Sorry, all. Saturday's posting was derailed by some behind-the-scenes issues. We'll have a joint questions-letters post tomorrow!

Gerrymandering: Newsom Is on the Case

The redistricting war currently being waged between Texas and California saw substantive developments on both sides of the conflict yesterday. It's hard to say, however, if Republican or Democratic partisans should be happier at the moment.

We'll start in Texas. It was hard to see how the quorum-busting Democrats could plausibly maintain their holdout long enough to frustrate Gov. Greg Abbott's (R-TX) efforts to redraw the state's district maps to create five more Republican-leaning districts. The first problem is that the Democratic legislators have families and, because serving in state government is a very part-time position, they also have jobs and businesses. The second problem is that the members face fines of $500 for every day they are absent, and they might not be allowed to accept outside contributions to cover that bill. The fine itself might not be legal, the ban on accepting contributions might not be legal, but those are wildcards that would have to be resolved in court. And you never know how things will go in court, particularly a Texas court.

We allowed for the possibility that the quorum-jumpers had solutions to these problems, especially since they are backed by the considerable financial and legal might of Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL). If they did have such solutions, they would not be likely to announce them publicly until such point as absolutely necessary. But we don't quite know what those solutions might be, and the likelihood was that there were no solutions. It turns out that it was correct to doubt that this could go on endlessly. The quorum-jumpers said yesterday that they have made their point, and brought national attention to the issue, and they will likely return home this weekend.

Once the quorum-jumpers are back on the job, Abbott will presumably get what he wants. The quorum-jumpers wouldn't have quorum-jumped if they didn't have a pretty strong sense of which way the winds are blowing. Plus, the GOP has a pretty large margin of error in both chambers; Abbott can afford 12 defectors (of 88 Republican members) in the state House, and he can afford 4 defectors (of 20 Republican members) in the state Senate. Undoubtedly, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is very jealous. Texas House Democratic Caucus chair Gene Wu, who has been speaking for the group, declared yesterday that he and his fellow Democrats will take this fight to the courts. That certainly sounds impressive, but it's hard to know what cause of action might be successful. The right of a state to gerrymander more than one time per census cycle, and the right of a state to create partisan gerrymanders (even if they reduce the power of minority voters), have both been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

And that brings us to California. Yesterday, at an event held in Los Angeles, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) officially announced his proposed bill that would allow the state legislature to temporarily override the current House map, and to replace it with a much more Democratic-friendly gerrymander. The state redistricting commission would still exist, and would draw the next set of maps, after the 2030 census is complete.

Newsom said his proposed map will be released next week. However, someone (very possibly with Newsom's tacit approval) leaked a list of the districts being targeted. Here they are:

District	Current Representative	Current PVI
CA-01	Doug LaMalfa	R+12
CA-03	Kevin Kiley	R+2
CA-09	Josh Harder	D+1
CA-13	Adam Gray	R+1
CA-27	George Whitesides	D+3
CA-41	Ken Calvert	R+15
CA-45	Derek Tran	D+1
CA-47	Dave Min	D+3
CA-48	Darrell Issa	R+7

According to the leaked list, all nine of these districts, except CA-48, would become "safe Democratic," which implies a PVI of D+5 or bluer. CA-48 would become "lean Democratic," which implies a PVI of D+1 to D+5. And although it is not on the leaked list, the R+1 CA-22, currently represented by David Valadao (R), is such an obvious target that it would be no surprise to see it added when the maps are actually released.

As the table shows, Newsom's plan would likely flip 3 seats, and very possibly 4 (or 5, if you add Valadao's seat). It would also provide extra armor for 5 Democrats who had tough election battles last time. That doesn't directly add to the Democrats' numbers in the House, but it does have an indirect effect, since the money and resources that would be expended in those districts by the DCCC and other Democratic entities could be redirected elsewhere.

Newsom, and a couple of other members of his team, said that the new maps won't even need to be especially aggressive, and that if the Democrats really wanted to, they could make the entire California U.S. House delegation Democratic. That's a pretty bold statement, but it's not crazy talk. Take a look at the heat map from the 2024 presidential election:

Naturally, the blue strip that runs up and down the coast is where the vast majority of the population is. If a mapmaker were to go full mercenary, and to completely ignore things like city and county boundaries, communities of interest, etc., they could basically just slice the state into 52 horizontal, Democratic-majority strips. It's true that some of the red parts (say, Riverside County, which is the long, narrow county that runs across most of the state in the south) are pretty populous. But those populous red parts are invariably right next to the most populous blue parts, because the red parts are suburbs and exurbs of the blue cities.

The point here is that the map that Newsom apparently plans to propose is actually pretty conservative, and is not likely to put any Democrats at risk, outside of a red monsoon. One might reasonably ask why Newsom would not push a bit harder. Our guess is that doing so WOULD put some blue seats at risk, even in a non-typhoon election. Also, he is probably mindful of appearances, since he still has to get voters to approve the maps, and does not want any "Goofy Kicking Donald" districts.

Speaking of the election that will be necessary, and that will be held in November of this year (assuming Newsom's plans come to fruition), there has already been some polling, and at first glance, it does not look good for the Governor. Politico/Citrin Center-Possibility Lab surveyed Californians, and found that only 36% of respondents favor returning congressional redistricting authority to state lawmakers. Obviously, 36% is less than the 50.01% that would be needed to approve a ballot initiative.

However, we think this is one of those times that you have to look very carefully at a poll. First, here is the exact question the pollster asked:

In both 2008 and 2010, California voters passed initiatives to give an Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission the power to draw the state's legislative and congressional districts, in order to reduce the influence of politicians. Governor Newsom has suggested returning congressional line drawing authority back to the Legislature, citing concerns that redistricting efforts in Republican states would give them a partisan advantage. Do you: (1) Support keeping the independent redistricting commission, or (2) Support returning congressional redistricting authority to state legislators.

On its face, if we were the ones supervising the poll, we would not be too happy with this question. It's very long and wordy, which can screw up the responses. Also, the opening clause "In both 2008 and 2010, California voters passed initiatives to give an Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission..." is somewhat leading.

On top of that, the question is either misleading or outright incorrect about Newsom's proposal. He is not suggesting that this function be returned to the legislature; he's proposing the maps be replaced this one time. It strikes us as very possible that there are a lot of Californians who want to keep the independent redistricting commission, but who also support Newsom's proposal, thinking that desperate times call for desperate measures. (Z) personally knows a number of people who feel this way. If so, the correct answer to the survey question for them would be Option 1, which would make them seem to be outside the 36% who support Newsom, according to the poll. But that is not actually the case.

We do not know if these problems were inadvertent, or if someone was putting their thumb on the scale, or if the poll was produced before Newsom made clear exactly what approach he planned to advocate for. Even if the poll was perfect, however, we're not so sure this is an issue that can really be polled for, especially right now. Once Newsom's plan becomes a response to what Texas (and other red states) have actually done, as opposed to a response to what Texas (and other red states) MIGHT do, that could change the calculus. Similarly, another 3 months of gerrymandering (and other unpopular behavior) by the Republicans, coupled with 3 months of publicity from Newsom and other Democrats, could also shift opinion. And finally, we would tend to guess that an electorate that shows up in November to vote on a proposal about House district maps is going to be wonky, and not too similar to a regular election electorate. That makes it rather hard for the pollsters to model.

This is not to say that Newsom is on a glide path here. There is some heavy-duty opposition to his plans, including former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a couple of prominent California billionaires who have involved themselves in ballot proposition fights before, and the League of Women Voters. Meanwhile, Newsom has the backing of Common Cause, and appears to have the legislature, but many other individuals and groups who might be expected to support him have not yet taken a side. The upshot is that it's very hard to tell what will happen, regardless of what polls might say.

One last thing worth noting. While Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass (D) were inside the Democracy Center at the Japanese American National Museum, talking about his redistricting proposal, ICE conducted operations right outside, arresting a bunch of alleged undocumented immigrants. That certainly helps us to understand that the Trump administration's approach to immigration is a serious effort to protect public safety and national security, and is most certainly not just political theater for the benefit of the base. (Z)

Trade Wars: Inflation Numbers Show Movement in the Wrong Direction

The Producer Price Index measures the average change in prices paid to businesses that produce goods. The latest numbers are out, and they are not good news for anyone who believes in tariffs. Specifically, in July, prices rose by 0.9%, the biggest monthly increase in 3 years (and that previous mark was, of course, set during the pandemic). By way of comparison, the increase in June was 0.2%. People who interpret these numbers for a living infer from this that producers were eating the costs of tariffs, but they are no longer willing and/or able to do so, and so are passing them on.

This is a leading indicator, of course, because eventually most of those goods will be sold by retailers, who will pass the added costs onto consumers. Further, the full extent of the tariff damage has not yet been wrought. After all, the tariffs that have kicked in only did so fairly recently. And, on top of that, not all the tariffs have kicked in yet. There are the pauses that have been granted to China and Mexico, and the grace period for goods that were already in transit. Another factor is that customers are often angered by price increases, such that it's better PR to have one bigger price increase as opposed to several smaller ones. So, some businesses are waiting to see how things are likely to shake out, before implementing what they hope will be a one-time increase due to tariffs.

Yesterday, even Fox was compelled to admit that this appears to be a byproduct of Trump's trade war. Admittedly, it was Fox Business, where the staff is rather more serious about facts than the entertainers who work at the "news" operation across the hall. Financial analyst Adam Johnson said:

Not what we wanted to see, not what anyone wanted to, but I think this is tariffs. And we're finally seeing tariffs percolate through the data. What's curious in particular is that the trade component, the line item where it just says trade, and that's about one-fifth of the CPI calculation, up 2%. So lest there be any doubts about where this is coming from, there it is.

With that said, it's still a Fox channel. So, Johnson optimistically predicted that it is a "one-time shift."

We are not financial analysts, but we are obviously skeptical of that conclusion. First, because the effects of the tariffs have not fully manifested, for the reasons we note above. Second, we see no reason to think the effect would be limited to just one month (or even one quarter), and Johnson didn't really explain why it might work that way.

Regardless of whose prognostications are correct, it is nonetheless the case that if prices rise, and stay risen, that is a problem for the party in power. And if you add a tariff-driven price-jump, even if it's "a one-time shift," on top of normal inflation and the expected reduced purchasing power triggered by the BBB, it could be a BIG problem for the party in power. (Z)

Culture Wars: "Kennedy Center" to Crown Five New Honorees

Yesterday, we had an item about the Trump administration imposing itself on the Smithsonian. Today, it's an item about the Trump administration imposing itself on a different Washington institution, namely the Kennedy Center.

During his first term, Trump largely held the Kennedy Center at arm's length. In part, that is because it is named after a prominent Democratic president. And in part, it is because most of the people who might have been expected to appear on stage at the venue, or to have been in the audience at the venue, were likely to be Trump-hostile. It would be pretty embarrassing for him if there were footage of him arriving for an event, and facing a loud chorus of boos. So, he took a pass on things like the annual Kennedy Center honors.

This term, as part of efforts to make popular culture more conservative, Trump has endeavored to remake the venue in his image. He's replaced the board of directors with himself and a group of sycophants. He's gotten involved in programming, both the shows that are staged, and the ones that are verboten. And now, he's helping to pick the annual Kennedy Center honorees. We put Kennedy Center in quotations in the headline, because normally the choice is the result of a process that involves both the Kennedy Center staff and the general public (and NOT the sitting president). That means that calling this year's choices "Kennedy Center honorees" is not terribly accurate, since they are really "Trump Administration Honorees." Certainly, the five picks this year got there in a very different manner than their 255 predecessors.

It is not too hard to figure out how Trump and his team settled on this year's list. Here they are, with explanations:

• Michael Crawford: Trump is well-known as a fan of Broadway musicals, particularly the musicals of Andrew Lloyd Webber, and even more particularly Phantom of the Opera. Crawford originated the title role on Broadway.
  
  
• KISS: The leader of KISS is Gene Simmons. Born in Israel as Chaim Witz, he is staunchly pro-Israel. He's also a conservative Republican, and while he has been critical of Trump occasionally in the past, he's been all-in on Trump since the war in Gaza began.
  
  
• Sylvester Stallone: Stallone is also an outspoken Trump supporter. Further, he played both Rocky and Rambo, two of the most macho characters in American cinema.
  
  
• George Strait: The "King of Country" is a Republican, though he keeps quiet about it, and is best known for his (nonpartisan) work on behalf of wounded veterans. He's inarguably the most deserving of the five new honorees.
  
  
• Gloria Gaynor: This is the only one of the five honorees that requires any real guesswork. We suspect that she was chosen, in part, to diversify the list, and to avoid a bunch of headlines about how all the honorees are white guys. If so, it would be interesting to hear Trump or anyone else on his team explain how that is different from DEI initiatives.
  
  That said, the primary reason she was chosen has to be that she performed the song "I Will Survive." Trump is the hero of his own narrative, and the champion who triumphed over... whatever he triumphed over. That song has played at his rallies, and he undoubtedly thinks the title expresses an important part of his story. Just as he apparently did not actually listen to the lyrics of Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A.," he presumably didn't actually listen to the lyrics of "I Will Survive," since it is about a woman escaping an abusive relationship. A little bit on the nose, if Trump was paying attention.
  
  Incidentally, there is no indication that Gaynor is a Republican (or a Democrat, for that matter). Quite a few people in the music and entertainment industries are urging her to turn down the award, with the notion being that Trump is just using her as a prop. It's happened before; Mel Brooks turned the honor down during the Bush years because of the Iraq War (later accepting it from Barack Obama). In fact, it apparently happened this year; there are reports that Tom Cruise was going to be on the list, and said "No, thanks." He's basically apolitical, at least in public, so as to remain as bankable a movie star as is possible.

Broadly speaking, in addition to checking Trump's particular boxes (and he specifically noted that he vetoed a couple of "too woke" candidates), the honorees are clearly meant to be "popular," and not the kind of artists "elitists" would favor. That's particularly true of KISS, which is really a product-marketing operation that happens to produce music. Still, the President surely gives himself too much credit here. Sure, there have been some "cultural elites" among past Kennedy Center honorees, but the list also includes Frank Sinatra, Bob Hope, Lucille Ball, Johnny Carson, Sean Connery, Paul McCartney, Oprah Winfrey, Led Zeppelin, Billy Joel and George Clooney. If those folks aren't "popular," we don't know who is.

We will also note, while we are at it, that KISS is a 1970s band, Rocky came out in 1977, "I Will Survive" was released in 1978, and Phantom is the "new" kid on the block, having debuted in 1987. It is another reminder that while Trump fancies himself a connoisseur of pop culture, his references are all 40+ years old (or nearly so).

In any event, Trump is thinking a lot about legacy right now, and a lot about "settling the score" with the various entities in American society that did not embrace him. So, be ready for a lot of this kind of stuff. Will this finally shut down the right-wing "Everything is biased in favor of the libs!" grievance factory? Probably not. (Z)

Big Brother: When Your Face Is Not Your Own

As we noted, on Wednesday, (Z) went to the Dodgers-Angels game, and so was there in person to see the Angels complete the season sweep. That's right, in their games against the Angels this year, the Dodgers went 0-6. If they go on to win the World Series, everyone is going to know who the real champions are.

Yesterday, the NBA schedule was announced, and tickets went on sale. (Z) planned to, and did, buy tickets for a Lakers game. However, while he has been to the Lakers' home arena (formerly, and largely still, known as Staples Center), he has not been to the shiny new arena built for the Clippers, which is called the Intuit Dome. So, he bought tickets for a Lakers-Clippers game that will be played there. That doesn't really change things all that much; the crowd will still be 60%-70% Lakers fans. Maybe 80%. It depends on how many Lakers fans are willing to lie, and sit in the "Clippers fans only" section.

The Clippers, and their venue, are owned by Steve Ballmer, formerly of Microsoft. Ballmer is somewhat notorious as an innovation-for-the-sake-of-innovation guy, and so he's tried to make his new venue into the basketball arena of the future. As part of that, you have to download an app if you are going to a game at the Intuit Dome. And it's not enough for one person to download the app; all members of the group have to have it. It's also necessary to go through a LOT of setup, and to allow the app to take your picture. That is because, as part of the arena-of-the-future shtick, entry to the venue is controlled by face-recognition software. When it works (and often, at least according to online reports, it does NOT), it saves patrons 2, maybe even 3 seconds, because they don't have to take their phones out of their pockets. Progress!

(Z) was not thrilled by this invasion of privacy—and, in fact, has not yet submitted the required photo. Ostensibly, this is being done in service of efficiency and an improved customer experience, but it would not be hard for it to be abused. And that's not just theoretical; it's already happening at a different NBA Arena. The New York Knicks are owned by a fellow named James Dolan, who is known for being thin-skinned and for maintaining vendettas against his perceived enemies. And, whaddya know? The Knicks are using facial-recognition technology at Madison Square Garden to keep "enemies" of Dolan from attending games. Apparently this largely means "lawyers who have sued Dolan/The Knicks" along with "anyone else who works at those lawyers' firms."

We don't wish to be paranoid, and we don't like to be Chicken Littles, but one can imagine a hundred different ways this technology could be abused by the Trump administration if they can figure out a way to do it. So, we thought we'd mention it, since it's something worth keeping an eye on (and, we would say, resisting as much as is possible). (Z)

Never Forget: Irish Seaman

This is going to be our last entry, for now. We think this series has accomplished some very good things, and it's certainly gotten positive feedback. So, it's our intention to bring it back next year, and in every June going forward.

We have been intending to run a list of all the entries in the series. As chance would have it, we did not have to do the legwork to compile the list, because reader D.M. in Santa Rosa, CA did it for us. Here's the full list:

• Unmarked Graves
• Never Forget: At the World War II Memorial
• Never Forget: The Duty to Remember George
• Never Forget: Age Shall Not Weary Them
• Never Forget: Two Paratroopers
• Never Forget: For The Records
• Never Forget: Confessions of a Reservist
• Never Forget: No Time for Sergeants
• Never Forget: Seldom Disappointed
• Never Forget: On Guard
• Never Forget: A Great Storyteller
• Never Forget: Cold Warrior
• Never Forget: WTF?
• Never Forget: Dr. Rancher
• Never Forget: Saving Private Ryan
• Never Forget: Hello My Sweetheart, Good-bye Vietnam
• Never Forget: Sweet Tooth
• Never Forget: Back to the Beach
• Never Forget: The Dark Side
• Never Forget: A Tommy Named John
• Never Forget: Four Chaplains
• Never Forget: Flying Fox
• Never Forget: A Moment Stuck in Time
• Never Forget: Many Paths to Service
• Never Forget: Budae Jjigae, Part I
• Never Forget: Scout's Honor
• Never Forget: It Took 59 Years
• Never Forget: Russian Roulette
• Never Forget: Budae Jjigae, Part II
• Never Forget: No Time to Turn the Truck Around
• Never Forget: I Remain, as Ever, Your Kinsman

Thanks for the assist, D.M.!

Wrapping up for now, it is reader A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, also known as (L):

When we were growing up, my siblings and I would often be awakened with "Up and at 'em!!" Hurry up was "on the double!" To go to the bathroom was to "hit the head" (and often still is), and when something confusing happened, we were to "hoist the 'what the hell' pennant." We were Navy brats and proud of it.

My father, Robert Francis Regan, was a modest man with a self-deprecating sense of humor and an Irishman's way with a story. He was awarded the Navy Cross and Silver Star for his service in World War II, having flown torpedo planes (the Avenger) off aircraft carriers in the Pacific. If you read the account in the Military Times' Hall of Valor for his Navy Cross medal, he "skillfully selected the best point of attack" and flew his bombing run "to a very low altitude despite intense anti-aircraft fire," scoring "two direct hits on a heavy cruiser." That's all true, but to hear him tell it, there's more to the story.

He had just been assigned Skipper of the squadron, and arrived on the carrier USS Belleau Wood to find the men mourning their former skipper, who'd just been killed in action. They were not happy to see the new guy. But he still needed to lead them on this mission. So, they headed out toward the harbor and as they approached the ships at port, my father dove down to 500 feet off the deck, as he'd been trained to do, avoiding incoming anti-aircraft fire. What he didn't know is that the men had never flown that low before, but they dutifully followed him in and completed their mission, sinking the cruiser without losing a single man. When they returned to the ship, the men greeted him very differently, with a newfound respect for this fearless badass. My father had accidentally won them over by not knowing any better and simply following his training—he always got a kick out of that. He was definitely not one to brag about his service, not only because it just wasn't who he was, but also because he was aware of the friends/comrades he lost as well as the men on the ships he bombed. He wasn't comfortable glorifying the war or his service, to the point that when I came across an interview he gave as a young pilot in which he used a slur to describe the Japanese and described them as "cowering" in the ship before the bombs dropped, he explained to me that he was wrong to speak that way and he regretted it. He seemed embarrassed by his youthful arrogance and callousness. Like the experience of many others, that was a painful and scary time that didn't call for romantic reminiscences. So, he would satisfy our intense curiosity by telling the same couple of stories whenever the topic came up.

Later, he flew jets, leading a squadron on assignments in the Middle East during the conflict between Egypt and Israel. At one point, my mother was supposed to meet him in Cairo for his R&R, but he sent her a telegram warning her not to come because it had gotten too dangerous. My mother, who was never one to take orders, pretended she hadn't gotten the telegram and joined him anyway. It seemed to work out, and I suspect he secretly admired her for taking the risk—he wasn't the only badass in the family. In the sixties, he taught at the Naval War College in Bethesda as a specialist in amphibious landings and continued to fly and train young pilots.

By the time I came along, he had been promoted to the rank of Captain and was nearing the end of his 30-year career. I asked him once why he wasn't promoted to Admiral, and he said that he hated the politics of it and was not going to campaign for something that should only be awarded on merit. He believed in fundamental fairness, a commitment to service, and the ideals of democracy and freedom that he proudly defended. He definitely passed those beliefs on to his youngest daughter and I hope I've lived up to them. He wasn't the easiest man—he could be very taciturn and distant and showing affection did not come easily to him. I know there are scars that never fully healed, as much as he downplayed all injuries, both physical and mental. But I never doubted his love for me or my family, and his fierce protectiveness always made me feel safe.

Most of all, I remember him as fun—taking me sledding and skating as a kid and to ballgames to watch his White Sox. He also perfected an eggnog recipe that will knock your socks off or, as he put it, "grow hair on your chest," and made the best tacos and margaritas north of the border. I'll close with one memory from when I was 3, and Dad was giving a speech to his troops on the deck of a giant aircraft carrier in Corpus Christi, TX, where we were stationed. There were hundreds of sailors standing at attention while he spoke, and a couple even fainted from the heat and for locking their knees for too long. When he finished, people were gathered around him with these admiring looks on their faces—clearly my Dad was a BIG deal. So, I confidently waddled through the crowd over to him and tugged on his dress whites. Without a word he lifted me up into his arms and held me while continuing his conversations—yeah, he may be a big deal but he's MY dad fellas, so there.

RIP Capt. Regan: I hope you and Mom are cracking each other up in Heaven.

Thanks, A.R.

Next week, we'll be starting something new. Similar in format, different in content. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Quartz Crystal

Last week's hints: (1) "[T]he staff dachshunds heartily approved of this theme" and (2) "If you are still wrestling with the headline theme, some sauerkraut and pilsner might help."

And here is the solution, courtesy of reader S.C. in Mountain View, CA:

The theme is English words derived from German words, or from words used in Germany:

• Trumponomics: A Trade War, Based on Pretzel Logic—From dialectal German pretzel, a variant of standard brezel
  
  
• L'Etat C'est Trump: Maybe Antifa Was on to Something—Borrowed from German Antifa, originally an abbreviation for Antifaschistische Aktion, a wing of the Communist Party of Germany founded in 1932.
  
  
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: A Burger or a Wiener?—Clipping of wienerwurst, from German Wiener ("of Vienna, Viennese") + Wurst ("sausage"), because sausages were originally made in Vienna, Austria.
  
