Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu
New polls:
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
Saturday Q&A
Still working on the headline theme? You might want to let your mind wand-er.
Looks like this is going to be movie month (or movie month and then some) for the reader questions of the week. We have Part II of the films Donald Trump shouldn't/should watch today. And next week's question is also movie-related. The one after that, which we've already chosen, is too.
Current Events
J.S. in Houston, TX, asks: I was cruising on a time machine when I ran into this post in a May 2035 issue of Electoral-Vote.com. On starting my reading, unfortunately, I hit a dark wormhole! Could you please provide the rest of this post? No rush...
"Donald Trump's second term was an unqualified disaster. But it set forces in motion that are leading to improved security and prosperity worldwide..."(V) & (Z) answer: "...because the nations of the world learned the lesson that it is no longer viable to balance the entirety of the global economic and geopolitical systems on the backs of just one or two superpowers. In the way that the long 19th century brought an end to the age of absolute monarchy, the long 20th century thus brought an end to the age of the hegemons, leading to a level of international cooperation that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt could only have dreamed of when helping to create, respectively, the League of Nations and the United Nations."
A.S. in Black Mountain, NC, asks: What, specifically, could The Convicted Felon (TCF) be charged with to develop a case for impeachment? Is defying a court order enough? The corruption is public knowledge.
(V) & (Z) answer: Gerald Ford observed that "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." And he's absolutely right; the fellows who wrote the Constitution kept things very wide open, saying that impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors." Since, by "high crimes" they meant something like "misdeeds of someone holding high office," then there is a lot of room to go after a problematic officeholder.
Our guess is that if the Democrats regain the House in 2026, they will impeach Trump again, maybe more than one time. And they will focus on things that are simple to explain and understand, and that have a pretty clear constitutional basis. Violations of the emoluments clause seems an obvious option. Obstruction of justice is another.
J.E. in San Jose, CA, asks: Do you have any theories about how the president can both be: (1) spooning the cheese off his cracker with both hands and (2) twisting the arms of lawmakers to pass his budget? Both metaphorically involve hands, so I guess there's that.
The only thing I can think of is his administration has taken over the arm twisting, but who else inspires the fear that he does directly? (Am I assuming facts not in evidence?)(V) & (Z) answer: We are comfortable saying that there is something wrong with Trump, mentally and psychologically. Probably several somethings. But we do not have the training, nor the information, to be more specific than that.
However, if we grant your premise, we can think of several possible ways to explain the incongruity. First, as we have pointed out many times, cognitive decline tends to come and go, such that a person can be functional at some times, or on some days, and not functional at other times, or on other days. In fact, the pattern of "basically OK during the day, but pretty far gone at night" is so common, it has a name: sundowning.
Similarly, there have long been rumors that Trump is aided by substances, with the claim usually being that he abuses Adderall. We have no idea whether or not this is true. But if it is, then it could certainly explain why he might be functional at one time, and not at another.
Finally, reports seem to suggest that Trump's arm-twisting is really more like... temper-tantrum throwing. That's certainly what appears to have happened when he demanded that the Freedom Caucusers vote for the "big, beautiful bill." And, well, even a 2-year-old knows how to get what they want by throwing a temper tantrum (tantrump?).
C.F. in Waltham, MA, asks: I noticed at least one place where "TACO Diplomacy" was used to describe Trump's handling of Russia/Putin. Do you think TACO could be applied outside of just tariff policy? Maybe someone should make hats and T-shirts every time Trump chickens out of a policy or issue. There are lots of great graphics to choose from. What do you think?
(V) & (Z) answer: You never know what word or phrase is going to catch on because it crystallizes, or seems to crystallize, the shortcoming(s) of a politician. Flip-flopper. Strategery. Deplorables. Jeb! Let's go, Brandon.
TACO is simple, it's lightly encoded so it feels a little like an "in joke," it's adaptable, it has visual possibilities (two of them, actually—tacos or chickens), and it's pretty on-point. Yeah, it could catch on, and it could find its way into all kinds of political nooks and crannies.
B.B. in Newtown, PA, asks: Can the pardon power of the president be in any way constrained short of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes. The courts have been asked, many times, to examine the pardon power, and have imposed some constraints that are not present in the Constitution. For example, the courts have decided that pardons cannot be granted for future offenses, only past ones. They cannot be used to obstruct justice (i.e., a president cannot say "If you agree not to testify against me, I will pardon you."). They cannot "offend the Constitution."
U.S. courts do not issue advisory opinions. However, if someone with standing were to challenge one or more of Trump's pardons, it is possible that a court might find the pardons invalid, and might impose additional constraints on the pardon power.
J.B. in Hutto, TX, asks: The pardon power of the President can only be applied to federal crime and not state crime. However, Washington D.C. is governed directly by the federal government. Does this mean that the president can pardon any crime, from jaywalking to first-degree murder, if it is committed within the boundaries of the District of Columbia?
If people see that the president is willing to pardon those accused or convicted of violent action against his political opponents, what's to stop MAGA fanatics from shooting members of Congress or Supreme Court justices in D.C., and Trump then immediately pardoning them?(V) & (Z) answer: The president can indeed grant pardons for crimes committed in Washington, D.C.
However, if Trump were to grant a pardon to someone who just assassinated, say, a Democratic senator, the blowback would be enormous, including from Republicans. Further, the pardon might well be voided by the courts, under one of the existing exceptions to the pardon power (say, obstruction of justice), or under a new exception that a judge might establish.
B.B. in St. Louis, MO, asks: Why do you describe Jake Tapper as a "muckraker," as if it were a pejorative term? The muckrakers are a group of investigative journalists whose ranks include such luminaries as Upton Sinclair, Ida Tarbell and Ralph Nader. Perhaps the term you are looking for is "yellow journalist."
(V) & (Z) answer: It IS a pejorative term, and was meant as such when Theodore Roosevelt coined it in 1906. The fact that we remember the good muckrakers doesn't meant there weren't bad ones who were interested primarily in shock value, or advancing their own personal agenda, or making a quick buck.
Yellow journalist might be a bit more precise, we suppose, but it's less adaptable. Muckraker/Muckraking can be a noun, a verb, an adjective, etc., while yellow journalist/journalism is not so flexible.
M.M. in Leonardtown, MD, asks: If the next president is a non-Trumper, would s/he be able to direct the Department of Defense to simply not turn over Qatar Force One to former president Trump?
(V) & (Z) answer: The details of the deal are not public yet, and may well be in flux. Indeed, there was even some talk this week that the whole thing might still be squashed. Remember, Trump Always Chickens Out.
That said, the general impression that has been given is that Qatar is LOANING the plane to the U.S. government, and then it will GIVE the plane to the Trump library. If that is really how it's set up, the U.S. government would not be in a position to dictate who does, and does not, get the plane (thought it would still control the equipment it had added to the plane to make it secure, etc.).
Also, we suspect that if Qatar Force One does come to pass, the Trump administration will hand off the plane to the Trump Library on January 19, 2025, thus depriving the next administration of the opportunity to get involved.
Politics
E.C.W. in New Orleans, LA, asks: I still think policy had nothing to do with Donald Trump's win, and, worse yet, it has nothing to do with how the Democrats are going to get out of the wilderness.
Trump won via a horrid combination of bad luck, stupidity, and tactics. Bad luck for all of us that the war in Gaza happened when it did, inflation peaking when it did, the assassination attempts, drawing Aileen Cannon etc...
Not much the Democrats can do about bad luck, and not much more they can do about stupidity (i.e., millions of people believing a con man and proven liar). So that leaves tactics. We are all (rightly) skeptical of complaints with no actionable ideas, but here, from making outlandish campaign promises to going after, say, right-wing religious organizations who are in violation of tax exempt status, there are thousands of ways the Blue team could fight harder and dirtier.
I know y'all have been skeptical of this in the past, both to its morality and efficacy, but are you still?(V) & (Z) answer: We are realists, and recognize that life often presents you with two choices: one bad, and the other worse. If preventing the harm that would be done by a President Vance or President Rubio means some dirty pool has to be played, then that's just how it is.
That said, we've pointed out many times that the techniques used by modern-day right-wingers might not work too well with the modern-day left-wing voters. There is a reason that, for example, there is no substantive left-wing equivalent to Fox, or to Clay Travis, or to Glenn Beck.
M.M. in Leonardtown, MD, asks: In your response to H.M. in San Dimas, you suggested abolishing/reorienting the job of MLB Commissioner so that the person's job was to act solely in the best interest of baseball, and that the person would be chosen by mutual consent of the players' union and the owner groups. This is a great idea that should be adopted by all the professional sports leagues. Would the same process work for choosing a Speaker of the House (and, given a necessary constitutional amendment, presiding officer of the Senate)? The individual must be chosen or removed by a 2/3 majority of the chamber, cannot be a current member of the body, and must act solely in the best interest of the chamber as a whole. Would this arrangement attract the type of leadership to the role that would make Congress more functional and less of a sycophantic clown show?
(V) & (Z) answer: You always have to think about how such a change might be abused by those who are willing to act in bad faith. And our concern here is that a minority faction could effectively shut the government down by refusing to support ANY candidate.
In the end, the majority, whichever party it might be, has won the right to govern, and should be allowed to do so. That includes choosing its preferred leadership.
D.H. in Boston, MA, asks: In your post about Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) running for governor of Alabama, you listed several candidates for dumbest senator once he is gone. I notice they were all Republicans. Who would you estimate is the dumbest Democratic senator, and to balance things out, who would you say are the smartest Republican and Democratic senators?
(V) & (Z) answer: You know the old saying: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, rather than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"? Well, most politicians who aren't the brighest bulbs have taken that lesson to heart, and don't broadcast their shortcomings to the rest of the world. Tuberville, by all indications, is too dumb to even know how dumb he is (and how dumb he sounds).
Another problem, which is mostly going to apply to Democrats, is that educated people can tell when someone is a dunderhead, and that will generally affect their vote. Since educated people skew very Democratic these days, it's pretty tough for a stupid Democrat to get elected to an office of any note. In the past, maybe, but not so much today.
That means that we can't give you a great answer for "dumbest Democratic senator," other than the now-departed Bob Menendez, who we mentioned in the original item. We suppose we might go with Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), who was once plenty sharp, but who appears to have suffered some loss of cognitive function due to his stroke. But beyond that, we just don't know.
The smartest Republicans, by reputation, are Ted Cruz (TX) and Josh Hawley (MO). We have seen them speak many times, and have generally not been impressed, but they could be dumbing things down (technical term: code-shifting) for benefit of their broader audience. Based on what we've seen and heard, we would say the smartest Republican is probably Mitch McConnell (KY), who clearly is a master of political strategy. Chuck Grassley (IA) is pretty sharp, too, particularly for a nonagenarian.
The smartest Democrats are probably Elizabeth Warren (MA) and Chuck Schumer (NY).
E.G.G.-C. in Syracuse, NY, asks: If (when) Tommy Tuberville becomes Alabama's new governor, will he be the dumbest of them all? Or are there competitors for that title?
(V) & (Z) answer: Tuberville will be very near, or at, the top of the list, but he'll have some serious competition. Sarah Sanders (R-AR) is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and Tate Reeves (R-MS) may be even duller. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) never impressed us all that much, though he's not a governor anymore, of course. For that matter, his successor, Kathy Hochul (D-NY) doesn't impress us that much, either.
Civics
J.E. in West Hollywood, CA, asks: My understanding (from reading your site over many years) is that the Senate Parliamentarian has essentially a line-item veto as to what is appropriate for a budget/reconciliation bill. Has she ruled on Section 70302 of the Big Beautiful Boondoggle, which eliminates courts' ability to issue contempt orders, or was it rushed through too quickly? Will she have a chance to rule on it before the Senate votes? If she finds it not sufficiently budgety, will Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) simply ignore her ruling?
(V) & (Z) answer: We would not describe it as a line-item veto, especially since her decisions are not binding. Essentially, what she does is save a lot of time and aggravation by giving a neutral opinion about whether or not a particular portion of the budget (or of any other bill, for that matter) comports with existing law. If she looks at something and says, "In my view, this doesn't pass muster," then it's basically telling the senators "If this ends up in court, you'll probably lose, and by the time you do, your party may not be in power anymore."
Section 70302 clearly should not survive a Byrd bath, because it clearly is not primarily budgetary in nature. We don't know Elizabeth MacDonough has already been asked to take a look, or if the Democrats are waiting to ask her in the future, but she's surely GOING to review it, and she's surely going to advise that it's no good. We'll see then if Thune, et al., decide to do another end-around.
D.R. in Omaha, NE, asks: I swear I paid attention in all of my junior high and high school civics/government lectures, but I would like to hear an opinion from you folks on this.
The Interwebs are all abuzz this week, warning us that in the Big, Beautiful Bill, there is buried an Easter Egg, so to speak, that gives Donald Trump the ability to suspend and/or cancel elections. My questions are: (1) Is such language REALLY in the bill, or is this an exaggeration of something more mundane? (2) Would such a thing even be constitutional?(V) & (Z) answer: There is no language like that in the bill. This is people, like Robert Reich, looking at Section 70302 and thinking up, and then warning against, the most extreme potential implications.
