By Jessie Seigel / Washington, D.C. We’re barely six months past the 2020 election, and Republican presidential competitors are already furiously jockeying for the best position from which to replace Donald Trump on the 2024 ticket. That assumes, of course, that the former President (if he’s not in jail) doesn’t decide to run again. Like relatives catering to a rich uncle in order to avoid getting disinherited, they maneuver to stay in Trump’s ever-changeable good graces. Thus, all the visits to Mar-a-Lago to kiss Trump’s hand—or some other part of his anatomy--while he keeps them guessing as to his intentions. Simultaneously these would-be successors are all plotting their own possible runs for the office. So these hopefuls pretend that their fund-raising and travel is meant to support down-ballot candidates, while they coyly deflect any questions about their own presidential plans. In reality, they are auditioning for the favor of Trump’s rabble. At this ridiculously early stage, the most prominent of these potential 2024 Republican presidential candidates include this moment’s front-runner Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis; as well as former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; former South Carolina Governor and U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley; former Vice President Mike Pence; Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley. In terms of raising money, Cruz and Hawley, who vociferously advocated overturn of the 2020 election, led in first-quarter contributions. In April, Politico wrote, “Cruz brought in $3.6 million to his Senate reelection committee, which reported $5.6 million in cash on hand, and $1.7 million raised for his leadership PAC and joint fundraising committee. Hawley brought in $3 million in receipts, with $3.1 million on hand.” But the money they’ve raised has not, as yet, resulted in positioning Cruz or Hawley at the top of the heap, so far as support from Trump voters goes. In a much-publicized survey conducted by the Centennial Institute (Colorado Christian University’s think tank) at the June 18-19 Western Conservative Summit in Denver, Col, DeSantis received 74.1 percent approval from respondents, slightly above Trump’s 71.4 percent. Cruz received 44 percent; Pompeo received 39 percent; Pence only 22 percent; and Hawley 20 percent. Haley received only 19 percent approval for her possible candidacy. There is not much difference in where these rivals stand on the issues before our country, only in their manner of expressing where they stand. In fact, in the main, they are not discussing issues at all. Rather, how these contenders do in polls or surveys seems to depend on the degree to which they can match Trump in the outrageously inflammatory nature of their rhetoric. At June’s Faith & Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority Conference in Orlando, Fla., DeSantis self-righteously declared, “You got to be strong. You got to put on the full armor of God…You will face flaming arrows but take up the shield of faith and fight on.” He said he would “hold the line,” stand his ground and—probably meaning to channel the 18th century Naval hero John Paul Jones—DeSantis even proclaimed, “I have only begun to fight.” But Mike Pompeo, sequentially Trump’s CIA Director and Secretary of State, has far outdone DeSantis’ bluster. Pompeo has started a political action committee named the Champion American Values PAC, or CAVPAC. As reported by Salon on June 18, Pompeo said, “We named the organization CAVPAC as a nod to my time in the U.S. Army Cavalry—the CAV in the PAC. My cavalry service taught me that America needs warriors who lead and are willing to ride first into the fight without fear.” In inviting people to join his organization, Pompeo repeatedly has solicited for “pipehitters” to “answer the call and defend our values.” The CAVPAC website contains the statement: “Become a Pipehitter—someone who is unapologetically American, someone who fights for our future, someone who never gives an inch, someone who is dedicated to stand against the radical Left’s agenda.” According to Salon, in military slang, a ‘pipehitter” is a member of a special operations unit—elite forces like Navy SEALS, Delta Force, the Rangers, or Green Berets. The word can also be used to describe a mafia enforcer. Given the use of pipe-like weapons like flag poles at the January 6 insurrection, one can only see the language of Pompeo’s PAC solicitations as deliberately geared to stir violent tendencies. As for Pence, it was his political misfortune to be vice president when Joe Biden won the 2020 election, thus presenting Pence the purely ceremonial duty to oversee the confirmation of Electoral College votes by the Congress. In his rally inciting the January 6 insurrection, Trump demanded Pence overturn the election by blocking the confirmation of Electoral College votes—something Pence had no legal power to do. But Trump had demanded it, so when Pence failed to do so, those attacking the Capitol hunted the then-vice president, some yelling, “Hang Mike Pence!” And they were serious. A gallows had been erected outside the building for the job. Pence’s rhetoric is not as militaristic as that of Pompeo and DeSantis. But after his near-death experience, Pence has been trying to make the right noises to get himself back into the fold. In March, Pence published an op-ed in the Daily Signal (the multimedia news organization of the Heritage Foundation), suggesting that the 2020 election had been “marked by significant voting irregularities and numerous instances of officials setting aside state election law.” Pence’s op-ed stated he shared concerns about the integrity of the election. But playing both sides did not keep Pence from being booed and called “traitor” during his speech at the Faith and Freedom Conference this month. Nikki Haley presents a moderate demeanor (however moderate might be defined these days) compared with most of the other would-be successors to Trump. But lest we forget, Haley was a Tea Party-backed candidate when she ran for governor of South Carolina. In 2018, while working as Trump’s UN Ambassador, Haley was tagged by the Daily Beast as “an accomplished opportunist.” Since Trump left office, Haley has changed her position on Trump in ways that have nothing to do with integrity. First, she strongly criticized the President over the January 6 attack and his treatment of Pence. But when by February, Trump’s power within the party had not diminished, Haley tried to meet with him at Mar-a-Lago. Trump wasn’t having it. It appears she continued to try to mollify him. In April, Haley said, “I would not run if President Trump ran, and I would talk to him about it.” Even apart from having provoked Trump’s ire, one would think that being female and of Sikh parentage makes Haley a longshot for nomination on a Republican ticket. Already, Bill Bledsoe, a former Constitution Party candidate—who clearly has no understanding of the Constitution—has ignorantly argued that Haley can’t become President because her parents were not citizens when she was born, even though Haley was born in Bamberg, South Carolina. It is conceivable, however, that if Biden decides not to run for a second term and Kamala Harris becomes the Democratic nominee, the GOP might make a calculation that there is some advantage to running a “minority” woman against Harris. Although all of these would-be candidates have one eye on the presidential nomination, they continue to have the other on Trump. And what will Trump do? Right now, he is playing kingmaker—or Godfather—with all and sundry coming to him for his approval. But nobody keeps Trump’s good will for long. It’s always a tease. Which of these possible candidates gets the Republican nomination only matters as far as which of them is most likely to win or lose in a general election. As to the really important matters—their willingness to betray democratic values, their lack of integrity, and how these things would affect their governance of the nation if they win—there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between them. Political columnist Jessie Seigel had a long career as a government attorney in which she honed her analytic skills. She has also twice received an Artist’s Fellowship from the Washington, D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities for her fiction, and has been a finalist for a number of literary awards. In addition, Seigel is an associate editor at the Potomac Review, a reviewer for The Washington Independent Review of Books, and a dabbler in political cartoons at Daily Kos. Of this balance in her work between the analytic and the imaginative, Seigel jokes, “I guess my right and left brains are well-balanced.” More on and from Seigel can be found at The Adventurous Writer, https://www.jessieseigel.com.

By Andy Borowitz June 28, 2021 WELLINGTON, OHIO (The Borowitz Report)—Holding his first campaign-style rally in months, an out-of-practice Donald J. Trump forgot to strand the event’s attendees in a parking lot Saturday night. Blaming the failure to strand the rally crowd on “rustiness,” a member of Trump’s inner circle apologized for not delivering a signature feature of Trump rallies. “People have come to expect that, at the conclusion of one of our rallies, they will be marooned in the middle of nowhere for hours, often in inclement weather,” Harland Dorrinson, a Trump aide, said. “On Saturday night, we didn’t get it done.” Dorrinson said that the entire Trump team would be conducting a postmortem of the rally to find out why attendees were able to leave the event without incident. “Saturday night was our first rally in a long time, and we weren’t in fighting shape,” Dorrinson said. “But that’s no excuse. I want to promise all future attendees: if you come to a Trump rally, you will be stranded for hours afterward with no buses anywhere in sight—period.” Andy Borowitz is a Times best-selling author and a comedian who has written for The New Yorker since 1998. He writes The Borowitz Report, a satirical column on the news.

FRED PLOTKIN is one of America’s foremost experts on opera and has distinguished himself in many fields as a writer, speaker, consultant and as a compelling teacher. He is an expert on everything Italian, the person other so-called Italy experts turn to for definitive information.  Fred discovered the concept of "The Renaissance Man" as a small child and has devoted himself to pursuing that ideal as the central role of his life. In a “Public Lives” profile in The New York Times on August 30, 2002, Plotkin was described as "one of those New York word-of-mouth legends, known by the cognoscenti for his renaissance mastery of two seemingly separate disciplines: music and the food of Italy." In the same publication, on May 11, 2006, it was written that "Fred is a New Yorker, but has the soul of an Italian."

By Naomi Serviss In 1969, my tenth grade drama teacher, Mr. Sarkisian, brought the class into Manhattan for a Broadway show. Hair. Cheltenham High School was in a swanky Philadelphia suburb. Swimming pool, planetarium, television studio, art room and dental office were a few assets. Field trips? A dime a dozen. Broadway was a mere chartered bus away. I sat next to Fern on the way back. We gabbed nonstop. Seemed we had a lot in common. Anti-war, anti-establishment, pro-civil rights and slightly in love with Mr. Sarkisian. Fern thought Hair was the best Broadway show she’d seen. Same. Didn’t mention it was my first one. As a lonely kid raised in a toxic environment, my gregarious nature cloaked an introvert’s pain and shame. Rarely did I approach peers seeking friendship. I studied school cliques for self-identity cues. By tenth grade, my allegiance was pledged to hippies. Hair reinforced my predilection. The bus dropped us off at the high school entrance. My mother said she’d pick me up but might be running late. Fern’s mother was already waiting in the car. Summoned up my Age of Aquarius courage. I asked Fern if she’d like to hang out sometime. She had been amicable and fun. “Oh, I really don’t need any new friends right now. I have so many already. See you!” Rejection’s crueler when you’re young. April’s pandemic was as cruel as T.S. Eliot warned. No kids to hug. Schmoozing with gym friends after Sam’s 92nd Street Y class was history. Sharing sugarless fruit scones with Roberta and Barbara at the Third Avenue Bagel Shop was a fond memory. We became cavemen, hunting for Lysol and gathering Cottonelle. Hunkering down in our habitats, established friendships deepened over Zoom. Nancy celebrated her milestone anniversary on June 26. She enjoyed the marmalade and scones I sent. We talk on our cell phones nearly every day. She sends good chocolate, so I need to stay on her good side. Dee and I danced in front of a shuttered coal mine in Shenandoah, Pa. Nearly 50 years ago. We sang improvised lyrics as we kicked up dust. "They're Closing the Coal Mine Polka." Dee and her husband Tom helped save my life. Making new friends was not a priority. Not that I was looking. Forced isolation wasn’t a gut punch. Recuperating from foot surgery since last December, I was used to being landlocked. Negotiating my walking boot in the lobby was daunting. I graduated to pacing with a cane. My favorite doorman, José Perez, mans the fort from 6:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. We’re both early birds. We text greetings to one another in the morning. When the pandemic hit, I brought José boxes of Emergen-C vitamin powder. José was my touchstone long before quarantine hit. He delivers the New York Times to our door every day. He sends UPS packages up in the elevator. José’s the first person I schmooze before my 6:45 a.m. Central Park stroll. I text Central Park pup photos. He replies with heart emojis. Nona and I have been close friends since first grade. We’re still tight. Nona’s helming next year’s 50th reunion of Cheltenham’s Class of ‘71. She knows how to get things done. I’ve maintained friendships with Nona and Susie. That’s about it. Until a few months back. Nona chatted about Jane, a friend in common. She slyly suggested Jane and I reconnect. Nona sensed correctly my surgeries were bumming me out. I was lonely, isolated and morose. Her matchmaking paid off. Jane and I were buddies during Ogontz Junior High days. We passed notes during Mrs. Mason’s class. We fawned over The Monkees, a manufactured made-for-television boy band. Wrote fan letters to our favorites, sprawled on her bedroom floor. Mine were addressed to wacky Peter Tork. Sometimes Jane’s annoying terrier dog Randy would hover and complain. We agreed Davy Jones was the cute one and Micky Dolenz the clown. Michael Nesmith was the ersatz John Lennon of the band. Sarcastic, intellectual and a terrific musician and songwriter. Nona sent us each other’s email address. We re-clicked. Swapped memories and caught up with each other’s juicy pasts. A few weeks into our rekindling, Jane invited me to a Zoom meeting. Comprised of an eclectic batch of ‘71 grads I didn’t know. They’d been reuniting in person for years in the before-time. It would be my first nonfamily Zoom encounter. I balked because I only knew Jane and wasn’t into hitchhiking down high school memory lane. But my curiosity was piqued. I screwed up my first encounter with the mighty eight. Lighting was off, mute was on, and my husband wasn’t available to bail me out. But still, I persevered. I didn’t catch any eye-rolling. Everyone looked great! No, seriously! I passed the first audition and was invited to join. We Zoom with alacrity every other week. Sometimes we’ll bemoan Toronto’s ass-backward vaccine distribution or U.S. Supreme Court judgments. Once we spent an inordinate amount of time exalting the deliciousness of Cheltenham’s 35¢ brownies. Robert is a neighbor and beneficiary of my unneeded Single-serve coffee maker. He wanted to meet and thank me. I invited him to a crack-of-dawn walk. Robert is 80-plus. His beloved wife died three years ago. Then his cat five months ago. He’s as ruggedly handsome now as in his acting days. Robert has great Hollywood stories. He made a movie with Beau Bridges and hung out at the Bridges family home. He worked with Thelma Ritter and Jack Gilford. He played a doctor on a soap opera for years. Robert’s having a blast on our walks. He loves interacting with my puppy pals. Loki, a tiny terrier, cracks him up. Loki’s dad is another José. He always good for a ready smile and a kind word. Robert beams when he spots Jagger, an enormous, six-month old Bernese Mountain dog. Allan walks Zeno and always pauses to say hi. I worry about Marge, who hasn’t been vaccinated. Gia is a 13-year-old Maltese who is royal in her stroller. Miriam coaxed her into walking before having a sit. She’s feeling better now life’s getting back to normal-ish. I text her Gia’s photos. Robert and I are brunching on Sunday to celebrate his eighty-something birthday. Friends make life palatable in the unfathomable. A good brownie doesn’t hurt, either. L’chaim Fern! Naomi Serviss is a New York-based award-winning journalist whose work has been published in The New York Times, Newsday, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Highroads (AAA magazine), in-flight publications, spa and travel magazines and websites, including BroadwayWorld.com

By Bonnie Fishman As if we didn’t have enough to worry about these days, what about the skyrocketing price of food? Yikes! I have never seen it like this before. As a former restauranteur, I was trained to watch food prices, a skill that has come in handy my whole life, especially today. Watching them go through the roof is not what anyone wants to see. As you might have guessed, the pandemic is at the root of things. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics last August: “Demand shocks and problems with supply chains contributed to increased volatility in import, export, producer, and consumer prices in the months following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Meat, fish, dairy, and eggs were especially affected by the shifting economy brought on by the pandemic.” In April, the U.S. Department of Agriculture forecast that prices for food this year would rise 2 percent to 3 percent from 2020 (which were already up 3.4 percent from 2019). Prices in March 2021 in fact were up a stunning 3.5% from March 2020. It’s not only having grocery items that increased. Have you been to a dine-in or carryout restaurant lately? Geez, “fast food” used to be synonymous with “cheap food.” Not so anymore. Fast food prices have undergone the highest rate of inflation since 2008, and are steeper than they were a year ago. The cost of food and higher wages have compounded the problem. Unfortunately, these price increases seem to be here to stay. This a good reason to begin to or continue to cook at home. Here’s the rub: those of us who want to eat healthy foods, especially organics, find ourselves in a different stratosphere. Eating good food is actually more expensive than eating, well, junk. Produce and high quality proteins, the basics for any healthy eater, cost lots of money. There has got to be a solution somewhere. if you occasionally shift your balance to eating more breads, rice, noodles or beans, you can cut your budget. Enter the the humble, all-purpose casserole. Casseroles have been around for years in many countries, usually cooked in earthenware dishes. They are basically the whole meal baked in one dish, usually containing a protein, vegetables, a starch such as rice, beans, potatoes, or noodles, and often a binding sauce or cheese. They became really popular in the United Sates during the ‘50s when good quality glass dishes and lightweight metals came on the market. Besides being a dollar stretcher, casseroles have a lot of positives. For starters, you usually mess up only one pot. Once it’s in the oven, you’re done cooking and you can turn to other tasks or just relax before dinner! You can make them in larger quantities to eat for a couple of meals or even to freeze. Lastly, a casserole screams homey comfort food. Who doesn’t love that? Unfortunately, by the 1970s, the casserole had a low-rent image. I say it’s too bad because some of the most delicious food is a melding of pasta, cooked vegetables, and protein topped with gooey cheese. Lasagna, macaroni and cheese, tuna noodle casserole, shepherd’s pie, Mexican beans and rice. The beauty of this baked dish is that the creative possibilities are endless. Casseroles can be made ahead of time, and importantly, they can save on grocery money. Casseroles are also a portable meal to share with others. Years ago, when an older gentleman lost his wife, a string of single women would often parade through his front door, casseroles in hand, hoping to be the next companion for said widower. Maybe this tradition still exists! Besides shifting the proportion of types of food in your repertoire, by using less protein and increasing the less expensive “fillers,’ one can also shop with a little more thought. Watch the weekly grocery store circulars. Find the “loss leaders” (items that are being sold below cost to lure you into the store), and work with those. Enroll in every frequent buyer program in your local stores. I personally compare one store’s sales to another and even though it seems silly to go to two places, I do it to get what I want for less money. Lastly, buy seasonal products when they’re in season. Many vegetables, such as asparagus, cauliflower and eggplant, greatly fluctuate in price depending upon the growing season. Today, in celebration of the versatile casserole, I’m offering Mexican Rice and Beans, vegetarian style. I’m using soy chorizo sausage from Trader Joe’s. You can always substitute real chorizo if you’re a meat eater. Mexican Rice and Beans (Vegetarian) Yield: 8 servings 2 Tbs. olive oil 1 c. small diced onions 1/2 small diced zucchini 1 small jalapeño, seeds removed, minced 2 garlic cloves, minced 1 tsp. cumin 1 tsp. salt 1/2 tsp. oregano 1/2 tsp. coriander 1/4 tsp. crushed red pepper flakes (optional) 12 oz. soy chorizo (can substitute with real chorizo) 1 poblano pepper 1 1/4 c. basmati rice 2 c. water 1 small can diced tomatoes with juice 1 c. corn kernels 1 can kidney beans, drained 1/2 c. chopped cilantro 1-1/2 c. shredded sharp cheddar 4-5 plum tomatoes, sliced into thin rounds Extra shredded cheddar for garnish 1 Tbs. chopped cilantro for garnish In a 4 qt. Dutch oven, heat the olive oil over medium heat. Add the onions, zucchini, jalapeño, and garlic. Sauté until translucent, about 5 minutes. Blend in the spices. Crumble in the chorizo. Cook for 5 minutes. Add the rice and cook for 1 minute. Pour on the water and canned tomatoes with their juice. Stir pot. Bring to a boil. Turn down to a simmer, covered, and cook for about 15 minutes. Do not stir. While the rice is cooking, char the poblano over an open flame until blackened on all sides. Put in a plastic bag. Allow to sit for 10 minutes. Run under cold water, peeling off the skin as you go. Blot dry. Remove and discard the core and seeds. Cut pepper up into 1/4” dice. Reserve. When the rice is done, blend in the diced pepper, corn, beans, cilantro, and cheese. Adjust the seasoning. Spray a 3-quart casserole with pan release. Pour the rice mixture into the pan and smooth the top. Arrange the sliced tomatoes overlapping in columns. Sprinkle with cheddar cheese. Bake, uncovered, in a 350° oven for 30 minutes. Sprinkle with cilantro. Note: if making casserole ahead of time, and you are reheating from the fridge, cover the pan with foil. Bake for 30 minutes. Remove foil and bake for another 20-30 minutes. Bonnie Fishman attended the Cordon Bleu Cookery School in London. Later, she owned and operated Bonnie’s Patisserie in Southfield, Mich. and Bonnie’s Kitchen and Catering in Bloomfield Hills, Mich. She has taught cooking for over 35 years and created hundreds of recipes. She is now living in Northern California.

One film journalist’s stream-of-consciousness cinematic journey through the pandemic, Part 40 By Laurence Lerman “Free your mind and the films will follow.” That was the quiet inner mantra I would repeat to myself a year ago as the pandemic was kindling into summer. That was when all the movie theaters were closed, my wife and I were locked down and I had opened myself up to stream-of-conscious curating that I’ve championed in this column for the past 15 months. Today, with so many new films now available—both in the theaters and as digital release premieres—my streaming of movies old and new has become less impulsive and random. I tried to remedy that this week as I filled my streaming schedule with films that I’d never seen (or maybe had only once but didn’t remember) or ones that had just came to mind minutes prior to pressing the Play button. Impulsive and random. By week’s end, I had taken in a nicely varied quintet: First off, a small period thriller based on a lesser-known novel by the volatile author Patricia Highsmith, followed later that evening by a contemporary dark comedy from the Netherlands that was released stateside several months back. The next day, I took a dive into the past to check out a Technicolor musical bio-pic from the Fifties featuring one of Hollywood’s most unique talents, and then traveled back to the future (in this case, the Eighties) for a Hollywood franchise superstar looking to flex his thespian muscles. For my fifth, I took a chance on a just-released film that unspooled like an old-time monster movie with a modern-day twist. I’d actually never heard of 2014’s The Two Faces of January, a British production based on Highsmith’s l964 novel of the same name and directed by Hossein Amini. Viggo Mortensen and Kirsten Dunst star as a glamorous couple travelling around Greece in the early Sixties, where they meet a young American, played by Oscar Isaac, who hustles tourists by taking them on private tours of the ruins. Turns out that Viggo is a hustler in his own right, a boozing one, who messed with the wrong mark several weeks earlier, now resulting in a dead detective in his hotel room. Oscar is around to help him out with the body, and so is Kirsten, but things quickly begin to get tricky and dangerous. A handsome-looking, sexually-tinged slow-boiler with a game cast, January is worth a look-see, though it’s not in the ballpark of Hitchcock’s Strangers on a Train (1951) or Anthony Minghella’s The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999), Hollywood’s finest Highsmith adaptations. That said, it definitely holds its own against other lower-key Highsmith-sourced films, like Claude Chabrol’s 1987 The Cry of the Owl or Roger Spottiswoode’s Ripley Under Ground (2005). Being a columnist, I got an initial kick out of Dutch filmmaker Ivo van Aart’s dark comedy, The Columnist, which concerns an opinionated editorialist Bond-ishly named Femke Boot (Katja Herbers), whose growing anger at the nasty comments she receives on social media platforms drives her to gorily kill her trollers. The Columnist is more social satire than slasher cinema, even as Femke’s methods of taking out her prey grow increasingly elaborate and her bloodthirstiness and writing become ever more impassioned. The film’s central themes— the limits of free speech, the horrors of online trolling—are clear, but the message does get a bit diluted by the film’s more graphic elements and a couple of distracting subplots. By the end, the satirical irony of a strong, creative woman—a journalist—taking virtual violence to its physical extremes loses its initial punch. And why doesn’t Femke simply stop reading her trollers’ comments? That said, star Katja Herbers, who’s in every scene, makes The Columnist worth the watch. The Dutch actress, whose English-language projects include TV’s Westworld, The Leftovers and the little-seen WGN series Manhattan, is ready for everything her perceived enemies throw at her. Esther Williams is another performer who knows how to hold her own, particularly when it comes to synchronized swimming and diving in the series of MGM “aquamusicals” she starred in during the Forties and early Fifties. The aquabelle’s highly stylized swimming scenes were the centerpieces of her fantastical, frequently tropical-themed movies, which carried monikers like On an Island with You (1948) and Neptune’s Daughter (1949). Esther’s most acclaimed film, though, was actually a musical drama (and a biographical one, at that): 1952’s Million Dollar Mermaid. Loosely based on the life of famed Australian aquatic star Annette Kellerman, Million Dollar Mermaid provides Esther the perfect showcase for her skill set, both in and out of the water. Esther’s surprisingly confident dramatics come in the form of her romances with an American theatrical promoter (Victor Mature) and the manager of the New York Hippodrome (David Brian). Of course, that’s outshined by the film’s water ballets, one of which required Esther to dive from a 50-foot tower while wearing a metal crown. That ended up breaking the star’s neck and putting her in a body cast for six months before shooting could resume. Blame the injury on the film's excessive choreographer Busby Berkeley, creator of those irresistible kaleidoscopic overhead shots. There’s water, water, everywhere, but not a song or dance in sight in 1986’s The Mosquito Coast, directed by Peter Weir and adapted from Paul Theroux’s 1981 novel. It centers on a brilliant but stubborn patriarch, Allie Fox (Harrison Ford), who leads his family to what he believes will be a happier and simpler life in the jungles of Central America. It proves to be far from simple when they arrive and build their home (several of them) as the family slowly discovers, while Allie grows increasing unpredictable and aggressive. The Mosquito Coast offers some stunning location work (it was shot in Belize) and lush cinematography by the great John Seale. Ford, breaking out of his then-confining work life as Han Solo and Indiana Jones, is fine and focused in his portrayal of an erratic genius on the edge. Helen Mirren and River Phoenix as his concerned wife and son are also outstanding. Interestingly, a recently broadcast TV miniseries by the same name, inspired by Theroux’s book (and starring his nephew Justin Theroux), takes a different approach to the tale, shaping the narrative more into an adventure/thriller yarn than a dramatic tale of displaced Americans. The newest film of the bunch, which was just released to theaters last week and is set for its streaming debut on July 2, is Werewolves Within, a comedy-horror whodunit cocktail that’s one of the most goofy and likable movies of the year (so far). It stars Veep breakout star Sam Richardson and Milana Vayntrub (Lily of the popular AT&T commercials) as an affable park ranger and a plucky postal worker who lead the small Northeastern town of Beaverfield’s eccentric residents when they find themselves trapped inside a local inn during a power outage. In addition to everyone turning against each other due to claustrophobia and the differing opinions on the proposed development of a gas pipeline running through town, a doozie of a problem comes in the form of a mysterious creature who begins picking off townies one by one, Agatha Christie-style. Based on the video game of the same name, director Josh Ruben’s sophomore feature offers lots of sly laughs alongside some inventive, limb-ripping scares. The horror and humor play off each other well, as do Richardson and Vayntrub and familiar-faced locals Michaela Watkins, Glenn Fleshler and Michael Chernus. Even the inevitable climactic face-off delivers smartly on both the gore and giggles fronts. In a recent interview, self-proclaimed lover of horror films Ruben declared, “Nothing scares me more than people.” That’s a thought that wouldn’t have sounded out-of-place by all of us when boxed into tight quarters at the height of the pandemic. But now it just makes for a good riff in a well-crafted and enjoyable film. And it’s only one of the literally hundreds of studio, independent and foreign offerings that will land on streaming platforms and movie theaters over the next four months. Take a break from the multi-part programming and prestige mini-series. Mare of Easttown, Lupin and The Queen’s Gambit, be damned! It’s summertime. Watch a movie. Laurence Lerman is a film journalist, former editor of Video Business--Variety's DVD trade publication--and husband to The Insider's own Gwen Cooper. Over the course of his career he has conducted one-on-one interviews with just about every major director working today, including Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, Clint Eastwood, Kathryn Bigelow, Ridley Scott, Walter Hill, Spike Lee, and Werner Herzog, among numerous others. Once James Cameron specifically requested an interview with Laurence by name, which his wife still likes to brag about. Most recently, he is the co-founder and editor-in-chief of the online review site DiscDish.com.

June 22, 2021 Jeffrey D. Sachs | Project Syndicate An international and independent investigation to examine the alternative hypotheses is urgently needed, and the US and Chinese governments should cooperate fully and transparently with such an inquiry. In the meantime, scientists, politicians, and pundits should acknowledge the uncertainties that currently prevail. NEW YORK – Where did COVID-19 come from? The source of the pandemic is a subject of immense importance. But more than 18 months after the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19), the question of the pathogen’s origin remains unsettled. More transparency and clarity on the debate could help to resolve the source of the virus and also head off future pandemics. There are two main hypotheses. The first is a natural occurrence in which SARS-CoV-2 passed from an animal to a human in a natural setting, a farm, or a food market. The second is an infection related to research work that was underway on SARS-like viruses (that is, viruses related to the virus that caused the SARS epidemic in 2002-04). If we are to prevent future outbreaks, determining the source of the current one must be a high priority. The two hypotheses direct our attention to two different sets of concerns and policy measures, both of which require our attention. Diseases that emerge from the transmission of viruses from wildlife to humans (so-called natural zoonoses) call for precautionary measures in human interactions with animal reservoirs of potentially deadly pathogens, for example in land-clearing, farming, consumption of bushmeat, and rearing and trade of livestock. Natural zoonotic events have caused many deadly epidemic diseases in recent decades, including HIV/AIDS, Ebola, SARS, and MERS. Emerging infectious diseases can also arise in the course of research on viruses and other pathogens. History records cases of scientists and laboratory workers being infected by pathogens they were studying. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, a research-related infection could have occurred in many ways. A researcher might have become infected while collecting samples of viruses and viral particles in natural habitats of horseshoe bats or other animals that may have harbored the virus. Or an infection may have occurred in a laboratory where scientists were working with previously collected virus-containing samples or virus isolates. Another, related scenario involves infection of research personnel with viruses collected from a natural source and subsequently genetically manipulated in the laboratory, including changes that might make a bat-origin virus more likely to infect humans. Both hypotheses – natural zoonosis and research-related infection – are viable at this stage of the investigation. Those who have claimed that a natural origin is the only viable hypothesis overlook the extensive research activity that was underway in the field and in laboratories on SARS-like viruses, including in Wuhan, China, where the first outbreak was identified, and in the United States. Those who claim that a research-related infection is the only viable hypothesis overlook the frequency of natural zoonotic transmissions of viruses, such as the SARS outbreak. There are many ways that a natural event could have occurred with SARS-CoV-2 somewhere in China and then been brought to Wuhan by an infected individual or an animal brought to market. And much confusion has resulted from conflating a research-origin hypothesis with a particular version of this hypothesis, in which the infection occurred following targeted manipulation of the virus to enhance its human adaptation. Since the start of the pandemic, proponents of each hypothesis have made exaggerated, premature, and unjustified claims. Early in the epidemic, several scientists declared that there was overwhelming evidence that SARS-CoV-2 originated in wildlife and that alternative theories of a research-related release of the virus amounted to “conspiracy theories.” Other early observers, followed by several US politicians including President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and members of Congress, claimed that there was enormous evidence of a laboratory release of the virus, pointing to the research activities underway in laboratories in Wuhan. The State of the Debate Some scientists noted early on that both hypotheses were plausible. The subsequent research into the origin of COVID-19 has so far proved to be inconclusive, not only keeping both major hypotheses alive, but also undermining strident claims by some representatives of the two main camps. Originally, there was some hope that the SARS-CoV-2 genome itself would quickly reveal the origin of the virus, either by finding a nearly identical virus in nature (such as in a horseshoe bat or in an intermediate host such as a pangolin) or by proving definitively that the virus had undergone genetic manipulation in a laboratory setting. Those hopes for a clear and quick resolution of the debate have not materialized. The SARS-CoV-2 genome is consistent with either a natural occurrence or a research-related occurrence. This is clearly the case if a researcher was infected while collecting virus samples in the field, because the virus would have arisen directly from nature, but the origin would still be research-related. To add to the complexity, the field researcher might have had a mild or asymptomatic case, so that even the researcher and his or her colleagues were unaware of the infection from the field, and that it was now being transmitted directly to other humans. On the other hand, the SARS-CoV-2 genome displays no conclusive “genomic fingerprint” of artificial manipulation, such as a clear recombination of genetic material that would have been impossible in a natural setting. For their part, proponents of the view that SARS-CoV-2 arose from a natural zoonotic event hoped that the animal harboring SARS-CoV-2 might be quickly identified, for example, on farms or in wet markets, or that the virus would be found directly in horseshoe bats. This hope, too, has so far failed to materialize, though of course it still might. Such discoveries often occur many years after an initial outbreak. But the fact remains that scientists have not yet identified a bat reservoir or intermediate mammalian host that may have served as the natural reservoir of the virus. Nonetheless, there are some very important and concerning facts that have arisen during the first year and a half of the epidemic that bear heavily on its origin. The public and policy community have become increasingly aware of the intensive research on SARS-like viruses that was underway in the US, China, and elsewhere, both in collecting viral samples from the field and in studying their infectivity and pathogenicity (ability to cause disease) in the laboratory. We have learned that much of this work can be classified as “gain of function” (GoF) research. This generic term involves modifying viruses to acquire new biological functions, and particular attention has been focused on so-called GoF Research of Concern (GOFROC), a category that includes research that may enhance the human transmissibility and/or pathogenicity of potential pandemic pathogens. Experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) involving the modification of bat-origin coronaviruses to express proteins that are likely to enhance entry into human cells are viewed by many scientists as falling squarely into the category of GOFROC. Many biosafety experts have long argued that such work – used to reveal target hosts more quickly, improve prediction of outbreaks, and develop vaccines and therapeutic drugs – requires much greater oversight, control, and scrutiny, including a transparent account to the public of the research activities. In the US, National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines include the proviso that, “To the maximum extent possible, agencies’ enhanced PPP [potential pandemic pathogen] review mechanisms should provide transparency to the public regarding funded projects involving the creation, transfer, or use of enhanced PPPs.” We have also learned that NIH funded US and Chinese scientists to work collaboratively on collecting samples of SARS-like viruses in the field, and bringing them back to the WIV for advanced genetic analysis. Within the WIV research work, studies have included the creation of chimeric genetic recombinants of SARS-like viruses to study their capacity to infect human cells and to cause disease. We have also learned that some of the viral clone work at WIV took place in BSL2 facilities, which many scientists consider to offer inadequate protection against a laboratory release of viruses, even if the NIH seems to approve such work in BSL2 facilities. Science vs Secrecy Neither the US nor Chinese authorities have yet been sufficiently forthcoming to date to enable researchers to advance our understanding of the origin of SARS-CoV-2. NIH recently declared that it did not support GoF research that could have led to the COVID-19 pandemic, saying that it had never “approved any grant that would have supported ‘gain-of-function’ research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans.” Unfortunately, NIH has not yet revealed the actual research that it has financed and supported. It is in fact common knowledge in the US scientific community that NIH has indeed supported genetic recombinant research on SARS-like viruses that many scientists describe as GOFROC. The peer-reviewed scientific literature reports the results of such NIH-supported recombinant genetic research on SARS-like viruses. But the process for reviewing the biosafety of possible GOFROC studies is opaque, revealing to the public neither the names nor qualifications of the individuals involved in the review process, nor the substance of the discussions, nor even the investigators or projects being reviewed. More specifically, it is clear that the NIH co-funded research at the WIV that deserves scrutiny under the hypothesis of a laboratory-related release of the virus. This research has involved the collection in natural settings of potentially dangerous SARS-like viruses and infection experiments on these viruses, resulting in peer-reviewed publication of results. A recent NIH grant to co-fund work at the WIV describes Aim 1 and Aim 3 of the research project as follows (excerpted from the Abstract): “Aim 1. Characterize the diversity and distribution of high spillover-risk SARSr-CoVs in bats in southern China. We will use phylogeographic and viral discovery curve analyses to target additional bat sample collection and molecular CoV screening to fill in gaps in our previous sampling and fully characterize natural SARSr-CoV diversity in southern China. We will sequence receptor binding domains (spike proteins) to identify viruses with the highest potential for spillover which we will include in our experimental investigations (Aim 3).” “Aim 3. In vitro and in vivo characterization of SARSr-CoV spillover risk, coupled with spatial and phylogenetic analyses to identify the regions and viruses of public health concern. We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential.” (Aim 2 involves surveillance of high-risk populations that have contact with bats.) It is also clear that the NIH-supported Chinese and US scientists have much more to share about the nature of this work. This includes records of trips to horseshoe bats’ natural habitats and other settings to collect specimens of SARS-like viruses; safety precautions taken or not taken during such visits; and the repository of viral samples, live viruses, genomic sequences, and other relevant genetic information. It also includes the laboratory records of experiments on SARS-like viruses, including the record of chimeric viruses produced, tested, and cultured in the laboratory; the safety precautions taken or not taken during such research; other laboratory-related data; and a full accounting of potential infections among WIV workers. Top researchers on the WIV projects have stated categorically that they were not investigating viruses that are close to SARS-CoV-2. All laboratory notebooks and other relevant information should be opened by the Chinese and US scientists working on this project for detailed scrutiny by independent experts. The Real Issue The question about origins is not about one government or another, much less a geopolitical issue or a matter of blaming China and exonerating the US. If there was indeed a laboratory-related release of SARS-CoV-2, it may well have occurred in a project funded by the US government, using methods developed and championed by US scientists, and as part of a US-led and US-financed program to collect and analyze potentially dangerous viruses, including in China. To learn as much as possible regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2, an international and independent investigation to examine the alternative hypotheses is urgently needed, and the US and Chinese governments should cooperate fully and transparently with such an inquiry. In the meantime, scientists, politicians, pundits, and those weighing in on social media should acknowledge the uncertainties that currently prevail. They should also acknowledge that the tragedy of the pandemic has already shed light on how to prevent future outbreaks and pandemics. Because natural zoonotic events are inevitable, we must establish much better global surveillance and warning systems, and of course early response systems when outbreaks occur. We need credible communications channels to prevent rapid global transmission of newly emergent zoonotic diseases, and we must create institutional mechanisms that enable the speediest search for potential treatments, diagnostic tests, vaccines, and other tools and best practices to contain an outbreak. In short, we must be better prepared to share relevant scientific and technological know-how in a more honest, transparent, and credible manner than has been true during the current pandemic. But there is also a risk of future research-related outbreaks of pandemic diseases. Governments need to upgrade the transparency, oversight, and biosafety of any projects that actively seek dangerous pathogens in nature and return them to laboratories, recognizing the multiple risks involved. Similarly, the tools of genomic manipulation have advanced so rapidly that the potential to create new deadly pathogens in the laboratory and accidentally or even deliberately release them is a very serious concern. The world currently lacks adequate international and national safeguards and transparency on such dangerous work, and the risks are compounded by the secretive bioweapons research programs several governments sponsor that help to sustain it. The Lancet COVID-19 Commission, which I chair, will carefully scrutinize these issues in advance of its final report in mid-2022. The Commission’s overriding aim is to recommend policies to prevent and contain future disease outbreaks, and its technical work will be conducted by independent experts who were not themselves involved directly in the US-China research under scrutiny. The scientists who were involved should explain fully the nature of their work. In the meantime, the Commission will tap biosafety experts to help assess the relevant hypotheses on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and to recommend ways and means to prevent and contain future outbreaks, whether resulting from naturally occurring zoonotic events or research-related activities. https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/finding-the-origins-of-covid19-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2021-06 Jeffrey D. Sachs, University Professor at Columbia University, is Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has served as adviser to three UN Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General António Guterres. His books include The End of Poverty, Common Wealth, The Age of Sustainable Development, Building the New American Economy, A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism, and, most recently, The Ages of Globalization.

By John Rolfe Behold the humble sneaker. First patented by Wait Webster in the 1832 and refined as the 19th century went along, this rubber-soled casual footwear holds a special place among mankind’s most versatile creations. It’s comfortable, functional, a fashion statement, a status symbol, an investment commodity, a social event and just about anything short of a floor wax and dessert topping. Sneakers have also made for pretty good exercise equipment. In fact, the industry got much healthier due to Covid-19. So did retailers like Lester Wasserman, proprietor of West NYC on West 72nd Street in Manhattan, a shop specializing in hard-to-find, limited edition athletic sneakers as well as mainstream, non-sports lifestyle editions. According to RunRepeat.com, the pandemic propelled people to take up running. Of the 3,961 folks the athletic shoe experts surveyed, nearly 29% had started during the past 14 months while the virus was rampaging. Nearly three-quarters of them cited their physical and mental health as motivating factors. With many gyms closed or their capacity restricted, folks took to outdoor walking and running, creating demand for appropriate footwear. Sales, which had previously peaked in 2013 when athletic shoes were mainly a fashion trend, rebounded nicely. Brooks Running, one of the leading brands, expects to reach its goal of $1 billion in annual revenue. Though many running events were canceled or postponed because of the virus, the competitive-minded found an outlet in virtual races: register online, choose your own starting line — it could be your treadmill or a local street — run the distance, upload your time and get a medal in the mail. Notably, the Boston and New York marathons have offered virtual alternatives. But even if you aren’t keen to break an aerobic sweat, you can still use sneakers to get your heart rate up. Similar to the Robinhood/GameStop stock shorting caper, sneaker apps have gamified buying among a robust social media community. Trading in kicks (a slang term for cool sneakers) has long been lucrative, but the pandemic got more people doing it because they lost their job and/or side hustle and needed money, or due to simple cabin fever boredom. Wait Webster would probably be gobsmacked to know his prototype has evolved into an alternative asset class typically found on web platforms like StockX, GOAT, or Farfetch. StockX's site and app resemble an equities-trading site with a ticker, product pages, historical price charts, and sales stats that help pro sellers make a handsome living. For example, if there's an ample supply at a brick and mortar store, an “investor” can rake in bucks by snapping them up and peddling them online at a profit. Nike limited editions, which sell via lottery for $100-$150 retail, will fetch two- or three-times as much in secondary venues. No wonder the resale market is worth an estimated $10 billion, according to the research firm Piper Sandler, up from $6 billion in 2019. It is expected to hit a robust $30 billion by 2030. All of this is not exactly an unpleasant development for Lester Wasserman and his family, which has been in the shoe business for generations. Working tirelessly, the Wassermans kept their three stores including Tip Top Shoes, open through the pandemic, in part with their thriving online business, and have become retail royalty on the well-heeled west side of Manhattan. Lester Wasserman’s West NYC is a hip young man’s dream, with aisles of trendy sports clothes and shoes. It even has its own running club. Its clientele stands a chance of seeing celebrities such as Lenny Kravitz, Chris Rock or Tony Danza there, either as fellow customers or salesmen for their own endorsed models. The store has so much cachet that it does a brisk sale of eponymous T-shirts. On summer evenings, it’s not unusual to see up to a dozen male teenagers or young adults camped out in front. And “camped out” is literally true — some will stay all night to establish their place in line, bringing lounge chairs and food. It looks more like the line to Lollapalooza than a shoe store. “Some of those who are out there all night are looking to resell them for a profit while other customers legitimately want the shoes,” Wasserman says. “The real story is there are a finite numbers of pairs per store and customers are looking for access.” For run-of-the-mill customers, he adds, “We carry shoes for $50 all the way to $300 with the sweet spot being $150. The kicks market isn’t all that different from the one for hot concert tickets. It runs on avid fans, hype, scarcity, and coveted limited editions like retro Air Jordans or Yeezys, with shoes bearing the names or design input of athletes and celebrities generating the most excitement and dough. A company like Nike will drop limited releases on an app or in local shops. Fans then line up for the lottery and post on social media about their adventures. Unfortunately, the pandemic and its consequences have slowed this frenzied activity a bit. “Inventory continues to be a challenge, as the supply chain has been adversely affected,” Wasserman says. “Chinese factories were closed for several months and securing inventory continues to be a problem.” As a result, some folks are waiting weeks for their preferred style or brand, but wait they surely will. After all, shortage only fuels hype and demand, which pumps up even ordinary lines of athletic shoes. Buyers are willing to sit on apps for hours a day, and monitor social media, all in the quest to land just one pair. We’re a long way from the day Mr. Webster first glued India rubber soles to common puddle jumpers. No doubt, many a merchant would like to be in Lester Wasserman’s shoes. John Rolfe is a former senior editor for Sports Illustrated for Kids, a longtime columnist for the Poughkeepsie Journal/USA Today Network, and author of The Goose in the Bathroom: Stirring Tales of Family Life. His school bus drivin’ blog “Hellions, Mayhem and Brake Failure” is parked on his website Celestialchuckle.com (https://celestialchuckle.com) with the meter running.

By Andy Borowitz June 22, 2021 WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Blasting the For the People Act, Senator Mitch McConnell claimed that the bill’s passage would bring the United States “to the brink of democracy.” “The Democrats can dress this bill up any way they want, but their real agenda couldn’t be clearer,” the Senate Minority Leader said. “They want to turn the United States of America that we love and cherish into a democracy.” Noting that the word “democracy” originated in ancient Greece, he vowed, “I will not sit idly by and watch a foreign form of government sneak across our border.” McConnell rallied his fellow Republican senators by reminding them that “we’re the only thing standing between this country and democracy.” “The people who voted for us did not vote for us so that other people could vote for other people,” he said. Andy Borowitz is a Times best-selling author and a comedian who has written for The New Yorker since 1998. He writes The Borowitz Report, a satirical column on the news.

By Jessie Seigel / Washington, D.C. Attorney General Merrick Garland has his work cut out for him. The powerful agency he heads, the Department of Justice (DOJ), must reestablish the rule of law after Donald Trump’s massive corruption of our governmental institutions at the highest levels—including at the Justice Department itself. Moreover, the DOJ needs to challenge the incursions by numerous states on the right of citizens to vote and have their votes counted. And it urgently needs to combat domestic terrorism of the type the nation saw on display on January 6. Is Attorney General Merrick Garland up to these tasks? His initial tentative style does not inspire great confidence. Garland’s public statements have been more professorial than prosecutorial. Garland has a resume and a reputation that are beyond reproach. He has served both as a judge and as chief judge on the prestigious U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. He appears to be respected by those have worked with him regardless of their political persuasion. In 2010, Tom Goldstein, publisher of the influential SCOTUS blog, wrote that Judge Garland’s record demonstrated he was “essentially the model, neutral judge.” In 2016, the year of his ill-fated nomination to the Supreme Court, the White House issued a statement that Garland was a “meticulous judge with a knack for building consensus, playing it straight, and deciding every case based on what the law requires.” By all accounts, that appears to be a very accurate description. The White House quoted Garland as saying, “The role of the court is to apply the law to the facts of the case before it—not to legislate, not to arrogate to itself the executive power, not to hand down advisory opinions on the issues of the day.” Garland’s development of this judicial philosophy may have made him an excellent judge. But it has been over 25 years since he has been a prosecutor. The two jobs require different skill sets. It may be that the same disposition and philosophical outlook that has molded Garland into “essentially the model, neutral judge,” have left him lacking the aggressive nature a prosecutor must have to doggedly pursue wrongdoing. This month, Garland has given two very fine speeches setting out broad policies and plans related to voting rights and domestic terrorism. But his actions—other than beefing up the agency’s staff to conduct future investigations—have been fainthearted thus far. In response to Arizona’s recent bogus 2020 election audit, which included many reports of compromised ballots and voting machines, as well as inappropriate postelection visits to voters, the DOJ timidly sent a letter of concern to the Arizona Senate, asking what steps they “will take” to ensure violations of federal law don’t occur. The letter did not demand the ongoing operations stop or even ask for proof that no violations of federal law had taken place. Adding insult to suppressed voters’ injuries, the DOJ has published guidance explaining postelection audit statutes—as if Arizona and the other Republican-controlled legislatures following its lead are merely ignorant of federal laws rather than engaged in a deliberate effort to subvert them. The DOJ should be challenging those subversive state laws now—before they can be applied to the 2022 elections. Garland heralded the DOJ’s arrest of more than 480 individuals who attacked the Capitol on January 6 and the hundreds of charges brought against them. But he lumped that assault with all the other acts of domestic terrorism we’ve had in recent years. That ignores that the attack on Congress was not domestic terrorism alone but something larger—an attempt to violently overthrow our duly-elected government. While those who attacked the Capitol need to be prosecuted, they were in some respects merely the foot soldiers of Trump and his cronies. Unless the DOJ investigates and prosecutes those who fomented or aided and abetted that insurrection—with financial backing, planning and/or incitement—they and their political successors will not be deterred from trying again. Garland has not as yet indicated that the Justice Department will pursue Trump, or any senators or representatives who may have been involved in promoting the insurrection. Nor has he indicated that the DOJ is or will be investigating the interference by federal government officials in the 2020 presidential election or their continuing machinations to invalidate it even now. It is possible that Garland is being excessively prudent in order to avoid creating any perception of political bias. Or perhaps, he only wants to move on—as did President Gerald Ford when he pardoned Richard Nixon for his crimes against democracy. But our government’s propensity to move on and not make those who have tried to steal or destroy our democracy pay a price for it has encouraged the anti-democratic demagogues who followed to become even more brazen in their efforts. Corruption within the Justice Department is crying out for correction. To root out sources behind news leaks in the media about contacts between Trump associates and Russia, Trump’s DOJ secretly seized phone and email records of reporters at the New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN, as well as those of House Democrats. It also obtained gag orders to prevent the targets or the public from hearing of the seizures. Considering that California Rep. Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee—who was investigating Trump’s Russia and Ukraine connections—was one of the targets, it is virtually certain that the purpose of the seizures was political. Garland has indicated that, under his watch, such political considerations will not play a role in investigative or prosecutorial decisions, that the DOJ will tighten its rules on seizing information about members of Congress, and will no longer secretly seize reporters phone records. Garland handed the investigation of the actions of Trump’s Justice Department to the independent Inspector General’s office, thus preempting any accusations that he is involving DOJ in political retribution. However, none of this is sufficient. If and when another administration like Trump’s comes to power, it will reverse Garland’s policy—or step right over it as if the policy did not exist. If history is not to repeat, those who have already violated the Department’s policies or the law must suffer consequences. As for the Inspector General’s investigation—it could take months or years. Meanwhile, any DOJ employees who were involved in the alleged Trump malfeasance could continue to corrupt or sabotage the work of the Department. Garland needs to clean house, and he needs to do it now. At a minimum, any DOJ employees who were involved in this or other politically questionable decisions need to be placed in positions where they can do no harm until the Inspector General completes his investigation. And if there was criminal behavior, charges need to be brought regardless of how high or low the position the accused may have held. Under the rule of law, every citizen, whether a garbage man or a president, is equally answerable to the law for his or her actions—or should be. That has not been the case for the last four years. If we are to reestablish the rule of law that Trump and his cohorts trampled, we cannot simply move forward and apply it in the future. Attorney General Garland must take action that holds Trump and anyone in his Administration who committed a crime accountable for it. Granted, Garland has been in his position for just three months, so it is only fair to wait a little to see what action he takes based on his broad policy statements—but we cannot wait long. And if he does not have the temperament for this task, perhaps we need a different attorney general. Political columnist Jessie Seigel had a long career as a government attorney in which she honed her analytic skills. She has also twice received an Artist’s Fellowship from the Washington, D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities for her fiction, and has been a finalist for a number of literary awards. In addition, Seigel is an associate editor at the Potomac Review, a reviewer for The Washington Independent Review of Books, and a dabbler in political cartoons at Daily Kos. Of this balance in her work between the analytic and the imaginative, Seigel jokes, “I guess my right and left brains are well-balanced.” More on and from Seigel can be found at The Adventurous Writer, https://www.jessieseigel.com.

A Poem by Dr. Barry Lubetkin THEN Always the same. Sheriff covered with dust from the trail. Horse parched from thirst. Rides into Tombstone. The town, Ramshackle, gritty, with fear dripping from every drop of sweat and particle of dirt. Outlaws own it. His jaw set. His stride firm and determined. Enters the saloon. The townsfolk scatter. The bad man stares in defiance. Lawman is determined. He will restore order to this wretched place. So many others before him have failed. So many others have placated this cruel man. He reminds the bad man of truth, of law, of consequences, And how the sweet smell of justice will overcome the stink of fear and enslavement. He reminds the outlaw of how eyes bulge and split, At the end of a hangman’s noose. The bad man passes the graveyard on his way out of town. NOW Sheriff Joe knows Putin Knows his craftiness, his cruelty, his lies. Sheriff Joe, jaw fixed, shoulders proud, eyes wary, Shakes the sociopath’s hand, cringing inside. His tone strong, his demands unambiguous. Back off your cowardly spying. Back off your stealing land. Back off kidnapping my people. Back off your stamping out human rights. And this 21st century outlaw, Wavers and counters and feigns confidence, As he struggles to remember the KGB lesson on dislodging the enemy, Who carries truth, decency and the spirit of democracy. Sheriff Joe has no need to boast. A grateful nation breathes, As the Helsinki humiliation Disappears from the memory Of a great people. And the outlaw, in a moment of pure terror Hears reports of a new holiday in America, And wonders how long until Ukraine Celebrates Juneteenth. Barry Lubetkin, Ph.D. is the co-director and co-founder of the Institute for Behavior Therapy in New York City. The Institute for Behavior Therapy is the oldest private cognitive behavior center in the United States.

By Victoria Rolfe If you have been outside planting since early April, by now those brown patches of earth in your garden are being covered by many varied shades of green, as well as leaves of burgundy and chartreuse, and flowers in all shades of the rainbow. It’s incredible to marvel at how a few packets of tiny seeds can fill your yard with lush growth in such a short time. The season of creating and installing your garden is winding down and we are moving on to maintenance and that exciting time of reaping what we have sown! Maintaining your beds involves keeping them watered, weeded, fertilized and free of pests and disease. Remember to continue to frequently water any newly sown seeds or tender young transplants, sometimes even more than once a day in hot dry weather. As we approach late June and your plants grow larger, they will no longer require these frequent light sprinkles. In fact, it would be detrimental to continue such watering, as it encourages the plants to develop a shallow, weak root system. Once your plants get larger, they will benefit from less frequent but nice, deep watering. Generally, most annuals, including vegetables, will do well with about one inch per week. Of course, we can count on Mother Nature to provide at least some of it, and we will just supplement where she falls short. By keeping track of rainfall and employing the correct techniques, you can keep your plants properly hydrated without unnecessarily overwatering them. There are also a number of other practices you can employ that will save on water and keep your plants healthy: Water at the ground level. By applying it directly to the roots of the plants, you will eliminate a lot of the waste that overhead sprinkling of the entire garden will lead to. You can achieve this by using soaker hoses instead. They are perforated with tiny holes that let water gradually seep out. Even if you are watering by hand, direct the flow to the base of the plant and not the leaves. Another aspect to consider is timing. It is best to water early in the morning or late in the afternoon. This will allow the roots to get a good long cool drink before the hot sun dries up the ground. Be especially careful not to wet the leaves if you are doing it in late in the day, as leaves that remain wet all night will invite fungal disease. At this point, you may be wondering how you will know exactly how much rainwater your garden has received. It’s very handy to have your own rain gauge. You can purchase one at most garden supply centers, or make your own using any straight-sided clear glass container and marking it in inches with a waterproof marker. You can also use this occasion to add some whimsy to your garden by decorating your DIY rain gauge in a delightful way. Fertilize efficiently. Just as water should be judiciously applied at the proper times (so as to use the minimum amounts for maximum results), the same goes for fertilizer. Of course, if you have top-notch soil, amended–or improved–with lots of (free!) organic material and composted manure, you might not even need fertilizer. But since many of us fall short in this respect, a little boost of essential nutrients may be necessary. You can use your own compost. If you are using a manufactured substance, a granular mix or a fish emulsion is best. Steer clear of the instant fast-acting "blue liquid." This is because you want a slow-acting fertilizer, not a quick burst of nitrogen that will promote lush greenery at the expense of your vegetable production. As with watering, the timing of your fertilizing is crucial for optimum results. In addition to the dose you put in the hole when transplanting, there are two other ideal times for application. The first is when your plant begins to "set" fruit, by transforming its blossoms into edible goodies, so that the added nutrients will go directly toward that vegetable growth. It will also benefit from another fertilizer boost midway through its production when it is putting out its crop like gangbusters and depleting the soil at a rapid rate. This timing schedule will maximize your fertilizer efficiency for the best results. And now the fun begins! You are beginning to be rewarded for your efforts, picking lettuce, leafy greens, radishes, snow peas, and even strawberries and rhubarb if you grew them. Cut and come again on your lettuce and greens (such as kale, collards, spinach, and Swiss chard). If you have sown these seeds early in April, you should already be enjoying your first salads and cooked greens from some of these crops. There is no need to pick the whole plant. Rather, continue to pluck the outer leaves while the plant puts out new growth from the middle. Or, in the case of leaf lettuce, you can actually take a scissor or a knife and cut the whole plant down to one inch from the ground and it will grow right back. You’ll get two, three, sometimes more, salads for the price of one seed! As you begin to enjoy the fruits of your labor, take some time to feast your eyes on the exquisiteness of this lush garden you have created. It is nothing short of magic. Victoria Rolfe has had a love of gardening all her life, from the time she was a tiny child coveting the daffodils growing in her neighbor’s yard (and wondering why she couldn’t have them in her own), to her teenage years when she took her pot experimentation in a different direction by growing the seeds she extracted from the bag into a beautiful marijuana plant on her bedroom windowsill. She went on in her adult years to feed her family by growing a huge and bountiful vegetable garden, as well as beautifying her three-acre property with an array of ornamental trees, bushes and flowers in the magnificent Hudson Valley region of New York. Victoria learned a great deal in the process of all this plant experimentation. She then added to that knowledge by taking courses with the Cornell Cooperative Extension to become a Master Gardener Volunteer. In her volunteer capacity, she helps to educate the public on gardening through classes and information booths, most notably at the Dutchess County N.Y. Fair each August. Throughout the summer months, Victoria is most likely to be found among the weeds, either in her own garden or those of others who actually pay her to play in their dirt and do the thing she loves best, delight in the magical world of gardening. Victoria is not only a gardening aficionado; she is also passionate about helping people live a better life on less money. Visit her website and blog at brightfuture2budget4.weebly.com, or email her at brightfuture2budget4@gmail.com.