By Victoria Rolfe / Red Hook, N.Y. I heard a news promo the other day that announced an upcoming news story alluding to the downsides of long-term use of melatonin, a commonly taken hormone supplement used to help induce sleep. Apparently in addition to inducing slumber, it may have some less desirable effects if taken on a daily basis perpetually. I did not stick around to watch the story, but this got me thinking. Unless you are living in a very isolated off-the-grid ivory tower, I’m sure you have heard at least a few (or a few thousand) commercials for prescription drugs. The ads urge us to ask our doctors to prescribe them for a myriad of our symptoms and complaints, from migraines to foot fungus, and everything else in-between. The second two-thirds of the advertisements feature happy people joyfully going about their lives, presumably symptom-free, as an announcer quickly and quietly in the background lists an array of side effects from the benign to the cringe-worthy and horrific to the catastrophic (even including death in some cases). But not to worry! If you do experience any of those symptoms, you can tell your doctor about them, and she will give you something for it. In fact, some of those commercials are advertising drugs that are specifically just for that, to take care of a side effect from another drug. But what happens if you get a side effect from that second drug? Yes, they too have that long list of possible adverse reactions. People invented books, then computers and tablets, which requires the invention of glasses to keep up with all that eyestrain. No problem–there’s an eye drop to help with that, or better yet, surgery. Of course, as long as mankind has been here on this beautiful orb, we have been encountering problems and inventing ways to deal with them. We invented the wheel, then the car. But then the cars were polluting the environment, so we invented emission controls. Now we have electric cars. The wheels of progress spin on. No need to exert yourself. Just jump in your vehicle and let it take you away. Technology moves on at a blinding pace. Phones, computers, modern conveniences galore. It can make you dizzy keeping up with it all. And there are those that do keep up with it all, always having to have the latest and greatest gizmo ever invented. Just for the record, you might have guessed by now I’m not one of them. I still watch a 13” tube TV with a built-in VCR to record shows on (that I get from my old-fashioned roof antenna). And I’m perfectly content with that. And what about the food industry? In the beginning, there was the apple, simple and pure… but along came man. How about boxed food? Ready-made dinners? Processed food stuffs? Candy, bags full of treats? All without a hint of nutrition. Sweetened drinks in every flavor imaginable. Just add water and voila! Instant gastronomic gratification. Well after a generation of that, man had to invent injectable insulin, cardiac caths and stents, bypass surgery, and a plethora of those above-mentioned pharmaceuticals. Now, with all these super-duper conveniences, we barely have to lift a finger, or walk a step. Everything is right there at the push of a button, a screen or click or phone call away. Thanks, mankind! Now I can just sit on my spreading behind, munch away on my prepackaged junk, put in a call to my Tele-doc, and get me a handful of those pretty little pills. Or…screech! Maybe hit the brakes? Just because it was invented doesn’t mean you have to use it (or eat it). Maybe instead of asking your doctor for a pill to treat your side effects from your first prescription, you could stop to think if there is anything you might to do avoid taking that initial prescription in the first place? Maybe it’s time to take a step back. Forget all that processed junk that takes up 90 percent of grocery store aisles. What about going back to real food? The kind that nature invented. That would be my prescription. I highly recommend giving it a try. What do you have to lose, other than a few pounds? And speaking of hitting the brakes. I know the car has been an integral part of our lives for as long as we can remember now, but do we really need it to go two blocks to a friend’s house or on a short errand? What about that other invention? Remember the bicycle? Or going even further back in time, how about that little invention of nature? Legs! And just maybe all that good healthy eating and exercise will allow you to get to sleep tonight without that melatonin pill! I bid you good night and sweet dreams. A long, long time ago, after the birth of her third child, Victoria made the life-changing decision to leave the work world behind and devote herself to being a full-time mom and homemaker. Along with her new title of Domestic Engineer, she took on the role of the Chief Home Economist for the family. At first, it was scary to try to live on less than half their income, but Victoria found that she not only rose to the challenge but thrived in the enjoyment of learning to live their best life with limited resources. She embraced this new frugal lifestyle of the at-home-mom and went on to add a fourth child to the mix. And their family was complete. Along the way she acquired a great deal of wisdom in how to not only avoid debt, but pay off mortgages early, buy cars for cash, travel on a shoe-string budget, and send kids to college with no student loans, all while also saving a tidy nest egg for retirement. She currently educates others in these skills through her business Bright Future. Now living the life of a modern homesteader in the Hudson Valley, New York, Victoria has added gardening to her list of skill sets as she grows many of her own vegetables to supplement her family’s primarily vegan diet. And she has come to realize that this waste-not, want-not, carbon-friendly, sustainable life she is living is not only benefiting her own family but also our Mother Earth, and that each of us has the obligation to live a responsibly sustainable life not only for ourselves, but for the greater good of our community, and our planet. We can all do this one household and backyard at a time. We are the world! And it all begins right at home. Victoria can be reached at brightfuture2budget4@gmail.com

By Andy Borowitz | The New Yorker May 15, 2023 PENSACOLA, FLA. (The Borowitz Report)—A third-grade teacher in Pensacola, Florida, has been arrested for showing her students a Disney movie featuring a boy character with a girl’s name, school-district officials have confirmed. The teacher, Carol Foyler, claimed that she thought it was “O.K.” to show the incendiary film because the character in question was a deer. Governor Ron DeSantis, however, begged to differ, arguing that Florida’s children were being “indoctrinated to emulate the deer’s sick life style.” “Students in Florida’s schools have not been taught to distinguish between themselves and deer,” he said. DeSantis also objected to a controversial scene early in the film in which the main character’s mother is shot and killed. “I will not rest until Florida’s schools are rid of such blatant anti-Second Amendment propaganda,” he vowed. Andy Borowitz is a Times best-selling author and a comedian who has written for The New Yorker since 1998. He writes The Borowitz Report, a satirical column on the news.

By Bonnie Fishman / San Francisco Bay Area I am a self-proclaimed busybody. When I was growing up, my mom would say “Don’t be such a busybody.” I heard her but I really didn’t get it until later in life. I am a BUSYBODY! I’m involved in lots of activities for a retired person, keeping my mind and body busy. The real truth is that I’m busy in my life and those of others. My curiosity about the world has caused me to want to know just about everything. But I also want to know everything about everyone else. Ask my husband or my kids. I play 20 Questions for real! Where did you go? Who did you see? How was the weather? How was the food? How was the concert? Did so-and-so get that new job? Did Joe Schmo actually move away? You get the picture. My daughter used to think that I was spying on her with these questions. Not really. I was just curious. This brings me to the present. I’ve been working really hard at “staying in my own lane.” It’s their problem, not mine and not for me to say. Is my friend’s constant complaining a concern of mine? No, it’s her problem. Do my kids ever make a choice that I wouldn’t have made? Of course, but it’s their problem. Stay in your own lane! It’s really liberating when you stop believing that it’s necessary to manage everyone else’s life. Try it. See how it feels. Let’s use a hula hoop as a visual tool. You start to get into your spouse’s business. Put that hula hoop around you and zip it! Your sibling begins to tell you how to live your life. Take that hoop and put it around them, let them see how it feels to stay in their own lane. And doesn’t everybody think they’re an expert on everything? It’s one thing to have those thoughts but not a good idea to open your mouth about it. You’ve heard of a Monday morning quarterback? I’m an everyday quarterback, and not terribly proud of it. I’m learning to keep it to myself. Have my opinion but try not to tell them what to do. My least favorite phrase is “you should…” OMG, that sets me off. I had an employee for many years who said that at the beginning of a sentence within 10 minutes of me arriving at my shop each day. I could set my watch to it. At the very least, modify it: “You might consider…”. The “should” is really crossing the center lane. Since I’ve almost given up telling my daughter what to do and proclaiming my thoughts about this and that, we get along great. She can trust that I won’t be intrusive or a busybody in her life. She also doesn’t tell me what to do. We have peaceful exchanges on the phone. What a novelty for many mothers and daughters. Stay in your own lane! When I asked my husband, an experienced gardener, which edible plant does not stay in its own lane, he immediately said “mint.”I couldn’t agree more. Be careful where in your yard you plant it, because it is the ultimate busybody. Each year, it comes up fuller and wider than ever. Mint plants travel everywhere! Despite their propensity to be pushy, mint plants have a venerable history. The name is derived from “mentha,” the Greek word for this genus of plants. They have been around in the Middle East for over 3,500 years. Originally, mint was used for medicinal purposes to help with digestive ailments. Because of its pleasing taste, it has become a flavoring for all kinds of dishes. Greeks use it in recipes for salads, soups, vegetables and lamb. Mint is also widely used in Thai and Vietnamese cooking. There are many varieties of mint, spearmint and peppermint being the most popular. This refreshing herb doesn’t just wander all over our gardens. It has infiltrated the drug store. Yes, the drug store. Mint flavoring is added to toothpaste, mouthwash, chewing gum, throat lozenges, cough syrup, lip balm and the like. Invasive! Today’s recipe features mint, adding a bright flavor to a vegetarian quinoa salad. You could make a case for swapping it out and using another herb, but I personally think it goes great with fresh fruit, nuts, and cucumbers. The lemony dressing pulls it all together nicely. As usual, feel free to put your own spin on the basic ingredients. Write to us here at The Insider and share with us who needs to be put in a hula hoop. I hope it’s not you! Minty Quinoa Salad with Fruit and Nuts Yield: 8 servings 1 c. white quinoa 1 3/4 c. water 2 Persian cucumbers, cut into 1/4” dice 1 c. diced strawberries, blotted dry with paper towel 1 navel orange, peeled, pithed, cut into 1/8” pieces 1 c. crumbled feta cheese 3/4 c. chiffonade fresh mint 1/2 c. toasted slivered almonds 1/2 c. lemon vinaigrette, or to taste 1 tsp. salt 1/2 tsp. coarse ground black pepper Make Quinoa: In a medium saucepan, combine the quinoa and water. Bring to a boil; turn down to a simmer. Cover; cook 15 minutes. Flake with a fork; put in a bowl. When the quinoa has cooled, add the remaining ingredients. Adjust the seasoning. Allow flavors to meld for an hour or so. Adjust seasoning again if needed. Serve cold or at room temperature. Lemon Vinaigrette Dressing 2 garlic cloves, minced 2 tsp. Dijon mustard 1 tsp. salt 1/2 tsp. coarse ground black pepper 1/3 c. fresh lemon juice 1 c. extra virgin olive oil Make Lemon Vinaigrette: Put garlic, mustard, and seasonings in a clean 12 oz. jar. Add lemon juice and shake. Pour in the oil. Shake vigorously. Just before adding to the salad, shake again. Bonnie Fishman attended the Cordon Bleu Cookery School in London. Later, she owned and operated Bonnie’s Patisserie in Southfield, Mich. and Bonnie’s Kitchen and Catering in Bloomfield Hills, Mich. She has taught cooking for over 35 years and created hundreds of recipes. She is now living in Northern California.

By Emmy Serviss / Boston There have been plenty of movies that feature bitter bridesmaids. My Best Friend’s Wedding, where Julia Roberts is jealous of the bride, Cameron Diaz. Bridesmaids, where Kristen Wiig is threatened by another bridesmaid; Rose Byrne. And 27 Dresses, where Katherine Heigl is resentful of her diminishing closet space. But me? I like being a bridesmaid! My first tour of duty was in 2010, when I was 28. I was living in Portland, Ore., at the time, so I flew all the way across the country to upstate New York for the occasion. My second tour was just a few months later, at a lavish Disney wedding. (The Bride arrived in Cinderella’s magical coach!) My latest bridesmaid adventure was a few weeks ago, for Kristen, a good friend I’d made doing comedy in Boston. We met up for a casual dinner at Panera and I was presented with a cute gift bag and card asking, “Will you be my bridesmaid?” Of course, I said yes! I had a 13-year gap in my bridesmaid résumé, but I was sure it would be like riding a bike. If that bike were full of lace and taffeta. The first two times I was a bridesmaid, I was living in a different state than the bride, so I didn’t get to participate in many of the prenuptial activities. But this time, I was one of the only bridesmaids living in Boston, so I was excited for ALL the fun #TeamBride activities! The Bride asked if I would accompany her to her wedding gown fitting so I could learn how to lace and bustle her into the gown, so I could be in charge of that task on the big day. I was honored (AND TERRIFIED) to be asked to handle such an important job. My terror only increased as the seamstress berated me on my buttoning technique. To be fair, there is a very specific method to successfully using a crochet hook to button the TINY buttons that line the back of the dress. So, while the instructor was firm and demanding, she was also right. She suggested I take videos of her expertly buttoning and bustling the dress, so I could study the videos later. Again, she was absolutely correct. Those videos were a lifesaver! The Bachelorette party was a fun (but sensible!) dinner out in the Boston Seaport district, followed by drinks at a gorgeous rooftop bar nearby. It was February, so it was still cold outside. BUT there were heated lamps on the outside balcony, so with the heated lamps and our coats, it was actually pretty comfortable! (And a much cheaper option than renting the $500 glass igloos.) Two months later, the big weekend finally arrived! My boyfriend and I packed up a car and drove to the Mountain Top Inn in Vermont. The lodge is aptly named, being nestled in the Green Mountains and has no shortage of gorgeous views. After the rehearsal at the church, we enjoyed a delicious dinner, drinks and conversations around a crackling firepit. I called it an early night though, because the bridesmaids were scheduled to arrive at 8 a.m. sharp for hair and makeup. I am not a morning person, but when one of my good friends gets married, I make an exception! At the Bride’s quarters, we were treated to fruit, pastries, coffee, mimosas, and eggs made-to-order by the Father of the Bride. Our Hair and Make-Up artist expertly coiffed our hair and painted our faces and I felt like a princess! After helping Kristen into her wedding dress, we took photos before heading to the church. I know that it’s typical for everyone to stand and watch the Bride as she walks down the aisle, but not me. I love watching the Groom. There’s so much love and joy in the Groom’s face as he sees his Bride for the first time, it’s my favorite part of the ceremony. The rest of the evening was full of dancing, laughter and being smitten with my date. When you’re at a wedding, it’s easy for your mind to wander. In my younger days, I would often get misty-eyed as I watched couple after couple tie the knot, and I was still trying to find a partner who would stick around longer than a few months. I was always happy for the newlyweds, but I couldn’t help but be a little wistful. But in my older and wiser days, I’ve become better at separating myself from the wedding. I am certainly allowed to have feelings about my own relationships, but someone else’s wedding has nothing to do with me. It’s not a reflection on me, it’s not a dig at me and it’s just not about me. (from left to right) Ithaca, N.Y. in 2010, Los Angeles, Calif. in 2010 and Chittenden, Vt. in 2023 So, until it’s my turn to take a trip down the aisle, I’m happy to continue donning a bridesmaid’s gown. Granted, I’m still 24 dresses shy of Katherine Heigl’s cinematic record, but  maybe if I reach double digits, I’ll be singing a different tune. Emmy Serviss is a Boston-based writer, actor and video editor. Once it is safe to return to live theater, you can find her performing with ComedySportz Boston and the sketch group SUZZY. When not on the stage, Emmy enjoys indulging in her new pandemic hobbies, laughing way too loudly and counting the days until Halloween.

Jeffrey D. Sachs | May 5, 2023 | New World Economy The key to economic development and ending poverty is investment. Nations achieve prosperity by investing in four priorities. Most important is investing in people, through quality education and health care. The next is infrastructure, such as electricity, safe water, digital networks, and public transport. The third is natural capital, protecting nature. The fourth is business investment. The key is finance: mobilizing the funds to invest at the scale and speed required. In principle, the world should operate as an interconnected system. The rich countries, with high levels of education, healthcare, infrastructure, and business capital, should supply ample finance to the poor countries, which must urgently build up their human, infrastructure, natural, and business capital. Money should flow from rich to poor countries. As the emerging market countries became richer, profits and interest would flow back to rich countries as returns on their investments. That’s a win-win proposition. Both rich and poor countries benefit. Poor countries become richer; rich countries earn higher returns than they would if they invested only in their own economies. Strangely, international finance doesn’t work that way. Rich countries invest mainly in rich economies. Poorer countries get only a trickle of funds, not enough to lift out of poverty. The poorest half of the world (low-income and lower-middle-income countries) currently produces around $10 trillion a year, while the richest half of the world (high-income and upper-middle-income countries) produces around $90 trillion. Financing from the richer half to the poorer half should be perhaps $2-3 trillion year. In fact, it’s a small fraction of that. The problem is that investing in poorer countries seems too risky. This is true if we look at the short run. Suppose that the government of a low-income country wants to borrow to fund public education. The economic returns to education are very high, but need 20-30 years to realize, as today’s children progress through 12-16 years of schooling and only then enter the labor market. Yet loans are often for only 5 years, and are denominated in US dollars rather than the national currency. Suppose the country borrows $2 billion today, due in five years. That’s okay if in 5 years, the government can refinance the $2 billion with yet another five-year loan. With five refinance loans, each for five years, debt repayments are delayed for 30 years, by which time the economy will have grown sufficiently to repay the debt without another loan. Yet, at some point along the way, the country will likely find it difficult to refinance the debt. Perhaps a pandemic, or Wall Street banking crisis, or election uncertainty will scare investors. When the country tries to refinance the $2 billion, it finds itself shut out from the financial market. Without enough dollars at hand, and no new loan, it defaults, and lands in the IMF emergency room. Like most emergency rooms, what ensues is not pleasant to behold. The government slashes public spending, incurs social unrest, and faces prolonged negotiations with foreign creditors. In short, the country is plunged into a deep financial, economic, and social crisis. Knowing this in advance, credit-rating agencies like Moody’s and S&P Global give the countries a low credit score, below “investment grade.” As a result, poorer countries are unable to borrow long term. Governments need to invest for the long term, but short-term loans push governments to short-term thinking and investing. Poor countries also pay very high interest rates. While the US government pays less than 4 percent per year on 30-year borrowing, the government of a poor country often pays more than 10 percent on 5-year loans. The IMF, for its part, advises the governments of poorer countries not to borrow very much. In effect, the IMF tells the government: better to forgo education (or electricity, or safe water, or paved roads) to avoid a future debt crisis. That’s tragic advice! It results in a poverty trap, rather than an escape from poverty. The situation has become intolerable. The poorer half of the world is being told by the richer half: decarbonize your energy system; guarantee universal healthcare, education, and access to digital services; protect your rainforests; ensure safe water and sanitation; and more. And yet they are somehow to do all of this with a trickle of 5-year loans at 10 percent interest! The problem isn’t with the global goals. These are within reach, but only if the investment flows are high enough. The problem is the lack of global solidarity. Poorer nations need 30-year loans at 4 percent, not 5-year loans at more than 10 percent, and they need much more financing. Put more simply, the poorer countries are demanding an end to global financial apartheid. There are two key ways to accomplish this. The first way is to expand roughly fivefold the financing by the World Bank and the regional development banks (such as the African Development Bank). Those banks can borrow at 30 years and around 4 percent, and on-lend to poorer countries on those favorable terms. Yet their operations are too small. For the banks to scale-up, the G20 countries (including the US, China, and EU) need to put a lot more capital into those multilateral banks. The second way is to fix the credit-rating system, the IMF’s debt advice, and the financial management systems of the borrowing countries. The system needs to be reoriented towards long-term sustainable development. If poorer countries are enabled to borrow for 30 years, rather than 5 years, they won’t face financial crises in the meantime. With the right kind of long-term borrowing strategy, backed up by more accurate credit ratings and better IMF advice, the poorer countries will access much higher flows on much more favorable terms. The major countries will have four meetings on global finance this year: in Paris in June, Delhi in September, the UN in September, and Dubai in November. If the big countries work together, they can solve this. That’s their real job, rather than fighting endless, destructive, and disastrous wars. Translations and global syndication: Jordan, The Jordan Times, May 6: http://www.jordantimes.com/opinion/jeffrey-sachs/money-makes-world-go-round-—-and-development-succeed South Africa, The Daily Maverick, May 8: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2023-05-08-new-world-economy-money-makes-the-world-go-round-so-heres-a-win-win-proposition/ https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/money-makes-the-world-go-round

By Steve Cash / Detroit My friend Spencer, who is going through a late-life crisis, asked me if I knew a good therapist he could contact. It got me thinking about the many, many years I spent with various psychologists and psychiatrists. Here’s a brief rundown of my attempt to try and get it together, and my near hopeless attempt to find a normal therapist. Names have been changed to dissuade the litigious. I was in therapy on and off for 25 years. I won't bore you with all the reasons except these few: Poor self-image, no confidence with girls, insecure, you know, the normal, neurotic, Woody Allen-ish hang-ups. At 20, I decided to do something about it. Since I didn't know where to begin, I looked in the Yellow Pages. Big mistake. I picked the closest therapist and made an appointment. She told me she worked out of her house. When I arrived, I was greeted by a heavyset middle-aged woman. She introduced herself and led me down to her basement office. She knew I was nervous and told me to sit on the floor and relax. The surroundings were pleasant. Lovely Berber carpet, dropped ceiling and a wet bar. She brought out some huge fluffy pillows and encouraged me to get comfortable. Sitting on the floor and lying on oversized pillows seemed unusual to me, but what do I know? I'm nuts. I told her my story and she made some helpful suggestions. She pointed out that my parents had mistreated me and I was clearly a victim. I later found out that the person who is paying the therapist is always told that he is the victim. It’s only your fault if somebody else is paying. (Shrinks learn that on the first day of therapy school.) Then the fun started. She asked me to pick up the fluffy pillow and hit her with it. She would then hit me back, she explained. I was new to this, but I figured this little game was to express anger and to vent during the session, instead of outside in the real world. We whacked each other for a good five minutes. I was just starting to enjoy it when she ordered me to stop. She then suggested that we hug for the last 5 minutes of the session. She said she was trying to show me that there was time for anger and time for kindness and I needed to learn the difference. I awkwardly grabbed her and hugged away. I remember thinking how ironic this was. Here I am paying big money to hug this overfed 60-year-old therapist and the real reason I'm here is that I can’t get a 20-year-old girl to hug me. When she let go, the time was up. She asked me to make another appointment. I politely told her that she was great but not quite right for me. I think she understood although when I bent down to tie my shoe, she took the opportunity to smack me one more time with that pillow. And they say I'm nuts! My search for the right fit continued. This time I got a personal referral from my cousin. He raved about a brilliant psychiatrist. My cousin said the doctor was compassionate and smart as a whip. I gave his office a call. Just to be safe I asked his receptionist if he had any pillows in his office, and she assured me he did not. Feeling safe, I set up our first meeting. He was a tall, distinguished-looking man, about 55. His office was very professional. Leather chairs, a mahogany desk and hundreds of impressive psychology books in plain sight. This was the real thing, I thought. My words poured out effortlessly. He encouraged me to bare my soul. He seemed genuinely interested and concerned. Then it started, the incessant twitching. This man had every tick in the book. He shrugged his shoulders, he wiggled his nose, he scratched his ear, his right foot never stopped tapping. As you might imagine, this was a bit distracting. Here I am looking for answers on my impotence problem and this guy is rolling his eyes and looking at the wax he just pulled out of his ears. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but he made a Tourette’s sufferer look comatose by comparison. Then it hit me. Maybe this was a test. Maybe he was conducting some kind of an experiment. Maybe he wanted to see how I would cope with an uncomfortable situation. That had to be it, I thought, because no one could take this guy seriously if he really had that many nervous and annoying habits. I decided to play along. Instead of getting turned off by his twitches, I would show him my adaptability and patience by mimicking his actions, saying in effect, “Hey, you're weird, but I accept you”. The next few minutes were reminiscent of a good Three Stooges episode He wiggled his ears and so did I. He kept sticking out his tongue and so did I. He blew his nose, and in turn, so did I . As the session ended, I thanked him and was determined to see him again. He informed me that this was our first and last meeting. Furthermore, he chastised me for mocking his affliction. I tried to explain but to no avail. I could not convince this insecure doctor that I was not mimicking him in a cruel way. As I left, he charged me $200. Trying to stay in the spirit of our session, I charged him $200 right back. You should have seen him twitch then. And they say I'm nuts! Finally, after years of trial and error, I found the right one. Dr. Harvey was my age and we had a lot in common. We shared the same culture and grew up in the same city. He helped me work through a lot of confusing feelings. I realized that by understanding my past behavior, I could react differently when the situation came up again. This was a real breakthrough. I looked forward to our sessions with one nagging concern. I was always afraid of seeing someone I know in his office. Therapy is more accepted now, but still I felt embarrassed. Then it happened. After a really good session, my worst fear came true. I walked out into the lobby and there he was. Teddy Kahn. Teddy was a high school buddy of mine. I hadn't seen him in 20 years. After the initial panic passed, I tried to be rational. After all, Teddy was there, too. If he outed me, he would be outing himself. A sense of relief passed through me. "It’s been 20 years! How you doing?” Teddy asked. "How do you think I'm doing, Teddy? I'm coming out of a psychiatrist's office and you're no better, you're going in” I said with confidence. "Steve, I'm Dr. Harvey's CPA!” Teddy exclaimed. “I'm here to do his taxes.” With my head hung low, I walked away in silence. Given my experiences, I didn’t feel comfortable recommending a therapist to my friend Spencer, but I said that I would be willing to treat him myself. I don’t have a license or any credentials, but if ticks, neurosis, and paranoia are prerequisites, I am obviously overqualified And they say I’m nuts! Steve Cash is originally from Oak Park, Mich. He is a longtime real estate agent who used to do stand-up comedy in L.A. His claim to fame was winning The Gong Show in 1977, and working at the Comedy Store with such greats as David Letterman, Jay Leno, and Michael Keaton. After watching those brilliant comics perform, Steve realized he’d better make a beeline back to Detroit and get back into real estate. Steve has had articles published in a number of publications and enjoys writing and trying to make people laugh.

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

By John Woodford / Ann Arbor, Mich. A few words on the meaning of “Game On,” the name of my new column: The games people play range from idle fun, which can involve either mindless or mindful ways of messing around, to highly regulated contests against opponents vying for immaterial or material stakes. The dictionary says games are “decided by skill, strength or luck.” But as we all know, some games are decided by cheating or trickery. In fact, some games are determined by who can better “game” the system. So, oxymoronically, the loser of a game is sometimes “game,” as in quarry. My column will focus on all forms of games and gaming ranging from overt sport and play — the “bread and circuses” that the Roman satirist Juvenal identified as a way in which the powers-that-be appease a jaded and decadent populace — to subtler ways in which our powers-that-be are gaming “We the People,” not just by bread and circuses but via politics, news media and the arts as well. Let’s start with the controversial subject of Major League Baseball (MLB), which was once the highest form of a sport not only born in the U.S.A. but co-identified with our nation, right along with apple pie, Chevrolets and, per H. Rap Brown, violence. I maintain that MLB now is no longer the pinnacle of baseball, and that even a Little League game today offers a finer example of what baseball has been and should be. The cabal that runs MLB has observed over the past two decades or so a constantly waning interest in baseball, which they gauge by the number of TV viewers and ballpark attendees. For well over a century, the game of baseball took place on green fields of dreams all over the country, in pro- and semi-pro leagues, traveling professional and amateur squads, on Little League, Babe Ruth League and Pony League diamonds, on public school fields, and in pick-up games in sand lots and public parks in small towns and big cities alike. Most of that action has disappeared, not only in our big cities but also in most small towns. Most baseball fields are unattended today, strewn with weeds, broken glass and rusty cans. School districts say they don’t have the money to maintain the fields or to equip and outfit the teams. A lot of youth baseball today involves private commercial leagues that charge participation fees that only well-to-do families can afford. That’s why so many of our major leaguers now come from Latin American countries where the sport is still played with authentic passion. Wannabe pros from those locales sign initial contracts well below figures commanded by U.S. players. MLB depends on TV commercials. Broadcast deals provided the bulk of the record-setting $10.8 billion in revenues MLB chalked up last year. The glut of ads has grown so thick that the time of a nine-inning MLB game stretched to three hours and 11 minutes in 2021, up from less than two hours when Babe Ruth was playing in 1920. But far from blaming commercialism for this expansion of game time, MLB accused pitchers of taking too long between pitches. A new rule was introduced this year, requiring a pitcher to start his pitch within 15 seconds of the time he receives the ball with no runners on base, within 20 seconds with a runner on base and within 30 seconds between batters. This rule will be easier to comply with once someone builds the right robot for the job. Meanwhile, the human pitchers are stressed, as the rule makers knew they would be, and therefore more likely to give up hits, throw wild pitches or fail to keep runners from stealing bases. The new rule is working. So far this year, games are averaging two hours and 39 minutes, 22 minutes shorter than last year. But showing where its heart is, MLB is letting fans at the park buy beer later into the games than they used to. The cutoff used to be the seventh inning but now it’s the eighth, so the reduced game time won’t jeopardize the profits of the breweries. (It will, however, mean fans can leave the parks with more unabsorbed alcohol in their bodies, but that’s a game between them and the traffic cops.) The oligarchs of MLB also blamed flexible defensive tactics for making it harder for batters to get base hits. Teams were moving infielders around to counter the tendencies of batters to hit to either the left or right side of the field. They could also station a fielder at the outer edge of the infield, on the outfield grass that is at the margin with the dirt infield. This tactic is now restricted by complicated rules that are unofficially known as a “shift ban.” MLB’s stated purpose in curbing the freedom that game players should enjoy by shifting their defensive positions was to produce more hits and runs. More excitement. But all they had to do to give hitters a better chance of succeeding was to lower the pitcher’s mound. Pitchers gain an advantage by throwing the baseball down toward their target. In 1969, MLB lowered the maximum height of the pitching mound to 10 inches, five inches below the previous limit. And it worked. With today’s bigger, stronger pitchers, batting averages have been dropping, along with runs scored. So further lowering the mound would increase the hits and runs and excitement without interfering with the defensive team’s freedom to deploy fielders wherever they wished. But the owners prefer to show their employees who’s the boss. The meddling by MLB honchos hasn’t stopped there. They decided this year to make permanent a goofy experimental “tie-breaker” rule that contaminates the game by placing a runner for the team at bat on second base at the beginning of each extra inning. The runner is nicknamed “the ghost runner,” because the runner doesn’t have to get a hit to be awarded a double. When the extra inning opens, there he is, standing on second base! This change results in a better chance of batting in a run, thereby reducing the length of tied extra-inning games. For me, the no-shift rule is definitely the worst of the new rules, because it interferes with a team’s skill at devising its own defense batter-by-batter. That and the ghost runner are the last straws for me. I’ll confine my baseball viewing to any league that doesn’t introduce such rules. Similar interference by investor types in other sports has soured me on those sports, too: Pro football requires a pass receiver to have two feet in bounds when he catches a pass on the sidelines. It’s a dumb rule with no rationale other than to require a receiver to make a risky contortion of his body, thus exposing him to unnecessary injury. The Canadian and college football leagues, like most other sports with boundaries, sensibly require only one foot to be in bounds for a catch to be successful. I’ll close with professional basketball’s worst rule, since we’re now in the thick of an exciting NBA playoff season. If a team calls a timeout with the ball on its half of the court, the ball can be advanced to the opponent’s half of the court, much closer to the basket, simply by virtue of the timeout. That is a perversion of the spirit of a game. It’s a corruption of the spirit of play to let a timeout, rather than a player’s dribbling or passing the ball, advance the play up court. Why is it done? They say it’s to excite the fans. Bread and circuses! John Woodford lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where he retired after two decades as the executive editor of Michigan Today, a University of Michigan alumni/ae publication. His career in journalism includes editing and/or reporting duties for Ebony magazine, Muhammad Speaks newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times, the New Haven Register, the New York Times and Ford Motor company publications.

By Bonnie Fishman / San Francisco Bay Area As we approach Mother’s Day this weekend, I think of a conundrum that faces many mothers. This is theoretically a day when someone else takes care of us moms, making us a meal, buying us flowers, giving us a rest from household chores and watching young children. However, if you’re fortunate enough to still have a mom or mother-in-law who has expectations about her own Mother’s Day celebration, you may well ask, “Do I care for others today or take care of myself?” This is a tough one, as I bet you mothers out there know. We read and talk about the Sandwich Generation, those of us literally stuck in the middle with you. The Sandwich Generation is defined as those between the ages of 40-59 who are caring for both children and aging parents. According to the American Psychological Association, almost 40 percent of those from ages 35-54 report extreme levels of stress: “This stress takes a toll not only on personal relationships but also on their own well-being as they struggle to take better care of themselves.” While raising my two kids and running my business, I didn’t have that opportunity with my mother. We buried her 52 years ago this Mother’s Day. I was a caregiver for her when I was a kid so I haven’t been blessed with being torn between two generations. I did, however, have a mother-in-law for many years and we always celebrated her with either a brunch or dinner at our house. Going out on the busiest restaurant day of the year was not in the cards. I fussed and put my own needs aside. Isn’t that what mothers do? Put others before themselves? I sure did. It was what I was taught and what I thought was my role. I was talking to my good friend Debbi last week about her own personal experience. Her children were young, she worked full-time, she was newly divorced, she had a house to take care of and her elderly mother became ill. Debbi was the only sibling living in the same city as her mother. The stress was unimaginable. This is not an isolated case. I see changes in this generation of young people. My son and his wife really support and help each other with the house and kids. It’s a beautiful thing. I admire my daughter-in-law, Rachel, and how she gracefully navigates motherhood. She is very present for her two young boys, my son (her husband) and their home. However, Rachel engages in “self-care”, something I never dreamt of. What a blessing for her and really the whole family. She’ll take hikes with friends and solo walks, run, take an evening off and occasionally go on a retreat alone. Now she can be calmer for the inevitable dicey times that arise with small children and their own struggles. Fortunately for Rachel, she is not caught in the middle with elderly parents. There is a major shift in the family dynamic when a mother is raising a family, working full time, and taking care of sick parents. That is the real Sandwich Generation. Where do your loyalties lie? Sometimes, it’s whomever is in the most need of assistance. Mothers have a number of different roles: nurturing, caring, loving, directing family “traffic,” providing a safe home, cooking, and, well, mothering. It’s a huge responsibility. Sometimes we, as a society, don’t stop and think of the magnitude of what many women do day in and out. We definitely should. To celebrate all you mothers out there, I’m offering a classic French sandwich, the Croque Monsieur, in honor of the Sandwich Generation. It’s great for breakfast or lunch. This recipe is made with ham, but the ham can be replaced by turkey, changing it into a Croque Madame. You can also make it vegetarian by using two different cheeses. Tell us here at The Insider if you are taking care of yourselves on this upcoming Mother’s Day. At the very least, have someone make you a Croque for breakfast! Croque Monsieur Yield: As many as you want! 1 loaf of sour dough or egg bread, sliced 1 lg. or 2 medium onions, sliced thin 2 Tbsp. vegetable oil Per sandwich: 2 pieces of bread a smear of Dijon mustard 2 thin slices ham (see note) 2 thin slices Swiss cheese 2 lg. eggs, scrambled 1 Tbsp. oil 1 Tbsp. butter Make the caramelized onions: In a medium skillet, heat the 2 Tbsp. oil over moderate heat. Add the onions. Sauté until translucent, about 5 minutes. Turn heat down to moderately low. Cook onions until very soft and browned, stirring occasionally. Do not rush this step, it may take 30 minutes. Season lightly with salt and pepper. Reserve. Assemble sandwiches: Lay bread slices on your work surface. Spread bottoms with mustard. Place on a piece of cheese. Add the 2 slices of ham. Spread around about 1 Tbsp. caramelized onions. Add the second piece of cheese and then bread. Press down firmly with your palm. Heat oil and butter in a large skillet, enough to hold 2 sandwiches, over moderate heat. Scramble 2 eggs per sandwich in a medium bowl. When the oil is hot, dunk each sandwich into the egg, allowing it to soak up the egg. Make sure both sides have egg. Place the sandwiches in the pan. Turn heat down to moderately low. The sandwich needs to get hot enough to melt the cheese but not hot enough to burn the bread. Keep an eye on it. When done, place on a cutting board and cut into 4 triangles. Serve hot or warm. Note: You can replace the ham with sliced turkey. OR: You can make it vegetarian and use two different kinds of cheese. Bonnie Fishman attended the Cordon Bleu Cookery School in London. Later, she owned and operated Bonnie’s Patisserie in Southfield, Mich. and Bonnie’s Kitchen and Catering in Bloomfield Hills, Mich. She has taught cooking for over 35 years and created hundreds of recipes. She is now living in Northern California.

By Jessie Seigel / Washington, D.C. In December, Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema changed her party affiliation from Democrat to independent. Good riddance. Now that Sinema is no longer passing herself off as a Democrat, the field is open for Arizona U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego, a real Democrat, to become that party’s Senate candidate in the upcoming 2024 election. But—oops—not so fast. The Arizona race is thought to be pivotal to control of the Senate. If Sinema, the independent, runs as a third-party candidate in what is sure to be a hotly contested race, she could play the role of spoiler for Gallego’s chances in the general election. Sinema—Consensus Builder or Legislative Sabateur? Though Sinema pretends to worship bipartisanship, that appears to be a smokescreen for enhancing her own power and the conservative interests of those who fund her rather than furthering the policy goals of her party and the people who elected her. Sinema helped block a bill cutting prescription-drug prices. She upheld a filibuster of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. She forced President Biden’s plans for an expansive Build Back Better Act to be watered down. She voted against repealing former President Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy. And she cast the deciding vote against a minimum-wage increase. Adding insult to injury—as if shoving her vote in everyone’s face—she killed the minimum wage increase with a John McCain-style thumbs down and an ever-so-cute curtsy, as if taking a bow for her reactionary vote. Sinema has styled herself as an independent thinker, but her thoughts—when she deigns to share them at all—reveal someone who is either an extremely shallow thinker or a person using evasion to hide her true agenda. The Atlantic has recited her claim that she is “guided by an unchanging set of ‘values’…freedom, opportunity, and security.” These are not values but slogans containing no meaning unless one sets out the details of how one defines them—which Sinema does not do. When it comes to legislating, Sinema calls herself a pragmatic dealmaker, a problem solver, and a consensus builder. She refers to herself as getting things done. But getting things done is not a plus if they are the wrong things. And given Sinema’s funding by corporate interests and conservatives, one must ask precisely whose problems is she devoted to solving. According to Open Secrets, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics, in 2021 Sinema received nearly $500,000 from the pharmaceutical and financial service industries. And according to The Business Insider, in 2022, her campaign received $5,800 from Clarence Thomas’s favorite right-wing billionaire, Harlan Crow. So, it is not surprising that Sinema opposed the Democrats’ drug pricing plan. Or that she worked to water down President Biden’s Build Back Better plan which was opposed by the corporations, executives and lobbyists who fill her coffers. After the Uvalde, Tex. mass school shooting, Sinema was central in brokering a deal with Republicans that enhanced penalties for straw purchases (using a proxy to buy a firearm when one can’t pass the required background check), added extra background checks for 18 to 21-year-olds, and closed a loophole that had allowed some domestic abusers to own a firearm even if they had a protective order against them. Kudos to her for that. However, the legislation did nothing about the worst danger: military-style rifles. Legislation to address that would have been blocked by a Republican filibuster. Sinema told the New York Times that she would not pursue further limitations to deal with military-style rifles. She said: “I don’t spend my time in the world of fantasy. I spend my time in the world of the possible.” But if the filibuster, requiring 60 votes for passage of legislation, had been limited or eliminated, such a ban could have passed by a simple majority vote. It was Sinema’s protection of the filibuster that made such a ban a “fantasy.” She herself was cynically determining what was possible. Sinema has refused to defend—or even explain—her actions to anyone. According to The New Republic, her constituents “have to stalk her in public to earn a moment of her time.” Some even have followed her into a bathroom to make her listen to their concerns. Although Sinema will not defend her actions, she’s been more than willing to defend her refusal to explain them, telling The Atlantic: “There are some folks who really enjoy talking to the press so they can tell them what they think or whatever. I’m not that interested in telling people what I think.” But Sinema’s constituents have a right to know what she thinks—especially if she is taking positions or votes that go counter to the agendas she was elected to pursue. Her cavalier dismissal of that right is arrogant beyond measure. A Match-Up of Opposites U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego, a progressive, is currently running unopposed for the Democratic nomination for Senate in Arizona. He is all that Kyrsten Sinema is not. Gallego is committed to promoting Democratic policies. He has voted in line with President Biden’s positions 100 percent of the time. His priorities are not a rigid bipartisanship but substantive items like caring for homeless populations, addressing the lack of affordable housing, dealing with opioid addiction, mental illness, and immigration reform. Unlike Sinema, Gallego does not treat bipartisanship as an end goal. He told Cronkite News-Arizona PBS, “I’d rather get something done for the people of Arizona than be able to have some symbolic gesture that’s a half-measure but at least I can say it’s bipartisan. I think that’s just political theater.” He told the New Yorker, “Many times, politicians focus on this idea of how politics should be but not necessarily on the outcome. That ends up hurting people that need help. Sometimes you have to maybe not work hand in hand with your loyal opposition. Maybe you should focus on making people’s lives better…sometimes you should just care about the outcome.” The son of immigrants from Columbia and Mexico, Ruben Gallego and three sisters were raised by a single mother in Chicago. His father left when they were young. He and his three sisters had to depend upon free lunch programs to be sure they ate. Gallego described his family life to The New Yorker: “We had a two-bedroom apartment for five people. I was the only male, so I slept on the floor. I went to college. You know, it was a weird situation—we were poor, but we were working… I don’t think we thought of ourselves as poor. Now we understand that it was not great.” Gallego attended Harvard on a scholarship, but also had a work-study job cleaning other students’ rooms. He also served in the Marine Corps, was deployed to Iraq in 2005, and was in the fiercest fighting of the Iraq War. His battalion suffered the most casualties of any battalion. Gallego’s work and goals in his political career are informed by these life experiences. Like Gallego, Kyrsten Sinema was smart, graduating high school at 16 and college just before turning 19. She also had the grades to apply to Harvard, but was prevented by her family, who sent her to Brigham Young University instead. She too had a difficult early life. Her father, an attorney, was disbarred. Her mother, a Mormon, left him, remarried, and moved the family from Arizona to Florida. Because her stepfather had trouble finding work, Sinema and her family lived in a former gas station for almost three years. She and her siblings were dependent upon the Mormon church for hand-me-down clothes, and on food stamps. But apparently Sinema did not develop Gallego’s empathy. Gallego put this well to The New Yorker: “it’s weird to see somebody who I think went through the same thing just be, like, I’m not going to worry about these people anymore. I’m going to worry about these people who are already doing well, and already have power. It’s as if she literally forgot the lessons of being poor.” Since Sinema declared herself an independent, Gallego, thus far unopposed, seems to have a clear field to obtain the Democratic senatorial candidacy for Arizona. Sinema has not yet declared whether she will run for Senate in 2024, and no third-party candidate has ever won a statewide office in Arizona. But if she runs as an independent, Sinema could be a spoiler, throwing the race—and the Senate majority—to the Republicans. Considering her connections to corporate interests, it would not be surprising if she decides to do so. Of course, there’s always the joker in the deck—she could change parties yet again and make a run for the Republican nomination—though that would be giving away her game. Arizona Republican consultant Chuck Coughlin told the New York Times that in order to win, Sinema “needs 20 to 25 percent of Democratic voters, 25 to 30 percent of Republicans, and 50 to 60 percent of self-identified independents.” She is unlikely to get that. Democratic pollster Jill Normington has predicted that Sinema would come in last in a three-way race. However, independents comprise 33.7 percent of Arizona’s voters. To the degree Sinema is able to tap into the independents, she could deprive Gallego of those votes, throwing the election to the Republican candidate—and losing the Democrats their narrow Senate majority, one of the few bulwarks the nation has left to protect it against autocracy. If Sinema decides to be a spoiler, she currently has almost four times as much money at her disposal as Gallego does. On the other hand, in Gallego’s first official fundraising quarter, he outraised Sinema $3.7 million to $2.1 million. In a statement to The Hill, he pointed out: “Despite getting bankrolled by Wall Street lobbyists and corporate executives, Sinema couldn’t come close to our grassroots fundraising operation.” According to Gallego’s campaign, he received more than 106,000 individual donations over that first quarter—99 percent of them small donors who can give again—demonstrating the size of his grassroots support and ability to build a campaign infrastructure that can win statewide. Arizona is thought to be a must-win state in 2024 if the Democrats are to keep control of the Senate. The very narrow races for governor and attorney-general in 2022 have turned the state purple. Perhaps Gallego can turn it a true blue. Political columnist Jessie Seigel had a long career as a government attorney in which she honed her analytic skills. She has also twice received an Artist’s Fellowship from the Washington, D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities for her fiction, and has been a finalist for a number of literary awards. In addition, Seigel is 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. Of this balance in her work between the analytic and the imaginative, Seigel jokes, “I guess my right and left brains are well-balanced.” More on and from Seigel can be found at The Adventurous Writer, https://www.jessieseigel.com.

By Andy Borowitz | The New Yorker May 5, 2023 NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—Capping several quarters of robust profit growth, Ginni Thomas has announced that she will be listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Investors are expected to snap up shares in Thomas, who is believed to be the first spouse of a Supreme Court Justice also to be a major corporation. Harland Dorrinson, an analyst with Morgan Stanley, rated Thomas as a “strong buy,” telling CNBC, “I’m urging institutional investors to get out of the banking sector and into Ginni. Unlike the banks, Ginni doesn’t have to disclose where her revenue comes from.” He said that Mrs. Thomas’s listing on the N.Y.S.E. was a “cause for celebration” for all investors. “Billionaires have been buying and selling Ginni Thomas for years,” he said. “This will make it possible for smaller investors to get in on the action.” 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.