As a reminder, Section 70302 would establish that unless a participant in a federal case puts up a bond at the outset of the case, the judge would be prohibited from sanctioning that participant for contempt of court. In that event, there would be no penalty for ignoring a court order, or a court ruling. So, the argument goes, Trump could suspend elections, go to court, lose, and then just ignore the judge.
This "sky is falling" scenario overlooks quite a few obstacles, however. First, as we note in the answer above, Section 70302 might die at the hands of the Senate Parliamentarian. Or, it might die at the hands of the senators themselves, some of whom are already getting an earful from constituents about it.
If Section 70302 does become law, it will be challenged in court, and the courts would be certain to strike it down as an unconstitutional infringement on their prerogatives. After all, if court orders and court decisions are now optional, they have no meaning.
Then, if Section 70302 does become law AND it survives a court challenge, then any judge who ends up with a "Trump canceled the elections" lawsuit is just going to... require a bond from Trump, so that the judge still has contempt in their back pocket.
Finally, even if none of these obstacles proved fatal, and Trump was able to TRY to suspend the elections, there would be rioting across the nation. As we have written many times, "Governance rests on the consent of the governed," and the majority of the governed would be furious about the move to dictatorship, and would not consent to be governed. Trump would have no power over vast swathes of the country, like blue California and blue New York and blue Illinois.
Also, remember the states run elections, not the federal government. Suppose Trump issues an XO saying the presidential election of 2028 is hereby canceled and he will stay in power. Then imagine that the blue states held elections anyway and sent electoral votes to Congress to be counted on Jan. 6, 2029. If the Democrats control Congress then, they will count the electoral votes. What happens next is anyone's guess.
A.Z. in Waynesville, NC, asks: Can the folks (lawyers) who've been roped into free work for Trump break their contracts and go back to court?
(V) & (Z) answer: They don't even have to go to court. They can just ignore the contract, and dare Trump to sue them. And if the matter got before a judge, "we were coerced into signing this contract" is a valid legal justification for breaking a contract.
History
K.E. in Newport, RI, asks: Did you know that John Tyler, who was president in the 1840s, still has a living grandson in Virginia?
(V) & (Z) answer: Any baseball fan knows that you do not talk about a no-hitter while it's underway, for fear of jinxing it. A corollary might be that you don't talk about how the grandson of John Tyler is still alive, while he's still breathing, for fear of jinxing him. When you sent us this question on May 23, two days before Harrison Ruffin Tyler died, had there been news reports that the end was near? Or is it just a heckuva coincidence?
Put another way: Did you, or did you not, kill Harrison Ruffin Tyler with your e-mail?
L.B. in Savannah, GA, asks: I remember first reading about Harrison Ruffin Tyler many years ago on Snopes. His passing got me to wondering, are there any other improbable children or grandchildren of past presidents? Harrison surely had the record, but maybe there's a grandchild of Andrew Johnson or child of Theodore Roosevelt still alive. Any idea who it might be?
(V) & (Z) answer: We do know the furthest-back-in-time president to still have a living grandchild, and the furthest-back-in-time president to still have a living child. We're going to put the answer at the bottom of the page, in case readers would like to try to guess the presidents in question for themselves before seeing who it is. We will note that neither answer is anywhere near as extreme as the Tyler case, and also that "extreme" grandchildren are considerably more plausible than "extreme" children.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: After reading your description of two fine 60- and 70-something stallions who continued to have children with (young?) wives of child-bearing age, I had to know: How's they pull that sh** off?
"Hey, baby. My father met George Washington. Wanna wrestle?"
Guess who my new role models are...(V) & (Z) answer: There are two, related, answers to your question. The first is that marriages in the 19th century were as likely to be for economic reasons as for romantic reasons. An older man, if he had at least some means, could get someone to keep house for him and care for him in his dotage. Other benefits might be had as well, depending on the circumstances. A younger woman, particularly if she had limited means, could get financial support that might carry her for the rest of her life.
The second answer is sort of a subset of the first. Most government pensions, particularly the very generous pensions paid to Union Army veterans who fought in the Civil War, were transferable to a surviving spouse. So, the late nineteenth and early 20th centuries saw the marriage of a sizable number of very elderly veterans to very young women. That is why the last-known Civil War widow did not pass away until... 2020. That was Helen Jackson, and she married Union veteran James Bolin in 1936, when he was 93 and she was 17.
G.M. in Boston, MA, asks: When you referred to "booting all the Chinese students off the Manhattan Project," did you know you were alluding to an actual case?
Qian Xuesen was a brilliant scientist who worked on the Manhattan Project, was one of the founders of the research center now known as JPL, and was one of our leading rocketry scientists until he was deported in 1955 by the U.S., accused, with no evidence, of harboring communist sympathies.
