's 39 gigawatts, enough to power 30 time-traveling DeLoreans. In 2024, Texas got 30% of its electricity from wind and solar. If Texas continues to add renewables and battery storage at the same pace, it should be able to provide the 20-30 GW that J.R.A. mentions as being needed in the next few years.
Renewables aren't just big in Texas. Most new generating capacity in 2024 was from solar farms, and that trend looks to continue in the next two years, and probably beyond. Solar panels are now cheap enough that it makes more sense economically to build solar farms than fossil-fuel-based power stations. I'm sure there have been interesting conversations between oil and gas CEOs and Texas power utilities, but the trend toward renewables is clear. It's one thing that gives me optimism given the current political situation.
M.S. in Chicago, IL, writes: It is not true that an associate justice is the traditional person to swear in a vice president. As recently as 2005, when Dennis Hastert swore in Dick Cheney, associate justices rarely did the deed. Until the 1920s, the outgoing vice president usually administered the oath. Thereafter, the incoming VP often chose the Speaker of the House or a senior senator of the same party. Only since the 2009 inauguration has the incoming VP consistently chosen an associate justice. This tradition may stick, or maybe not! After all, until 1937, the vice president took the oath in the Senate chamber and not on the main stage.
R.H. in San Antonio. TX, writes: As an attorney licensed in Kentucky, I had to take the constitutionally-prescribed oath of office, which includes swearing that I have never sent nor accepted a challenge to a duel, nor served as a second to one.
Occasionally there's some move to remove that from the Kentucky Constitution, but the Kentucky General Assembly only meets for 60 days every other year and for 30 day rump sessions in the off years.
There's not enough time to get a lot done, so constitutional officers have to swear that we've never fought a duel.
B.C. in Farmingville, NY, writes: In response to R.S. in Warner, I get the feeling that the voters in Maine and Alaska in their states enjoys the fake bipartisanship from Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and reward them with good election outcomes. In 2020, around election time, I took a trip up and down the coast of Maine. There were absolutely tons of Sara Gideon yard signs and barely any Susan Collins signs. There were large numbers of TV and radio ads blasting for Sara Gideon. The state also polls fairly blue, although one electoral vote goes to Team Red consistently. Granted, my trip was mainly in the bluest part of the state along the coast, but after being up there I was very surprised that Susan Collins won. I think the same thing is happening in Alaska.
P.R. in Washington, DC, writes: As a former Pennsylvania resident (born and lived for the first 18 years of my life), I have some thoughts on Sen. John Fetterman's (D-PA) overtures to Donald Trump. I am not convinced Fetterman is considering switching parties. Instead, you can explain his moves by looking at Pennsylvania's recent electoral record.
Recall that Fetterman is up for reelection in 2028, concurrent with the next presidential election. He knows Donald Trump has won his home state in two of the last three presidential cycles (2016 and 2024). In both of those elections, when there was also a Senate election, the Republican candidate won. Incumbent Pat Toomey won in 2016 when the seat was considered a tossup, if not favoring the Democrats. Then challenger Dave McCormick defeated three-term incumbent Bob Casey in 2024. That was especially striking, as Casey has been a household name in PA politics for decades and is a very good political, cultural, and ideological fit for the state. Personally, I thought he could win reelection as many times as he wanted. Meanwhile, McCormick's connection to Pennsylvania is tenuous, as he split his time between Pennsylvania and Connecticut. The fact that Trump had coattails to power McCormick over Casey has to scare the daylights out of Fetterman.
I think you can explain Fetterman's moves by a simple electoral calculation: If the Republican presidential candidate wins Pennsylvania, then there is a good chance they bring the Republican Senate candidate with them. Pennsylvania has become the ultimate tossup prize, as the elections are decided by razor-thin margins. McCormick only beat Casey by 0.22% and slightly more than 15,000 votes. Even if the Republicans win Pennsylvania in the 2028 presidential election, Fetterman only needs a small sliver of voters to split their tickets. He cultivates a very common-man, anti-establishment style. Layer on working with Donald Trump on a few priorities that are popular in Pennsylvania, and you can easily envision a scenario where the Republicans win Pennsylvania at the presidential level, by one to two percentage points, but Fetterman narrowly secures reelection.
