Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu
New polls:
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
Sunday Mailbag
Our little piece on "balance" in the era of Trump got an overwhelming response, virtually all of it positive. See below for a selection, including (at the end) the only response that could be considered even mildly critical.
Also, readers are still having a tough time with this week's headline theme. We'll share a comment from one who has solved it: "I can't believe it took me as long as it did. Once you see the pattern, it's incredibly obvious."
Politics: Cult-ure Shock
J.K. in Auckland, NZ, writes: First, I want to thank (V) and (Z) for publishing my letter seeking advice on how, after living overseas for several years, I was going to survive a week with my MAGA parents.
Much of the advice that I received was expected, but there were some gems. I found the words of advice from, RP from Kāne’ohe resonated with me the most and I thank them for taking the time to share. There were also other very thoughtful suggestions.
Anyhow, I thought some of your readers might appreciate an update on how my visit went.
Honestly, I thought the title "Cult-ure Shock" was facetious, but you nailed it, and I'm really REALLY scared for the country. I know my parents live in a bubble, but I simply did not foresee how deep that bubble is. It was everywhere.
TV, radio, print and Internet. Everything was about how bad the Democrats are and how Trump is single handedly saving America. In between the "news" there were ads. Running alongside ads for reverse mortgages and personal injury lawyers, I was bombarded by ads for dozens of Trump-themed products, ranging from a Trump-themed children's book to a Trump survival knife; almost all of these were free, though I suspect at the expense of joining a mailing list that will no doubt seek donations in the future. It is reminiscent of North Korean propaganda TV. My father was a decorated Marine who served this country. How can he not see this?
Alas, I have regretted not being able to see my grandparents before they passed and seeing my father so frail was very upsetting. So, I'm convinced it was a wise decision to visit. And while I found myself wanting to shake some sense into them, I relied on R.P.'s advice and tried to practice a bit of compassion and unconditional love.
I know that my parents are deeply flawed, but they love me and my time with them was simply too precious and fleeting to have spent it arguing. Instead we found things that we all found enjoyable, and I made a few more memories that'll I'll cherish.
S.S. in West Hollywood, CA, writes: A quick thank you to R.P. in Kāne’ohe for passing on the advice that "Sometimes you just have to let the people you love be wrong." It's the wisest and best advice I've received on how to handle my MAGA cult relatives.
Politics: This Week in TrumpWorld
P.L. in Denver, CO, writes: I have two observations regarding people who voted for Trump that I experienced the last few days.
First: my Democratic union brother lives in rural southwest Pennsylvania. His neighbors and most of his friends are MAGA, so he is an outlier, but somehow manages to maintain his friendships. He told me he had drinks with a couple he knows who both voted for Trump. The wife said to him, "I did not know he was going to do all of this. Maybe I should not have voted for him but I did not like Biden." My brother's response: "You picked your poison!" (he can be a smart aleck).
Second: My Christian conservative brother-in-law has a habit of listening in when my husband and I speak to my husband's sister. I told my sister-in-law that I went to the protest on February 17; she is not well informed and asked me why. I told her I was protesting Elon Musk and Donald Trump. At that point, my brother-in-law started yelling into the speaker. I asked him if he was down with the U.S. buddying up with Russia. He said "yes." I asked him if he was concerned the national parks would be ruined. He said "no." Then he told me everything that Trump is doing is legal. At that point, I told them to have a good night.I suspect there are a fair number of Trumpers starting to have buyer's remorse. And then there are those like my brother-in-law who would never admit he made a bad choice.
C.A.J. in Fort Worth, TX, writes: I worked in Brazil in 1975-76, in the middle of their 1964-1985 dictatorship. I understand all too well what to expect as a government transitions from a coup to an authoritarian to a dictatorial regime. Dictatorship in Brazil did not occur all at once, but in a series of increasingly harsh steps as the regime gained strength and eliminated opposition.
The latest (2022) Brazilian coup attempt only failed because key military leaders refused to go along at the very beginning. As with our 1/6 attempted coup, it only resulted in vandalism of federal buildings followed by arrests of rioters.
The Trump administration is moving step by step, much like after the 1964 coup in Brazil. It is, in quick succession, firing vulnerable federal employees, gutting agency budgets and contracts, and has now replaced with lackeys career military, FBI, Homeland Security, and other department and agency leadership.
I have seen what happened in Brazil in the 1960s, and it almost happened again in 2022. It is clear to me that we are moving to a place that most Americans have never considered possible.
Buckle up, (small d) democrats!
M.B. in Menlo Park, CA, writes: You had an interesting item about Donald Trump's actions coming from Project 2025. Note there is a Project 2025 Tracker that has detailed "progress" by agency and objective, with links to sources.
A.B. in Lichfield, England, UK, writes: I was born in the 1960s; I never thought I would live to see the day where the President of the United States is a Kremlin propaganda asset, the Vice President lectures Europeans on free speech before intervening in an allied nation's election to meet the leader of a German far-right party, and the most prominent advisor to the President makes a Nazi salute in public.
It's very, very easy to get depressed about all this, and I'll admit I'm sometimes struggling to come to terms with the pace of the news.
So, let the wilder shores of the British tabloid press come to the rescue. I give you the February 20 front page of the Daily Star:
Cheap mockery, yes; but God I needed that.
M.O. in Baltimore, MD, writes: I liked the observation that the Russians are playing Trump like a balalaika.
We could refer to Trump as BALA, since he's a Braggadocious Angry Little Authoritarian, and Vance as Laika, because, well, he's Trump's... female dog.
P.F. in Las Vegas, NV, writes: When the United States' Greatest Generation (including my father, who was taken as a POW during the Battle of the Bulge) defended our European allies against brutal Nazi aggression in World War II, I don't recall President Franklin D. Roosevelt:
- Demanding that our European allies give us their natural resources
- Blaming Poland and Western Europe for starting the war
- Surrounding himself with staff who enthusiastically gave the Nazi salute during speeches
Donald Trump's entire life has been spent using lies, threats, insults and blame to enhance his personal wealth with absolutely no consideration of right vs. wrong. That's why he's a convicted felon. It's also why he has no friends. And, now, it's why the U.S. has no allies—with the possible exception, of course, of murderous dictator Vlad Putin, who uses simple flattery to play simpleton Trump like a fiddle.
L.S. in Bellingham, WA, writes: C.S. in Guelph asked: "Would it be accurate to refer to the President as Donald Chamberlain?"
Even more the point, there is substantial evidence that Chamberlain's decision to appease at Munich was at least partially based on the belief that Germany was militarily stronger (in land and air forces) than the British and French were.
