Main page    Jan. 31

Senate map
Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

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

Saturday Q&A

In July 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited his Cabinet to the White House to advise them that he planned to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. In view of the weighty matter that they were about to address (and that no one other than Lincoln knew was coming), he read a brief, funny story by Artemus Ward called "High-Handed Outrage at Utica." The Cabinet secretaries, annoyed at having to make an unplanned midday trip to the White House in the stultifying summer heat and humidity, did not enjoy the performance. A disappointed Lincoln declared: "Gentlemen, why don't you laugh? With the fearful strain that is upon me night and day, if I did not laugh I should die, and you need this medicine as much as I do."

One of the questioners below began their e-mail with "I'm not sure it feels appropriate with all that's happening in the U.S. to ask frivolous questions..." We take the view that this may be the very best time to ask frivolous questions. Please think of that attitude as a corollary to Abraham Lincoln's observation from all those years ago.

If you are still puzzling over the headline theme, we'll admit that the answer is famously Tricky.

Gallimaufry

A.H. in Chevy Chase, MD, asks: I'm the parent of a 9th grader and a 6th grader. As college professors, what do you wish the parents of your students had made sure they learned/did in middle and high school?

(V) answers: I would like students to learn to think and not just plug numbers into formulas they don't understand.

I would like them to question input data they get to see if it makes sense and see if the source of information is trustworthy. This is especially important when getting information from some AI bot, but even when getting information from teachers and parents.

I would like students to be able to reason logically.

I would like students to be able to clearly explain what they are doing and why they are doing it that way and make a cogent presentation of some project they have worked on, both in writing and orally.

Good math skills are important in computer science, but it is not important to know specific rules or formulas. Nowadays, understanding what an algorithm is, is important.

I care about students being able to plan ahead and use their time wisely when being given a project to do with a deadline.

I value students being able to tell the important stuff from the not-important stuff.

I don't care much about their knowing specific facts; they can always look them up.

(Z) answers: I agree with what (V) said, with the obvious caveat that I would adapt it to the social sciences. For example, students have been aggressively trained to write down as much information as possible. It is a constant, and active struggle to try to persuade them to spend less time writing stuff down and more time listening and understanding. In almost every lecture, I will say: "Please put your pens/pencils/keyboards down, and just listen. You don't need to take any notes for the next 10 minutes, until you hear me say, 'The two takeaways here are...'"

I also wish parents would do more to persuade their kids that college is not so much an investment in making more money in their career, as it is an investment in themselves, and making themselves a well-rounded person AND worker capable of pursuing many different paths in life. Of course, often the parents themselves believe that the only purpose of college is to increase earning power. So, those folks certainly are not going to tell their kids something different.


A.G. in Plano, TX, asks: Are any of you Jeopardy! fans? Have any of you tried out to be a contestant? How do you think each of you would fare on the program?

(Z) answers: (A), (L) and I are all fans of the show, or of one of its variants (e.g., Pop Culture Jeopardy!). (L) took the written test once, and I have taken the written test 4-5 times, and I advanced to the in-person audition once, but not to the show. The hardest part of the in-person audition is looking upbeat/happy/whatever while also trying to think about answers, and about doing all the things you need to do, like look straight ahead, push the button, etc.

As to how I might fare on the program, that is basically unanswerable. Some readers will know this, but Jeopardy! is not exactly what it appears to be. It is very bad TV to have a bunch of questions go unanswered. So, anyone who actually makes it on camera is capable of answering the great majority of the questions they ask.

Beyond the fact that anyone who makes it through the audition process is pretty strong on the trivia front, the odds of being able to come up with the questions are increased by at least two additional factors. First, the correct questions are often designed to be semi-guessable. For example, if an answer starts, "This Walt Whitman work...," then the question is "What is Leaves of Grass?," and the rest of the "answer" is just filler. If an answer starts, "In 1415..." then the question is "What is the Battle of Agincourt?," and the rest of the "answer" is just filler.

Second, everyone who goes on the show knows you need to memorize certain things: ingredients in common alcoholic drinks ("Potent Potables"), state and national capitals, state and national flags, U.S. presidents (and first ladies and VPs), English/British monarchs, Shakespeare plays, books of the Bible, and maybe a few others. Indeed, if I was chosen to be on the show, and if I had time, I would just go to the J! Archive and make sure that I knew the answer to every question the show has ever asked. Since I already know something like 80% of them, it wouldn't take too long—a week or so—to turn the rest into flash cards, and then to run the flash cards enough times to absorb that remaining 20%.

It is true that there are contestants who are a little more able to answer the questions than their peers—a Ken Jennings, or a James Holzhauer, or a Brad Rutter. But most contestants are probably within 5% of each other, percentile-wise. And so, the real determining factor, in most cases, is how good a person is at buzzing in. If your buzz is a shade too early, you get locked out and someone else gets the question. If your buzz is a shade too late, you get beaten to the punch and someone else gets the question. There are people who build "home buzzers" for practice. But there's really no way to be sure how good you'll be at getting the timing right until you're actually on that stage.


N.G. in Clarkston, MI, asks: Are the people shown in local TV news stories about rising flu cases or sleep studies real people who have allowed camera crews to come into their homes and film them or actors playing a role?

(Z) answers: They are real people. Using actors would be much more difficult, logistically. It would be much more expensive. And it would destroy all credibility once the deception was revealed, which it eventually would be.

I have never been interviewed in my residence, but I was once interviewed on the sidewalk outside city hall, about parking tickets. And I was interviewed at a local restaurant, about the sale of the Dodgers to Magic Johnson and Mark Walters. And I was interviewed coming out of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace by a station in Tokyo, Japan. On none of those occasions was I a paid actor.

My grandfather WAS interviewed in his residence, after being held hostage by a would-be bank robber after a failed robbery. He wasn't a paid actor, either.


A.M. in Brookhaven, PA, asks: With the passing of guitarist Bob Weir, and your California connections, I'm curious if any of you had any experience related to the Grateful Dead or any of their offspring bands? And if (V) says he was at the Melk Weg in Amsterdam when the Dead showed up there for two unannounced shows in 1981, I will be completely envious.

(V) answers: No, I never saw them.

(Z) answers: The Dead aren't really my thing. One major reason for that is that I do not partake of the substances that are needed for the "full" experience. However, Jerry Garcia and his band played a show just a few hundred feet from my dorm when I was in college (he played in Pauley Pavilion). So, I saw that show with a friend, and it was fine, though I seemed to be one of the very few who was not having the "full" experience. That's not exactly the same thing as seeing the Dead, but it's pretty close.


M.H. in Council Grove, KS, asks: Do you know the history of school/team mascots? Do you have a favorite or know of some obscure ones? For example, in Topeka, there is the Washburn Ichabods.

(Z) answers: Yes. There are, of course, over 1,000 NCAA member schools, each with a mascot. There are tens of thousands of high schools, middle schools, etc., and they have mascots, too. So, anything I write here is necessarily a generalization, and is not universally true.

College sports started to become a thing in the latter decades of the nineteenth century. It did not take long for newspapers to begin covering the major programs. When you are writing, you need to have different ways of referring to the same thing, to avoid being repetitive. For example, in any given item, we might refer to Donald Trump, Trump, the President, the White House, the administration and, on occasion, The Donald, so as to avoid using the same descriptor, over and over. The early sports writers had the same problem, and they were also prone to rhetorical flourishes. So, they would come up with descriptive names for teams, to avoid just saying the school's name, over and over. Some of these names stuck, with the most famous example probably the Alabama Crimson Tide.

By the start of the 20th century, it had become de rigueur for teams to have mascots/nicknames. Those schools who had not already embraced a moniker bestowed by a sportswriter generally chose something that was of local relevance (Ohio State Buckeyes, Cal Golden Bears), or something that was intimidating (Michigan State Spartans, USC Trojans), or something that was both (Kansas Jayhawks, Miami Hurricanes). Native American tribes tended to check both boxes, which is why so many schools ended up with Native American mascots/nicknames. Oops.

In the last half century, some schools—generally those of recent vintage—have treated the choice of mascot/nickname as a branding exercise (e.g., Liberty University Flames). There have also been schools, usually schools where athletics is not a major focus, where the student body successfully lobbied for a change because they wanted something distinctive and funky, or because they wanted to get rid of a Native American and/or militaristic mascot/nickname, or both. In California, the most famous "offbeat" mascots/nicknames are probably the Whittier Poets, the UC Santa Cruz Banana Slugs and the Stanford Cardinal (a mascot that is a tree/color, not a bird). Maybe those are well known nationwide, maybe not, but they are certainly pretty famous to native Californians. The "offbeat" college mascots/nicknames outside of California that I know off the top of my head are the Delta State Fighting Okra, Evansville Purple Aces, Evergreen State Geoducks and UNC School of the Arts Fighting Pickles.


S.S. in Lucerne, Switzerland, asks: How does the transfer portal in college football work? If it's indeed possible, as Indiana and Texas Tech seem to have proved, to buy up a roster of talented players and make it into championship contention, what happens to the schools who decide not to pay crazy money to lure athletes their way? Can Cupcake State profit from developing a player, or are they doomed to yield the fruit of their labor for free? Does the transfer portal level or tilt the playing field?

(Z) answers: The portal is a database run by the NCAA, and available to student-athletes at all schools in the top three athletic divisions (Division I/II/III for most sports; FCS/FBA/Division II/Division III for football). If a student-athlete wants to make themselves available to other schools, they advise the school at which they are currently enrolled, and the school has 2 business days to input the student-athlete's information into the database. They can then be contacted by other schools.

The exact rules are a little weedy, and have evolved rapidly since the portal went online in 2018. Currently, athletes may transfer as many times as they wish without penalty (they used to get one free transfer, and then would have to sit out a year after any additional transfers). In general, each sport has a somewhat short window during which players may ask to be added to the portal. For football, for example, it's 45 days after the playoff bracket is announced, 14 days after the national championship game for participants in that game, and May 1-15. For some student-athletes, the window is waived. For example, if a student-athlete's scholarship is yanked, or if they graduate, or if their sport is eliminated by their university, they may enter the portal immediately, even if it's outside the usual window.

The teams who pay will be competitive. The teams who don't, won't be. There is simply no question that the current system tilts the playing field aggressively, and that we are on the dawn of an era (or maybe already in an era) where 15 or so teams will be competitive nearly every year, another 30 or so teams will be competitive once in a while, and the remaining teams are largely out of luck. For schools outside of that 45 (and that 45 is, in essence, most of the SEC, most of the Big 10, Notre Dame, and a handful of ACC/Big 12 schools), there is still value in developing players, since even one year (or half a year) of a star is better than zero years. But without the NIL (Name, Image and Likeness) money, it is effectively impossible to build anything sustainable. And if a coach DOES manage to do so, against the odds, he will quickly be poached by one of those 45 (or so) schools.


B.S. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, asks: What is your favorite Winter Olympic sport and why? Are there any memories of specific events that stand out?

As a Canadian, I'm required by law to say hockey, but I have a secret love of skeleton. I remember the skeleton race in 2010 which "broke the seal" on golds for Canada quite thoroughly, as well as the winner celebrating after by drinking beer as he wandered around in celebration.

(L) answers: I actually really love curling. It's one of the few co-ed sports and the precision required and the specific rules for each team member is fascinating and impressive.

And, more obviously, figure skating. The athleticism and difficulty of the elements seems to increase with each Olympics.

Oh, and I'm definitely going to watch Lindsey Vonn's comeback in the downhill!

(Z) answers: In addition to the obvious choice of hockey, I also like curling. I can't really grasp the subtleties of many Winter Olympics sports—all bobsled runs look basically the same to me, for example—and I generally don't care for sports which are "judged," since the judging always seems very squishy. But I can absolutely understand what's going on in curling, skill-wise and strategy-wise, and I can tell whether a shot was good or bad.

I am too young for the Miracle on Ice, so I am afraid the Winter Olympics moment I remember best is Tonya Harding/Nancy Kerrigan.


R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: What do you make of Bill Belichick not making it to the Pro Football Hall of Fame on the first ballot? Justified or not?

(Z) answers: In baseball, all-time greats who are suspected of cheating by using steroids—Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, most obviously—appear to have been permanently blackballed from the sport's hall of fame. To be more specific, those two players will be considered one more time, a few years from now, and then (unless the rules change) they will be permanently barred from consideration, after what will be their 13th and final failure. The general justification for this is that their behavior undermined the integrity of the results on the field.

Well, Bill Belichick cheated, and got caught red-handed. And then he cheated in the exact same way, and got caught red-handed again. That cheating also undermined the integrity of the results on the field. Given the extreme penalty being visited on baseball players, I don't really have a problem with Belichick getting what is, in the end, a slap on the wrist. He'll undoubtedly get in next year.

This also highlights a clear weakness in the voting process (one that also exists in the baseball HoF voting process). The voters are given a limited number of votes to deploy (three, in the case of the ballot Belichick was on), and sometimes they feel compelled to use them tactically, on lesser candidates, to make sure those candidates are not permanently kicked off the ballot. Two Football Hall of Fame voters who did not vote for Belichick (and there are at least 9 others out there) have gone public, and both of them have said that "saving" lesser candidates who are nonetheless worthy is at least part of the reason they did not vote for Belichick.

It is also the case that the same ballot that had Belichick also had Patriots owner Robert Kraft. So, there were certainly some voters who decided that they could only use one of their three votes on someone from the Patriots organization, and decided to go with Kraft. One of the two non-Belichick voters who went public says this is also part of what happened with his ballot.

