By Bruce Shlain Donald Trump getting infected with COVID-19 turned out to be the big October Surprise of the 2020 election. He handled it with his inimitable personal touch. When he came down with the virus and had to be medevacced on October 3 by helicopter to Walter Reed Medical Center, he had the golden opportunity to seize the lifeline and change his tune. After nearly eight months of dismissing the virus as no worse than the flu and something that would disappear “like a miracle,” he would pivot to show empathy for the pain felt by ordinary Americans : the 220,000 dead, the millions of jobs lost, the 100,000 businesses closed, many for good. But for a president who desired only to project strength and dominance, he shied away from any admission that he was flesh and blood, and thereby risk revealing himelf as a sick and vulnerable old man. Instead, he engineered a photo-op of a triumphant return to the White House two days later. He climbed the stairs outside and stood on the Truman Balcony, now laboring to breathe, defiantly removed his mask, stuffed it in his pocket and saluted. It was no accident that he evoked dictatorial iconography from the likes of Evita Peron and Benito Mussolini, presenting himself as the incarnation of dictators past, our very own Cheeto Benito, Benito Trumpolini, or Mango Mussolini. He shot a short video declaring that his illness was a gift from God, he got infected to show us all that it was nothing to be afraid of, you can’t let it dominate your life, we have a cure, we’ve made the final turn on the virus. The intended takeaway was that the President had dominated the China Virus, he had kicked its ass! In the first debate between Trump and Biden less than a week earlier, the president had gone on the attack like a wolverine on speed, relentlessly interrupting with total disregard for the rules of the debate or decorum in general, and it had quickly devolved into total chaos. Biden was stunned, and tried to directly address the home audience instead of his opponent, as the candidates talked over each other. Trump, meanwhile, declined to disavow white supremacyor advise his supporters to accept the election results peacefully, and denigrated Biden for wearing a mask. As a showcase for American democracy, it was a national disgrace and an international embarrassment on a grand scale, or just another day in the 2020 presidential campaign. A flustered Dana Bash at CNN could only describe it on-air as a “total shitshow,” and for the trailing and flailing Trump, it was a total belly flop into an empty swimming pool. We can dispel the notion that Trump, who took the 2016 election with the electoral college equivalent of pulling an inside straight, was somehow playing a game of three-dimensional political chess based on gut instinct. He managed to severely alienate every group that he needed to persuade, losing support among women, seniors, veterans and even non-college-educated whites. In the wake of the debate, a race that had been stable for months in Biden’s favor now tipped more heavily to the Democrats and endangered Republican control of the Senate. Trump blew off the second debate on October 15, when the Debate Commission planned to make it a virtual event. Biden and Trump ended up holding dueling town halls aired at the same time. Trump told Savannah Guthrie at the ABC Town Hall that 85% of people who wear masks get sick, and other absolute gibberish that would endanger even more lives. Trump would subsequently refer to the Administration’s most experienced epidemiologists as “Fauci and the other idiots.” Instead, he listened to Dr. Scott Atlas, a neuroradiologist with no experience in virology or public health, who said wearing masks has no benefit, and who advocates the “herd immunity” approach, which leads to mass death. The president has become not only a national security threat, but a full-on, balls-out menace to public health. The drugs Trump had taken often engender feelings of grandiosity and manic behavior, especially the steroid dexamethasone. It apparently made him feel like he could out-wrestle a grown bear. Even the coronavirus itself can bring on acute brain fog and the inability to see things clearly or rationally. Was Trump under the influence of these medical “cocktails," including remdesevir and experimental monoclonal antibodies, which nobody had ever taken in concert? If Trump was acting crazy, demented, like a Mad King, as if he were on drugs, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asserted, how could she really tell? How could anybody tell? It was all so Trumpian, and the rambling and wild statements, the denial of reality, and the slurring of words, seemed to have accelerated. Another funny circumstance, until you realize that the tangerine-colored man in the baggy suits with the ties down to his groin has control of 6,000 nuclear warheads. And so Trump went back on the trail, even though he might well have still been infected and contagious and risking more super-spreader events for his followers. Nobody knew if he had tested negative yet for the virus, but he was more than willing to sacrifice his supporters. Meanwhile, he retweeted the right-wing conspiracy theory that Bin Laden’s death was faked, beat up on his Attorney General for not indicting Obama and Biden for “spying on his campaign,” warned that the Democrats would turn the U.S.into a “large-scale Venezuela,” referred to Kamala Harris as a “monster,” incited violence against the Governor of Michigan, and on and on. Former Obama advisor David Axelrod wondered if Trump had “turned his own political suicide into a surreal reality show.” Trump still only trails by 5 or 6 points in several key battleground states such as Pennsylvania, only a few points outside the margin of error. There are an estimated 25 percent of people who come to his rallies who did not vote in 2016, and Republican voter registration is up, while early Democratic voting is huge. If the pandemic had not hit, it appears that Trump might well have won a second term; his administration had to badly bungle the crisis for him to lose. Trump insisted that it could have been much worse, two million could have died without his decisive leadership. But Trump’s cavalier handling of a monumental crisis that few presidents ever have had to face may well have come with a personal price tag: becoming infected with COVID-19 and losing the election. Let us suppose, after the court battles and expected skirmishes in the streets, that he does lose, and is forced from office. If the circus leaves town after one term, just what kind of legacy would Trump leave behind? TRUTH DECAY Distrust of our basic institutions was already running rampant, and Trump pumped it up to the wildest extreme. He started with the free press, as all wannabe dictators do. The media was “the enemy of the people,” as Vladimir Lenin once said, and Trump just kept repeating “fake news.” Every bad story about the Trump Organization being a crime syndicate, or his family being a collection of influence-peddling grifters, or his cabinet members drowning in corruption, it was all fake news. And he just keep repeating it. It matters not if the lie is a whopper; just keep washing those brains out there. It worked for Joseph Goebbels and it works now. The news media, like the courts, has generally proven to be resilient in the face of the attacks and relentless in its reporting. The Washington Post and The New York Times broke stories right and left, because this was the leakiest White House of all time. The cable news shows saw their ratings skyrocket, and for all the furrowing of knitted brows, they still basically played into Trump’s short-fingered hands, since he always led the coverage, sucking all the oxygen out of the room. The news cycle moves fast in the digital age, and print and cable TV news outlets all “spotlight” coverage on the news of the day, which was usually another Trump outrage, some shocking controversy. Trump saw each day as a television show, where there are heroes and villains, and he must vanquish his opponents and emerge victorious. It exhausts everyone but him, because he is built that way as a malignant narcissist, and could go on forever rinsing and repeating, leveling his enemies with insults, lies and innuendo. Until recently, the cable news networks normalized his behavior, insofar as he was covered more as a Twitter-happy show-off rather than an autocrat who was slowly dismantling American democracy piece by piece. Even the most thoroughly vetted investigations of the Trump administration, the Mueller Report, did not move large segments of the country. Trump developed a reputation of being the Teflon Don, who could slough off scandals that would end the careers of normal politicians. We live in an atmosphere so polarized that nothing really matters, not when 40 percent of the country will believe almost anything, and 20 percent really don’t know what or whom to believe. Among those 40 percent is the hardcore Trump Base. They make up their own realities, and get a lot of their news right from the horse’s mouth (pick any orifice) --the man in the Oval. Take the QAnon followers. They believe that Democratic elites are cannibalistic pedophiles, the real bloodsucking “Deep State,” and that Trump was sent as a savior to expose them. Trump will not and cannot call them out for believing in craptastic and mega-paranoid fantasies, because these people are his future customers, whether as voters or viewers or people that will buy whatever snake oil he can push on them. The genie is out of the bottle, disinformation spreads on all the social-media platforms, with help from Russian and Chinese troll farms, and as the experts will tell you, debunking conspiracy theories does not halt their growth. Twitter and Facebook recently restricted a few false posts about public health and Hunter Biden’s laptop that came from Trump, but of course that is only a drop in the bucket. The only recourse is educating the public about distinguishing fact from fancy, and good luck with that one. It is deadly serious in the sense that if no agreed-upon objective reality exists, and politicians are free to make up their own “alternative facts,” no democracy can exist for very long. The American Experiment in government may not be down and out, but is perhaps on the ropes. The Trump Administration was not the first to issue a blizzard of lies in defense of its policies, as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld served two terms on the wings of such mendacity, but Trump was the one who altered the political landscape by proving there was no limit. Fact-checkers tend to lose count after 20,000 lies. He used the bully pulpit of the presidency to blanket the country in a smog of twittering untruths. And all it took was a supremely neurotic persistence, lack of any moral grounding whatsoever, and of course, total shamelessness. THE LAWLESS PRESIDENT AND THE VICHY REPUBLICANS David Frum, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, became a never-Trumper, and now puts atop his Twitter page, “No one will ever admit that they supported this.” It still is amazing to look back and see how easily the GOP was hijacked and replaced with Trumpism. Republican members of Congress were not so much afraid of Trump per se, but paralyzed by his base support, in that one mean tweet could end them politically. It was a classic Faustian deal with the Devil: put up with a measure of awfulness and get to pass things like the massive tax cut for corporations and the rich. But the GOP bought the ticket, and took the whole ride. The groveling became routine, passing by the second year into the spectacle of Profiles in Chickenshit commonly seen in the halls of Congress. Senators scurried for the elevators, throwing “I don’t read the President’s tweets” or “no comment” over their shoulders. After the endless rationalizing came the complete capitulation, the Bootlicker Phase, for nearly the entire Republican Senate, minus Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski. On issue after issue – the deficit, national security, impeachment, exploitation of racial divisions, corruption, oversight, the assault on the rule of law, the weaponization and politicization of the Justice Department and intelligence agencies, as well as the Centers for Disease Control, the Muslim ban, the denigration of Gold Star families, and families separated at the border with kids put in cages, helping the Saudis cover up the murder of an American journalist, or Trump calling fallen soldiers “suckers and losers”--Senate Republicans failed miserably to put country over party. The Constitution depends so much on norms rather than laws. So much of our democracy is held up by a kind of gentleman’s agreement; it’s in the phrase “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” but they’re not evident to everybody. It does not say in the Constitution, for instance, that a president cannot pardon himself, so Trump may test it, rather than just step down and let the Vice-President pardon him. If someone like Trump decides to override the norms at every turn, who could stop him? He would just fire the Inspector General looking into it and replace him or her with another loyalist stooge. The President was impeached for trying to get Ukraine to say they were investigating Biden, and he skated on that just like he skated on the Mueller Report, by calling it a “hoax.” Trump was an Early Warning Signal for U.S. democracy, and thankfully, was fairly incompetent. What if some demagogue gained the presidency who did not spend so much “Executive Time,” as they like to call it in the West Wing, just watching coverage of himself on cable news, and who was smoother in working the levers of power? Some Republicans up for reelection have cut down the lifeboats and are only now dissociating themselves from Trump, but they are way late with their conversion. When Trump is gone, his base remains, and how the Republicans remake their party and maintain the support of these people is an open and thorny question that none of the GOP really wants to face. Back when the Republicans lost with Mitt Romney as the candidate in 2012, they wrote a report known as “The Autopsy,” preparing a circular firing squad to remake their party so that they could appeal to young people and minorities in a nation of changing demographics. They face a much deeper soul-searching now. And Republicans may have to remake themselves with Trump screaming from the sidelines. It is difficult to imagine someone who craves attention so desperately seeking asylum in Saudi Arabia or Moscow to escape his numerous legal difficulties. He may buy a media company and start TRUMP-TV, and try to monetize his cult following. A reality show about an ex-president? All we really know is it might be awhile before the Republican Party recovers from sacrificing so many core American values at the altar of Trumpism. It is far from a sure thing that they will even try. ‘WHO’S LAUGHING NOW?’ TRUMP ON THE WORLD STAGE Trump insisted that the rest of the world was laughing at us as they took advantage of the U.S., and he promised that the rest of the world will no longer laugh at us. But laugh they did, whether it was Trudeau and Macron giggling about the American President’s behavior at a G7 summit, or when the British flew the Baby Trump-in-a-Diaper blimp above Trafalgar Square whenever he visited, or even the audience at the United Nations that laughed at his self-stroking blather. He cozied up to dictators like Duterte, Erdogan, Kim Jong-un, and Putin, while trashing our allies and threatening to pull out of NATO. When Secretary of Defense James Mattis tried to explain to Trump that the NATO alliance was the most successful pact in history, and had kept the world safe from nuclear war for 75 years, Trump failed to understand. That ignorance prompted his first Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, to sum up the President’s foreign policy acumen with the succinct, “What a fucking moron.” Trump pulled out of the nuclear agreement with Iran and the Paris Climate Agreement, likely because they were Obama’s signature diplomatic accomplishments. “America First” meant America Alone. Instead of using the united front of our allies in confronting China, Trump went toe-to-toe with President Xi in a game of ‘whose tariffs are bigger?’ It hit American farmers so hard that even after billions in subsidies, many longtime family farms closed down. His administration negotiated the USMC to replace the terrible, no-good, unfair NAFTA, although some economists pointed out that the terrific, fantastic and beautiful new deal was pretty much like NAFTA. Jared Kushner helped negotiate a peace agreement in the Middle East, but conveniently left out the Palestinians. And Trump set in motion the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) because they supposedly favored China –an inconceivable move in the midst of a global pandemic. Trump tried a new tack with North Korea, exchanging “love letters” in a prolonged bromance with Kim Jong-un, while Kim refined his ICBM program. Kim apparently played 45 like a .45, around and around, getting the international boost of photos with an American president, without making any real concessions. Trump pulled the plug on the Kurds, who had assisted U.S. forces in Syria, and allowed the Turks to slaughter them at the border, based on a phone call with Erdogan. Administration security officials were aghast, once again. Did the two Trump hotels in Istanbul have anything to do with it? It was once unimaginable that more people around the world trusted President Xi of China or Vladimir Putin than the American president, but that also came to pass (even though it was really close). All roads, however, led to Russia. Trump infamously sided with Putin at Helsinki and took his word over the advice of American intelligence agencies about interference in the 2016 election, and refused to lift a finger to combat future interference. Even mentioning Russian influence in his election caused him to fly into a rage. When reports circulated that bounties were placed on the heads of American soldiers in Afghanistan by Russian intelligence, Trump declined to even bring it up with Putin, and still recommended that the Russian dictator be invited back into the G7. When all is said and done, we may find out that the $400 million in debt revealed on his tax returns is owed to Russian oligarchs through Deutsche Bank. By then it will be a moot point whether Trump was a witting agent or “useful idiot” for the Russians. For decades the Soviet Union tried to discredit and undermine the United States from within, and their two cudgels were always (1) that the U.S. is a racist country and has no business taking the moral high ground on humanitarian issues around the world and (2) that the U.S. does not have free and fair elections. Could any president advance these Russian talking points with more vigor than Donald Trump has? TRUMPLASH Trump’s legacy, in terms of historical impact, will probably be in the courts, on his way to his third conservative justice on the Supreme Court and countless other federal judges at the district and appellate levels with lifetime appointments. The unexpected death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg opened the door to forcing through a nominee who would severely tip the balance of the Supreme Court to the right for at least a generation. Trump did every last thing he could to extend presidential power to the imperial level. His effect on debasing what passes for political discourse may not be everlasting, but it is definitely going to leave a long-lasting mark. Black Lives Matter: Trump would not say the names of the victims of unaccountable police violence, except for George Floyd's As the most divisive of presidents, Trump has given credence to some of the worst impulses in the American grain, namely racism and xenophobia, stoking fires by insisting civilization itself is at risk and demonizing his political opponents to the degree that even violent responses are justified, amid chants of “Lock ‘em up.” Historians and presidential scholars may give Trump the lowest of marks. Remember, however, that George Bush was at 20 percent approval when he left office, having invaded Iraq without a plan, destabilized the Middle East; presided over a massive tanking of the economy; and let New Orleans drown. Of course, the best thing to ever happen to Bush was Donald J. Trump, and Bush is now seen by comparison as a genial old man who paints portraits of veterans and is chummy with Michelle Obama. It is hard to believe there is enough whitewash in the world to clean up Trump’s image, but he, unlike other failed presidents, has his own cult. The polarizing presidency of Trump will remain the ultimate political Rorchach test: anyone can see in it whatever they want, revealing how they feel about race, gender, democracy, truth, justice and the American way. Triump’s supporters will swear that he can walk on water, while his detractors will continue to point out that he cannot even swim. The late Senator John McCain’s campaign manager and king of the Never-Trumpers, Steve Schmidt, summed up the Trump years on MSNBC: "It's just astonishing that this man is president of the United States. […]He's brought death, suffering, and economic collapse on truly an epic scale. And let's be clear. This isn't happening in every country around the world. This place. Our place. Our home. Our country. The United States. We are the epicenter. We are the place where you're the most likely to die from this disease. We're the ones with the most shattered economy. And we are because of the fool that sits in the Oval Office behind the Resolute Desk." Joe Biden is running on the idea that he is not Trump, that his decency and empathy, as Doris Kearns Goodwin said, are the most important traits for a leader. The leaders we elect speak volumes about ourselves and the culture we inhabit, and we seem to be cycling through wildly different male role models, as the types of men we admire as an electorate seem to ascend and decline like fluctuations of the stock market. George Bush wore a cowboy hat, cleared brush on his ranch, and was full of swagger. Barack Obama was articulate and cerebral, reasonable, well-mannered and self-deprecating, in touch with his emotions--a symbol of the progressive, feminist man, who was not effeminate but definitely had a feminine side. Above all, 44 was steady and consistent, perhaps patient to a fault, and yet “No Drama Obama” would be replaced by a blustery, egomaniacal reality-TV star. More than eight million people who voted for Obama in 2012 would vote for Trump – people who cannot be dismissed as mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, Bible-thumping, racist, misogynist, opioid-addicted, gun-toting, science-denying, wife-beating “deplorables.” Trump’s moment had simply arrived, with the masses feeling left behind and holding grudges, more than ready to embrace Trump’s particular brand of intolerance, hatred and anti-intellectualism. We entered the height of the 2016 campaign at a time when we were struggling as a people to forge a healthier sexual dynamic between men and women in the workplace and elsewhere, and to reconsider how men should behave and how women should be treated. Donald Trump was the personification of toxic masculinity for this bizarre moment in gender politics: a man accused of serial assault of nearly two dozen women. The Women’s March drew nearly an estimated seven million people worldwide, nearly a half million in Washington, D.C,, on January 21, 2017, the day after Trump’s inauguration. Would the Women’s March have happened if Hillary Clinton were president? Trump’s victory may have been in part the embodiment of a backlash against feminism that many recognized in the early ‘90s, but it also heralded a reckoning over male sexual misconduct. Trump will remain an iconic figure in the history of manhood. Is it too idealistic to think, when all is said and done, that one of Trump’s legacies will be that his ascension represented the last gasp of the white male patriarchy in a world gone wrong?For that matter, would the Black Lives Matter protests have gathered such widespread support among whites if not for Trump’s insistence that systemic racism does not exist (although he admitted to Bob Woodward that it probably does) and his refusal to even say the names of the victims of unaccountable state violence, with the exception of George Floyd? The optimistic and ironic long view of the Trump presidency is that it may serve as a lasting energizing tonic, evidenced by the election of a record number of women to Congress in the 2018 midterms,and increased civic involvement among minorities and Millennials. Perhaps his Neanderthal attitudes on sex, science and race will continue to galvanize a counterforce of feminist and climate-change activists, those fighting for racial justice, and political factions of all stripes hoping for a more egalitarian society. Of course, long-entrenched conglomerations of power and plenty of dark money will be deployed to protect more traditional values. The 2020 presidential election has been presented as a battle for our identities, for the soul of the nation, and over whether our better angels will prevail. Even if he loses, Trump will garner close to sixty million votes. It will ultimately be left to Millennials and Generation Z to rise to these challenges and determine the true legacy of the Trump presidency. Bruce Shlain is the co-author with Martin A. Lee of Acid Dreams: The CIA, LSD, and the 60’s Rebellion, and the author of Oddballs: Baseball’s Greatest Pranksters, Flakes, Hot Dogs, and Hotheads, and Baseball Inside Out. His work has appeared in The New York Times, Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, and other publications. Writer and producer for Major League Baseball, “Good Morning America,” editor of a Manhattan weekly, senior copywriter for BBDO.  Surviving the pandemic and the Trump years in Farmington Hills, Michigan, at work on a memoir A Changed Man.

By Merrill Lynn Hansen The 2020 election is destroying my brain. I used to be an interesting person, but the relentless stress of the presidential contest and the Senate race in Michigan has changed that. My brain has always been filled with important useless information that I previously was able to access at any time, to make it easier for me to converse with people about subjects I know nothing about. But, now, all I can think about is how desperately I want Joe Biden to win the presidential election, and for Gary Peters to be reelected to the Senate. Biden's path to re-election will be more difficult if he doesn't carry Michigan and Peters needs to hang onto his seat so the Democrats can possibly regain the majority in the Senate. In an effort to avoid having a horrible out-of-body experience when talking to men about cars (like I did in high school when I was the only girl assigned to a project of building a crystal radio with four boys), I was able to casually mention the name of the first car that broke the sound barrier. When I told them which car sold more than one million units in 1965, they were impressed. But, now, my brain feels like it is filled with 2020 election information, and I don't recall anything else. When some of my gal pals brought fancy hors d’oeuvres to a social gathering, and I only brought cheese and crackers, I was able to tell them the name of the man who invented Cheez Whiz. They laughed and said, "Everybody loves Cheez Whiz.” When they were ordering clothing accessories online, I used to be able to tell them which designer had been sued, because she manufactured flammable scarves in Chinese sweatshops. That was helpful information, which is lost somewhere in my brain, and I can't find it. Instead, I can tell you that the Republicans have registered more new voters in Arizona than Democrats have. That could be bad news for Biden and thinking about it causes me great anxiety. An old boyfriend once told me that much of the information I stored in my brain was fairly useless, but then he'd ask me questions in front of his friends, to show me off. "Hey, Merrill, what's the name of the hotel where John Belushi overdosed? " “Merrill do you remember where the first modern day self-igniting match was invented?" When I would answer, he would smile and say to everyone, "I told you she knows things like that." But, now my brain is so filled with poll numbers, it's difficult to discuss anything else with people. I have no idea what the RCP Average, IBD/TIPP, USC Domsife and YouGov are, but they're emblazoned like a neon sign in my brain, because I saw them on a poll somewhere. I can't remember what I had for breakfast, but I can recall what Sabato's Crystal Ball, the Cook Political Report and Inside Elections predict each day. I used to enjoy reading about a variety of subjects, to glean a little bit of information about each one. I used to remember the titles of the books on Joseph Campbell's Sarah Lawrence Mythology Class Reading List (which would take a lifetime to read), and what the fear of books is called. But, now, the only information I can access from my brain is about battleground states, the electoral college, and what RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight and Steve Kornacki forecast about the presidential and senate races. I don't think my memory loss is age-appropriate. It's not like "losing" a word, or forgetting someone's name. It's stress-related, because each day, I'm not sure if Biden's lead in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin is still within the margin of error. In an attempt to access the other information stored in my brain, I’ve begun taking online quizzes. I used to enjoy the "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader ?" quiz, and even though I wasn't as smart as a 5th grader (nobody is as smart as a 5th grader, except another 5th grader), I was close. Not now! I've seen The Wizard of Oz at least 2,000 times (including when my daughter was three, and had me watch the video with her every day for a year). But, when I recently took The Wizard of Oz quiz, I couldn't remember who Dorothy met first, on her way to Oz. The Scarecrow? The Lion? I know that information is stored in my brain somewhere, but it's smothering under the weight of pollster Nate Silver saying "We need poll averages that take a longer time-horizon and/or adjust for house effects.” My anxiety level is peaking, and even though the next few days might fill my brain with speculation about key states leaning one way or the other, and races that are too close to call, hope still springs eternal. I look forward to remembering Gary Peters winning his re-election bid, and helping the Democrats take the Senate. I know that I will forever cherish the memory of Joe Biden's acceptance speech, or the events of November 3rd or November 4th or November 5th, or of December, or of January 20, 2021;, when Donald Trump finally acknowledges that the election is over, and he is no longer the President of the United States. I'll have no trouble remembering his last tweet. 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.

By Jessie Seigel/Washington, D.C. President Trump has broadcast his desire to have a ninth Supreme Court justice who will keep him in the presidency—not to mention provide him with a vote to overturn the Affordable Care Act and Roe v. Wade. Within hours of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced the Senate would rush to hold a hearing, vote and seat her replacement on the Court. This, while citizens are already in the process of voting, and despite McConnell having prevented even the consideration of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merritt Garland in January 2016, purportedly because it was “the beginning of an election year.” Hypocrisy lives. McConnell’s plan includes a four-day Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing that began October 12; a Committee vote on October 22; full Senate consideration beginning on October 23; a procedural vote of the full Senate on October 26, and a final confirmation vote the next day. Shotgun weddings have taken longer than that. So this week, we were subjected, in the midst of the 2020 election, to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hurried hearing on Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett is currently a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Masochist that I am, I watched most of it. Here is the gist of Barrett’s responses to senators’ questions: She can’t answer a question because it might come before her on the Court. She can’t answer a question because it is a hypothetical and she would need to see the specifics in a case coming before her, read history to the beginning of time (or at least to the beginning of the nation), and consult with her judicial colleagues. She can’t answer a question because it goes to policy and that is the purview of the legislative and executive branches. The courts only apply the law. She can’t answer a question because it is “in the abstract,” and she can’t answer a question because it is in the particular. If a senator asks a question that presumes her past articles and actions reveal her thinking, legal philosophy and positions on public matters, she simply claims a distinction between writing as an academic (she taught law at Notre Dame) and writing as a judge. Or she claims a distinction between her personal views and what she might do as a judge. If a senator asks a question about a statement she made as a judge in a past dissent, she simply maintains that her questionable statement was not the subject of the decision, in legal terms, dictum and thus not relevant to the issue raised in the case. Using the Code of Conduct for U. S. Judges as a shield, Barrett has claimed she cannot answer such questions, regardless of whether they are “hard” questions or “easy” questions, and that she would only answer on matters she has opined on in the past. But, of course, she has not really done even that. For example, in Kantor v. Barr, the majority of the 7th Circuit judges upheld a prohibition against felons buying guns. Barrett dissented, claiming the prohibition should not apply to nonviolent felons. Barrett distinguished the Second Amendment right to bear arms from the denial of the right of felons—violent or nonviolent—to vote. Various Democratic senators pointed out the absurdity of Barrett maintaining that nonviolent felons should be allowed to buy guns, but not be allowed to vote. Barrett’s hair-splitting response? That her dissent was only noting that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right, while the right to vote is a right for the benefit of society. She added that voting by nonviolent felons was not an issue in the case. But I would argue that Barrett chose to bring it up and to distinguish between the two situations. That suggests her philosophy: the way in which she would likely perceive and interpret laws depriving felons of their right to vote, if such a case comes before her. That was worthy of discussion beyond the evasive response Barrett gave. A number of Democratic senators also asked Barrett whether she thought various Supreme Court decisions were correctly decided, or could be overturned. Barrett willingly gave her view on some cases while refusing to do so on others, claiming a distinction between precedent and “super-precedent.” Her definition of a super-precedent? A decision so widely accepted that no one challenges it. Barrett said that Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark decision on school integration, is a super-precedent because it has been so long and widely accepted that no one seriously questions it. But she refused to comment on Roe v. Wade, claiming that it is not a super-precedent because there have been challenges to it. Ergo, though she would not say directly, this likely suggests that she considers Roe v. Wade a precedent that could be overturned. Her comments sent a shiver through the liberal community. Alexis McGill Johnson, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, told the Washington Post, "By saying that a 47-year-old decision is not 'well settled' law, simply because there have been calls for it to be overruled by a dogged and vocal minority, Amy Coney Barrett makes it perfectly clear that her addition to the Supreme Court would put the right to access safe, legal abortion, at risk.” The number of items on which Barrett refused to express any opinion—even on established fact or law—was enormous. Senator Amy Klobuchar asked Barrett her view on the legality of armed people intimidating voters at the polls—something occurring now in Klobuchar’s state, Minnesota. Barrett gave her standard reply; she refused to comment because a case could come before her. Klobuchar struck back by noting that there is a specific federal statute—18 U.S.C. Section 594—that makes such intimidation a punishable crime. Barrett could easily have acknowledged this obvious prohibition in her initial response to Klobuchar. She made no response even after the senator noted the statute. That Barrett chose not to confirm that voter intimidation at the polls is illegal speaks volumes about her supposed fidelity to law, as opposed to fidelity to that person in the White House who nominated her and who currently is promoting violent interference with voters. On the other hand, if Barrett actually did not know about this very basic law protecting the vote, she does not belong on any court, much less the highest court in the land. When pressed about whether a president is above the law, Barrett would only robotically recite, “No man is above the law,” but would not use the word president. To my mind, that raises the question of whether this sophist would consider the president a “man” for that purpose or find some distinction if a case came before her. Barrett similarly evaded questions of whether a president can unilaterally delay an election, or deny women or black people the vote. Her pro forma reply: she can’t answer because it might come before her on the Court. The rights of black people and of women to vote are plainly stated in the Constitution’s amendments and in statutes. And no one but a dictator could unilaterally deny those rights. Yet Barrett would not even acknowledge that much. And of course, she would not comment on the notion of peaceful transfer of power or whether the Supreme Court should be deciding election results. (It should be noted that she worked briefly, on the Bush side of the Bush v. Gore case; there, the Supreme Court handed the 2000 election to George W. Bush). Amy Coney Barrett is personable, self-possessed and does the Republican-sponsored Razzle-Dazzle dance well (apologies to Richard Gere in Chicago). But we, the people, should not be taken in by her manner and appearance of legal ability. We should understand what we are getting. Barrett has stated numerous times that she will “have an open mind,” and that her legal judgments would not be ruled by her personal views. Such protestation of detachment is in itself a lie because every person has their unspoken side. All judges are human beings who bring their personal experiences, as well as their biases, to their decisions. Exploration of what has formed their judicial philosophy or the philosophy itself, should not be off-limits, as Barrett has tried to make it here. As Senator Klobuchar noted, she could only follow Barrett’s tracks. Those tracks, as well as Barrett’s disingenuous, evasive, and obstructive nonanswers give us a strong idea of what to expect. Despite Barrett’s protestations, an open mind is not it. 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.

One film journalist’s stream-of-consciousness cinematic journey through the pandemic, Part 20 By Laurence Lerman After coming out of the gate last week with a review of Woody Allen’s latest, A Rainy Day in New York (one of the few positive ones that kicked off a disappointing week in the handful of theaters in which it played), the time felt right to give some attention to an equally prolific New York filmmaker, Abel Ferrara. Once recognized as one of New York’s most ferocious homegrown filmmakers, the Bronx-born Abel Ferrara has lived in Rome for more than a decade now, where he married an Italian actress (his second marriage), had a baby girl, got sober and embraced Buddhism. Over that time, Ferrara’s film output has remained steady and diverse, though recent years have not seen him traffic in the kind of sordid and controversial moviemaking that yielded such calling cards as Ms. .45, King of New York and Bad Lieutenant. Yeah, it’s fair to say that the 69-year-old Ferrara has mellowed. But just a bit. Ferrara’s most recent have been a mixed bag, most notably a couple of documentaries (2017’s Piazza Vittorio, 2019’s The Projectionist) and a strange, fictionalized take on the Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case, starring Gerard Depardieu (2014’s Welcome to New York). His latest is 2019’s Tommaso, starring frequent collaborator Willem Dafoe and just released in the U.S. in June, marking Ferrara’s first dramatic feature since the 2014 bio-pic Pasolini (which also starred Dafoe). Tommaso finds Dafoe serving as Ferrara’s avatar in a tale of an older American expat filmmaker living in Rome with his young wife and their daughter, as he ponders both his past behavior and an unsure future while preparing for his next film. An addled and occasionally creepy guy (teaching an acting class, he includes a kissing scene in his work with one pretty student), Tommaso begins to lose his grasp on reality as the story progresses—not from drugs or booze or illness, but rather from his own inner impressions of himself as an existentially tortured artist. An aging one, at that. How else to explain an image of himself being crucified on a street lamp at a busy Roman street corner? Co-starring his real-life wife and real-life daughter as Dafoe’s movie wife and movie daughter and frequently filming in his own apartment, Ferrara offers some serious self-mythologizing here. He’s been to hell and back in a previous life, and every frame of this film reinforces that he’s still here to remind us that, well, he’s still here. Dafoe is the savior here, largely improvising as a half-Dafoe/half-Ferrara hybrid and appearing in every scene, his chiseled face and overall weariness underlining the message. That he was crucified once before in a certain film by Martin Scorsese back in 1988 doesn’t hurt either. And speaking of great Italian-American filmmakers, Francis Coppola’s much-talked-about revamp of his 1984 musical crime saga The Cotton Club made its streaming debut on Amazon Prime earlier this month. Just as he went all George Lucas with his Apocalypse Now Redux and upcoming Godfather III reconstructions, Coppola dips back into another of his well-known works with a famously troubled production history Cotton Club’s crazy behind-the-scenes tales of gangsters, moneylending and even murder generated a New York Magazine cover story back in the day—and creates what Coppola now proclaims was his original vision of the film. Like Apocalypse, the results in the freshly monikered The Cotton Club Encore are up on the screen and will offer fans of the original an opportunity for reassessment and those not in the know to give this exceptional-looking film a whirl (perhaps after screening the original). Don’t get me wrong: I’m always psyched to check out any vintage footage from the Coppola archive. But it’s never endearing to hear a filmmaker talk about what should have been when he created his work in the Hollywood system that created him (and which allowed him to make the films that defined his career). That said, adding 27 minutes of never-before-seen scenes and musical sequences to the original, while excising 12 others, The Cotton Club Encore offers a reshaped if still jagged narrative about the gangsters and entertainers that entered the doors of the fabled Harlem nightclub, focusing more on the black characters and musical aspects of the tale and spending less time with the whiter criminal element (though they’re still there and still sort of distracting). Highlights include the three additional musical numbers, of course, led by Lonette McKee’s cover of “Stormy Weather” (it was originally cut out because Coppola didn’t want audiences to think McKee’s character was Lena Horne) and the always-game Jackée’s comical number “I Don’t Want You Anymore.” A few other musical sequences from the original are also tweaked and extended, while a whole bunch of dialogue is similarly nipped and fiddled with. One such appendage finds Gere wistfully declaring, “It ain’t real life. It’s jazz.” Like its predecessor, Cotton Club Encore again delivers as a sumptuous period entertainment—while it's still filled with narrative stumbles from the get-go. (Why would James Remar’s gangster Dutch Schultz hire Gere to keep an eye on his girl, Diane Lane, and not expect him to sleep with her!?) Fans will find this edition to be a very watchable curio, though the uninitiated, again, would benefit by first checking out the original. That way, they can more appreciate the additional bits from the now-gone ensemble players Bob Hoskins, Fred Gwynne, Allen Garfield and Julian Beck, [and the-awesomely-extended dancing sequences with the late Gregory Hines and Gwen Verdon. Which prompts the question, why would anyone leave Gregory Hines’ and Gwen Verdon’s dancing on the cutting room floor? Laurence Lerman is a film journalist, former editor of Video Business--Variety's DVD trade publication--and husband to The Insider's own Gwen Cooper. Over the course of his career he has conducted one-on-one interviews with just about every major director working today, including Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, Clint Eastwood, Kathryn Bigelow, Ridley Scott, Walter Hill, Spike Lee, and Werner Herzog, among numerous others. Once James Cameron specifically requested an interview with Laurence by name, which his wife still likes to brag about. Most recently, he is the co-founder and editor-in-chief of the online review site DiscDish.com.

By Dave Greenbaum Turning 50 can be a challenge at any time, but it’s even worse during a pandemic. The quarantine of 2020 is a capstone to my 10-year journey from being a fat kid to being fit at 50 and ready to run my first marathon. COVID-19 wasn’t going to dash my hopes of doing that! Being a fat kid is never fun. Not only do you get teased, but you often don’t have the energy and stamina to participate in sports. That shoots down your self-esteem, and you learn the way to deal with that is through that dynamic duo of fat and carbs. You know how that turns out. I knew that turning 40 was going to be a significant milestone for me. My maternal grandfather died of a heart attack in his 40s, and my father had his first heart attack at the age of 43. In 2010, I was almost 270 pounds on a 5’11” frame. When your doctor says “morbidly obese,” well, that’s not something you want to see on your death certificate. I asked my family and friends for two things on my big Four Zero. No material gifts, as those never interest me. First, I wanted 40 birthday cards, telling me how I made a difference in the world. With all the resources I’ve consumed on this planet, I wanted to know that I’d earned my keep for another 40 years. The second thing I wanted was to be more fit at 40 than I was at 20. I couldn’t find the hook to motivate myself until I read about a local 10-week weight-loss contest. I have my own computer repair business, so if I won, the publicity would be great. Again, since money isn’t a motivator, I said in advance that I’d donate the prize money to the local Humane Society. I set a goal of 40 pounds since it was my 40th birthday gift. After doing research, my plan was to reduce my calorie intake and increase my exercise. I used the Lose-It food tracker to keep a diary of what I ate and my calorie consumption. My budget was 1,800 calories a day. I focused mostly on fresh items I purchased at the farmer’s market, and avoided eating out. At home, I often ate the same thing for days in a row. By keeping meals simple, I learned to look at food as sustenance, rather than entertainment. Supporting my business as well as puppies and kittens, was a powerful motivator. You look at a cupcake and think that “Gosh, a cute puppy can find a home if I refrain from this.” Alternatively, if someone tells you a “little piece of cake won’t hurt,” and you tell them to tell that to a kitten, people listen! While I didn’t win first place, I hit my goal of 40 pounds and won $150, which I donated to the Humane Society. My 40th birthday I bought myself new clothes to match my new look. Everyone on a weight loss journey has that one piece of clothing they hope to fit into. I was able to wear a pair of acid-washed jeans I had saved from high school that I never could fit into before.. But losing weight is only half the journey. The other part is keeping it off, which I continued to do. My “secret’ was doing cardio workouts and weight training. I continued toning my body. As 50 started looming, people asked me what my big challenge would be. Good question! I was at the gym on the treadmill, and someone asked if I wanted to do a 5K race. The fat kid now a runner? Okay, losing weight was one thing but starting to run when I was almost 50? I remember trying football in high school. Running was hard on my knees, but I was also that fat kid. Why not? Let’s give this another try. To prevent injury, I joined a run-walk-run training class that taught the Galloway Method. Instead of running to exhaustion, this method has you take strategically timed walk breaks during the run. As training concluded, I was expected to sign up for the 5K. I put the deadline off; I wasn’t ready. Our class coach reminded me that it would be my best time ever, no matter what my finishing time. Given my family history of heart disease, I did a full stress test before the race. They ran out of test before I ran out of endurance.. They said I was more than ready! Since I was now officially a runner, I started running with the local chapter of the LGBT running group called Front Runners. They have chapters throughout the world. We ran twice a week and usually went out for brunch or dinner afterward. It’s a fantastic group with runners and walkers of all paces and skills. In this group, I learned to run twice a week. Some days, I’d be following someone fast who inspired me. Other days, I’d inspire someone else. Overall we had an immense sense of camaraderie, and I found an accepting community. Then COVID-19 hit. No gyms. No social gatherings. No restaurants. Like many people, pandemic anxiety hit me hard. There wasn’t much I could do. But I remembered that sense of accomplishment I had when I turned 40. So I again took control of my life, determined to accomplish something. I’d be back to cooking more meals at home and transforming myself again. Even though I enjoyed running with a group, it was a skill I didn’t need any equipment to pursue. All I needed was my shoes. Running during a pandemic is a unique experience. I ran through a busy downtown in the middle of the day and not a car in the road. While running, I discovered my hometown of Lawrence, Kan. through different eyes. Each time, I’d take a different route and discover new things that I’d never noticed while driving or running in a group. Our Front Runners group would do “virtual” runs, posting photos of the communities they were in, and we all learned about each other. Now gyms are opening up a bit more, along with restaurants and social gatherings. We’re meeting again as a group, but socially distant. Instead of brunch at a restaurant, we often have picnics and outdoor meals. While I expect the next six months to be touch-and-go with openings and closings, I take comfort in knowing that my feet can help me keep off the weight and hit my fitness goals. Even if it’s freezing outside, I’ll bundle up and keep going with my journey. Lockdowns and viruses can’t change that. I’m part of the running community now, whether I run in my backyard or with my Front Runners. Turning 50 in November during the pandemic won’t be fun, but as I hit that milestone, I feel more in control of my fitness and my future more than ever. When races start back up again, I’ll be ready to run that marathon. I said I’d do it when I was 50, so I just have to do it before the end of November 2021! Dave Greenbaum, aka Doctor Dave (www.calldrdavekc.com), is a computer repair business owner based in Kansas City, Kan. He makes “mouse calls” all over Lawrence, Topeka, and Kansas City. Since the pandemic, he’s been able to help people remotely all over the world. Yes, he’ll ask if you if you tried turning it off and on again first. No, he won’t charge you for that piece of advice. When he’s not fixing computers or running Dave is usually drinking beer, coffee and sometimes coffee flavored beer. While he believes in running, it’s often a down payment on beer.

By Alan Resnick It’s been only two weeks since President Trump announced that he and Melania, had been diagnosed with COVID-19, but, boy, it sure seems like much longer. We’ve gone from seeing him being airlifted from the White House to Walter Reed Medical Center on October 2nd, to returning to the White House on October 5th, to beginning his “whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” tour, which kicked off in Sanford, Fla. on October 12th. In two weeks, we’ve gone from learning that President Trump was taking eight medications and supplements (Regeneron's antibody cocktail, famotidine, remdesivir, dexamethasone, zinc, vitamin D, melatonin and a daily aspirin) to treat his illness, to hearing him proclaim that he is now completely immune. In fact, he went so far on Monday night as to make the following threat: “I feel so powerful I’ll walk into that audience. I’ll walk in there, I’ll kiss everyone in that audience. I’ll kiss the guys and the beautiful women and the — I’ll just give you a big fat kiss.” I’m curious how those women at the rally that Trump did not deem 10’s are feeling about being excluded from his magnanimous proposal. Just a dozen days ago, Trump was gasping for air on the Truman Balcony. He is now being described by members of his staff as the James Brown of politics, the hardest working President our country has ever seen. On Tuesday night, in Johnstown, Pa., he was tossing out face masks on the airport tarmac as if they were the paper towels he had insultingly lobbed at a crowd in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria. The coronavirus is no longer is something to be feared and avoided; we should embrace it, because Trump has not felt this good in 20 years and we will too. In fact, it now seems as if the Administration is again tiptoeing towards proposing that the controversial theory of herd immunity, letting the pandemic run its course until people are either vaccinated or develop anitbodies after infection, become our nation’s primary strategy for addressing the pandemic. Never mind that Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, stated this week that relying on herd immunity would lead to: “an enormous, totally unacceptable number of deaths. Apparently they are just collateral damage for Donald Trump. These past two weeks of insanity have led to a myriad of questions and speculations. Some in the media have wondered why a 74-year-old man recovering from a serious illness would go barnstorming around the country rather than relying on a Rose Garden strategy, as previous presidents seeking a second term have done. Why not use the power and prestige of the White House as a stage for signing bills and holding media events? The setting conveys presidential power and stability. Wouldn’t it be better and safer for Trump if he just stayed home? The answer seems pretty obvious. Donald Trump enjoys being president, but he doesn’t have much appetite or talent for actually performing the job. Signing legislation and meeting with Boy Scout troops and Rotary groups for photo ops can’t possibly compete with crowds chanting his name and cheering his incendiary comments. Others asked if contracting the coronavirus would result in a teachable moment for Trump. Perhaps the illness would lead to a period of reflection and greater empathy for those who had contracted the illness or lost loved ones to COVID-19? Some Republican strategists even argued that Trump might receive a bump in the polls due to a sympathy vote. Well, that conjecture stopped in about a day, as soon as Trump decided to jump in a hermetically sealed SUV and wave to fans outside the hospital, thereby putting the Secret Service members forced to ride with him in jeopardy of illness. Given the events of the last four years, who in their right mind would believe that Trump would learn from his own illness or from that of the ever-increasing numbers of his staff who have contracted the coronavirus? You tell me which of the following sounds more Trumpian: “I’ve developed a new-found respect and appreciation for what so many of you have and continue to go through,” or “I kicked the Chinese Virus’ ass?” And why hasn’t the President changed his strategy on the campaign trail? Why does he continue to rant about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, even though neither is his opponent? Why does he continue to claim that we have turned the corner in our fight against COVID-19, even though a new report in the Journal of the American Medical Association finds that over the last five months, per capita deaths in the U.S., both from COVID-19 and other causes, have been far greater than in 18 other high-income countries? Why didn’t he express outrage over the thwarted kidnap attempt on Governor Gretchen Whitmer rather than chastising her lack of gratitude for what his FBI had done? Why does he continue to stoke fear and hatred, rather than attempt to unify the country? Once again, the answer is pretty simple: it’s worked before. In many ways, what he is doing now is logical, something that most of us do when faced with a new or challenging situation. We simply go back to those actions that have brought us success in the past. Trump has bullied, blustered and bullshitted his way through life since he was in military school, and it got him to the White House. But what does one do when what’s worked before isn’t working anymore? Some people recognize that they have to change their behavior in order to be successful; others, like Trump, double down rather than change their behavior. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. The election is less than three weeks away. As Trump is fond of saying: “We’ll see what happens.” Alan Resnick is an industrial psychologist with over 40 years of professional experience. He and his wife are sheltering at home in Farmington Hills, Michigan. He is passing the time by cooking, exercising, catching up on friends’ recommendations of must-see TV and writing.

By Dr. Sonia Ehrlich Sachs M.D., M.P.H. In order to understand the myriad of health-related aspects of the current coronavirus epidemic, there are now innumerable research inquiries being undertaken all over the world. Hundreds of scientific groups are working on developing a vaccine, while other groups are busy developing effective drug treatments. As a medical doctor and a public-health practitioner, I follow some of that scientific literature. But in the short term, I am most keenly interested in scientific work that helps me understand how my family and I, living in densely populated New York City, can avoid getting infected, especially this fall and winter, as we face the oncoming second wave of increasing infections. So I follow the evidence-based recommendations for nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), trying to prevent acquiring the virus. NPIs are all of those activities that an individual can do -- and that policies should facilitate -- to prevent getting infected while we await the holy grail of an effective vaccine (which I doubt will solve all the problems in any event). Of course, the most important NPI is physical distancing, which carries the misnomer ‘social distancing.” Avoiding physical proximity to people is crucial in order to minimize sharing airborne droplets or the even smaller particles called aerosols, both of which are able to carry and transmit the virus from person to person. Even with physical distancing, one should not leave one’s home without a well-fitting face mask. The preferable type is the one with the highest particle filtration rate: the unavailable N95 that traps 95% of viral particles. Many types of facial covering prevent droplets from hitting the face, but only filtration masks, called respirators, also filter aerosol-borne virus. And of course proper handwashing with soap is crucial, since the virus can be transmitted between people via fomites, objects that people touch before or after touching one’s nose, mouth and eyes. There is a recent article (https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1517/5917611) showing that unlike the flu virus, which only survives on skin for two hours, this coronavirus survives for nine hours, which increases the risk of transmission, making frequent proper handwashing paramount. Just a few days ago, I came across an article published by Indian scientists this month (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550830720303128) suggesting an additional intervention that I will add to my own armamentarium of protective behaviors. It recommends what to do in case you suspect that you may have been exposed to someone who might have the virus. The article reviews some of the potential benefits of gargling and nasal irrigation with saline water, which is already a longstanding popular cleansing method used in traditional yoga. There is not yet a scientific, randomized controlled trial to prove that people who do this are less likely to get infected than people who don’t. But there are pieces of information that indicate that this might be an effective preventive measure. This particular coronavirus enters mostly through the nose and mouth. It possibly also enters through the eyes, for which you can wear any type of glasses and/or a face shield, and not touch your eyes with unwashed hands. There is evidence that you can dislodge viral particles that have settled in your throat and nasopharynx by vigorous gargling and also by nasal washing, even if using just sterile water. The whirling pressure of the water might mechanically detach the virus from the nasopharyngeal epithelium and throat mucosa. Additionally, there is evidence that salt in the water, a normal saline solution, actually inhibits replication of many types of viruses. So it makes sense that gargling with salt water and using a neti pot, a small container with a long spout used to rinse the nasal cavities,would decrease retention and replication of an infective coronavirus particle. This procedure protects the person performing this type of cleansing from getting sick, and also lowers the chance of that person transmitting the virus to others. There is no solid scientific evidence that gargling and nasal irrigation prevent or cure COVID-19, but there is compelling circumstantial evidence that it decreases the risk of contracting and spreading the virus. The reason I think it is worth doing these two simple procedures is that, if done correctly, there is no downside to performing them and yet, there is an important upside of potentially preventing the bug from gaining entry into one’s body and also from infecting others. So if I think I might have been exposed to someone with the virus, I will gargle and irrigate! Sonia Ehrlich Sachs, M.D., M.P.H. is a pediatrician, an endocrinologist and public health specialist. She received a BA from Harvard University, an M.D. from the University of Maryland Medical School, and an M.P.H. from Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Sachs practiced medicine for 20 years, 14 of which were at Harvard University Health Services in Cambridge, Massachusetts. At the Earth Institute, Columbia University, since 2005 she has led the design and implementation of low-cost primary health systems in low-income rural Africa and India. Her focus is on systems delivery, primarily for improvement of maternal and child health, at local and national scales. Sachs coordinated the health sector of the Millennium Villages Project, overseeing all health-related interventions and research. The Millennium Villages Project, in ten countries in sub-Saharan Africa, was an integrated rural development initiative, designed as a proof of concept, helping poor rural communities accelerate reaching the Millennium Development Goals, using a science-based, community led approach of integrated interventions that increase food production, increase access to health care, education, water, infrastructure and business development. Dr. Sachs was involved in the EI health team advisory to Haiti, India and Nigeria. She is the Director of the One Million CHW Campaign advocating for professionalized Community Health Workers, a cadre that is paid, supervised and supported by use of information communication technology. Sachs and her team currently advise the government of Ghana on the national scale up of Community Health Workers, including the national scale up of mobile health and telemedicine.

By Tobye S. Stein Today, a lot of people are complaining about The Pandemic 15. It’s reminiscent of The Freshman 15 people my age encountered 50 years ago. The 15 refers to the amount of weight so many people have put on during the pandemic or first year living in a college dorm. At our house, I’ve maintained; although I’m not really at an ideal weight, it’s stable. My husband Neal has gone the other way and lost nearly 15 pounds. So how have we escaped the dreaded weight gain? Well, I’ve made a conscious effort to include more vegetarian meals. Just a couple months ago, following the run on toilet paper, toweling, canned goods, pasta, beans, flour and yeast, Americans were told that there would be a severe meat shortage. Grocery stores and Costco got smarter after the first raid of their shelves and started limiting how much meat, chicken, and pork a customer could buy at one time. I decided that we needed an alternative in case there was no meat or chicken to buy. That meant more veggies, Beyond Burgers and yes, tofu. So here we are almost 32 years later, Mr. Meat and Potatoes and broccoli and corn in butter sauce, and Ms. Former Vegetarian with assorted food allergies and a preference for vegetables not dripping in fake butter sauce. It’s been an interesting run. We eat red meat maybe once each week and use a lot of chicken breasts, ground turkey and fish, usually salmon. Now, we’re also eating tofu. Tofu, also known as bean curd, is a culinary treat for the health conscious. Nutritionally, it is low in calories (94 calories in ½ cup), while packed with protein (10 grams in ½ cup). Tofu, which usually comes in solid white blocks of varying softness, can be silken, soft, firm, or extra firm. It has a subtle flavor, so it can be used in savory or sweet dishes. It is often seasoned or marinated to suit the dish and its flavors, and due to its spongy texture it absorbs flavors well. My early experiences with tofu weren’t horrible, but they weren’t a big success either. So, where does one go for tofu advice? The Internet? No. In my case, I went to our 14-year-old neighbor Arya and her mom. I’ve picked up a couple of recipes from them during the pandemic. The most recent was Thai Chicken Curry. It’s an old Weight Watchers recipe that Arya posted pictures of after she made it for her family, and I requested the recipe. In talking with Arya and her mom after my first attempt at this dish, I gained some helpful advice, as well as the recommendation to use tofu instead of chicken. Arya’s family is quite fit, and I was curious about why she was using a Weight Watchers recipe, but if something is good, why not? Here is the original Weight Watchers recipe: Thai Chicken Curry Serves 4-6 people Ingredients: (The small amount of pasta and chicken are in keeping with Weight Watchers recipes of days gone by. Eight ounces of pasta and 16 ounces of chicken will make a more satisfying meal.) Cooking spray, 5 sprays in a heavy saucepan Red curry paste, Thai variety 2-1/2 Tbsp Light unsweetened coconut milk, 8 ounces Chicken broth, 4 cups Uncooked thin rice vermicelli noodles, 3 ounces, broken Frozen mixed Asian-style vegetables, 8 ounces Baby bok choy, 2 cups chopped 1 skinless, boneless chicken breast, 8 ounces Fresh lime juice, 1-1/2 Tbsp Cilantro, 1/2 cup chopped Instructions: Spray the saucepan. Heat the pan, then add the curry paste. Cook for one or two minutes while stirring. Add the coconut milk and bring to a boil. Add the broth and bring to a boil, then add the noodles. Cook covered for two minutes. Add the frozen vegetables, Reduce heat to medium low and cook for two minutes. Add the book choy, chicken and lime juice and simmer uncovered for two to three minutes. Sprinkle with cilantro and season to taste. We liked the recipe well enough to try again, but this time, I made changes. Tobye’s Thai Curry Anti-Pandemic Tofu Soup Serves 4-6 people. Since everything cooks for only a couple of minutes at a time, assemble everything you need before you start. Seriously, chop the bok choy, open the can of coconut milk, get the frozen veggies out of the freezer, measure the broth, and so on. It will make your life easier. I used a 4-1/2 quart Dutch oven. I sprayed it but didn’t count the sprays. I used the remainder of the jar of curry paste that I had, after our neighbor said she uses the entire jar. I tasted the paste before I used it the first time. I don’t think it’s terribly spicy, but if you’re concerned, I’d use half a jar of paste as 2-1/2 tablespoons didn’t provide much flavor. This time, I used the entire can of coconut milk (10-12 ounces). I used 4 cups of broth but I had to add broth to the leftovers last time and will again next time, so feel free to add up to 6 cups of broth. I used the rest of the 8-ounce package of vermicelli noodles, but next time, I’ll try a different type of rice noodle. You can use any type of thin noodle that you like, but you will want to break it into smaller pieces as well. I used a 12-ounce package of mixed vegetables rather than Asian-style vegetables, as I’m not crazy about water chestnuts. I used two stalks of baby bok choy; it’s about two cups when chopped. If I didn’t have the bok choy, I would have used some fresh spinach I had on hand. If you like kale, use that. You could also use Chinese broccoli if you can find it. Basically, you want a fresh green vegetable. In place of the chicken, I used a 16-ounce package of firm tofu. Drain the tofu in a colander, Cut it into small pieces when drained and season it. I used a little salt, some pepper and garlic. I also added some smoked paprika. This is where season to taste comes in. If you can’t have salt, use salt substitute or a variety of any spices that you like. Tofu doesn’t have much taste, so seasoning it before you add it is a good idea. Add the lime juice, I used half a lime, and I skipped the cilantro. I don’t hate it, but I’m not crazy about it either. Continue cooking until everything is hot. I added more garlic powder and pepper, as well as a little chipotle seasoning. You could add cayenne pepper or red pepper flakes if you want a little kick to the dish without making it very spicy. One thing I’ve learned over the years about levels of spiciness is that if there’s a little spice at the end, I tend to eat less. I don’t know if this works for everyone, but it does for me. Also, I do like to feel my tongue at the end of a meal so only add only as much as you like. Farewell, pandemic 15! Tobye S. Stein retired as Chief Human Resources Officer from a California-based financial services organization. She once landed a job by replying to the age old question, “Why should I hire you instead of the other two candidates” by simply stating “I’m funnier than most people.” It worked.

October 16, 2020 Dear Editor, Before I moved to Oregon (indeed before last month), I had never been up close and personal with a fire, beyond one that destroyed a single home. I thought you might like to see photos of a small segment of the fire aftermath in Talent, Oregon. The community was destroyed by fire. Overall, in Talent and the neighboring small town of Phoenix, over 2000 structures burned down. All these pictures were taken in a six-block area bordered by Talent Ave, Valley View Road, Route 99 (the main road through this area before I-5 was built) and Rapp road. On the western edge, Talent Ave. was a barrier. You’ll see an untouched home on that side and--the only damage I could see there---a stand of corn that apparently couldn’t survive the heat. STARK CONTRAST IN A SMALL TOWN: Catastrophic damage vs. no damage at all (below) Sometimes the fire did odd things. Whether it was the result of people spraying water or fire suppressing foam, or just random luck, two buildings on Route 99 survived untouched (you can see a corner of one in one photo). One was an evangelical church, so one might think prayer was the answer, but the other is a plumbing business and I have no explanation for that. At the end, I’ve included photos from a display along a fence bordering the fire damage. There were many more hand-made signs, in English and in Spanish. There is a heartwarming sense of community in the town. Ashland, the city where I live, is helping too. It would be nice to have the secret of creating community without having a tragedy as a trigger. Most of you don’t live in an area bounded by forest in a state that is hot and dry; this fire and others on the West Coast show that the dangers of climate change are here and now A SHOW OF SUPPORT: From the neighborhood children May all of you be safe from fires and COVID-19 and (name what else scares you) ☺ Mary Coombs/Ashland, Ore. Mary I. Coombs earned a B.A. in 1965, an M.A. in sociology in 1967, an M.A. in library science in 1970, and a J.D. in 1978, all from the University of Michigan. Following graduation from law school, she served as law clerk to Judge Henry J. Friendly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She was in private practice until she joined the University of Miami School of Law faculty in 1983. She was a professor at the law school for 31 years, until retiring in 2014

By Andy Borowitz October 15, 2020 WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Conflict erupted between Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh after the Supreme Court nominee refused to tell the Justice which brand of beer she wanted him to stock for her in the Court refrigerator. Kavanaugh, who has made it his job to keep the office fridge supplied with grain-based beverages, called Barrett to determine her preferences and was astonished when she stonewalled. “She was, like, ‘I’m not going to weigh in on something that contentious,’ and I was, like, ‘You’re shitting me,’ ”Kavanaugh said. “She was not shitting me. I was, like, ‘Dude.’” “I mean, it’s not like I was asking her about some dumb legal case,” he said. “This is important. This is beer.” Kavanaugh, who identifies his vast private collection of microbrews and I.P.A.s in the Court fridge with masking-tape labels reading “BRETT,” says that his stash is now “strictly off limits” to Barrett. “If Amy wants a beer and all that’s there is Old Milwaukee, she better not coming crying to me,” he said. Andy Borowitz is a Times best-selling author and a comedian who has written for The New Yorker since 1998. He writes The Borowitz Report, a satirical column on the news.

Jeffrey D. Sachs | October 14, 2020 |  CNN.com Editor's Note: Jeffrey Sachs is a professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University. The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author; view more opinion articles on CNN. (CNN) As if Donald Trump's irresponsibility was not already a national tragedy, the White House seems now to favor a controversial approach to Covid-19 that threatens to bring nothing less than mass suffering. More than 216,000 Americans have already died. Yet on Tuesday, senior Trump administration officials said that they were receptive to pursuing "herd immunity," an approach touted by a group of scientists who have put out what they call the "Great Barrington Declaration." The idea is that the federal government should let the pandemic run its course until most of the population is infected and has ostensibly developed antibodies to ward off future infections. Typical estimates hold that 70% or more of the population would thereby become infected. According to this idea, vulnerable groups would be targeted for "focused protection," for example, introducing extra precautions such as frequent Covid-19 testing to avoid infections of the elderly living in nursing homes. The rest of the population "should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal," according to the declaration. This approach runs strongly against the overwhelming consensus of public health specialists, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The new Covid-19 approach would undoubtedly add massively to the suffering in the US in a very short period of time. The idea that we should not try to control infections other than of vulnerable groups is based on a complete misunderstanding of the real choices facing the US -- or facing any country for that matter. The core mistake is the belief that the only alternative to an economic shutdown is to let the virus spread widely in the population. Instead, a set of basic public health measures is enough, as many other countries have shown, to control the spread of the virus. The proper measures include widespread testing, contact tracing, isolating of infected individuals, wearing face masks, physical distancing, and barring super-spreader events (like Trump rallies). South Korea has exemplified this policy approach, as have many of its neighbors in the Asia-Pacific region. Sadly, this very basic information seems not to have reached the White House or been understood by it, even though experts already knew in April that the Asia-Pacific region was suppressing the pandemic through these public health measures, and without the need for comprehensive lockdowns (or with only brief lockdowns to give time to scale up the public health measures). By suppressing the virus, these countries have limited the economic fallout. Indeed, according to the IMF's new report, China, which has suppressed the pandemic by means of public health control, will achieve positive growth of GDP 1.9% this year, compared with America's expected GDP decline of 4.3%. The Trump team is so obsessed with their anti-China propaganda that they utterly refused to learn from China's success in cutting transmission of the virus enabling an economic rebound. Trump and his team have also refused to learn from similar successes in Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea, all of which have very low transmission of the virus. The herd immunity approach is a nightmare for four reasons: First, according to a study published in The Lancet in late September, fewer than 10% of Americans have so far been infected with the novel coronavirus. Another 60% or so of Americans would likely become infected in a herd immunity strategy. That amounts to around 200 million additional cases of Covid-19 in the United States and countless deaths. This would obviously be wanton madness, since the pandemic can be controlled by low-cost and proven public health means. Second, there would absolutely be no reliable way to protect vulnerable populations through "focused protection." Many older people do not live in nursing or retirement homes where protective measure can systematically be implemented. And as the CDC has alerted, there are vast numbers of vulnerable Americans who are not among the elderly, but who suffer from medical conditions as widespread as obesity, cancer, kidney disease, high blood pressure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes and others. And in addition to people with prior health conditions, the CDC also points to other groups that need extra precautions: pregnant and breastfeeding women, people with disabilities, people with developmental and behavioral disorders, and others. For a White House team that can't even properly protect its guests at a White House event, the notion that it could suddenly oversee the implementation of "focused protection" to vulnerable people spread throughout the country in the midst of an uncontrolled pandemic is a fantasy. Third, the proponents of herd immunity seem to discount the fact that in addition to the acute and short term effects of Covid-19, there are also long-term disease consequences for many, ranging from the Covid-19 "brain fog" to long-lasting damage to many organ systems. The evidence continues to mount that Covid-19 is a frighteningly dangerous disease for many people who survive the infection and in ways that scientists are still coming to understand. Fourth, it's especially ill-timed to let the pandemic run wild when the White House is touting a vaccine as being just around the corner. If a reliable and safe vaccine will soon be available to protect citizens, surely there is overwhelming reason not to become infected now, but rather to stay safe until the vaccine arrives. Trump's utter ignorance has already resulted in unprecedented suffering, and the latest bad idea would gravely multiply the damage. If implemented, a herd immunity strategy might just be the most reckless action by the White House yet. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/14/opinions/white-house-herd-immunity-reckless-idea-sachs/index.html