By Charles Polit In my 16 years as a physical therapist in Manhattan, I never even considered doing remote physical therapy sessions. It didn’t occur to me that the type of work I do (I treat all musculoskeletal conditions, with a specialty in hand and upper extremity injuries) was suited to being practiced at a distance. But by mid-March last year, my business partner and I made a decision because of growing safety concerns about the pandemic to temporarily close our office. By the end of March, it was clear to us that the pandemic could last longer than anticipated. This coincided with a buzz in the medical community about telehealth. So we made a decision to give Zoom and other platforms a try. I was skeptical at first. I didn’t think there would be much demand, given the obvious physical limitations of not being in the same room. But to my surprise, my patients and I felt pretty comfortable with it from the start. People seem to really enjoy the sessions and felt they were quite useful in helping them address what they were originally coming in for. There really is no substitute for in-person treatment of physical conditions. It is frustrating at times not to be able to manually assess how physically weak or tight a patient is. But given the obstacles that the pandemic has thrown in front of all of us, remote sessions can be surprisingly beneficial. Experienced practitioners can listen to a patient’s history, visually evaluate his or her condition and develop exercise or treatment regimens, guiding the patient through them virtually. It’s the best we can do under these trying circumstances. Patients have been happy to learn that Medicare, as well as most commercial insurance policies, cover all telehealth visits. I’m currently treating about 20% of my patients remotely. I was a little worried about my own health those first few months of treating patients in person again, since a lot was and still is unknown about Covid-19. But fortunately, those fears were unfounded. We’ve followed all the governmental guidelines, and patients have adhered to them as well. A patient’s temperature is taken at the door, and masks are worn by everyone, with windows open and a new air-filtration system installed. Interactions between patients have been minimized or eliminated altogether, with 15-minute separations scheduled between appointments. In New York State, physical therapists were right after front-line health workers in being eligible to get vaccines. I received my second Moderna shot on February 4. I felt very lucky to get it so easily and so soon. I think telehealth is here to stay, even after the pandemic is over, for patients who, for whatever reason, cannot or do not want to come into an office setting. Physical therapists and patients alike have definitely come to appreciate the benefits of remote treatment. A far cry from what any of us in my profession expected to be doing in 2021! Charles Polit is the co-founder of Artus Physical Therapy in Manhattan. He is working both remotely and in-person during the pandemic. info@artuspt.com (Artus email address) (646) 559-2656 (Artus phone number)

February 25, 2021 Jeffrey D. Sachs | Project Syndicate Cooperation is not cowardice, as American conservatives repeatedly claim. Both the US and China have much to gain from it: peace, expanded markets, accelerated technological progress, the avoidance of a new arms race, progress against COVID-19, a robust global jobs recovery, and a shared effort against climate change. NEW YORK – American foreign policy since World War II has been based on a simple idea, perhaps best expressed by President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks: Either you are with us or against us. America should lead, allies should follow, and woe be to countries that oppose its primacy. The idea was both simple and simplistic. And now it is antiquated: The United States faces no implacable foes, no longer leads an overpowering alliance, and has far more to gain from cooperation with China and other countries than from confrontation. Former President Donald Trump was a grotesque caricature of US leadership. He hurled insults, threats, unilateral tariffs, and financial sanctions to try to force other countries to submit to his policies. He ripped up the multilateral rulebook. Yet Trump’s foreign policy faced remarkably little pushback inside the US. There was more consensus than opposition to Trump’s anti-China policies, and little resistance to his sanctions on Iran and Venezuela, despite their catastrophic humanitarian consequences. President Joe Biden’s foreign policy is a godsend in comparison. Already, the US has rejoined the Paris climate agreement and the World Health Organization, is seeking to return to the United Nations Human Rights Council, and promises to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. These are hugely positive and admirable steps. Yet Biden’s early foreign policy pronouncements vis-à-vis China and US leadership are problematic. Biden’s recent address to the Munich Security Conference is a good window into his administration’s thinking in these early days. There are three causes for concern. First, there is the rather naive idea that “America is back” as world leader. The US is only now returning to multilateralism, has utterly botched the COVID-19 pandemic, and until January 20 was actively working against the mitigation of climate change. It still must heal the many deep wounds left by Trump, not least the insurrection of January 6, and address why 75 million Americans voted for him last November. That means reckoning with the hefty dose of white supremacist culture animating much of today’s Republican Party. Second, “The partnership between Europe and the United States,” Biden declared, “is and must remain the cornerstone of all that we hope to accomplish in the twenty-first century, just as we did in the twentieth century.” Really? I am a Europhile and strong supporter of the European Union, but the US and the EU account for just 10% of humanity (NATO members account for 12%). The transatlantic alliance cannot and should not be the cornerstone “for all we hope to accomplish” this century; it is but one important and positive building block. We need shared global stewardship by all parts of the world, not by the North Atlantic or any other region alone. For much of the world, the North Atlantic has an enduring association with racism and imperialism, an association stirred by Trump. Third, Biden claims the world is engaged in a great ideological struggle between democracy and autocracy. “We’re at an inflection point between those who argue that, given all the challenges we face – from the fourth industrial revolution to a global pandemic – that autocracy is the best way forward…and those who understand that democracy is essential…to meeting those challenges.” Given this alleged ideological battle between democracy and autocracy, Biden declared that “we must prepare together for a long-term strategic competition with China,” adding that this competition is “welcome, because I believe in the global system Europe and the United States, together with our allies in the Indo-Pacific, worked so hard to build over the last 70 years.” The US may view itself as being in a long-term ideological struggle with China, but the feeling is not mutual. American conservatives’ insistence that China is out to rule the world has come to underpin a bipartisan consensus in Washington. But China’s goal is neither to prove that autocracy outperforms democracy, nor to “erode American security and prosperity,” as the 2017 US National Security Strategy asserts. Consider Chinese President Xi Jinping’s speech at the World Economic Forum in January. Xi did not talk about the advantages of autocracy, or the failures of democracy, or the great struggle between political systems. Instead, Xi conveyed a message based on multilateralism to address shared global challenges, identifying “four major tasks.” Xi called on the world’s leaders to “step up macroeconomic policy coordination and jointly promote strong, sustainable, balanced, and inclusive growth of the world economy.” He also urged them “to abandon ideological prejudice and jointly follow a path of peaceful coexistence, mutual benefit, and win-win cooperation.” Third, they must “close the divide between developed and developing countries and jointly bring about growth and prosperity for all.” Lastly, they should “come together against global challenges and jointly create a better future for humanity.” Xi stated that the path to global cooperation requires remaining “committed to openness and inclusiveness,” as well as “to international law and international rules” and “to consultation and cooperation.” He declared the importance of “keeping up with the times instead of rejecting change.” Biden’s foreign policy with China should begin with a search for cooperation rather than a presumption of conflict. Xi has pledged that China will “take an active part in international cooperation on COVID-19,” continue to open up to the world, and promote sustainable development and “a new type of international relations.” US diplomacy would be wise to aim for engagement with China in these areas. Today’s hostile rhetoric risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Cooperation is not cowardice, as American conservatives repeatedly claim. Both the US and China have much to gain from it: peace, expanded markets, accelerated technological progress, the avoidance of a new arms race, progress against COVID-19, a robust global jobs recovery, and a shared effort against climate change. With reduced global tensions, Biden could direct the administration’s efforts toward overcoming the inequality, racism, and distrust that put Trump in power in 2016 and still dangerously divides American society. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/biden-administration-should-pursue-cooperation-with-china-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2021-02

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."

How to Gently Tell Your Elderly Dog He’s Stayed Too Long at the Fair By Gwen Cooper Sometime later this year, I will turn 50. It will be a milestone of sorts—an opportunity to assess where I’ve been, where I’m going, and what I’d like to accomplish with the remaining allotment of years left to me. Mostly, though, it will be the continuation of a process begun long ago, well before I was even aware it was happening. Things will start to sag and other things that were sagging already will continue their inexorable southward drift. My hair will gray and my waistline expand even further. That I will have long since ceased to be the bright-eyed and twitchy-tailed “hottie” I was in my youth will be an uncomfortable truth, perhaps, but certainly an unavoidable one. Sadly, I can’t lay any cultural claim to the burqa or self-immolation. But I was nevertheless raised with a proper sense of moral rectitude. Having reached the point where I’ve ceased to be an ornament to society—or an ornament of any kind—I will do the right thing. I will hide from public view (and from cameras, it goes without saying) to the greatest extent possible. It would, after all, be in extraordinarily bad taste to compel members of the public at large to confront their mortality by forcing upon them the grim specter of my own. Not to mention the embarrassment that always follows when somebody is so lacking in self-awareness as to apparently believe their company desirable—even welcomed—despite having outlived their fresh-faced, youthful visage. Someone who clearly needs a close friend or loved one to step in and offer a bit of sage advice on this score—to gently encourage him to spend more time by the fireside and less in the limelight—is that Norma Desmond of pedigreed pooches, Champ the White House dog. Sure, in his youth Champ was a crowd-pleaser—fit and fun-loving, flying like God’s own fury after every tossed tennis ball or far-flung Frisbee. But that was then, and this is now. Nowadays, Champ’s once-taut belly sags with age. His haggard, wizened appearance inspires shudders of existential dread, no matter how adorably his tongue continues to loll out of his mouth. Champ is now 13 years old, after all—which is 82 in dog years. The fact that there isn’t a law against being 82 already on the books can only be the result of the kind of “bleeding-heart” liberal policies so beloved by Champ’s human dad and his radical leftist pals. That’s why we’re so fortunate to have courageous truth-tellers among us, like Newsmax’s Gregory Raymond Kelly and historian Craig Paul Shirley. Perhaps they used the word “dirty” to describe the appearance of Champ’s salt-and-pepper-flecked face (more salt than pepper these days, if we’re being honest), and “rough” to denote the fur that’s begun unevenly to thin in patches with age. Maybe they said that Champ looked like “a junkyard dog,” rather than just coming out and using that uncomfortable “O” word (old). But we all know what they meant. The comparisons drawn to previous White House dogs—Millie Bush, a sprightly 4-year-old when she assumed the office of FDOTUS, and Buddy Clinton, who was only a puppy—made the subtext perfectly clear. That Champ has stayed too long at the fair is indisputable—and there’s nothing sadder than a dog whose day is already in the distant past, but whose loved ones can’t bring themselves to do the right thing and tell him so. Which is why I find it so disheartening to see public opinion swing against Ted Cruz, who at least attempted to find an elegant solution to his own “aging dog” problem by leaving the family poodle to freeze alone in an unheated house—prudently off camera—while the rest of the clan passed a record-setting cold snap vacationing in Cancun. Memento mori, Snowflake. Don’t commit the Champ Biden error of trying to spend your future living in the past. Gwen Cooper is the New York Times bestselling author of Homer's Odyssey: A Fearless Feline Tale, or How I Learned About Love and Life with a Blind Wonder Cat; My Life in a Cat House: True Tales of Love, Laughter, and Living with Five Felines; Spray Anything: More True Tales of Homer and the Gang; and The Book of PAWSOME: Head Bonks, Raspy Tongues, and 101 Reasons Why Cats Make Us So, So Happy; along with numerous other titles. Her work has been published in nearly two-dozen languages. Gwen lives in Jersey City with her husband, Laurence. She also lives with her two perfect cats--Clayton "the Tripod" and his litter-mate, Fanny--who aren't impressed with any of it. Check out a full list of Gwen's titles on her Amazon.com author page.

By Jessie Seigel / Washington, D.C. “If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.” That joke, made by fellow Republican Senator Lindsey Graham in 2016, still has currency. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, known as the most hated man in the Senate, is not only disliked by his Democratic opponents, but by his Republican colleagues as well. They largely see him as a grandstander, always putting what’s good for himself ahead of what’s good for the Republican Party. Josh Holmes, former chief of staff for Senator Mitch McConnell, told The Washington Post in 2015. “he’s consistently sacrificed the mutual goals of many for his personal enhancement.” Is it any surprise then, that four days ago, while his Texas constituents were being devastated by the effects of a violent snowstorm and icy cold wave, Cruz fled with his wife and two daughters to a Ritz-Carlton in sunny Cancún, Mexico, at a reported $300 per night? Cruz’s “personal enhancement” did not even extend to Snowflake, the family poodle, whom he left back in Texas to freeze along with Cruz’s fellow Texans. While Cruz and family were jetting down to Mexico, those he was elected to represent were in the middle of a week-long life and death struggle to obtain food, drinkable water and some way to avoid freezing to death after the Texas electrical grid all but collapsed under the weight of the snow storm and freezing temperatures. As of Saturday, more than 14.4 million people—half the state’s population—had reported disruptions in their water service. Leaving Texas on Wednesday, the Senator’s original plan had evidently been to stay in Cancún until Sunday. But, when caught in the act, Cruz returned to Texas on Thursday armed with transparently ridiculous explanations for deserting his state. His justification? “Our girls when they got the news that school was cancelled this week, said let’s go somewhere where it’s not so cold—and Heidi and I—this had been a tough week, and it’s been a tough year for kids—kids all across the state of Texas, and we were trying to be good parents. And so we said we’d do it.” Cruz also claimed he was just “chaperoning” his kids to Mexico, noting he had come back the next day. Of course, that won’t wash. For starters, it doesn’t require two parents to “chaperone” the kids. Cruz could have sent his wife and children out of harm’s way while he stayed to do his duty. Furthermore, the size and bulge of his suitcase suggest more than a one-night layover was planned. And as for it being a tough week and a tough year “for kids all across the state of Texas,” it was especially tough for the eleven-year-old who apparently froze to death in his sleep in an unheated mobile home while Mr. Cruz was off on his jaunt to Cancún. Not to mention the many others, like a woman worried to death that, because of the emergency, her ill husband would not be able to get what he needed to survive. Some have described Cruz’s Mexico trip and his excuses as “tone-deaf.” The New York Times called his actions “a political error” and “a failure of optics.” But that mistakenly puts the emphasis on politics as sport. It makes the essential question: why didn’t this politician know how bad this would look? However, politics is not sport. It affects how we live and whether we live. Ted Cruz’s behavior was not a failure of “optics.” It was yet another failure of humanity. In contrast to Cruz, our new president, Joe Biden, stepped in immediately to help. He quickly approved an emergency declaration for Texas on February 14, which made federal emergency aid available to the state. The following week, on February 21, Biden declared much of Texas a federal disaster area, making federal funding available to communities across 77 counties. This action facilitates grants for temporary housing and home repairs, low-cost loans to cover uninsured property losses, and other programs to help individuals and business owners recover. Biden’s response to crises is miles above those of his predecessor, whose idea of federal aid was tossing rolls of paper towels at a crowd in hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico. In addition, Texas Democrats like Beto O’Rourke (who challenged and almost beat Cruz in his last election) and Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, pushed for federal aid to the state, as well as pitching in on the ground. Ted Cruz is not alone in his lack of human decency. That failure seems to run rampant in the Texas Republican party from top to bottom (and if truth be known, the national party as well). Texas Governor Greg Abbott tried to blame the failure of the Texas electrical grid on the Green New Deal, maintaining that it was the shutdown of wind and solar power that “thrust Texas into a situation where it was lacking power on a statewide basis.” But this was a bald-faced lie. The Green New Deal has not yet even been voted on, let alone put in place. Furthermore, Texas was forewarned that this energy failure could happen after previous massive blackouts in 1989 and 2011, caused by cold weather, which left citizens without power for days. Based on a federal investigation, recommendations were made that the system should be winterized to prepare for future such events. But the Texas government did not heed those recommendations. And while Cruz was jetting off to Mexico and Abbott was falsely claiming renewable energy failure was to blame for the crisis, Democratic New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, proponent of the Green New Deal, was helping to raise $4 million for relief efforts for Texans in need. She also spent time on the ground, working to distribute aid alongside Representatives Sylvia Garcia and Sheila Jackson Lee, Democrats, who represent Houston. Representative Lee has explained that Texas deliberately developed its energy grid based only upon the resources in their state. It kept its grid unconnected to the national grid because the mindset of the Republicans was: “We don’t want federal intrusion or oversight.” By not crossing state lines, Texas utilities avoided being subject to federal rules. Because of this, when Lee asked if any states could swap energy with Texas during this crisis, the federal government said it could not be done because Texas does not have a transmission system that can reach California or Colorado. Lee declared that the Texas system was selfish: “We do for ourselves, we don’t help anyone else. So now when we need it, they can’t help us even though they have the energy.” Lee maintained that the state must make its grid integrate with the national grid, and give Texas the ability to interact with other states in the future. The strong political power of the oil and gas industry in Texas likely underlies its refusal, thus far, to connect to the national grid. But some officials in the state, particularly in the current Republican party, have a devotion to self-reliance—for others, anyway—that is pathological. In response to the crisis, Republican Colorado City Mayor Tim Boyd posted the following tirade on Facebook: “No one owes you and your family anything; nor is it the local government’s responsibility to support you during trying times like this! Sink or swim, it’s your choice! The City and County, along with power providers or any other service owes you NOTHING!... If you don’t have electricity you… come up with a game plan to keep your family warm and safe." Boyd called those who might be waiting for a rescue lazy, and further ranted: “Only the strong will survive and the weak will parish [sic].” Darwin Does Dallas! Boyd has now resigned his office. What the Cruzes, Abbotts and Boyds either do not understand or do not care about, is that the hell that Texans have experienced this last week is the ultimate consequence of Libertarian “individualist” ideology. Ted Cruz and his home-state politicos have long been selling this selfishness to the people of Texas. They bought it—they voted it in, and they are suffering for it. Will their state government’s callous neglect during this life or death crisis be enough to make them vote out the selfishness of Cruz and the rest? Or will they forget by the time the next election rolls around? And if this extreme threat to life is not enough, what will be? I must remind myself that although this Republican ideology has had a stranglehold on Texas politics for nigh on to 20 years, there are also Texans like Beto O’Rourke, Julian and Joaquin Castro, Sheila Jackson Lee and others who are working against this hard, bitter “every man for himself” thinking. Even more important, it must be recognized that Texas, like many other states, is really a microcosmic representation of an ongoing struggle throughout the nation. Our Senate in Washington is precariously divided 50-50 between the idea of one nation working together and the “every man for himself” ideology. Ominously, right-wing extremists have made small gains in the House of Representatives. Fortunately, at the moment, we have a President who believes in a unity of national purpose—neighbor helping neighbor, and a government elected by the people helping the people who elected it. Hopefully, Ted Cruz and his buddies got the message this time, or will be sent permanently packing. 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.

By John Rolfe I’ve been wracking my skull for years to understand why Donald Trump commands such devotion to the point where many people are sacrificing relationships with family and friends who oppose or simply criticize him. I’m also trying to square that behavior with Trump being everything people ordinarily say they despise: a brazen liar, a childish bully who spews schoolyard and racist insults, an ignorant and loudmouthed know-it-all, a sleazy sexist scoundrel who cheated on his wife with a porn star, and a dictator wannabe who tried to overturn an election with unfounded claims of voter fraud that sparked a siege of the Capitol by his followers. You’d think at least some of that would tarnish him in their eyes, but you’d be wrong. So, why such adamant allegiance? The answers I’ve been getting from people I consider to be reasonable: The days of genteel Republicans like Ronald Reagan are over. Trump may be a dirty, lying scoundrel and a bully but he’s our scoundrel and bully, and he fought for us like no President ever had. His achievements (tax cuts, high employment, regulatory rollbacks, curbing immigration, challenging China, Mideast peace deals, and pulling us out of wars) were worth offending people and any damage he may have done. Just as many of us find it hard to grasp Trump’s Gorilla Glue appeal to his followers, his supporters can’t or won’t grasp just how deeply and unnecessarily he antagonized millions of people. Trumpers are offended that we are offended and have disrespected someone they love. Hence the charming Trumper slogan, “F—k your feelings.” Even worse, Trump and right-wing politicians and media have led his followers to believe that liberals, Democrats and even moderates and centrists are existential enemies and that America’s future is at stake. Garden-variety political and social disagreements are boiling over into outright hostility and refusal to compromise. Each side views the other as hopelessly brainwashed and stupid. So now we have families riven by political discord with members no longer speaking to each other because of their feelings about Trump. Friends and neighbors have fallen out with each other or with us. I’ve been unfriended on Facebook and shunned at work by people with whom I’d been friendly. We never had so much as a political discussion. But my opinions are easily known because I write a sociopolitical column for The Poughkeepsie Journal. That also makes me a member of the despised “fake news media” in their eyes, and it even led one co-worker to tell me that my views are going to get me a bullet in the head. He didn’t say it as a threat, merely as a casual statement of reality. In the wake of the Capitol riot and the stated desire of some far-right militias to kill journalists and all liberals, I can’t help wondering if the Trump supporters around me would actually harm me and my family if given the chance, or simply not object if someone else did the dirty work. What would they have done if the January 6 insurrection had succeeded? I’ve never been in this weird, ugly place before, even when I was growing up in the 1960s and ‘70s with nasty political divides and “the generation gap.” One of my uncles by marriage was an obnoxious bigot who had a fistfight with my dad in my grandma’s kitchen one night. Ironically, both were Republicans and their dustup was due more to personal enmity than their differing views on race, but we all kept speaking and gathering for holidays. There is now a palpable frosty tension at my workplace. My wife and I have also been cut off by a former co-worker who was her friend. The woman had given me the lead I used to get my job and was very helpful after I started. But when my wife sent a recent friendly email to check in, she received no response. She’s guilty by association with me. I admit that I have unfriended Trump followers on Facebook, mainly to keep the peace on my page. A minority, they were getting into spats with my other friends and I found their views too aggravating, especially their baseless claims and conspiracy theories. My brother-in-law, a Trump supporter, called one commenter a “liberal coward.” That commenter was me, though he didn’t notice it at the time. He later apologized and we agreed to stop talking politics, but since the election he’s stopped sending his usual chatty emails about music and TV shows we like. I would still talk to him just as I would talk to the co-workers who are snubbing me, but it would help if the first grudging grunts came from them. I can only wonder if they want me to make the first move. Something tells me, probably not. So why are we all falling out so completely? As near as I can figure, people ordinarily hate hearing views that challenge or refute their own. And humans also tend to prefer sticking a lit blowtorch in their ears to admitting they were wrong or apologizing for something they said, did or supported. And Trump has forced people to defend some pretty distasteful comments, deeds and positions. I suspect many supporters also fear being ostracized by their comrades-in-Trump if they commit the heresy of not completely backing him. Meanwhile, the rest of us engage with them in endless rounds of What About-ism and Equivalence, trying to reconcile our drastically different perceptions of reality until we all can’t stand it anymore and just pull the plug on each other. Major blame also falls on the politicians and talking heads who’ve led so many to believe that incivility is justified and that Trump’s opponents are trying to destroy America. Take the case of Representative Adam Kinzinger, a Republican from Illinois, accused of treason by 11 of his relatives in a just-released January letter for criticizing Trump and, in their view, aligning himself with “the devil’s army” (Democrats and the media). Some of us manage to keep the peace with each other despite all this madness. But what Trump has come to stand for is just too extreme and threatening for many people. Unfortunately, those who embrace him see those who do not as extreme and un-American, and the gulf between us remains cold and wide with nary a bridge. How and when does it all end? I’ve been wracking my skull over that question, too. I wish I had some answers. Now, click below to meet a family with Trump Estrangement Syndrome: “My Family is Dead to Me” - Living in the Wake of the Trump Presidency 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.

An Exclusive Insider Interview To say the least, Charles is not a member of Antifa: “I have been a registered independent for the past decade-plus," he says. But since January 6, his red-state family has viewed him as an infidel. After having been assured anonymity, Charles (not his real name) told The Insider his story this week. The Insider: Which of your close family members support Trump? Charles: "Originally, my father in 2015. My two sisters, in their 50s, followed to please him, then they converted my mom in 2020. One of my sisters has three kids (24, 28, 30) who support him.

" The Insider: What is it that they like about Trump? Is it financial? Religious? Anti-abortion? Something else? Charles: "I honestly do not know, but I have come to realize they respond to his 'tough guy' style of speaking. None of them really has a grasp of politics and policy, but they fall for talking points, not caring to follow up on fulfillment. Anti-abortion plays a part in their views, although stories behind each of them cast doubt on the seriousness of this position." The Insider: How involved in the pro-Trump movement have they been? Do they go to rallies? Donate money? Charles: "My dad passed in 2018, but the others have attended rallies, wear MAGA hats and shirts, and put up signs in 2016 and 2020. I assume they also donate money, but have not asked.

" The Insider: When did it start to concern you, or affect your relationship with them? Charles: "Before the 2016 election, I was confused as to why they suddenly became interested in politics. What may be a tell, they immediately became hostile in 2016 when asked about policies. It was easier to shout a harsh nonsensical reply than to discuss finer points. I decided to avoid the issue at first, and did not go near it after Trump won in 2016.

" The Insider: Did you discuss it with them? Argue with them? Did they try to change your mind? Charles: "They did not try to change my mind. The usual tactic was to attack me concerning whatever topic was relevant in the media. They often used "whataboutism" against Dems. I was through arguing with them in 2017. Occasionally, I would test the waters, to no avail.

" The Insider: Was this the first time you had disagreed with them politically, or had that been building for a while? Charles: "Previously, none had expressed any interest in politics. I took their sudden “interest" in someone quite contrary to anything in politics as an offense to what I have held close most of my life: history and politics." The Insider: Did the tension get worse closer to the 2020 election? Charles: "The little contact between them and my nuclear family did get worse as the election neared, especially over Facebook. My immediate family and I worked with them at a restaurant. We heard their anti-Semitic "jokes," and kept them at arm's length. COVID and Trump coalesced into a perfect storm. They attacked my daughter for wearing a mask. Went after my son because he drew a mustache on a Trump picture, which was hilarious. Always looked down on my wife.
" The Insider: What happened when Biden won? Charles: "After Biden won, the Trumpers in my family parroted his claims of fraud, etc. In a text exchange with one sister, I laid out the factual evidence regarding the election as of late December. I stressed the fact that all 50 states and D.C. ratified, and a majority of those states are Republican-led. I explained she could go to each state's website to see the information personally. She did not care, claiming she had her own facts. Naturally, she had nothing else to say." The Insider: What happened with them after the events on January 6 at the Capitol? Charles: "Again, they regurgitated the steady stream of lies and conspiracy theories: not Trump's fault, Antifa started it, compared it to Black Lives Matter.  Needless to say, they did not support impeachment.

" The Insider: Are you in touch with anyone in your family now? Charles: "I am not in touch. After January 6, I told them I will not acknowledge anyone who still supports an individual who led an insurrection and attack upon the Capitol. Their support before merely was uninformed and repugnant. Their continued support after witnessing what happened on the 6th is indefensible. Obviously, they cannot lean upon policies, judges, or whatever excuse." The Insider: Do you think things will get better with time? Charles: "After January 6, my mom, both sisters, and a nephew whom I have disowned have become "dead" to me. I spoke with them, and laid out the verifiable facts. I told them if they still support a traitor, they’ve lost a son and a brother. My mom is sad, but has not changed. I think she eventually will just give up politics. My sisters are gone. Honestly, I am fine with the situation.  I told them I'm open to dialogue, and will welcome them back with love. My offer was laughed at. But I'm good. I have my immediate family, and my self-respect."

By Tony Spokojny Over the last few weeks, we've heard a lot about former President Donald Trump's right to free speech. What he said is not in dispute. Trump refused to concede the November 3 presidential election, and continued to make false declarations over the next two months, to anyone who would read or listen, that he had won the election in a landslide. He then beckoned his supporters to a “Stop the Steal” rally he orchestrated for January 6; “Be there, it will be wild!” he tweeted. Trump’s efforts grew into a crescendo on the Ellipse near the White House before a horde of followers that day, the same day Congress was convening in the Capitol to certify the election in favor of his opponent, President-elect Joe Biden. “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol,” he exhorted the crowd of worshipers. "We will never concede, we will never give up!” Protestors strenuously clung to Trump's claim of "bullshit.” “Bullshit, bullshit, bullishit," they feverishly echoed, as they dutifully began an invasion of the Capitol, some wearing anti-Semitic clothing, carrying Confederate flags and banners bearing their hero's name. That speech, and his conduct surrounding it, resulted in Trump's second impeachment -- the only president in American history to twice undergo such a scar on the nation's highest office. Trump stood trial in the Senate for that conduct, even though he was no longer in office when the trial commenced. One of the former President’s defenses to the charge that he had incited the mob is that he had the absolute right to say what he said to the crowd – he was “perfectly” exercising his right to free speech. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution tells us: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. We often hear of people claiming, in the name of free speech, that they have the right to say or to write anything they want to others: “Hey, man, I have the right to free speech. This is America!” Yet, while free speech is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, there are limitations. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. made constitutional experts out of all of us when he told us “the right to free speech does not include the right to yell fire in a crowded theater,” causing panic that could foreseeably lead to frantic people getting hurt, desperately trying to evacuate the building. Ironically, though, there is no right at all to yell anything in a crowded theater. Though “Congress shall make no law,” the theater is a private place and it can impose silence upon its customers because it is not a government trying to abridge speech. A moviegoer’s exercise of "free speech" of any kind could get that customer legally expelled from that theater. Moreover, threatening to punch someone in the nose at a public gathering has landed many “free speakers” in jail for assault, even without the accompanying punch – a threat of immediate violence. Even true free speech may not be absolutely free, however. Taking a position in public, declaring one’s opinion, wishes, plans, however legal and protected, could legally cost an employee her job. Her employer is not the government. Her free speech may be adverse to the interests of the employer who, in turn, is not required be tolerant of an employee’s pronouncements and is generally free to fire for any reason, absent a relevant anti-discrimination law or a union’s protection. Many professional athletes and broadcasters have lost their jobs and lucrative sponsorships resulting from their exercise of free speech. The employee may take little solace knowing that she is probably able to speak freely as she stands in the government-run unemployment line. Moreover, social media giants are not the government (although there is legitimate discussion about regulating these companies in a similar manner to television networks). These huge media enterprises are available as platforms for most members of the public. However, Twitter banned Trump, as did Instagram and Facebook, because of his January 6 urgings on the Ellipse. A violation of free speech?  Sorry, Donald.  Though these companies, who give free access to the public, may be larger than some governments, they are not the government of the United States. A person’s free speech can be curtailed by them. So Trump’s January 6 speech must be evaluated in that light, The Commander-in-Chief was on the mall telling his most virulent supporters that they must fight, fight, fight (20 times) for their country, for their freedom, for him, for his presidency; amidst a single request for the mob to act "peacefully." He tells them to march to the Capitol to "stop the steal" -- stop the certification of the vote of the electoral college and tells them he will be joining them there. For what purpose? Should the background of his exhortation be examined? In the past, Trump has elevated white supremacists attending a “Jews will not replace us march” to "fine people”; he offered to pay the legal fees for those who assault hecklers at his rallies; he has called supporters “patriots” for running a Biden campaign bus off the road and surrounding it threateningly. No one has questioned that his speech in those areas is protected. But, is he aware that violence will follow his speech shortly after?  Did he know that words can incite, will incite. his followers to act violently? Or is there enough ambiguity in his speech that it might be determined that he was asking them to continue to “fight” for him peacefully, politically? His defense attorneys displayed a video montage of Democrats urging followers to “fight.” Is there a difference? Of course, in a normal world, we are we able to compare and contrast the speakers’ use of the word. But today we are not living in a normal political world. The Senate is seated as a jury to make a determination of whether Trump incited this mob to sedition. But, this is not a real trial in the sense of what we know is a criminal or civil trial. In this trial, the accused was known by the jury, known by the defendant, the attorneys, the judge. There was no sworn testimony, no formal submission of evidence.  This trial was a presentation of alleged facts and theories to 100 “jurors” with biases and prejudices that would preclude a juror from sitting in a trial before a court of law, some who love the president, some who hate him. In other words, it was known from the outset that it would be very unlikely for the president to be convicted of the charge of inciting an insurrection. It was known that he would be acquitted because there will almost never be a sufficiently large number of senator-jurors from the president's party to determine him to be guilty of the charges. Trump once gloated that he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and he would not lose supporters. His words were tragically prescient. His use of “free speech” would not be penalized in a trial in this forum. Will there be any other formal determination of whether the president’s speech was protected by the First Amendment? It is unlikely that he will be indicted for his conduct because the United States has never prosecuted a former president. (Richard Nixon might have been prosecuted after his resignation from office for his participation in the efforts to cover up the break-in at the Watergate, but he was immediately pardoned by his successor, President Gerald Ford.) The NAACP, however, is suing Donald Trump (and others) civilly, as opposed to criminally, where the guilt standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” for his January 6 speech. The NAACP claims that Trump used “intimidation, harassment and threats” to incite a mob and to stop the electoral college vote count. If the suit is allowed to proceed, there will be a formal determination of whether Trump’s speech was protected by the First Amendment, or if it was “fire in a crowded theater.” Notwithstanding the results of any lawsuit or criminal prosecution of the former president, the issue of Donald Trump’s free speech will be determined by historians and legal scholars who will examine Trump's words as they have examined the words of other Americans accused of incitement to riot, as they have examined the words of other former presidents. Rest assured, most of those scholars will not be his political supporters. Tony Spokojny has been practicing law in Michigan for over 40 years.

By Andy Borowitz February 22, 2021 WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Donald J. Trump said on Monday that his “greatest regret” as President was his failure to name his three adult children to the United States Supreme Court. Appearing on Fox News, Trump said that Ivanka, Eric, and Don, Jr., would be “way better judges” than “those three clowns” whom he did name. “Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are the worst people who have ever worked for me,” he said. “And that includes Scaramucci.” When the Supreme Court was deciding whether New York prosecutors could obtain his tax returns, Trump said, “none of those three boneheads even called to ask me what they should do. No gratitude whatsoever.” He said that “laws needed to be changed” to keep Supreme Court Justices from “thinking for themselves.” “This should never be allowed to happen in our country,” 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 Susan Shapiro | Feb 05, 2021 | New York Daily News In this collective annus horribilis, the raging pandemic and contentious politics are still dividing colleagues, friends and families. It’s especially difficult when somebody who offended you refuses to acknowledge your hurt by saying they’re sorry. I learned this when my long-time mentor lied to me and refused to apologize. Struggling to get over his betrayal and mend our estrangement without hearing any remorse, I went on a cross-country forgiveness tour, asking doctors and spiritual leaders if regret was a requirement for forgiving. I also interviewed people who suffered wrongs never righted or atoned for. Here are ways I learned you can forgive, nonetheless. 1. Make a list. Kenan Trebincevic, a Bosnian in Manhattan, never forgave the Christian Orthodox Serbs who slaughtered his Muslim countrymen in the Balkan war. Before visiting his homeland at 30, he’d written down the names of 12 people who’d exiled his family that he wanted to avenge. He then compiled names of the Serbs who’d helped him escape, from the neighbor who shared food, to the police chief who created false papers, to the bus driver who waited in the snow to drive them to safety. He was surprised that list also numbered 12. While he never exonerated the murderers, he found peace knowing, as his mother taught, “there is good and bad in all people.” Writing down everything good my mentor had done in 15 years immediately changed my perspective. As Confucius advised, “Forget injuries, never forget kindnesses.” 2. Seek help. A friend arranged an appointment for me with Swami Sarvapriyananda of the New York Vedanta Society, who told me, “An angry grudge is like lighting a fire that destroys the place where it’s lit. It burns your own heart first.” In his hospice work, my Michigan Rabbi Joseph Krakoff asked all relatives to recite an end of life prayer: “You are forgiven. I forgive you. Please forgive me. I love you.” When an ailing father didn’t apologize to his daughter, hearing this helped her mourn and recover better. 3. Break the ice. After a close friend ghosted me, I decided that our long-term friendship was more important than my pride. But I didn’t want to fight. So I texted only “Happy birthday,” a month later, intentionally not rehashing our feud. She thanked me, which led to a longer, warmer tête-á-tête. 4. Calmly ask questions. Before overreacting, attempt to better understand the estrangement. When I took my father’s vote for Donald Trump as a personal affront, I asked him — in a neutral tone — to explain his motivation. He told me it was the repeal of the inheritance tax, so he could leave all his hard-earned money to his children and grandchildren “and not the government.” He’d grown up poor and worked 50-hour weeks for 50 years to become successful. His worst fear was that we’d suffer as he did. This helped me see that he wasn’t just slighting his left-wing feminist daughter. He was, in fact, attempting the opposite. 5. Be vulnerable. A former coworker seemed to have a vendetta against me. I wrote her a heartfelt letter, quoting kind emails she’d sent in the past, telling her I didn’t know what changed, wondering if I’d done anything to overstep, screw up or hurt her feelings. While we’re not besties, it led to a flurry of emails illuminating her side. Sometimes insight is just the rearrangement of facts. 6. Consider family ties. L.A. teacher Alison Singh Gee was enraged that her mother-in-law made negative comments about the appearance of her mixed-race daughter. Despite her biases, she showered her granddaughter with more love as she got older. Even without an apology, Gee kept in touch with her husband’s mom as a way to honor her spouse and keep harmony, letting the kindness she showed her daughter stand in for a direct apology. 7. Realize what you don’t know. Is there something in the story you can’t see? Connecticut psychiatrist Vatsal Thakkar offered a metaphor: “A commuter was enraged when a woman in an SUV stopped abruptly to get something in the backseat, almost causing an accident. He didn’t know the driver’s infant was choking.” Indeed, I later learned shocking medical problems had debilitated my mentor’s wife and daughter. “I’m sorry, I had no idea,” I told him, apologizing profusely myself. Susan Shapiro is the author of The Forgiveness Tour: How to Find the Perfect Apology

By Alan Resnick "It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both" -Niccolo Machiavelli I’m feeling a little sheepish about admitting this, but Donald Trump said something this week that I actually agreed with. Well, I’m in agreement with a little of what he said. It took until three days after his February 13 acquittal, but Trump finally, as everyone knew he would, blasted Mitch McConnell for the Senate Minority Leader’s accusatory comments about Trump’s role in and responsibility for the January 6 insurrection. Trump issued a lengthy statement through his Save America PAC, in which he declared McConnell an unfit leader of the Republican Party. Then he got warmed up. After four paragraphs (which were so coherent and grammatically correct as to call into question if he actually penned the statement), Trump predictably went for the personal attack: 
“Mitch is a dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack, and if Republican Senators are going to stay with him, they will not win again.” Is Mitch McConnell dour, sullen, and unsmiling? Absolutely. And, if I were Trump, I would have thrown in contemptible, reptilian, shameless, duplicitous, unscrupulous, and hypocritical. But a hack? Far from it. In fact, the Democrats could use someone Machiavellian like Mitch on their team right now, someone who understands and is comfortable with the exercise of power and who is not ashamed or apologetic about winning. This is a man who in spring, 2016, blocked Barack Obama from filling a Supreme Court vacancy because it was an election year and: “the American people should have a say in the court's direction.” But just four years later, in October, McConnell rammed through the confirmation of Trump’s nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, only a few days before the election and less than six weeks after Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s death. With a straight face, he proclaimed, “It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice.” Mitch McConnell is many things, but he is not a hack. McConnell’s mastery was again on display during Trump’s most recent impeachment trial. He voted for acquittal on February 13 on the grounds that the trial was unconstitutional because Trump was no longer in office and therefore a private citizen. Yet the Senate had already decided by a 56-44 margin days earlier that the trial was constitutional. Richer still, McConnell was the person who had refused to allow the case to be heard by the Senate in January while Trump was still in office. And Mitch then had the chutzpah to take to the floor of the Senate moments after the impeachment trial had ended, to give a blistering speech in which he labeled Trump “practically and morally responsible for provoking the events” of January 6.. Mitch McConnell is, simply put, someone I love to hate. When he speaks, I experience two opposing feelings, loathing and admiration. How can a man make a 180-degree change in position without any sense of shame? How can he say the things he does without a smirk on his face? I keep wishing that the camera would cut to his hands when he is talking, so I could see whether or not his fingers are crossed as he contradicts the position he took earlier. Mitch McConnell is the Bill Laimbeer of politics. Bill Laimbeer played center for the Detroit Pistons basketball team back in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s when they were referred to as the “Bad Boys.” The team won back-to-back championships, but is more remembered for its physical style of play than for its excellent defense or its beautiful passing and screening ability. And Laimbeer was the most reviled and vilified of the bad boys. He was actually a very good basketball player; he had a soft outside jump shot and was an above-average rebounder. But his greatest gift was his ability to get under the skin of opposing players and fans. He both cultivated and reveled in it. Laimbeer was the type of guy who would grab the back of the jersey of the guy he was defending and pull him down, so that it would look like the other player fell on top of him. He would elbow players in the back when the referees weren’t looking in the hopes of getting the player to retaliate when the ref was watching. He’d slide under opponents as they were landing after jumping, so that they would fall to the ground. And he would constantly whine to the refs about calls he disagreed with and have a sneer or smirk on his face whenever the camera cut to him. He even once fouled out of a playoff game and bowed to the opposing crowd as he returned to the bench while the boos rained down on him. Players on the opposing team hated Bill Laimbeer. Fans of the opposing team despised him. But, boy oh boy, did opposing players and fans wish that he was on their team. That’s how I feel about Mitch McConnell. McConnell clearly lives by the philosophy “nice guys finish last,” a quote generally ascribed to Leo Durocher, a baseball manager who led two different teams to the World Series back in the 1940’s and ‘50s. Durocher made the remark, or something similar, back in 1946 when he was managing the Brooklyn Dodgers. Durocher was referring to his crosstown rivals, the New York Giants, when he said: "Take a look at them. They're all nice guys, but they'll finish last. Nice guys. Finish last." Durocher is also famous for standing toe-to-toe with umpires while arguing and for ordering his pitchers to hit opposing batters. Fans of his teams loved him, while fans of the teams his club was playing detested him – until he became their manager. I’ve had a couple of significant negative experiences involving nice guys finishing last. When I worked in corporate human resources for a large medical and hospital supply company, we had a wonderful vice president of our department. He was brilliant, strategic, creative, and compassionate. And whenever it was determined that a corporate headcount reduction was needed, he took the lead in designing the process and in determining the number of positions each corporate group had to eliminate. And when the time came to cut heads, Human Resources took the lead. Our vice president made sure that we were the first department to make the painful reductions, as we needed to “walk the talk.” But then a funny thing invariably happened when it came time for the other corporate departments to make their staff reductions – the vice presidents of Finance, Legal, Public Affairs, and Regulatory Compliance would argue that the number of employees to be eliminated was excessive and impractical for their organizations, and they would offer a compromise of something like 50% of the target number. And the senior management team would accept their rationale and compromise figure. So we took the direct hit for our corporate staff while the others suffered a mere flesh wound. Likewise, I interviewed a number of attorneys once I decided to get divorced. Perhaps I was more comfortable with a lawyer who reflected my own nonconfrontational style or perhaps there were other psychological factors at play, but I selected an attorney who looked at the process as collaborative rather than adversarial. My attorney and I hoped that a more cooperative and conciliatory approach would result in both a quicker and less painful settlement for both parties. It was my attorney who suggested we meet at the office of my wife’s attorney. And my attorney was always the first to propose a compromise position on any given issue. My attorney could not have been more wrong. All her gestures of collaboration and cooperation were read and responded to as signs of weakness. I developed a true hatred but grudging respect for my wife’s attorney. She was mean, aggressive, sarcastic, and condescending, and she dragged the process out for over two years, but she fought relentlessly for my ex. In retrospect, I wish I would have hired someone just like her. Leo Durocher’s quote is particularly apropos now that Joe Biden is President. The general consensus is that he is a genuinely nice guy, and a creature of the Senate who believes in reaching across the aisle for bipartisan support. That is certainly an admirable goal. But what’s even more admirable is getting things done. Biden is in the process of negotiating a $1.9 trillion stimulus relief plan. He prefers this to be a bipartisan effort, although that looks unlikely at this point. Biden can, as a last resort, slam the plan through via something known as reconciliation, which is designed to expedite passage of certain budgetary legislation in the Senate. And I think he should do this. While Biden may not have support for his plan among Republican senators, he does have bipartisan support for the plan among the American public, with almost two-thirds of those surveyed approving it. Those are his customers, and that level of bipartisanship is good enough for me. Biden has the golden opportunity of having majority control of both the House and the Senate, albeit with razor-thin margins. He has only two years to leverage that opportunity before the next midterm election. So the strategy is clear: get things done while it is possible, even if it means stepping on some toes, bruising some egos, or being called a hypocrite. Better to be remembered as the president who delivered the stimulus relief plan and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, rather than the President who magnanimously tried to deliver them. In other words, be like Mitch, or find someone else who will. Alan Resnick is an industrial psychologist with over 40 years of professional experience. He and his wife are sheltering at home in Farmington Hills, Michigan. He is passing the time by cooking, exercising, catching up on friends’ recommendations of must-see TV and writing.