There has been much scorn directed toward the 50 folks (mostly sportswriters) who denied Belichick induction on the first ballot. In my view, the great majority of that scorn should be directed at Belichick, who unquestionably cheated, and the Pro Football Hall of Fame, which crafted a wonky selection process. At very least, there should be a ballot for long-retired players, a ballot for retired coaches, and a ballot for team owners and executives, so voters are not trying to compare the relative merits of an apple like L.C. Greenwood, an orange like Bill Belichick, and a kumquat like Robert Kraft.


P.R. in Arvada, CO, asks: Well, we are back at that time of year. At the start of the season, you gave your thoughts on how the season would develop. How do you think you did with that prediction and what is your prediction for the Super Bowl?

Also, what are your thoughts on the Steelers taking another Green Bay hand me down?

(Z) answers: This only works if we quote what I wrote back then. So:

The Bills, Chargers, and Packers (last week's disaster notwithstanding) look like potential juggernauts.

The Colts, Eagles, Commanders, Vikings, Lions, Rams and Seahawks could be very good, but the jury is still out.

The Jaguars, Bengals, Steelers and 49ers are playing above their heads, and are not as good as their records suggest. The Steelers aren't going to make the playoffs this year, and should think about moving on from Mike Tomlin.

The Chiefs are better than your usual 1-2 team, but are also not the team they were, and won't be back in the AFC title game.

The Ravens and Broncos are also better than their records suggest.

The Bears are going to be saved from winning the title of "most disappointing team of 2025" by the Dolphins.

The Saints are the worst team in the league. Don't sign a long-term lease in that city, QB Spencer Rattler. The Titans aren't much better.

So, I wasn't too far off on the Bills, Chargers, and Packers, who all made the playoffs. The Bills made it to the second round before being eliminated, and the other two would have been considerably more dangerous, but for key injuries (the Chargers' Justin Herbert was gimpy, and the Packers lost Micah Parsons for the season).

Of my wait-and-see teams, one utterly collapsed (Commanders), three trailed off (Colts, Vikings, Lions), two made it to the playoffs (Rams, Eagles) and one will play in the Super Bowl (Seahawks). I think that is pretty good, since "the jury is still out" means "could go either way," and the teams I picked did so in about equal measure. I clearly missed on the Patriots, though, and I wish I had not included the Commanders.

I was way wrong about the Jaguars and 49ers, a reflection of my lack of faith in Trevor Lawrence (Jaguars) and my belief that Christian McCaffrey (49ers) is always on the cusp of a season-ending injury. I was right about the Bengals, and mostly right about the Steelers. The Yinzers WERE playing above their heads, and while they did make the playoffs, it was by the skin of their teeth. And, of course, Mike Tomlin did depart, likely with some "encouragement."

I was 100% right about the Chiefs and Broncos, and a little wrong about the Ravens, but not a lot. They were 1-2 then, and ended up 8-9.

The Bears were not the most disappointing team of 2025; that was either the Lions or the Chiefs. The Dolphins were in the mix, though.

I was right about the Saints and Titans being godawful teams, but they (especially the Saints) weren't worse than the Raiders.

Overall, I think I did fairly well. Biggest miss was the Patriots. Biggest get was Mike Tomlin moving on, since Steelers coaches don't often do that, and he'd been on the job for 19 seasons.

For the Super Bowl, I have to go with the Seahawks, even though I don't much like it. But Drake Maye might not even play. In Las Vegas, the current over/under on passing yards for him is "1." That means that the books and bettors think he's a coin flip to play. Either that, or they think he's become Justin Fields overnight.

As to McCarthy, the Steelers know very well he can win a Super Bowl—they saw the proof up close. He's a solid coach, and is clearly going to be a bridge to the next era of Steeler history. McCarthy will steer the ship for a few years while they try to get a viable long-term QB, and they get a WR corps, and they clean up their salary cap. If he somehow does some damage in the playoffs, that's a bonus. Either way, they will eventually move on to a younger coach, probably someone with the potential to do the Steeler thing and stay on the job for a couple of decades.


P.M.M. in Paris, France, asks: You often talk about baseball, which is practically unheard of here in France. So I'd like to know what you all think about soccer.

(Z) answers: I like soccer, and I certainly understand the appeal. However, I lack a deep understanding of strategy and formations, which would undoubtedly make it more enjoyable. I don't know the players, except for the handful of global megastars. I don't know the teams, or the leagues, all that well, and I don't particularly understand the significance of the various tournaments and championships.

Undoubtedly, these gaps in my knowledge could be filled if I invested the time. But time is limited, and the world of soccer is unusually large and complex. In terms of water-cooler talk, and ease of finding something on TV to be entertained by, and fantasy sports, etc., Major League Baseball, the National Football League and the National Basketball Association are a better investment of time for me, especially since I already have much expertise in those three sports (especially baseball).


H.M. in San Dimas, CA, asks: What are your five or so favorite (not necessarily best) baseball movies?

(Z) answers: My favorite baseball movie, hands-down, is A League of Their Own. It's just perfect.

In second place is probably The Bad News Bears. This was a movie made with kids of my generation, for kids of my generation.

Third is The Natural, which doesn't seem to get as much attention as it should.

Fourth is Field of Dreams. It's a little maudlin, to the point that it feels like a Steven Spielberg film (even though it's not), but the scene where Moonlight Graham leaves the field, knowing he cannot return, is stellar. That was Burt Lancaster's final film role, by the way.

Fifth is either Major League or The Babe. The former has a clichéd plot, but some really great lines ("Juuuuuuust a bit outside!"). The latter gets almost universally dumped upon, but I quite enjoyed it, and thought it did a good job of capturing the feel of 1920s America.

Yes, I am aware I omitted Bull Durham. I did not see it until fairly recently, and viewed through a modern lens, it just feels a little skeezy. I couldn't fully embrace it.


B.D. in Victoria, MN, asks: At this point, is it safe to assume that Quentin Tarantino is the greatest movie director of all time? Until recently, I would have said that Pulp Fiction was his best work. My opinion has changed and I now believe that Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is actually the best movie of all time. If Leonardo DiCaprio wins the Oscar for best Actor this year, I believe it is a make-up call for him not winning for Hollywood a few years back. Every time I watch it, I am blown away by his performance.

What are your thoughts on all-time movie directors and how Tarantino and his movies stack up in that discussion?

(Z) answers: I do not believe Quentin Tarantino is the greatest director of all time. I think that, at most, he might crack the Top 10. Probably more like Top 20.

The first problem is that Tarantino has not had all that much influence on other filmmakers. How many people would you say make films that are Tarantinoesque? I would say there is one, and that one is Quentin Tarantino. On the other hand, it's easy to point to people who were clearly influenced by John Ford (e.g., David Lean) or Steven Spielberg (e.g., J.J. Abrams) or Frank Capra (e.g., John Hughes). Heck, Capra influenced enough people that Capraesque is a dictionary word. Tarantinoesque is not.

The second problem is that Tarantino hasn't really pushed himself all that much. What he does are extremely slick, extremely stylized takes on B-movie genres. Reservoir Dogs is his take on crime capers. Pulp Fiction is his take on pulp novels/films. Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight are his take on Westerns. Kill Bill is his take on kung fu movies. Jackie Brown is his take on Blaxploitation films. And so forth. In this way, and pretty much only in this way, he's kind of like Mel Brooks, whose corpus is made up of satires of various genres (e.g., Young Frankenstein is horror films, Blazing Saddles is Westerns, History of the World is historical epics, Spaceballs is sci-fi, etc.).

That brings us to a third problem. There are four or five or six Mel Brooks films that I can imagine still being watched 50 years from now. For Tarantino, I think it might be considerably fewer. Pulp Fiction, certainly, and maybe a couple of others. He's only made nine films (with one more coming, supposedly), and several of them already seem to have faded from view.

Please note, I quite like Tarantino's work. But for breadth of work and for impact, I feel very comfortable ranking Ford, Capra, Spielberg, Brooks, Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, Charles Chaplin, Akira Kurosawa and Martin Scorsese ahead of him. Tarantino would be in the next tier for me, along with—among others—Lean, D.W. Griffith, Stanley Kubrick, Billy Wilder, George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, Sidney Lumet, James Cameron, Tim Burton, Christopher Nolan, Rob Reiner, Buster Keaton, Howard Hawks, Spike Lee, Victor Fleming and, sigh, Leni Riefenstahl.

Whether Tarantino is Top 10 depends on exactly how high he rates in that second tier. However, that list also comes with the caveat that I just don't have much exposure to the works of foreign directors like Federico Fellini, Ingmar Bergman and Sergei Eisenstein. If I did, the top tier might well expand to the point that there are no spots in the top 10 that remain vacant.


S.B. in Winslow, ME, asks: Have any of you seen the documentary Age of Disclosure?

It's a 2025 documentary by Dan Farah about Unexplained Aerial Phenomena (formerly known as "UFOs"). It contains many interviews with many government officials, military personnel, and others involved in classified government programs. If so, I'm curious to know if you feel it's more hype than substance.

(Z) answers: None of us have seen the film. However, I am absolutely confident that there are objects in the sky that cannot be explained, at least not without more information.

I am similarly confident that there is other life in the universe. Even if the circumstances of Earth were a 1-in-a-trillion shot, there are enough planets out there that the 1-in-a-trillion shot had to hit again. And again. And again. There are about 1023 stars in the universe. Suppose 1% have a rocky planet and 1% of the rocky planets are in the "Goldilocks zone" (where there is liquid water). That's 1019 rocky planets in the right place. Now suppose one in a trillion (1012) has developed spacefaring life. That's 10 million spacefaring civilizations. We are not the first to do this math. Frank Drake beat us to it by 65 years with Drake's Equation.

Finally, I am confident that #1 (the unexplained objects) has absolutely nothing to do with #2 (the life on other planets). Even if we imagine that a more advanced species has somehow solved technical problems that appear unsolvable to us, it is improbable that another planet would develop on a nearly identical timeline, with the other space beings' development being within a millennium or two of ours. It is also improbable that these beings would go to all the trouble of making the trip, and yet would not interact with Earth's inhabitants in some way (whether peacefully or violently).


K.H. in Scotch Plains, NJ, asks: How much are you all thinking that there's a real likelihood for a very disappointing showing for Melania both in theaters and on Prime? I'm thinking that could be Schadenfreude for next week...

(Z) answers: I am even more certain about Melania flopping than I am about extraterrestrial life (see above).

And remember how Benjamin Franklin said there are two things in life that are certain, namely death and taxes? Well, you can add "Melania will be the subject of next week's schadenfreude" to that list.


M.D. in San Tan Valley, AZ, asks: The history of American television has produced some incredible sitcoms and long-lasting drama series that we can still watch today in syndication or on streaming channels. My question is, can you provide a list of the top three or five television shows that you believe have produced the most "future" stars, while not specifically allocating to movie stars only? Please don't count variety shows, as this would be too simple (SNL, In Living Color, etc.)

I want to give you an example of what I'm asking. I loved Friday Night Lights on NBC. It produced future stars Kyle Chandler, Connie Britton, Jesse Plemons and Michael B. Jordan.

(Z) answers: The default answer to this question is Freaks and Geeks. That show was the starting point for the careers of Seth Rogen, James Franco, Jason Segel, Busy Phillips and Linda Cardellini.

Parks and Recreation is also a pretty good answer. It made stars, to various extents, out of Amy Poehler, Aubrey Plaza, Aziz Ansari, Chris Pratt and Adam Scott.

And how about a show that virtually nobody has ever heard of, namely Sara? It lasted 13 episodes in the mid-1980s, and the cast included Geena Davis, Bill Maher, Alfre Woodard and Bronson Pinchot.

Or, how about a show that everyone has heard of? The Dick Van Dyke show made superstars out of the previously unknown Dick Van Dyke and Mary Tyler Moore. It also significantly increased the profiles of Carl Reiner, Morey Amsterdam and Rose Marie.

And finally, a show where everyone knows your name, Cheers. It made Ted Danson and Kelsey Grammer into A-list TV stars (and occasional movie stars). It launched Woody Harrelson's career. It gave a big boost to Bebe Neuwirth's Broadway career (and TV-guest-star career), and it allowed Kirstie Alley to do another TV series and the Look Who's Talking movies.

Actually, here's a bonus. The Cheers guys (James L. Brooks, Glen Charles, Les Charles) were apparently pretty good at discovering raw talent, because their previous show, Taxi, launched the very successful careers of Danny DeVito, Tony Danza, Judd Hirsch, Christopher Lloyd, Andy Kaufman and Carol Kane.


S.C. in Mountain View, CA, asks: When addressing an elected or other official by just the title of their office without including their name, one says, for example, Mister/Madam President, Mister/Madam Speaker, Mister/Madam Chair, etc., but not, for example, Mister/Madam Senator, Mister/Madam Representative, Mister/Madam Councilmember, etc. For the latter offices, one just says "Senator," "Representative," "Councilmember," etc. (I'm reminded of the first time Justice Roberts swore in President-elect Barack Obama. If I recall correctly, before administering the oath, Roberts said "Are you ready, Senator?," and after they finished he said "Congratulations, Mister President.")

I thought it might be related to holding a singular office (President, Speaker, Chair, etc.) as opposed to being one of a group (Senator, Representative, Councilmember, etc.), but then there's Governor. One just says "Governor," not Mister/Madam Governor, when addressing a Governor by their title. Is there any logic as to why some titles get the Mister/Madam treatment and some don't?

(Z) answers: The short answer: Thank the British.

The British are, of course, very polite. And they were ultra-polite 250 years ago. So, they tended to append "Mr." to any title held by a person of great authority/influence/esteem. The speaker of Parliament was Mr. Speaker. The chairs of committees were Mr. Chairman. The cabinet secretaries were Mr. Secretary. The mayors were Mr. Mayor. When Americans created posts that had these titles, they carried over the habit of putting "Mr." in front of them. The main exception is that Brits did, and do, refer to high-ranking judges as Mr. Justice, while Americans did not and do not. This was probably because Americans wanted to create a much bigger separation between the judiciary and the executive than was the case in the old country.

There were no senators or representatives in Britain back then, and relatively few council members of the sort that exist in the U.S. (the Brits of the nineteenth century had royal councils, but not too many city councils). So, there was no pre-existing "Mr." habit for those offices, and one was not developed by Americans.

It is true that Britain did have governors, but that wasn't a position of quite as much esteem then as it is now, as the governors were appointed, mid-tier bureaucrats and (generally) not elected officials. So, no "Mr." for them in British colonies, and thus no "Mr." for them in the U.S.

Meanwhile, the monarch, like all other nobility, was "above" a mere "Mr.", and didn't have a last name anyhow. So, it was "your highness" or "your majesty." When George Washington was trying to figure out an appropriate salutation for the presidency, there were advisers (ahem, John Adams) who told him he should use one of the pre-existing monarchical salutations, like "your highness," or perhaps an adaptation, like "your mightiness." Washington wanted something respectful, but also something very republican (and, thus, not monarchial). So, he took the respectful term "Mr." and slapped it on the name of the office, and it's been "Mr. President" ever since.


T.H. in LaQuinta, CA, asks: Some color names are commonplace surnames in the U.S.—think Brown, White, Black, Grey/Gray, Green/Greene. On the other hand, some other colors never seem to be used as last names—think red, yellow, blue, orange, indigo, violet, among many others. Any ideas why some color names make it and others don't?

(Z) answers: This works best if we just go color-by-color:

Reader Question of the Week: Across the Universe(s)

Here is the question we put before readers last week:

M.S. in Alexandria, VA, asks: In his novel The Number of the Beast, Robert Heinlein posits that every fictional world ever imagined actually exists as an alternate dimension. His protagonists go dimension-hopping through various fictional realms (including several of Heinlein's own previous works). If you were to climb aboard the Gay Deceiver and head off to a fictional universe for a vacation from our reality, what would be your top choice of destination, and why?

And here are some of the answers we got in response:

G.W. in Oxnard, CA: The Good Place from the TV show The Good Place. Not the Bad Place masquerading as The Good Place. Not the Medium Place. Not the Good Place when the protagonists first get to The Good Place. The Good Place near the end of the series after the protagonists fixed it. How can you argue with living as long as you want with your only limitation your own imagination? For those who haven't seen the show, you should watch it, and I'm sorry about the spoilers.


C.W. in Visalia, CA: There is no historical time or fictional universe that I would want to permanently move to because every one of them have some sort of conflict or numerous downsides (monsters, or lack of modern medical care). However, I am up for a nice, boring vacation in a place like the Shire or Rivendale when the dark lord isn't causing problems. The only universe I might consider moving to permanently is the Star Trek universe, with frequent visits to Risa for a good time. However, the constant fear of other powers such as the Borg, Cardassians, Dominion, and Romulans could bring too much excitement. I miss the days when we had boring news cycles.


T.L. in West Orange, NJ: In no particular order other than the order in which I thought of them:


S.B. in Hood River, OR: Middle Earth, hands down. As a teenager, I had a giant poster of Middle Earth on my wall. The land is incredibly rich. There is the quaint charm of Hobbiton. The beauty of Rivendell and Lothlorien. The grandeur of Gondor. Then there is all the history of the land.

In practical terms though, unless one is a wizard, there would be many places that are effectively off limits.


B.P. in Arlington Heights, IL: I think my first choice would be to live in the college environment portrayed in the film Real Genius, which is one of my top ten films, if not top five. Bonus points if Jordan can be my girlfriend. Jordan also has the greatest line in film history: "Are You Peeing?"

I would also enjoy living in the world portrayed in Bob's Burgers.

Finally, I could happily live the rest of my life, I think, being stuck in an endless loop in January 1969 and being part of the Get Back sessions as (more accurately) recently re-framed in the 8 hour film of the same name.


D.M. in McLean, VA: Sign me up for Iain M. Banks' The Culture universe, as long as I'm living on one of the Culture settled planets, habitats or ships. A universe where scarcity has been solved and people can choose their own path in life sounds like a welcome break from the world we live in. However, do not expect me to sign up for Special Circumstances. Rest in peace, Mr. Banks.


M.N in Madison, WI: I would pick Iain M. Banks' The Culture universe as my vacation destination, no question. Space faring, post-scarcity, totally egalitarian, effective immortality, they really have everything you could ever want from a society. It is so large and widespread you could find pretty much anything you wanted, or you could spend 1,000 lifetimes trying (and failing) to sample everything on offer.


J.H. in Lodi, NY: In Robert Coover's The Universal Baseball Association, Inc., J Henry Waugh, Prop., the protagonist, has invented a baseball game with dice and charts. He becomes so immersed in the game that he creates a fantasy world around it that becomes much more important to him than his real life in which he is an accountant. Much of the novel is told from the perspective of the players in the baseball league. If I'm only able to go on a short vacation, I think it might be fun to head to the stands and watch a Knickerbockers-Haymakers game while contemplating what Albert Einstein meant when he said, "God does not play dice with the universe."

[One reason the novel appealed to me was because it took me a decade to track down. I first heard it being described while I was in college. The guest lecturer outlined the plot but didn't name the author or title, and I thought it was a short story instead of a novel. I was intrigued and did some research to locate it. Unsuccessful on my own, I sought help from others, including a librarian, but to no avail. Finally, years later, I became friends with a professor who taught a course "The Literature of Sports." I figured if anyone would know the story about the fictitious fantasy baseball league, he would be the one. I was right. Not only did he recognize it immediately but he told me I could buy a copy in the college bookstore. It was required reading for his course. I bought the book and devoured it. Over the next 45 years, I've read it a few more times. I guess it is a favorite.]


J.B. in Bozeman, MT: The Super Mario Bros. universe (excluding the terrible 1993 movie) has it all: whimsy, action, and colorful characters. And unlike many other fictional universes where you need super powers to survive (looking at you DC, Marvel, and Star Wars), two ordinary plumbers get along just fine. Plus, if you get hurt no need for health insurance: just head-butt a giant mushroom!


J.E. in San Jose, CA: When I was a kid, I always wanted to live in the unnamed city Charlie Brown and the rest of the Peanuts gang grew up in. It seemed like a simple life, where I could play baseball and make sure the round-headed kid had a friend to talk to if Linus was busy.


C.G. in Toronto, ON, Canada: Immediate, non-thinking answer. DISCWORLD. Terry Pratchett. Magic actually works, leaders are beset with all our problems, but solve them in ways that benefit their societies.


J.K. in Portland, OR: I'd jaunt, following Alfred Bester's Gulliver Foyle:

Gully Foyle is my name,
And Terra is my nation.
Deep space is my dwelling place,
The stars my destination.

T.A in San Juan del Sur, Nicaragua: Omelas, from "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" by Ursula K. LeGuin.

It sounds like a most idyllic place and a fantastic vacation spot, especially during the festival. And, since it is only a vacation, eventually, I would get to walk away.

Never in my life would I have thought that somebody would have asked a question relating to Number of the Beast. I am beside myself.


D.M. in Burnsville, MN: Any of the three versions of Mars described in Kim Stanley Robinson's trilogy: Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars.

Why? Because each novel presents the reader with nearly intractable problems, which the protagonist(s) somehow manage to solve (or at least cope with). All the problems are plausibly real, and most require immediate action. Some folks excel at those challenges, and some get lost in the general chaos—just like in our world. But none give up. That's what makes it inspiring to me.

With specific respect to RAH's Gay Deceiver and various romps through time and space, I'd kinda sorta like to be in Lazarus Long's shoes when he meets (and romances!) his biological mother in another Kansas City timespace. I wonder how I'd behave.


B.C. in Phoenix, AZ: Just before the holidays, I got a chance to watch Flow. It is an animated foreign film, with no dialog, which follows the adventures of a little cat as it and a group of other animals struggle to survive a flooding world.

I'd like to vacation there because: (1) no humans, they have mysteriously vanished; (2) no humans, so no political a**holes; (3) no humans, so nobody trying to force their religious views on you by ringing your doorbell at dinnertime; (4) no humans, so no dialog espousing a world view devoid of common sense and (5) no humans, so no banal and insipid soap opera drama between the sexes.

Now THAT is a VACATION!


M.W. in Chicago, IL: First I would write a book where Hillary Clinton visits Michigan a couple of days before the 2016 election. Then, I would hightail it there as fast as humanly possible.

Here is the question for next week:

M.L. in Simpsonville, SC, asks: I teach U.S. History, and many of my students are on our school's academic team. I'd like to offer them a trivia challenge. May I ask if your erudite readership wishes to share some of their favorite unusual-but-fun History trivia questions (and answers) so I might make them up a packet as a review or bonus challenge?

Submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Trivial Pursuits"!


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones