Senate page     Jan. 16

Senate map
Previous | Next

New polls:  
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)

Previous | Next


Back to the main page

Minneapolis Is Apparently the Hill that The White House Wants to Die On, the Intermission

Pop quiz: What is the last wide-release film in the U.S. to feature an intermission? They used to do them a lot, in the "golden age." And they still do them today in Bollywood and some other foreign nations. But the practice has been gone from U.S. cinemas for a fair bit of time, because longer runtime means fewer showings means less money. We will tell you that Spartacus, which is on TV right now, definitely has an intermission, so the correct answer is a film made sometime after 1960. We'll give the correct answer at the end.

Anyhow, we have 8,000+ words of non-Minneapolis content today. That's quite a lot, and even one of the two remaining planned segments in the Minneapolis series would push it well into the five figures. So, as readers can see from the headline, we're going to do the written version of an intermission, and just have a little bit of content on this subject today.

To start, we'd like to briefly address an apparent inconsistency in our write-ups. We have written, several times, that Donald Trump does not generally back down from things like this. We have also written, many, many times, that Trump always chickens out. Those two assertions would seem to be in conflict, but our gut feel tells us they are not.

We've thought about it, and tried to figure out what distinguishes TACO from "no surrender," and what we came up with is this: He often tends to back down on economic stuff, like tariffs. We suspect that anytime he tries something really stupid, economy-wise, he gets many earfuls from both big-time business tycoons and from Republican politicians and operatives. And we suspect he listens to at least some of them, because if there is anything he respects at all, it's an ability to make money.

On the other hand, he does not generally back down on stuff that involves his personal needs and emotions, particularly his need for revenge and his need to have his ego boosted. He's never given up on Hillary Clinton's evils, or Barack Obama's birth certificate, or that weather map, or the 2020 election, or the Nobel Peace Prize (and keep reading). We think the Minnesota stuff is much more personal than it is business for him, because he hates (brown) immigrants, he hates Gov. Tim Walz (DFL-MN), he hates Rep. Ilhan Omar (DFL-MN), and he wants to be "right" about ICE, and to be right about blue cities being hellholes.

This is just the best we've come up with; we're not sure if we're on the mark or not. If readers have thoughts, we are happy to hear them at comments@electoral-vote.com. We'll also note that this framework offers little help in what will happen with Fed Chair Jerome Powell, since that is both business AND personal.

Whatever the underlying dynamics are, Trump is clearly not backing down on Minneapolis. He is now threatening to invoke one of his two or three favorite laws, the Insurrection Act, which would allow him to even more fully militarize the state. In other words, instead of trying to put the fire out, he's thinking about pouring gas all over it.

Meanwhile, an important part of this story is the experience of people in Minnesota. We have a number of very compelling e-mails from Minnesota-based readers, like this one from reader D.G. in St. Paul, MN:

I just had to write this after what we just experienced. Maybe you will share this in one of this week's stories or maybe in the weekend reader letters. It does not matter. What matters is that people know what is going on here in Minnesota.

I am a person of faith (Roman Catholic, to be precise), fortunate to have a faith community dedicated to justice. ISAIAH is a Minnesota statewide organization composed of churches, mosques and other faith-based organizations. For decades ordinary people of faith have organized around shared values of justice and love, so as to effect real change in our state and the nation.

Recently, we attended an ISAIAH press conference in Richfield, MN, where community members shared their experiences of the ICE presence in Minnesota. It was heartbreaking and angering. We made demands of Target, Inc. (headquartered in Minnesota) to protect their workers. But despite the somber mood, there was an air of joy in the crowd because we were living out our faith values in the service of others, of those who cannot fight for themselves. My family and I left feeling uplifted.

We decided to patronize one of the many Latino restaurants in Richfield for lunch. On the way there, we ran straight into an ICE raid. Right in front of our eyes, a group of masked men grabbed someone off the platform of a major bus stop in the area. In broad daylight. In front of probably 50 people at the gas station and intersection right by the stop. Community members blew whistles, got out their phones and used their voices to both alert others to the danger and to call out what was happening.

It was incredibly frightening. These are things we only read about or see in movies. I literally saw someone kidnapped this afternoon. There was no identification from the men who shoved their victim into a van. In fact, I did not hear them say a word. The whole thing lasted less than a minute. Then they and one of our community members were gone.

We have lost our way as a country. This is not law and order, this is lawlessness. I am hearing multiple reports about similar incidents in other areas of the metro area and state, just today. There is a noticeable uptick in this since the murder (and it WAS murder) of Renee Good. ICE has verbally threatened community members with violence. I saw a video in which an "agent" told a protester, "Did you learn nothing from what happened?" The Constitution is being shredded before our eyes.

This is a five-alarm fire in Minnesota. We are contacting our members of Congress, our state leaders, our city leaders. Please do the same with yours. We need your help!

Thank you, D.G. We are going to run some additional messages next week; if any Minnesota reader cares to chime in, please do at comments@electoral-vote.com.

Anyhow, Parts IV and V will run next week. (Z)

P.S.: The last mainstream U.S.-released film to feature an intermission is... Gandhi (1982). Again, it happens in foreign films sometimes (e.g., RRR). And it's sometimes done with roadshow-style presentations, like when a theater shows both halves of the 2007 Quentin Tarantino/Robert Rodriguez presentation Grindhouse. But Gandhi is the last major U.S. release to include an intermission as part of all first-release public showings (though it was removed for re-releases).

Unforced Errors, Part III: Jack Smith

We thought that once we had fully accepted that the Trump administration is mostly motivated by revenge, ego, grift or some combination of the above, it would be a little easier to make sense of everything. But it really isn't, because even if the prime motivation is the President's self-interest, it's foolish to achieve some small amount of good for that self-interest, but at the same time to do vastly more harm (and harm that is entirely foreseeable). We are so confused by the vendetta against Jerome Powell that we wrote two different pieces about it, "Unforced Errors, Part I: Jerome Powell" and Unforced Errors, Part IB: Jerome Powell (again). To that, we added Unforced Errors, Part II: Mark Kelly. And now, we turn to former special counsel Jack Smith.

Recall that in November, Smith was subpoenaed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, by Rep. Jim I-saw-nothing Jordan (R-OH). Smith did not challenge the subpoena in court or otherwise try to get out of it. Instead, he not only agreed to testify but to do so publicly. Jordan declined that "opportunity," and held the deposition behind closed doors on December 17. At the time, we took the view that this would not go well for the Republicans and that they would not achieve whatever ill-conceived goals they had cooked up. And if they were hoping to selectively release some "gotcha" moments or clips where Smith tripped up or got angry or defensive, they were going to be sadly disappointed. We predicted that "in a formal hearing that he is required to attend and that is already set up as a Republican political stunt, the brakes can come off and he can defend himself and his staff, correct all the various misstatements and falsehoods, and go on the offense to try Trump in absentia in a court of public opinion." And, indeed, that is what happened.

A couple cardinal rules for trial testimony are: (1) You never ask questions that you don't already know the answer to and (2) you call witnesses whose testimony is familiar and whose demeanor and credibility you have assessed. With Smith, it was immediately apparent that Republicans had no idea what he was going to say or how he was going to say it. Now, granted, this was ostensibly a deposition, where you ask lots of open-ended questions, but in reality this was the trial, and the only person who seemed to get that was Smith. Remember, the public has rarely heard him speak other than when he first announced indictments against Trump. And the public's fascination with him is commensurate with his reticence. Smith is a very private person whose politics are unknown, who has no presence on social media and who seemingly has no personal axe to grind, even against people who are now targeting him personally.

From the jump, it was clear that Smith is someone who is devoted to the law, and the institutions and people who enforce it. He was professional, straightforward and honest. He answered every question in the same calm, respectful, matter-of-fact demeanor, no matter how loaded the question was, or how they tried to bait him, or how often he was asked the same question in a slightly different way. He was the epitome of a career prosecutor for whom politics plays absolutely no role in how he does his job. The camera was focused on Smith the entire time, but you could practically feel how he completely confounded the Republicans on the committee, for whom politics is their only driver, and who cannot even fathom that someone might be motivated by something other than political considerations. After a while, one got the sense that they were just embarrassed that they hauled this unimpeachable man in front of them.

Allison Gill, of Mueller, She Wrote put together a very helpful compilation (with her commentary) of the highlights from the deposition. We agree with her curation and will just make a few observations:

The Majority's lawyer (whose name is redacted in the transcript) insisted on quoting former Attorney General Robert Jackson, whose principles inform Smith's work:

With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm—in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.

Remind you of anyone? Here's a hint: The last name of the person we are thinking of does not rhyme with "Pith" but it DOES rhyme with "Pondi."

Smith was given the chance to explain how he was going to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Trump's guilt. He testified about all of Trump's allies in the Republican Party who put country over party, even at great personal risk. They told Trump he lost, and that what he was doing was illegal and dangerous and Trump ignored them. He said that Trump's admissions that he lost, such as "I can't believe I lost to this effing guy," were less important than all the corroborating evidence from his friends and people who supported his candidacy. Incidentally, Smith had such command of the facts that he used an example from an interview with Mark Meadows, where Meadows said he had spoken to Jordan on 1/6 and "had never heard him so scared." That was a nice touch.

Smith was asked repeatedly about the phone records, of certain Representatives, that were subpoenaed following 1/6, and how he chose which individuals to target. Smith responded that he didn't choose them, Trump did. Trump chose whom to call and he chose to speak only to his Republican allies to see if he could get them to delay the certification of the election while the Capitol attack was ongoing and mobs were inside hunting the representatives down. He said that if Trump had called Democrats, he would have subpoenaed their records. When asked who should be held accountable for the records being sought, Smith said, "Trump."

When asked if he ever considered not bringing an indictment, Smith responded, "Absolutely." In fact, he said, there were constant conversations about whether to move forward and whether they were compiling enough evidence. Only when they were sure that they had evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt did they pursue indictments. When asked (obviously by one of the Democrats on the Committee) if he ever had to present a case to a grand jury three times before securing an indictment, he responded, "Never."

Smith also spent time defending his team, and talked about the injustice that the people who represented him are now being targeted, with their security clearances being revoked, and that the members of his team, who were only doing their jobs, have lost those jobs. He assumed this was to discourage anyone from defending him. At this point, Smith's lawyer said loudly, "We're still here."

The only time Smith got emotional was when he discussed the attacks on law enforcement and how career FBI agents have lost their jobs, including one man who was fired 2 weeks after his wife died. Smith said he had been at the funeral and could not believe the callousness of this administration to these heroes. He said these are career FBI agents, prosecutors and support staff. They are not self-promoters and don't defend themselves in front of cameras and that this treatment drives good people away from public service.

Smith was also asked whether pardoning January 6 defendants makes the country less safe. He responded that these were people who violently attacked over 140 law enforcement officers, whom judges referred to as the worst of the worst, and who have gone on to commit other crimes since being pardoned. According to Smith, unleashing these criminals into our communities makes us less safe and sends the wrong message.

When asked about Trump's retribution campaign against him, Smith said only, "I will not be intimidated."

One last note is that Smith was given his files to review, including access to Volume 2 of his report, but he chose not to read it given the injunction that's currently in place from Judge Aileen Cannon. The DoJ told Smith and his team that Smith could not discuss anything about the classified documents case that was not properly released to the public, so that severely hampered the questions that Republicans could ask him, including any questions about the execution of the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago. But Smith said that he would happily come back in a public setting to testify if that injunction were lifted. And Jordan invited Smith to testify publicly next Thursday, but that is about a month shy of the February 24 expiration date of Judge Cannon's injunction. Presumably, this was not an accident and the timing of the hearing is in service of some plan for Republicans to ask questions they know Smith cannot answer and then use his failure to answer as a basis for legal action. They were unsuccessful in the closed door hearing with this ploy; it's unlikely they'll fare any better with the public watching.

As with Powell and Kelly, we struggle to wrap our minds around the risk-reward analysis being done by Jordan and the other MAGA folks on his committee. Jordan went to the 175th-ranked law school in the country and couldn't even pass the bar exam; there is no WAY he is going to outmaneuver or outthink a veteran prosecutor who also happens to have graduated from Harvard Law (which, as we understand it, is ranked somewhere higher than 175th). Meanwhile, this show hearing keeps Jack Smith's name and investigation in the headlines, and also increases the odds that Smith will share quite a few more truths, as soon as he's legally able to do so. We guess that if you're looking for ways to please the Dear Leader, you have to take what you can get. Maybe they can subpoena the guy who goaded Trump into making an obscene gesture, and subject him to the third degree. (L & Z)

The Legislative Branch: Republicans Aren't Always Playing Ball with Trump Anymore

Congress is ever so slowly and hesitantly beginning to remember that it is mentioned in the Constitution and plays a small, but interesting, role in government. It has been a year, though, so Republican senators are a bit rusty on how this "government" machine runs. Do you just pour oil into it and then it works, or what?

To start with, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) collected a bunch of Republicans running in competitive races this fall and held a highly staged photo-op at the southern border:

Thune's photo op at the border

This is apparently his way of launching the Senate campaigns of his colleagues. To us, it seems like an odd choice to focus on securing the border, since the voters are concerned about affordability. Wouldn't it have been better to hold it at a supermarket and find some product, like milk, that has gotten cheaper since last year and focus on it? At least that would send the message that Republicans care about prices.

Other than this kind of grandstanding, the Senate is gradually discovering what it is supposed to do: pass laws. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) wrote a resolution that would ban the armed forces from taking military action in Venezuela that has not been authorized by Congress. On Thursday of last week, a motion to bring the resolution to the floor for a debate passed 52-47, with five Republican senators supporting it (Susan Collins, ME; Josh Hawley, MO; Lisa Murkowski, AK; Rand Paul, KY; and Todd Young, IN). When it came up for a final vote, Hawley and Young flipped sides, after heavy lobbying from the White House. That put J.D. Vance in the position of casting the tiebreaking vote to kill the resolution, which he did. However, if things get worse on the Venezuela front, a similar measure could very well pass, since the administration has no margin for error. As an added bonus, from the vantage point of anyone who dislikes Vance, he has claimed to be a non-interventionist, and he just cast a very big vote for intervention. That will not make his life easier if and when he runs for president—another John Kerry-style example of Vance being for something, until he's against it.

Donald Trump was not amused by this act of rebellion. On his social media site, which is the official sponsor of the White Man's Burden, he posted: "Republicans should be ashamed of the Senators that just voted with Democrats in attempting to take away our Powers to fight and defend the United States of America." Except for heading off a few crazypants appointments, this was the first time in Trump v2.0 that the Senate has acted like anything other than an obedient lapdog. It is very likely that the senators are sensing that Trump's popularity is waning and he will not be able to protect them in November, so they had better start striking out on their own. Paul was the most outspoken of the group. He said: "But make no mistake, bombing another nation's capital and removing their leader is an act of war, plain and simple. No provision in the Constitution provides such power to the presidency."

Paul wasn't the only one who had some choice comments for Trump. Retiring Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who is now free to speak his mind, had some thoughts on Greenland: "I want good advice for this president, because I want this president to have a good legacy. And this nonsense on what's going on with Greenland is a distraction from the good work he's doing, and the amateurs who said it was a good idea should lose their jobs." (English translation: Stephen Miller should be fired immediately.) Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) met with the Danish ambassador and afterwards said it was Denmark's right not to sell Greenland. Having Republican senators openly saying things Trump does not want to hear is new. Is this a fluke or will this be the start of a new era? We'll soon see.

And there are more signs of life coming from the Senate. On March 2, 2022, Congress ordered a plaque made honoring the Capitol police for defending their lives from a violent mob egged on by Trump. By law, it must be displayed in the Capitol building. However, it has been kept in storage because Donald Trump doesn't like it because it reminds people of what actually happened that day, not his imaginary version of events. Now the Senate voted to take it out and display it. This is a direct affront to Trump. Here it is:

Capitol plaque

Meanwhile, over in the House, Trump was getting some more negative feedback. Also last Thursday, the House voted on a bill to restore the ACA credits, something the Democrats want and were willing to shut down the government over. All Democrats and 17 Republicans voted for it, so it passed the House 230-196 and will now go to the Senate, where passage seems unlikely. Perhaps the Senate will concoct its own health care bill, but so far there is no agreement on what should be in it and the clock is ticking. By the end of January, most people who need to choose what health plan they want will already have done so. Still, for the House to do something that Trump does not want is also a sign, however small.

As with the Senate, there are also other signs. While we were on hiatus, Trump issued the first two vetoes of his second term. One bill expanded Miccosukee Tribe lands in Florida, the other would make a water pipeline in Colorado more affordable for residents. They both passed both chambers on a unanimous voice vote, but Trump wasn't happy with them, because... reasons. He claimed it was the high cost of the two drop-in-the-bucket projects, but the general suspicion is that he was poking Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) in their eyes. The House tried to override the vetoes, and failed, but Trump lost 35 Republicans on the Colorado bill and 24 on the Florida bill.

And finally, there is also an example of bi-chamber (is that a word?) pushback. Trump hates Voice of America (VoA), the international radio network that broadcasts American programming around the world. Officially, his reason is that it costs too much money. The real reason is that he thinks it broadcasts left-wing, woke propaganda. We suspect he might be getting VoA confused, maybe with the sometimes-lefty NPR, maybe with the now-defunct, definitely lefty, Air America Network. It's also possible that the problem with VoA is that Vladimir Putin hates it, and has persuaded (ordered?) Trump to hate it.

The members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, recognize that VoA is one of the greatest bargains going. It promotes American ideas abroad, and at a bargain price. We wouldn't exactly say it's a propaganda operation, but we wouldn't exactly say it's not a propaganda operation, either. Anyhow, Congress has put together a bipartisan bill to fund VoA at something fairly close to current levels. The total outlay, $643 million, is four times the $153 million Trump wants to spend (and he wants to spend that money to shut the network down).

The VoA bill has already passed the House, 341-79, as part of a minibus package, and is expected to pass the Senate. At that point, it is not clear if Trump will swallow hard and accept it or issue another veto, in which case we'll see if the third attempt at an override is the charm. Whatever happens, it sure looks like the President's iron grip is slipping. (V & Z)

International Affairs: Trump Finally Strikes Gold, Receives Nobel Peace Prize

Donald Trump has now achieved his fondest wish, in a manner of speaking, as he has a Nobel Peace Prize to put on his mantel. It is gold, so it will fit right in with the decor. Although, the gold is real, so maybe not. He did not get the Prize because he earned it, or because it was bestowed upon him by the Norwegian Nobel Committee. He got the prize because María Corina Machado visited the White House yesterday, and gave her medal to him.

There are a handful of Nobel laureates who really don't care about the honor at all, for various reasons. Among those who do care (which is the vast majority), the medal is basically a triviality, something that eventually ends up in a museum or some other institution (for example, Z saw Julian Schwinger's 1965 Nobel medal in the Physics department at UCLA; it's probably still on display there). If a winner has material interests, surely the large cash prize is of greater concern than the medal. And for most of them, the biggest prize is non-material: that they get to have "Nobel laureate" in front of their names for the rest of their lives (and beyond).

All of this is to say, giving away the medal was really no skin off Machado's nose. She was just buttering Trump up, so that he remains friendly to her interests in general, and maybe also so that he warms up to the idea of backing her as the next permanent leader of Venezuela. Surely, everyone must see that this is just a very high profile version of shiny beads and shallow flattery, right?

Well, everyone but Trump, that is. Here's the message that was posted to his more-gullibility-than-a-3-year-old social media platform yesterday:

It was my Great Honor to meet María Corina Machado, of Venezuela, today. She is a wonderful woman who has been through so much. María presented me with her Nobel Peace Prize for the work I have done. Such a wonderful gesture of mutual respect. Thank you María!

We actually don't believe he wrote that himself. Do you see the detail (other than the general lack of random capitalization) that gives it away? The answer is that there is NO WAY he thinks it's important to properly append accents to foreign names, nor that he would know how to do so, even if he wanted to. Still, whoever did post it presumably had a sense of his feelings on the medal. And Trump seemed to be genuinely impressed by the silly "Champion for Freedom" award that he got from Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) a couple of years ago (which—surprise!—has never been awarded again). And he also seemed to be impressed by the silly "FIFA Peace Prize" (which was only created a month earlier, and surely will never be awarded again). So, we guess he really was impressed and pleased by Machado's gesture. It makes no sense to us, but we guess if you're a narcissist, you operate with the understanding that OF COURSE the world is falling all over itself for the opportunity to give you awards celebrating how awesome you are.

And we have absolutely no idea what this development will presage, if anything. However, we pass the news along, because it could at least plausibly lead to two outcomes. The first is that if Trump is satisfied that he now "has" a Nobel Peace Prize, just like Barack Obama's, maybe he'll stop doing reckless stuff to try to win a Nobel Peace Prize. The second is that if Machado becomes his favorite, he might start working to clear out the current Venezuelan regime (which is basically just Nicolás Maduro's people, sans Maduro) and replace them with Machado and/or the actual winner of the last presidential election in that nation, Edmundo González (who, it should be noted, was running as a proxy for Machado after the courts barred her candidacy on Maduro's orders).

It's also certainly possible that this will change nothing. Still, Trump is the only president in American history where we would seriously entertain the possibility that he cannot recognize blatant apple-polishing from a foreign leader when he sees it. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: James Madison (and His Wife Dolley) Had a Bird Named Polly

There aren't too many presidential "clubs" whose membership is made up of George Washington, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, but there is at least one: These are the chief executives known to have had parrots in the executive mansion. The presence of several early presidents on the list is because a parrot was considered an appropriate pet for women 200 years ago (whereas dogs were a man's pet). The presence of several "earthy" presidents on the list is because parrots can, of course, be trained to say naughty things. And then, they often say them at inopportune times, which quite amused Jackson, Roosevelt, and Johnson. McKinley, who was rather more fastidious, and lived after the era of gendered pets, is in neither category. However, he did train his parrot, Loretta, to whistle "Yankee Doodle." And that concludes today's history lesson.

It has been a minute since we had a regular Friday posting, but the first hint we gave on December 27 was: "if a headline word is misspelled on a Friday, that's usually deliberate, and instructive." And the second hint was "know that we tried hard to work 'Miranda' into a headline, but the only way to do it was by working in a Shakespeare quote, and there were none that worked and that were reasonably short."

And now, the solution, courtesy of reader D.S. in Nashua, NH:

The headlines all reference historic Supreme Court actions:

The hint adds Miranda v. Arizona, while the headline for this item adds Marbury v. Madison. The misspelling on Friday, obviously, was "Merryman," which should have been "Merry Man," if not for the headline game.

Here are the first 60 readers to get it right:

  1. S.G. in Durham, NC
  2. T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts
  3. M.W. in Altea, Spain
  4. J.H. in Lake Forest, CA
  5. M.A. in Park Ridge, IL
  6. M.B. in Denver, CO
  7. W.V. in San Jacinto, CA
  8. B.F. in Nashville, TN
  9. M.B. in Albany, NY
  10. N.S. in Los Angeles, CA
  11. P.A. in Redwood City, CA
  12. A.S. in Fairfax, VA
  13. P.H. in Ft. Lauderdale, FL
  14. G.M.K. in Mishawaka, IN
  15. B.P. in Arlington Heights, IL
  16. J.S. in Chevy Chase, MD
  17. M.M. in Dunellen, NJ
  18. S.K. in Ardmore, PA
  19. K.R. in Austin, TX
  20. S.D. in Somerset, NJ
  21. F.D. in Dunedin, FL
  22. R.P. in Brooklyn, NY
  23. M.K. in Long Branch, NJ
  24. S.F. in Pemberton Borough, NJ
  25. T.K. in Manchester, MO
  26. D.L. in Uslar, Germany
  27. H.W. in Seattle, WA
  28. D.M. in Oakland, CA
  29. M.R. in New Brighton, MN
  30. J.M. in Eagle Mills, NY
  1. E.W. in Skaneateles, NY
  2. H.B. in State College, PA
  3. G.K. in Blue Island, IL
  4. R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY
  5. D.D. in Bucks County, PA
  6. T.C. in Kirkwood, MO
  7. M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada
  8. T.P. in Woodland Hills CA
  9. A.A. in Branchport, NY
  10. D.L. in Springfield, IL
  11. K.H. in Albuquerque, NM
  12. B.B. in Avon, CT/San Diego, CA
  13. A.E. in Cleveland, OH
  14. M.Z. in Sharon, MA
  15. M.S. in Canton, NY
  16. D.C. in Portland, OR
  17. P.W. in Tulalip, WA
  18. J.L. in Walnut Creek, CA
  19. G.W. in Avon, CT
  20. G.S. in Basingstoke, England, UK
  21. M.B. in Wichita, KS
  22. J.M. in Silver Spring, MD
  23. R.R. in Pasadena, CA
  24. M.K. in Seattle WA
  25. D.E. in Ann Arbor, MI
  26. N.H. in London, England, UK
  27. A.C. in Kingston, MA
  28. M.J. in Oakdale, MN
  29. B.H. in Sherman Oaks, CA
  30. J.F. in Fayetteville, NC

The 60th correct response was received at 4:00 a.m. PT on Sunday (keeping in mind the original posting was a day late).

For this week's theme, it relies on one word per headline, and it's in the category Language. For a hint, we'll say that the theme is very dark, in a manner of speaking. Oh, and it does not include the first headline, since the Minneapolis story is about someone who died, and we don't make a game out of that.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line January 16 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Kennedy Center Performers Keep Opting Out

It's been long enough since we wrote a "schadenfreude" (excepting the bonus schadenfreude earlier this week) that we did not realize that the last one was ALSO about the Kennedy Center. We guess that institution has become a vergence in the schadenfreude force.

Readers will recall, of course, that Donald Trump and his acolytes, in complete contravention of very specific statutes, managed to "rename" the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts as the "The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts." This was a "unanimous" decision of the board, a unanimity achieved by disenfranchising all 23 ex officio board members, and muting their microphones when they tried to speak. Because the change has no basis in law, the new name will last until approximately January 20, 2029, at 12:01 p.m. And it might not last that long, because members of the Kennedy family have already sued.

This change has naturally put the Kennedy Center right at the forefront of the culture wars. That was the intent of Trump, and of his handpicked director-lackey, Richard Grenell. Trump himself said that he would decide what shows were appropriate, and that there would be no more drag shows or LGBTQ-positive programming. Not long thereafter, the new children's musical Finn was canceled by Grenell. Finn is described, by its producers, as "Finn can't shake the feeling that he's different from the other sharks. Deep inside, he discovers a colorful fish inside him—a part of himself that longs to sparkle, sing, and dance. As Finn embarks on a journey of self-discovery, friendship, and adventure, he finds the courage to be himself!"

OK, so it's an allegory for being gay (and, in case you missed the message, in the poster for the show, Finn is rainbow-colored and fabulous). But even allegorically gay is too gay for Grenell, despite the fact that Grenell himself is gay. So, no show. It's really interesting where this administration does, and does not, see "gay." Remember this is a president who loves Phantom of the Opera and "YMCA." And, well, uh... we'll just leave this here and this here.

The Trump administration also canceled a pride concert scheduled for May, to be headlined by the Gay Men's Chorus of Washington. Because, as everyone knows, singing for you is how they recruit new gay people. It's like the sirens from Greek mythology, except that instead of ending with a violent death, it ends with brunch.

And it's not entirely LGBTQ material, either. Grenell also canceled a planned run of Eureka Day, a dramedy about vaccination that just had a successful run on Broadway. Presumably, that cancellation was a personal favor to Robert Kennedy Jr.

But if you're going to make the Kennedy Center a part of the culture wars, then it goes both ways. You don't just get to cancel the shows and artists you don't like; you have to be prepared to be canceled on by the shows and artists who don't like you. Heck, you also have to be prepared to be canceled on by the shows and artists whose FANS don't like you, since those fans are likely to take a performance at the so-called Trump-Kennedy Center as an endorsement of Trump in general, and of his pi**ing on the legacy of Jack Kennedy in particular.

The first to cancel, as we wrote about in the previous Kennedy Center schadenfreude item, was jazz musician Chuck Redd, who called off his annual Christmas Eve jazz concert. Grenell reacted with outrage, and sent a sharply worded letter to Redd promising a lawsuit. We have to assume this was performative outrage. Trump and Grenell had to know this was coming, right? They couldn't really be that dense, could they?

In any event, if the administration is actually going to sue everyone who cancels a Kennedy Center booking, they're going to have to devote half the Department of Justice to the job. Since Redd bailed out, there have been a lot of others:

This is not a comprehensive list. In addition, numerous folks who were serving in voluntary advisory roles, including soprano Renée Fleming, musician Ben Folds and TV producer Shonda Rimes, have resigned from their positions.

And even if a show, or a performer, decides to stick with their engagement, perhaps arguing that "art should not be silenced," they are at risk of playing to a substantially empty house. Since the change in direction, and then in name, was announced (making a visit to the venue a de facto endorsement of Trumpism), ticket sales have taken a dive. The average show has moved only about half its inventory (and it may have actually SOLD less than half, because of comps). That's more empty seats than the venue had when (slowly) reopening after the pandemic. Overall, ticket sales are down 52% this year.

We don't know exactly what Team Trump was thinking when they decided to reinvent the Kennedy Center. The schedule that was in place was in place because the people who used to run the place know what works, and what sells tickets. Let us not forget that this is a city that is substantially well-off, substantially educated, substantially liberal and substantially Black. It is not surprising that the list of shows included a lot of "high culture," and a lot of politically edgy (but not THAT edgy) fare, and a lot of Black performers (often doing music styles invented by Black people).

Actually, there is at least one piece of evidence that the administration had no plan, and that it was just making things up on the fly, as it so often does. Pop quiz #2: If you are going to change the name of your sports team, or your high-profile business, or your prominent entertainment venue, what is the FIRST thing you do, before anyone gets wind of your plans? You secure the correct URL, right? Because if someone beats you to it, they can hold you hostage for a king's ransom, or they can just refuse to sell (this is not true for a trademarked name, of course, but that does not describe "Trump-Kennedy Center").

Undoubtedly, readers know where this is going. A comedian named Toby Morton had more foresight than the entire Trump Administration, and grabbed www.trumpkennedycenter.org. It is a satire, of course, and is still in rough-draft form. However, it does promise an upcoming performance by the Epstein Dancers.

Who knows what is next, at least for the next 3 years of Kennedy Center bookings. They could try a residency for Lee Greenwood, or Kid Rock, or Ted Nugent, but we suspect those tickets will be even harder to move. Or maybe they will make it into Mar-a-Lago North, and will host the Marie Antoinette-themed furry parties in D.C., moving forward (we are not making this up). Probably, they will just leave it dark a lot of the time, figuring that the loss of a bunch of snooty operas, and Black music, and "lib" plays is no great loss.

Whatever happens, the whole thing is really an embarrassment. Sure, it might please the base, but the base is already pleased, and we really wonder how much they care about the Kennedy Center, one way or another. For everyone else, we think, it just looks petty and pathetic, not to mention an affront to the memory of a beloved former president. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: It Seems Some Folks Actually Care What Jesus Said

When (Z) served as a TA for History of Religions (back then, History 4), and for History of Christianity (back then, History 161), the phrase that professor S. Scott Bartchy surely used more than any other was "radical inclusivity." That is the nutshell version of how Jesus' version of Judaism was different from what came before. He largely rejected various forms of ritual purity (particularly keeping kosher) and said, "What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them." Yehshua ben Yosef did not prefer to figure out who was in the tent, and who was outside, but instead to try to make the tent as big as is possible (and to treat even those who are outside the tent with kindness and decency).

The worldview is a pretty darn good one, which is why it is not too surprising there are plenty of folks who have been believers in Jesus the philosopher, even if they didn't believe too much in Jesus' religion. As many readers will know, Thomas Jefferson was particularly famous for this, and even edited a version of the Gospels in which he removed the supernatural material, and just left the philosophy. He titled the work The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. Starting in 1940, then stopping in the 1950s, and then starting again in the 1990s and continuing today, every new member of Congress gets a copy. If you are interested in taking a look at the original, the Smithsonian Institution has put a digitized copy online.

Guess we lied when we wrote, above, that the history lessons were done for the day. Sorry about that. In any case, while it makes sense to us that one could embrace the philosophy of Yehshua without necessarily embracing the religious doctrine, it does not make sense that people can embrace his religion without embracing his philosophy. What he was saying was, "Here is a moral code, by which you can get into the kingdom of heaven." Some people (e.g., Jefferson) didn't/don't believe in the kingdom of heaven, and so don't have a use for that part of it, but they do have a use for moral codes. However, if you want Part B, well, Part A is not optional. The Lamb of God was quite clear about the rules, and St. Paul (neé Saul of Tarsus) was arguably even clearer. You don't get the reward without adhering to the doctrine. And yet, there are plenty of "Christians" today who practice radical exclusivity, and who are interested not only in figuring out who is outside the tent, but in making those people pay for their alleged shortcomings. Did none of these folks read the part about "Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone?" While we are hardly degree-holders in Divinity Studies, we think we are on pretty safe ground in saying that the Son of Man would be horrified by many of the actions undertaken in his name today.

We say this as prelude to a few words about the work and the website of Father Matthew P. Schneider. He is Roman Catholic (as you might guess from his title, as well as the fact that we are a U.S.-centric site). In his tagline bio, he describes himself as a "Priest, Religious, Moral Theologian, Bioethicist, Autistic, Writer, Podcaster, Social Media Guru, etc."

The important part of that, for our current purposes, is "Autistic." As a Catholic, Schneider knows that your average Mass is somewhat heavy on the visual and auditory elements. After all, this show has been a work in progress for nearly 2,000 years. And, as someone with autism, he knows that for those who are neurodivergent, it can be just a bit much. Or more than a bit much.

Consequently, Schneider has made it his business to put together a map of low-sensory, adaptive or sensory-friendly Masses, along with how frequently they are held. The map is still a little bit sparsely populated, but that will improve over time as: (1) Schneider collects more information, and (2) more churches decide this is something worth doing. One can also imagine the map expanding, perhaps, to include other kinds of accommodations, say for people who are deaf or are blind. Heck, (Z) passes by the Holy Angels Catholic Church of the Deaf several times each week.

We do not presume to know how Yehshua would feel about the specific doctrines that have been adopted by the Roman Catholic Church, or by other Christian denominations. That is way beyond our pay grade. However, we are absolutely certain he would cheer efforts to create a space for as many different kinds of people as is possible. Remember: radical inclusivity. We might even imagine that Buddha, Guru Nanak, Muhammad and Baháʼu'lláh would join him in those cheers. So, kudos to Fr. Schneider.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)