By Andy Borowitz March 29, 2021 ATLANTA (The Borowitz Report)—Raising the ante in his ongoing battle with the aqueous substance, Georgia’s governor, Brian Kemp, has declared water “a gateway drug that leads to voting.” “We’ve consulted a lot of studies on this,” he said. “People are much more likely to vote if they are under the influence of water.” The governor said that he was considering a number of measures to address water addiction, including stiffer penalties for voting while quenching. In his starkest warning, Kemp told those who traffic in the banned liquid, “We’re coming after you,” and promised prison time for anyone combining hydrogen and oxygen in illegal water labs. 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 Robert Olrog / London Life has moved into the slow lane in London. Traveling is cancelled, pubs are prohibited, and theatres have nailed their doors shut as a consequence of the media sensation and public health emergency winner of the year – Covid-19. I moved to the U.K. from Sweden around two and a half years ago to do my master’s degree in engineering at the University of Cambridge. It was surprising how similar my education ended up being in both countries – most of my days were either spent in the library or at a watering hole. After I completed my studies in October, 2019. I began a consulting internship In London. When it wrapped up five months later, something no one suspected occurred. Covid came as a shock to the world and has impacted everybody in one way or another. I know many people whose professional and personal lives have been upended. My greatest and worst pandemic story was that directly after my internship, I set out on the clichéd – “I will find myself by travelling” - trip. At that point I did not know how bad the pandemic would get. The adventure ended abruptly after two weeks and consequently I was in lockdown in South Africa for about a month before being repatriated. Since the initial wave and the following period of uncertainty, a new normal has appeared. I am 25 and still living in London – but much has changed in terms of lifestyle. Before the pandemic, most weekends were a test to see how much one could do. Spending a weekend relaxing at home was considered problematic (a millennial vernacular term for views or actions not aligned with consensus, often used as an antonym to “woke”). A paradigm shift has occurred since March, 2020, when the first lockdowns and travel restrictions were imposed – suddenly, it is encouraged to do less. Now my friends and I have to find new ways to spend free time and methods to maintain sanity. Some people have resorted to amateur botany, others to pursuing sports and many turned into sourdough connoisseurs. I cannot say I am particularly interested of any of those choices – my maxim has become if it does not ferment, it does not matter. Right now there are many suspicious looking mason jars in the corner of my room that are frothing and foaming. The list is long, in those jars we have had chillis, mushrooms, pineapples and much more. I believe this aspect of the pandemic is a blessing in disguise for my generation. I have seen relationships deepen, hobbies being explored and nature being appreciated. Many Greek and Asian philosophers preferred this type of less-is-more approach and advocated simple lives and being in the present – not being controlled by a desire to check out another brunch place or pop-up shop. I cannot imagine this shift to do less would have occurred naturally for us because it is easy to know what you are missing out on in this connected world. In Bruce Chatwin’s novel, The Songlines, he writes that the cause of all our miseries stem from our inability to remain quietly in a room. This is apparently the worst of the human misfortunes, as it prevents us from thinking about ourselves. The pandemic has forced us to confront this human trait as a lot of our previous freedoms are not possible during lockdown. Hopefully, when the dust settles, we can better balance our ability to enjoy the room and our need to explore.

By Bonnie Fishman Now that we have our Prepared Pandemic Pantry, we are ready to cook. Unfortunately, many of us are faced with the perpetual question: What should I make for dinner tonight? I have an easy solution: swim laps. That’s right, swim mediative laps. I do it every morning. This is where I do my best thinking. No phone, no TV, no interruptions. The creative juices are flowing. If you don’t swim, am I suggesting you take up the sport? Of course not. Find your own solution to pass the time, have your “zen” moment. A leisurely walk, a jog, yoga, knitting, listening to music, looking out the window. Think about what you might have a hankering for. This can be problematic in the morning because it may be difficult to yearn spicy chili or braised chicken with onions, when all you really want to eat at the moment is oatmeal. I’ve learned not to ask my husband this question early in the day because I get a grouchy “I don’t know what I’m going to feel like eating later!” This makes it easier because now I just do what I want and he has to eat what’s in front of him. Push on, let your imagination go. After I decide on the flavor profile--is it Italian, Mexican, peasant food?--I move onto the pantry. Hey, I have everything at my fingertips. My dry goods are stocked, I’m flush with produce, dairy, meats. My freezer is bursting with possibilities. Now it’s just a matter of pulling it all together. While I am swimming laps this morning, it dawns on me: a pasta night! My husband would eat noodles everyday if he could. So in my mind at lap 18, I scan my pantries. It’s going to be Linguine Carbonara, a staple in my repertoire. Here’s the beauty of pasta: there are infinite add-ons and substitutions possible. A classic carbonara is made with olive oil, garlic, bacon or some Italian meat such as pancetta, raw scrambled eggs and grated Parmesan cheese. Very simple, few ingredients. Now take the ball and run with it! In the version I made tonight, I added sautéed mushrooms and defrosted frozen peas. If you add a vegetable like mushrooms, onions, zucchini or peppers, cook them with the garlic. Since the peas are already cooked, just heat them through at the end. If you don’t eat pork, you can use turkey bacon but will need to double the olive oil. I have even made carbonara with diced lox and using additional oil. One last secret ingredient would be a good pinch of crushed red pepper flakes, sautéed with the garlic. I often use it when I’m making a reduced fat pasta or one when substituting a strong ingredient like bacon. It just gives the dish an extra kick and rounds out the flavor. Linguine Carbonara Yield: 8 servings 1/2 lb. bacon, cut into 1/4” strips 3 Tbs. olive oil 4 garlic cloves, minced 1/4 c. dry white wine 3 lg. eggs, room temperature 1 c. grated Parmesan, room temperature 2 Tbs. fresh chopped parsley 1 lb. dried linguine In a medium skillet, cook the bacon in the oil over moderate heat until it just begins to crisp. Add the garlic. Cook until the bacon is crisp. Pour in the wine. Reduce by half. Set aside. Cook the linguine in 1 gallon of salted boiling water until al dente. While the pasta is cooking, scramble the eggs in a large warm serving bowl. Return the skillet to the stove and heat through. Drain the pasta in a colander. Toss the hot pasta with the eggs along with the bacon. Mix in Parmesan, fresh ground black pepper, salt, and parsley. Adjust the seasoning. Serve at once. 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.

Mar 30, 2021 Jeffrey D. Sachs | Project Syndicate Republican-controlled state legislatures across the US are enacting new restrictions on voter participation that target non-whites. Since the Civil War, the white supremacist culture – embraced by a shrinking minority in America – has always based its power on violence and voter suppression. NEW YORK – America is two cultures in one nation. The first culture brought slavery, the genocide of Native Americans, “Jim Crow” laws enforcing white supremacy, and former President Donald Trump’s bullying, lying, and cruelty, which culminated in the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol. The second culture brought emancipation, the civil rights movement, President Barack Obama, and now the election of Joe Biden. The white supremacist culture – embraced by a shrinking minority in America – has always based its power on violence and voter suppression. This is why the current battle over voting rights is a battle for America’s future. The battle of the two cultures is now playing out across the country and in Washington, DC. Biden’s victory has stirred white supremacists to double-down on voter suppression. The Republican Party knows that it cannot hold national power in a fair vote. Thus, Republican-controlled state legislatures are enacting new restrictions on voter participation that target non-whites. In Washington, on the other hand, the inclusive culture is advancing in Congress the most significant voting rights reforms since the 1960s, intended to ensure access to polls for all Americans. Voter suppression is a long-standing instrument of white supremacy in America. The story has been told most vividly by W.E.B. Du Bois in Black Reconstruction in America, published in 1935. Du Bois describes in harrowing and comprehensive terms how African-Americans fought heroically for their freedom in the US Civil War (1861-65) and – through education and hard work – for full emancipation as citizens in the Reconstruction years (1865-77). Yet that emancipation was cruelly cut short by Southern whites’ violence and terrorism, together with the indifference or racism of many Northern whites. At the core of the South’s Jim Crow regime after Reconstruction was the suppression of African-American voting, in flagrant violation of the Constitution. The civil rights movement of the 1960s gave rise to what is known as the Second Reconstruction, as it aimed once again to reconstruct American democracy by ending Jim Crow. But heroic advances, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, provoked another racist backlash. When Northern Democrats in Congress bucked the opposition of Southern segregationist Democrats to pass the legislation, the Democratic Party split in two, and the Republican Party, led by Richard Nixon, adopted the infamous “Southern Strategy” to win over white racists in the 1968 election. White Southerners switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party in droves, while the racism itself remained. The Southern Strategy was followed by new tactics for mass voter suppression, this time relying heavily on the mass incarceration of people of color for minor infractions, or often for no real infractions at all, thereby taking away their vote – often for life. But the white supremacists’ hold on American power is in long-term decline. The 2008 election and 2012 re-election of Obama, and the 2020 election of Vice President Kamala Harris – the first woman and person of color to hold the post – prove the point. In response, Trump brazenly attempted to keep power by subverting the outcome, first by trying to convince state Republican officials to falsify their election tallies, and then by trying to prevent Congress from certifying the results. As the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School is carefully documenting, Trump’s defeat has led to a wave of voter suppression bills – more than 250 in 43 states – advanced by Republican legislators. The Brennan Center sums it up this way: “These proposed bills will make it harder to vote, target voters of color, and take aim at the very election changes – such as mail voting – that made the 2020 election,” conducted during a pandemic, “not only successful but possible.” Biden has rightly called the new law by Georgia’s Republican-controlled legislature to restrict voting in the state a clear case of “Jim Crow in the twenty-first century.” Thus, exactly 160 years after southern slave states seceded to preserve and extend slavery and white supremacy, the United States now finds itself in its Third Reconstruction. The first was needed to end slavery; the second to end American apartheid; and the third to end voter suppression and mass incarceration. (One of the leaders of the Third Reconstruction, Reverend William J. Barber II, has written an eponymous book that vividly describes the challenges.) American racism dies hard, but it is dying. The US House of Representatives has just passed and sent to the Senate the most significant voting rights and political reform legislation since the Voting Rights Act. This legislation, S.1 in the Senate, would create national standards to facilitate voter registration and voting, including early voting and mail voting; enforce federal laws against voter discrimination; and restore voting rights in federal elections to convicted felons who are out of prison. The legislation would also take several important steps to reform campaign financing. The Senate will soon take up S.1 and the Republican senators representing white supremacy will try to kill it through the filibuster, which requires a bill to win 60 votes rather than a simple majority of 51. This is the same tactic the segregationists used to thwart civil-rights bills until the 1960s, and tried unsuccessfully to use in the 1960s. Their attempt will likely fail again. The Democrats, in the quest to bury white supremacy once and for all, will not sit by idly while racists try again to suppress the votes of people of color. The Senate will most likely change the rules to prevent the filibuster of this crucial legislation in order to ensure that fair voting for all Americans is finally secured – more than 230 years after the adoption of the US Constitution. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/america-third-reconstruction-to-defeat-gop-voter-suppression-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2021-03 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 Tobye S. Stein A 21-year-old white gunman was—as one Georgia official unceremoniously put it—"having a bad day” on March 16, so he killed eight people in Atlanta. Six of them were Asian women. Much like the uproar that arose in the Black community after the murder of George Floyd last May, many in the Asian-American community immediately mobilized in protest. It’s no wonder: there has been an enormous rise in assaults against Asian Americans in the past few years. According to The New York Times, hate crimes against Asians in New York City alone are up a staggering 833 percent since 2019. ABC Evening News reports that since the beginning of the pandemic, assaults against Asians are up 150 percent. I’ve discovered that the increasing violence against the Asian community lands even harder when your own family is at risk. In November, 2019, my nephew visited Detroit, and introduced us to his girlfriend. We had met one or two other girlfriends, but this time the relationship seemed more serious. My nephew, I’m proud to say, has a doctorate in applied mathematics and works as a research scientist. And now, he was dating a doctor, a dermatologist. She was outgoing and seemed to have a lot of varied interests, including cooking, which she and I discussed during their visit. This lovely young woman and my nephew were teasing each other in the way emotionally connected couples often do. They seemed so comfortable together. Not only is my nephew an only child, so is his girlfriend. Our family has a lot of only children. So in what way were their backgrounds different? He was raised as a Jew, and she and her parents are from China. Her family came to America when she was five years old, so her dad could attend grad school. Eventually, she and her family relocated to Canada, although she attended college and medical school in the U.S. My nephew and this lovely Chinese woman married in December, 2019. They decided to try to have a baby quickly. But when my nephew announced they were expecting their first child last November, he admitted that they hadn’t anticipated a pandemic would also arrive. Our tiny great-niece decided she just couldn’t wait to be born and arrived a month early. All is well, and she is happy and healthy and her parents are ecstatic. I am, too, and I’m glad that our little family is growing. The backdrop to these happy events was Donald Trump’s despicable final year in office. We repeatedly heard the former President call Covid-19 “the Chinese Virus” and “Kung Flu.” Why did Trump continuously and erroneously blame China for being responsible for coronavirus? Because he is a racist. Also, he could never admit he failed to manage the growing health crisis in our country. Yet, while he fanned the flames of hate against his own citizens, he continued to praise his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, for doing a great job managing the virus in China. Trump managed to blame China without criticizing its President. Am I surprised by this growing aggression against Asians? No, I’ve known for some time that the way our country has historically treated and still treats Asians is abominable. First there was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which barred all Chinese immigration. Of course, prior to that, the United States was more than happy to use Chinese workers--including children--to build our railroads. There was no issue letting them handle the dangerous demolition jobs that would clear the way for the railroad expansion out west. But when that work was done, we had no need for the Chinese. While the Exclusion Act was repealed in 1942, the U.S. immediately established a quota for the number of Chinese who could enter our country. And the Chinese were not the only Asians to be mistreated by this country. Let’s not forget the rounding up of 120,000 Japanese-Americans and the creation of internment camps after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941. The camps were horrible, and the citizens who were relocated to them were treated miserably. Although most camps were abolished in 1944, with the last camp closing in 1946, these citizens were not compensated for the loss of their homes or their livelihoods. Each person received a munificent $25 stipend so they could start a new life. One would hope that the United States could learn from its previous mistakes, but currently, it seems unlikely and leaves me fed up with the closed-mindedness of my fellow citizens. Just as we saw a rise in anti-Semitism and assaults against Jewish Americans during the last administration, and a rise in crimes against Black and Brown Americans, the Asian community is now at greater risk of harm. Of course this occurred while the former Bigot-in-Chief spewed hatred against these groups while praising white supremacists and Nazis as “very fine people.” Being Jewish and having Jewish family members does sensitize me to the rising anti-Semitic vitriol and now so does having Chinese family members. After what seemed like a very long wait (my nephew just turned 43), I have a lovely niece and a beautiful great-niece who is Jewish and Chinese. So I often worry about my niece and my great-niece, and wonder what level of discrimination or attacks they will face when they start going out in public in New England. It’s no longer just the family at the Chinese restaurant we frequent, whose children we’ve watched grow up and whose business dropped at the start of the pandemic. It’s not just the students who were harassed in the early months of the pandemic at my alma mater in Oakland County, Mich. as well as on other campuses. Now we’re talking about family, my family. And I’m fearful about what may await them in our very intolerant country. Tobye S. Stein retired as Chief Human Resources Officer from a California-based financial services organization. She once landed a job by replying to the age old question, “Why should I hire you instead of the other two candidates” by simply stating “I’m funnier than most people.” It worked.

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 Jessie Seigel / Washington, D.C. Mitch McConnell has warned that if the Democratic majority dares to eliminate the filibuster, Republicans will make it impossible for the Senate to do anything. According to the Senate Minority Leader: “Nobody serving in this chamber can even begin—can even begin—to imagine what a completely scorched earth Senate would look like…this is an institution that requires unanimous consent to turn the lights on before noon.” This threat comes from the man who, when leading a majority, took absolute pleasure in calling himself “the Grim Reaper,” indicating that the Senate was the chamber where Democratic House legislation went to die. Obstruction is McConnell’s middle name and scorching the earth is all he has ever done. Though now in the minority, he is apparently threatening that if we thought he was “the Grim Reaper” before, we ain’t seen nothin’ yet. If we want democracy to survive, we cannot allow the Democrats to be bamboozled by McConnell and his Republican cohorts or allow the need for filibuster reform to be derailed by McConnell’s threats. We are at a crucial moment in our history. Republican-controlled state legislatures are rushing to pass laws to entrench voter suppression before the 2022 midterm elections. Only the Senate’s passage of two new voting rights bills will prevent this injustice, and only a Republican filibuster can stand in the way of that passage. To grasp the urgency of reforming or eliminating the filibuster, we need to understand not only its origin as a weapon of legislative sabotage but how, over time, it has morphed into a procedural device that can bring to a dead stop the capacity to pass any needed legislation—including that protecting the right to vote. The Filibuster’s History: The word “filibuster,” said to originate from a Dutch word meaning “pirate,” is a fitting name for a maneuver traditionally used to hijack the Senate’s ability to function. The right to filibuster is not embedded in the Constitution but merely a rule created by the Senate in the 1850s, just before the Civil War, to protect the interests of slaveholding states. Originally, conducting a filibuster to delay or stop passage of legislation required a senator to stand on the Senate floor, speechifying until his voice, his energy or his bladder gave out. Absent such exhaustion, 67 votes (two-thirds of the Senate) were required to end a filibuster (called cloture—ending debate and taking a vote). In 1975, that requirement was changed to 60 votes (three-fifths of the Senate). But when the 60-vote threshold was adopted, the rule was also changed so that a senator no longer had to hold the Senate floor by standing and speaking continuously, preventing other matters from being raised or considered. The reasoning behind this change was that while the filibuster delayed vote on a particular bill, the Senate could conduct the rest of its business. But the practical result was that a senator only needed to state an intention to filibuster in order to place a bill in limbo—never to be considered at all. By 2013, the frequent use of the filibuster to frustrate President Obama’s ability to make appointments became intolerable. So, the Democratic majority changed the rule for lower court and administrative positions, allowing a simple majority to end debate and permit an up-or-down vote on those nominees. In 2017, during President Trump’s administration, the Republican majority further revised the rule so a simple majority could end debate on Supreme Court nominations, enabling them to ram through the appointments for life of right-wing justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Though some have claimed that the Democrats’ 2013 change began a tit-for-tat on filibuster restrictions, the Republicans’ moves to restrict its use far predated this. In the early to mid-2000s, when Democrats tried to hold the line against President George W. Bush’s conservative appointments, Republicans threatened to change Senate rules to forbid use of the filibuster for judicial nominees. Senator Trent Lott called this threat “the nuclear option,” and the nickname stuck. Determined to preserve the filibuster, a group of seven Republican and seven Democratic senators, dubbed the “Gang of 14,” took it upon themselves to agree that the Democrats would not filibuster except in “extreme circumstances,” and in return, Republicans would not exercise the nuclear option. That is, the seven Democrats apparently agreed that they generally would vote with the Republicans to ensure the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster. This amounted to the Republicans agreeing not to get rid of the filibuster so long as the Democrats agreed never to use it. But since these Democrats agreed not to use the filibuster, they were only preserving it for Republican use when that party was again in the minority. As a result of this misguided deal, five of the 10 Bush judicial nominees the Democrats opposed were installed by the Republicans. (Three of the 10 had withdrawn before the deal was struck.) Furthermore, the Gang of 14 unanimously supported a cloture vote to end debate on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. As anyone could have predicted, the Republicans did not consider that deal to restrict them once they were in the minority. The remaining Republican members of the Gang of 14 joined in two successful filibusters of President Obama’s judicial nominations. If we are to preserve the right to vote and majority rule—which constitute the essence of a democratic republic—the Democrats cannot afford to fall for any more such one-sided deals or for disingenuous calls for bipartisanship coming from their Republican counterparts. These “colleagues” do not have bipartisanship or compromise in mind, but only their own advantage. Accordingly, the Democrats must approach their own strategies in the same way. The Current Filibuster Conundrum: More than 40 Republican-controlled state legislatures are in the process of trying to pass laws that will severely limit nearly every means to cast a vote, the goal being to suppress electoral participation by Democratic voters. If these states succeed, they will make it impossible for the Democrats to fairly compete in the 2022 midterm elections. And once Republicans use that voter suppression to gain control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, we will likely be living under hardcore minority rule for a long time to come. Passage of HR1, the For the People Act (expanding voting registration, early voting, voting by mail, and limiting gerrymandering), and HR4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (restoring federal oversight of discriminatory practices that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority threw out in 2013 in Shelby v. Holder) would put a stop to the state Republican parties’ anti-democratic push. But to do so, HR1 and HR4 must be passed before the midterm elections, and that requires overcoming a Republican filibuster. Given how tight the Democrats’ majority is in the Senate, there is no hope of getting the 60 votes needed to do so. So, reform or elimination of the filibuster is urgently needed. President Biden appears to be coming to terms with this reality. Though he seems to prefer retention of the filibuster in some form, Biden recently stated, “It’s getting to the point where, you know, democracy is having a hard time functioning.” He specifically referenced the original filibuster rule when one had to stand up, command the floor, and keep talking. Although a change to the filibuster only requires a majority vote, the Democrats’ majority is slender. All Democratic votes will be needed and, at this time, at least two Democrats oppose change. Senator Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) has opposed elimination of the filibuster on legislative matters. As she puts it, “Debate on bills should be a bipartisan process that takes into account the views of all Americans, not just those of one political party,” and “the Senate has a responsibility to put politics aside and fully consider, debate, and reach compromise on legislative issues that will affect all Americans.” Likewise, Senator Joe Manchin (W.Va.) has based his opposition on protection of the minority’s right to be heard, stating: “I’m not willing to take away the involvement of the minority.” Unless Sinema and Manchin are living in their own dream worlds with eyes closed and ears stuffed with cotton, their positions are highly disingenuous. While debate on bills should be—and is—a bipartisan process with opportunity for the minority to express their views and even offer legislative amendments, the filibuster is not being used to debate an issue, be heard on the issue, or convince colleagues to change their votes. It is being used solely to delay, obstruct, and prevent any vote on legislation that would permit the will of the majority to prevail. As the Brennan Center for Justice succinctly put it in its October, 2020 report, “The simple threat of objection simply ends all discussion.” Joe Manchin has very recently signaled that though he opposes elimination, he might be open to some changes. Short of total elimination, the Brennan Center has suggested three possible reforms: (1) Shifting burden to the minority (instead of requiring 60 votes to overcome filibuster, require 40 votes to sustain it); (2) Lowering the threshold number of senators to invoke cloture from 60 to something less; and (3) Requiring senators to hold the floor (a return to the talking filibuster). Each of the three reforms has some drawbacks. A disciplined minority could overcome the burden to find 40 votes to sustain its filibuster. Lowering the 60-vote threshold would still leave the burden on the majority. And requiring a senator to hold the floor could still allow a determined minority, yielding speech on the floor only to each other, to block legislation having majority support. Still, making a senator speak would reveal to American voters the true nature of the legislative battle and the obstruction being perpetrated. This could no longer be hidden from view. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has repeatedly said of the proposed voting rights legislation and indeed, of Congress’s entire legislative agenda, “failure is not an option.” The Senate’s Democratic caucus reportedly is engaged in serious discussion on what to do about the filibuster. Someone needs to remind the dissenters that the word “democracy,” from which the name of the Democratic Party is derived, is defined as a government ruled by the people; that is, by rule of the majority. To the Sinemas and Manchins, I say: let the majority be the majority. Jessie Seigel is a fiction writer, 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. She has twice received an Artist’s Fellowship from the DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities for her work. But, Seigel also had a long career as a government attorney, in which she honed her analytic skills. Of this double career, Seigel would say, “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.

Brian Barry, a senior at Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass., woke up in the middle of the night on March 10 with a telltale fever and muscle aches. What is it like to face down Covid as a hardy 21-year-old? In a text interview from school, Barry told The Insider his pandemic saga: PART I: 2020 B.C. (Before Covid) The Insider: Thanks so much for agreeing to talk with The Insider! A few background questions before we begin. Where are you from originally? Brian Barry: I grew up in Harrison, NY. The Insider: What’s your major? Brian Barry: Mathematics with a minor in Italian. The Insider: Were you living on campus at the beginning of the pandemic? Brian Barry: Yes. Last year I was on campus then we were sent home on March 14th I believe. All classes were online. For my senior year I now live in an off-campus house. Last semester was fully remote but this semester students are back on campus and some classes are in person or an online/in person hybrid. The Insider: Do you have a hybrid schedule? Brian Barry: No, all of my classes are online. The Insider: What was the beginning of the pandemic like for you? Brian Barry: It was pretty tough having to get sent home and lose the rest of my junior year on campus but it was necessary for the college to do. I went home and my brother and sister who both live in Brooklyn also came back since it was better for them to be in Harrison than in the city. I spent a lot of time playing video games with my friends since it was the best way for us to “hang out” with each other. The Insider: Did you have plans then for a summer job? What happened with that? Brian Barry: I had applied to a few internships in finance before the pandemic but I did not get any. My friend got me a job at a moving company that ran out of Newton, Mass. so I spent the summer at my off-campus house here in Worcester. The Insider: Your junior classes must have gone remote, right? What was that like? Brian Barry: Yes. We got sent home, then they gave us a week off so they could figure it out. It was definitely very strange not being in the classroom. Some classes were easier to transition, such as my philosophy class, religion class, and Italian literature class on Dante’s inferno. These classes could still be taught in a lecture format with discussions. It was not nearly as good as in person but the professors made it work. My math class was a bit more difficult. This course was a project course so the entire second half of the semester was spent working on a project doing Topological Data Analysis (TDA). We had to use coding software that would be readily available on the school’s computers but we had to download it onto our own laptops. It was hard to work at home since I had a lot of questions (I am not great at coding) and it’s difficult to ask questions via Zoom rather than being in office hours right across from the professor. The Insider: Were you working in Worcester when you had to leave? Did you still have to pay your rent in Worcester when you went home? Brian Barry: When I left I was still on campus so I did not yet have my lease on my house, that started in June. I did have a job at the athletic center on campus though, so I lost that. I believe the school gave us back some money from our room and board fees since we were not on campus, but from what my parents were saying, it was not much. The Insider: Your school is a very pricey one! Did tuition stay just as high, even though the classes were remote? Brian Barry: I believe they either stayed the same or they knocked off a very very small amount. I can check that quickly. Either way we were not happy since how could they still charge so much when they aren’t even turning the lights on in the buildings. The Insider: Yes, there were protests at some schools because of that. Brian Barry: There was no change in tuition. The Insider: So have you been back Worcester since the beginning of the summer? Brian Barry: Yes I moved on June 1st. The Insider: Fast forward to the beginning of fall semester. Did anything change then? Brian Barry: We were told the college was working on trying to get students on campus and some form of in person classes but all of the sudden we got an email saying that this would not be happening. Everyone, even professors, were out of the loop until the very last second. Some students were allowed to come back such as international students and varsity athletes. The school heavily prioritizes the varsity sports. Off-campus students were allowed to use the library and go to some areas campus if they got tested twice a week and performed a daily symptom checker. This was helpful since I could still use the library and it was good to have access to unlimited testing. The Insider: So you lived off-campus all fall, but attended remote classes? Did your friends and roommates do the same thing? Brian Barry: Yes we were all remote. All of my friends in my house were here last semester. Most if not all seniors who have off-campus houses were here. The Insider: How many people do you live with? Brian Barry: I live with 9 of my friends in a house split up into 3 separate units. So my unit has 4 people, and the other two each have 3. Which is nice since we are at least all together and we are all getting tested constantly. PART II: March 2021 (Positive) The Insider: When did you find out that you had Covid? Brian Barry: I tested positive on Tuesday March 9th. The Insider: Were you having symptoms? Brian Barry: Not yet. But I woke up very early that Wednesday morning with a fever and muscle aches. It was about 4 in the morning and I checked my email and saw my positive test results. The Insider: How did you feel when you found out? Were you scared? Brian Barry: I was worried for my housemates but I was not particularly scared for myself. It was definitely uncomfortable having these symptoms but even at its worst point, it was not something that was unbearable. The Insider: Did you lose your sense of smell and taste like some people do? Brian Barry: Yes, I did. I lost those senses about three days in. The fever lasted only two or three days. The fatigue, and muscle aches lasted about four or five. I would say losing those senses was the worst symptom. Being isolated in my room my biggest comfort was food so not being able to taste was very disappointing and made everything more boring haha The Insider: I can imagine! What did you do when you found out? Who did you tell first? Your family? The school? Your roommates? What was everyone’s reaction? Brian Barry: My school was immediately notified by the testing center but I also filled out my symptom checker that morning with my symptoms and I also indicated that I had tested positive. I first told my housemates and said that I was going to be isolated in my room. We were all contacted by the school with our specific instructions. No one was to leave for ten days. My friends had to get tested three times throughout the ten days. My mother was very worried of course. We were all disappointed, of course. Our other friends that found out though were very helpful. One friend went out and bought me food, tissues, and Tylenol. One of my housemates was at home in New York getting vaccinated so he stayed there. His mother sent me up a big care package of food as well. The way my school does it is that once I tested positive, I was told to isolate myself for ten days. Every day they call and monitor my symptoms. If by the end of 10 days, I am symptom-free, I am released. Then I do not have to get tested for 90 days. The reason for this is since it is very unlikely that I would be able to contract Covid again within this period. And even though I no longer have the virus, I could still potentially test positive since there could be harmless remnants in my system. The Insider: What was your highest fever? Brian Barry: 101.4. That lasted two days then Day 3 was about 100 degrees then it went away. The Insider: Did you see a doctor anytime during your illness? Brian Barry: No I was told to stay in my room unless it felt like it was an emergency and I needed medical attention. The Insider: Did you attend remote classes while you were sick? Brian Barry: I did not attend classes 3/10 - 3/12 but I went back to class the following week. The Insider: How do you feel now? Any residual effects? Brian Barry: I feel 100% back to normal now. The Insider: Great news! Couldn’t you still be contagious, though? Brian Barry: Apparently not. My school is following all the Massachusetts testing guidelines, so the research must indicate that after I have kicked the virus, the chances of contracting and being contagious are extremely low. I am of course still instructed to wear a mask and social distance. PART III: A.C. (After Covid) The Insider: When is the last time the rugby team played? Brian Barry: The last game was played in the end of November 2019. The Insider: Wow! That was a long time ago. Are you still a member of the team? Brian Barry: Yes, but since I am graduating and we can’t play, I guess I was forced into early retirement. The Insider: Good team? Brian Barry: Our rugby team is club but is highly competitive and very successful. I am involved with the club. I was co-president last year. We aren’t varsity so we are funded by campus recreation and donors from alumni rather than from the school’s money that goes to the teams such as football, basketball, etc. We do play against some schools with varsity rugby teams. The Insider: What is your position? Brian Barry: I play scrum half for the B-side of the team. Our A-side is our competitive side. I play on the B-side which is for newer players to learn and get experience. The Insider: What is your rugby team number?” Brian Barry: I wear number 9, which is the position of the scrum half. The numbers in rugby are tied to the positions. The Insider: Has there been a Covid problem on the Holy Cross campus? Brian Barry: I cannot remember if there were any significant outbreaks on campus last semester, but there have been some instances of several students getting Covid in a certain residence hall or on a sports team. The school is pretty good with it though. Since everyone is getting tested twice a week, it’s easy to catch a Covid case early. If someone tests positive, they are sent to a hotel the school has rented out as a quarantine and isolation center. The student and everyone who was in close contact with them are sent there for 10 days. Those who were in close contact are tested three times and monitor their symptoms over that 10-day period to make sure they do not have Covid. The Insider: What are the rules at the new Campus Recreation Center where you are working to make it safe? Brian Barry: Everyone has to be cleared which means they have completed their symptom checker for that day and they have been getting negative tests twice a week. Then we have capacity limits and workout equipment is 14 feet apart. Students have to book appointments too which keeps the capacity strict. The Insider: Do you know other people who have had Covid, either at Holy Cross or outside of school? Brian Barry: Yes I know a few people. A friend at another school and also a few kids who go here have had it in the past. The Insider: Are they all in their 20’s? Brian Barry: Yes. The Insider: Were they very sick? Brian Barry: One of my friends got it last year in March just as everything was getting shut down. He said his symptoms were nothing more than a slight cold. The Insider: What about the others? Brian Barry: Another friend had a fever for about a day or two and only lost his taste. That was his only other symptom. The other two were similar to me. A few days of fever and some aches and pains. One of whom did not lose taste or smell The Insider: Do you know any older people who got it? Brian Barry: Fortunately, I do not personally know any older people who have had it. But I know one of my friend’s mother had it but I do not know about her symptoms. And my boss here actually had it over the summer she said The Insider: It sounds as though it’s true that younger people usually have an easier time if they get it. Brian Barry: Yes, no one I know had it too bad The Insider: Does that mean that most people in their 20’s are not that worried about getting it, or do they worry a lot about infecting their parents and older relatives? Brian Barry: Everyone I know is worried because they know they can transmit it to others such as parents. But they aren’t worried about the symptoms themselves as much. They know that if they get it and isolate correctly it won’t be too bad as long as they don’t spread it. The Insider: Do you have any idea yet about when you’ll be eligible to get a vaccine? Brian Barry: I am not sure. I believe that this summer I may be able to since I will be a government employee The Insider: What date will you be graduating? Brian Barry: May 21st The Insider: Soon! And what job are you taking? Brian Barry: I will be working at the Department of Defense as a contract specialist at the F35 joint program office. I will be working on contracts on behalf of the DoD pertaining to the F35 fighter jet. I start in July. The Insider: Nice! Good for you!! Will you be moving to Washington, DC? Brian Barry: Thank you! I will be moving to Arlington Va. The Insider: Did you interview for the job in person, or remotely? Brian Barry: I had my interview on the phone. The Insider: Will you be able to go into your office in person? Brian Barry: I have a friend who works there now and he said that a small number of people can go into the office to work if they would like to, but no one really does. Everything is remote right now. The Insider: Looking back on your academic experience during the pandemic, how do you feel about it? Brian Barry: I think that no matter what professors do, online classes will never compare to in person ones. Being in the classroom and in front of the professor is how I have learned all my life. Also not having the ability to meet up with friends easily on campus dampens the college experience greatly. A huge part of college is being on campus with all of your friends which is a release from all the work. My favorite thing at school was playing rugby and hanging out with the team, but this is no longer possible. However, this is unfortunately how it must be. I hope that the issue at hand can be dealt with as quickly as possible so college life can go back to normal for students in the future. The Insider: Yes! Brian Barry: I also notice that students lose motivation when classes move online which is frustrating for professors. The Insider: Did grading stay the same? And did homework stay the same? Brian Barry: Last year when we got sent home some professors ditched some assignments and the college let us designate two classes as pass-fail. Holy Cross is the only school out of all my friends’ schools that allowed only two pass-fails. They had the option to have all four. But last semester and this semester professors went back to a regular amount of work, which is a bombardment. The Insider: So in a way, the schools were giving students the option of disregarding their grades during the pandemic, right? You’re talking about spring semester, right? Brian Barry: For two classes you had the ability to disregard the letter grade you just needed to pass to get credit. You can uncover those grades and count them towards your gpa if you want to at graduation. And yes that was for spring last year. The Insider: Help me understand the general attitude of colleges. Did they not care as much about students’ pandemic grades? Brian Barry: For grades I think it depends on the professors They were lenient last year out of sympathy but this year it’s up to the professors and how they structure the class and if they think that we should be fully accustomed to online learning. The Insider: How would you sum up your feelings about having had Covid? Brian Barry: I think that having Covid was a very interesting experience. It is interesting to see how the symptoms differ among cases. I’m glad too that none of the people I live with got it so it did not spread. I will try and see if I can donate plasma. The Insider: Do you have any remaining symptoms now? Brian Barry: Nope. None. I am all clear. The Insider: We’re glad to hear it! You are a lucky man!

One film journalist’s stream-of-consciousness cinematic journey through the pandemic, Part 31 By Laurence Lerman I’m taking a step back from my usual genre roundups or the whack-a-moling of films that trickled into my stream, in order to call attention to the passing of a pair of talented performers. Both were well-known, likable, respected, versatile and seemingly always busy, even as they each entered their seventh decade as actors—even working together several times over the years. I’m speaking first of George Segal, who died in Santa Rosa, Calif. of complications from bypass surgery on Tuesday, March 23, at the age of 87, and Jessica Walter, who died in her home in Manhattan on Wednesday, March 24. She was 80. Both were born in New York (Walter in Brooklyn; Segal in Great Neck, Long Island) and studied their craft in late Fifties Manhattan—(Walter at the Neighborhood Playhouse School of the Theatre; Segal at The Actors Studio) before getting their first work on TV and the New York stage, followed not long after in the movies. Segal spent the majority of his career from the late Sixties through the early 2000s on the big screen, while Walter primarily stuck to television and theater, with both contributing their wide-ranging skills in starring roles and supporting turns in dozens of comedies, mysteries, dramas, thrillers and even a horror vehicle or two. The list for each is formidable—my favorites are, for Segal, No Way To Treat a Lady (1968), Where’s Poppa? (1970), The Hot Rock (1972), A Touch of Class (1973), The Last Married Couple in America (1980), To Die For (1995), Flirting with Disaster (1996) and, yeah, even the idiotically fun Look Who’s Talking (1989). After scaring the hell out of me as the dangerously deranged Clint Eastwood-stalking Evelyn Draper in Play Misty for Me (1971), Walter engaged in a career of seamless genre-hopping in Amy Prentiss (1974), The Flamingo Kid (1984), Tapeheads (1988), Dinosaurs (1991), Oh Baby (1998), Slums of Beverly Hills (1998) and the bizarre indie comedy The Dummy (2002). Since the dawn of the millennium, Segal and Walter found their most consistent work on the small screen in a number of television comedy series. Segal provided able support in such entries as Just Shoot Me (1997-2003), Entourage (2009) and, most gloriously, as ‘Pops’ Solomon in eight seasons of the smash hit The Goldbergs (2013-2021). Walter lent her sophisticated sense of sass to numerous projects, including Jennifer Falls (2014), the animated Archer (2009-2020) and as the notorious Lucille Bluth in the snarkingly clever Arrested Development (2003-2013, with a couple of reboots thrown in later). The sitcom Retired at 35, a forgotten 2011 TV Land entry, holds the distinction of featuring Segal and Walter together as an aging couple living in a Florida retirement community, playing host to their young businessman son (played by Johnathan McClain), who decides to leave the New York City rat race and move in with his parents to reconnect with them. I confess that I’ve seen nary a single episode, but the show’s illustrious pedigree now demands that I take a look. Before that, though, I plan to revisit an earlier project where the pair’s paths intersected: Sidney Lumet’s 1968 pitch-perfect New York City comedy-drama Bye Bye Braverman. Written by the great Herb Sargent (of SNL and The Tonight Show fame) from Wallace Markfield’s 1964 novel To an Early Grave, the film begins with the announcement of the sudden death of an idealistic writer from a heart attack at 41. A quartet of the writer’s Jewish intellectual friends, including Sorrell Booke, Joseph Wiseman and Jack Warden, spend the length of the movie travelling to and attending the writer’s funeral, daydreaming, fantasizing, kibbitzing and flashing back to moments from their lives. Early on, Segal’s character, a PR man named Morroe Rieff from the Upper East Side, goes to his deceased friend’s apartment to console his wife, a leggy Ms. Walter as new widow Inez Braverman, whose mourning finds her sending her young daughter out to a deli to buy candy before passionately embracing Rieff to cope with her “grief.” It’s a memorable moment in an excellent film featuring two fine performers who would continue to entertain us for another 50+ years. 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.

The Insider’s New Gardening Columnist Invites You to Dig In By Victoria Rolfe I have always been interested in growing things. As a tiny child, I was fascinated and envious of the daffodils in our neighbor’s yard. Why couldn’t we have those beautiful flowers? (Oddly, it never occurred to me to ask my mother to grow them in our yard. I think I had no idea that would be possible.) As an older child, I started a very small, rudimentary vegetable garden in my mom’s backyard. And even as a teen experimenting with pot, I took my experimentation in a whole different direction by taking one of the seeds out of the bag and growing my own marijuana plant on my bedroom windowsill. My mother was clueless, by the way. I told her I had planted a seed from the Mimosa tree next door. 😄 When my husband John and I bought our first house on Long island, N.Y., I was so excited finally to have my own piece of land to cultivate. Since it was only a smallish lot, and truthfully my time and attention were devoted to growing babies and caring for toddlers in those years, I just grew the basics . But inwardly, my passion was growing each time I planted tomato and cucumber seeds and nurtured them into real food that we could eat. Then when our youngest child was four, we moved up here to the Hudson Valley into a home with a beautiful three acres to enjoy. Itching to get out there, my first official act that spring was to dig up a nice little garden just steps from my kitchen door. I think that initial plot was maybe 16’ x 12’. But the next year we added to it, and we continued to expand it each year. Now, that little plot has grown to about 36’x75’. At the same time, I began to grow some flowers around the yard, expanding and adding new ornamentals as the years progressed. As the kids went off to school and I had more time, I began to get serious about learning about gardening. I devoured books from the library (remember frugality, free education!), and began applying the techniques I was learning. And as my flowers, vegetables, and gardens grew, so did my passion! When my three of my four kids were small, we joined the 4-H Club. By and by, I discovered that the Farm & Home Center (home base for the Cornell Cooperative Extension, where 4-H was run), also had a program called The Master Gardeners and my interest was piqued. So when my youngest was poised for middle school, I signed up. The program involves classes on a myriad of gardening subjects. And in return for the education, we are required to put in a certain amount of volunteer time for the next ten years to remain in the program. We are also provided with (and in fact are required to take) ongoing continuing education on gardening topics of our choice: everything from container gardening to organic vegetable gardening, to tree Indentification and anything in-between. For our service hours, we garden, teach classes, and answer gardening questions from the community via a Master Garden hotline or in booths throughout the county, most notably at the Dutchess County, N.Y. Fair. I have long passed my ten-year mark and so now am considered emeritus (no volunteer time required), but I still remain an active Master Gardener Volunteer to this day. In exchange for our time, in addition to the great satisfaction of educating and interacting with the public to share our passion for gardening, we are treated to monthly field trips throughout the summer months to all of the beautiful gardens to be seen in our lovely region. And we make friends with like-minded people so that we do not have to bore our other friends to tears with our endless garden talk. My particular group of tight-knit friends call ourselves the Magical Gardeners, and I think that says it all. So, you can imagine my delight that this enforced shutdown has people turning to their own backyards and discovering the joy of gardening, which has been so near and dear to my heart all these years. When The Insider asked me if I could write an ongoing garden column and help people get down in their own dirt and discover the magic of growing things, how could I say no? It’s what I do! I would love to hear from you, dear readers, of what your own gardening experience has been so far, and what you would like to learn about. Please feel free to ask me your gardening questions and I will do my best to answer them. And remember, this is frugal gardening, so I will help you to save money at the same time! Here is a collection of Victoria's previous Insider stories: The (Unexpected) Silver Lining of Sheltering in Place Fleeing the City? Are You Ready to Buy a House? Should I Live My life for Today or Save for Tomorrow? Thankfulness, Frugality and Your Money Reflections on my COVID Year Aesop Meets the Pandemic What Should I Do with My Stimulus Check? Visit her website and blog at brightfuture2budget4.weebly.com, or email her at brightfuture2budget4@gmail.com.

By Merrill Lynn Hansen Like most people, I've socialized less during the pandemic, and have had more time to read. When selecting reading matter, I occasionally like to peruse old articles written by journalists whom I've admired through the years. I recently came across a January 2007 essay by Christopher Hitchens in Vanity Fair. I prepared myself to be intellectually challenged, as I almost always am when reading Hitchens’ writing. Before his death in 2011, Hitchens was a brilliant sociopolitical critic, author, columnist and orator. I often have to read his essays more than once, because they are very thought-provoking. This time, I was startled by the title, "Why Women Aren't Funny,” and I wondered if it was just a hook to grab readers, rather than a conclusion he'd actually reached. Of course women are funny--or so I thought. According to Hitchens’ essay, women aren't funny because they don't need to be; they don't need humor in order to be appealing to men, because they already are. Hitchens declares that men are funnier than women, because "they had damn well better be." The chief task in life for a man, writes Hitchens, is to perform and impress the opposite sex; an average man "has just one, outside chance: he had better be able to make the lady laugh." Hitchens grudgingly acknowledges that there are funny women who performed stand-up comedy. If I weren’t already miffed after reading the first few paragraphs of his essay, I certainly wanted to smack him upside the head, when he added that many of the women in comedy were fat and Jewish. Hitchens, who always proclaimed himself to be right on every subject, made me wonder if there was any scientific, rather than anecdotal, evidence to support his theory that women aren't funny, or certainly aren't as funny as men. It also made me wonder whether or not I’m funny, or if my sense of humor is as undeveloped as Hitchens claimed the humor level of all women, because in essence, women are just looking for a man to mate with. In my pursuit, I read that at Stanford University School of Medicine, teachers showed ten men and ten women a sample of 70 black-and-white cartoons and had them rate them on a “funniness scale.” I tried to read the study, but when I got to the part about the "prefrontal cortex being more activated in women,” I still didn't know whether I was funny or not. I just knew I was bored. So I skipped to what I call the "P.S." of the study (I occasionally read the end of a book first, to see if I think the beginning or middle would be interesting), and learned that, per the study: “Women appeared to have less expectation of a reward, which in this case was the punchline of the cartoon." Not only did women have less expectation of a joke being funny, they were slower to understand the punchline, more pleased than men when they finally did understand the punchline but were quicker to understand if it wasn't funny. Hmmm. I tried to picture all the times a man started to tell me a joke, and I had a feeling it wasn't going to be funny; had difficulty understanding the punchline, got excited when I finally did understand the punchline, and then thought "Nah, this isn't funny.” Often. I also read about a study conducted by Aberystwyth University and the University of North Carolina that looked at how funny 5,000 people were. "Researchers" wanted to find out if the stereotype that men are funnier than women is true. Men and women were asked to write a funny caption alongside a cartoon, and "independent judges" rated how funny the captions were, without knowing the gender of the caption writers. The results of the study supposedly supported the stereotype, and the lead researcher went so far as to “suggest” that there is evidence that because humor plays a major role in mating, women look for a sense of humor in a man, and men look for a woman who will laugh at their humor. I have never been able to write an even remotely funny cartoon caption, but it has never crossed my mind that the editor of a magazine cartoon caption contest would think it's because I might want to mate with the male figure in the cartoon. Women believe a sense of humor strongly correlates with intelligence. I'm one of those women. But I've never told a formal joke to anyone since I was in the third grade, because the punch line to the only prefabricated joke I can remember is "Benny burped". The more I read about the study findings, the more uncomfortable I started to feel. Hitchens and the authors of the studies gave the impression that men were just poor souls who did everything in their power to impress women, and women were just looking for a mate. I began to personalize what I was reading. I now wondered if men had ever knocked themselves out to impress me with their wit. Did I merely laugh at men because I was trying to flatter them, or make myself more attractive to them? Hmm. I've definitely not been on the same humor wavelength as all the men I've known, but that's because I'm not stupid. I know some exceptionally intelligent men, but some of them rate a subzero on the "1 to 10” scale when it comes to sophisticated and tasteful humor. I admit that I may have laughed at an occasional clunky or bad-taste joke to impress a man who was trying to be funny, and I may have smiled at some ex-wife jokes that I didn't think were amusing, especially after I became one. But I will never understand the guy who suddenly became the Discovery Station and showed me a video of a python eating a horse, because he thought it would be hilarious to see my reaction. And studies showed men are funnier than women? In an attempt to reassure myself that I do indeed have a very healthy sense of humor, I sent an email to a gentleman friend with whom I’ve had many conversations about hundreds of subjects. He knows the immediate world. I was certain he'd have a very favorable opinion of women's humor, and certainly mine. I told him about the studies, and without mentioning myself, I asked if he thought men were funnier than women. He wrote back and said that he honestly had never given the matter any thought, but that my email, which was not intended to be humorous, was the funniest thing I'd ever said to him. Argh. I didn't bother asking for an opinion from some of the fellows I'd briefly gone out with. They might think the reason I didn't say anything funny was because I have no sense of humor. I wouldn't want to tell them that I rarely could get a word in edgewise because they sucked up all the oxygen in the room. Clearly, Hitchens' perspective about how hard men had to work to compete against other men to attract women had more than a tinge of bitterness. When he defended his article in a subsequent interview, Hitchens admitted that he was bisexual, and because men no longer found him attractive, he had to be even funnier in his attempts to attract women. But, to add insult to injury, Hitchens wrote that while it is very possible that women get funnier as they get older, it seemed like a rather long time to have to wait. Clearly, I am not someone whom Hitchens would have wanted to go bowling with. Merrill Lynn Hansen is a legal assistant, living in West Bloomfield, Michigan. She describes herself as a frustrated writer, who wishes she could be Nora Ephron (when she was alive), if only for a day. She is a news-, political- and FB-junkie, a combination that requires a constant reminder that she needs to take deep cleansing breaths when responding to people who don't agree with her.

By Andy Borowitz March 25, 2021 WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Calling it a “scandal bigger than Watergate,” the Fox News host Tucker Carlson accused President Biden of “thoroughly faking mental sharpness” for more than an hour during his press conference on Thursday. “Doing everything he could to give the appearance of mental acuity, he answered questions in detail, stayed on point, and uttered suspiciously complete sentences,” Carlson alleged. “I’ve seen some shameless stunts in my time, but this one takes the cake.” Carlson said that Biden’s “desperate charade” extended to “accomplishing concrete things to make himself seem competent.” “When he said that he would double the number of vaccinations in his first hundred days, my jaw dropped,” he said. “President Trump would never have tried to pull something like that.” 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.