S.L. in Glendora, CA, writes: As a secondary teacher for around 35 years, I could relate to many of the teacher nightmare stories. But surely I'm not the only teacher who also had the nightmare where I found myself teaching in front of my class naked. The funny thing is, nobody in my dream seemed to notice.
J.M. in Portland, OR, writes: I, too, had the standard educational nightmares for most of my life. Then, in my late 50's and early 60's, they went under a very significant change. For example, I'm having the usual "it's the day of the final exam and I have forgotten to study" dream. But this time, I remember that my grades for the rest of the semester are good enough that it doesn't matter. I awake with a sense of relief and success rather than anxiety.
J.C in Cambridge, OH, writes: I have a different sort of educational nightmare story that I don't think you've published so far: My high school had a teacher that was very well liked but who changed a lot in a short time after I knew him. He was patient, fun, accessible, and made clever activities to make us teenagers stay interested in actually learning history. One of the courses at our school was created entirely by this teacher as an elective, and he had to select from a list of double the number of applicants than could fit in his schedule.
Two years later my sister had one of his classes and said he was the worst teacher of the whole day for everyone. He was always angry, irritable, and never seemed to care much for preparing a lesson. He would often just read straight from the textbook or even just tell the students to read the book at their desk and then do nothing himself. One day the rage took over when he didn't like a student's answer. He picked up a chair and threw it at the chalkboard so hard it ricocheted off and hit a student in the front row of the classroom. He was suspended immediately and never showed up to the review of his teaching license.
In hindsight, he had said that he had taken a large decrease in pay from being a stockbroker for his passion of being a teacher. He also once mentioned a custody battle and divorce that seemed endless. We wonder if his personal life was really making it overwhelming to manage a career he found stressful too.
S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, writes: In school, I excelled at test-taking and anything mathematical; my worst subjects were "English" (meaning literature), "Spanish" (meaning foreign language), and to a lesser degree, social studies/history—i.e., subjects that leaned into essays and projects more than tests, or into linguistic skills. Those subjects largely went away when I went to college for engineering, so I had little in the way of school-related nightmares after high school.
Until recent years, that is. Shepherding my inconceivably distractible kid through grade school assignments has reawakened my project deadline anxiety with a vengeance.
S.H. in Lake Helen, FL, writes: While nightmares are quite disturbing, since they present on-going fears and mounting distress, I feel there's a silver lining to everything, and I see one in regards to the nightmare experienced by S.C. in Tonawanda.
Dreams always have multiple meanings, which are often hidden, and if one looks at repetitive themes (where dreams use different motifs) and plays on words, one can find surprising revelations. Investigating paradoxes often can resolve the 'distractions' of what appear to be opposites. Something "not lining up" seems to be the crux of the dream, which is expounded upon in various ways. However, the bribe, in contrast to the test questions and answers, actually "lines up." Four quarters do equal $1. And what really caught my attention was the play on "PA" and its interesting connection with the bribe. There is, in the dream, the PA = Physician's Assistant as well as PA = Public Address system.
These are clues for S.C to ponder, considering perhaps what they can further reveal. Looking deeper, quarters and dollar bills both feature the face of President George Washington, who also happens to be called THE FATHER (PA = pa) of our country. Another PA might relate to Pennsylvania, where the founding fathers met to sign the powerful Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States. The bribe makes me wonder if S.C. is likewise being acknowledged and ultimately valued for their "note"-worthy contribution to the "well-liked" class? Perhaps this way of viewing the bribe is to be precedent (play on the word "president") in how to look at this nightmare. S.C. may be exhibiting strong traits of our founding fathers in the beginnings of their new teaching career. Nothing sappy here!
S.S. in West Hollywood, CA, writes: I work in "reality" TV. I would be a rich man if I had a dollar for every time someone said to me, "I have a great idea for a reality TV show. It takes place at (wherever they work), because you wouldn't believe the crazy stuff that happens at (wherever they work)."
This is what came to mind while I was reading the many stories of teachers and students anxiety dreams. Everybody has anxiety dreams! Yes, teachers and students, but also plumbers and bus drivers and scientists and people who work at department stores, etc. Everybody has anxiety dreams! If it's a problem, if it's PTSD-related, please see a therapist. Talking it out helps. I think being educators, you got a little stuck thinking this is somehow unique to that profession. It's not. I will give you that we've all been students at some point in our lives, so it is a commonality we can relate to, but respectfully, this isn't therapy and I'd like to move on to other topics. Preferably related to politics. (Stressing again that if anxiety dreams are a problem, if they're PTSD-related, please see a therapist. Talking it out helps.)
(V) & (Z) respond: We are guided by the letters we get. We did not privilege letters about educational nightmares because we are biased in favor of our profession, we did so because those are the letters we got. Meanwhile, the overwhelming feedback suggests it's a subject of interest. For example, see the first sentence of the next letter.
A.L. in Bochum, Germany, writes: I have just been reading the fascinating letters describing academic and teaching nightmares. I have never had these (that I know of), but I HAVE had orchestra nightmares.
I played French Horn professionally for 37 years in an orchestra in Germany. Non-musicians must understand that: (1) playing a wrong note (a "clam") in a professional orchestra is a major deal, and (2) for technical reasons having to do with the overtone series, French Horn players are more likely than other instrumentalists to clam. Hence the following dreams:
- I am late to the concert, open my horn case, and the horn is missing!
- I am late to the concert, open my horn case, and the mouthpiece is missing!
- I am late to the concert, I have my horn and mouthpiece, but I can't find my work uniform (white bow tie and tails).
- I am late to the concert and can even hear the orchestra already playing, but I can't find the door to the stage! Gaaaaaaah!!!!
Actually, these dreams generally have a basis in reality, because I was in fact late for rehearsals a few times (also a big no-no), or forgot my horn, or forgot my music, or forgot my mouthpiece. For concerts, I did in fact forget my glossy patent-leather shoes (I thought nobody would notice if I just wore my black socks, but THEY DID), and colleagues forgot their tails or even their instrument, but fortunately these particular mishaps never happened to me for a concert.
I presume that everybody has nightmares about their work, if it entails any amount of stress... right?
K.B. in Tallahassee, FL, writes: I had to chuckle at S.C. in Towanda sharing their teaching nightmares, as it brought back vivid memories of dreams I had early in my emergency nursing career, where I was the only person available to respond to a patient in full cardiac arrest, having to intubate them, breathe for them with a bag-valve mask, start an IV line, give emergency medications, and perform chest compressions all at once (and not at all possible). Horrifying! And then there were the early motherhood dreams, where I would go out and leave the house and baby unattended for a day or two, and come home to a lethargic, dehydrated, starving infant. Also horrifying! But I agree with your assessment that these anxiety dreams often fade over time... thank God!
M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: Alas, I do not make or sell or sell Doctor Who scarves. It's a gift from a brother-in-law.
A.C. in Kingston, MA, writes: I don't want to speak for M.M. in San Diego, but as an avid knitter and cross-stitcher myself, I did want to explain to G.M. in Arlington why the answer about scarf availability is likely a "no."
Scarves are probably the easiest knitting project out there, especially when knit (as M.M.'s Doctor Who scarf is) in garter stitch. And yet, knitting a wide scarf that's 5-7 feet long is going to take even a fast knitter several hours, at a minimum, to work up. The yarn itself also costs money. Even the cheapest acrylic yarn retails for $3-5 per skein, and the Doctor Who scarf requires 9 skeins of yarn. So somewhere between $30-$45 for the raw materials and then 5-ish hours of knitting. At minimum wage, that's roughly $65-80.
Most of what I knit ends up as gifts for friends and loved ones (mainly my kids and nieces). A few years ago, I knit my husband The Dude's cardigan for Christmas. The yarn alone (a high-quality alpaca) cost almost $200, and the complicated pattern in a men's 2X took me almost three months (knitting 1-3 hours about five nights a week) to complete. I don't know too many people who would pay upwards of $1000 for an imperfectly-knitted sweater.