Upon his return to China, he led the Chinese rocketry and space programs, and has been credited with responsibility for much of their achievement in ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons.
History may not repeat but its rhymes are sometimes poetic!(V) & (Z) answer: Yes; we actually meant to link to Qian's Wikipedia page, but we forgot to go back and do it.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: Why didn't Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill decide to bomb the railroads to the death camps, especially the railroads to Auschwitz? If they had decided to bomb these railroads, wouldn't that have saved the lives of many Jews?
(V) & (Z) answer: Roosevelt answered this while he was alive, and gave these three reasons: (1) the planes could do more to end the war and save lives if they remained in their assigned locations; (2) it would have been difficult to conduct such missions without putting innocent people, including the people in the concentration camps, in great danger; and (3) the planes didn't have that kind of range.
The third reason is simply untrue, and was probably included just for additional cover. The first two hold water, however.
Fun Stuff
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: Why haven't bidets ever become commonplace in the United States? I used them when I was in France and they are much more sanitary and environmentally friendly than toilet paper.
(V) & (Z) answer: We are hardly experts here, but we can think of three reasons. First, Americans tend to be creatures of habit. Second, bidets may be cheaper long-term, but they have higher up-front costs, and Americans tend to be pretty poor at that kind of math. Third, a lot of older apartments and houses are not set up to accommodate a separate bidet, and the ones that attach to an existing toilet are much harder to use.
D.S. in Layton, UT, asks: Spielberg or Scorsese?
(V) & (Z) answer: Recall that (Z) answers most of the film questions, including this one. And Spielberg vs. Scorsese is a lay-up for him. Scorsese.
(Z) does like some of Spielberg's "popcorn" films, particularly the Indiana Jones movies (well, some of the Indiana Jones movies). (Z) also likes a few of Spielberg's more serious films, particularly Schindler's List and Lincoln. But, in general, Spielberg's serious films tend to be too heavy-handed, and beat you over the head with their (painfully) obvious message, like "racism is bad" or "terrorism is wrong" or "slavery was immoral." And some of the popcorn films tend to overrely on CGI and other visual tricks, at the expense of story.
With Scorsese, not every film is a winner, but a lot of them are. With Mean Streets, Raging Bull and Taxi Driver, he might have been the greatest director of the 1970s, if not for the unlucky fact that Francis Ford Coppola directed The Conversation and the two Godfather films in that same decade. There's also The Color of Money, The Last Temptation of Christ, Goodfellas and Shutter Island, among others, while The Aviator might be the most underrated film of the first decade of the 2000s.
K.M. in Tacoma, WA, asks: You have answered several questions about different genre of movies. My question is: Do you have a favorite romantic movie?
My favorite is In the Mood for Love, an highly acclaimed movie that celebrated 25th anniversary this year. It is directed by Wong Kar-Wei, and often appears on list of best movies ever produced and not just in the "romance" category.(V) & (Z) answer: It depends on how you define a romantic movie, but going by OUR definition, the best romantic films ever made, in order, are: (1) Casablanca, (2) The Princess Bride, (3) Titanic, (4) Roxanne and (5) On Golden Pond.
M.R. in Santa Rosa, CA, asks: Why was Jean-Luc Picard's character written as a Frenchman, yet portrayed by an English actor, speaking in his native accent, and ordering Earl Grey tea from the replicator every episode? Obviously, Patrick Stewart was perfect for the role, with his commanding voice, presence, and charisma. And apparently he tried a French accent at the audition, but it proved too absurd for use. So why didn't the writing staff simply amend his backstory to that of an Englishman—say, John Pilchard, or something? This problem has been vexing me for decades. Can you make any sense of this?
(V) & (Z) answer: First, because Star Trek: The Next Generation was designed to be similar, but not TOO similar, to Star Trek. The original had a character from the U.K. (Montgomery Scott), so the sequel had a character from France. Still Europe, of course, but different country.
Second, when an English actor proved to be the best choice to play a Frenchman, the producers and writers realized they had been handed a neat solution to the problem of cultural drift. When a film or TV program shows "the future," it's gotta be different, because things change over the centuries (e.g., the personal names, the grammar, the jokes, etc. in Hamlet are often pretty different from today). However, the cultural drift that film and TV creators predict for the future has to (ideally) be believable, and yet can't be TOO different, since it would be confusing for the audience. For French people in the 2300s to speak English, and with a British accent, makes clear that the future is "different." However, that difference is not so great that it's hard to understand or remember.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: This is probably more a (Z) question, although Paris is not that far away for (V): What are your top three favorite Disneyland/World rides and why?
(V) & (Z) answer: This is indeed a (Z) question, as he grew up in the shadow of Disneyland, and has visited the park hundreds of times (though he's never been to any of the other Disney properties, excepting Disney's California Adventure).
When you go to Disneyland hundreds of times (by virtue of having had an annual pass for many years in the 1980s and early 1990s), the thrill of the rides that are built around speed and sharp turns (like, say, Thunder Mountain or Space Mountain) tends to wear off. So, the rides that stick with you, and that are therefore (Z)'s favorites, are the ones driven more by story and atmosphere. The clear top two, in some order, are The Haunted Mansion and Pirates of the Caribbean. (Z) would put them in a virtual tie, but if he absolutely had to pick, he'd probably put the Mansion at #1. And in third place is The Jungle Cruise.
Note that D.E. included a top three with the question, which we'll run tomorrow. If other readers care to weigh in on their favorite ride/attraction at the Disney parks, or their top three, we'll certainly run some of those if we get them; send them to [email protected].
M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: When did the NFL begin inter-conference games? This season teams are scheduled to play five out-of-conference games. For example, the Browns are playing each team in the corresponding NFC North Division, plus San Francisco (?). I'd rather see a greater variety of AFC matchups instead.
(V) & (Z) answer: Well, there were games that would be "interleague" today as far back as the 1930s. For example, the Green Bay Packers and Pittsburgh Steelers played each other for the first time on October 15, 1933. And it was a nailbiter; the Packers eked out a victory by the score of 47-0.
However, that was not an interleague game back then because both teams were in the NFL. When the rival AFL began play in 1960, the NFL had a series of expansions and divisional realignments over the course of the next decade. For example, on December 7, 1969, the Packers beat the Browns, 20-7. On that day, the Packers were in the Central Division and the Browns were in the Century Division, but they were both still in the NFL.
So, inter-conference games, as that term is used today, became in 1970, when the AFL and the NFL formally merged. The Browns' very first inter-conference matchup took place on September 27, 1970, with the Browns having moved to the AFC Central. They lost to the aforementioned San Francisco 49ers, who were by then (and still are) in the NFC West, 34-31.
Gallimaufry
D.D. in Massapequa Park, NY, asks: I was reading your item about Trump and Harvard and you mentioned how many foreign-born graduate and doctoral students attend Harvard. The number was pretty big and that's just for one university. There must be hundreds of thousands of graduate-level students within the U.S. and many more throughout the world, all having to write a thesis to defend within their field of study.
How do all these students come up with a topic worthy of a thesis, especially in areas where there isn't much new data to be studied, such as art history or other humanities. How many history students can really write a unique and insightful thesis about Frederick the Great?(V) & (Z) answer: This is a very broad generalization, because every discipline is a little (or a lot) different, but the usual dynamic is that a grad student works with one or more dissertation advisers. The advisers are established researchers in their fields, and so are usually on the cutting edge of scholarship. The grad student usually does something that complements and/or builds on their adviser's work.
In most fields, new information is discovered all the time. And even if there's no new information, there are new techniques and there are new ways of looking at existing information. Your specific example of Frederick the Great is actually instructive. Very few people, if any, are working on Frederick the Great right now. That is because the generations who studied and wrote about him operated under the assumption that, just as you know where a train is headed as long as you know where the engine is headed (so, you don't have to pay attention to the other cars), you know where a society is headed as long as you know where the great men (politicians, generals, scientists, etc.) are leading. That view no longer holds sway, and so someone working on 18th century Germany might be looking at women's rights in that place and time, or how economic transactions were conducted, or how the religious views of the peasantry were evolving, or what was happening in the blending of cultures on the border of the Netherlands and the Duchy of Gelderland, etc.
D.M.C. in Seoul, South Korea, asks: You discussed the reward structure of academia, noting specifically that "Dramatic and sexy conclusions are much more marketable for a candidate than bland and unsexy ones." What ways (plausibly or otherwise) do you think could this be fixed so that the actual reward structure aligns better with the theoretical reward structure?
(V) & (Z) answer: No. There has been a strong bias toward dramatic and sexy for at least 500 years. Probably more. Isaac Newton undoubtedly landed the Lucasian Chair at Cambridge because his early work on calculus was dramatic and sexy.
However, it would be possible to do something about the other part of the Francesca Gino problem. Every research university has a department that oversees ANY project involving human subjects. And they're not kidding around; (Z)'s dissertation was based on oral history, and yet he had to go through the same training, and sign the same paperwork, and submit to the same review panel as someone doing a study of the impact of, say, thorium on malignant tumors.
If universities wanted to create a similar kind of entity, devoted to reviewing scholarship for plagiarism, faked data, improper use of AI, etc., they could certainly do it. This could be applied specifically to people under consideration for degrees (i.e., grad students) and to candidates for faculty jobs, or it could be applied to all scholarship produced by the university's faculty. Similarly, it could be a situation where each university has an office dedicated to this task, or there could be a consortium, where a central office handles all reviews for all universities. There are already other entities along these general lines (for example, the databases that have all the journal articles, like J-STOR, are run by consortiums).
Undoubtedly, some faculty, especially some senior faculty, would not be happy about this? ("What? You think I am cheating?") However, if journals declare they won't accept articles that haven't got an "academic honesty" verification, and universities declare they won't hire faculty or graduate students whose dissertations do not have an "academic honesty" verification, then there would be little choice but for most people to accede. And if someone thinks their work is going to be put under the microscope, they will surely be less willing to roll the dice and take their chances. In particular, it's actually really hard to fake numerical data. Gino only got away with it because she was charming and dynamic and nobody looked too closely... until they did.
Reader Question of the Week: Hooray for Hollywood, Part II
Here is the question we put before readers last week:
(V) & (Z), et al., ask: Ok, now that we have covered movies that Donald Trump should NOT see, what movie do you hope he sees, and why?
And here some of the answers we got in response:
P.J.T. in Raton, NM: Were he not so unstable, and were he capable of self-reflection or redemption, I would like to see Agent Krasnov, er, Donald Trump, watch the 1969 flick, The Magic Christian. It has everything to do with the real value of money and the price of wanton greed.
P.D.N. in Boardman, OH: Dave. To see the good that an accidental presidency can do.
M.S. in Westchester County, NY: My immediate thought was Mr.Smith Goes to Washington. A Frank Capra(corn) movie about political idealism (hope), the relevance of Congress, and the triumph of good over corruption when the citizenry demands it. Unrealistic ending? Yes. But maybe not. If enough folks show up to rallies, demonstrations and the like, maybe our present Congress will be goaded into performing its oversight duties and bring this disaster to its end. (I can dream, can't I?)
E.W. (normally in Skaneateles, NY but currently sitting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial): The movie Lincoln, of course. (This answer assumes that Trump has to watch the whole movie and pay attention to it; otherwise, it's futile.) He needs to really understand how a president should act, and ideally should be forced to watch it until he fully internalizes the final words: "With malice toward none, with charity for all."
R.R. in Pasadena, CA: The movie that immediately popped into my mind is 12 Years A Slave. It's a historical drama based on the real story of Solomon Northrup, a free Black man in the Northern states who was kidnapped and sold into slavery, It has many relevances to what is happening today, such as taking someone out of their life and throwing them into violent, permanent custody; breaking up families; the Black experience; and the dignity of those who are subjugated. It seems almost impossible to watch that movie and not feel sympathy for people who are ripped from their lives and shipped away. Maybe it would give Trump a bit of empathy to the effect of his policies, and maybe get him to realize that it's not only white people who are human beings worthy of respect.
T.B. in Bozeman, MT: The Martian is the film I would hope TCF watches. Using a near-future setting, it provides an utterly believable framework for understanding the surpassing difficulties of "Space! The Final Frontier!"
Despite the South African Schmuck's vapid assurances, surviving on Mars is rightly shown in granular detail to be a huge, relentless challenge. Space travel is rightly shown to take vast amounts of time. Even communication across the deep is awkward. Twenty-three minutes for a message to travel at light speed between Earth and Mars! But the drama of the movie is moved along by a steady stream of science and engineering. I am always impressed with the careful, persistent showcasing of scientific principles that percolate through the movie. I always grin to hear Mark Watney say, "I've got to Science the Hell out of this!" And he does, growing potatoes with his own defecations as fertilizer, making water out of leftover rocket fuel, finding and restoring an old Martian probe to get back in touch with NASA. Very satisfying presentation for science lovers everywhere. And, as a bonus, the movie has a strong, "Come Together!" theme. The whole world is watching and cheering for Mark Watney and NASA. China pitches in a valuable rocket to assist. The climax shows celebrations around the world. All in all, an inspirational film, and one that is a strong rebuke to the stupidity, vapidity and endless hatred of the present ruling junta. I don't imagine a moronic dope such as TCF would bother watching such a thoughtful and interesting movie, but one can hope.
B.B. in Saint Louis, MO: I suggest that the President be forced to watch the 1955 documentary Night and Fog so that he can see why fascism is not such a good idea.
A.K. in Pico Rivera, CA: The Man in the High Castle. I will admit to a little bias, since I worked on the pilot, but it is a thoughtful expansion of the Philip K. Dick novella. The American Nazi party takes over America, and the film shows how the country was co-opted by fascist thinking. Many parallels to 47.
E.S. in Providence, RI: TCF should watch Schindler's List, even though he would probably identify with Amon Goeth.
L.C. in Brookline, MA: I wish Trump AND his voters would see Idiocracy. Because that's where he and his appointees and his base are taking us.
I also wish Trump (and Vladimir Putin) would see Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator. Because the portrayal of a dictator initially got Joseph Stalin to like the film, but then the end got him angry enough to ban it.
T.W. in Norfolk, England, UK: The film Trump should watch is The Great Dictator, starting Charlie Chaplin. That speech never fails to inspire and to bring tears to my eyes. It brings a lump to my throat in just the reading of it, let alone the listening to the great actor say the words in what, amazingly, was his first film with dialogue! In the vain and forlorn hope that some few atoms of normal human heart remain beating within Trump's chest, perhaps his watching that great film might prompt some personal growth and a change of mind?
Oh, you asked for sensible ideas, not miracles... Sorry.
D.B. in Deer Park, NY: If he cares anything for his legacy, I hope the Ochre Ogre watches both The Great Dictator and The Producers. Because if he keeps going on the way he has, some genius like Charlie Chaplin or Mel Brooks will make him look ridiculous. And even though it won't happen until long after he's gone, the one thing he can't stand is to be made to look ridiculous.
M.M. in Leonardtown, MD: Blazing Saddles. If Trump can get
Adderall... er, laser-focused on converting the Interstate Highway System into the Donald J. Trump Memorial Thruway, the distraction will allow non-Trumpers to defeat his racist mercenary pals. (Caveat: This plan will only work if nobody in the Cabinet has a sh**load of dimes.)
K.H. in Ypsilanti, MI: Andy Warhol's 8-hour-long, no-action-and-no-plot film Empire. I just wanna make him sit through it.
T.H.W. in Marlboro, VT: It would be best for Trump to see the Swedish film Logistics, which holds the record for longest film ever made. For more than 35 days, Trump would not be signing Executive Orders or attacking universities or violating court orders or mistreating immigrants or ambushing the leaders of allied countries or embarrassing us in any of the myriad other ways he does.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA: At first my mind turned to those classic films that inspire greatness of spirit, courage and selflessness in my mind, like Schindler's List, The Shawshank Redemption, The Life of Pi, etc. But then I realized that this is a futile attempt. First off, he would resist like the most stubborn mule, any attempts to bring enlightenment. He would either not get the implied message—Trump would think, "Why does Schindler throw away all his money trying to save some poor stinking Jews?" Or he would naturally take the wrong lesson from the film, such as if he watched Shawshank, Trump would think to himself, "Gee, I better get into prison grift like Warden Norton." Actually, he might already have done so, which just proves my point. Seriously, while I usually have faith that most everyone has the capacity for improvement, I acknowledge that there are some people who there is no hope. Trump is one.
Here is the question for next week:
L.R.H. in Oakland, CA, asks: (Z) asserted that "Back to the Future [is] the very best movie to be set in California."
OK, but what other films are in the running, and why? (The movie need not be set entirely in California, but a significant portion should take place there.)
Submit your answers to [email protected], preferably with subject line "Forget It, Jake"!
The furthest-back president to still have a living child is John F. Kennedy, whose daughter Caroline is still among us. The furthest-back president to still have a living grandchild is Grover Cleveland who, at the age of 60 in 1897, had a son named Richard. In turn, Richard, at the age of 54 in 1951, had a son named George. George Cleveland is still living, though he missed out on meeting his grandfather by 49 years.
Every president who served after Kennedy has at least one child still surviving, some of them (like Lyndon Johnson's two daughters) considerably older than Caroline Kennedy. On the other hand, Cleveland's first successor, Benjamin Harrison, has no living grandchildren or great-grandchildren. Cleveland's second successor, William McKinley, has no living descendants at all. Theodore Roosevelt has no living grandchildren, either. That means that the next president, after Cleveland, to have a grandchild survive to 2025 is William Howard Taft, whose grandson Peter Rawson Taft III is still living.
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones