Dear Insiders, Thanks for letting us shelter-in-place with you this year! Here’s wishing you a vaccinated, post-pandemic 2021. Feline Navidad! Andrea Sachs, Editor

The Media Often Hands Trump a Fig Leaf for His Lies By Jessie Seigel/Washington, D.C. The press has finally begun calling a lie a lie, and it’s about time. During the past four years, some good solid reporting by investigative journalists at The Atlantic, The New York Times, The Washington Post and other lesser-known periodicals has revealed the innumerable abuses of the Trump Administration. And some cable network commentators have provided rigorous analysis of the news. At the same time, all too many in the news world feed us shallow analysis in shopworn language that dulls the urgency of the message they are delivering. These representatives of the Fourth Estate have avoided the word “lie” like the plague. Instead, they have referred to Trump’s blatant mendacity as either “falsehoods” or “alternative facts.” The use of “falsehoods” deflects from Trump’s responsibility for his words because a falsehood can be a merely incorrect statement uttered in error—while a lie is deliberate. The phrase “alternative facts,” is even worse, suggesting that people can have equally valid opposite opinions on what the facts are. “Alternative facts” was picked up from a 2017 Kellyanne Conway spin delivered on Meet the Press. The commentators who have repeatedly used Conway’s phrase have helped the Trump Administration place lies on the same footing as truth. Kellyanne Conway’s 2017 defense of “alternative facts” on Meet the Press In addition, instead of saying that Trump’s followers are determined to stay in the fantasy world he has sold them, many commentators have repeatedly referred to that fantasy and the real world as “alternate realities,” further enhancing the equation of fact and fiction. Likewise, when pundits now question whether we are entering a “post-truth society,” the use of that term obscures what they are really referring to: a society built on lies. Such euphemisms are dangerous to truth and to democracy. Their indirection softens and minimizes the seriousness of unearthed deceptions. Their use misleads and can subconsciously lull the public into acceptance, as do the misuse and redefinition of language. During Trump’s 2016 campaign and thereafter, many news analysts called Trump a populist, equating his demagoguery with Bernie Sanders’ populism. But a populist is someone who is for the people. In the United States, its historical antecedent is the Populist movement of the late 19th century, whose goals, hard fought for, came to fruition under F.D.R.'s. New Deal. Donald Trump, on the other hand, is a demagogue who pretends to be for the people in the same way that my selling you the Brooklyn Bridge is me offering you a good deal. Much of the news world persistently refers to Trump’s corruption, public fakery, and destruction of norms as “the new normal.” But it is not a new normal. It is abnormal, a deviation. By applying the catch phrase “the new normal,” newscasters are leading the public to accept that abnormal state of affairs as inevitable. And now, some are calling President-Elect Biden’s aboveboard transition “a radical departure” from the last four years. Though they state this with apparent relief, the characterization still invites the public to accept the last four years of Trump as the norm. Biden’s actions may be a radical departure from the last four years, but that is because it is a return to normalcy. It is the Trump years that were the departure. Recently the talking heads have been describing Trump’s post-election behavior as his going through the “stages of grief.” Are they deliberately trying to minimize Trump’s anti-democratic actions by shifting our focus to his mental state? Or are they themselves in denial and trying to find some way—any way possible—to avoid terming his actions an attempted coup? With Trump having asked numerous governors and secretaries of state, as well as the Supreme Court, to throw out legitimate votes en masse and, failing that, trying to get legislatures to overturn the vote of the people, we should not waste our time on Trump’s mental state. Ask instead why so much of the media has studiously avoided calling a coup a coup. When Trump uses his transparently deceitful claims of election fraud to milk money from his followers, does the press decry it as a con game? No. They refer to Trump “monetizing” his defeat. Monetizing is the process of turning a non-revenue generating item into cash—an asset from which you earn revenue. Use of the term objectifies the human beings he is conning as cogs in Trump’s wheel—just another resource for a business, like a tractor or coal or oil. The use of euphemisms is not limited to Trump’s actions. A number of journalists insist on referring to the Republican Senate and people working for Trump as “enablers.” You may enable an alcoholic if you stand by while the alcoholic drinks himself to death. But if you help him rob the liquor store, you’re not merely an enabler. In refusing to acknowledge that Biden won the election, the majority of Republicans have been participants in Trump’s anti-democratic actions. Some pundits have repeated a line about the need to be “on the right side of history.” This amounts to a plaintive appeal for the GOP to do the right thing for posterity. But it is clear, based on their actions, that the Republican politicos fronting for Trump don’t care how they will be perceived a hundred years from now. Even if they did care, they would most likely echo, with pleasure rather than the intended irony, George Bernard Shaw’s line from The Devil’s Disciple: “History, sir, will tell lies as usual.” To some, differences between words like “falsehoods” and “lies” or the rest may seem trivial. One might say, “we get the gist of the meaning with either word.” But if we are not attuned to their nuances, those slight differences will nevertheless affect our perceptions. It is precisely for that reason one word rather than the other is used. This strategy is not new. The twisting of language to manipulate our thinking has a long history. Within the last century, it has developed into a high, if nefarious art, by those working in public relations. In his book, Propaganda, Edward Bernays, a founder of the public-relations industry, wrote: The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government [that] is the true ruling power of our country…We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind. By “invisible government,” Bernays did not mean the so-called deep state. He was referring to the practitioners of public relations, the people who come up with many of the euphemisms spouted in the media and by the public figures who shape our views. In Toxic Sludge is Good for You, an exposé of the public relations industry, authors John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton point out that many stories we take in as news were placed or influenced by PR firms working to manage that news for their clients. In the popular media, we do presently have a multitude of honest, rigorous journalists like MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Nicole Wallace, and Joy Reid; CNN’s Anderson Cooper; The New York Times’ Paul Krugman; The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne; and NPR’s Brooke Gladstone, as well as astute, forthright analysts like Robert Reich and Steve Schmidt But even the mainstream is a mix of honest journalism and slanted journalism, true investigative reporting and shallow coverage, commentators who truly analyze and talking heads who ape what they hear from others—often simply reciting, unchanged, the talking points of PR shills. We also have the total propagandists manipulating the public—Fox News, Breitbart, Newsmax and the like—who are in a race-to-the bottom category of their own. Since we must rely on the press to give us the facts we need to navigate our society, it is necessary that we, the public, learn how to catch the nuances of language aimed at us—recognize them, question what is behind them and, where appropriate, resist their influence. Because what we don’t know will come back to bite us. 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.

From Operavore, the WQXR Blog Dec 19, 2020 · by Fred Plotkin It has been quite a year, this year like no other. Of course, I don’t need to tell you that but, in looking back on 2020, one realizes just about everything has changed, much for the worse but some for the better. At this writing, 1,630,000 persons around the world have died and 74 million have been infected with the novel coronavirus that caused COVID-19. I have known eight people who died and more than 40 who have been infected with the virus. Most of them worked in opera. Among these were Vincent Lionti, violist at the Metropolitan Opera; Iris Love, archeologist, dachshund breeder, and generous opera patron; Terrence McNally, playwright (Master Class; The Lisbon Traviata) and opera librettist (Dead Man Walking, Great Scott); Robin Tannenbaum, a Met electrician; and Luca Targetti, artist manager and former casting director of La Scala. Conductor Joel Revzen was a very close friend of mine for decades and was loved by colleagues, friends and family wherever he went. In 2020, we also lost valuable colleagues to illnesses other than COVID. Soprano Erin Wall and bass Arthur Woodley, both much-loved artists, were claimed by cancer. And, while the passing of the incomparable Mirella Freni was not a surprise, it was deeply felt. Jan Morris, the contemporary author who inspired me most, died last month. Needless to say, 2020 was a year defined by loss, not only because so many people died. The pandemic closed most opera houses, concert halls, and theaters all over the world. In the United States, some five million people who work in the arts found themselves out of work, losing fees they needed to live on, because this pandemic was a force majeure that allowed theaters and concert halls to renege on their commitments. This crisis also affected the finances of all arts institutions, but some, including the opera companies in Omaha, Seattle, and Minneapolis, made efforts to help their contracted artists get through financially. The Met furloughed much of its staff, and the orchestra and chorus were left in desperate financial straits. Many of them gave up their homes in New York and moved to less expensive places to ride out the pandemic, however long that will take. If these splendid ensembles cannot be reassembled after the pandemic, it will represent the vitiation of a magnificent institution. This year, more than ever, the difference between the United States and most European nations regarding social and artistic values has been starkly evident. Most artists who live in Europe (including Americans who reside there), were able to receive medical care and food and housing security. In the U.S., the Federal government provided little ongoing support after initial stimulus funds were approved in the spring. Musicians, actors, dancers, writers, and visual artists were left to their own devices and could not find jobs in sectors — especially food service and temporary office work — that had been dependable in the times when the term “social distancing” had no meaning. And yet, creative people persisted intrepidly and creatively. They found inspiration where they could and fostered opportunities for themselves and others when that was possible. They, and others, deserve recognition, and that is why it is time for the eighth annual Excellence in Opera (“Freddie”) awards. As regular readers recall from my previous awards dating back to 2013, I typically attended 80 to 100 live opera performances each year in theaters across North America and Europe, as well as some 20 recitals and orchestral concerts featuring singing. In 2020, between January 15 and March 10, I attended 13 operas and 10 concerts and recitals. I was on track to see 105 operas and attend some 40 concerts this year in at least 28 different venues. I most regret missing what would have been my 49th complete Ring cycle with a cast led by Christine Goerke at the Lyric Opera of Chicago, and a deep dive into the opera Fidelio and its influences at Opera Bonn in September — five different operas in five days. I also was scheduled to teach at the centennial edition of the Salzburg Festival which, miraculously, did go on in reduced form, but I was prevented by travel restrictions from making the journey. I have decided to confer Excellence in Opera awards for 2020 without using the traditional categories of previous years. Instead, I want to acknowledge the most creative and transformational work and events I experienced this year. The names of this year’s honorees appear in capital letters. Addio Del Passato By late February, COVID-19 had already rampaged through Wuhan, China, and Northern Italy, and cast a dark shadow on the United States. It was a matter of when, not if, we would be besieged, especially because President Trump privately told Bob Woodward on February 7 that the virus was much more serious than the annual flu — even though he said the opposite to the American people. While watching loved ones be infected in Italy, I understood that my attendance at live performances was soon to end. Those few that remained took on added meaning. And so it was on February 26 when the Met presented Verdi’s La Traviata with an extraordinary LISETTE OROPESA in the title role and a fine cast including Piero Pretti, Luca Salsi, and Maria Zifchak conducted by Bertrand de Billy. Oropesa has moved to the front ranks of opera artists in recent years, and her Violetta’s downward trajectory of health and hope was a musical and dramatic depiction of what we all imagined COVID-19 would be, but perhaps could not yet imagine how widespread it would become. It was on this night, because of the remarkable alchemy of Verdi’s genius and Oropesa’s artistry, that COVID-19 became real for me a week before I learned of the death of the first individual I knew personally. As I Live and Breathe Most of my paying work is done in front of live audiences. We share the same space, the same air, the same moment. With the arrival of the initial lockdown in March, all of that was canceled for 2020. I chose to shelter with family and make inspiration my word of the year rather than one connected to the limitations and devastations imposed by the virus. According to my dictionary, Inspiration comes from the Latin inspiratus (the past participle of inspirare, “to breathe into, inspire”) and, since the middle of the 16th century has meant, in English, “the drawing of air into the lungs.” Doctors still say inspiration when speaking of breathing and also use expiration (“the act or process of releasing air from the lungs”). In the early 14th century, before inspiration was used to refer to breath, it had a religious meaning in English, suggesting a divine influence upon a person, from a divine entity. The sense of inspiration often found today (“someone or something that inspires”) dates from the 19th century. In seeking to inspire others and to be inspired, I began a series of weekly conversations with musicians, writers, and other creative people, most of whom are typically too busy to converse for an hour or two via Zoom. Their availability was an unexpected gift from the coronavirus. With my faraway guests I could share the same moment and, after a fashion, the same space, and draw breath in a way that could connect us even if we could not feel our audience. These are archived on YouTube and located by searching Fred Plotkin on Fridays. I decided this year to only read books that might inspire me and, when possible, to have their authors join me on a Friday. There are three extraordinary new books I found life-changing that I probably would not have gotten to read in my previous life on the outside: — Like Falling Through a Cloud: A Lyrical Memoir of Coping with Forgetfulness, Confusion, and a Dreaded Diagnosisby EUGENIA ZUKERMAN. The revered flutist, journalist, and author has created an intimate work of beauty out of the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease in this volume of poems that form a narrative every bit as encompassing and enlightening as a great song cycle by Schubert. In the concluding poem in the book she says, “I do not embrace my inevitable decline but I’m determined to find a way to make the rest of my stay on this problematic planet filled with light and love and music.” And, each day, she takes out her flute and plays Syrinxby Debussy, as she did for me on Zoom. — Chasing Chopin: A Musical Journey Across Three Centuries, Four Countries, and a Half-Dozen Revolutionsby ANNIK LaFARGE. This book was an unexpected joy, even though I was aware of the author’s talents. LaFarge uses Chopin’s Op. 35 Sonata as a point of departure to explore the life of the composer and his world, as well as her own connection to this famous work. She also created a website with links to all of the music she discusses in this volume, which meant many hours of fascinating and, yes, inspirational listening. — Wagnerism: Art and Politics in the Shadow of Musicby ALEX ROSS. It would be too facile to co-opt the Wagnerian term Gesamtkunstwerk(total work of art) to describe Ross’s stupendous achievement here. The organizing idea of this book is how Wagner influenced art, literature, politics, sexuality, cinema, economics, perceptions of race, and so much more. Everything, it seems, except for music, where the composer’s influence has been widely explored almost since he died in 1883. As with LaFarge’s book, but on a monumental scale, Ross impels his reader to seek out masterpieces such as the writings of Baudelaire, Cather, T.S. Elliot, Joyce, Mann, Woolf, and countless films. If I need to shelter in place for another year, Ross has given me the inspiration to see me through. Black Artists Matter Racism, both overt and subtle, has been a virus in the American body politic since at least 1619. While, during the presidency of Barack Obama, it was common to use the term “post-racial,” that simply was not the case. Progress has been made for Black people and other people of color, but insidious racism is still a tragic part of the American reality. In 2020, many Black artists, including ANGEL BLUE, LAWRENCE BROWNLEE, JULIA BULLOCK, COURTNEY CAREY, DENYCE GRAVES, MORRIS ROBINSON, KAREN SLACK, and RUSSELL THOMAS, have used their voices to advocate for real representation in opera and classical music for artists and administrators of color. This is not just a question of having one of them be a diversity officer in an arts organization, although that is important. We need to have more persons of color on opera boards, in management (in addition to the excellent Wayne S. Brown, CEO of Michigan Opera Theatre), and, especially, in positions where they can do casting and make artistic decisions. Some companies, including those of Cincinnati and Philadelphia, have been in the vanguard of having Black artists in positions where they can effect change. In August 2020, the San Francisco Conservatory of Music, together with the San Francisco Symphony, created the Emerging Black Composers Project, which will commission 10 works over 10 years. Application deadline is February 1, 2021. WQXR’s Terrance McKnight did a lot of programming in 2020 featuring Black musicians in the classical world. He currently has an ongoing series, The Black Experience in the Concert Hall. ANTHONY McGILL, principal clarinetist of the New York Philharmonic (and formerly a member of the Met orchestra) received the prestigious Avery Fisher Prize in 2020 and donated it to scholarship funds at Juilliard with the scope of including young musicians of every race, religion, and gender identity. With the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and other Black citizens, McGill used his position and talents to play music to honor them and raise consciousness among all Americans using the hashtag #taketwoknees. Listen to his performance of two works by Damien Sneed followed by his devastating arrangement of “America the Beautiful.” Dance, Little Sister Salome, semi-staged at the Dallas Symphony, starring Latvian soprano AUSRINE STUNDYTE and splendidly conducted by FABIO LUISI, got a large, enthusiastic audience at the Meyerson Symphony Center even though it was performed on Super Bowl Sunday. It was a reminder that world-class opera performances can be found wherever outstanding artists are given the conditions to do their best work with the support of management, donors, and audiences who believe in them and prize their talents. Dallas is in the enviable position of having two of the finest conductors active today, with Luisi at the Symphony and Emmanuel Villaume at the Dallas Opera. (While working on this article I found out that archaeologists believe they have found the room in Machaerus, Jordan, where Salome danced for her stepfather Herod). Islands in the Stream Since the worldwide lockdown, very little live opera has taken place, especially in North America. In its place, streaming of pre-existing videos of operas (as well as theater, dance and concerts), has been a spiritual lifesaver for millions of arts lovers. The Metropolitan Opera has offered a different work each night since the spring (by now some are repeats, but that does not matter), and many other opera companies in North America, Europe, and Australia have also transmitted recent and some vintage opera videos. It troubles me that many of these companies don’t pay the artists appearing in these performances each time they are shown. This is an issue that needs to be addressed as management / artist relations evolve in light of what COVID has wrought. While streaming has many virtues in these times, I have never fully embraced it, much for the same reason I don’t enjoy watching streamed films. I don’t like to sit still staring at a smallish screen with sound that is not stellar. In these streaming times, I will put a performance on and aim for the best audio quality and listen rather than view. This gave me great pleasure to hear (three times) the late Johan Botha’s extraordinary performance as Tannhäuser. There has been an impressive amount of new programming and efforts to make works that are congenial to the Zoom format. Some of these will still be with us after we can return to theaters. I fear that some people may have lost the penchant for attending live performances, and that is a serious threat to the long-term viability of the performing arts. One remarkable achievement was the Met’s AT-HOME GALA streamed round the world on April 25. The artists participated to help raise money for the cash-strapped opera company. It would be hard to gather that number of great singers in one opera house on the same day, and there was the added pleasure of seeing most of them in their homes in (by my count) 14 nations and eight American states. Particularly delightful were ROBERTO ALAGNA and ALEKSANDRA KURZAK in their library. ERIN MORLEY was astonishingly good singing and accompanying herself in Donizetti and was, for many viewers, the biggest hit of the gala. A technical and musical tour-de-force was the combination of members of the METROPOLITAN OPERA ORCHESTRA in their own homes and YANNICK-NÉZET-SÉGUIN conducting the Intermezzo from Mascagni’s Cavalleria Rusticana, and then the orchestra joining their maestro and the METROPOLITAN OPERA CHORUS for “Va, pensiero” from Verdi’s Nabucco. Namenlose Freude (Inexpressible Joy) On March 6, I was in London just as Britain and America were facing the inevitable onslaught of the virus. I had arrived two days before with mask and hand sanitizer, items that could not be found in central London. One could feel a collective sense of dread threatening even the stiffest of British upper lips. And yet the lure of hearing the awesome (yes, that is the right word) young Norwegian soprano LISE DAVIDSEN in her Covent Garden debut as Leonore in Beethoven’s Fidelio made the audience echo the character’s declaration, “Ich habe Mut und Kraft!” (“I have courage and strength!”). The production by Tobias Kratzer, with sets and costumes by Rainer Sellmaier, was misguided and especially cruel to tenor Jonas Kaufmann, whose leg was chained to a rock even as he was surrounded by the chorus and seemed like a circus oddity on display. Kaufmann sang beautifully, and the supporting cast (led by Georg Zeppenfeld, Amanda Forsythe, and Robin Tritschler) were all fine under Antonio Pappano’s passionate conducting. But it was Davidsen who transcended everyone and everything around her. I was so looking forward to her assuming the role this month in the Met’s excellent production at the culmination of the worldwide celebrations of the 250th anniversary of Beethoven’s birth. Ready or Not, Here Comes Mama For sheer musical invention and delight, few operas can top Handel’s Agrippina, which entered the Met repertory in February with an irresistible JOYCE DiDONATO in the title role, the scheming mother of the dissolute Nerone (a vocally and physically dexterous KATE LINDSEY) and wife of Emperor Claudio (MATTHEW ROSE). Both father and son desire Poppea (BRENDA RAE, in a terrific Met debut). Also in the picture, and in the calculus of the four above-named characters, are Ottone (IESTYN DAVIES, singing superbly), Pallante (DUNCAN ROCK), and Narciso (NICHOLAS TAMAGNA, who combined sensitive singing and great comic chops in his Met debut). This was the best overall cast I have encountered in any opera for quite a while, all guided by the assured conducting of HARRY BICKET. Agrippina does all she can to put her son on the throne, only to get an unexpected comeuppance. The production by David McVicar was too busy, as he sought to fill long passages of music with unnecessary action and movement. But it was not enough to detract from the exhilarating fun of this performance. This opera shares characters and plot points with Monteverdi’s L’Incoronazione di Poppea, and I would love to see some enterprising opera company present them in repertory. The Road Forward The Prototype Festival is held each January in New York and always points the way forward in new opera. This is thanks, above all, to the indefatigable BETH MORRISON, whose Beth Morrison Projects is the wellspring of operatic creativity across the nation. A fascinating new opera at the festival, Ellen West, benefited from an excellent creative team: RICKY IAN GORDON (composer), FRANK BIDART (poet), EMMA GRIFFIN (director), LIDIYA YANKOVSKAYA (conductor), JENNIFER ZETLAN (Ellen West), NATHAN GUNN (three roles). At 75 minutes and with four characters, this is a probing, psychological work that should find a place in the repertory of many small and medium-sized opera companies and in music conservatories. There will be a 2021 Prototype Festival with five new works. Because of the constraints imposed by the pandemic, viewing will be on demand. The Road to Hell La Damnation de Faust in concert form at the Met, with ELĪNA GARANČA, BRYAN HYMEL and ILDAR ABDRAZAKOV, with EDWARD GARDNER turning in what probably was the finest conducting performance I heard all year. The cast and Met orchestra and chorus were outstanding. Initially, this was to have been a revival of the Robert Lepage production, but the Met changed its plans saying that it did not have the time and resources to mount it. Although that production does have a lot to recommend it, it was in no way missed during this remarkable evening of music-making that made manifest the glories of Berlioz’s score. Standing Tall It is just a coincidence that three marvelous singers — SUSAN GRAHAM, ELZA VAN DEN HEEVER, and PETER MATTEI — happen to be quite tall. They are also towering artists whose searing work remains in my imagination almost a year on. Graham, with pianist MALCOLM MARTINEAU, presented one of the most original recitals I have been to in a long time. It was a sort of Frauenliebe und -leben Variations in which she began each group of songs with one of the lieder from Schumann’s cycle. She then added a couple of songs by other composers that amplified the feelings of the chosen Schumann. And so forth in eight groups. In total there were some 25 songs by the likes of Berlioz, John Dankworth, Debussy, Duparc, Fauré, Granados, Grieg, Mahler, Poulenc, Rangström, Ravel, Strauss, Tchaikovsky, and Turina. The effectiveness of William Kentridge’s new Met production of Berg’s Wozzeck was hit and miss, but that did not detract from the commitment and intensity that Mattei brought to the title role and Elza van den Heever gave to Marie. The South African soprano has excelled in everything I have heard her do, from Mozart to Donizetti to Wagner to Berg. Mattei, famous for his Don Giovanni and Barber of Seville, has added heavier roles in Parsifal (a sublime Amfortas), From the House of the Dead, and now as Wozzeck. On January 31, he and pianist Lars David Nilsson made Schubert’s Winterreise a haunting and chilling experience that began in customary fashion, but then became a slow accretion of horror that was like listening to a ghost story where you think you know what will happen, yet still there were shocking surprises. This may sound like a negative response, but the performance was riveting. Ten Characters in Search of an Opera Company At the start of the pandemic, there was a pronounced spike in readership of books that dealt with plagues. The most obvious were Camus’s The Plague and Manzoni’s I Promessi Sposi (The Betrothed). It was fun to reach way back to the 14th century and Boccaccio’s Decameron, the story of 10 young people who move out of Florence to avoid a plague. As they gather, they tell gripping, often sexy, stories in their confinement. Composer PETER HILLIARD and librettist MATT BORESI, together with producer MARIA SENSI SELLNER, put together a consortium of small, resourceful opera companies — named the Decameron Opera Coalition — around the country to create four episodes divided into 11 operatic chapters called Tales from a Safe Distance. The tales were told via streaming and two of them starred the Italianissimo LUCA PISARONI. All episodes are online for viewing through December 31, 2020. For 2021, I wish you health, renewed prosperity, and fervently hope that we can find inspiration together in a theater or concert hall where we can breathe the same air and exhale with joy as we revel in the work of our beloved performing artists.

Detroit Super Lawyer David Fink Tells The Insider How He Beat The Lame-Duck President and His Cronies in Court By David H. Fink PART I Florida 2000 Meets Michigan 2020 For the past six weeks, I have been engaged in the single most exciting, interesting and frustrating litigation of my 40-plus year legal career. Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan entrusted me and our small law firm to fight off Donald Trump’s legal henchmen in a series of lawsuits aimed at denying President-elect Joe Biden his rightful peaceful transition to power. Representing the City of Detroit, the Detroit City Clerk and the Detroit Elections Commission, we have confronted unique challenges, as the Trump campaign and its supporters have thrown everything at us but the truth. Abandoning conventional wisdom and ignoring established legal precedent, Trump’s lawyers were ready to make any argument that could possibly gain traction and many that could not. Every day there were new surprises, but one thing was consistent—our courts were steadfast, holding both sides to the letter of the law. My faith in the legal system has been confirmed at every stage of this battle. On a personal note, my faith in my partners and the whole team at Fink Bressack has also been confirmed. While the Trump lawyers fought their asymmetrical warfare, filing cases in multiple courts, with constantly shifting strategies, our office met every deadline and was on top of every case, often filing multiple briefs on the same day. With tremendous support from the City of Detroit’s Corporation Counsel Lawrence Garcia and the retired State of Michigan Elections Director Christopher Thomas, we had access to all the resources we needed to prove our case and to disprove the strange and unpredictable stories being told by dozens of uninformed and sometimes dishonest witnesses. This is not my first foray into presidential election legal battles. Twenty years ago, I participated as a Forrest Gump-like character in the Bush v Gore recount. What began as a very temporary assignment as one of three lawyers for Al Gore at the Broward County Canvassing Board became a full-time assignment, not because of my legal experience or experience with election recounts (I had handled a couple for the Mayor of Hamtramck), but because of the people who served on the Broward County Canvassing Board. One member of that three-person board was Suzanne Gunsburger--a graduate of Detroit’s Mumford High School, while another member– Robert Rosenberg—was a 1960 graduate of Oak Park High School, my alma mater. (Rosenberg was the man with the magnifying glass seen in so many iconic photos of that recount). So, while the Republicans had a rotating cast of characters, apparently attempting to impress or intimidate the canvassing board members, the Democrats had two experienced recount attorneys and one political junkie who capitalized on an extraordinary opportunity to play Jewish geography. On one particularly noteworthy day, the three of us on the Democratic side of the table sat opposite then-Michigan Governor John Engler, then-New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, and retired Senator Bob Dole. They were a more impressive group, but we did a better job persuading the folks on the canvassing board that the slightest imprint near Al Gore’s name constituted voter intent. That recount, as we all know, ended abruptly when the only five voters in America who counted--five Republican appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court—decided to sacrifice their place in history and pay back their political patrons. That experience was devastating for me personally. I had deep faith in our judicial system, and I believed in the integrity of the lifetime members of the Supreme Court. Watching the peaceful recounting of votes in Broward County, before the Supreme Court ruled, I was confident that I was witnessing the strength and fundamental fairness of our great democracy. I was wrong. What the Supreme Court did that year was the greatest disillusionment of my life (and I’ve been divorced twice). Over the past several weeks, however, my faith in the courts has grown stronger. While President Trump flails about challenging the election results, leaving no ethical stone unturned in his quest to have the will of the people rejected, there have been few profiles in courage in the executive or legislative branches of government. But the courts, at every level, have been steadfast and consistent, applying the facts and the law correctly in dozens of cases. Even the U.S. Supreme Court, with three recent Trump appointees, has not wavered. I’ve given some thought to the similarities and differences between these two post-election battles, and I keep thinking of the phrase sometimes credited to Mark Twain—History does not repeat itself; but it often rhymes. This is another election in which a Republican candidate for president lost the popular vote, and clearly lost the electoral vote count as well. And this is another election in which the Republican Party seeks to use the court system to overturn the will of the people and change the rules of the game after the game has been played. But there, the rhyming ends. 2000 was the closest election in American history, decided in unofficial results by fewer than six hundred votes in the State of Florida. The 2020 election, in any other year, would be seen as the landslide that it was. The loser-in-chief was defeated by more than 7 million votes. The margin in the Electoral College is the same margin that Donald Trump referred to as 
“a pretty good shellacking” for Hillary Clinton when he won by that margin in 2016. In 2000, in Florida, the Democrats followed the legally prescribed method of challenging an election result—a hand recount. In 2020, in Michigan, where Trump was defeated by more than 154,000 votes, the Republicans knew that no recount could ever upset that massive margin of humiliation, so they chose to bring a series of phony claims to court. In 2000, the Republicans pursued a disciplined, and transparent, rational legal strategy, filing suits in two courts—Florida state court and federal court. In 2020, Republicans filed dozens of baseless lawsuits in multiple states. In 2000, the fabric of our constitutional democracy was seriously torn by the Supreme Court ruling in Bush v Gore. In 2020, our constitutional democracy has been under constant attack from a rogue president and an enabling band of Republican sycophants, but the U.S, Supreme Court and other great American courts have stood strong and protected our nation from its worst instincts. One other important difference between 2000 and 2020. In 2000, my family stayed in Michigan when I traveled to Florida to help Al Gore. This year, I was able to stay home, and my son Nate, who was 14 years old in 2000 but who is now a partner in my law firm, worked with me every day as we vanquished the forces of evil. Not a bad gig. PART II Trump’s Legal Tsunami The lawsuits challenging the vote count in the State of Michigan in 2020 are not like anything ever seen after a presidential election. To date, there have been at least nine lawsuits objecting to Detroit’s vote-counting procedures. Without exception, every case filed has been groundless. As bad as you might think these cases are, they are worse. I have yet to see a shred of legitimate evidence to support the allegations of fraud or misconduct related to the vote count in Michigan. Every one of these lawsuits has raised false allegations about the way votes were counted in the City of Detroit. A few of the suits have included previously rejected legal claims about the way Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson handled absentee ballot applications. Some have also raised issues regarding a change in the unofficial results in Antrim County. And, famously, one lawsuit has raised delusional claims about the Dominion tabulating equipment cheating Trump out of votes, based upon a complex web of conspiracies, engineered in part by long-deceased Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. But, in the end, these cases are almost entirely based on the same set of allegations of misconduct in the tabulation of absentee ballots at Detroit’s TCF Center (formerly known as Cobo Hall, in tribute to Mayor Albert Cobo, best known today for his openly racist housing programs). Every claim they have made regarding Detroit’s vote count is objectively invalid, either factually or legally, and in some cases both. No election is perfect, and, as in all elections, there were some errors in the count, but not more than in most other elections. The total impact of all such errors could not possibly be more than a few hundred votes. Donald Trump lost the State of Michigan by more than 154,000 votes, after beating Hillary Clinton by fewer than 11,000 votes in 2016. His margin of defeat this year cannot possibly be blamed on votes somehow stolen in Detroit. This year Trump actually received about 5,000 more votes in Detroit than he did in 2016. If there was a grand conspiracy to avoid counting the Trump vote in Detroit, it apparently failed. The underlying premise of each of these lawsuits is that if the votes had been counted accurately, Trump would have received another 154,000 votes. For that to happen, Trump would have had to receive more than 65% of Detroit’s vote in 2020, a ridiculous proposition when he received a paltry 3% of Detroit’s votes in 2016. In Michigan there is one and only one proper way to challenge the vote count—a hand recount. Tellingly, neither the Trump campaign nor any of its litigation allies has ever requested or even mentioned a recount. Voters in Michigan do not enter their votes directly into a computer; paper ballots are scanned, and those paper ballots are preserved for recounts or audits. If the Trump campaign really believed that Dominion computers were programmed with an evil algorithm to report hundreds of thousands of phantom votes for Biden, they would have demanded a recount. They did not request a recount, because they knew that a recount would have been no more successful for them in Michigan than it was in Georgia or Wisconsin. In Georgia, after three recounts, fewer than 900 votes changed. In Wisconsin, 132 votes changed, and those changes favored Biden. Even if some votes in Michigan were not properly counted (there is no evidence of that), anyone with any experience in recounts knows that in an extreme situation a statewide recount might change hundreds of votes, but never thousands, and certainly not 154,000 votes. Instead of pursuing a recount, Trump and his followers filed a collection of the weakest lawsuits imaginable. The suits were based upon false allegations and strange misinterpretations of Michigan law. These lawsuits were not filed by experienced, knowledgeable election lawyers. There are several well-respected election lawyers who regularly represent the Republican Party and its candidates in Michigan. I know a few of those lawyers, and I respect them. Not one of them surfaced in any of these cases. Instead, these cases were filed by lawyers employed by or affiliated with extreme right-wing and anti-abortion organizations—the Thomas More Society and its Amistad Project, American Freedom Law Center, Great Lakes Justice Center, Salt and Light Global (parent of Great Lakes Justice Center), Validate the Vote and True the Vote. It’s hard to know if these organizations are all focused on undermining our democratic institutions or if they are primarily enjoying the fundraising opportunity this litigation provides. The news media have reported more than $250 million raised by the Trump campaign after the election. The driving force behind this fundraising is the false story that there was election fraud, and these lawsuits could overturn the reported election results. The sloppiness of the handling of these lawsuits has been astonishing. A press release would announce that a lawsuit had been filed a day or two before it was actually filed. The Complaint in the Stoddard case (the second case filed in Wayne County) did not even attempt to identify an actual cause of action, seeking an injunction without any explanation of the legal basis for that injunction. After losing an initial motion in its case in the Michigan Court of Claims, the Trump campaign appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, but, although that appeal was filed on November 6, the proper paperwork to “perfect” the appeal (an application for leave to appeal) was not filed until November 30. At one point, the Trump campaign announced that it had filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, but it had actually been mistakenly filed in the U S. Court of Claims (a court which would never hear a state election lawsuit). Probably the messiest filing was King v Whitmer, the “Release the Kraken” lawsuit, filed by Sidney Powell. The Complaint in that case was a mess, with misspellings and other errors. More notably, the Plaintiffs did not properly serve the Defendants until ordered to do so by the judge. Then, when they did not like an order from the trial judge, they filed a “Notice of Appeal,” identifying the wrong court. The many errors by the lawyers in King v Whitmer would have been laughable, if the relief sought in this litigation were not so serious. Of the innumerable errors in the many lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its allies, the one I found most amusing and revealing was the “Verification” in a lawsuit filed by Lin Wood (one of the lawyers working with Sidney Powell on King v Whitmer) in Georgia. It was supposed to say that he verified the Complaint “under penalty of perjury,” but in an apparent Freudian slip he signed the following statement: Truer words were never spoken. Some of the carelessness in these cases was just bad lawyering, but something uglier was also going on. Some of these errors appear to have been calculated to sow confusion and to create the illusion that legitimate legal claims were being pursued. Time and again a case would be filed, but no immediate relief would be sought. An appeal was filed, but no effort was made to expedite it. In at least three cases, lawsuits were dismissed before a court could rule, but after another false story claiming election fraud had enjoyed its news cycle. Most of the factual and legal errors in these lawsuits were not innocent misunderstandings. If they were, the Plaintiffs and their attorneys would have corrected their errors. Instead, they continuously doubled down on their lies and never acknowledged any factual or legal corrections. As I argued in one motion, the lawsuits were never going to succeed in court, but the lawsuits themselves were the message. The very pendency of the cases and the failure of the courts to summarily dismiss them gave credence to their false narrative. Every one of these claims undermines faith in the integrity of the 2020 election and promotes a myth intended to delegitimize the Biden presidency. The courts should never allow themselves to be used that way. For that reason, I have been a passionate advocate for sanctions against the lawyers and the plaintiffs. To be clear, the numbers do not explain the focus on Detroit—no amount of fraud in Detroit could have changed the outcome of this election. The focus on Detroit is fueled by racism. No need to guess; the evidence is clear. Any doubt about the racist underpinnings of these claims was dispelled when the Wayne County Board of Canvassers met on November 17. The arguments against certifying the election results all related to precincts and absent voter counting boards being “out of balance.” In any election, at the end of the count, if the total number of voters does not exactly match the number of ballots counted, the precinct or counting board is out of balance. While this is not ideal, it usually involves a relatively small number of votes. In 2020, although many of Detroit’s precincts and absent voter counting board were out of balance, the total vote discrepancy was approximately 500 votes, and, notably, there were more voters than votes, not more votes than voters. The most common reason for out of balance precincts is impatient voters who sign in, get a ballot, but leave before completing and turning in the ballot. What does this have to do with racism? During the meeting of the Wayne County Canvassing Board, one of the Republican board members proposed that, because Detroit’s precincts and counting boards were out of balance, the vote count for predominantly African-American Detroit should not be certified. But she suggested the votes reported for all other Wayne County jurisdictions should be certified. She made this proposal, despite the fact that Livonia, a city with a population that is 95% white, which the Board member was willing to certify, had more out of balance precincts than Detroit. I have yet to hear an explanation for singling out Detroit in this way other than blatant racism. The Trump lawyers also showed a pattern of disrespect for the judiciary. Donald Trump often describes litigation in transactional terms, driven entirely by the whims of the judge. He does not seem to know or care that the law and facts usually determine the outcome of a lawsuit; to him, all that matters is who the judge is. He is no doubt very confused about the consistent way that judges-- Republican, Democratic and nonpartisan—have ruled against his phony election claims. The Republican lawyers in these cases clearly share Trump’s judicial philosophy, and that played out in a blatant campaign of forum shopping—trying to find a judge more likely to rule in their favor. After losing in the Court of Claims, the Trump campaign filed a new lawsuit in federal court. Trying to avoid the judges in the Eastern District of Michigan, many of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents, they filed in the Western District of Michigan .Then they tried to get the case assigned to a judge appointed by President George W. Bush, by incorrectly claiming that the case was “related” to a previous voter registration case. When that trick didn’t work, the Trump campaign eventually voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit. In a courtroom, the facts and the law do matter, and not one of these cases had facts which created a legal right to any relief. These nine cases were all interrelated, filed by lawyers who coordinated their efforts or copied from each other. Allegations, especially those related to activities at the TCF Center, were repeated verbatim from one lawsuit to another. Time and again, affidavits filed in one case would be appended to other cases. Entire complaints were attached as exhibits to other complaints. More than a hundred affidavits were filed in the Michigan cases, but a few of those affidavits received most of the attention. Not surprisingly, the witnesses who got the most attention told the most extreme stories. The stories were not true, but they served the purposes of a President desperate for an excuse for his overwhelming defeat and they provided grist for the mill of phony litigation. Jessy Jacob received more attention than other witnesses, because the media accepted the label of “whistleblower” to describe her. She was a City of Detroit employee, so, to some, her testimony had extra credence. That credence was not deserved. Ms. Jacob was not an employee of the Detroit Elections Bureau or even of the City Clerk. She was an employee with no experience related to elections, who had been furloughed from an engineering position in a different department. She was brought back to work in September, along with others, to assist with the surge of work related to the November General Election. She had a short-term position with limited responsibilities. She saw many things and understood few. Ms. Jacob is the source of the false claim that people were allowed to vote twice, because she observed people coming to the City Clerk’s satellite offices seeking to vote absentee when they had already requested an absentee ballot. She inferred from that that some of those people would be able to vote twice. She simply did not understand that the Qualified Voter File is checked when an absentee ballot is received. If someone has already voted, the second ballot is not accepted. She is also the source of the widely believed claim that signatures were not being compared, because her supervisor would not allow her to check signatures at the TCF Center (those signatures were checked before ballots were delivered to the TCF Center). Ms. Jacob is the most dangerous kind of witness. Her employment with the City of Detroit led many people to believe she was experienced and well-informed about election processes. In fact, she knew nothing about how votes are properly tabulated. Mellissa Carone became famous with her off-the-wall performance at the Lansing legislative hearing orchestrated by Rudy Giuliani and her portrayal by Cecily Strong on Saturday Night Live. In reality, she has been a very important, very false witness. Ms. Carone was not an employee of the City Clerk; she was not hired as an Election Inspector; she was not even a trained volunteer challenger. She was a low-level contract worker, working for Dominion Voting Systems, with a minor maintenance job keeping the tabulating machines clean and flagging down Dominion technicians if an operator needed assistance. She knew nothing about how elections are managed or how votes are counted. Ms. Carone’s primary claim—that stacks of ballots were repeatedly rescanned and counted multiple times—was and is patently absurd. Any such duplicate vote count would have been discovered and corrected at multiple stages of the vote counting and certification process. Her lack of knowledge does not hold her back; she is a passionate and loud advocate, who does not hide her intention to assist the Trump campaign, and her misinformed claims have gotten her plenty of public attention. Dr. Linda Lee Tarver is one of the Plaintiffs in the direct action filed in the Michigan Supreme Court. She received more attention than others because she was employed by the Michigan Secretary of State. She actually did not witness anything at the TCF Center. But, her testimony, which you can find on YouTube, is jarring to watch. This African-American woman spews the most racist bile imaginable, claiming that Michigan’s “communities of color” cannot be trusted to count votes accurately. Why such bad witnesses? It was not an accident that so many uninformed people signed the affidavits that drove these lawsuits. In past years, the Republican challengers, just like the Democratic challengers, operated with a hierarchy. A challenger who witnessed something of concern would report that issue to a more experienced challenger, who would then address the issue with the Election Inspectors. Through that orderly process, issues at the counting board or the precincts would be resolved. This year, the Republicans intentionally created chaos, bringing in hundreds of untrained challengers at the last minute. Some of these untrained challengers acted out and tried to disrupt the vote count. Others simply did not understand what they were seeing and interpreted some things they did not understand as fraud or misconduct. They were wrong, but there was no hierarchy in place to correct them. Trump and his allies wanted chaos. As soon as they saw that he was losing in Michigan, they knew they could not win a clean fight, so they chose to stop playing by the rules. We have heard from many Republican challengers that when the vote count started turning negative for Trump, they read posts on social media calling for as many Trump supporters as possible to descend on the TCF Center, and descend they did. The Republicans created the chaos they wanted, so they could question the inevitable results of the election. The experts whose reports or declarations were submitted in these cases are literally the worst collection of experts I have seen in any civil litigation in 43 years of practice. I don’t have space here to relate all of their insanity, but I can offer some examples. One expert identified nine counties in the state of Michigan which require special attention as “outliers,” because they report “numbers unusual relative to the rest of the data.” His entire analysis is based on raw totals, not percentages, and his report never notes that of the nine counties he highlights, eight are among the nine most populous counties in the state. Another supposed expert reported that Biden picked up more votes than the number of new “Democratic registrations.” Apparently nobody told him that Michigan does not have party registration. Another expert opined that there was vote fraud because he found that many voters submitted applications for absentee ballots and voted the same day. In fact, it is quite common in Michigan to vote absentee by going to the clerk’s office, receiving and signing an application for an absentee ballot, turning that application in and getting a ballot on the spot, which is then completed and handed back to the clerk. (That’s how I vote.) Another expert claimed evidence of fraud because some people said they “returned” their ballots, but they are listed as having not voted. That expert did not consider the fact that some ballots would be lost or delayed in the mail. One expert based his conclusions on the results of a “hand counted manual recount”—but, there was no such recount. One particularly aggressive expert actually ran a public campaign, looking for voters who would support his theories of vote fraud. His statistical methods were shockingly unscientific, and his report was a mess. His resumé included no technical publications, but an Internet search disclosed that in 2017 he founded a literary magazine identified as a “Literary Journal of the New Nationalism,” named in honor of Otoya Yamaguchi, a right-wing ultranationalist in Japan, who murdered the chairman of the Japan Socialist Party during a televised election debate. One expert claimed that the odds against Trump losing any one state, when he was so far ahead in the early vote count on election night, was “one in a quadrillion,” and the odds against him losing four states when he was so far ahead was “one in a quadrillion to the power of four.” That “expert” simply did not consider the possibility that Biden voters would be more likely than Trump voters to vote absentee. With experts like these, who needs facts? Fortunately, no court has been swayed by these experts, who all appear to be either incompetent, careless or dishonest. We wrote countless briefs about these cases, but I do have a favorite. I want to share the introduction to a brief we filed in the King v Whitmer (“release the Kraken”) case, and I must credit my partner, Darryl Bressack, who wrote this section, with an assist from John Mack, one of our attorneys who is also a practicing minister (no kidding): This is the lawsuit that one-time Trump legal team member Sidney Powell has been promising would be “biblical.” Perhaps, plaintiffs should have consulted with Proverbs 14:5, which teaches that “a faithful witness does not lie, but a false witness breathes out lies.” Few lawsuits breathe more lies than this one. The allegations are little more than fevered rantings of conspiracy theorists built on the work of other conspiracy theorists. Plaintiffs rely on affidavits of so-called “experts”—really confidence men who spread lie after lie under cover of academic credentials—which rely upon obviously false statistics. These “experts” use academic jargon as if that could transmute their claims from conspiracy theory to legal theory. A reporter dug out this filing, attached it to a tweet, and, within two hours, it had been retweeted thousands of times. It’s a new world for this old man. As I write this article, the battle is not yet over. There is still work to be done, but some things are already clear. These lawsuits should not have been filed, and the people who filed them should be sanctioned by the courts. We have filed motions for sanctions, and we will most likely be filing more, particularly if the remaining cases are not voluntarily dismissed. The six weeks after the election have been a blur. It has been a legal marathon, run at the pace of a sprint. But it was exhilarating. I never doubted that we would win; we had fantastic support wherever we turned, and, in every instance the courts handled these unusual cases correctly. As we seek sanctions against the plaintiffs and lawyers who filed and continue to pursue these cases, some people say we should not waste our time, that there will always be frivolous cases and we should just move on. I disagree. These are not ordinary weak cases. These cases were filed in a systematic effort to overturn the will of the people and to upend our democracy.  Filing lawsuits to challenge the results of presidential elections is not standard or normal. Not one lawsuit was filed when Trump eked out a margin of less than 11,000 votes in Michigan in 2016. When there is a close election, it is perfectly appropriate for a candidate to seek a recount; it is not appropriate to file multiple lawsuits based upon phony allegations of fraud. One after another, these lawsuits made the same arguments from the same baseless claims. Repeating these lies encouraged millions of Americans to believe that the liar-in-chief had been cheated out of his rightful second term. These claims undermine our democracy, and it is just plain wrong to allow these purveyors of seditious lies to walk away with no consequences. It’s nice to be involved in cases where your work is recognized and even appreciated. After one Zoom oral argument I learned that over 5,000 people had tuned in on YouTube. Unfortunately, many of those observers were responding to a QAnon announcement of the proceedings, so they weren’t all lauding my performance. I have received plenty of hate mail, but the negative feelings from those messages are far outweighed by the messages from strangers thanking us for what we do. After we filed our brief quoted above, one lawyer who I do not know wrote: “If I ever wrote a brief that good, I would retire. Thanks for defending democracy.”  The same brief elicited this note from another stranger: “Eat shit you fucking communists.” I guess you can’t please everyone. PART III My 15 Minutes of Fame While my law firm litigates high-stakes cases, often on matters of public interest, we generally avoid media coverage. It has always been our philosophy that lawsuits should be tried in the courtroom, not in the press. Some of our clients prefer privacy, others want to manage their public relations with PR professionals; none of our clients want to see press releases written in legalese. So, our response to most media inquiries has been “no comment.” That’s not to say that I don’t enjoy some publicity. It’s usually fun when friends and family read about one of our cases. But our goal is to win for our clients. If media coverage doesn’t advance our clients’ goals, we stay in our lane and leave the public comments to our clients. These election cases have been an exception; this is an uncommon situation when it is in our clients’ interest for me to talk to the press. First, there has been significant public interest in these lawsuits, and it is difficult for some journalists (who, unlike the Editor of the Insider, do not have law degrees) to understand the context of many court filings. Second, these frivolous lawsuits have been used as public relations weapons to advance a dangerous, false narrative about the integrity of our elections. Finally, the phony story being told to the press by Trump and his minions, with a hefty dose of racism, is that the City of Detroit is a corrupt city that can’t be trusted to conduct an honest election. A responsible alternative voice was necessary, and many journalists appreciate the opportunity to speak with a frontline litigator. In this rare instance, our client’s litigation goals coincided with my selfish need for ego gratification. It’s easy to get your name in the paper when you are in the middle of litigation seeking to overturn the election of the President of the United States. The tricky part is staying on message. So far, I’ve done that better than my first press interview as a candidate for Congress in 2002. When asked about Michigan’s then-candidate for Governor Jennifer Granholm’s mealy-mouthed response to a question about gun control, I responded “That’s a load of crap.” That was one way to get on the front page of The Detroit Free Press. Fortunately, the Energy Secretary-designee long ago forgave my transgression and included me as a member of her gubernatorial cabinet. The press has been kind to me during the election litigation, allowing me to accurately describe the status of these cases, without (so far) any gotcha moments. Some hard-working reporters have actually reviewed our pleadings and quote from them. And, frankly, it has been fun offering sound bites that (mostly) stay on message. It’s been a wild ride, with a lot of hard work, and more support and credit than I deserve. Let’s hope the excitement and uncertainty is over; I’m happy to wait another 20 years for the next one. P.S. The following is a healthy sampling of the press clippings. I hope you all enjoy them as much as my mother does. "We have been meticulous in fighting to make sure everything was done right; they should be as careful as we were before bringing these unfounded claims,” said David Fink. Fox 2 News, November 9, 2020 (see video) “The endless cascade of last-gasp lawsuits by lame-duck President Donald Trump and his supporters form a familiar pattern: Wild claims of fraud trickle into the courts before falling apart upon scrutiny of the evidence. For Detroit, Michigan’s lawyer David Fink, that fact pattern felt reminiscent of a darker version of the Bill Murray comedy classic: ‘It’s starting to feel a little bit like Groundhog Day. But unlike Groundhog Day, this isn’t funny at all,’ Fink said.” Law and Crime, November 11, 2020. “David Fink, a lawyer representing the city of Detroit, welcomed Judge Kenny’s order. ‘This is the third time a court has had to dismiss Trump supporters’ completely fabricated claims of voting problems in Detroit,’ Mr. Fink said. ‘The bottom line is the election was not close—Joe Biden carried the state of Michigan by more than 145,000 votes.’” The Wall Street Journal, November 13, 2020. “’Detroit doesn’t have a history of voter fraud,’ said David Fink, a lawyer representing Detroit in post-election litigation. ‘What it has is a history of people who don’t vote for Donald Trump.’” The Wall Street Journal, November 16, 2020. “Supporters of President Donald Trump, whose claims of election fraud in Detroit and surrounding Wayne County were shot down by lower courts, shouldn’t get to take their ‘grab-bag of falsehoods’ before the Michigan Supreme Court, lawyers for the city argued. … ‘This lawsuit is part of a campaign in several ‘battleground’ states to sow confusion and raise doubt – where none exists – regarding the election,’ Detroit attorney David Fink wrote in court papers filed Wednesday. ‘Plaintiffs should not be allowed to use these baseless claims to manipulate the judicial system to derail the democratic process and disenfranchise the voters.’” Bloomberg.com, November 18, 2020. “The lawyer for Detroit, David H. Fink, asked the judge to sanction the campaign for using the filing to ‘spread disinformation,’ noting the board ‘voted to certify the election results, and there is no legal mechanism for that action to be rescinded by affidavits.’ He said the campaign's claim should be stricken from the record because it was made ‘for an improper purpose: to make a gratuitous, public statement about their purported reason for voluntary dismissal, before the court could reject their baseless claims of election fraud,’ the filing says.” NBC News (online), November 19, 2020. “David Fink, a lawyer for the city of Detroit in the lawsuit, told CNBC, ‘They can put whatever spin they want on it. They dismissed the case because they were going to lose.’” CNBC, November 19, 2020. "’It's no surprise to us that these cases are being voluntarily dismissed because every time one of their cases gets to a judge, their baseless conspiracy theories have been rejected,’ Fink said. ‘They can try to spin the reason that they're dismissing these cases. But they're dismissing these cases because they're afraid to let another judge rule on their frivolous claims.’” The Detroit News, November 19, 2020. “’This lawsuit dredges up baseless conspiracy theories that have been debunked and rejected every time they have been reviewed by a court. This particular suit is filed by an attorney whose claims are so detached from reality that even the Trump campaign has disavowed any association with her,’ said David Fink, lead attorney representing Detroit.” USA Today, December 1, 2020. “David Fink, an attorney for Detroit, asked the judge to not just reject the request but also to sanction the plaintiffs for bringing it. ‘They want to undermine our democracy,’ he said. ‘Grant significant sanctions, because this has to stop. They are trying to use this court in a very improper way.’” The Washington Post, December 3, 2020. “’It is difficult to know whether plaintiffs and their counsel actually believe any of the ridiculous claims they allege or whether this entire lawsuit is designed solely as a fundraising exercise, a talking point, something they can use to bolster their imaginary claims of widespread voter fraud,’ reads part of the filing, submitted by David Fink and several other attorneys representing the city. “‘But the fact that the complaint is frivolous does not mean that this lawsuit is not dangerous to our democracy. Plaintiffs seek nothing less than a court-ordered coup d’état.’" The Detroit Free Press, December 3, 2020. “For pro-Trump election denialists, Fink added, filing lawsuits conveys its own destabilizing dispatch regardless of the result. ‘This case is about trying to get some traction from any court about the lies that are being told,’ Fink thundered, saying the Trump’s loyalists want to twist any victory—no matter how small—into fodder for a tweet to erode that faith in the democratic process. Scrutinizing the subtext behind the drumbeat of pro-Trump lawsuits, Fink identified the subtext as: ‘You can’t trust Black people to count votes honestly.’ ‘Tens of millions of Americans are believing the lies that are being told,’ he said.” Law and Crime, December 3, 2020. "They are trying to use this court in a very, very improper way," said Detroit city attorney David Fink. "We ask this court not just to deny the relief that is requested but to grant significant sanctions, because this has to stop." ABC News (online) December 5, 2020. After Judge Linda Parker denied the temporary injunctive relief sought by Sidney Powell: "’It’s a good day for democracy, not such a good day for frivolous Republican lawsuits.’ said David Fink, an attorney representing the city. ‘Once again a challenge to our vote count based upon groundless conspiracy theories has been rejected in court. Every judge who has reviewed these claims brought by Donald Trump and his allies has found them for what they are — frivolous lawsuits intended to undermine faith in our democracy. It’s time for the purveyors of these dangerous lies to be sanctioned by the courts.’" The Detroit Free Press, December 7, 2020. “David Fink, an attorney who represents the city of Detroit, agreed the request to the Supreme Court would fail. ‘Apparently, in their zeal to advance their delusional claims, they think the court rules and laws don’t apply to them,’ Fink said in a phone interview Saturday. ‘"It’s time for all of these Republican lawyers to accept the will of the people’." Detroit Free Press, December 12, 2020. “But David Fink, an attorney for the City of Detroit, which intervened in the case, doesn't believe Trump's supporters will be successful. He noted Saturday that the U.S. Supreme Court has already rejected similar cases. "’Fifty lawsuits have not found one improperly counted vote,’ Fink said. ‘Donald Trump can’t believe that he lost, but he did, and by a very large margin.’” Detroit News, December 12, 2020. “’It’s time for this nonsense to end,’ Detroit’s lawyer David Fink told Law&Crime in a phone interview. ‘The lawyers filing these frivolous cases that undermine democracy must pay a price,’ Fink added. “ Law and Crime, December 15, 2020. “’These are not run-of-the-mill lawsuits and these are not minor factual and legal errors,’ said Fink in a phone interview with Forbes. ‘I don’t think lawyers who practice with such disregard for the law and the facts should be allowed to practice.’” Forbes, December 16, 2020. “’Plaintiffs and their counsel understood that the mere filing of a suit (no matter how frivolous) could, without any evidence, raise doubts in the minds of millions of Americans about the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election,’ lawyer David Fink wrote in the motion.” Newsweek, December 16, 2020. David Fink is a 1974 magna cum laude graduate of Harvard College and a 1977 cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School. He served as Michigan’s State Employer under Governor Jennifer Granholm and was one of the first attorneys named to the Michigan Lawyers’ Hall of Fame. He has two children and five grandchildren and is proud to have attended Francis Scott Key Elementary School with the Editor of The Insider.

By Andy Borowitz December 19, 2020 WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Posing for cameras to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, Mike Pence expressed his fear that the sight of his bare arm would drive women wild. Pence, who has lived daily with the burden of being irresistible to females, worried that unveiling his bicep would be “like pouring gasoline on a fire.” “I know it’s important that I set an example by getting the vaccine in public, but it comes with a steep price,” he said. “Now there are going to be even more ladies out there desperate to get a piece of Mike.” Resigned to the consequences, Pence rolled up his sleeve to reveal his naked arm. “Here we go,” the Vice-President said. “Tickets to the gun show.” 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 Merrill Lynn Hansen There is an old Jewish saying:  "Rejoice not at thine enemy's fall, but don't rush to pick him up either." Donald Trump has fallen (shame on me for rejoicing), and is trying as hard as he can to pick himself up and overthrow the presidential election (without any assistance from Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, that ingrate). Nonetheless, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell finally congratulated President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris on December 15 from the floor of the Senate. But the most crushing blow to Trump’s election-rejection campaign came from the man Trump has admired and defended the most, Russia's Vladimir Putin, who also congratulated Biden on winning the U.S. election a day after the Electoral College confirmed Biden as the nation's next president. In his message, Putin wished Biden "every success", and expressed confidence that Russia and the U.S., "despite the differences, can really contribute to solving many problems and challenges that the world is currently facing." That is Putin's diplomatic way of telling Trump he's a “LOSER”, without mentioning his name. It is obvious that it's time for Donald Trump to say goodbye and call Two Men and a Truck to come get his tanning bed and spray-on tan cans, as well as Melania's jars of caviar moisturizer, her gold-plated wardrobe, stilettos and the hard hat she posed in while claiming to have assisted in the construction of the new White House tennis pavilion. But saying goodbye is not a part of Donald Trump's nature.  He's used to getting rid of people, without any human contact. He just tweets their termination and berates them for months afterwards. Now, for the first time, he is experiencing the humiliation of being fired, and being expected to say goodbye. I can't think of anything more embarrassing for him than losing this election, because millions of dead people voted for Joe Biden, and key state ballots were counted in Germany, by a Venezuelan company. owned by allies of Hugo Chavez (who died in 2013). As I write this, I'm not sure if Trump plans on saying goodbye. I don't even know if he plans on leaving.   But one thing is certain.  If he does say goodbye, it’s never going to be like the Jewish goodbye, which is long, but loving.  The Jewish goodbye is the perfect example of a peaceful transition of power.  It is definitely noisy, but not chaotic.  It's peaceful, because there is a calm afterwards that makes you want to call everyone the next day to tell them how much you enjoyed being with them. The Jewish goodbye actually begins as the guests arrive.  While everyone is shaking hands, and hugging and kissing, they all immediately say they're not going to make it a "late night.” The pandemic and its remote get-togethers, have not shortened the Jewish goodbye.  In fact, virtual Jewish goodbyes are longer, because some so-called guests are already at home, relaxing, and lying down while they schmooze. After everyone is seated at the dinner table, the host and hostess begin by thanking the guests for coming, and everyone sincerely expresses how much they love being together.  The host and hostess acknowledge all the "contributions” from everyone (the sweet potatoes, the green-bean casserole, the desserts, and the fruit tray) that make the dinner a success. Everyone has ignored the email they'd received from Donald Trump Jr. the week before, "encouraging" them to donate $10,000 for a chance to meet Trump Sr.  at "a very important dinner coming up.”  (Feh. We wouldn't donate money for a chance meeting with Donald Trump,  when we  can donate a side dish and have dinner with people whose company we enjoy.) The dinner conversation is often about the issues that are affecting everyone's lives, and among my own family members and friends, are intelligent, and often energizing.  The guest who has earlier whispered to his spouse that he's tired and wants to leave before dessert is served, suddenly wants a piece of seven-layer cake, while he takes part in an animated discussion about his work and the paths everyone's careers have taken since their first job.  The guests who said they have to get up early the next day for work (even if working from home), are now discussing milestone birthdays, whether or not one’s forgetfulness is age-appropriate, and the effects of stress.  Politics and current events are always discussed.  ("So, who do you think kisses Trump' s butt more : Lindsay Graham or Ron Johnson?) The young adults, who have grown up together, and the children, also join in the conversation, because they, too, are great conversationalists, and have life experiences and opinions to share.    (Even though he’s a member of the tribe, Trump's senior adviser, Stephen Miller, has been excluded from the guest list,  because the little children would think he's "scary,” as would everyone else in the room.) There is, of course, much humor, and even a bit of making fun of each other.  (When my non-Jewish ex-husband first came to a luncheon at a relative's house, and an uncle spotted him about to put mayonnaise on a corned beef and pastrami sandwich, my uncle told him that whenever someone puts mayonnaise on a corned beef and pastrami sandwich, a Jew dies. My husband then responded, “I didn't know that.  Merrill only warned me that she would kill me if I drank milk with Chinese food in front of her parents.") Sometime during dessert, people who have already put their coats on (or pajamas, if they're on Zoom), and are about to leave, sit down again, for the election of the hosts of the next holiday dinner.  Two or more people volunteer to host the next holiday get-together at their homes, and there is much discussion about the details that influence the decision. Does it take more than half an hour to get to their homes from where the other guests live? Do they break fast a little before sundown, or do they wait?  Do they serve anything that's gluten-free? And most importantly, is their dining room/living room big enough to seat 32 people, without everyone having to lose 15 pounds before the next holiday gathering, so they don't have to squeeze around everyone's chairs to get to the buffet? After much discussion, everyone decides who the next host and hostess will be; and the election results are announced, even though Steve Kornacki never arrived with his Magic Board and calculator.  Among my family and friends, we have preferred loved ones whom we happily "re-elect." No one-term hosts and hostesses for us.  The first night of Passover will forever be at their home. Trump would definitely be a one-term host  (if ever elected at all),  and would have immediately begun tweeting that he won the election, even as the votes were still being counted.  He would tweet so many false accusations about voter fraud and Democrats rigging the election, Twitter would respond with a label that says  OFFICIAL SOURCES CALLED THIS ELECTION DIFFERENTLY. It is at this point during the long Jewish goodbye that the peaceful transition of power begins. (Our guest, who grew up in Texas, will not join a voter fraud lawsuit against Michigan,  because his wife is from Michigan,  and he is certain  that her deceased  parents did not mail in ballots for Joe Biden. ) There is the sharing of recipes with the host- and hostess-elect (Ruthie's gefilte fish; Norman's salad dressing; Auntie Florence's sunshine cake). The list of email addresses and phone numbers of the out-of-towners are provided, so the host and hostess-elect can contact them to see if they're planning on coming to Michigan for the next holiday. ("Shayna and Max will be in town for Passover, but I'm not sure if Ken and Lisa will be here.")   Classified information is also shared ("Barbara has been dating a man who is divorced and has two children.  I heard about it from Terry.  Don't tell anyone that I said anything, because I don't know if she'll bring him to your house for dinner. There naturally is some suspicion that Russia knows all of our classified information, but Trump is refusing to comment.   That's a sure sign that Putin also knows who Barbara is dating. Our host graciously tells the host-elect that he'll be happy to assist him in any way to make the transition easier. ("If you think you'll need some extra chairs for the dinner, let me know and I'll personally drop them off. he also offers the host-elect some helpful advice before he leaves ("Be careful backing down the driveway.  It's steep and if you turn too much to the right, you might back into the drainage ditch.") As we finally prepare to leave, our host and hostess once again thank us all for coming and tell us what a pleasure and privilege it is to have us in their lives.  We all give hugs or blow virtual kisses, and tell everyone to stay healthy.   We have been saying goodbye for four hours and Donald Trump will have tweeted 465 tweets;  Rudy will have  put together Fox's greatest team of  conspiracy  theory attorneys to ever argue election fraud cases on Saturday Night Live. I'm not expecting Donald Trump to say goodbye, and Melania certainly doesn't want to have to smile in public ("Who gives a "fawk" about saying goodbye, Donald?").  I imagine that meeting with his lawyers to discuss a self-pardon is going to take some time. I'm certain the one thing Trump hates more than Joe Biden being our next President, is having to resign and let Mike Pence be our next president for ten minutes, while Pence pardons him. Nothing is forever, and Trump will likely be the next President of one of his golf resorts. He's welcome to join my family and friends for a holiday gathering, but we'll remind him that even though the Jewish goodbye is long, everyone knows when it's time to leave. Bye, Donald! Merrill 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.

In our breaking news story a week ago, we introduced you to Dr. Tony Shields, a prominent Detroit oncologist and medical school professor at Wayne State University and his wife Dr. Fayth Yoshimura., an emerita microbiology professor at Wayne State University. Both were recently in Covid-19 vaccine trials; Tony was in the Johnson & Johnson trial and Fayth was in the Pfizer trial. In the trials, half of the participants got the real vaccine and half got a placebo. Tony told The Insider that after he had his vaccine shot on Election Day, “I had absolutely zero reaction to it,” The reason, he believed, was that he had received the placebo. “Most people who get these shots get some reaction if they get the vaccine. So, I’m pretty certain.” Not so fast, doc. Tony, who treats some cancer patients who have Covid-19 at the Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit, was offered the option of taking the Pfizer vaccine last Saturday as an essential healthcare worker. Before doing that, though, he wanted to know the truth about whether he had already taken a real Johnson & Johnson vaccine. After jumping through some bureaucratic and medical hoops, Tony got some stunning news: despite his complete lack of reaction to the shot he took on November 3rd, he in fact had gotten the real deal. Says Tony, “I was just shocked! I was just like, "Wow. I really did get the vaccine.” So he will continue as a participant in the Johnson & Johnson vaccine trial. If it turns out down the road that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is not as effective as the ones made by Pfizer and Moderna, Tony says he will take one of those other vaccines as well. Is there a health risk to taking two vaccines? “Probably not,” he says. “I don't expect there to be.” Happy Vaccinations, Insiders! Please keep us posted about your own vaccine experiences.

By Victoria Rolfe Well, it’s been quite a year, to say the least. I think that how much it affected us individually and how we came through it had a lot to do with how we had been going about our lives before this year. How prepared were you for something like this? I think this year many people have come face to face with question posed by Aesop’s classic fable, “The Grasshopper and the Ant”: Which kind of critter are you? The grasshopper will ignore the future and just live for today, only to be surprised when winter comes and he has nothing put aside to get him through the cold snowy months. Meanwhile, the ant has been working throughout the summer to build up a stash to sustain him throughout those food-barren months.
 
Does this mean that the ant has no fun while he is preparing for the future? Absolutely not! There are a great many ways that that little ant can have fun while also taking the time to put those resources away for that rainy day. But the wise little ant always keeps in mind that winter is coming and does what he needs to do to be prepared. ​So, yes, enjoy yourself for today. There are any number of ways that you can enjoy life for very little cost or for free. But if you are a wise little ant you will always be stocking up for the future so that (unlike that silly irresponsible grasshopper) when times such as this come along, you will have an abundance to enjoy and your winter will be more like a gorgeous phantasmagorical riot of spring blossoms. Because you, my little friend, prepared for it. Victoria Rolfe is a family budget coach who has had a lifetime of experience in the art and joy of frugal living and its resulting financial freedom. She spent many years as a stay-at-home mom and home economist and rose successfully to the challenge of raising a family of four kids on a modest income without incurring debt. She did crazy things like paying for all their cars with cash, paying off their mortgage in ten years, buying their next house for cash, and sending all her kids to college with no student loans, while building a comfortable retirement nest egg for their own bright future. She is now passionate about helping others to enter this beautiful world of peaceful and simple frugality and to achieve their own financial goals with the knowledge and personal finance skills that she has acquired. She writes a monthly blog, teaches via a series of light-hearted group presentations that she created, and sees clients in one-on-one personal meetings. Visit her website and blog at brightfuture2budget4.weebly.com, or email her at brightfuture2budget4@gmail.com.

By Andy Borowitz December 18, 2020 WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Calling the prospect a “nightmare scenario,” Betsy DeVos warned that President-elect Joe Biden will pick an Education Secretary with a background in education. The outgoing Education Secretary warned that putting someone with a “pro-education bias” in her job would be like “naming a fox to be Secretary of Hens.” “For the past four years, I have worked tirelessly to keep our schools free from education,” she said. “It deeply saddens me to think that all of my hard work will go to waste.” Even more alarming, she said, Biden may name a “knowledgeable person” to replace her, a decision she called “disastrous.” “In order to be impartial toward education, an Education Secretary must be as ignorant as possible,” she said. “I don’t mean to boast, but I am going to be a tough act to follow in that respect.” In total, she said, Biden’s plans for education may be the “most radical aspect” of the Democratic Party agenda. “Forget about defunding the police,” she said. “He is talking about funding the schools.” 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 Victoria Rolfe I’m afraid that many people will take umbrage with what I have to say. People like to commiserate. And most of you have had much to commiserate about since last March. Misery loves company, as the saying goes. I don’t know, maybe it’s because I am an extreme introvert, but I have had quite the opposite reaction to this lockdown and sheltering in place. I have to admit (and I can hear lots of you groaning as I say it) that I enjoyed the change of pace. There is a little (well maybe big) part of me that always secretly desired to just check out of the world and be by myself in my cozy little home in the country, away from the madding crowd, as it were (and there were quite the maddening crowds out there this year in particular). Although I do enjoy teaching workshops on budgeting and vegetable gardening and manning “Ask the Master Gardener” tables at various events throughout the year, and my volunteer work at the library, I was privately relieved to give it all up for the year. Now this is a little eerie, I must admit, but at a birthday party back on February 1st, after the candles were blown out and wishes made, someone suggested that we all go around the table and say what our hopes for 2020 were. Most people said things like they wanted to take a trip, or they hoped their daughter would have a baby, or they wanted to buy a new house. They looked at me a little askance when my humble wish was just to get to the point in life when I have nothing to do. Yes, you heard me right, THAT was my wish for the year. I just wanted my world to stop for a little while, so I could have a little breather and catch up with things at home. I had no intention of dragging the rest of the world into this with me! But here’s the kicker… even though my world (and everybody else’s) stopped for the year and I kind of got my wish, I still didn’t catch up with everything at home! Oh well… there’s always next year. Here’s wishing you all a happy holiday and hoping that all your dreams come true for 2021! Victoria Rolfe is a family budget coach who has had a lifetime of experience in the art and joy of frugal living and its resulting financial freedom. She spent many years as a stay-at-home mom and home economist and rose successfully to the challenge of raising a family of four kids on a modest income without incurring debt. She did crazy things like paying for all their cars with cash, paying off their mortgage in ten years, buying their next house for cash, and sending all her kids to college with no student loans, while building a comfortable retirement nest egg for their own bright future. She is now passionate about helping others to enter this beautiful world of peaceful and simple frugality and to achieve their own financial goals with the knowledge and personal finance skills that she has acquired. She writes a monthly blog, teaches via a series of light-hearted group presentations that she created, and sees clients in one-on-one personal meetings. Visit her website and blog at brightfuture2budget4.weebly.com, or email her at brightfuture2budget4@gmail.com.

By Helene Bednarsh Looking back over this deplorable year, I guess frustration has been my dominant emotion. That- comes from 46 years in public health, epidemiology and community health:, a Master of Public Health degree; experience in federal, state and local public-health programs; and the knowledge that interventions, timed correctly and adhered to, have made a difference in the past. That’s been true with foodborne outbreaks and infectious disease crises. Such actions could have, and still potentially could, make a difference. The mantra in public health has always been to protect and preserve the health of the public. When a problem exists, there are usually solutions to it and applying those basic tenets can work. It boggles my mind how politicized public-health measures have become. My fear is that it is too hard getting people to accept them as socially acceptable and protective.. I’m hopeful, of course, with Biden’s victory, but overcoming such division in this country-- what a challenge.  Covid-19 has been allowed to run amok. Conspiracy theories flourish instead of citizens taking personal responsibility for mitigation. Then there are the antivaxxer and the "this is a hoax" crowds, plus the lingering doubt sowed by Trump--a perfect storm. If only he had put on a damn mask, dayenu; told the nation to mask up, dayenu; to keep your distance, dayenu; to listen to the experts in science and medicine, dayenu, dayenu. Just imagine where we could be now. Look at countries that were successful. Many early tenets of public health were not evidence-based; they were empirically derived and the evidence followed. For example, take the case of Hungarian physician. Ignác Semmelweis. In 1847, he observed that when doctors washed their hands with a chlorinated solution, it led to a decrease in puerperal fever during baby deliveries. Hungarian women of the time preferred midwives, in order to avoid what they referred to as the “doctor plague.” Semmelweis recommended that such handwashing be done before each delivery, but his colleagues rejected his theory that dirty hands had the potential to be spreaders of disease. Semmelweis persisted nonethelss, and his observation let to him proposing his influential germ theory in 1850. It was also rejected the contemporary medical community..Yet, his three words in 1847-- WASH YOUR HANDS—would have saved lives. So now we have three Ws as evidence-based recommendations to mitigate COVID-19: Wear a mask. Wash your hands. Watch your distance. 170 years later, these three rules could have also saved lives, but instead have been politicized. They are a shared responsibility of society, not an infringement on personal liberties. I think back to my first course in grad school, Cholera and the Broad Street Pump and John Snow removing the handle of the pump that he concluded in 1854 was spreading cholera through contaminated water. Whoosh, end of the epidemic. Microbes can’t be wished away, they can’t be ignored, They’ve been alive longer than we have and will thrive and survive unless we stop them. We need a modern version of removing the pump handle, a national mandate, so that at this time next year we can look back and say: 2020 was bad, really bad, but now it’s better. Helene Bednarsh retired this year as the Director of the Ryan White Dental Program, Boston Public Health Commission but continues to consult to the program.. She is Vice President of HIVDENT and is the Dental Director for the New England AIDS Education and Training Center. She has published numerous articles. When she’s not advocating for something, she’s knitting.