What you will find, though, is that many knitters are happy to teach others our craft! Garter stitch takes an afternoon to learn, and there's little more satisfying than being complimented on an accessory I made myself.
I'm still proud of this even if it's not perfect, though—it really ties the room together. :)
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I would like to respond to those readers who rightly took me to task for forgetting key parts of Star Trek trivia. I bow to your superior knowledge. I have always lived by the Nerd, so it's only appropriate that I die by the Nerd.
However, I would like to offer an explanation for my glaring mistake: A freak transporter malfunction kept certain less used bits of information in the pattern buffer, around a .003% degradation, and thus did not accompany my being when the rematerialization subroutine took place.
Always remember, blame everything on the transporter!
(V) & (Z) respond: But the transporter also fixes everything. Pulaski prematurely aged? Transporter. Picard accidentally de-aged? Transporter. Scotty needs to survive long-term without food and water, while awaiting rescue? Transporter. Moriarty needs to be tricked into giving back control of the ship? Transporter. Need to get the hostile alien souls out of Troi, O'Brien and Data? Transporter.
K.J. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: My favorite of the Star Trek books is How Much for Just the Planet. It's hilarious!
M.A. in Knoxville, TN, writes: In response to the question from G.M. in Arlington about who you'd chose for aliens to make first contact with, you suggested Taylor Swift. She might be a truly excellent choice if the greater galaxy has ended up hooked on our music like they did in Robert Reid's 2012 science fiction novel Year Zero. In that, due to our copyright laws, aliens owe humanity so much money that exterminating us is seen as a good option, since otherwise we'd bankrupt the entire galaxy. It's a lot of fun and quite funny with a clever solution to the problem. I was fortunate enough to win an advance copy shortly before it was published.
P.M. in Edenton, NC, writes: As the movie Contact made clear, Earth's first messenger to the stars is none other than the Chancellor of Germany, who got a pair of references in the mailbag yesterday:
Right after this clip ends is an excellent line by Angela Bassett, probably the best in the film: "Twenty million people died defeating that son of a bitch, and he's our first ambassador to outer space?"
Elon might make a better ambassador. Of course, given Elon's weird recent arm motions, maybe he and the Chancellor really are one and the same...
J.M. in Arvada, CO, writes: In response to the question about the best scientific ambassador for aliens to make first contact with, the first name that came to mind is the late Carl Sagan. Barring these aliens having some sort of resurrection technology, though, that's not an option. The two names that are generally mentioned as filling Sagan's role today are Neil Degrasse Tyson and Michio Kaku. Personally, I prefer the latter, so that would likely be my choice, at least off the top of my head.
J.C. inThủ Dầu Một, Bình Dương, Vietnam, writes: I really feel that Neil Degrasse Tyson is the right answer to meeting intelligent aliens. Unlike Anthony Fauci, he has the background in that field and has done substantial thought on this very issue. He is intimately familiar with both the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox, and perhaps most importantly, the Dark Forest Hypothesis.
However, given that statistically the most likely first meeting of alien "life" is going to be viral or bacterial, then, you're right, Fauci's your man.
K.H. in Maryville, TN, writes: We spent two days last week at the Kennedy Space Center. (To everyone: Go, go, go if ever you are able to. It was awe-inspiring!). One of many highlights was the Atlantis building. It started out by walking up a curved ramp and into a theater where there was a short movie (12 minutes or so) about the shuttle program. Then a wall opens and you walk out to this—the space shuttle Atlantis:
Between the film and seeing the actual shuttle I'm tearing up. It was all very moving. Then I walk to the side where the payload area is... and see is "Canadarms"! And my next thought is, "I've got to send this to Electoral-Vote.com!" Canada has been "helping" with the Space Shuttle program! (Good thing we have a Space Force!)
(V) & (Z) respond: They're EVERYWHERE. Note, for example, that the most important EV maker is Tesla, owned by the Canadian citizen Elon Musk. And what movie planted the "electricity-powered vehicles are good" seed in Americans' minds, 40 years ago? That would be Back to the Future (1985), starring Canadian actor Michael J. Fox. Anyone who thinks there's not a long-term plan at work here is fooling themselves.
