Don't fool around, Wisconsin voters!

The stakes could hardly be higher in the Tuesday's state supreme court election

To read this issue in your browser, click on the headline above.

Tuesdays at 11:30 a.m. I talk with WGN-AM 720 host John Williams about what’s making news and likely to be grist for the PS mill. The WGN listen-live link is here.

C’mon cheeseheads! Reject Trump/Musk on Tuesday

The stakes are huge in Wisconsin on Tuesday. The Guardian summarizes:

A race to determine control of the Wisconsin supreme court that has profound stakes for voting, abortion and labor rights in the state, is also shaping up to be a litmus test of Elon Musk’s political power, making it one of the most consequential elections of Donald Trump’s second term.

Liberals currently hold a 4-3 majority on the state supreme court, but the liberal justice Ann Walsh Bradley is retiring. Susan Crawford, a liberal judge, is facing off on Tuesday against the conservative judge Brad Schimel for the seat. The winner will determine which party has control of a court that is set to rule on the future of the state’s 1849 abortion ban, collective bargaining rights and the makeup of the state’s eight congressional districts.

The result could transform the balance of power in the U.S. Congress. The Tribune Editorial Board airily writes “We’ve no wish for Wisconsin Democrats to be allowed to rig the Badger State in their own favor,” while failing to note that the Republicans have so rigged the political map already that they have six seats in the House compared to two for the Democrats — in a state that Donald Trump won by eight tenths of a percentage point.

Read it again and weep: How Trump will try for a third term

At the end of January, just days into President Donald Trump’s second term, I explained in detail how I expected him to make a bid for a third term despite the apparent prohibition: in the 22nd Amendment:

No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice, and no person who has held the office of president, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the president more than once.

There’s a gaping loophole in the language of the 22nd Amendment created by the words “elected to the office of the president.” Vice President JD Vance or one of Trump’s children could run at the top of the ticket with Trump as the vice presidential nominee, with the open promise/understanding that he or she would resign on day one and cede the presidency back to Trump.

The 12th Amendment bars from the vice presidency those persons who are "ineligible to the office" of president, but that eligibility requirement clearly referred at the time to such a candidate a natural born citizen at least 35 years old.

A way to stop Trump from pulling this stunt would be to push through a clarifying constitutional amendment barring anyone from serving as president for more than eight years — it’s an idea that, in normal times, Republicans would likely join Democrats in supporting.

But these are not normal times.

In “Trump says ‘there are methods’ for seeking a third term, adding that he’s ‘not joking,’” CNN reported:

President Donald Trump on Sunday did not dismiss the idea of pursuing a third term in the White House, despite the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution prohibiting it, claiming that “there are methods” to achieving this and emphasizing that he was “not joking.”

“A lot of people want me to do it. …” Trump said in a phone interview with NBC News’ Kristen Welker on Sunday. …

“There are methods which you could do it,” the president said when asked whether there are strategies on the table to allow him to seek another term. Welker mentioned a possible plan in which Vice President JD Vance would run in 2028 and then “pass the baton” to Trump. “Well, that’s one. But there are others too,” the president said, before refusing to elaborate.

And at this point I’d pretty much count on Trump attempting just such a maneuver three years from now.

Notes and comments from readers — lightly edited — along with my responses

Elon Musk’s transition

David Leitschuh — Elon Musk was the darling of the left when he was known for Tesla and space exploration, but now he's a horrible person because he supports Trump and is the point man in the long overdue work to reduce the size of government and government spending. Such a horrible person, who gave Starlink to Ukraine when they were invaded by the Russians, who gave it free of charge to people in disaster areas including California, who is funding research to help paralyzed people.

I am very aware that the PS audience is overwhelmingly on the left side of the political spectrum, and I am most often very unlikely to find a receptive audience to my positions. But I strive to avoid gross generalities and enjoy a respectful exchange of views with you and most others.

Zorn — I don’t know that he was our “darling,” but I certainly respected his push for electric vehicles and for other endeavors. This was before I took note of his cruel, almost sociopathic side — he doesn’t seem to give a damn about lives that will be lost overseas due to the cutting of vital USAID programs and the lives that will be lost here due to massive cutbacks in federal health efforts, so pardon me for not getting misty eyed about his efforts to help paralyzed people. I see such stories as “Elon Musk’s refusal to have Starlink support Ukraine attack in Crimea raises questions for Pentagon” and “How Elon Musk’s SpaceX Secretly Allows Investment From China” and I take my measure of the man in full.

Were he leading a careful yet comprehensive (and, yes, overdue) effort to trim government waste I could forgive him his schoolboy enthusiasm for the equally sociopathic Trump. But Chainsaw Elon is, in fact, doing horrible things, which makes him a horrible person, his entrepreneurial genius notwithstanding.

The denial of tenure to Northwestern journalism professor Steven Thrasher

Joanie Wimmer — I’m a trial lawyer not a journalist, but I’m interested in your view that Steven Thrasher, the Northwestern journalism professor who was denied tenure, was much more an activist than a journalist and failed to appreciate the value of objectivity. I’m not sure that I agree with the view that there is no place for activism in journalism. About seven years ago I went through this phase where I read everything I could get my hands on written by Hunter S. Thompson, the person known for “gonzo” journalism. What is the consensus view of journalists about whether Thompson should be considered a journalist?

Zorn — I can’t speak to journalistic consensus, but there is nothing wrong with "activism" in journalism -- covering a story or following a particular issue that you think needs more attention and writing or producing stories that make your point. However, those who call themselves journalists need to approach every subject, every story with a mindset that says "I will listen to and consider both/all sides of this issue as fairly as I can. I will not ignore evidence that may undercut the point of view I started with. I will strive to be fair, not only because it's the right thing to do but also because journalism that comes off as fair-minded is far more persuasive than journalism that comes off like mere advocacy."

It's a fine line, I know. And I also know that attempts to be fair and objective can backfire on a writer.

For more examples other than my coverage of the Adam Toledo shooting, consider the columns I wrote about the killing of Trayvon Martin and the charges against Kyle RIttenhouse. I set aside my initial impressions -- which are still the impressions of many of my lefty friends -- that George Zimmerman and Rittenhouse were hotheaded vigilantes who deserved long jail terms -- and looked at the fine details of the case. It led to me to conclusions that many of my friends still hold against me.

As I wrote, despite my differences with Thrasher, if I thought Northwestern was denying him tenure because he’s outspoken in defense of Palestinian rights and critical of Israel, I’d sign the petition demanding his reinstatement myself. But it’s fairly obvious that the university doesn’t want to make a lifelong employment commitment to someone whose credo, “our work is not about objectivity,” is antithetical to the craft he is ostensibly teaching.

On the bright side …

Melinda A K --- I was very interested to read about the “Fueling Knowledge” podcast —Part One; Part Two) — about the influence of oil and gas money on climate research at universities. Lest we completely despair, there are lots and lots of universities committed to studying climate change and more sustainable fuel sources. One example: Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo developed a bio-fuel that is now used for the Kalamazoo regional buses. To thank WMU, Kalamazoo allows WMU students to ride the buses for free. Gets students out into the wider community using public transport. It’s good for everyone.

Is VMT DOA?

Little Bear — In the debate about whether we should implement a vehicle-mileage tax to replace the motor fuel taxes being lost by electric vehicles, opponents barrage us with questions that make VMT sound horrible and scary. But they tend to ignore the fact that cities and states are struggling to meet road infrastructure costs. That's a big conversation, but they don't want you thinking about it. They want you to say "VMT bad because they track me and it's unfair!" without thinking any more about it. It's exhausting.

Zorn — It seems possible to equip cars with geo-located odometers that would report mileage travelled in particular states or regions without preserving that data in a way that would compromise privacy. Like, when I drive to Michigan to see my parents, as I do just about every month, the tax-collecting system would log my miles driven on Michigan roadways but not exact times or locations. Michigan could then claim a certain portion of my VMT.

Been there, done that

Backpacking through Europe in college, my friend Pete and I received an invitation to stay at the home of my girlfriend’s cousin in southern Germany near Stuttgart. They were on vacation at the time and so left the key with a neighbor.

We were grateful for a nice, clean place to stay, and to show our gratitude we diligently washed the cast-iron skillets that we assumed they’d been in too much of a hurry on the way out the door to clean properly.

It was only in boasting about our thoughtfulness several months later that we learned we’d probably ruined several years of “seasoning” on the pans. As far as I know, the cousin and his wife never complained.

The best ‘SNL’ sketch from Saturday

Ashley Padilla is wonderful in this riff on the closing of JOANN, formerly Jo-Ann Fabrics.

Unpopular opinions?

Last Thursday’s issue featured an unusual number of f-bombs — eight, all but one of them in quotes — along with five s-bombs. And several readers wrote to express dismay.

Wendy C. —Overuse of the f-bomb lessens its impact. It also discredits those using vulgarity to make a point.

Marc Martinez — Foul language adds nothing to legitimate and substantive criticism.

Jake H. — You end up seeming not only hostile and juvenile but impotent as well. The word "sputtering" comes to mind.

Skeptic— Used well and sparingly, expletives can add punch. But they can be a distraction.

David Leitschuh — While an occasional expletive may well give percussive emphasis, the gratuitous repeated use of the f-bomb or other vulgarities suggests to me that the speaker is either very limited in his ability to express himself, his statements are devoid of merit, or both.

John Finerty — I am all for freedom of expression, but is it really necessary to use street language” to make a point?

Others, however, were down with it:

Garry Spelled Correctly — Without "fuck" and its variations, I would lose the ability ever to speak again!

Fred — The word “fuck” is becoming more and more commonplace. Fuck, it’s my favorite word!

My increased fondness for “fuck” is part of what I think of as the “fuck feedback loop” in which more and more of our everyday entertainments feature f-bombs, which in turn makes the word seem more acceptable in everyday use, which in turn inspires writers to insert the word more and more often into their screenplays, the better to reflect real life.

Consider “Ted Lasso,” the generally sweet, warm-hearted comedy on Apple TV+ in which the f-word is given a muscular workout, particularly by the character Roy Kent.

Neil Steinberg of the Sun-Times wrestled with this issue in a recent blog post where he wondered if and how to quote in the newspaper an unknown Chicago firefighter complaining about the gay pride pylons on Halsted Street: "'Can you believe the city put these up for these fucking fags?'"

Left to my down devices, as a believer in poet Robert Lowell's dictum, "Yet why not say what happened?" I would print the whole quote verbatim and let the complainers complain … (But) children and the profoundly sensitive are preemptively given the final say in vetting acceptability for supposed adults. I hate that. …

I tried out "f—-ing f-gs" but that reads to me as cursing out dried fruit. See, that's why I avoid euphemism. Very quickly readers have no idea what you're talking about. Then I considered "Can you believe the city put these up?" without the final clause at all. But that softens the insult …

I decided to offload responsibility and let whoever draws the short straw Sunday morning and has to edit my column be the one to figure it out. (My editors opted for the nearly-indecipherable: "f—— f—-s.")

The problem with all those dashes as well as swapping in minced oaths (“frickin’, for instance) is that they simply make readers think the words for themselves. And they tend to weaken stark, powerful quotes with what feels like unnecessary daintiness, which is why most online publications and magazines aimed at adults now use the real words (with the exception of certain racial slurs) with impunity.

This really isn’t a yes-no opinion, so I thought I’d phrase it this way:

What is your feeling about the increasing use of “fuck” in print and on streaming TV?

1. It doesn’t bother me in the least. It’s how real people really talk and the word adds a satisfying punch to what’s said.

2. I’m uneasy with it. Occasionally, when no other word will do to express a thought with sufficient power, OK, but its use as mere verbal punctuation has gone too far.

3. I don’t like it. Swearing is vulgar and shows a lack of imagination and thought. The word should be marginalized and considered unacceptable in all but private company. We should write or speak around it when possible.

The embeddable poll template in Substack allows for short answers only, so refer to the above when responding:

508 votes

Last week’s result

I asked last week whether low-enrollment public schools should be closed or consolidated, and this result surprised me, as I thought there would be greater support for the seemingly common view that schools are community hubs that should stay open no matter what:

332 votes

Among the eight percenters:

Mark K. — The savings and benefits are too little to justify the inconvenience of changing locations for students and the increase in class sizes. I also think it's short-sighted if the population dip is temporary.

Little Bear — A school being open gives a community a sense of place and purpose that is incredibly hard to put a price on. I don’t know how to quantify it but I bet we’d have a safer, more community oriented city if we had more, not fewer, school buildings.

This occasional Tuesday feature is intended to highlight opinions that are defensible but may well be unpopular. If you have one to add, leave it in comments or send me an email, but be sure to offer at least a paragraph in defense of your view.

NewsWheel

Inspired by the WordWheel puzzle in the Monday-Friday Chicago Tribune and other papers, this puzzle asks you to identify the missing letter that will make a word or words — possibly proper noun; reading either clockwise or counterclockwise — related to a story in the news. The answer is at the bottom of the newsletter

Road to the Final Four

Thursday’s Picayune Sentinel will feature the Final Four visual jokes and written quips in our annual bracket tournament (which will not be a “bracket” as such at the end, but a contest among four finalists.)

You can still weigh in!

• For the quarterfinals of the written quips tournament, vote here.

• For the elimination rounds of the visual jokes tournament, vote here.

Interestingly, one of the written quips still in the running appeared in Monday’s “Zits” comic strip:

Thanks to paid subscribers for supporting the Picayune Sentinel. To help this publication grow, please consider spreading the word to friends, family, associates, neighbors and agreeable strangers.

Info

Eric Zorn is a former opinion columnist for the Chicago Tribune. Find a longer bio and contact information here. This issue exceeds in size the maximum length for a standard email. To read the entire issue in your browser, click on the headline link above. Paid subscribers receive each Picayune Plus in their email inbox each Tuesday, are part of our civil and productive commenting community and enjoy the sublime satisfaction of supporting this enterprise.

Contact

You can email me at ericzorn@gmail.com or by clicking here:

I read all the messages that come in, but I do most of my interacting with readers in the comments section beneath each issue.

Some of those letters I reprint and respond to in the Z-mail section of Tuesday’s Picayune Plus, which is delivered to paid subscribers and available to all readers later Tuesday. Check there for responses.

If you don’t want me to use the full name on your email or your comments, let me know how you’d like to be identified.

Help?

If you’re having troubles with Substack — delivery, billing and so forth — first try “Picayune Sentinel Substack help, Frequently Asked Questions.” If that doesn’t work check out the Substack help page. And if that doesn’t work, shoot me an email and I’ll be happy to help.

Answer to the NewsWheel puzzle

PAM BONDI