Search Results

By Andy Borowitz July 1, 2020 WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Donald J. Trump may not have read a Presidential Daily Brief on the Russian bounty scheme because he holds reading material upside down, experts suggested on Wednesday. After studying photographic evidence of Trump holding a book in that difficult-to-read position, Davis Logsdon, who studies literacy at the University of Minnesota, said that such a practice could have impeded the President’s ability to process information on his desk. “If Trump is holding all of his Presidential Daily Briefs upside down, what is intended to be important intelligence requiring his urgent attention might, to him, appear to be little more than meaningless marks on a piece of paper,” Logsdon said. Within minutes of the release of Logsdon’s comments, the White House scrambled to institute new procedures to insure that Trump’s Presidential Daily Briefs are placed right-side up on his Oval Office desk. Reportedly, Jared Kushner will be tasked with entering Trump’s office first thing every morning and rotating all of the papers on his desk until they are in the optimal position for reading. Some White House sources, however, expressed skepticism about the new protocol. “It relies on Jared knowing when reading material is upside down,” one source 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.

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

June 29, 2020 Jeffrey D. Sachs | Project Syndicate High inequality undermines social cohesion, erodes public trust, and deepens political polarization, all of which negatively affect governments’ ability and readiness to respond to crises. This explains why the United States, Brazil, and Mexico account for nearly half of the world's reported deaths since the start of the pandemic. NEW YORK – Three countries – the United States, Brazil, and Mexico – account for nearly half (46%) of the world’s reported COVID-19 deaths, yet they contain only 8.6% of the world’s population. Some 60% of Europe’s deaths are concentrated in just three countries – Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom – which account for 38% of Europe’s population. There were many fewer deaths and lower death rates in most of Northern and Central Europe. Several factors determine a country’s COVID-19 death rate: the quality of political leadership, the coherence of the government’s response, the availability of hospital beds, the extent of international travel, and the population’s age structure. Yet one deep structural characteristic seems to be shaping the role of these factors: countries’ income and wealth distribution. The US, Brazil, and Mexico have very high income and wealth inequality. The World Bank reports the respective Gini coefficients for recent years (2016-18) at 41.4 in the US, 53.5 in Brazil, and 45.9 in Mexico. (On a 100-point scale, a value of 100 signifies absolute inequality, with one person controlling all income or wealth, and zero means a completely equal distribution per person or household). The US has the highest Gini coefficient among the advanced economies, while Brazil and Mexico are among the world’s most unequal countries. In Europe, Italy, Spain, and the UK – with Gini scores of 35.6, 35.3, and 34.8, respectively – are more unequal than their northern and eastern counterparts, such as Finland (27.3), Norway (28.5), Denmark (28.5), Austria (30.3), Poland (30.5), and Hungary (30.5). The correlation of death rates per million and income inequality is far from perfect; other factors matter a lot. France’s inequality is on par with Germany’s, but its COVID-19 death rate is significantly higher. The death rate in relatively egalitarian Sweden is significantly higher than in its neighbors, because Sweden decided to keep its social distancing policies voluntary rather than mandatory. Relatively egalitarian Belgium was battered with very high reported death rates, owing partly to the authorities’ decision to report probable as well as confirmed COVID-19 deaths. High income inequality is a social scourge in many ways. As Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson convincingly reported in two important books, The Spirit Level and The Inner Level, higher inequality leads to worse overall health conditions, which significantly increases vulnerability to COVID-19 deaths. Moreover, higher inequality leads to lower social cohesion, less social trust, and more political polarization, all of which negatively affect governments’ ability and readiness to adopt strong control measures. Higher inequality means a larger proportion of low-income workers – from cleaners, cashiers, guards, and delivery persons to sanitation, construction, and factory workers – must continue their daily lives, even at the risk of infection. More inequality also means more people living in crowded living conditions and therefore unable to shelter safely. Populist leaders exacerbate the enormous costs of inequality. US President Donald Trump, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson were elected by unequal and socially divided societies with the support of many disgruntled working-class voters (typically white, less-educated men who resent their declining social and economic status). But the politics of resentment is almost the opposite of the politics of epidemic control. The politics of resentment shuns experts, derides scientific evidence, and resents elites who work online telling workers who can’t to stay home. The US is so unequal, politically divided, and badly governed under Trump that it has actually given up on any coherent national strategy to control the outbreak. All responsibilities have been shifted to state and local governments, which have been left to fend for themselves. Heavily armed right-wing protesters have, on occasion, mobbed state capitals to oppose restrictions on business activity and personal mobility. Even face masks have become politicized: Trump refuses to wear one, and he recently said that some people do so only to express their disapproval of him. The result is that his followers gleefully reject wearing them, and the virus, which started in the “blue” (Democratic) coastal states, is now hitting Trump’s base in “red” (Republican) states hard. Brazil and Mexico are mimicking US politics. Bolsonaro and Mexico’s President Andrés Manuel López Obrador are quintessential populists in the Trump mold, mocking the virus, disdaining expert advice, making light of the risks, and flamboyantly rejecting personal protection. They are also guiding their countries into a Trumpian disaster. With the exception of Canada and all too few other places, the countries of North and South America are being ravaged by the virus, because almost the entire Western hemisphere shares a legacy of mass inequality and pervasive racial discrimination. Even well-governed Chile fell prey to violence and instability last year, owing to high and chronic inequality. This year, Chile (along with Brazil, Ecuador, and Peru) has suffered one the world’s highest COVID-19 death rates. Inequality is certainly not a death sentence. China is rather unequal (with a Gini score of 38.5), but its national and provincial governments adopted rigorous control measures after the initial Wuhan outbreak, essentially suppressing the virus. The recent outbreak in Beijing, after weeks of zero confirmed new cases, resulted in renewed lockdowns and massive testing. In most other countries, however, we are witnessing once again the enormous costs of mass inequality: inept governance, social distrust, and a huge population of vulnerable people unable to protect themselves from encroaching harms. Alarmingly, the epidemic itself is widening inequalities even further. The rich now work and thrive online (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’s wealth has risen by $49 billion since the start of the year, thanks to the decisive shift to e-commerce), while the poor are losing their jobs and often their health and lives. And the costs of inequality are sure to rise further, as revenue-starved governments slash budgets and public services vital for the poor. But a reckoning is coming. In the absence of coherent, capable, and trustworthy governments that can implement an equitable and sustainable pandemic response and strategy for economic recovery, the world will succumb to further waves of instability generated by a growing array of global crises.

By her own description, Sienna Beck is “7.5 years old.” But when it comes to COVID-19, some would say that she knows more than the President of the United States. Sienna, who lives in Manhattan with her parents, Lisa Sachs and Matt Beck, as well as her younger sisters, Willa (age 5.5) and Olive (age 3.5), is well-schooled in all things pandemic. Besides hearing her parents discuss the current crisis, Sienna’s school, which went remote along with all New York City public schools, has worked hard to keep its students in the know. Her classmates even prepared Pandemic Time Capsules, memorializing the ways in which they studied and played this spring. Besides being on her way to a book contract, Sienna loves reading and art projects. She has her say in this essay:

By Guillermo Porras Baking is an adventure! It is exciting to see different ingredients transformed into something both beautiful and delicious. The last few weeks have been perfect for baking, with lots of free time and weather that invited me to be creative. In the beginning of my baking apprenticeship, I was inspired by my grandmother in Costa Rica. She was a great cook: no recipes, no cookbooks. Everything she cooked was from her heart. Her hands were the measurements she used to make the most delicious food around, making her famous in her town. Every day, she would go to the market to pick up the fruits and vegetables and meat that she would use to make that day’s meals. Using natural ingredients, she cooked by the season, with different kinds of food according to the calendar. The family used to get together at my grandmother’s house in Alajuela on holidays like Easter and Mother’s Day. She was the pillar of the family, and it was a perfect way to bring us together. She was a hard worker, spoiling us with her love. On celebrations like Christmas, she made the most delicious tamales I have ever eaten. One of my sisters was smart enough to write down my grandmother’s instructions on how to make tamales. It’s a long process that requires lots of dedication. But my grandmother never baked. In her time, baking was considered an art for ladies from high society. One Christmas, my uncle gave my grandmother a cookbook. She gave it to me, saying “I want you have this book because I know it will help you develop your talent for baking.” She was a poor woman, who had raised three kids by herself, and she had nothing valuable, so she wanted to give me the book as an inheritance, a remembrance of her. After that, at every family event, I was in charge of the desserts. During the same years, when my mother tried to make a cake for coffee in the afternoon, I was always next to her, interested and watching. She was trying to learn how to bake herself: sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn’t. My mother was like an artist who didn’t want to follow the rules, but I was more precise. My mother saw my interest in learning how to bake, and she wanted me to get good instruction. So she introduced me to a TV cooking show with Tía Florita, an elegant Costa Rican chef with great style. We loved her personality and recipes, and with time and practice, I became more adventurous in baking, trying out different recipes. Ever since, I have enjoyed baking. I don’t do complicated, sophisticated recipes, just basic baking, but I have gotten good at that. This month, I have been trying different dessert recipes. My favorite is a very simple pound cake, which is easy to bake. The recipe below is from Tia Florita’s show, which I still watch; she is still very stylish, but not pretentious. I enjoy sharing it with my husband Todd and our close neighbors, all of whom have a sweet tooth. The cake is delicious, and if you follow the recipe exactly, the results will be a perfect summer dessert to serve to family and friends. Buen Provecho! Pound Cake Have all ingredients at room temperature 70°F Preheat the oven to 350°F Oven rack at third level. Grease and flour one 12-cup loaf pan. In a large bowl, beat until creamy 2 sticks of unsalted butter. Gradually add 2 cups of sugar, sometimes scraping the sides of the bowl, and beat on high speed until the mixture get lightened in texture and color. Then, one at the time, add the egg yolks and beat until the mixture get fluffy and light. Still on high speed, add the 1 cup of sour cream until everything is mixed. Reduce the speed to low and gradually dribble 1 tablespoon at a time the dry ingredients and use a rubber spatula to scrape the sides of the bowl as necessary. Add to the batter 1 teaspoon vanilla and 1 teaspoon grated lemon zest. In a separate bowl beat the 6 egg whites on high speed until the peaks are glossy and stiff and add into the batter, in 4 parts, stirring by hand using a rubber spatula. Be sure it is well mixed . Scrape the batter into the pan and spread evenly. Bake for 40 minutes at 350° F and 15 minutes more at 325°F until a toothpick inserted into the center comes out clean. Let cool in the pan on a rack for 10-15 minutes. Slide a thin knife around the cake to detach from the pan. Invert the cake and let cool right side up on the rack until room temperature. Guillermo Porras was a New Year’s baby, inaugurating the great decade of the 60’s. He was born in San José, the capital of Costa Rica and went to school at the University of Costa Rica, where he graduated as an architect . Guillermo worked as an architect with the top architects in Costa Rica; additionally, he taught architectural drawing in a technological high school for students training to be architects. In 2000, Guillermo moved to New York City looking for opportunities in architecture. In 2002, he got what he describes at “the big project of my life, meeting his future husband, Todd MacDonald, who is also an architect. Says Guillermo, ‘’We got married in 2012, thanks to Edie Windsor , Hillary Clinton and President Obama, who always supported civil rights for the LGBTQ community. We love to enjoy desserts and pastries as part of a good meal . And anytime we have the opportunity to travel overseas, we enjoy tasting local food and of course sweets.”

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

One film journalist’s stream-of-consciousness cinematic journey through the pandemic and quarantine, Part 8 By Laurence Lerman Admittedly, the last month of life in our city and beyond—as presented to us in print, online and over the airwaves—has played as a non-fiction movie that warrants—that demands—more of our attention than any kind of fictional narrative the world’s moviemakers could spin. Last week, after easing out of a near round-the-clock absorption with the news, I dipped my toe into the depths of the new HBO Max service, which for me meant some 2,000-plus streamable movies—many culled from the Turner Classic Movies and Criterion Collection libraries. I’ve screened some half-dozen movies since I began, three of them on HBO Max and the balance from other easily accessed sources. Two of the outliers star the musician/actor Kris Kristofferson. He’s not a talent I’ve ever felt a particular affinity for, so I’m at a loss as to how his films came to represent a third of those I watched over the course of the week. With such a sprawling collection on HBO Max to choose from, I began with a classic: 1955’s Rebel Without a Cause. I figured it was an easy pitch to take a swing at—a classic right-up-the-middle—as I hadn’t seen it in close to 40 years. Much darker and more troubling than I remembered it—those are some screwed-up kids!—Rebel Without a Cause is still best known for the towering performances of its leading trio of Natalie Wood, Sal Mineo and, of course, James Dean as “Jimbo” Stark. It joins 1956’s Giant as one of a pair of Dean films that were released after his death following 1955’s East of Eden, which is still my favorite of his three. In Rebel, director Nicolas Ray notably utilizes the burgeoning widescreen CinemaScope technology of the era to maximum effect, elevating the scenes at the film’s memorable scenes at Griffith Observatory and the “Chickie Run” cliffs to melodramatic extremes. If ever I was going to go from the ridiculous to the sublime (or vice-versa) in choosing a film, it might as well be when I have a choice of so many. That said, having seen the first three entries in the Jaws franchise, kicked off with Spielberg’s 1977 original, I decided to finish up what I started with 1987’s Jaws: The Revenge, which was on Max (along with its predecessors) and only a click away. Awful. Lorraine Gary returns from the first two Jaws films (the only actor to do so) as Ellen Brody, wife of Chief Martin Brody (Roy Scheider in the first entry), who has apparently died, the stress of his never-ending Shark Week driving him to an early grave. She and her grown son Michael (Lance Guest) set out to Nassau to get away from it all, only to discover that their local man-eating great white shark has followed her. A non-Brody shark attack or two follow a half-hour later, with the production’s animatronic shark going through the same mechanized gestures seen in the previous installments. The whole thing plays like an advert for the Jaws ride at one of the Universal theme parks… Again I say: awful. But there is a brief appearance by Melvin van Peebles, writer/director/star of 1971’s Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song! If I’m gonna head to the beach, I figured let it be with Kris Kristofferson and Sarah Miles and their legendary sex scenes in 1976’s The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea, which I recently bumped into on a streaming service. It was a “Holy Grail” sequence of sorts that I’d initially seen some steamy pics of in a tattered Playboy Magazine when I was a young teen. (The images were not lifted from the movie, but rather a Playboy-sponsored publicity shoot. Years later, Kristofferson offered that his wife at the time, singer Rita Coolidge, was none-too-happy about the very, very frank photos.) As for the movie, it’s a strange one based on a novella by Japan’s Yukio Mishima, (who was pretty strange himself) concerning a young widow (Miles) who gets sexually involved with a merchant seaman (Kristofferson). Writer and first-time director Lewis John Carlino (whose wide-ranging filmography includes the screenplays for the 1966 John Frankeneheimer thriller Seconds, the 1972 Charles Bronson assassination flick The Mechanic and, later, the acclaimed 1979 Robert Duvall drama The Great Santini, which he also directed) moves the action from Yokohama to the English coastal town of Dartmouth, which creates an evocative and atmospheric backdrop to what eventually and disturbingly goes down. I mentioned the Sailor to a friend, remarking on Kristofferson’s serviceable performance, and he pointed out that Kristofferson was exceptional in Cisco Pike, a 1971 drama I’d never heard of, written and directed by B.L. Norton and ONE WORD costarring a French Connection-era Gene Hackman. I quickly tracked it down and slotted it for the on-deck spot. And, thus, for a second time, Kris Kristofferson was the impetus for my decoupling from HBO Max. But I vowed to return… Falling squarely between the hippie-dippie rebel cinema of the late Sixties (1968’s Psych-Out and 1969’s Easy Rider and so on) and the disenfranchised and alienated films of the Seventies (1970’s Five Easy Pieces and 1973’s Scarecrow are good examples), Cisco Pike stars Kristofferson as an aging rocker who’s strong-armed by a psycho L.A. cop (Hackman) into selling a zillion kilos of weed (Acapulco Gold, baby) that have fallen into his hands. Cisco hits up his friends and their friends, all while risking the love of his yoga-loving girlfriend (the always-welcome Karen Black). By the final act, Kristofferson has grown more desperate, Hackman has gotten angrier, and chases and gunplay are the only way out. Lots of drugs, lots of cruising, lots of familiar Seventies supporting players (including Roscoe Lee Browne, Allan Arbus and Antonio Fargas) and lots of music (including Kristofferson’s “The Pilgrim, Chapter 33”) make for an adequate Seventies not-quite drama-thriller. But my friend was right: Kristofferson was good. Before diving back into Max, I took a detour, a quick one, to watch Vanity Street, a nifty little 1932 crime drama from Nick Grinde, one of a number of Depression Era “B” picture directors who banged out one after the other back in the day. (Between 1930 and ’40, he directed some 32 features!) In a tight 65 minutes, Vanity Street tells the tawdry tale a gruff cop (Charles Bickford), a down-on-her-luck local gal (Helen Chandler), a stunning showgirl (Mayo Methot), her boozing boy toy (Charles Meeker) and a murder that needs solving. NO great surprises here, but as it’s a pre-Code noir-forerunner, there’s a heathy dollop of cheeky dialogue, cohabitation and sex between people who aren’t married (oh my!) and the saucy Ms. Methot—first wife of Humphrey Bogart— sans brassiere and falling out of her wayward blouse. And it looks pretty good, too, courtesy of legendary cinematographer Joseph August. With 159 films to his credit, I’m thinking he was one DP who didn’t make it home that often. HBO Max beckoned me to return with a title from their Criterion line-up: Ingmar Bergman’s 1978 Autumn Sonata, the filmmaker’s final work made for theatrical exhibition (they were all TV productions afterwards) and the only collaboration between Sweden’s legendary Bergmans, Ingmar and Ingrid. (As a kid, I never thought there was a difference though, admittedly, Ingmar was rarely brought up in our home.) Emerging during a dark period in Bergman’s life, when he was living abroad and battling the Swedish tax authorities, Autumn Sonata meditates on themes of family neuroses and generational reconciliation and, as it’s Bergman, death, and how it becomes more and more of a palpable reality as when gets older. It’s certainly on the minds of Ingrid, as a self-absorbed classical pianist approaching the end of her career, and costar Liv Ullman as her somber daughter who chooses the occasion of a rare visit from mom to let loose her a lifetime of pent-up anger and recrimination. The two actresses bring their talent and intensity to Ingmar’s script, particularly Ingrid, who’d never had a chance to flex her skills like she does here—not in her Oscar-winning Hollywood performances in Gaslight (1944), Anastasia (1955) or Murder on the Orient Express (1974), nor in her neorealist collaborations with Roberto Rossellini in the Fifties. Two Bergmans and a strong a dash of Ullman. Definitely a potent mix to end on. 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 Alan Resnick On June 9, I walked toward the entrance of my office building. I hadn't been there for three months, since COVID-19 had been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. The front door was plastered with multiple pieces of paper in various neon colors, as if the facility had been or was soon to be condemned. These were assorted warnings and restrictions for people before they entered: EVERYONE MUST WEAR A MASK VERBAL HEALTH SCREENINGS WILL BE CONDUCTED AND TEMPERATURES WILL BE TAKEN ALL SOCIAL DISTANCING SIGNS AND PLACARDS MUST BE OBEYED I was there to meet my supervisor, to discuss the possibility of returning to my job conducting vocational assessments. While I had a number of reservations about going back to work, boredom had gotten the best of me. I slipped on my mask and went upstairs to check in. The lobby was dramatically different than the one I walked out of in March. There were no longer sofas and oversized chairs; instead, there were four folding chairs situated on “X” marks on the floor. The receptionist was seated behind a wall of Plexiglas shields and wore a clear protective shield over his face. He looked like he was ready to replace the muffler on my car. The cautious receptionist proceeded to take out a clipboard and asked me a number of questions about my health. Had I been in contact with anyone known to have COVID-19 over the last 14 days? Had I been tested for COVID-19 over the last 14 days? Had I experienced difficulty breathing, fever, or loss of smell over the last 14 days? Had I experienced diarrhea over the last 14 days? (I thought he was simply curious, but I’ve since learned that this can be a symptom.) He then held a device up to my forehead which registered my temperature. It was normal, and I was buzzed in. The corridor leading to my supervisor’s office at the back of the building was dimly lit, as if I had come in after hours or on a weekend. The drinking fountain had what looked like yellow crime scene tape on it with a sign indicating that it was not to be used. Everything about the corridor was cold and sterile, which I suppose was exactly the point. I knocked on my supervisor’s door. He looked up and put on his mask (masks are not required if you are working alone in your own office). I sat down and shared my fears about coming back, the most significant being that my office was too small to permit social distancing, that I had to share my computer with clients, and that certain test materials had to be passed back and forth between the client and myself. My supervisor suggested that we take a walk to a room that previously had been used to house a senior citizens program. Given the pandemic, the program had been suspended and will continue to be for the indefinite future. In contrast to my office, which is about 100 square feet, this room was cavernous, closer to 900 square feet. My supervisor asked if I thought this room could be used for vocational assessments. It clearly had room for social distancing and for two computer stations. There were six rectangular tables that, when put together, allowed for ample room for background interviews And while the table width was not optimal, Plexiglas shields were set up for protection. I told my supervisor that I was comfortable working out of this room. Even with all these changes, however, the fact remained that, given our current test battery, it was impossible to completely eliminate the need for materials to be handed back and forth. However, I had done my research: iPads could be used to administer certain tests, rather than pencil and paper. My supervisor agreed to purchase the necessary equipment, and I’ve been practicing a couple of times a week. I’m now trying to schedule assessments for next week, and we’ll see how it goes. In many ways, I think I’ve traded one set of issues and concerns for another. I had been worried about not being able to read a client’s facial expressions if they were wearing a mask during background interviews. But given that I can sit 12 feet away from my client, the mask is not necessary. Now, I’m hoping that I can just see and hear them from that distance. And I’m still not wild about having a Plexiglas shield between the client and myself for test administration, although I’ve come to the realization that it’s a necessary evil. I just know that I’m going to feel like a clerk at a convenience store when asking test questions: “Who wrote Alice in Wonderland? And, by the way, would you like a couple of quick pick lottery tickets?” Administering tests on iPads is both different and frustrating, as all the shortcuts I’ve developed over the years can’t be used. I used to be able to administer these tests in my sleep, but now it feels like I’m a beginner. But it’s nice to have a challenge. So, I’m approaching next week with an open mind. I’m also curious as to how clients will react to this new and Spartan environment. I’ll let you know how it goes. 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 Stephen Koepp | June 18, 2020 This story first appeared earlier this month on the website of From Day One, a forum on corporate values. Reprinted with permission. The NFL takes a knee. Juneteenth becomes a corporate holiday. NASCAR bans the confederate flag. The stereotypical product mascots Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben and Mrs. Butterworth are suddenly retired. The Oscars promise to be not-so-white anymore. Band-Aid says it will start making bandages in darker shades. A parade of corporate press releases announces that companies will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to fight racial injustice and inequality. At companies with widespread complaints about toxic workplaces for people of color, heads roll. All of these things could have happened over the course of decades, but they unfolded in a matter of days. Suddenly, Corporate America was promising to make the well-being of Black America a top priority. It was not necessarily a matter of courage. After the horrific police killing of George Floyd and the waves of protest that circled the globe, corporations could see which way the wind was blowing. According to many recent polls, a two-thirds majority of Americans support the protests against policy brutality and racial discrimination. Almost overnight, Black Lives Matter has gone from marginal to mainstream, from argument to consensus. The corporate turnabout began earlier this month with a flurry of statements offering contrition about past neglect and support for the BLM movement. Many were filled with promises to “do better” and “do more,” with some offering pledges of money and proposing changes in corporate and public policy. Adidas, under pressure from employees of color and their allies, committed $120 million to programs that support black communities. As the company announced on Twitter, “First, we need to give credit where it’s long overdue: The success of Adidas would be nothing without Black athletes, Black artists, Black employees, and Black customers. Period.” Johnson & Johnson CEO Alex Gorsky, whose company pledged $10 million to fight racism, wrote in a LinkedIn post: “As the CEO of the world’s largest health-care company, I must state unequivocally that racism in any form is unacceptable, and that black lives matter. And as a white man, I also need to acknowledge the limits of my own life experience and listen to those who have faced systemic injustice since the day they were born.” From IBM came a letter to Congress by CEO Arvind Krishna, who said the company would like to work with lawmakers “in pursuit of justice and racial equity, focused in police reform, responsible use of technology, and broadening skills and educational opportunities.” IBM, as well as Amazon and Microsoft, said they would back away from selling facial-recognition technology, at least for now, bowing to concerns about its misuse or abuse by law-enforcement authorities. While some of the declarations took flak for being disingenuous or too-little-too-late, they were generally welcomed as a potential turning point. “I think the statements and the additional efforts are extremely valuable,” Marion Brooks, VP of diversity and inclusion at Novartis Corp., told From Day One. Yet as dramatic as it all was, skepticism abounded too, given that “many of the same companies expressing solidarity have contributed to systemic inequality, targeted the black community with unhealthy products and services, and failed to hire, promote and fairly compensate black men and women,” wrote David Gelles in the New York Times. “Corporate America has failed Black America,” said Darren Walker, the president of the Ford Foundation and a member of the board of PepsiCo, who is black. “Even after a generation of Ivy League educations and extraordinary talented African-Americans going into corporate America, we seem to have hit a wall.” Indeed, while African-Americans constitute about 13% of the U.S. population, their representation tends to be in the low single digits on corporate boards, at the C-Suite executive level, and in technical roles. Facebook has just a 1.5% black tech force, compared with Apple at 6%. Yet this inequality represents just the top of the income pyramid. Overall, since 2000, the wage gap between blacks and whites has grown significantly. That feeds the huge wealth gap. On average, white households have nearly 6.5 times the wealth of black households, reports Bloomberg. Inequalities in wealth and access to health care have contributed to the vastly disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on people of color. As Corporate America began to reckon with these realities, here’s how the responses unfolded: Statements and Gestures One of the earliest statements, on May 29, came from Nike, which posted on social media a simple black square with a saying in white letters protesting police brutality and racial injustice: “For Once, Don’t Do It.” Alluding to its trademark motto, the statement was in keeping with the company’s voice on social issues, including its ad campaign in support of Colin Kaepernick with the line, “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.” Before long Nike’s white-on-black design became the default format for corporate statements, as dozens followed the template, diluting the impact. It became an exercise applying corporate branding to popular sentiment. “Unfortunately, the reality of the groupthink, even if backed by the best of intentions, transformed these messages into homogenous–and largely meaningless–wallpaper,” opined Jeff Beers in Fast Company. (Nike, for its part, followed through by committing $40 million to social-justice organizations.) Other companies attempted more original statements. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, the largest U.S. bank, knelt with staffers in a branch office, wearing shorts, sneakers and a mask. Chase says that it’s making multibillion-dollar investments to address racial and economic inequality, “particularly for the Black community.” Even so, advocates of social equity want to see results more than symbols. “There’s a lot of performative allyship going around,” Y-Vonne Hutchinson, CEO and founder of diversity consulting firm ReadySet told the Washington Post. “Nobody’s asking for a CEO to take a knee. You take a knee after you change your policies.” Well then, at historic moments like these, what are the most important words and deeds for companies to get across? Business Insider, with the help of a PR veteran, analyzed 27 memos from business leaders responding to George Floyd’s death. The conclusions: “The strongest memos acknowledged where leaders and their organizations had fallen short. They confronted discomfort head-on, and invited difficult conversations. And they outlined concrete plans for cultivating diversity and inclusion, both in the workplace and in the U.S. more generally.” Many companies hurried to embrace a prospectively more durable gesture by recognizing Juneteenth, the day commemorating the end of slavery in the U.S. Nike, Twitter, Target and Spotify were among the small but growing number of companies designating June 19 as a paid company holiday. Changing Positions and Products The NFL, which has fought with its players for years over their rights to protest police brutality by taking a knee during the national anthem, did a complete 180-degree turn. “We, the NFL, admit we were wrong,” the league tweeted in an official statement. In a video accompanying the tweet, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said, “Without black players, there would be no National Football League. And the protests around the country are emblematic of the centuries of silence, inequality and oppression of black players, coaches, fans and staff.” The turnabout had resonance far beyond sports, given how President Trump had exploited the controversy as a wedge issue, painting Kaepernick and fellow protesters as unpatriotic. Shunned by teams as too controversial, Kaepernick has not played professional football since 2016. Other organizations decided quickly to change policies that seemed discriminatory, culturally unaware, or dismissive of the different needs of diverse customers. Walmart said it would no longer place “multicultural hair and beauty products” in locked cases, which it had been doing in about a dozen stores. “Predominantly African American people are buying those products, so the assumption is we’re thieves,” a customer told NBC News. NASCAR, a bastion of the white working class, said it will no longer allow the Confederate flag to be displayed at events and properties, while driver Bubba Wallace, the first full-time African American NASCAR driver in decades, earlier this month raced in a car with a Black Lives Matter paint scheme. The moment proved a catalyst for change in products that for more than a century had continued to display mascots that seemed to endure from the plantation era, despite complaints over the years. Aunt Jemima, Mrs. Butterworth, Uncle Ben and the Cream of Wheat chef were all retired or placed under review by the companies that produce them. Where did these stereotypical characters come from? “The images of placid, smiling African-Americans on commercial products were often created during times of racial upheaval. Characters like Aunt Jemima, who was first depicted as a mammy, followed Reconstruction when white people were scared of what it meant to live alongside newly freed slaves,” reported the New York Times, citing an interview with Kevin D. Thomas, a professor of multicultural branding in the Race, Ethnic and Indigenous Studies Program at Marquette University. (The Frito Bandito, by the way, made his exit in 1971.) Band-Aids, a Johnson & Johnson product, have been made since 1920 in flesh color, which was fine as long as your color was a kind of soft pink. Earlier this month, the company announced that it will start offering “a range of bandages in light, medium and deep shades of Brown and Black skin tones that embrace the beauty of diverse skin.” Commented Ishena Robinson in The Root: “A whole damn century from the time it was first introduced, Band-Aid brand has finally come to the realization that black people exist, have skin, get boo-boos, and need bandages.” Some companies started out on the wrong foot in their policy declarations. Starbucks, which in 2018 had closed its 8,000 U.S. stores for a day of anti-bias training after the misguided arrest of two black men, responded to the current upsurge in protests by stating in a memo that their baristas and other employees were forbidden to wear shirts or accessories declaring support for Black Lives Matter. When a backlash ensued, the company not only reversed itself, but for good measure said it will produce 250,000 corporate T-shirts promoting Black Lives Matter to be given to employees and sold to customers. That may have been a well-meaning gesture, but this company too was criticized for engaging in performative allyship rather than concrete measures to boost employees and community members. Going Beyond Words Investing large amounts of money to create equity and new opportunity for Black Americans is a welcome measure. Apple pledged $100 million, while companies including Walmart, Target, Home Depot and Levi’s were among the name brands promising financial support. Less recognized were employees taking advantage of already-established corporate matching-fund programs to help maximize their donating power. In the week following George Floyd’s killing, the matching-fund management company Benevity saw more than $100 million donated through such programs to civil-rights and related causes. Even more direct efforts were shown by companies launching programs to train more young people of color for the skilled jobs of the future. Techtonic Group, a Boulder-based software developer, plans to add 100 black and Hispanic apprentices to its Techtonic Academy program, a paid, 14-week course sanctioned by the U.S. Department of Labor, the Denver Business Journal reported. “We came to the conclusion that everybody’s putting up platitudes on social media and that doesn’t really do anything for anybody,” said CEO Heather Terenzio. “So we starting talking about our apprenticeship program and what we could do to help.” What other measures should companies pursue, beyond words of good intent? "Social statements mean nothing without real actions and investments," Elizabeth A. Morrison, VP of diversity & belonging for Live Nation, told From Day One. "I’m speaking specifically of commitments to increasing workforce diversity, tactics to drive equality and inclusion with clients (like diversity riders in contracts and supplier diversity), donations to social-justice organizations, and supporting legislation for equal justice. Ideally companies are doing many of these, and/or taking other action that is equally powerful and sustainable. Long-term commitment and partnerships are needed for this not to become the flavor of the month." Indeed, the Black Lives Matter movement strongly suggests that corporations need to get used to a new dynamic of social activism. Jim VandeHei, co-founder and CEO of the news organization Axios, calls it a "bottom-up revolution" that presents a stark new reality for American CEOs. "Doing good is no longer a niche. It's a necessity," he wrote on Axios. "The judgment CEOs feared most in the past was pesky reporters or regulators. The judgment they should fear the most now is idealistic employees on the inside and the social media warriors on the outside." While this presents a new peril, there is a potential upside to embracing this change: "We have found the new generation will work as hard or harder than we did if we provide this clarity of purpose and rolling, unvarnished dialogue." Steve Koepp is a co-founder of From Day One. Previously, he was editorial director of Time Inc. Books, executive editor of Fortune and deputy managing editor of Time.

By Claude Grunitzky | claudegrunitzky June 19, 2020 This article originally appeared at https://trueafrica.co/article/why-this-american-economist-believes-africa-can-tame-covid-19/ Over the past 30 years, the Harvard-trained American economist Jeffrey Sachs has become one of the leading voices advocating for development policies that actually help the poor. As the director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, he and his team advise governments, corporations and institutions on practices that help translate the Sustainable Development Goals into actionable solutions. We interviewed him on the coronavirus crisis in both Africa and America, as well as on the growing anxieties about Africa’s sovereign debt in these times of recession. There are currently around 276,733 confirmed Covid-19 cases in Africa, with cases increasing throughout the continent. What should African countries be doing now? Fortunately, the rate of infection and death rates in Africa remain far below the rates of the U.S. and Europe, but the battle against the virus must be fought every day. There are four overwhelming steps needed. The first is physical distancing. People should be wearing face masks whenever in public, using hand sanitizers frequently, and keeping a good distance (2 meters or so) from others to avoid infections and avoid giving infections to others. Governments everywhere should be distributing face masks and hand sanitizers for free on a massive scale. When countries need budget support for this, they should receive it immediately and unstintingly from the IMF and the African Development Bank. The second is testing and isolating infectious individuals. Africa’s cadres of community health workers should be deployed, by phone and in person when they are equipped with protective equipment, to identify and test people who are potentially infected with Covid-19. That includes people who are showing Covid-19 symptoms and people who have been in close contact with known infected people. When people test positive, or who are otherwise believed to be infected, they should be helped to isolate – either at home if there is a place for them where they will not infect their family members, or in a public facility that is converted to take care of Covid-19 cases. The third solution is to stop large gatherings of people that could massively spread the virus. Such gatherings include sports events, religious celebrations, entertainment venues such as concerts, large night clubs, and other areas where the infection could spread rapidly and widely. Such events are called “super-spreader” events and they are known to have been responsible for a significant proportion of all cases. The fourth step is to protect places where people live together in large numbers, including retirement home and nursing care centers, prisons, worker hostels, and the like. In such places, the virus can spread wildly and rapidly. Tens of thousands of deaths in the US occurred in care centers because not enough protection was provided to the vulnerable people in those settings. If these four steps are taken, it should be possible to enable other parts of daily life to continue. But going back to the “old normal” is not possible. We all need to be hyper-vigilant to prevent new outbreaks and to isolate infectious individuals as rapidly as possible, before they infect others. You were one of the first people to advocate for debt cancellation for the world’s poorest countries. Many people remember the work you did with Bono, to raise awareness on the issue of debt. Now, African governments owe around $400 billion, and some estimate that 30 or 40% of that money is owed to China. How do you feel about the latest calls, such as the one expressed in Obiageli Ezekwesili’s April 16th Washington Post Op-Ed, for writing off the debt that Africa owes China and other lenders including the World Bank and IMF? All creditor countries, including the Paris Club, China, and other creditor nations, will have to help the indebted poor countries to overcome the pandemic and resume economic development. In most cases, perhaps all, that will entail a stop in debt servicing during the duration of the pandemic. In many cases, it will require a cancellation of part or all of the outstanding debts. This is just a reality. In all cases, fighting Covid-19 and escaping from extreme poverty must take precedence over debt servicing. This should be a basic principle enshrined in global policy. And as a general rule, low-income countries should be helped mainly through ample grants rather than through loans. For many poor countries in need, loans are just a dangerous invitation to future financial crises. You have long argued for greater funding for the most impoverished African nations, saying that much of the money should be used for public health and education. The World Health Organization estimated in April that there were fewer than 5,000 intensive care beds across 43 of Africa’s 55 countries. And UNESCO estimates that over one-fifth of children between the ages of 6 and 11 are out of school. Do you think Africa is just wasting a lot of the money it is being lent or given? The problem is that there is really very, very little global assistance even though there is a lot of talk and debate about aid. It comes to a small fraction of 1 percent of the income of the rich countries, currently around 0.3 percent, and much of that is not directed to low-income countries. We often speak about the “global community,” but there is not much community. There are the rich and then there are the poor, and gap is enormous. Consider the fact that the world’s 2,000 or so billionaires have wealth of around $10 trillion dollars. Consider that Mr. Jeffrey Bezos, the owner-founder of Amazon, has wealth of around $160 billion and has increased his wealth by around $44 billion in 2020. It’s time for him to give a substantial proportion of that wealth for the global good, starting with the urgent needs of poor children. Of course, he is not alone. The billionaires should be taxed on their mega-wealth and should also dramatically step up their philanthropy. There are hundreds of millions of children in desperate need, of schooling, decent nutrition, healthcare, and true opportunities for their future. In your seminal 2005 book The End of Poverty, you famously expressed that extreme poverty could be eliminated globally by the year 2025. In light of the work you did with respect to the UN’s Millennium Development Goals, and the latest objectives for the Sustainable Development Goals, how realistic is this 2025 target in a post-Covid economic environment? Every year of neglect pushes back the end of poverty. Already 2025 was not possible as of 2015, when the Millennium Development Goals were followed by the Sustainable Development Goals. I was glad that world leaders did adopt as SDG 1 the goal of ending extreme poverty by 2030. Yet even 2030 looks impossible now because of the Covid-19 epidemic and because of the selfish politics of Donald Trump’s administration, which preaches “America First” rather than “America and the world together,” which would be the humane, decent, and smart approach. Perhaps if there is a new US president committed to global cooperation I will be somewhat more optimistic. Of course, there are also reasons for optimism. The new digital economy is, on the whole, a friend of ending poverty. We can use the digital technologies for e-health, e-education, e-banking, e-governance, and more. In other words, the digital technologies can serve as leapfrog technologies, if they are widely available throughout Africa. I believe that the African Union should team up with China, Japan, Korea, the European Union and others to build out Africa’s digital network and renewable energy resources. Let’s switch to America now. The numbers have shown that Covid-19 is disproportionately killing Hispanics and African Americans in the US, confirming the poor health and precarious living conditions many African Americans find themselves in. You were a vocal supporter of Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primary. If Joe Biden were elected president in November, what three things do you think he could do to improve the health and livelihoods of African Americans with a view to future prosperity for black people in America? The explosion of unrest in the Black Lives Matter movement reflects the fact that the precarious living conditions of many African Americans is the result not only of discrimination but of continued brutality by racist individuals and institutions in U.S. society. Trump himself is clearly a racist and a promoter of white supremacy. That is the shocking and awful reality. It’s why voting Trump out of office is so vital for the wellbeing of all Americans, but especially for the wellbeing of people of color, immigrants to the U.S., and people of Islamic faith, all of whom have felt the brunt and the anxieties of the dark forces stirred by Trump. We need, in the U.S., three kinds of reforms: economic, political, and ethical. Economic reforms mean a living wage for all persons; universal access to publicly financed health care; universal access to debt-free and affordable higher education; and decent work conditions including vacation time, paid sick leave, paid family leave, and other basic standards. Political reform means ending the corrupt system of big money buying our politicians. We need tight limits on campaign funding, and ample public funding of campaigns. We also need to make it easy to register to vote and to cast a vote, for example through vote by mail, election days as holidays, early voting, and so forth. Ethical reform means that we put the dignity of every American at the center of our concerns. Politics should be about the common good, not the mere struggle for power. The common good starts with respect for all people, tolerance, and working together for common purposes. This is all possible, even realistic, once we agree that our national recovery depends on a commitment to an America for all its people. The demonstrators on the streets of American cities these recent weeks have already made a great advance.