C.J. in Queens, NY, writes: There's been enough talk about baseball that I feel compelled to chime in. I've worked my whole career in professional sports, started in baseball, and am a lifelong fan of the Pittsburgh Pirates.
There is a common misconception among Pirate fans (and everyone else) that the Pirates could compete if they just spent more money. But that overlooks the realities of the baseball market. Due to the 6 (or usually 7) years a team initially has control of a player they have drafted, every single player you purchase in free agency is at their peak or declining, barring unicorns like Juan Soto. And even in his case, it's expected that the deal will be underwater in the latter half of the contract for a short term boost in the front half of the contract. Obviously the Dodgers can afford this, but when a small-market team tries it, like the Reds did by paying full price for Joey Votto, you just end up being bad anyway since you don't have the funds to fill out your roster.
You also can't ordinarily build a team through free agency even with infinite money, since most of the players are declining and most of the best players have been locked up by their current clubs. Small-market teams usually try to do this by locking up players while they're still young and not at their peak. The Pirates themselves did this with Andrew McCutchen, Starling Marte, Gregory Polanco, Jose Tabata, Mitch Keller, Brian Reynolds and Ke'Bryan Hayes. Of course, teams often have to trade these players before the contract expires, since you can't lose something for nothing when operating with such tight margins. You need to develop a core, then use free agency to fill in around the margins.
The question is: What would something like a salary floor actually accomplish? The cost of a marginal win in free agency is around $10 million these days. If you force the Pirates to spend an extra $30 million, you have taken them from a 76-win team to a 79-win team. This is why the free agency spenders are often teams with a ton of money, or teams at an important place on the win curve, where an extra couple wins are critical. Bad teams will still be bad.
Essentially, forcing the lower-spending teams to spend money to go from "not competitive" to "still not competitive" just inflates the cost of a win for the teams who are truly in a position where they need to spend on that extra firepower. Which, I mean, I'm all for it because it gives money from the owners to the players, but I don't think the owners will go for it. And it won't make anything more competitive at all.
(V) & (Z) respond: The Angels are a good illustration of the free agency problem. Unlike the Pirates, the Angels have money... and spend it. But the team almost invariably ends up spending it on players who are entering, or well into, their decline years, like Albert Pujols and Anthony Rendon.
J.H. in Lodi, NY, writes: Some things don't change, and Pittsburgh Pirate salaries are one of them. Ralph Kiner, as a Mets broadcaster, was fond of telling the story of his approaching then-Pirate general manager Branch Rickey for a raise after leading the league in homers year after year. Rickey's reply: "We can finish last without you."
There are no fun quotations nor anecdotes about Elroy Face, the Pirate pitcher who defined being "the closer," but even during his best years as a Pirate, worked as a carpenter during the offseason.
S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, writes: Regarding your answer to the question from L.S. in Richland, WA's about the bandwidth of a station wagon: You might just as well have directed L.S. to the examples in the Wikipedia article on Sneakernet (which, in point of fact, cites [V] more than once).
Perusing the article's fictional examples lead me to wonder: Does the delivery of the Death Star plans to the Rebel Alliance base on Yavin IV, via droid memory, make the Millennium Falcon a space station wagon? (It would explain Luke's reaction, "What a hunk of junk"!)
J.H. in Boston, MA, writes: You mentioned the AWS Snowmobile as an example of the high bandwidth of physical media in transit. As another example, in the 2000-2010s I used to subscribe to a cloud home backup service called Crashplan. All your files for all your computers backed up offsite to a cloud service. If you have multiple computers, all your data may be in the multiple gigabytes or terabytes, which would take months or years to upload depending on your home Internet speed, which is often asymmetric for uploads. So, they would mail you out a large disk for a seed backup and thereafter you could just upload deltas going forward. A pretty useful feature, I thought. They stopped offering home backups a few years ago, to my dismay.
J.W. in Houston, TX, writes: "Nothing succeeds with me. Even here, I meet with disappointment." Those last words, which certain folks in office might want to note, were from Russian officer Mikhail Bestuzhev-Ryumin, after the hangman's rope broke.
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.