This issue is so good you will not even [blank] it
& the life and times of a school portrait photographer in the modern age
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.
I love the Masters, but loathe the insufferable prigs who run the place
The Masters tournament — the first of professional golf’s four annual major events — is a compelling event nearly every year, with high drama on the very interesting, very challenging course at Augusta National Golf Club. This year’s Masters, which concluded Sunday with a victory by Rory McIlroy when he birdied the first playoff hole against Justin Rose, was one of the most exciting in its 91-year history.
But. The pretentious old scolds who run Augusta National have some weird, strict rules for the TV announcers, a list of forbidden terms summarized here:
Fans — Since the word fan comes from “fanatical,” Augusta prefers the use of “patrons”
Rough — There’s no “rough” at Augusta … they want broadcasters to call it the “second cut.”
Sand Trap —Augusta has 44 bunkers, and that’s what they’ll be called. …
Back Nine — Since “back nine” sounds too much like “backside,” they require it to be called the “second nine”
Driving Range — This is to be called the “Tournament Practice Area”
Country Club/Golf Course – It is only to be referred to as “Augusta National Golf Club”…period
Twosome – …will be a “pairing”…not a “twosome.”
Fourth Round – Round four of the Masters is to be called the “final round”
I listened carefully to the telecast over the weekend, and the obsequious CBS announcers followed these dictates to the letter, perhaps mindful that their colleague Gary McCord was banned permanently from the telecast for once saying on the air, “They don’t cut the greens here at Augusta, they use bikini wax” and network sports announcer Jack Whitaker was banned for an offhand reference to the gallery as a “mob.”
Notes and comments from readers — lightly edited — along with my responses
Sing out for freedom and other thoughts on the Hands Off rally and march
Rick Lightburn — You wrote that you wished there had been more singing at Hands Off along the lines of Woody Guthrie’s “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.” But for the sake of optics, I wanted singing at that rally to be patriotic, along the lines of “America the Beautiful.” I don't want to concede any pro-American sentiment to the MAGA-crowd. I'd like to reinforce always the notion that protesting is an intensely patriotic activity, so I wouldn't encourage any singing or chanting of anything with even the slightest lefty tang, not matter how much my own sympathies might endorse it. Sure, the MAGA crowd is shallow in their patriotism, but they only understand shallow, so let's give 'em shallow.
Zorn — I hear you, but it's hard for me these days to separate patriotism from love of the current administration. That said, I did appreciate the sight of people carrying American flags at the rally. The left really needs to reclaim Old Glory from those who are trampling on what it stands for.
Shelley Riskin — I also marched at Daley Center with thousands of energized and furious people of all ages. Seeing the millions of people in these in-person U.S. and worldwide rallies was incredibly motivating. We sent a message to our allies that the people are rising up against the cruel fascists who are destroying our country; that those fascists do not act or speak for us. We connected with other like-minded individuals, and with groups we didn't know about. Hopefully we educated some low-knowledge sit-on-their-hands voters. And these rallies, the beginning of many, are just one tool. We need to go forward with 3 overall actions: Courts, Crowds, and Courage. Let's do it! Let's keep it up!
Nancy Meyer — As far as I know, all major protests including Hands Off have had a lefty flavor: Civil rights protests, union marches, the 2017 Women's March, etc. Have Republicans ever been moved "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" as we did on Saturday? Or do they never read further than the Second Amendment?
Zorn – Well, the March for Life rallies tend to draw big and enthusiastic crowds of protesters. And I’m sure folks on the right would remind us that their protests almost never turn violent (avert your eyes from the J6 riots).
Voter ID?
Mark K. — You wrote that Democrats shouldn’t panic over Wisconsin’s overwhelming approval of voter ID laws and cited “Voter ID Laws Don't Work (But They Don't Hurt Anything, Either)” from the Harvard Business School. But there is evidence that is suppresses votes. See this report from the Brennan Justice Center that found that such “laws will disproportionately harm voters of color.”
John Houck — I can’t very well argue for common-sense gun control legislation without allowing that ID laws to vote have some merit. When I voted the other day, I automatically handed over my driver’s license even though Illinois does not require IDs to vote. It’s certainly the quickest way to identify myself, but I can see how it might be a hardship for others.
At a minimum any state voter ID requirement should also provide a free state ID card for that purpose. Otherwise such laws would become a de facto poll tax. In Georgia when they passed their voter ID law, they also created a state ID that is free but officially only valid for the purpose of voting. That still didn't address the hardships people face to take off work and find transportation to go get the ID, but at least it helped address some of the complaints . But isn’t it telling that the people pushing voter ID laws also tend to vehemently oppose any attempt by the government to track gun sales and ownership.
Beth Bales — For decades I’ve been a strong proponent of photo IDs to register to vote (and also, to vote at all). You need a photo ID for all kinds of things and the time is long past when acquiring one would be a hardship. And if it is a big enough hardship, I'm sure there will be people who will help people get the necessary paperwork, much as volunteers have driven people directly from church to voter registration sites and to the polls.
Is anything gained by online political spats?
Michael M. —
Zorn — Basically true, but I have had my thinking altered, refined, shifted a bit in light of good, reasonable arguments that differ from my own.
‘There is no such thing as AI art’
Marc Martinez – In responding to Mary L.’s critique of your use of AI to illustrate an item, you wrote that AI blends images into a new whole “in the same way that an artist in a studio who looks at dozens of such images would blend them.” I disagree. AI illustrations are just pictures. There is no such thing as AI art. Art is the creative product of a human being. Even AI assisted illustrations that have been edited or enhanced by a person seem more like paint-by-numbers to me. Or the output of those oil painting factories. It has to be remembered that the starting point of all AI generated content is copies of work available on the internet with cut-and-paste to slap it together.
Zorn — I guess that depends on whether there must be more to “art” than the impression that it leaves on the viewer/reader/listener. If and when AI gets so good that you can’t tell that its output was wrought by a computer program, then you really have to wrestle with the question “what is art?” in a serious way. And it’s a question that has no easy answers. The minds of human artists are also the results of all the images they have ever beheld, though for them that number is tens of thousands of times fewer than the number of images that an AI program has incorporated into its generative program.
Don’t call Trump ‘Stupid Don.’ Call him …
Nick Spoor — The subject line of Thursday’s Picayune Sentinel — “'Stupid Don' smartly retreats in the tariff wars” — sparked a memory of “The Match Game.” One running joke was host Gene Rayburn asking the panel to fill in the blank about how dumb some man or woman was and referring to them as either “Dumb Donald” or “Dumb Dora.” Rayburn would begin the prompt by saying, “Dumb Donald was so dumb...” And then the audience would yell, "How dumb was he?" See the YouTube clip from 1976 below. It now feels like we are finding out just how dumb Dumb Donald is every day. So that’s a better nickname for that fool.
Zorn — I like it! I even got a little hooked watching the above episode and noted the use of suicide humor here as well as the sexist and cruel reference to “Ugly Edna.” Wikipedia has a lengthy entry on “The Match Game” describing its many iterations and revivals.
Where are the “Match Game” stars now? Host Gene Rayburn died in 1999 at age 81. Panelists Ron Palillo (who played Arnold Horshack in “Welcome Back, Kotter”) died in 2012 at 63, Bret Somers died in 2007 at 83, Charles Nelson Reilley died in 2007 at 76, Richard Dawson died in 2012 at 79. Still alive: Jo Anne Worley, 87, and Fannie Flagg, 80.
Whenever Trump defaults to “Sleepy Joe” or “Stupid Joe,” I, for one, try to fire back with “Dumb Donald.”
Reader Nancy Meyer sent in a link to Ralph Nader’s proposed 42 derogatory nicknames for Trump.
So smart people use vulgar language. So what?
Steven K — You wrote last week that some of the smartest, most eloquent people you know are also the most foul-mouthed and linked to several studies showing that support that observation. But who knows? There may well be studies showing that people who throw trash out of their car windows, pick their noses in public, spit on public sidewalks and blow cigarette smoke in non-smokers’ faces have higher than average IQs. It has certainly been my experience that the same people that perform all of the above behaviors are invariably the same sorts of dapper sophisticates who loudly and boorishly (not to mention repetitively) use vulgarity as their prime mode of communication, regardless of where they are or whom they are around. So what? That’s a poor excuse for arguing that abandonment of basic virtues like courtesy, civility, taste, decorum and consideration of others is some sort of progress that should be embraced.
Attributions for op-eds
Deni — You complained last week that that the shirttail descriptions on guest opinion essays ought to appear at the beginning of the essays — particularly online — so the reader can know right away without scrolling down to see the affiliations or credentials of the person writing. I note that The New York Times puts explanatory attributions at the top of opinion articles, both in the physical paper and online:
Zorn — It seems to me like a very reader-friendly thing to do, but maybe I’m missing a philosophical or journalistic justification for putting the attribution at the end. I asked Tribune Editorial Page Editor Chris Jones for his thoughts on the above and here is his response in full: “Nothing to add there, Eric but thanks for asking.”
Is my sense of humor too dark?
Lynn Duffy — There is nothing funny about watching people get injured falling into a grave.
Well, as I wrote last week, you are a nicer, more sophisticated person than I am if you don’t laugh watching “Casket Catastrophe,” a TV news story out of Philadelphia that recalled the “Coffin Flop” segment on the Netflix series “I Think You Should Leave.” The pallbearers in Philly were not seriously hurt according to other news stories, which I thought was important. And I don’t know if I’m in the minority here. So … readers?
‘Actress’ passes muster
Steven K. — I see that I am in the solid majority of PS readers who don’t want to retire the word “actress”:
There are of course, lots of other feminized terms that haven’t fallen out of favor and probably never will: princess, duchess, hostess, directress, empress, murderess, benefactress, to name just a few. The question that I have for all of the people that want to use “actor” for all who act is, why not all feminine specific nouns? Besides the ones mentioned above, should we also erase “woman,” “lady,” “madam,” “dowager” and “girl,” and just refer to everyone as “men”? I guess that would be consistent with referring to all humans as “mankind”.
Zorn — I admit to being on the losing side of this word court jury verdict, but directress, benefactress and dowager are, like spinster, disagreeably gendered terms. And I see a distinction between words that helpfully identify the gender of a person or group of people and those that gratuitously do so. Would you call a female judge a “judgess,” a female doctor a “doctorix"? Did you ever refer to Lori Lightfoot as a “mayoress”? Of course not. And “humankind” is preferred to “mankind” these days.
Tribune subscriber advice
Merle Monroe — I spoke with a Tribune customer service rep today. At some point in the past, my subscription was changed from 26 weeks to 8 weeks so my "special reduced rate" was only valid for 8 weeks. Earlier this month the rep. told me I’d have to call back every eight weeks to have the lower rate continue, but today the rep. updated my subscription rate to 26 weeks, so I guess I’ll be calling the Trib every 6 months going forward.
Zorn — Always a good idea, especially if you’re a Sunday print subscriber. Last Sunday you got another “premium issue” for which you’ll be docked $14 unless you call 312-546-7900 at least once every six months to opt out of paying. If you love puzzles, maybe this was worth it to you:
Tariff talk — a bonus Z-mail section
I thought I’d put the conversation about tariffs in its own section this week. Here are just a few of the letters from regular commenters, beginning with a regular dissenter:
David Leitschuh
Like you, Eric, I do not profess to be an expert in international economics. However, my view on the Trump tariffs is diametrically opposite yours as I believe it is a brilliant negotiating strategy.
As a conservative, I philosophically oppose tariffs or any other barriers in commerce and am a strong advocate for free trade. But unfortunately, most of the rest of the world has unilaterally embarked upon trade warfare with the US in the form of significant tariffs, barriers and regulations to our products and services in their respective countries. As a consequence, we have been experiencing an international trade deficit within shouting distance of $1 trillion annually. About $300 million of that is from China alone. Economists universally decry this huge trade imbalance, but prior to this our government has done nothing to address it other than the initial Trump tariffs on China in his first term which were largely maintained in place by the Biden administration.
The U.S. is by far the largest consumer market in the world, and Trump is now leveraging this massive purchasing power in the form of tariffs on foreign goods and services as a means of creating a huge bargaining chip to get other countries to come to the table to negotiate more fair trade. And his policy of reciprocal tariffs is garnering instantaneous results with literally scores of companies now reaching out to the U.S. with a request to negotiate a fair trade agreement.
The initial tariff announcement caused a very anticipated major disruption in our market as our market hates above all uncertainty, and it did in fact create a great deal of uncertainty. But the market now sees how this is working in our favor, and of course reacted very favorably to the pause on tariffs with countries who have reached out for negotiation.
Unsurprisingly, China is the outlier in this, as they have greatly enjoyed the benefit of this unfair trade with the U.S. until now, and they are attempting to make a stand. Their problem is that it simply cannot work for them. Because of the huge trade imbalance, the Chinese economy is immensely dependent upon the US consumer market. China's economy was already on shaky footings, and it simply cannot survive a trade war with the U.S. as they are massively outgunned with regard to the economic consequences.
When the Trump team embarked upon this huge change of course to address our massive trade imbalance and seek more fair trade, they were very aware that it would cause temporary disruption to the U.S. But the objective will result in great benefit to the US in terms of sales of products and services to other countries resulting in large investment in the U.S. and many new jobs. So I support this bold policy and believe it will stand as a turning point in our international trade and great benefit to the U.S. long into the future regarding both capital investment and jobs as we get closer to a level playing field
Joanie Wimmer
It appears that the considered judgment of those who know better is that these tariffs will make us poorer. It’s nice that you are a true believer, David, but I tend to put greater credence in the people who put their money on the line. The markets just don't seem to see Trump's genius in the same way you do.
And I don’t see China going hat in hand to Trump. Chinese President Xi sees Trump quite clearly as a fragile bully. China is a country and a people who survived the Cultural Revolution. You think they are going to blink before the privileged folks in the United States?
Trump apparently believes that if we have a trade deficit with another country, that means that the other country is “ripping us off.” This belief has no basis in reality.
We import lots of vanilla, and nickel and other minerals from Madagascar, i.e., we give them dollars in exchange for vanilla, nickel, and other minerals. Madagascar is a poor country which doesn’t spend a lot of its money on products or services made in the United States.
According to Trump, this means that Madagascar is “ripping us off.” So Trump scheduled a 47% tariff on products imported from Madagascar. This will make companies and people in the United States pay more for vanilla and nickel and other minerals from Madagascar. And this will help us how? This will make us rich how?
Jake H.
The assumption that Trump’s end game is fairer free trade around the world is faulty. His moves are those of an old-fashioned protectionist, like his crackpot trade policy advisor Peter Navarro, and they are bizarre and illiterate even for an old-fashioned protectionist (calling the bilateral trade deficit with a given country a "tariff," for example, and then imposing ludicrous tariffs on scads of poor countries).
I don't believe that Trump has an endgame. I don't believe that he is pursuing a strategy. You say he's bringing countries to the table. To do what? Lower their tariffs? So, a country like Vietnam might say, okay, zero tariffs on us, zero on you, we good? Very reciprocal, a beautiful word. Does that reduce our trade deficit with Vietnam? Does he think Vietnam is ripping off our apparel manufacturing industry? What apparel manufacturing industry? Why do we want an apparel manufacturing industry? Right now, we have low unemployment, profitable apparel companies that keep our white collar employees busy, profitable retail companies that sell those products in massive volumes and therefore employ lots of working-class people, high valuations for such American companies that comprise parts of so many Americans' long-term savings, and cheap clothes. It's a win-win-win-win-win. It's called a booming economy, the spectacular fruits of trade. So what deals does he want? I don't think he understands the benefits of free trade even in theory nor the costs of trade barriers even in theory. I think he's just a fucking moron. Let that reality be our north star. I don't think we'll go far wrong.
I'm happy to sign on to Zorn's caveat that what I don't know about trade and economics could fill volumes. I know a little -- I get the basic pro-free-trade arguments, for example, I'm basically convinced of them, as you say you are, and I also get many of the basic arguments for selective departures from that orthodoxy -- but it's not my area. I look to experts. I look in vain to find pro-Liberation-Day experts who are not the fifth dentist. Trump's "team," in which you place such confidence, appears to me to consist of a cadre of 10th dentists smacking away on their gum, or, worse even maybe, a group that includes smart dentists with no compunction about pretending to be stupid to pay tribute to the cranky-uncle-esque longstanding obsessions of their dear leader, the guy who very much did *not* write The Art of the Deal nor, I'm willing to bet loads, do well in any class or on any test of relevant knowledge or reasoning of any kind where he did not cheat. Presidents don't necessarily have to be smart in that way, but they do need to appreciate their limits, something a megalomaniac like Trump, like so many ruinous "strong men" in history or now -- who, after all, aren't selected for their wisdom but rather for their embodiment of popular prejudice and resentment -- never could.
Much of your comment is devoted to China and, if China had been his focus from the start, that would make some sense, though I doubt his blunderbuss approach will see results. I've long thought to myself that pursuing free trade with democratic friends in a bid to at least somewhat isolate China and punish it for its unfair practices and authoritarian regression could be a good way to go. Obama, who I'm sure has little credibility with you, tried to do something like that with the TPP, only to face resistance on all sides. Trump wants to annex Greenland and Canada. Someone should have told him that we already had them. What if you could tell Trump that, look, the United States, in terms of economic and military and soft power and everything else, is not just the United States but the United States and Canada and non-Russia Europe (including Denmark!) and non-China East Asia too. Time for a map and a magic marker! Maybe he'd be less eager to blow up the ties that bind.
Since WWII, this country has built an America-led world order based on democracy, trade, and non-aggression, one that has benefitted countless societies around the world, very much not least our own. We already won. And then comes Trump II, Trump unleashed. Politically, we are switching sides, embracing dictators from the chickenshit to the Hitlerian over the cause of freedom. Economically, we are dreaming of autarky, a species of central planning doomed to fail and impoverish everyone.
Anyway, we'll see. I'll keep my eye out for the great deals coming 'round the bend.
Marc Martinez
Trump has been vague and incoherent regarding the objectives of his actions and his economic actions are not properly aligned with his geopolitical goals (if we guess properly at those).
I agree with EZ that the best way to achieve changes in global trade is traditional negotiation. But that takes a very long time and there is little reason for our global trading partners to revisit arrangements that currently work very well for them. The only rationale for the Trump approach is that shock and universality are the only way to force/accelerate action. I am skeptical that it will work and hope that it at least produces net positive results. I think the U.S. would continue to be a net importer in a fair-trade regime but that we would be better off.
The U.S. industrial base is incapable of supporting a major war or of scaling up in the event of a major war. This is particularly true in electronics and many metals which are sourced from Asia. This is a critical national security issue which has been well known since the early 2000's when it came out that all display panels for US equipment came from Asia.
As has been well known to anti-globalization activists, environmentalist, trade unions, human rights activists, socialists and others, the free trade regime resulted in the exploitation of poor people in developing countries, export of pollution, and gutting of the middle-class to the benefit of wealthy capitalists. It was once obvious to Democrats that free trade was an issue for use clubbing Republicans. Fair trade was on a level playing field which might be higher cost but benefited labor and society everywhere. It should be no surprise that this works as a populist message. It is also a problem for Democrats that have claimed they cared and that they opposed the greedy capitalists while doing nothing to address the outsourcing and deindustrialization. It is farcical that they now claim that it is obvious to all that free trade is essential to the economy.
The life and times of a portrait photographer in the age of camera phones and AI
Last Thursday’s Picayune Sentinel featured an item about a viral TikTok video created by Chicago photographer Chad Leverenz — now with more than 37 million views! Earlier this year I interviewed Leverenz on WCPT-AM about the school photography business. Here is an edited and expanded version of that interview:
Eric Zorn: Chad Leverenz is an independent photographer. He shoots events and family portraits, working in the studio and on site. The aspect of his work that particularly intrigues me, though, is that he does school pictures, those annual images — usually taken in the gym or the auditorium — that parents can buy. You know, 8X10, 5X7, wallet size.
I'm intrigued by this because school portraits seem like the kind of thing that technology would have eclipsed. After all, last November, the Pew Research Center reported that 97% of adults in the age bracket where you find most parents — 30 to 49 — own smartphones, meaning that they're carrying high quality cameras with them nearly all the time. And wallet size? Who carries photos in their wallet anymore? You just pass your phone around if you want to show pictures of your family.
But there remains something enduring about the tradition of school photos; of these images of children captured exactly one year apart, year after year, in roughly the same pose. My kids are grown. We have literally thousands of photos of them. But we bought and kept and still cherish these yearly school photos showing them emerging steadily from the cocoon of youth.
So what's that business like in 2025? How do you get hired? How do you compete against big photo? What's a day in the life of a school portrait photographer like?
Here with at least some of the answers is Chad Leverenz of Chad Leverenz photography in Chicago. Let me start this conversation by noting that the Guardian took an online poll a while back and, out of about 400 respondents, 69% said they always buy school pictures, and 26% said sometimes. So, Chad, is that similar to what you find in your work?
Chad Leverenz : Increasingly, yes. That percentage has been growing over the years, and I get a great response, although your intro has me worried about my entire business model.
EZ: I can imagine. When I was in school in the ‘60s and ‘70s, very few parents had decent cameras and those who did have decent cameras didn't take many pictures because printing was costly and usually resulted in a raft of mediocre snapshots along with one or two keepers. Think of all the pictures you’ve deleted quickly on your phone because someone’s eyes were closed or they were making a weird face. School pictures were the only ones where the kids were well lit, had their eyes open and were perhaps even smiling. There were necessary keepsakes. But now things are different.
CL: Yes, Because of the ubiquity of these little supercomputers in our pockets, most people now have zillions of photos of their kids. And the school-picture space has been almost completely taken over by huge companies that provide what are usually charmingly awful portraits. Where I've found an opening is in creating rapport with the students and documenting the process of getting to a smile -- most of the time, not always. But always trying for a beautiful studio quality picture that isn't too staged and doesn't feel phony. Then I'm able to deliver lots of options to parents -- like, up to eight pictures to choose from. Authentically imperfect and well-lit portraits of the actual child parents know and love – sell.
There can be tension between the desire of school administrators for speed, reliability, access to all of the photos, and the ability of their photographer to work with yearbook companies and the parents, who just want beautiful pictures of their kids. The large companies do an excellent job courting administrators. Now I don’t mean to imply that efficiency and effective bureaucracy aren’t important. They most certainly are. But over time I’ve learned to balance efficiency and the need to foster a free wheeling and fun environment for the students. I lead with a human face and edit like a machine.
EZ: What does a day look like when you're going to a school? What do you bring with you? How many assistants do you have?
The interview continues and is posted in full here.
Unpopular opinions?
If you don’t want to dispense legal medications, don’t become a pharmacist!
This week’s potentially unpopular opinion comes from Michael M.
If you have issues with dispensing prescriptions for emergency contraception (Plan B) or birth control pills, then you should not go to pharmacy school. And if you’re already a pharmacist and feel this way, you should get a new job. It's not like these drugs were invented while you were in pharmacy school or, probably, after you graduated. You had to know it was part of the job. But you decided to go through with it anyway because you want to impose your belief system on others.
Last week’s result
My unpopular opinion last week, “No more all-star games,” drew a massively indifferent response. I usually don’t offer a “none of the above” or “I don’t care” option, but here is seemed (and was!) appropriate. At the same time, those who did care enough to have an opinion voted five to one in favor of dumping all-star games in favor of skills contests.
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 or other current event The answer is at the bottom of the newsletter
Solution below
The week’s best visual jokes
Here are some funny visual images I've come across recently on social media. Enjoy, then evaluate:
There’s still time to vote in the conventional Quip of the Week poll!
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.
Social media
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ejzorn
Twitter: https://x.com/EricZorn
Threads: https://www.threads.net/@ejzorn
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ejzorn/
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
PASSOVER
I absolutely agree with Rick Lightburn’s sentiment. It pisses me off that the right thinks they own patriotism. I proudly wore my Vietnam Veteran hat to the Hands Off rally in Bartlett last week to purposely demonstrate my patriotism.
I am also a member of several military FaceBook groups. It never ceases to amaze me that some veterans automatically assume no veterans would be a democRat. They are shocked when some of us challenge their right wing partisan assertions.
my husband is a Viet nam vet helicopter pilot and left the military as a Captain-he's as left as they come. And very patriotic. Don' let the extreme right own patriotism.