The British re-armament program he had started in 1936 was only just starting to bear fruit in 1938. Many Second World War historians now argue that Chamberlain was not just hopeful, but also playing for time. In support of this, Hitler's own writings and internal speeches indicate that he was also worried about British and French re-arming efforts. And that if he did not move soon, Germany would be badly overmatched.
Today there is no question of the U.S./NATO ability to completely overwhelm Russian conventional forces, and they could probably seriously reduce, if not completely eliminate, their tactical and theater-level nuclear threats.
If push came to shove, Putin would either have to back down (which he has done with every "red line" deployment of U.S./NATO weapons in Ukraine), or push for World War III... and it is highly likely that his own people would stop him at that point.
Chamberlain was negotiating from a position of perceived weakness. Trump collapsed from a position of towering strength.
Politics: This Week in MuskWorld
A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: I am not a Federal government employee, unless you consider my receipt of a Social Security check each month as evidence that somehow I am complicit.
In response to the mass posting on "X" by the Co-President, the following are the five tasks that I accomplished last week.
- Classified TS-EFTO-CEO*
- Classified TS-EFTO-CEO
- Classified TS-EFTO-CEO
- Classified TS-EFTO-CEO
- Classified TS-EFTO-CEO
In addition, I maintained my upright posture and looked at the flowers from above the ground. My daffodils are starting to peek out:
* - Classified TS-EFTO-CEO = Classified Top Secret - Encrypt For Transmission Only - Civilian Eyes Only! (i.e., Keep your fu**ing eyes/hands off of my private business!!!).
C.B. in Ashburn, VA, writes: I think your assessment of the loss of federal jobs and its impact on the unemployment rate misses some key points.
First of all, one thing that people need to understand is that while federal employment has been rather flat the past 30-40 years, the number of contractors supporting the federal government has grown significantly. This has happened because it has allowed the government to be nimbler in how it procures services to support the work that needs to be done. I can't be certain, but I would venture to guess at least around D.C., there are 3-4 contractors for every federal employee. They are being laid off, too, and as someone who is one of those contractors I fear the worst is still yet to come as they evaluate contracts.
In addition, many of these programs being shut down utilize services from private companies. And with programs being shut down, those companies lose business which may cause them to lay off people as well. So I think the trickle-down effect of contractors and businesses losing work is far greater than the 100,000 to 200,000 (or more) federal employees being let go—it could be as high as 1 million, enough to make the unemployment percentage jump a point. I also want to point out that the job market for white-collar jobs is extremely challenging right now, as it has been described as a "no hire, no fire" atmosphere, so I fear it will not be easy for many of those laid off to easily find employment.
B.B. in Dothan, AL, writes: Regarding federal layoffs and the unemployment rate, I think you are missing two important factors. First, the employment multiplier effect means that other jobs directly depend on the jobs of those laid off. So, perhaps another 200,000 people might also lose their jobs.
Secondly, I think much of the economy depends on a working federal government. Each person laid off impacts the functioning of the government. At some point, enough people will be laid off that the government grinds to a halt (or, say, becomes so ineffective that it might as well be stopped). That's when a lot more people will lose their jobs and the effect will be recession (at the upside).
P.R. in Arvada, CO, writes: I'm sorry to say, but I disagree with your assessment that it is a bit conspiratorial to say that DOGE is getting ready to say we can cut taxes because the budget has been cut by that much. A conspiracy is founded on hearsay and no hard evidence. However, when the hearsay is someone saying that they shot the sheriff, that isn't a conspiracy. Therefore, when an alleged illegal immigrant and his sidekick say they want tax cuts there is zero conspiracy. When you combine cuts with trickle-down economics, you end up with a massive portion of the electorate voting against their own interests and thinking it is a great idea. The added bonus is the awarding of new contracts. The old group were taking you for a ride, we know what the problems are and are here to find savings, so it is best if we just take the money. Hammers will no longer cost $500, they will be a bargain at $400.
M.M. in Oberlin, OH, writes: I appreciated the analysis of the misleading DOGE eX-tweet about the TAS field, and would like to point out one additional detail overlooked by the outraged MAGA representative. The original tweet says the field was "optional" and "often left blank." It does not say how often. The retweet assumes it was blank 100% of the time, which is very unlikely.
J.E. in San Jose, CA, writes: I suspect people will believe the government saved money (thanks to DOGE) because of checks received in the mail, signed by the president, or even co-signed by both the convicted felon and the ketamined fascist.
Supporting this notion is the bipartisan belief that taxes and expenditures have any connection at all, despite years and years of evidence pointing to the contrary. If we end up in a situation where the Treasury is in thrall to the executive branch, I don't see what stops these checks from going out, despite DOGE's lack of proven waste and the lack of a directive from Congress. (The legislative branch controlling the purse? How quaint.)
It's funny, because Trump v1.0 managed to be popular among the MAGA faithful despite not doing a whole lot for them, versus, say, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who spent money on public works/infrastructure. And yet, Trump 2.0 seems to feel the need to throw us all a bone. I wonder why they feel the need to curry favor?
J.H. in Boston, MA, writes: You write as if Elon Musk is proposing to send U.S. citizens rebate checks after he's identified $2 trillion in cuts, which must come from SS/Medicare/Medicaid/US military. That's not how I understood Musk's proposal. Musk thinks he's already cut a trillion from the budget just by his random firings at USAID and Treasury and other assorted agencies, and he wants to send out checks based on those already realized savings.
Several sources are reporting that Musk is basically misreading the federal budget—for example, one $8 billion line item he thinks he already cut was in actuality an $8 million line item—and basically every claim Musk has made about the federal budget has been incorrect. So the savings he thinks he's already made aren't there to fund the checks. But it's all smoke and mirrors anyway, isn't it?
M.S. in Las Vegas, NV, writes: You wrote: "[W]e infer that there is something about raising very young children that [Elon Musk] likes, but that he tends to lose interest as they age."
I think you also just explained his interest in the felon in chief.
Politics: The Democrats
R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: What is making me most angry in an environment where there are plenty of things to make me angry is that I can't find a single Democrat who seems capable of showing any emotionality at the Trump regime's hostile takeover and dismantling of the U.S. government. Where is the OUTRAGE? Why is it that the only pundits I have come across who have expressed their outrage with emotion are Michael Steele (a Republican) and Stephen A. Smith (a registered independent and sports commentator who sometimes dabbles in politics)?
"We're not going to swing at every pitch," says House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). What!?!?! No! Wrong! You need to swing at EVERY pitch! Have you not been paying attention to how TCF has been successful? He riffs and says a lot of stuff and then drops what doesn't land and hammers on what does over and over and over again. This is how we got "Build the Wall," "we're going to buy Greenland" and all of the other crazy stuff.
TCF and/or his minions are talking to the press five times a day. The Democrats need to match that. They need to call out TCF for what he is. The need to say "convicted felon" and "he let violent criminals out of prison" and "he is causing inflation to increase" and "DEI is code for racism" over and over again. And they need to say these things in regular language that real people use. I need for them to match the outrage that I feel.
This is a 100-alarm fire, the house is burning down and the Dems are fiddling away like the musicians on the Titanic. AAAARRRRGGHHHH!!!!
C.M. in Raymond, NH, writes: In response to S.O.F. in New York City, you wrote: "You don't win elections 22 months before Election Day, and if you exploit your lines of attack too much, people might start tuning them out. The reason that this basically works for the Republicans is that the right-wing outlets like Fox need 'outrage' to fill their airwaves, 24/7, and their audience has a nearly unlimited tolerance for hearing the same basic story over and over and over."
I disagree. The right is excellent at getting memes out there and repeating them so often that they become generally accepted as true, or at least, "Well, there must be something to it since everyone keeps saying it." The best example of this, I think, is the idea that Hillary Clinton was cold and unlikable, which had been a right-wing talking point since the 1990s. By 2008, I mostly saw her supporters defending her as efficient and competent, and pointing out that smart, capable women are often criticized as cold. I didn't hear anyone really addressing the core idea that she was perceived as cold; "everyone" knew it, and I think that's due entirely to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's constant repetition of the idea.
The Disloyal Opposition could use that tactic, by constantly reminding everyone how weird the senior president and his assistant, the Twice-Impeached Convicted Felon, are.
J.S. in Grand Rapids, MN, writes: Your commentary about how Fox uniquely appeals to amygdala-driven simpletons fell flat. On the contrary, I have found that my own Democratic Party is equally willing to embrace over-simplified emotional narratives. We don't need a left-wing version of Fox because we already have Reddit, TikTok, and Bluesky. Why do you think Elon Musk wanted to co-opt eX-Twitter? Perhaps you forgot about the fiasco that is wokeism and slept through the "Defund the Police" movement? Your elision of the party's embrace of the worst of cancel culture mob mentality is notable. This is the opposite of "seeing a world of complexity and shades of gray," and has directly caused the backlash that put Trump back in power.
Yes, my party ostensibly stands for advancing the rights of the disadvantaged. Those are fine words on paper, but actions speak louder. I'll give you one example. A few years back I lived in Seattle, where I attended a public school meeting. A white parent asked to talk about the problem of minority underrepresentation in the gifted program. Great! That's a real problem caused by a combination of socioeconomic factors and testing inequality. Unfortunately, none of that fits the Democratic agenda de jour. After first virtue-signaling by acknowledging that the land we were on was previously native land, she got to her proposal, which was to eliminate the gifted program in the name of equity. This proposal was discussed and over the course of a couple more meetings (and the objections of the minority students' parents, who were clear that this wasn't helpful), it was eliminated for our section of the school district. That section, ironically, was the one with the largest number of minority students enrolled in the gifted program per capita. The local Democratic Party saw this idea of enforced equity as a winner and has pushed with success to eliminate the program across the entire district in the name of cutting down the tall poppy. Unfortunately, each time this happens, a few more voters walk away from the party for good as the parents of a number of those gifted students certainly have.
While you are probably right that no one in the White House can likely define intersectionality, that doesn't mean they are wrong that things have gone too far. Our sixth grader had the following question on his World History test in the unit covering ancient Egyptian history: "How will you use your intersectionality to promote those in your class whose lived experience is not one of privilege?" If you squint just right, this miiiiight be okay as an ungraded portion of an integrated curriculum, but this question was most certainly graded. The vast majority of sixth graders are not equipped with a graduate school level ability to peel back layers of implied assumptions in this question, nor would they have been wise to try. The only lesson here was to forego critical thinking and embrace the preferred narrative (or suffer the consequences!).
The party seems to have lost its ability to take a nuanced approach towards free speech, as well. The ACLU has faced so much backlash from the Left for defending the rights of deplorables like the KKK and Nazis that they have significantly backed off this for fear of losing donors. We used to take pride in defending the right of private citizens to speak their mind on religious subjects, but now it's only about whether their message aligns with our worldview. It's no surprise that religious folks have been leaving the party in droves and causing Donald Trump to make inroads with religious minority voters. Where is the Democratic Party that once had the courage to assert (in the words of Hall), "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?
There is little question that if you ask a person on the street which party is more smug and condescending, the answer will be the Democratic Party. If we have the bravery to be honest, I'm sure we would see that each time we pat ourselves on the back for how educated we are, how cultured we are, and how we have uniquely overcome adversity, it is really about finding a way to put ourselves above others and make ourselves feel superior. This reductionist worldview results in an ever-escalating set of purity tests that gradually shrinks the party. While we can console ourselves that we are left with only the best people, we must also admit that our simplistic, reactionary approach has left us with no power to make anyone's lives better. Does that feel good? I don't think so.
S.O.F in New York City, NY, writes: It's disconcerting that, following a blowout election, some of us are still trying to apply litmus tests to our party's leaders. Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), while not a progressive darling anymore, has not taken any positions far outside of the mainstream since the election. While progressives aren't interested in taking a hard line on illegal immigration, most Americans are. Most voters support Israel's right to respond to Hamas after the October 7 attacks, while they may differ on the scale. Again, Fetterman's position is not out of sync with the electorate.
The Democratic Party cannot afford to be a small-tent party. The fact is that power is what leads to progress, not being right all the time. If we aren't going to allow our candidates the freedom to maneuver politically, we aren't going to be very successful as a party.
J.C. in Yucca Valley, CA, writes: I think it would be prudent for Sen. Fetterman to revisit the history of one Neville Chamberlain and what appeasement will get you.
T.K. in Boulder, CO, writes: My mom found this flyer on her car in Denver this week:
Elon Musk didn't make Tesla successful; in fact, I'd argue the ills of Twitter show that Tesla is a strong company that succeeds despite his leadership, not because of it. But even if you don't agree, and just want to hit Elon in the shorts, please don't take it out on regular people who bought an electric vehicle. I know the left loves to cut their nose to spite their face but this threatening note just makes me sick.
R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: I must take issue with your statement that few poor people vote for Republicans. According to the Financial Times, "In contrast to 2020, the majority of lower-income households or those earning less than $50,000 a year voted for Trump [in 2024]."
Politics: Oh, Canada!
A.K. in Toronto, ON, Canada, writes: One possible factor contributing to Donald Trump's persistent animus towards Canada may be the loss, by the Trump Organization, of the two Trump-branded and -managed hotels in Toronto and Vancouver.v
The Trump International Hotel and Tower Toronto opened in 2012, after its construction by a local developer. In addition to its Trump branding, the Trump Organization operated the hotel under a management services contract, having just a small minority interest in its ownership. By 2017, the hotel was struggling, its ownership changed hands, with the new owner buying out the Trump Organization's management contract and removing the Trump branding.
The Trump International Hotel and Tower Vancouver opened several years after the Toronto Trump Hotel, in 2017. After the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the Vancouver hotel went bankrupt and closed in August 2020, with the subsequent termination of the Trump Organization's management contract and removal of the Trump branding.
There was also a fair amount of local pushback against Trump during the times the two hotels were operating.
Given Trump's often-demonstrated sense of grievance and vindictive nature, these two events may have contributed to Trump's displays of outrage towards Canada.
D.G. in Jupiter, FL, writes: I'm enjoying all the talk about Canada being the 51st state. I say, bring it on! The largest state with the most Democratic-voting citizens would make me very happy. Unfortunately I wouldn't wish that on any on my Canadian friends and acquaintances.
S.B. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: It's really a sad commentary in the ever-expanding list of Donald Trump's many transgressions against our nation. In the Freudenfreude about the Canadian victory over the USA, all the positive ethos was with the Canadians, which then came to fruition with their triumph. It was very reminiscent of the USA's "Miracle on Ice" victory over the Soviets in the 1980 Olympics... except Trump has now turned us into the Soviets!
C.M.W. in Myrtle Beach, SC, writes: Trump has now managed to do the unthinkable...
...have EV end their day by congratulating... CANADA!
Nothing is unimaginable at this point!
C.W. in Oklahoma City, OK, writes: I nearly dropped my imported bottle of maple syrup and choked on my back bacon when I saw this: "Team Canada also put on a lesson in how to win with class..."
I hope this is not a sign of squishiness when it comes to the 'Nades. Why, this is no time to go soft! It's bad enough that I had to hear four—FOUR—Rush songs in a row on local radio's block party weekend, it's bad enough that I briefly had to endure a couple of seconds of Bob and Doug Mackenzie's Strange Brew whilst channel-surfing, but this... this may send me reeling into the Gulf of Me... er, America.
I mean, what gives, eh?
M.C. in Drogheda, Ireland, writes: On March 30, 1985, Ireland played England in Rugby Union's Five Nations Championship decider. It was a ferociously hard-fought match, and England had just pulled ahead with just minutes left. Ireland's captain, Ciaran Fitzgerald, turned to his team and asked:
"Where's your fu**ing pride?"
Ireland ended up winning 13-10.
J.L. in Paterson, NJ, writes: Reader J.M. in Arvada asked about Donald Trump denying visas to athletes based on political considerations. This is no mere hypothetical. Trump has already threatened to deny visas to trans athletes, to try to bludgeon the International Olympic Committee into bending to his personal preferences about eligibility.
The IOC's problem is that moving the 2028 Olympics to another venue would be logistically difficult, becoming more so as the date for the Games nears, and might already be impossible. An alternative would be an IOC ruling that, if the host nation doesn't live up to its obligation to issue visas, then athletes of the host nation will also be barred from competing. Even though baseball is now an Olympic event, however, I have to be pessimistic that the IOC will play hardball that way.
Politics: Vaccination
J.E. Gilbertsville, PA, writes: You indicated that "The Mennonites believe in total separation from the outside world." But when we are talking about something like measles, this is not an accurate statement. There are many Mennonites in Pennsylvania—in fact when I was a kid they were everywhere in northern Bucks and Montgomery Counties, where I grew up. (They have since decamped for greener pastures as non-anabaptist people have moved in.) Mennonites can be seen at grocery stores and many other public establishments. That is a far cry from "total separation" when you're talking about an illness with an R0 of between 12 and 18!
J.F. in Montreal, QC, Canada, writes: Infants born from mothers who were either vaccinated against measles, or who have immunity from a previous infection, retain passive immunity against measles through the first several months of life, waning gradually thereafter over the next few months. The presence of those passively acquired antibodies from mom interferes with the efficacy of the measles vaccine; that's why in countries without widespead endemic measles transmission, the vaccination schedule for measles-mumps-rubella(-varicella) starts at age 12-15 months, in order to maximize the success rate of the vaccine. A second dose of MMR or MMRV is given either in early childhood (most of USA) or at around 18 months of age (51st state).
The measles component of the MMR/MMRV vaccines is not a multi-step vaccine like hepatitis A, hepatitis B, or HPV. The second dose of the measles vaccine is given to ensure that nearly all children will create protective antibodies. At 12 months of age, the single dose is about 95% effective; at 15-18 months, the single dose efficacy is around 99%. The problem with delaying the first dose until 15-18 months is that the window period between passively acquired immunity from mother to vaccination would increase by a few months, leaving infants more susceptible to measles. The double dose of measles vaccine is more a testament to public health concerns than it relates to the vaccine itself.
B.B. in St. Louis, MO, writes: Measles antigens are usually combined with those for mumps and rubella (German measles) to form the MMR vaccine. Measles causes rash, rubella causes birth defects, neither of which are likely to bother the anti-vaxx crowd, but mumps, in addition to causing parotitis, can also cause orchitis. In this instance, lack of vaccination can cause your balls to swell and become tender. Think that possibility will change a few opinions?
D.M. in Shallotte, NC, writes: In regard to the measles vaccine: I had the disease in 1958. I was 6 years old. My temperature was 105+ degrees. I still remember I was so weak my father had to carry me to the bathroom. Our doctor made two house calls that week, traveling more than 10 miles one way. Fat chance of that happening in today's world.
Politics: Fair and Balanced?
D.Y. in Windsor, England, UK, writes: Your item "Resistance Report" has reverberated in my mind for over 24 hours. In particular, your response to the reader who complained about how your pre-Trump approach was "fair and balanced" but you now have "minimal objectivity" was brilliant.
By any objective measure, the Democratic and Republican Parties have grown further apart ideologically over the last 50 years, a homogenization that resulted from the two major cultural issues of the 1960s and 1970s: African-American civil rights and women's rights. As conservative southern Democrats lost or switched parties, and then liberal Republicans lost in both general and primary elections, the two parties have become much more ideologically distinct. This is not new: Back in 2004, Thomas Frank famously identified the increasing importance of cultural issues over past economic issues in What's the Matter with Kansas?
The trends of highlighting cultural divisions and partisan ideological cohesion have accelerated in the last decade. But just as important as this sorting, which has resulted in much more homogeneous ideological parties, is the fact that one party has accelerated this process: the Republican Party. As the Pew Research Center and others have shown using accepted political science techniques such as DW-NOMINATE scores, the Democratic Party has shifted a little bit in the liberal direction, but the Republican Party has become significantly more conservative. This goes hand-in-hand with Donald Trump's takeover of the party—he both rode the wave and cemented it (apologies for the mixed metaphor). So now, when you write, "Democrats have more respect for the rule of law than Republicans," some people might not like it, or think you're biased or alarmist or in the tank for liberals, but as much as objective truth exists, you are simply telling that objective truth.
Which only goes to show that being "fair and balanced" at the moment does not mean approaching each side equally. It means holding both parties accountable to the same standards. If your standards include a commitment to the rule of law, an acceptance of democratic norms, and an adherence to the truth (or at least an understanding of what truth is), then right now, only one party broadly meets those standards, while the other does not.
In other words: Thank you for maintaining your standards, thank you for analyzing the news in a properly fair and balanced way, and thank you for your continued commitment to the truth.
J.A. in Manchester, NH, writes: A reader wrote in about your supposed "minimal objectivity." That individual lamented that "Trump broke you guys" when he was first elected (there was an error in the year he was elected, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the writer that it was a typo).
You quite accurately responded that things have changed markedly since 2008, when the author stated you made an attempt to be "down the middle."
As an independent voter (I readily admit the last time I didn't vote blue was in the 1998 Massachusetts gubernatorial election), I consider myself to be a moderate.
However, corruption is corruption and, as you pointed out, sleazebags like Democrats Eric Adams and Bob Menendez as well as Rod Blagojevich were called out by you for their blatant violations of the public trust. You also pointed out that Republicans such as Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, and Danielle Sassoon had the spine to stand up for what's right.
I agree.
I read your site daily. Not because it's an echo chamber for my beliefs, but because you pursue and present facts. You had once discussed how Christiane Amanpour realized that the truth is more important than "bothesideism." And that's why I (and I know I can't be the only one) read your site on a daily basis: You deal in truth.
If someone can't handle the truth (channeling my inner Jack Nicholson) they can read something that speaks to their beliefs. There's no shortage of sites that will just placate an individual's desire to read "feel-facts."
C.C. in St. Paul, MN, writes: I want to express my appreciation and 100% support for what you articulated. Donald Trump is demonstrably different in kind than people like George W. Bush, John McCain or Mitt Romney for reasons you already articulated. Silence is a political position. You're a site with some level of following and influence. Treating a systematic attempt to dismantle democracy like just another political position would be a type of silence. And you'd be complicit in something that is deeply and fundamentally wrong.
L.G. in Boulder, CO, writes: Regarding your reply to the person who criticized you for no longer being objective, I say "Bravo!!!" I've read Electoral-Vote.com since 2004, don't agree with you 100% of the time, have watched your evolution with great interest, and deeply appreciate that you are basically calling the coup what it is.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: I am very much of the opinion that being biased in favor of the Constitution and against dictatorship and lawlessness is the exact right lean for this or any similar site. It's weird to me that the party that used to be so thoroughly biased against the Soviet Union and their undemocratic regime is today the party cheering for the end of both our democracy and our republic. And claiming that they are doing so in the name of patriotism. Honestly, "weird" isn't' a strong enough word, but I'm not sure the English language has a word that fits the bill.
S.L.H. in Sausalito, CA, writes: I raise my hand to make up a for a lost reader, the dimwit Trumper you quoted, by pledging to, every day, read your site twice.
P.S. in North Las Vegas, NV, writes: You wrote: "But we will do our best, especially in the new feature, to highlight Republicans who when faced with a choice between right and wrong choose right, even if that is not the party line."
Short and sweet that is likely a VERY SHORT highlight list
(V) & (Z) respond: True. Imagine how pleased we'll be if the time comes, however, that we can highlight five or six Republicans in a row. That would be a very good sign.
J.E. in San Jose, CA, writes: You wrote: "But we will do our best, especially in the new feature, to highlight Republicans who when faced with a choice between right and wrong choose right, even if that is not the party line."
A DEI initiative if there ever were one.
V.A. in Chicago, IL, writes: I appreciate your response to the unnamed reader's comments under "Resistance Report," but I think it sidesteps an important issue. I agree with the reader's point about the shift in your site's tone. As (V) & (Z) often do these days, it's easy to call out the worst excesses of Trumpism—and many deserve scrutiny—but what good does that do if it isn't paired with real solutions? Declaring one side beyond the pale doesn't move the conversation forward or offer a vision for rebuilding the country's political culture, something the Democratic Party sorely needs.
You mention that you "hope to contribute, in some small way, to getting the U.S. political system back on track" and that, if that happens, Electoral-Vote.com can return to what it once was. But how does that actually happen? Hoping for change isn't the same as charting a path forward. My grandmother used to say, "Hope in one hand and sh** in the other, and see which one fills up first." In other words, hope without action is meaningless. If the goal is fixing the system, then the focus should be on the deeper economic, cultural, and political factors that gave rise to Trumpism—not just cataloging its worst offenses.
Yes, Trump broke the rules, but pointing that out over and over doesn't fix anything. What's next? How do we restore trust in institutions? How do we address the grievances that led so many to embrace Trumpism in the first place? Your site was once known for sharp analysis, electoral projections, and balance. If you truly want to help put the country "back on track," wouldn't it be more effective to explore these questions rather than just focusing on outrage?
I miss the days when Electoral-Vote.com offered more than critiques. I hope you'll consider returning to that approach—because now, more than ever, we need thoughtful, solutions-driven discussion.
All Politics Is Local
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: Below is a copy of an e-mail I just sent to my Congressional Representative, Lloyd Smucker (R-PA):
Dear Representative Smucker:
I read this evening that Elon Musk sent an e-mail to federal workers asking them to justify their jobs in five bullet points. His initial tweet said that failure to comply would be taken as a resignation letter. Let me just say that I am disgusted beyond belief at the way that decent, hardworking Americans are being treated by this... I'll bite my tongue and not say what I really think.
Look, I get it, your political philosophy is for smaller government and you probably believe that there is massive waste and fraud in our federal government. This letter is NOT about that argument. If there is waste and fraud—and I do believe there is, but nowhere near the extent that Musk and DOGE thinks there is—then present that evidence to the American people, chapter and verse. If there is fraud, then charge those people with whatever crimes they committed. In all the madness of the past month, not one person has been charged or let go of their job because of provable fraud. That should be concerning for you and every American. There is also the matter of Musk's horrendous track record. First he fired the people who safeguard our nuclear stockpile, but then had to find them to try to rehire them. He fired the people who counseled veterans who might have suicidal thoughts, only to discover we might need them after all and rehired them. He fired the summer employees at our beautiful National Parks, only to discover they might actually do a worthwhile job and then not only rehired them but increased the number of positions. Sadly, the list goes on and on. Musk, by any legitimate measure of effectiveness or competency, is doing a half-ass job. But again, that is not what this letter is about.
What has me beyond livid is that our federal workers are our fellow Americans. A good-size portion of those workers work for our government because of a sense of duty, patriotism and honor; some even put their lives on the line for their jobs. We should be thanking them for their service like we do for our military. If there is waste in our government—and waste is sometimes in the eye of the beholder—it is not our federal workers fault. They didn't create the waste, another group of individuals who work where you work created the "waste," most of which was done with the best intentions. Yes, root out the duplicate efforts or the causes that are out of date; but the fact that Musk and his barely-into-puberty band of delinquent hackers, like Mr. "Big Balls" (if you're not embarrassed of that, then shame on you), has consistently had to rescind their firings should tell you that these DOGE activities are neither competent or thorough. But even this point just misses the cause of my anger.
After reading the news about Musk's tweet and e-mails, I found myself wondering "What's next?" Is he going to demand that every federal worker don a tutu and jump through a plastic hoop? These are fellow Americans that we are treating like filth and toys, between the buyout that wasn't a buyout, the confusing directions, the probable illegality of the whole operation and the just sheer crappy way they are being treated. These are people whose careers, economic prosperity, family security and sense of self-worth are being treated in such a horrific, cavalier manner. When did America become so callous and cruel that it treats its fellow citizens this way? Would you like for your children, family members and friends to be treated like this? Do you treat your hardworking staff in such a slap-happy and indifferent approach? My God, Representative, where is your decency as an American, a Christian and as a human being, to watch people being abused by drugged addled megalomaniac, like a small boy pulling the wings off a fly? I am asking you to speak up and use your power as a Congressman to demand that some structure and accountability take place with rooting out waste and abuse, and when waste is identified that the workers, through no fault of their own, they are treated with the same amount of decency and respect that you would demand for yourself or a loved one. Let's bring back a kinder American government and do things the right way and not willy-nilly and half-assed.
Thank you for reading this letter. I sincerely hope you had a much pleasanter weekend than the majority of the federal workforce had this weekend.I would also like to note that, knowing the track record of Representative Smucker, I am not holding my breath for a response that isn't some red herring Fox News Talking Point that does not show one spinal membrane in it. I would like to be pleasantly surprised and will always foolishly let myself hope that decency is not dead.
I would also like to ask each and every Electoral-Vote.com reader, if you are also outraged at this whole DODGY Fuji Mermaid Side Show Scam (or at the way the White House is treating the good people of Ukraine; or Trump "palling around" with Putin yet again; or his Don Quixote-like land grab endeavors; or his flaunting of rules, laws and our Constitution; or his firing of our military leadership; or on and on and on ad nauseam), THIS is the time to write your Senator and Representative, especially if they are a Republican! You might have heard that there have been some Republican Town Halls or Town Hall-like events, where the attendees have been angry, loud and completely not willing to take Republican bullsh** excuses. The Republicans might be scared of Trump, but I say that the American people should show them something to be really scared of, something that will make their hair curl and wet themselves in fear every night.
To everyone who works for the federal government, I thank you for your service and dedication. I feel just complete disgust that you are being treated and abused like this. I stand with you in heart and spirit; and, if need be, I am ready to find a pitchfork and a torch and join you at the barricades.
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
P.S.: I wanted to let you know that after I sent this letter, I followed my own advice and sent a similar copy to Senators John Fetterman and David McCormick (R-PA). While McCormick, like Smucker, gave me unlimited space to express my concerns, Fetterman limited my letter to 1,200 characters. As you are aware, brevity is not one of my writing virtues. I guess Fetterman is too busy getting down to Mar-a-Crapo to kiss His Orangeness' ample butt to be bothered to read our letters. Let me just say, for a freshman senator, Fetterman is skating on some very thin ice with me—and the air temperature is only getting warmer. Each day, Fetterman reminds me more and more of former Virginia Senator Jim Webb, and that's not a good comparison.
S.N. in Sparks, NV, writes: I seem to recall that early in Sen. Chuck Grassley's (R-IA) career, he was identified as the dumbest member of the Senate. This 2007 entry from a website devoted to Iowa politics provides some support for that recollection. Perhaps Grassley has decided to relive his halcyon days as a young senator. If so, he now has a lot of competition for that exalted status of dumbest member of the Senate.
History Matters
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: I'm thinking that a good number of our Black Democrats might recall with more than a little negativity President/General Eisenhower's refusal to act on Civil Rights.
He did federalize the National Guard in Alabama and send in the 101st Airborne to desegregate schools, but he was a good American who believed in the system and he had to because of Brown vs. Board of Education.
Would he have done so otherwise? To me, it seems very, very unlikely that he would have.
W.J. in Claremont, CA, writes: Thanks so much for your continuing coverage of what a friend of mine called eight years ago "the Trumpian calamity." I consult your website daily and sometimes several times a day.
But in your discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment, you omitted mention of the ratification part, as if Congress alone had determined that "citizenship was bestowed upon the nation's Black population." Nope, and I know you know this. But that particular ratification process in 1868 is telling and worth calling to your readers' attention.
State legislatures in the South initially refused to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866. So, Congress—now led by the small-but-mighty Radical Republican faction—went into action. Southern states that had been part of the so-called Confederacy (excepting Tennessee, which quickly ratified the Fourteenth Amendment and was readmitted to the Union in 1866) were soon required, via the Reconstruction Acts of 1867-68, to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment in order to regain representation in Congress. That moved ratification of the Fourteenth along more swiftly. This is a condensed account of the far messier actual ratification tale (constitutionality of a state's rescission of a previous ratification, anyone?), but you get the idea.
Armed rebellions have consequences. Well, at least they used to.
P.S.: California did not ratify the Fourteenth until 1959. Why? Black people were (and are) certainly a target of white supremacists in the Golden State, but in the case of the Fourteenth, racism of the anti-Asian, anti-Native, and anti-Mexican (see also anti-Catholic) types also blocked ratification.
B.H. in Greenbelt, MD, writes: J.M in Goshen asked if there had been any Presidents from Indiana. You listed Benjamin Harrison—correctly, in my view, although some lists show him as being from Ohio (where he was born). The list of vice presidents from Indiana is much longer. Indeed, in the thirteen elections between 1868 and 1916, there was a vice-presidential candidate from Indiana in nine of them (asterisks mean they were on the winning ticket):
- Schuyler Colfax: 1868*, 1872*
- Thomas Hendricks: 1876
- William H. English: 1880
- Thomas Hendricks: 1884*
- Charles W. Fairbanks: 1904*
- John W. Kern: 1908
- Thomas R. Marshall: 1912*, 1916*
If you include the one Hoosier Presidential Candidate, Benjamin Harrison, in 1888 and 1892, there were only two of these 13 elections (1896 and 1900) without a candidate from Indiana on either major-party ticket.
I've read that the reason for this was that Indiana was considered a swing state, and it was thought that having a candidate from Indiana might help carry the state and win the election. In the 11 elections with a Hoosier, their record was 7-4, losing three vice-Presidential contests and one (of Harrison's two) presidential contests. And one of the losses was Thomas Hendricks, in the "stolen" election of 1876.
And lest we forget, Dan Quayle (1988, 1992) and Mike Pence (2016, 2020) were also vice-presidential candidates from Indiana, going 2-2 (though having a candidate from Indiana had no effect on the outcome).
Words to the Wise
O.R. in Milan, Italy, writes: The question about the breadth of your general knowledge reminded me of an international conference on health several years ago. The speakers had universal name recognition. Just about all of them, regardless of field or nationality, had studied and worked in the U.S. for some time.
Interacting with these folks outside the conference, however, we were soon reminded of how little store seems to be set on general knowledge in the U.S. References to arts or history were often lost on those who were born and raised in the U.S. (not on all of them, of course, but surprisingly many). We concluded that the huge size of the country must be the main constraining factor as well, as the U.S. system of education that is geared towards producing 'idiots savants.'
In a country that spans a whole continent, its citizens don't have many opportunities to be exposed to different languages/cultures/values/currencies every 500 miles or so, and as a consequence, schools have no incentive to provide broader education. The result is a necessarily self-centered and self-referencing society. Add to that the extreme competitiveness that is drilled into kids from an early age, and there you have it: no time or desire or even reward for wanting to enlarge one's horizon.
Writing these lines, another memory resurfaces. In a trattoria in Rome where we, a mixed group of friends, had lunch, we got talking to an married couple at the next table. They were from the Midwest. Very nice folks. Their children were out of the house, and they were on a tour through Europe. In the course of conversation one of our friends outed himself as a member of the U.S. armed forces. The couple was surprised. They were unaware that there were U.S. armed forces still stationed in Italy or even that there were U.S. naval fleets around the globe.
R.D.K. in Ebensee am Traunsee, Austria, writes: K.G. in Columbus writes:
What is your opinion of the use of "impact" and all its variations (especially "impactful")? It seems as if it is becoming ubiquitous in writing today. Personally, I can't stand it. Interestingly, when I was testing AI with an unrelated question, it used "impactful" in its answer. When I replied that it would be better to use "effective," it responded, "You're right in pointing out that 'effective' can be a better choice. Thanks for the correction."In my experience, if you correct an AI (with a reasonable correction), it will always reply: "You're right in pointing out that [X] can be a better choice. Thanks for the correction," or some similar wording, no matter whether the question was about an opinion or a fact.
This always leaves me wondering what is really the better answer.
J.E. in San Jose, CA, writes: I share the views of K.G. in Columbus on the use of "impactful" and of "impact" as a verb. I do regrettably agree with your response that you cannot stop evolution, but I wanted K.G. to know they are not alone.
Still, the only time I want to hear "impacted" is at the dentist's office, and only if they are talking about someone else!
K.I. in Sacramento, CA, writes: As an editor of scientific papers, I am irritated by two overworked words.
The first is impact (noun), which according to merriam-webster.com, means "an impinging or striking especially of one body against another"—that is to say, a collision. This word has metastasized to replace "affect" and "effect," which mostly function as a verb and a noun respectively, although both can work as the other part of speech: a person's affect is his mood; to effect means "to bring about." Even educated people are afraid to use affect/effect because they don't know (or were not taught) the difference between the two, so they default to "impact." We also have the barbarisms of "positively impact" instead of "improve" and "negatively impact" instead of "worsen," and "impactful" instead of "influential," "effective," "pivotal," "crucial," "memorable," or "forceful."
The dental use of the word is proper: An impacted wisdom tooth is indeed colliding with another tooth that's in its path of eruption. However, if you mentally replace every instance where you see "impact" used as a verb with "collide with," the result is humorous. Why are we always impacting? Is life one big football game?
The second word is "potential/potentially." It is a throwaway word like "basically" that people use all the time on radio and TV as well as contemporary writing. This multisyllabic word sounds sophisticated but rarely adds anything. Potentially, you have the potential to potentially insert the words potential or potentially into any potential sentence without potentially altering the potential meaning of this potential sentence. Even when used to imply uncertainty, this word is nudging out 35 perfectly good synonyms such as "possible/possibly," and "implicit, probable, plausible, theoretic, conceivable, hypothetical, theoretical, likely," etc.
Especially troubling is the frequent back-to-back use of two hedge words such as, "might potentially," "could potentially," or "may potentially." Why do we need two words to do the work of one?
Don't even get me started on the "potential impact" of trying to train people to avoid these overworked words!
R.H.M. in North Haven, CT, writes: My daughter and her friends have recently been discussing old English words that are no longer commonly used. Don't ask me why, I have no idea why 14 year-old girls do what they do. In any case, their exploration of these little-known words brought them to this gem: Kakistocracy. According to Wikipedia, it is "a government run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens." I can't help but feel that this word is about to make a comeback.
Music
A.J. in Baltimore, MD, writes: I think you're overstating the point to call the Beatles "the first pop musicians to be both songwriters and performers." There were plenty of reasonably well-known blues and country singer-songwriters in the early 20th century, from Robert Johnson and Willie Dixon to Hank Williams and Woody Guthrie. Even in the teenager-focused pop-rock space occupied by the Beatles, surely Chuck Berry was a singer-songwriter who was both very popular and a huge influence on the Beatles. John Lennon once famously said, "If you had to give rock and roll another name, you might call it Chuck Berry." Paul McCartney has similarly talked about how important Berry's work was to him. And the Beatles' music contains many references to (or arguably plagiarism of) Berry's work.
(V) & (Z) respond: We specifically put "pop" in there to exclude the other traditions you list. That said, we overstated things a bit; what we meant to communicate is that the Beatles took "pop singer-songwriter" from "an unusual setup" to "this is how it's done."
R.S. in Morton Grove, IL, writes: While I generally agree that the Beatles were probably the most significant act in popular music history, I do have to disagree with one of the reasons you gave as to why. You stated that "Before the Beatles came along, writers wrote, singers sang, and never the twain shall meet." But they were certainly not the first act who wrote most of their material—in Rock and Roll, Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly were two of their predecessors who did the same.
B.E.S. in Greenbelt, MD, writes: It seems to me that human history is more full of ideas being rediscovered than of entirely new inventions. Your pointing out the Beatles' innovation of writing and performing their own songs as one of their contributions is no doubt true within the 20th century pop context, but the power of writing and performing songs as a popular music group was manifested some 125 years earlier by the now-little-known Hutchinson Family Singers of New England. They were wildly popular across 1840s America and in the years leading up to the Civil War. Their first attempts as performers were imitative of European traditions of harmony singing, but what set them apart were the original compositions of Jesse Hutchinson. As he and his family embraced abolitionism, temperance and women's rights, the passion of the group's convictions expressed in their songs aroused both admiration and controversy, which increased their fame. They have been called the first American popular singing group, pioneers who had a significant social impact, as they became friends and even toured with Frederick Douglass. I learned of their existence in the course of genealogy research, and became captivated as I learned of the unique role they played in our history. The Beatles hold a special place in my heart, but I feel we should give the credit due to these forerunners.
(V) & (Z) respond: By virtue of teaching the Civil War on a regular basis, (Z) has a large collection of Hutchinson Family songs.
B.Z. in Baltimore, MD, writes: To follow on the question from J.A. in Woodstock about the Beatles, I provide the following story: When I was first employed, my workplace piped satellite radio through the building P.A. system (I am not as old as J.A.). They would play the 50s station on Monday, the 60s on Tuesday, the 70s on Wednesday and so forth. This is how I came to learn how dreadful music in the 50s was. It is also how I experienced the dramatic shift in music that the Beatles demonstrated. So, the important context for their popularity is very much how much of a change they brought. I am no musical theorist to be able to explain the details of that, but it is very noticeable week after week of Mondays.
Television
P.K. in Marshalltown, IA, writes: I am profoundly disappointed that Bill Murray was not on your list of the 10 best performers in Saturday Night Live history. Maybe it's that Irish Catholic sense of humor, but Billy had/has it. Todd the Nerd. Nick the Lounge Singer. His contributions to Weekend Update. So much stuff. I remember his comments at the end of the show when he hosted, and a crackdown was underway against Solidarity in Poland.
Beyond SNL, he has had a great impact. His support character in Tootsie is priceless. He took chances in The Razor's Edge. The Wes Anderson stuff. For me, he earned an Oscar in Saint Vincent (not Lost in Translation as many think he deserved). Frankly, like Steven Spielberg, I believe he earned one in What About Bob? Or Meatballs—I was working at a Boy Scout camp when this came out. Enough babbling but, once, again I express my profound disappointment.
(V) & (Z) respond: The only one of us in a position to make that list was (Z), and (Z) thought that while some of the Nick the Lounge Singer sketches were inspired, the concept was a little one-note, and got overplayed. In his view, Murray's best moments were his entertainment reporter bits on Weekend Update and the Olympia Restaurant.
If post-SNL work was part of the consideration, then Groundhog Day and "Yes, it's true. This man has no di**" would get him into the Top 10 all by themselves. But the questioner specifically excluded non-SNL work.
A.S. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: I find it unimaginable that Kate McKinnon is on your list and Eddie Murphy is not.
(V) & (Z) respond: As we note above, only (Z) was in a position to answer that question. Eddie Murphy was on the show from 1980-84, when (Z) was 6-10 years old. And because Murphy's seasons were among the five not produced by Lorne Michaels, they have largely not been re-aired in syndication. Consequently, (Z) was of an age to watch the show during its regular broadcasts from the Jon Lovitz/Phil Hartman/Dana Carvey years onward (late 1980s-), and picked up the Dan Aykroyd/John Belushi/Bill Murray years thanks to reruns on KDOC 56, but has had limited exposure to Murphy's work on the show, beyond a handful of Mr. Robinson sketches, and a couple of Gumbys.
G.R. in Tarzana, CA, writes: Regarding the television comedy that made you laugh the hardest, I was personally hoping that with you would have included HBO's Not Necessarily the News, the show that was the predecessor to today's popular news and social satire programs such as The Daily Show and Last Week Tonight. Unfortunately, having ended its run in 1990 and HBO being what was then a "premium channel," it probably wasn't in your zeitgeist. That said, many of those creating today's political and social satire shows were either working on or influence by NNTN, much like those of us who were part of that show, were influence by the mid-1960s That Was The Week That Was, which introduced political satire, as well as the great Tom Lehrer, to American audiences.
(V) & (Z) respond: Age was a bit of a problem, but the bigger problem was that (Z)'s parents did not have the cash for cable, much less premium cable. And (V), of course, was not in the country.
J.M. in Portland, OR, writes: Those of us old enough to remember, would have to say there might not have ever been a funnier show than Jackie Gleason's The Honeymooners. Our whole family would laugh until tears ran down our faces.
Gallimaufry
C.W. in Myrtle Beach, SC, writes: Thought you might appreciate this post from my Facebook memories.
D.E. in Ashburn, VA, writes: Thank you for putting Berkeley right up there with UCLA as a top law school, "followed by" Princeton and Yale. I graduated—albeit not in lawd—with the class of '76 (which should have included Patty Hearst, but the Symbionese Liberation Army got her first, and then she was put in jailed—a real miscarriage of justice, I always believed). It both amuses me and makes me proud that you hold my alma mater in equal esteem to (Z)'s beloved UCLA.
Final Words
R.H. in San Antonio, TX, writes: Bat Masterson died shortly after he finished writing a magazine article, which included this line: "I suppose these ginks who argue that... because the rich man gets ice in the summer and the poor man gets it in the winter, things are breaking even for both. Maybe so, but I'll swear I can't see it that way."
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones