Sunday Mailbag

It's been a week.

Politics: This Week in TrumpWorld

S.K. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: D.K. in Iowa City asks "If Donald Trump took part in the Epstein sex assault scandal, shouldn't there be some 'Trump survivors' who would come forward now, along with the Epstein survivors?"

They've been coming forward for years, and no one cares.

See one of Katie Johnson's lawsuits here.

The Wikipedia article linked above mentions The Guardian's investigation into Katie Johnson's legal representation. Note that her statement is corroborated by a witness.

Two men also witnessed Trump at Epstein's parties. One of them witnessed Trump's participation.

---

D.T. in Hillsboro, OR, writes: In your response about why Trump survivors have not come forward, you missed a very possible reason: Trump paid them off.

---

J.E. in Woodland Hills, CA, writes: J.V. in Seattle asked: "If MAGA is looking for a time when America was great, when was that time?"

(Z) answered: "Donald Trump has made very clear that he is thinking of the 1950s. And that decade was pretty great—if you were white, male, straight, Protestant, and did not contract a horrible disease like polio, or get into a car crash at a speed above 20 MPH, or live near a nuclear test site, or work for a non-union factory, or spend a lot of time worrying about a Russian nuclear strike, or... well, you get the point. These folks who look backwards, full of wistfulness for 'better times, are invariably wearing rose-colored glasses."

Under the world Trump is trying to reconstruct (beyond Making America White Again), who says he's not additionally trying to recreate all of the same "50s standards" regarding disease, auto safety, radioactive environmental harm, nationalizing red state "Right to Work for Less" laws, and paving the way toward possible foreign enemy strikes on domestic infrastructure?

---

M.M. in Springfield, IL, writes: I have a theory—or, rather, a life observation. Many U.S. males, and possibly elsewhere, form their concept of an ideal world as what they experienced in their pre-teens, well before they had any notion of adult concerns of the day. I have seen this many times in pastimes (hobbies) with a historical element.

Trump fits this to a tee. He wants to recreate the world as he understood it when he was 10 to 12 years old. Specifically, 1956-1958, as you cited, an era when many of our society's injustices were conveniently swept under the carpet.

We collectively mention, even joke about, the President's immature emotional playbook. However, I contend that this aspect of his mental state very well may not have grown past pre-adolescence.

---

M.C. in Falls Church, VA, writes: It seems clear that the Trump administration is increasingly embracing socialism. Government shares in U.S. Steel and Intel, and forcing decisions on other companies through threats of retaliation, are pretty much the dictionary definition of socialism as an economic system where the government controls the means of production.

At the same time, the Trump administration seems to have an increasing fondness for changing names ("Department of Defense" to "Department of War"; "One Big Beautiful Bill" to "Working Families Tax Cut"). So, if MAGA is really becoming a socialist movement, and since they are, of course, already a nationalist movement, isn't it time to change the MAGA name to "National Socialists"?

---

S.B. in Natick, MA, writes: "Boutique" seems to be your #1 choice for referring to "Truth" Social, but I've never seen you use "vanity" (as in vanity press). I feel like it captures both the nature of the site (as an outlet that will disseminate anything Donald Trump says, regardless of worth) as well as the nature of its overlord. It also lacks the implication of perceived quality that boutique conveys.

Politics: Guns...

K.H. in Albuquerque, NM, writes: I agree with your item on banning gun ownership for trans people, but found this NSFW MAGAReport in my inbox this morning, as well. Certainly for the extreme right, hating trans people trumps any limits to the Second Amendment (pun intended). They clearly have little understanding of legal process, or the implications of their positions carried to their logical extremes. This begs the question: When will they decide that being a registered Democrat is evidence of mental illness?

(V) & (Z) respond: We hate to break it to you, but... Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder.

---

R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: Regarding our Orange Overlord's desire to prevent trans people from owning firearms, because trans = mentally defective: I know it feels like a lifetime ago, but remember how in 2017, Republicans in Congress voted to make it easier for mentally ill people to get guns? Such hypocrisy.

---

J.L. in Chicago, IL, writes: The guns-from-1789 angle would be a horrendously bad strategy to take on the Second Amendment because if it happened to work, it would tee up a communications-technology-from-1789 angle to attack First Amendment rights. For sort of the same reason, it would not work because it is patently ridiculous in light of the fact that the First Amendment has been applied to mass communications the 1st Congress could barely have imagined.

We (and I very much include myself) also need to accept that while we may not like the Second Amendment, it exists and it will continue to exist for a long time. There is a constitutional right to way more access to guns than I wish were the case but wishing something doesn't make it so.

Probably nothing is going to make much progress with the current Supreme Court, but it seems to me that there are some angles that might work with a future court. The view of the Second Amendment adopted in recent decades in the name of originalism is the opposite of that. It finds an "original" interpretation that somehow no prior Supreme Court noticed for 200+ years. It is exactly what is sometimes derided as "judicial activism." That is not, per se, bad. Among other examples, the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted beyond that which its authors would have anticipated and that's largely good. But both are way more "living Constitution" approaches than originalism.

An originalist angle that might work someday is to understand the Second Amendment in the context of a revolutionary generation with a LOT of concerns about this newly powerful central government. The Second Amendment is the only one of the ten in the Bill of Rights that gives a reason. That has to mean something. It is quite plausible that it, in fact, did not mean that only members of the militia were covered but that it guaranteed the states the right to maintain formal armed power outside the control of the federal government. At that time, that pretty much meant a state militia. It is not a stretch to say that the Second Amendment does not mean California cannot restrict your access to guns. It means that the federal government cannot interfere with California's ability to maintain a militia by means of allowing you to have guns.

I do realize that Fourteenth Amendment incorporation of portions of the Bill of Rights against the states adds a wrinkle, but it seems to me that, under this interpretation, there is at least some room to argue that it is a mistake to treat the Second Amendment that way.

---

R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: I think the key to using the well regulated militia clause with respect to gun ownership is not to restrict gun ownership but to make it more of a burden. The federal definition of militia, contrary to your implication, isn't "the National Guard" but all able bodied men age 17-45 who are or intend to be citizens, along with females who are members of the National Guard. The Guard is the Organized Militia and everyone else is the unorganized militia. States also have militia definitions. Wyoming, interestingly, doesn't discriminate between men and women (the law makes no mention of gender whatsoever) and includes people up to age 72. The Constitution grants Congress the power to specify the training discipline and requires the states to train their militia according to that discipline. If we're going to insist, as a country, that we need armed vigilantes to fight crime ("the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun") then it makes all kinds of sense to require that anyone with a firearm be trained in tactics or, at the very least, marksmanship. If gun ownership required the owner to get together on a regular basis with his neighbors to practice taking down a mass shooter, that might make people rethink how badly they need a gun. This is a variation of how Switzerland does their military.

Politics: Germs...

K.M. in Tacoma, WA, writes: After Florida announced it will stop vaccine mandates, many questions arose in my mind:

• If Florida becomes a petri dish of polio, measles, COVID, etc., will blue states require records of vaccination for travelers from Florida?
• Will Europe?
• Will underdeveloped nations who are trying to defeat these diseases, or have defeated them?
• Will tourism to Florida suffer?
• Will anti-vaxxers move to Florida and enrich their pool of pathogens?
• Will migration happen in the opposite direction for people who want mandates, at least in schools?
• What will happen in the hospitals? Will employees spread illnesses to patients? Will patients spread illnesses to hospital staff?
• What about Army readiness?
• What about employees in overcrowded places like meatpacking plants, grocery stores, etc.?

This will open up a Pandora's box of issues which I don't think the Floridians have considered. Good luck to them!

---

M.D.H. in Coralville, IA, writes: Most of those who will die as a result of the ongoing measles outbreaks will not be killed directly by measles itself; they will die in the future from something else.

That's because measles erases immune memory, so after somebody has recovered from measles, they are much more vulnerable to other infections for many years. Researchers comparing child mortality rates in multiple countries before and after introduction of the measles vaccine found that nearly half of all pediatric infectious disease deaths before measles vaccinations were due to this "immune amnesia" caused by measles.

---

P.Y. in Watertown, MA, writes: With Florida removing their vaccine mandate, I assume the majority of Floridians will still get vaccinated. But now Florida has given some total idiots ("Floridiots") the chance to select themselves off the face of the earth. The most fire-breathing Trumptards and their families (sorry, innocent children of Floridiots) will expose themselves to unnecessary health problems and a chunk will die. I see this as progress (sadly) for Florida.

---

J.S. ih Philadelphia, PA, writes: Pennsylvania has entered the fray that you noted concerning Washington, Oregon and California.

---

B.W. in Boston, MA, writes: The Northeastern states, except New Hampshire, are also working on a health alliance.

---

R.G.N. in Seattle, WA, writes: Now that Florida is getting ready to phase out polio vaccines and other childhood vaccinations, I find myself recalling memories as vivid today as the day they happened. Three of the children in my elementary school either walked funny or on crutches and another two were confined to iron lungs. One friend had also died from something called polio. I didn't know what polio was, but I wanted nothing to do with spending the rest of my life in an iron lung.

I managed to avoid polio until in 1955, the year the polio vaccine was released. The vaccine was made available at my elementary school and vaccine was prepared for all of the students. Not one student was missing from the line to get vaccinated. In addition, not one parent was absent, including the fathers (no employer was willing to deny their employees the day off to watch their offspring get immunized).

Most of the mothers were crying or hugging each other in relief and the moist eyes of many of the fathers announced the fact that for this special day, stiff-upper-lips and stoic expressions were not expected of even the most macho men. When the last student was vaccinated, a cheer broke out amount the parents and then they dutifully lined up for their shots.

None of my classmates died or were injured by the vaccine, but to this day, none of them caught polio, were crippled, or have died from the disease. Imagine that.

---

N.M.D. in Duluth, MN, writes: Regarding your items on HHS, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and the measles resurgence, I offer this reflection.

In 2022, I attended my 50th high school reunion. In preparation, I went through some old boxes of stuff my mom had kept all these years. One of the most interesting finds was all of my elementary report cards (1960-66). I noticed that almost every single year I had at least one episode of extended absence, ranging from a week to just over 3 weeks. Why? Measles, Mumps, Rubella (German Measles) and Chicken Pox. I had them all. What I didn't ever have was polio, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus or smallpox because we got vaccinated—at school!

Now, in addition to some of the above, we have the MMR for kids. Varicella for Chicken Pox came a bit later.

A generation later, my own kids never had absences of more than a couple days.

It occurs to me that this is clear evidence for vaccine efficacy and success!

---

L.C.G. in Portland, OR, writes: Two personal stories I wanted to share after seeing RFK Jr. blathering on.

When I was 6 months old, in 1953, I had polio. I now have one arm that is much weaker than the other. I could not crawl with one weak arm so I never did. I could not do chin ups, push-ups, or climb a rope in school and some teachers did not buy my excuse and gave me low grades. I was so much luckier than a neighbor kid who had one withered, stumpish arm. He was luckier than my sister-in-law, now 76, who has been unable to walk since she was 5 years old. Of course many others died.

In 1985, my 2-year-old and I went to visit my then-90-year-old grandmother. I warned her that my daughter, her great granddaughter, could be a little fussy since she had just gotten vaccinations that morning. My grandmother's eyes became teary and she then told me about something that I had heard before, but never directly from her. Her first, and at that time only, child died in my grandfather's arms on New Year's Day 1923 from Diptheria and Whooping Cough. She told me she was so glad that mothers, fathers, and children don't have to go through that ever again.

---

A.S. in Black Mountain, NC, writes: Too much?

---

H.R. in Cudahy, WI, writes: Sometime earlier this week, one of you hoped that the next head of HHS would be an experienced doctor. I agree that would be nice, but more importantly, the next HHS Secretary should have the ability to critically assess data, something many doctors don't have the ability to do. I only know enough about it to know that it's incredibly complicated, and there are about a gajillion biases and confounders that can lead us astray. I highly suspect that RFK Jr. likes to find studies that confirm his prior beliefs, and uses them to push his strange agenda. The next HHS Secretary needs to look at everything, discern good quality research from poor, and not be afraid to be wrong. Science is about being wrong and figuring out why and how we're wrong. That's how we progress.

---

D.H. in Boston, MA, writes: (V) mentioned in his post on measles that Edward Jenner introduced the smallpox vaccine in the late 1700s, greatly reducing deaths from the disease. An interesting side note is that prior to the vaccine, some people used a different technique called variolation to protect against smallpox. The idea was to make a small cut on the skin of a healthy person, then add a drop of pus from an infected person to the cut, hopefully triggering a manageable infection and then immunity. It wasn't totally safe. About 2% of those who had it done still died of smallpox, but that was better than the 10-20% who died without it.

Variolation was known to many cultures outside of Europe. Probably the first use of it in North America happened in Boston. An enslaved man named Onesimus, who was probably originally from what is now Ghana, had earlier explained the technique to his master, a Puritan minister named Cotton Mather. The practice of variolation was common in western Africa at the time. Mather convinced some people to use it, which likely saved some lives in a smallpox outbreak in 1721. Europeans also learned about the technique from other places like the Ottoman Empire. It continued to be used throughout the rest of the 18th century, until the vaccine, which was safer, came into use.

Politics: And "Steel"

J.K. in Portland, OR, writes: Not that this is different from anything else, but The Convicted Felon's (TCF) executive order "renaming" the Department of Defense shows a total ignorance of the military, its history, and its leadership. The primary job of the Department of Defense is the prevention of war. I will cut to the chase and explain this with one example, General Richard Cavazos (1929-2017). In the late 1980s and 1990s, I had the great privilege of getting to know Dick as we were both acting as observers and advisors of high-level (Army Division and Corps) command-and-control training exercises. Dick was the general in charge of the U.S. Army Forces Command when then-president St. Ronnie attacked Grenada using forces nominally under his command without telling him because of... well, something (sound familiar?). Dick reasoned that the President didn't trust him, so he immediately resigned. This made him a hero to his fellow officers.

Cavazos was the first Mexican American to serve as a general in the U.S. Army, and rose to wear four stars. He was also a true Texan, very folksy, full of funny stories that always had a moral worth hearing. He understood that the first job of any commander was war prevention. And this was because if, for some reason war wasn't preventable, he was going to order his own troops to do things where some would die. And every one of those deaths would be on him. And this was true for every person in command of a combat unit, no matter how large or small. A price to pay, to be sure, but only if absolutely necessary.

---

C.Z. in Sacratomato, CA, writes: Department of a Whore! I vote for Department of a Whore! (I calls 'em like I sees 'em.)

---

J.P. in Lancaster, PA, writes: It occurs to me that someone who makes a show of blowing up speedboats, whether they are carrying drugs or not, renaming the Department of Defense the Department of War, stating how smart he is and that he knows more about grass than anyone else, and bragging about winning a tournament at his club, etc. has serious feelings of inadequacy that may be related to the relatively small size of his hands and other body parts.

---

L.G. in Lafayette, CO, writes: While your points are well taken, and the history lesson is very interesting, it seems to me that the larger point here is that Trump has finally crossed into the "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody" territory for real. While 11 people in a speedboat off the coast of Venezuela isn't quite the same thing, he ordered their deaths with no legal justification whatsoever. As always, he starts with people that not too many will complain about, but this kind of authority could easily extend to ordering the death of anyone he claims is a threat to the U.S.: protesters, certain judges and prosecutors, and Rosie O'Donnell come to mind.

---

D.A.Y. in Troy, MI, writes: You wrote on Friday "because we struggle to come up with any other explanations for this new, much more aggressive posturing." And I saw one person ask if Trump wants war so he can cancel the elections. I doubt this. America has held elections while we were at war with ourselves. Besides, I do not think Trump is thinking that far ahead or that deeply with the decision to destroy that boat and other provocative actions.

While I think Trump wants to be in a state of war with Venezuela, it is more a more immediate and petty reason. He has been slapped down time and again by the courts for using the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected Venezuelan gang members without due process because it only applies to soldiers and other government agents of a country we are currently at war with and we are not at war with Venezuela. Well, if Trump can create a war, then that would solve that and he can start dumping Venezuelans in Antarctica once he has used the threat of tariffs to force the penguins to take them. At least, that is what is pretending to be logic in Trump's head.

---

R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: "Picking up litter" is about the most Orwellian and dehumanizing way to describe breaking up homeless camps I've ever heard. It's right up there with that other National Guard activity in D.C., "presence patrols."

---

K.H. in Maryville, TN, writes: This sh** writes itself...

---

L.B. in Ashburn, VA, writes: Last weekend, I went to a DC Power soccer game on Saturday and a Washington Spirit game on Sunday, both at Audi Field in D.C.. It was great seeing some high quality women's soccer in a nice stadium.

The National Guard had a visible presence, but I'm not sure it was having the effect on people that Donald Trump wanted. Each metro station had 2-6 guard members, generally leaning up against the wall looking bored. They had on full tactical gear, each must have been carrying around 30-40 pounds of whatever it is they wear, and they did have side arms, but did not have rifles.

As we walked up to the stadium we saw a group of four soldiers who were clearly just walking in circles around the stadium. We asked them where our gate was located, figuring they had circled many times. They did not know, and told us they had "just landed." We apologized that they had to be there, which elicited smiles from the group.

The DC Power game only attracted about 2,000 fans and the stadium was mostly empty. The next day, the Washington Spirit had almost 17,000 attendees, in part because the team is more popular, and in part because it was pride night. There were pride flags all over, the team gave out pride pennants, and a wide variety of people were in attendance. The "Free DC" movement was also there with shirts, flags, and flyers. During the game there were several "Free DC" chants.

I suspect this all made an impression on the young guard troops. I can only imagine someone who grew up in rural West Virginia, or Mississippi being told they were being shipped off to a "hellhole of crime" and had to "protect the Capital" only to find themselves spending 8 hours a day standing at a Metro stop where nothing happens, or endlessly circling a stadium where 17,000 people are having a rocking good time watching women's soccer and celebrating pride. I also have to wonder what they are telling their families back home about their deployment.

Politics: The Gay Agenda

P.R. in Arvada, CO, writes: I read the reply by D.A. in Hermosa Beach in last week's comments with a mixture of amusement and confusion. Kudos for not treating people differently because of their sexual orientation. However, the list of things they oppose is kind of odd. They oppose the right of people to get treatment for their own private medical issues, "men" competing in women's sports (I assume they mean trans women, not men) and the normalization of LGBTQ+ people being taught to young children.

When I first moved to the U.S., I was in Houston and worked with a lot of very Republican people. One of the first things I learned was the fiercely independent nature of them. Without fail they would argue against government interference in their right to live how they wanted. Without the slightest hint of irony, though, they would always be telling others how they should live THEIR lives. One of the biggest areas they would make their opinions very clear was LGBTQ+ people. For some reason that I could never understand, their medical needs and sex lives were completely fair game to criticize and give unsolicited advice.

For D.A. to say that they are opposed to "Transgender surgeries and puberty blockers for minors," all I can say is: So? So what if you are opposed to it? Do you really think you know better than the doctors, the patients and their parents? That is their very private business. It isn't a public discussion. None of these people are waking up one morning and deciding they fancy being the other sex. This is a long process with many steps to make sure they are doing the right thing. We don't get to have a say. We don't get to say that we are OK with increasing the risk of suicide for the child. We don't get to say that someone should spend years waiting to get the help they need. There are far fewer people who grow up thinking they made a mistake than there are kids who commit suicide because they don't get the help they need. They need help from professionals, not the opinion of people like us who don't really know what they are going through.

Why is it men competing in women's sports, and not women competing in men's sports, that is the issue? I make the assumption that it is some kind of safety issue or a sense of fairness. Wouldn't a woman competing in a men's sport/league be as much of a problem? Is it fair that Katie Ledecky wins everything or that Simone Biles can do things other women she competes against can't do? If it is a sense of fairness, then where is the line? At what point is someone too dominant? And where are these trans athletes who are winning everything?

I wonder if the people who are trying to stop LGBTQ+ themes from being discussed in school even know why they are mentioned? Are they aware that the more something is talked about and normalized the less hatred it gets? Are they aware that 41% of LGBTQ+ high school students report persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness? And that 39% of LGBTQ+ young people seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year, including roughly half of transgender and nonbinary youth? How about suicide being the second leading cause of death among young people aged 10 to 14, with LGBTQ+ young people four times as likely as their peers to attempt suicide? Normalizing them is the best way to help them.

D.A. may think they are fine with LGBTQ+ people, but their actions say otherwise. The "Republican Agenda" is actively killing kids. No one is asking you to like it. All they are asking is that you keep your opinions to yourself, let them be who they are and most importantly let them get the help they need. Just show a tiny bit of that Republican spirit of letting people be who they are and live the life they want.

---

A.S. in Renton, WA, writes: My queer friends and I recently enjoyed this in regards to the gay agenda:

---

S.N. in Sparks, NV, writes: Thank you to K.R. in Austin for capturing the heterosexual agenda exactly. Most parents assume their kids are heterosexual and encourage the idea in myriad ways. Some years ago I attended a wedding of a great niece. Her mother gave a brief talk before the dance started and stated that she always wished her daughter would find a wonderful husband. In this case, the mother thought her daughter made a great choice. I was really tempted to ask the mother if she would have felt the same way if her daughter had married another woman.

---

D.A. in Hermosa Beach, CA, writes: If there is any further discussion in the Sunday mailbag on my proposed mark-ups to what the Republican party opposes and does not oppose, here are three thoughts to consider that are rooted in real world events rather than solely personal opinion:

• Scott Bessent is the Secretary of the Treasury in President Trump's cabinet and he is openly gay. As I read the financial news, Scott Bessent appears to wield more influence on U.S. trade and economic policy than any other person in the current administration other than Trump himself. There are clearly parts of the LGBTQ+ agenda, as it is currently advocated, that the Republican Party opposes. Biological males competing in female sports is one example that currently gets the most coverage in the media. If one thinks that means the Republican Party is opposed to gay people in general, then one should ask themselves how Scott Bessent became Secretary of the Treasury and how he is able to wield so much influence in this Republican administration on U.S. trade and economic policies.
  
  
• In 2024 Donald Trump received a higher percentage of the Latino vote than any presidential candidate since George W. Bush in 2004. If one thinks that the Republican Party is opposed to brown people, then one should ask themself how the Republican Party was able to make the gains in support among Latinos that were achieved in the last election cycle.
  
  
• Vivek Ramaswamy was born to immigrant parents from India. He gained prominence as a Republican presidential candidate in 2024 and is currently running for governor of Ohio with the strong support of President Trump. If one thinks that the Republican Party is opposed to brown people, then one should ask themself how Vivek Ramaswamy has been able to gain the prominence and influence he has in the Republican Party in the last two years.

(V) & (Z) respond: And don't forget that Donald Trump also has a Black friend.

Politics: The Democrats...

E.D. in Saddle Brook, NJ, writes: I wanted to say how good it was to see your item on Zohran Mamdani. The Democrats need to stop worrying about what the Republicans say about them and try to own their own narrative. We saw Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden define themselves as the most bland, boring, status-quo-maintaining candidates possible, yet the Republicans harped non-stop about how they were the most radical left-wing extremists ever. The Republicans will do the same about the next candidate, whoever it is, and the base will accept it just the same.

Bernie and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) figured this out. They're not afraid to think big, and they'll 100% lean into it. Bernie will be the first to call himself a Socialist. Try to insult AOC's ideas and she'll tear you apart as she explains in simple terms why the idea you insulted is great. If the Republicans are talking trash about you, it means you're doing something right. Accept it as a compliment and embrace it.

---

P.S. in Portland, ME, writes: I attended the Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Fight Oligarchy rally with Troy Jackson (running for governor) and Graham Platner (running for Senate) in Portland on September 1. It was held at the Cross Insurance Arena, the largest indoor venue in Portland, and it was packed with over 6,500 people. I have been to several left progressive rallies, and by that I mean attended by those who believe in that Star Trek view of the future, and this was by far the most energetic. It presented to me the strongest evidence yet that this country could snap left in a revolutionary way.

I am connected well enough to Maine politics to say that both Troy and Graham have a good shot at winning their democratic primaries. I can also say that if they win their primaries, they will likely win in the general election.

There are reasons why it may once again be true that as Maine goes, so goes the nation. Let us hope and pray and, more importantly, organize.

---

Q.F. in Seattle, WA, writes: We all want the Democratic Party and its leaders to fight for our country. I am reminded of the Sunday show This Week with George Stephanopoulos, when David Hogg joined the political roundtable. He tore into the lying Republican mouthpiece Reince Priebus, forcefully calling him out for his lies in clear and in no uncertain terms. I remember thinking "This is exactly what we need in our Democratic leaders." Naturally, the show hasn't used him since, instead falling back to the weak and milquetoast Democratic speaker Donna Brazile, who allows herself to be spoken over every week.

We need the blunt-force object that is David Hogg. And any and all who can take the Republican cult to the woodshed. It's a shame that so many "news" organizations no longer have both sides of the aisle in any interview. I cringe how often even the supposed news anchors use the term "Democrat" instead of the correct adjective "Democratic" when speaking about our party. We need fighters, and when they go low, we need to go lower and bury them in the sewer under a building foundation.

The American people are crying out for this. Why are the old leaders so deaf?

---

L.S. in Greensboro, NC, writes: You wrote about possible down-and-dirty Democratic attacks against Trump and his policies. I am old enough to remember the Willie Horton ads, which were used to devastating effect against Gov. Michael Dukakis, turning a double-digit lead in the polls into one of the greatest electoral defeats ever.

When Trump took office for the second time, he immediately gave a complete pardon to hundreds of violent criminals who attacked the U.S. Capitol, assaulted police officers, damaged property, and threatened the lives of elected officials. It's only been a few months, but already among those pardoned:

• One bought a gun, fired on police officers, and had to be shot and killed.
• One was arrested for sexual abuse of a minor.
• One was sentenced to life imprisonment for plotting the murders of all the law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and the judge whose work led to his original conviction.

This is crying out for "Willie Horton"-style ads for today. Constantly hit the American people using ads, social media, and every other resource to show over and over that Trump, rather than protecting Americans, is endangering us with his actions.

On a less violent front, ads featuring ordinary citizens who were defrauded of their life savings, were in line to get some restitution, and then lost it all when Trump pardoned supporters of their financial fraud convictions and not only wiped out their criminal records but also the fines, penalties, and restitutions levied against them, could also be devastating. It would show everyone that Trump doesn't care about anyone except those who throw money at him.

---

R.H.D. in Webster, NY, writes: Obviously, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) is running for President in 2028. He comes out of Central Casting with both the looks and executive experience for the role. But once he takes the plunge, there will be a lot of reckoning he'll have to do with the voters. Just to name a few there are: his wealthy background, him being from a liberal part of the country, his record in elected office, his interactions with those on the right, and his tendency to flip-flop on issues. This sounds a lot like someone I remember from not too long ago who also ran for President on the Democratic side, then-Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).

We all remember how that turned out in 2004. In fairness to Kerry, he didn't win the now-blue states of Colorado, New Mexico and Virginia. Had he won all three, he would have been elected. But Kerry did carry all of the "Blue Wall" states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, which will be a must for Newsom or any other Democrat in 2028.

I've said this before, but if Newsom, or any other Democrat, wants to win in 2028, they have to win Middle America. I'm not just talking geographically, I'm also talking about those in the middle class who work hard to raise their families and contribute to their communities. Those currently taking it on the chin from the disastrous Trump economic policies and other aspects of his presidency. Newsom has to convince folks like these that he gets it, that he will spend every day of his presidency looking out for them and making their lives better, and be the antidote to Trumpism. It's not enough to just stand up to someone, you have to stand up for something!

While I've gotten a kick out of what Newsom has done to stand up to Trump and the Republicans, it's going to take more than trolls, memes, and lawsuits if he wants to reside in the White House come January 20, 2029.

---

M.L. in Athens, OH, writes: Like others, I think that the DNC needs to abandon the overt language of identity politics and subsume those policies under a broad banner of "fairness." Fairness in wages, in taxes, in health care, in treatment under the law. Fairness means investing in our people in infrastructure, in education, in jobs. Democrats are crap at communicating things on a simple level that everyone can relate to. They need to stop getting wound around the messaging axle, silence the graduate-level social theorists in the party, and revert to a straightforward message of fairness. And then they need to hammer on the fact that the Republicans are anything but fair. After nearly 100 years, it's time to implement a new New Deal (or a Trumanesque Fair Deal).

---

M.G. in Boulder, CO, writes: I've been opposing Electoral-Vote.com's stand on old politicians being unworthy because of their age. If (V) decides to run, let me know and I'll send money because I believe that his inspired common sense, intelligence, knowledge, and communication skills outweigh his age—better 2 years of (V), or a similar age-peer, than 20 of a young Sen. Ted. Cruz (R-TX) clone any day. The 87-year-old Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) is speaking out when 50-year-olds are not. Bernie Sanders shows more energy (and has earned more respect and popularity) than any three other senators. Good older politicians know how the system works, have established networks, and have valuable experience and experienced staffs.

This week, (Z) finally gave me a convincing argument on the age issue: "If you believe that Trumpism has badly damaged the country, and that Democrats (and sane Republicans) will have to repair that damage, that is a multi-cycle project (at least). It is a project that wants young and energetic people from the outset, and not people who might not be able to hang on for another 4 or 6 or 8 years. And if there's going to be a changeover, the time to execute that is during an election that has as good a chance as any of being a wave election." (Emphasis mine)

Electoral-Vote.com is known to have a reader-age demographic of "older than (Z)." It would be interesting to know where we stand on this generational issue.

Politics: ...and Comedy

G.W. in Oxnard, CA, writes: In your item "On Democratic Messaging, Part III: The PATRIOT SHOP." you wrote, "We don't doubt that the DNC already has a guy, or a gal, who is their "funny tweets" person. But we don't know of anything that is more formally organized or substantive than that, and that draws on people who are decades-long, successful veterans of the American comedy scene."

It seems to me that I have read some witty, clever, and funny things written by the readers on this site, I know because I wrote some of them. This phenomenon extends beyond this site. There is a lot of witty, clever, and funny content already to appeal to the blue base and hurt the fee-fees of Convicted Felon Trump and the Republican office seekers for 2026. What the Democrats need is an aggregator for this content, because the infrastructure for generating the content exists.

---

C.C. Saint Paul, MN, writes: From the Minnesota State Fair:

---

M.M. in Columbus, GA, writes: Because you mentioned comedians, I wanted to chime in, since I interact with stand-ups on a regular basis. We have a small venue (The Loft) here in Columbus, GA, which does a weekly stand-up show. The comedians are booked for us by a company out of Atlanta. I would refer to them as "regional" comedians, as we usually get people out of Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, etc.

I would say that since our comedy shows restarted after COVID, the comics are either "equal opportunity" political jokesters who poke fun at the left and right, or they have completely eliminated political humor from their sets. A couple of weeks ago one of the comics was a semi-notable right-wing podcaster, and he got into some political material, and half the room got up and left.

That being said, Shane Gillis did appear at our venue many years ago, before he was famous, and while I'm certainly not a super-fan of his, I don't think he is a right-wing comic. His "Fox News Mom" bit is hilarious, and his recent line about "There was supposed to be an Epstein joke here, but I guess it got deleted or something" was timely and very funny. As a musician, I like to ask the comics who come to our venue about the similarities between music and stand-up, and they are always interesting conversations. When Shane was here he was very nice, affable, funny and professional. I'm not defending his more off-color jokes, or the rather weak recent Saturday Night Live monologue by any means, but as another comic put it to me, "Stand up is the last bastion of the First Amendment." Comics play with language and humor like musicians riff on themes—sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

That being said, I like Shane Gillis these days more than I like Bill Maher, but not as much as I like Josh Johnson.

Politics: Legal Matters

A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: With respect to the Supreme Court's harsh treatment of the lower courts, in their latest ruling from the shadow docket regarding whether Trump can cancel NIH grants, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh scolded the lower courts and accused them of "defying" Supreme Court precedent, even though these two-paragraph emergency orders aren't precedent.

Besides sitting for anonymous interviews, some judges are finding other ways to express their disappointment in the Justices' comments. In response to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh's scolding, Judge Allison Burroughs dropped a very pointed and unusual footnote in her decision in favor of Harvard. She wrote: "The court respectfully submits that it is unhelpful and unnecessary to criticize district courts for 'defying' the Supreme Court when they are working to find the right answer in a rapidly evolving doctrinal landscape, where they must grapple with both existing precedent and interim guidance from the Supreme Court that appears to set that precedent aside without much explanation or consensus." Burroughs is standing up for her colleagues and doesn't feel the need to do so anonymously. Kavanaugh, as ever, is acting completely surprised that there are real people who are impacted by his words and rulings. I hope more judges step up to remind him.

---

R.P. in Alexandria, NY, writes: In your response to the question from K.F.K. in Cle Elum about what's in it for the conservative Supreme Court justices to back up Donald Trump to such a degree, you stated that "the six conservatives really are conservatives." I have found it useful for a while to make the distinction between principled conservatives and opportunistic conservatives. I do the same on the liberal side of the aisle. Donald Trump is not a principled conservative, doing everything possible to keep government power small when he has the power. An opportunistic conservative takes advantage of people with a conservative mindset to gain power and wield it for their own purposes.

And having said that, perhaps it's useful to remind ourselves of the many gifts provided for Clarence Thomas by Harlan Crow. Unfortunately, it may be as simple as following the money, for at least some of the justices.

There may be an even darker reason for this behavior, as we have seen for years, with Donald Trump threatening everyone involved in every single case against him. Some combination of these factors is not out of the realm of possibility, I fear.

---

R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: I really wish you would put to bed the canard that judicial review was something John Marshall just pulled out of his briefs in 1803. Multiple state supreme courts had practiced judicial review in the 18th Century. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention referred to some of these cases during the debates, including James Madison and James Wilson (one of the original Supreme Court Justices). Hamilton's Federalist No. 78 noted that under the Constitution, the courts would have the power to declare laws unconstitutional. Indeed, the Anti-Federalist cited the power of judicial review in the federal Supreme Court as a reason to reject the Constitution.

And, in my opinion, the reason judicial review is not mentioned in the Constitution is exactly because it was understood that of course the judiciary in the United States had that power. Much of the details that made it into the Constitution explicitly were put there because it wasn't obvious. Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto laws were outlawed because of the history of Parliament's abuses of those practices. The narrow, constitutional definition of treason and the prohibition of corruption of the blood as penalty likewise was a response to Parliamentary abuse. The limitation of an impeachment conviction to removal and debarment from office exists because, again, Parliament could use impeachment to fine, imprison and execute one so convicted. The cruel and unusual punishments prohibition was a response to the infamous Star Chamber. Restrictions on quartering of troops in private houses? Guess who did that a whole lot. Yep, the British in the run-up to the Revolution. But because judicial review was already well established in the United States (despite it then not being a feature of British law), there was no need to write it in.

So please, stop promulgating the falsehood that judicial review was invented by the Supreme Court in 1803 to arrogate power to itself in derogation of the Constitution or the understandings of its Framers.

Politics: Green Energy

D.H. in Mashpee, MA, writes: While I agree with (Z)'s comments concerning the outlook for renewable energy globally, I don't share his optimism when it comes to this country. Our country remains enormously polarized, with no evidence of any improvement in the near term. "Compromise" still remains a dirty word, with no evidence that anything will change soon. In this environment, it seems likely that the primary—if not sole—agenda of any incoming presidential administration of a different party will be to undo as much as possible all of the actions of the previous administration. (Aren't Democrats already generating their lists?)

Given this circumstance, would any competent CEO of a major company commit to a multi-billion dollar project that would take more than 4 years to bring online fully? And wouldn't that person still be concerned that some determined sycophant in the next administration would still find some way to undo it? (We're thinking of you, Revolution Wind.) World leaders, having everything repeatedly turned upside down from Trump I to Biden to Trump II, are no longer willing to take America's position into their own thinking and planning. Why should they? Strategic planning is impossible. They will try to placate Trump when they absolutely have to. Witness the recent gathering of world leaders in Washington. And American CEOs are choosing to do the exact same thing. I thought I was watching a rebroadcast of one of Trump's unending Cabinet meetings last night, but it turned out to be a gathering of major tech CEOs. They, too, took every opportunity to fawn over Trump, but unlike the members of Trump's cabinet, probably most of these folks didn't believe a word of what they were saying. It appears that a move to renewable energy in this country will never happen until a majority of its population finally comes to terms with the fact that fossil fuel reserves are finite, but wind and solar energy are not.

---

T.C in St. Paul, MN, writes: I wanted to share that we just signed a contract to put solar panels on our house. We will not receive a federal tax benefit for this, because the installation will occur in 2026, but we are doing it anyway. Five years ago, we had installed solar on our previous house and were very happy with the results in energy savings. In that time, the technology has improved even further. We can all do our part to fight, a kind word here, a helping hand there, conscientious expenditures, even when the fascists make it harder for us.

All Politics Is Local

T.H. in Portland, ME, writes: You wrote: "We don't know Maine well enough to know if a Platner-type candidate can plausibly win there."

I've lived in Maine for 25+ years, and I have never seen the kind of energy around a candidate that I see around Graham Platner (D). Maybe Barack Obama in '08. The election is still a ways off, but I'm putting all my chips on Platner not only winning the Democratic primary, but finally defeating Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). If Democrats want to start winning again, they need candidates like Platner, people with a clear, populist message that speaks directly to working-class folks. A Platner-type candidate is not only plausible in Maine but the best path forward.

---

B.J.L. in Ann Arbor, MI, writes: Just got back from Maine on our vacation and I have to say I saw no ads about Platner at all. But I think he is pretty compelling. I would think Gov. Janet Mills (D-ME) endorsing and pushing Platner as a commonsense candidate is the juice needed to put the kibosh on Susan Collins, who will walk away quickly. I think the biggest thing about Platner is that he's authentic. You don't get to be an oysterperson without being scrappy and opportunistic, and assuming he's not some felon in real life, I suspect he will be compelling in the cities and the outlying areas. What I don't get is Olympia Snowe. She must be furious with Susan Collins, too. They had a good thing going working together as a force in the middle. Collins looks like a feckless tool without Snowe around. Stayed well beyond her welcome.

---

E.M. in Durham, NC, writes: While I agree that few other states would be likely to have an oysterman Senate candidate, let's not forget that John Hickenlooper (D-CO) was not only governor, but the Founder of Wynkoop Brewing Company, one of the first brewpubs in the country back in 1988!

Colorado has had this whole brewery-Senator thing down for some time now.

Given that the National Brewer's Association organization is based in Denver and has annual events based at Wynkoop during the Great American Beer Festival, it's an easy jump to imagine.

Susan Collins, because of her role on the Appropriations Committee, has been a frequent visit for BA political delegations for years. As a born Mainer and former politically active craft brewer, I can say firsthand how frustrating it has been to deal with her frequent concern coupled with her lack of action. It must be very motivating for Maine brewer, and now Senate candidate, Dan Kleban.

Only real problem I see in Maine is that the choice between Platner and Kleban is a tough one. Janet Mills has been outstanding, but I sincerely hope she realizes that it's time for younger blood.

---

P.K. in Marshalltown, IA, writes: Your analysis of Sen. Joni Ernst's and Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks' (both R-IA) positions is spot on (and wouldn't the latter market herself better by calling herself 3M or MCubed?). One thing missing here about wind turbines is that the utilities do not own most of the land on which these are situated. They pay farmers and landowners to use this land (and often these fields of corn they plant run right up against those machines). We pay pretty fair utility rates here because of these renewable sources of energy, but impact the revenue of farmers negatively, and one is playing with fire.

---

S.B. in North Liberty, IA, writes: You mentioned that Mariannette Miller-Meeks won re-election in the closest race of 2024, winning by 798 votes. She was first elected to Congress in 2020 by SIX votes (out of 393,922). This after she ran against former Congressman Dave Loebsack three times, losing each time. She sure has a knack for close elections.

---

R.T. in Arlington, TX, writes: I didn't expect to see my home, Tarrant County, TX, being cited as an exemplar of anti-democratic behavior.

I wouldn't say what is happening here is different from much of the rest of the state, or that dirty tricks don't happen here, but here's some background to put this in context. TC is about 30 by 30 miles square, (900 sq. miles), which is not large by Texas norms. Yes, it is the third most populous county in the state, but psychologically and economically, it lives in the shadow of Dallas and its suburbs. TC leadership has a century-plus history of having a chip on its shoulder and striving to be "NOT Dallas." To understand the mindset, think of TC as the most urbanized rural county in Texas, not as city folk. 30-40% of the land, mostly on the southern and western edges, is still open. It has been a long time (2011) since the City of Fort Worth had a Democrat as mayor. While there are lower income parts of town that used to be gerrymandered into Rep. Mark Veasey's (D-TX) house district, the city as a whole is not "blue." Even with polling locations reduced to 216, if they were evenly distributed on a square grid, no one would be more than 1.5 miles from a polling place and 78% would be less than a mile from a poll. In the auto-based culture here, that distance is nothing.

Fewer polling locations could be more "efficient" if there is less idle time at polls, fewer poll workers in total needed to run them, and fewer election machines in total that have to be purchased, prepared, maintained, and secured to run an election. A smaller number of machines and ballot boxes would be easier to keep secure, right? In this context, the action by the Republicans on the Commissioners Court doesn't seem nefarious. Now, what they are doing to gerrymander themselves a 4-1 majority on the Commissioner's Court is another thing altogether...

---

B.W. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: Looks like your intuition was right. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (?-AZ) was all about making that dollar: "Former US Senator Kyrsten Sinema buys $2M Cave Creek estate."

History Matters

J.M. in Arvada, CO, writes: As a proud native of Washington who grew up on the islands of Puget Sound I must object to your statement that no foreign powers attacked U.S. holdings between the War of 1812 and Pearl Harbor. In 1859, a British pig invaded Lyman Cutlar's field in San Juan Island and was rightfully warned and then shot for its actions. George Pickett (yes, that Pickett) was then dispatched with the 9th Infantry to defend San Juan from the British. Luckily, in the end, the only casualty in the Pig War was the pig.

---

D.L. in Uslar, Germany, writes: You wrote: "[T]he U.S. did achieve something [in the Vietnam War], in that communism did not spread beyond the borders of Vietnam." First of all, the people of Cambodia and Laos would like to have a word with you. Both countries came fully under the control of a communist government in 1975; Cambodia roughly along the same timeline as South Vietnam, and Laos a bit later. The North Vietnamese Army was a major factor in both cases.

Assuming you used Vietnam as a synecdoche for Indo-China, as it was called then, then your statement is true. But there's some question as to how many other dominoes there were that could plausibly have fallen. Thailand was extremely stable, and Indonesia was firmly under the control of Suharto. Myanmar, then Burma, went nominally socialist, but was a military dictatorship from 1962 until 2011. Malaysia might have been the best candidate, but the communist insurgency lost support from China when that country started to come out from behind its self-imposed isolation. The Malaysian government also made strong political attempts to redress issues that gave the communists an angle of attack.

Long story short, the U.S. might not have gotten anything out of the Vietnam War that it wouldn't have anyway.

---

K.C. in West Islip, NY, writes: Your response to I.S. In Cap Ferret regarding Sarah Palin providing a "fatal blow" to the McCain campaign is spot on. Right up until he chose her to be his running mate, I was ready to pull the lever (bubble the bubble? I don't remember what year New York abandoned the lever voting booths) for Senator McCain. I know a number of people who say the same thing, and I'd imagine that number is much larger nationwide. I wouldn't go so far as to say McCain would have won—the economic trainwreck that transpired under George W. Bush essentially sealed the deal for Barack Obama. He could have probably picked anyone, save for Joe Lieberman, and ended up losing in 2008 and he probably would have lost even with a form of unity ticket on the ballot.

I would argue that the bigger reason that Palin was a terrible choice is because normalizing lunacy like she provided, normalizing non-seriousness on a presidential ballot is what led us to where we are today. It wasn't even particularly a slow transition to Crazyville. Barack Obama won the first time for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that Bush decimated the economy with his two wars, rebate checks and so on. He won the second time probably because Mitt Romney was too milquetoast for people who were starting to veer into Crazyville and then everything went off the rails and here we are. I find it very hard to believe that McCain wasn't largely responsible for leading us to our current sad state of affairs even without winning his election. On the other hand, I do believe he understood his role and regretted it right up to the end.

John Wayne

R.R. in Potomac, MD, writes: W.F. in Orlando asked about why John Wayne was so popular, and (among other things) you mentioned a few films in which he went beyond his stereotypical character.

Another one of those, I think, was The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, where he played a character who was much like his standard character in many ways, but he had an edge of self-sacrifice and bitterness that was not so typical. He was very good in this film (in a secondary role, as the main protagonist was Jimmy Stewart).

---

T.L. in West Orange, NJ, writes: You wrote, while discussing John Wayne: "The Duke's performance in True Grit was also nuanced, and the Best Actor Oscar he won for that film was not just a career achievement award."

I've never seen the film, so can't comment in terms of agreement or disagreement. I've always liked what Glen Campbell said, though: "I made John Wayne look so good he won his only Oscar!" (Campbell was also self-deprecating in saying, "I'd never acted in a movie before, and every time I see True Grit, I think my record's still clean.")

---

D.J. in Oberlin, OH, writes: Regarding John Wayne always playing John Wayne, I recently viewed the 1940 John Ford film The Long Voyage Home. In this film, Wayne plays Olsen, a naive young Swedish sailor on a merchant ship during the lead-up to World War II. His character was planning to return to Sweden at the end of the voyage so that he could become a farmer. Throughout most of the film you would see Wayne's smiling face but he spoke only infrequently and in a (questionable) Swedish accent. Although Wayne was given top billing the star of the film was Thomas Mitchell. I recommend it if you want to see John Wayne in a supporting role NOT playing John Wayne.

The Sporting Life

M.D. San Tan Valley, AZ, writes: H.M in San Dimas asks: "Who are the five most deserving people eligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame who are not in?"

My additions would be:

• Carlos Delgado: .280 BA/473 HRs/2,000+ hits/1,500+ RBIs
• Kenny Lofton: .299 BA/2,400+ hits/622 SB/4 Gold Gloves
• Don Mattingly: .307 BA/2,100+ hits/1,000+ RBIs/1985 MVP/1984 BA Champ/9 Gold Gloves

---

K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: As a 53-year-old Tigers fan, I was glad to see you include Lou Whitaker as the number one most deserving player who didn't make the Hall of Fame.

A lot of people also don't know that he and Alan Trammell have the most double plays of any double-play combination due to the combination of excellent skill and playing together for so long.

Gallimaufry

R.C. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: (V) is paying $90 per month for 1Gbps down AND up? Full duplex? Including TV and VoIP? I'm paying more than that for 1Gbps down, no bundled phone or TV, and a paltry 20 megabits up. That's a great reminder of how far behind much of our Internet infrastructure has become, here in the country that invented it.

I'll have to ship (V) some chocolate chips. Still the best at those!

---

A.L. in Chicago, IL, writes: Now I'm channelling my inner J.D. Vance: "We gave you the Marshall Plan, and this is how you repay us? No chocolate chips for sale in the Netherlands? And did you ever say 'thank you'?"

---

R.C. in Newport News, VA, writes: In the answer about Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce you wrote about an improbable wedding, you wrote about the possibility that they would "head to Vegas to be married by an Elvis impersonator at the Chapel 'o Burning Love."

An even classier wedding would be to head to Vegas to be married by an Elvis impersonator at the DRIVE-THRU Chapel 'o Burning Love.

---

S.D. in York, England, UK, writes: In "Doubling Down, Part III: Trump Wants You to Know He's Young, Virile, and Strong," you wrote: "... it was the Department of War during the War of 1812, and the United States did not win that one..."

That took me down a Wikipedia rabbit hole that ended on me learning that in The Canadas, Upper Canada is to the south of Lower Canada, which is thus the northern Canada.

Why? Because the St. Lawrence River flows from south to north. Interestingly in that, I learned that most rivers in Canada run similarly backwards.

So... proof that Canada is backwards???

---

D.S.R. in Tempe, AZ, writes: You have probably seen this already, and if not I won't be the last, but the plans for the long feared Canadian invasion have been leaked:

---

T.J.R. In Metuchen, NJ, writes: Five times better than Nickelback? I think your staff mathematician is celebrating Bulgarian Independence Day a bit too heartily. Five times nothing is still nothing...

Final Words

A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: I don't know my mother's final wishes or words.

I was one of seven siblings. We all married. So, seven spouses, plus 16 grandchildren, and then their spouses and great-grandchildren before she passed from this realm. One of mom's great joys in her later years were family gatherings where we would all get together to enjoy each other's company and good food and beverages. Mom did not shy away from a good party:

Tucked away in her casket to send her off to be with our father, her husband of many years, were sufficient libations for her journey and to share with dad.

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

---

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