  
• This Week in Schadenfreude: Gabbard Getting Flak from All Sides—Borrowed from German FlaK, short for Fliegerabwehrkanone ("anti-airplane cannon").
  
  
• This Week in Freudenfreude: Another Glass Ceiling Goes Kaput—From German kaputt ("broken, out of order").

Dachshunds are a German breed, of course (though in Germany, they're actually known as dackels). Sauerkraut (sauer/sour + kraut/cabbage) and pilsner ("from Pilsen") are also German loan words, as is quartz (from the German word quarz).

Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:

M.B. in Albany, NY M.W. in Frederick, MD A.F.R. in La Mesa, CA L.H. in Manchester, UK A.D. in Gaithersburg, MD D.B. in Pittsboro, NC D.D. in Portland, OR M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada D.M. in Oakland, CA J.N. in Zionsville, IN P.A. in Redwood City, CA G.K. in Blue Island, IL M.W. in Altea, Spain M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO M.M. in Wylie, TX S.K. in Ardmore, PA D.E. in High Springs, FL T.J.R. in Metuchen, NJ M.Z. in Sharon, MA M.K. in Long Branch, NJ K.S. in San Diego, CA R.D.K. in Ebensee am Traunsee, Austria P.K. in Marseille, France E.R. in Chattanooga, TN H.B. in State College, PA

C.W. in Atlantic Beach, FL J.M. in Eagle Mills, NY D.C. in Portland, OR M.J. in Oakdale, MN T.T. in Conway, AR M.T. in Simpsonville, SC T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts K.R. in Austin, TX J.L. in Walnut Creek, CA K.H. in Albuquerque, NM W.M. in Livonia, MI D.W. in State College, PA D.B. in Glendale, CA E.W. in Skaneateles, NY G.W. in Avon, CT S.B. in Los Altos Hills, CA D.H. in Portland OR S.W. in Corvallis, OR B.N. in San Rafael, CA R.P.E.H. in London, England, UK S.L. in Glendora, CA R.N. in Cleveland, OH E.B. in Denver, CO A.A. in Branchport, NY D.P. in Mt. Rainier, MD

M.H. in Ottawa observes that dachshunds are "one of surprisingly many dog breeds originating from the German (and Germany!)" We noticed that, too. Also, types of beer. This probably says something about national priorities.

The 50th correct response was received at 9:50 a.m. PT on Friday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word per headline, it's in the category Science & Technology and the "Never Forget" headline is not part of it. For a hint, we'll say then when you solve it, you might very well declare: "It's about time!"

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line August 15 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Trumpy Burger Seller Runs into a Small Complication (Two of Them, Actually)

As ye sow, so shall ye reap, it would seem. Roland Mehrez Beainy is an immigrant from Lebanon and, in his personal search for the American Dream, he opened up several locations of a small restaurant chain that pays homage to his hero, Donald Trump. The name of the chain is Trump Burger, each location is heavily decorated with Trump memorabilia, and the buns are even branded with Trump's name:

When you see something like that, the brand is usually in close proximity to a source of bull**it. So, we guess it works.

Incidentally, they also have a Biden Burger on the menu. Here is the description (unedited):

1 oz beef topped with old tomato and our oldest buns unavailable due cheating and inflation $50.99

Beainy's satire is almost as skillful as his grammar. He does not seem to have noticed that Trump is only 4 years younger than Biden. And if we're going to use ingredients to make political statements, then shouldn't the Trump sandwich be made with chicken?

And now, the problems. First up is that Trump is more than happy to have anyone and everyone kiss his... well, buns. But the first rule of Trumpism is that you DO NOT use his name without paying him, bigly. So, Trump's lawyers sent Beainy a cease-and-desist letter, such that the chain will presumably have to change its name. It's taking a while for that to get sorted out in court, because Beainy is also involved in numerous lawsuits with his partners over both ownership and profits.

And that leads us to the second problem. When you own a restaurant, and you do a bunch of interviews about that restaurant, and you become enmeshed in lawsuits because of that restaurant, you draw a lot of attention to yourself. And when you bring a lot of attention to yourself, you run the risk that the government will discover that... you are an undocumented immigrant, and are in the country illegally. As is so often the case, Beainy entered the country legally on a guest visa, and then overstayed. He then lied on his immigration application, and entered into what looks to be a sham marriage. So, he has a hearing in a couple of months, and it's likely he'll be deported by ICE.

Needless to say, and as we will make very clear next week, we have much sympathy for most of the people being targeted by ICE. But these "American Dream for me, but not for thee" folks? The ones who backed Trump because they assumed he would go after the other immigrants? They are hypocrites, and we have no sympathy for that. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: The Learned Words of Learned Hand

We have no idea how many readers have heard of Judge Learned Hand. Probably most of our lawyer-readers have. As to our other readers? Maybe not so much.

Hand is, arguably, the most important judge in American history who did not serve on the Supreme Court. His name was frequently mentioned, and both Republican (Calvin Coolidge) and Democratic (Franklin D. Roosevelt) administrations gave serious consideration to elevating him, but it never happened. There are many theories as to why; maybe it was his youthful political activism, maybe it was his allies stepping on too many important toes with their advocacy on his behalf, maybe it was something else.

Despite never landing a seat on the big court, Hand nonetheless put together a legendary career. At 37, he was one of the youngest people ever appointed to a federal judgeship. He ultimately served on active status for 42 years (1909-51), and then on senior status for another 10 years. During that time, he earned a reputation as an expert in many different areas of law, from torts to antitrust to admiralty. He was a prolific and skillful writer, such that he is still the lower-court judge most cited in Supreme Court decisions. He also had enormous impact on the judicial process, in particular persuading his colleagues that the actions of Congress should be overruled only in the most extreme of circumstances.

Hand's judicial career is not actually the reason we are writing about him today, however. No, it is because he serves as an excellent bridge from the Never Forget series to the new series we will start next week. When World War II commenced in Europe (in 1939), he was strongly anti-isolationist, but felt that his age and official position meant that he should keep his opinions to himself. Once the U.S. entered World War II, however, he became an active supporter of the war effort, and of various causes related to the war, particularly humanitarian relief and protecting civil liberties.

For most of his career, Hand was well known to judicial branch and Washington insiders, but not to the general public. That changed on May 21, 1944, during New York City's celebration of "I Am an American Day." He agreed to deliver a brief speech to over 1 million people in Central Park, many of them newly anointed American citizens. Here's the text of the address:

We have gathered here to affirm a faith, a faith in a common purpose, a common conviction, a common devotion. Some of us have chosen America as the land of our adoption; the rest have come from those who did the same. For this reason we have some right to consider ourselves a picked group, a group of those who had the courage to break from the past and brave the dangers and the loneliness of a strange land. What was the object that nerved us, or those who went before us, to this choice? We sought liberty; freedoms from oppression, freedom from want, freedom to be ourselves. This we then sought; this we now believe that we are by way of winning. What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.

What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned but never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest. And now in that spirit, that spirit of an America which has never been, and which may never be; nay, which never will be except as the conscience and courage of Americans create it; yet in the spirit of that America which lies hidden in some form in the aspirations of us all; in the spirit of that America for which our young men are at this moment fighting and dying; in that spirit of liberty and of America I ask you to rise and with me pledge our faith in the glorious destiny of our beloved country.

The address absolutely caught fire—went viral, if we may use modern parlance—and was widely reprinted. It made Hand into a celebrity overnight, and he remained so for the remainder of his life (he died in 1961).

Hand and his audience were, of course, watching events unfold in Europe and Asia. And what he decided is that, for America to be America, we must embrace immigrants. We must be vigilant about leaders who would deprive citizens of their freedom. We must think critically, and be empathetic when it comes to other people. And (in a clear allusion to the Gettysburg address), we must do these things to honor the sacrifices of those who were fighting and dying on the other side of the world. And the million people in his audience that day, and the tens of millions more who read his words in print, thought he was onto something. It's remarkable how relevant his words seem today, 80 years after he first delivered them.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

---

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

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

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger