Jeffrey D. Sachs | March 19, 2023 | New World Economy The banking crisis that hit Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) last week has spread. We recall with a shudder two recent financial contagions: the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, which led to a deep Asian recession, and the 2008 Great Recession, which led to a global downturn. The new banking crisis hits a world economy already disrupted by pandemic, war, sanctions, geopolitical tensions, and climate shocks. At the root of the current banking crisis is the tightening of monetary conditions by the Fed and the European Central Bank (ECB) after years of expansionary monetary policy. In recent years, both the Fed and ECB held interest rates near zero and flooded the economy with liquidity, especially in response to the pandemic. Easy money resulted in inflation in 2022, and both central banks are now tightening monetary policy and raising interest rates to staunch inflation. Banks like SVB take in short-term deposits and use the deposits to make long-term investments. The banks pay interest on the deposits and aim for higher returns on the long-term investments. When the central banks raise short-term interest rates, rates paid on deposits may exceed the earnings on long-term investments. In that case, the banks’ earnings and capital fall. Banks may need to raise more capital to stay safe and in operation. In extreme cases, some banks may fail. Even a solvent bank may fail if depositors panic and suddenly try to withdraw their deposits, an event known as a bank run. Each depositor dashes to withdraw deposits ahead of the other depositors. Since the bank’s assets are tied up in long-term investments, the bank lacks the liquidity to provide ready cash to the panicked depositors. SVP succumbed to such a bank run and was quickly taken over by the US Government. Bank runs are a standard risk but can be avoided in three ways. First, banks should keep enough capital to absorb losses. Second, in the event of a bank run, central banks should provide banks with emergency liquidity, thereby ending the panic. Third, government deposit insurance should calm depositors. All three mechanisms may have failed in the case of SVB. First, SVB apparently allowed its balance sheet to become seriously impaired, and regulators did not react in time. Second, for unclear reasons, US regulators closed SVB rather than provide emergency central bank liquidity. Third, US deposit insurance guaranteed deposits only up to $US 250,000, and so did not stop a run by large depositors. After the run, US regulators announced they would guarantee all deposits. The immediate question is whether SVB’s failure is the start of a more general bank crisis. The rise of market interest rates caused by Fed and ECB tightening has impaired other banks as well. Now that a banking crisis has occurred, panics by depositors are more likely. Future bank runs can be avoided if the world’s central banks provide ample liquidity to banks facing runs. The Swiss central bank provided a loan to Credit Suisse for exactly this reason. The Federal Reserve has provided $152 billion in new lending to US banks in recent days. Emergency lending, however, partly offsets the central banks’ efforts to control inflation. Central banks are in a quandary. By pushing up interest rates, they make bank runs more likely. If they keep interest rates too low, however, inflationary pressures are likely to persist. The central banks will try to have it both ways: higher interest rates plus emergency liquidity, if needed. This is the right approach but comes with costs. The US and European economies were already experiencing stagflation: high inflation and slowing growth. The banking crisis will worsen the stagflation and possibly tip the US and Europe into recession. Some of the stagflation was the consequence of COVID-19, which induced the central banks to pump in massive liquidity in 2020, causing inflation in 2022. Some of the stagflation is the result of shocks caused by long-term climate change. Climate shocks could become worse this year if a new El Niño develops in the Pacific, as scientists say is increasingly likely. Yet stagflation has also been intensified by economic disruptions caused by the Ukraine War, US and EU sanctions against Russia, and rising tensions between the US and China. These geopolitical factors have disrupted the world economy by hitting supply chains, pushing up costs and prices while hindering output. We should regard diplomacy as a key macroeconomic tool. If diplomacy is used to end the Ukraine War, phase out the costly sanctions on Russia, and reduce tensions between the US and China, not only will the world be much safer, but stagflation will also be eased. Peace and cooperation are the best remedies to rising economic risks. https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/globalbankingcrisis-nwe

By Lydia Hope Wilen / New York City Lies are told for many reasons, including to protect ourselves or another from punishment, to spare someone’s feelings, to get out of a situation, to avoid embarrassment, to impress others, to get something not deserved, to get something you think you do deserve, to maintain privacy, to avoid judgment or anger or to increase popularity and acceptance.  I can go on all day with reasons to lie.  (That’s a lie. I just ran out of reasons.) Instead of thinking about why you’ve lied lately (and I think you have, even though you may be lying to yourself about not having lied lately), reading my lying and being lied-to younger life experiences may give you some insight into your own history of untruths. The Feared Beard Every so often, I’d have a sleepover at my grandparents Bubbe and Zayde’s apartment. During one of those times, Bubbe’s brother, my mother’s Uncle Nuska, visited. I took one look at Uncle Nuska and went running to a back room, where I stayed until he eventually ate lunch and left. As you can see from the photo above, Uncle Nuska had a full-grown beard. It terrified me. I wonder what Freud would say about a four-year-old with this abnormal facial-hair phobia. I would have been afraid of Freud too. He also had a beard. (Incidentally, the glamour gal in the print dress on the left in the photo, is Bubbe, my grandmother.) Knowing that seeing Uncle Nuska’s beard was traumatic for me, my grandfather found a solution. Zayde took apart the threads of a big piece of twine and bound the bushy, beardlike clump together with a rubber band. The next time I visited my grandparents, we had show-and-tell. Zayde showed me what he said was Uncle Nuska’s beard, telling me that he had cut it off because I was afraid of it. That was worth a lot of hugs and kisses. As fate would have it, one day, when I was at my grandparents’ home, Uncle Nuska came for an unannounced visit. I took one look at him and went running from the room. Once he left, I confronted my grandfather. “Zayde, you said you cut off Uncle Nuska’s beard. How come his beard is bigger than ever?” My grandfather had the presence of mind to offer me a reasonable cover-up for his lie: “It grew back.” Liar, Liar, Kitchen’s on Fire It was a school holiday. My father was working. My mother and sister were sleeping. I was awake and bored. There was a coffee can on the kitchen windowsill. I knew paper burned easily, but did metal, like that can? I took one of the two-inch safety matches from its box and lit the match by striking it on the side of the box. I then put the lit match on top of the coffee can, while holding a potholder to put out the fire, in case the can started burning. Well, the can didn’t burn, but the curtains covering the big kitchen window quickly went up in flames. I dropped the potholder and ran to my mother’s room, “Ma! Ma! Get up! The kitchen’s on fire!” Of course, my mother thought I was joking. “Be a good girl and let me sleep a little while longer.” I somehow made it clear that I wasn’t joking. “Ma, the kitchen is really on fire!” (Maybe Mom believed me because I talked in exclamation points.) My mother raced into the kitchen and managed to pull down the curtains. She then grabbed a seltzer bottle (we always had a case of seltzer bottles coming and going) and put out the fire. It was incredible and amazing to watch this short, chubby, henna-haired Wonder Woman in action. The fire had to be reported and two firemen came to make sure the fire wasn’t smoldering anywhere. They asked my mother how it happened. It was the one and only time I can ever remember my mother telling a real lie. She said she was cooking and the window was open. When she walked away, a gust of wind blew the curtain onto the range and it caught fire. My mother lied because she was embarrassed and ashamed to tell on her daughter, the arsonist. The upshot was that Bubbe salvaged the uncharred pieces of the red-and-white polka dot curtain and made me an adorable summer halter and shorts set. Maybe crime does pay. Cheers, Tears and Jeers It was the late 1950s and coming up on my parents’ 25th wedding anniversary. My sister Joany thought we should plan a surprise party for them. It would require a lot of planning, a lot of money and a lot of lying. The most famous nightclub in Brooklyn was The Elegante. I guess its name said it all. We were able to book a major portion of the club for June 11th, my parents’ anniversary date. It just so happened that Don Rickles was booked to entertain that night. Let the lies begin. We made every excuse to our parents for us not having a party for family and friends. Instead, we convinced Mom and Dad that the four of us would celebrate at The Elegante. Leading up to that night, we had to beg, maybe even threaten, the invited crowd not to say a word about the event if and when they talked to our mother or father. The night finally arrived. My mother’s cousin Moishe, who had a car and lived in our neighborhood, volunteered to drive us to the club. It was too warm to hide his dress-up suit under a coat, so he had to lie about the date he had scheduled after dropping us off at the club. From that experience alone, we learned that one lie invariably leads to many more. Oh, what a tangled web we crochet, when planning for the special day! Yet somehow, miraculously, the secret was safe, no one had a slip of the tongue, and when my parents walked into the nightclub and the large group of invited guests yelled, “Surprise!”, it truly was a surprise…maybe even a shock. It was the first time I saw my father cry. (I’m crying now, thinking about it.) The best part of the evening was when Don Rickles got on stage and picked on just about everyone in our party, except for my parents, Joany and me. He got in some real zingers and without our coaching. That evening was worth every lie we told to make it happen exactly the way it happened. And what are the chances of that happening? P.S. While doing this story, Insider editor Andrea Sachs and I discovered that both her parents and my parents got married on June 11th. What are the chances of that happening? Lydia Hope Wilen had a successful collaboration with her late sister Joany as nonfiction bestselling authors (18 books), journalists, TV personalities, writers and talent coordinators on a Nickelodeon series hosted by Leonard Nimoy, Reading Rainbow episodes, skit writers for Dr. Ruth's TV show, Diet America Challenge on CBS, and writers of screenplays (optioned but not produced yet). Lydia is writing on her own now and has just completed an extraordinary book for young people and their parents. It will have them laughing and learning...once she gets an agent and it gets published.

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 Bonnie Fishman / San Francisco Bay Area Move over, flourless, gluten-free chocolate cake! Lucious cream puffs (called profiteroles in France) and éclairs are both made from a special cream puff dough called pâte à choux. These majestic desserts have gone out of fashion. It’s past time to resurrect this delightfully light, versatile pastry dough. Pâte à choux or choux pastry (rhymes with shoe) is a classic French pastry. Choux in English means cabbage or sprout, and it bears that name because it resembles small cabbages.. This dough dates back to the mid-16th century, when it was created in Italy by the head chef of Catherine de’ Medici. It was perfected in France in the mid-18th century. When I opened my first shop, Bonnie’s Patisserie in Southfield, Mich. back in 1980, cream puffs and éclairs were available in European bakeries and specialty cafés. We sold a number of full-size choux pastries as well as petite cream puffs and éclairs. Both of these confections are filled with some type of cream, either whipped cream or pastry cream (custard). We used to blend the two together for the richness of the custard lightened by the whipped cream. We usually flavored them with vanilla, but they can be made with chocolate or mocha. What always amazes me about pâte à choux is how heavy and thick the raw dough is. But the end result is so light and airy. This is one reason I think they’re fun to make. Also, you can create many different shapes with the dough, depending on which tip you use in the pastry bag. My favorite design is a delicate swan. One clever idea for a different dessert is to make various flavors of profiteroles. For a sweet table, we used to make vanilla, mocha, and chocolate puffs. We piled them in different glass bowls or platters. We then offered a few sauces to top them with:, such as chocolate ganache, fresh soft caramel or raspberry coulis. The guests had a great time mixing and matching. Another fun idea that you see in restaurants is to form a large cream puff and split it in half horizontally. Fill the bottom with a scoop of ice cream. Replace the top, and coat with chocolate or caramel sauce. There are lots of (caloric!) possibilities here. The most regal presentation of profiteroles is a croquembouche, a pyramid of cream-filled puffs stuck together with sticky caramel. This show-stopping dessert is served at weddings and on Christmas. Each guest pulls off as many profiteroles as they desire. Now, let’s talk about savory puffs. A French favorite is the gougère, in which grated cheese is blended into the dough. They are either served plain or stuffed with a savory filling. You can also use plain puffs and fill them with savory purées, such as chicken liver mousse, shrimp mousse, or mushroom duxelles. Make sure these purees are very smooth. Back in 1978, when I catered my youngest sister Cindy’s first wedding, we made shrimp-filled puffs. I gave my sister Nancy the task of stuffing the puffs. I made a big mistake. My purée wasn’t smooth enough and it was a disaster. The shrimp pieces kept getting stuck in the nozzle and Nancy struggled with every other puff. Plus we were under time pressure to have the appetizers ready right after the wedding ceremony. Note to everyone: purée the filling thoroughly or you’ll be swearing up a storm! Reheat these savory puffs on a cookie sheet at 350° for about 12-15 minutes. Last weekend, I helped host my daughter Hanna’s jewelry pop-up trunk show at Urbn Ranch, a lovely boutique in Morgan Hill. (And yes, that’s a unique spelling, not a typo!) I provided an assortment of petite pastries; I split the mini-profiteroles with a vanilla and custard-cream combination and then inserted a fresh raspberry for a tasty treat plus added color. They were a big hit! Pâte à choux is not difficult to make but forming the puffs and éclairs can be tricky. Practice makes perfect, though. Fortunately, this batch in my recipe makes dozens of minis so you can try it over and over again. French pastry shops often bake them to a dark color. This is so they don’t get soggy once filled with cream. I like to bake them more lightly because I reheat them shortly before stuffing time. Re-bake them on a cookie sheet at 400° for 10-12 minutes to dry them out and darken a bit. It is not possible to give a quantity yield in my recipe because the size and shape of each pastry determines the total number. I promise you that it does make lots of minis, though. Let us know here at The Insider the size, shape, and flavor of the cream puffs you decide to make. Was there a lot of huffing to your puffing while stuffing?! Cream Puffs (Pâte à Choux) Yield: Depends upon shape and size Dough 1 1/2 c. water 6 oz.  butter, cut into pieces 1 1/2 c. flour 1/2 tsp. salt 5 lg. eggs 1 scrambled egg for brushing the tops In a large saucepan, melt the butter in the water. Bring to a boil. Add all the flour and salt at once. Stir with a wooden spoon. Continue to cook over moderately high heat until the dough comes together and pulls away from the sides of the pan, about 2-3 minutes.  Put in the bowl of a stand mixer. (If you don’t have one, empty the dough into a large bowl and stir with a wooden spoon until it cools.) Using the paddle, beat the dough until it cools down. Preheat oven to 400°. Line 2 cookie sheets with parchment paper. Reserve. Add the 5 lg. eggs, one at a time, waiting for each one to incorporate before adding the next.  Put the dough into a pastry bag fitted with a 1/2”-3/4” round top. Drop the dough into @ 1” balls or the size/shape of your choice. Leave a 1” space between them. Brush the tops with the beaten egg, smashing down the tip of the dough. Bake for @ 20 minutes or until golden brown. Cool completely before filling. If you make the dough a day or two ahead, store in a plastic bag. Reheat the puffs at 400° on cookie sheets for 10 minutes.  Cool completely. To assemble: Either fit a small round tip into a pastry bag and stuff with cream by inserting the tip in the pastry OR Slice the puff in half horizontally. Fit a star tip into the pastry bag and fill the bottom half with cream. Place the top pastry on the cream. Dust with confectioners’ sugar or top with chocolate glaze or caramel glaze. A raspberry can also be inserted in the puff. Pastry Cream 1 1/3 c. whole milk 4 lg. egg yolks scant 1/2 c. sugar 3 Tbsp. flour 1/2 tsp. vanilla In a small, heavy-bottom stainless saucepan, scald the milk. Whisk the yolks and sugar until lightened.  Slowly whisk in the flour.  Temper the yolks with the hot milk, slowly adding a bit of milk at a time, whisking constantly, until all the milk is incorporated.  Pour back into the pot. Bring the cream to a boil, then turn down to a light boil. Cook 3 minutes, whisking constantly. The mixture should be nicely thickened.  Whisk in the vanilla.  Pour into a bowl. Lay cling film onto the surface so no skin develops. Chill completely. Chantilly Cream (sweetened whipped cream) 1 c. heavy cream (not ultra-pasteurized) 2 Tbsp. sugar 1/2 tsp. vanilla Place bowl and beater in the freezer before whipping the cream. When very cold, whip the cream on high speed until soft peaks form.  Add the sugar and vanilla and continue whipping until stiff. Blend the pastry cream and whipped cream together in a bowl using a spatula. 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 Andy Borowitz | The New Yorker March 20, 2023 WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Rep. Kevin McCarthy spent much of the weekend doing yard work at Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s house, several eyewitnesses report. The Speaker of the House was seen mowing Greene’s lawn, as well as gathering leaves, twigs, and other yard detritus into a bag. While McCarthy was mowing, Greene emerged from her house and appeared to tell him that he “missed a spot,” according to one onlooker. At his Capitol office, McCarthy downplayed the scope of his weekend duties at Greene’s property. “I was driving by Marjorie’s house and noticed that her front yard could use a little sprucing up,” he said. “This was a hundred per cent my idea and something I wanted to do.” The Speaker refused to confirm or deny reports that he had also cleaned Greene’s gutters and oven. 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 Judi Markowitz I’m a mall walker during the cold and dreary winter months. I am there practically every afternoon , accompanied by my daughter Lindsay. She is disabled and I push her wheelchair as we careen through the mall looking at the sights— people watching and gazing at the window dressing of each store we pass. We typically walk about two miles a day. Lindsay and I are also known to partake in some quick shopping along the way — a detour through our favorite stores. A few weeks ago, I noticed there was a newish retailer at Somerset Mall in Troy, Mich. — Moose Knuckles, a Canadian store. In the window, there were mannequins adorned with their recent coat and clothing line. There was nothing unusual except for the fact that all the mannequins were black. I had never thought about mannequins before this close encounter. They have always been a staple in stores as long as I can remember. I am 71 years old, and it occurred to me that that the reason I hadn’t contemplated the color of mannequins is that they all looked like me — white. This sighting piqued my curiosity and I wanted to check out other stores in the mall to see if mannequins of color were used. That day, Lindsay and I walked over three miles on our mission. Somerset is a luxury shopping mall that has two separate sections of retail stores connected by a Skywalk, a 700-foot enclosed bridge, which gives a scenic view of Big Beaver Road. The south side is comprised of high-end stores such as Vince Camuto, Tumi, Gucci, Louis Vuitton and is anchored by Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. The north side is equally as nice, including more affordable stores, and is anchored by Macy’s and Nordstrom. Stores such as North Face, Hugo Boss, The Gap, White House/Black Market, and Victoria’s Secret are among the 180-plus stores comprising the mall. Additionally, there is a food court on the third floor of the mall and there are usually long lines for its enticing restaurants. I decided that Lindsay and I would investigate both sections. As we walked through the mall, I noticed that some mannequins of color have been sporadically placed in store fronts and inside the stores as well. But here it is, 2023, and I am left wondering about diversity in retail shops when it comes to their display mannequins. As was true in my childhood, flesh tone models that mirror my skin color, are still a dominant figure in retail shops today. This may seem trivial to some, but Troy is in close proximity to Detroit, which is 77 percent black. That’s a big base of potential shoppers to reflect and influence. During our search I realized there are many types of mannequins. Some are faceless with a smooth exterior, others have a full face — eyes, nose, and a mouth, and let’s not forget the headless mannequins which display clothing from the neck down. Unfortunately, these types appear like they were decapitated and don’t necessarily have the appeal of a full body form. The headless mannequins, at times, lack appendages too —it’s a strange look with shapeless clothing hanging from both sides. On a positive note, these types of mannequins are generally beige, grey, and sometimes even gold —neutral is good. It is reported that “these bodies could belong to anyone and everyone — faceless anonymity.” Some even have a small prong emerging from the neck — this is a bit over the top. Do designers think this is fashionable? I’m sure these protrusions serve as a good spot to place a hat — I only saw a few while exploring the mall. On the bright side, whether there’s a head on the mannequin, with or without a face, or headless, none of these mannequins sport those unattractive wigs used in past years— thank goodness for small gifts. Relax News published an enlightening article in 2009 with the headline boasting, “Mannequins hit hard by discrimination—and loss of face.” The author, Hélène Lafourcade, who was the lead visual merchandising agent for the French department store Galeries Lafayette, took a firm stand: “Mannequins are very important. They’re not just objects you stand up in the store. They’re static salespeople.” Lafourcade also added that mannequins probably multiply sales fourfold. Diversity could also be a tool for sales and the industry was just beginning to wake up to these issues. The word “mannequin “comes from the French word that means “an artist’s jointed model.” Mannequins originated in the 15th century using miniature models to demonstrate fashion ideas to would-be customers. Later, milliners in the 18th century began to use wickerwork mannequins. Soon wirework mannequins became the rage and were manufactured in Paris. As time progressed, artists were hired to create lifelike faces for newer models, and white was the dominant color. In the 20th century, couture started to use mannequins instead of live models when displaying clothes to wealthy women. In the 1950s and 1960s mannequins were commonplace for couture and ready- to-wear clothing. The trend has continued to this day, but all mannequins are not created equal. Paula DiPerna, the author of a 2019 article in CFDA.com (Council of Fashion Designers of America) came to the same realization about mannequin display colors as I did. When walking by one of her favorite stores in Manhattan, DiPerna was struck by the absurdity of using only white mannequins. She marched into the store and asked to speak with the windows manager. In no uncertain terms, DiPerna voiced her objection to the mannequins. Still fired up, she followed this with a letter stating “I am not a woman of color, but I can imagine that shoppers of color who walk past your windows might wish to see at least a hint of themselves represented in your stores…As you know, society more and more has recognized the importance and value of diversity of cultures, and this includes diversity in looks and race.” As time passed Paula noticed little change in the window dressing. Then, much to her surprise, there was a shift — half of the mannequins now had color and half were white. That was progress! Somerset Mall has made changes too, but more needs to be accomplished. As Lindsay and I strolled through both sides of the mall that day, there were stores that still sported all white, shiny, egg-headed mannequins in their windows and throughout the interior of the stores. Some of these retail outlets had windows filled with more than ten mannequins festooned with the latest in high fashion. Then, upon entering the store you are hit with more mannequins a few feet away from the entrance. It’s a mob scene of white. I was happy to observe the stores selling sporting equipment, exercise clothing, athletic gear, and athletic shoes have recently changed their mannequins — dark graphite and light grey are the colors of choice. Many of the clothing stores have done the same and ejected their all-white display models. It was also nice to see more mannequins of color used in some of the larger anchor stores as well. However, the staple of white still dominates in these multi-floor outlets. As a society we have certainly evolved with diversity in advertising, television programming and movies. Billboards illuminate our culture and inclusiveness is commonplace. Somerset is reported to be “among the most profitable malls in the United States.” This begs the question — why can’t retail stores integrate mannequins that reflect a wide cross section of society? Instead of only using white mannequins, colors such as gray, black, or gold should be a priority. I have even seen a sprinkling of orange mannequins — they make the clothing pop. According to Fixtures and Displays.com “retail store mannequins are a sound investment and key to visually marketing apparel and other merchandise in any retail outlet.” The fix appears to be easy, but the effort must be initiated. It’s way past the time for stores to change up the color combination of mannequins and join the 21st century. Customers want to see themselves reflected in the shopping experience and mannequins provide that mirror. Judi Markowitz is a retired high school English teacher of 34 years. She primarily taught 12th grade and had the pleasure of her three sons gracing her classes. In addition, she taught debate, forensics, and Detroit film. Judi has four adult children and seven wonderful grandchildren. She is married to Jeffrey Markowitz, whom she met in high school. Judi grew up in Oak Park, Mich. which had a stellar school district, with excellent teachers. The city provided activities for all–and there were even sidewalks. Judi moved to Huntington Woods as an adult, which is a half mile from her childhood home. She wanted the same experience for her children as she had growing up, and Huntington Woods provided that. The View from Four Foot Two is Judi’s first book.

Professor Jeffrey D. Sachs Chairman of the Lancet Covid-19 Commission To the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability March 6, 2023 After more than three years of the Covid-19 pandemic, and more than 18 million deaths worldwide according to one authoritative estimate (IHME, 2023), we still do not know the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19. We do know, however, four things. First, the virus may have emerged from dangerous laboratory research. Second, this dangerous research was partly funded by the US Government, and notably NIH, so the dangerous research involved US-China collaboration. Third, the NIH leadership and a group of scientists associated with NIH hid the possibility of a laboratory origin from the Congress and the public. Fourth, the question of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is not a partisan issue. While Republicans have taken the lead in exposing the possibility of a lab-related leak, Democrats should now join their Republican colleagues in a search for the truth. During 2020-2022, I chaired the Lancet Covid-19 Commission. The Lancet Commission followed the evidence on origins closely and concluded that both a laboratory origin and a natural origin are possible. The Commission called for ongoing investigations, with urgency, of this issue. I strongly commend the US Congress, and specifically, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, for taking on this crucial task. It is truly in the public interest. The issue of the origin is very important. If indeed the virus emerged from a laboratory, it reveals the remarkable danger of ongoing gain-of-function research largely unknown to the Congress and public. There is little if any oversight and accountability of such research, despite its dangers. In fact, very recently, researchers at Boston University genetically reengineered the Omicron Variant of SARS-CoV-2 in a manner that made it more pathogenic. Yet BU did not have any federal risk-benefit review or oversight for that dangerous work. US-government-funded gain-of-function research of concern is apparently underway in many locations—and is occurring without the federal risk-benefit review and oversight that, on paper, are mandated by US policies but that, in practice, have been ignored by US research funding agencies. Since the US has a vast and largely secretive biodefense research program, additional US-government-funded gain-of-function research of concern may be underway to an extent that is unknown by the public and the Congress. This is not to mention the extent of such research in other parts of the world. The reasons to believe that SARS-CoV-2 may have emerged from a laboratory are straightforward. One reason concerns the presence in the SARS-CoV-2 genome of a sequence encoding a "Furin Cleavage Site" (FCS). SARS-CoV-2 is the only one of the hundreds of SARS-related viruses ("sarbecoviruses") that has an FCS sequence. The presence of the FCS sequence in SARS-CoV-2 dramatically increases the transmissibility and pathogenicity of the virus. At least since 2006, FCS sequences have been an active target of research by scientists studying coronaviruses, precisely because it has been anticipated that inserting an FCS sequence into coronavirus genomes would make coronaviruses more dangerous. We know that in recent years US scientists had developed advanced techniques for inserting an FCS into a SARS-related coronavirus. Moreover, a partnership of US and Chinese scientists-- notably at EcoHealth Alliance, the University of North Carolina, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology--submitted a grant proposal to DARPA in 2018, just one year before the pandemic emerged, that explicitly proposed doing this. The grant proposal was not funded by DARPA, but the research may have been, and quite possibly was, carried out using other resources. Two basic facts are most concerning. First, NIH leaders, including former Director Francis Collins and Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institutes for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), kept the gain-of-function research hidden from the Congress and the public, and, indeed, repeatedly misled the Congress and the public about the subject. They did not properly disclose the NIH work that supported dangerous genetic manipulation of SARS-related coronaviruses. They did not disclose the DARPA proposal and its possible relevance to the origin of SARS-CoV-2. In fact, the public learned of DARPA proposal only through a leak. Moreover, Collins, Fauci, Jeremy Farrar (then the head of Wellcome Trust and now the Chief Scientist of WHO), and a group of scientists linked to NIH kept hidden from the public and Congress the possibility of a laboratory origin of the virus. They did this, in part, by producing a highly misleading paper, “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” that deflected attention from the possibility of a laboratory origin. In arguing against the possibility of a laboratory origin the paper misleadingly states: “However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone.”(20) The footnote 20, remarkably, is to a 2014 paper, used to rule out a laboratory origin of a 2020 pandemic! Responsible scientists would have made clear that between 2014 and 2020, US and Chinese scientists had continued to collect and manipulate large numbers of previously unreported SARS-related coronaviruses. Yet instead of alerting the scientific community and public to these key unknowns, the authors of the "Proximal Origin" paper promoted the false claim that a laboratory origin of the virus could be ruled out. Second, the dangerous research was undertaken collaboratively by US and Chinese researchers. Of course, the NIH does not know all that occurred in Chinese laboratories, but it does know much more than it has told the public and Congress about US-Chinese collaboration on the genetic manipulation of SARS-related viruses. The same is true for EcoHealth Alliance and the University of North Carolina. Remarkably, and distressingly, there seems to have been no concerted effort to date by US agencies, especially the NIH, to collect all of the electronic databases of SARS-like viruses held by EcoHealth Alliance, UNC, other US research centers, and US government entities, to examine these databases for clues as to the possible origins, including possible laboratory origins, of SARS-CoV-2. This lack of scrutiny is especially disturbing and puzzling given that key databases of SARS-related viruses have been built and maintained with NIH and other US-government funding. In addition to the urgent scientific scrutiny of virus databases, laboratory records, and other evidence held by US government, academic, and NGO entities that could shed light on the origins of SARS-CoV-2, there are many other key questions about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 that should be investigated by the House Oversight Committee as part of its deeply important public service. Key questions include the following: 1) When did various parts of the US Government become aware of a new cluster of pneumonia-like disease in China or elsewhere in 2019? 2) As it was increasingly clear in late 2019 that a new SARS-like virus was likely in circulation, when did the US Government gather evidence of US-supported research on the genetic manipulation of SARS-like viruses, under NIH grants or otherwise? 3) What did Dr. Anthony Fauci inform the White House, Congress, and the public regarding the conclusions of the NIH conference call with scientists on February 1, 2020, notably that the presence of the FCS in SARS-CoV-2 made a laboratory origin a real possibility? 4) When did NIH first discuss internally the implications of DARPA proposal for the possible origin of SARS-CoV-2? 5) What did Dr. Ralph Baric, the world’s leading scientist in the genetic manipulation of SARS-related coronaviruses, including the role of FCS, discuss with the NIH and other US government agencies early in the pandemic about the possibility of a laboratory origin? 6) On December 12, 2019, the UNC, NIH, and Moderna signed a “Material Transfer Agreement” (MTA) to share materials with regard to “mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates.” Was this timing a coincidence, or did Moderna, NIH, and UNC already know about the circulation of a new SARS-like virus as of mid-December 2019? 7) On January 13, 2020, NIH and Moderna announced a partnership to develop the mRNA1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, less than 2 days after the first posting of the genome of SARS-CoV-2, and weeks before any known cases of Covid-19 in the United States. When did NIH and Moderna first know about SARS-CoV-2, and how did they reach an agreement to go into Phase I trials of a specific mRNA vaccine within two days of the posting of the genome of the new virus? 8) In what ways did Drs. Francis Collins, Anthony Fauci, and Jeremy Farrar engage with the authors of “Proximal Origins”? 9) When were the authors of “Proximal Origins” first told by NIH or other US Government agencies about the DARPA proposal and other ongoing USG-supported gain-of-function research on SARS-like viruses? 10) Why did the authors of “Proximal Origins” fail to make clear that US and Chinese scientists were actively manipulating SARS-related coronaviruses, and why did they fail to re-address or retract the paper in light of the DARPA proposal, which makes clear the large number of previously unreported SARS-related coronaviruses and the intention of a US-Chinese scientific team to introduce an FCS into such viruses? https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VC/VC00/20230308/115426/HHRG-118-VC00-20230308-SD007.pdf

By John Rolfe / Red Hook, N.Y. Girls will be boys and boys will be girls. It’s a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world. –“Lola”, The Kinks, 1970 Among things that are harmful to children, where do you rate exposure to drag culture? I feel the far more pressing concerns are social media’s effects on self-esteem and mental health, violence (abuse, school shootings, crime), drugs (including tobacco and vaping), and poverty. Heck, junk food and its relationship to childhood obesity and diabetes deserve serious attention, yet former First Lady Michelle Obama was mocked for encouraging good nutrition, and opposed by the processed food industry that still ensures that kids get their ample daily doses of fat, sodium and sugar at school and at home. I see violent and sexualized popular entertainment, especially video games, as harmful, but I’d never heard of a drag queen story hour for kids until right-wing politicians started raising a stink about them during the past eight years. I’m still unaware of exactly how these events pose a clear and present societal scourge. So pardon me if I don’t get the mad rush in at least 15 states to pass laws that make it illegal to authorize, host, or perform in public “adult cabaret” entertainment featuring female or male impersonators who can be seen by minors 18 years of age and under. Merely singing, lip syncing, or dancing in ways considered “sexually suggestive” by a beholder can lead to prison terms of two-to-20 years, fines of up to $20,000 and status as a sex offender. One wonders what the prosecution-minded would make of this performance in 2000 by right-wing stalwarts Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani. All of this legislating is being done under the banner of protecting kids. Who could be against that? No one in their right mind advocates taking children to strip clubs or exposing them to graphic or even suggestively sexual performances. But not all drag performances are lewd, just as not all straight entertainment is larded with innuendo and worse (see network and cable comedies and dramas). According to psychologists who specialize in child and adolescent mental health, merely watching men dressed as women acting in campy ways, as Trump and Giuliani did, does not harm kids, who are inclined to be excited by colorful characters, costumes and music without automatically seeing anything sexual in them. It’s adults who project the worst onto it when sexual intention isn’t there. Kids often take things more in stride than adults do and the political/social uproar may be actually making matters worse than they would be. But parents have the power and obligation to view, discuss and explain what children watch. They also have a choice whether to take kids to shows. Yet even parental warnings in advertisements for drag events are not enough for some firebrands. Merely announcing these performances is tantamount to “encouraging kids” to go. Drag has been a part of mainstream entertainment since the days of William Shakespeare. It is featured prominently in Monty Python’s classic sketches and popular films such as Some Like It Hot, Tootsie, The Birdcage, Mrs. Doubtfire, and Hairspray as well as in glam rock music. RuPaul’s Drag Race reality show helped make LGBTQ culture in all its flamboyance more accepted. But this acceptance has alarmed conservatives, especially religious ones, who are twisting even mere attempts to understand and acknowledge the existence of gay and transgender people as some kind of sinister plot to subvert heterosexuality and the traditional family via “gender ideology.” The constant charges of “grooming” and “indoctrination” are false, according to groups such as The Zero Abuse Project, which point out that research shows the vast majority of child molesters are straight men with a sick desire for power and control over the vulnerable and a depraved idea of their ideal sexual partner. The myth that homosexuals are recruited also undergirds much of the right’s actions. I had gay friends when I was growing up and have worked around gay men throughout my life. None has ever tried to persuade me to be like them and I’ve never met anyone who claimed they were coaxed and convinced to become gay. My heterosexuality wasn’t a conscious choice. Attraction to women was something I naturally felt and acted on. I’ll bet the vast majority of humans can say the same thing, no matter which gender they desire. Even so, LGBTQ people are falsely accused of being natural pedophiles. Frankly, I find the right’s almost obsessive preoccupation with pedophilia and perversion to be alarming, particularly the QAnon trope about Democrats cannibalizing children. Yet to my knowledge there has been no widespread call for draconian legislation to combat the horrifying child molestation scandals that engulfed the Catholic Church and Boy Scouts of America. The targeting seems awfully selective. The claims of upholding morality also ring hollow. Donald Trump’s brand of “grab ’em by the pussy” locker room talk is admired by his followers as “manly” and vulgar “F—k Biden” flags fly within sight of schools. Now, protestors threaten to kill drag performers and sympathizers while violence against transgender people rises. So much for preserving wholesome values. Neo-Nazi, political and religious beliefs that encourage kids to hate their gay friends can hardly be considered healthy either. But we are now getting a slew of laws against drag shows and even discussing gender identity and roles in kindergarten through eighth grade. At a time when many of us, myself included, need to learn all we can from reliable experts about drag performers, LGBTQ people, and the causes and reality of transsexuality, this crusade comes across as a cheap, easy way to avoid uncomfortable realities, pick on vulnerable minorities, and avoid proposing legislation on more substantive and challenging issues. (We’re still waiting on Republicans to disclose Trump’s great new health plan.) Anti-drag and anti-LGBTQ hysteria is invading libraries where books are being banned and librarians face prosecution, and school theatre productions where the presence of gay characters incite parental complaints. Hey, I know from my own parental experience that schools can present, in my opinion, inappropriate material. Parents should express their concerns. As it is, I feel there is way too much gratuitous sex and violence in our culture and I can see how the traditionally raunchy component of drag is not alleviating fears. Comedian Andrew Doyle, a comedian who frequently appears at drag events, notes the increased attention being given to drag queen story hours but wonders why such performers feel the need to read books to children. “It’s perfectly possible for performers of Drag Queen Story Hour to read stories to children without all the eroticized preening and pouting we have come to expect from them,” Doyle wrote on UnHerd.com. “But why would any self-respecting artist want to do it? There is something deeply mystifying about drag queens who choose to anaesthetize their art form in order to regale infants with tales of teddy bears and picnics.” I understand the desire to promote acceptance and understanding, but such an endeavor must be undertaken carefully in our fearful, polarized, hateful atmosphere. The danger in many of the new laws is their lack of clear definition of what constitutes “obscene” and “objectionable.” They become open-ended opportunities for bigots to persecute and prosecute on the flimsiest of grounds. No wonder many teachers are afraid to address gender and sexual topics. There is concern in the LGBTQ community that even their pride events will be targeted. One also can’t help but wonder why, if ensuring that children see only “wholesome” entertainment, there are no moves to prosecute movie theatre owners and personnel who allow kids to see films filled with graphic sex and violence. Which do you think is more likely to disturb a young mind: a man in a dress and wig who is reading a story book or the horrendous torture scenes in mainstream movies like Reservoir Dogs and the Hostel series? A case-by-case sense of propriety, proportion and perspective is sorely needed. My main question is this: Are drag shows and story hours really worth ruining lives over with one-size-fits-all punishments like prison stretches and permanent sex offender stigma? There must be a more thoughtful way to respect the views and comfort levels of others while protecting kids. But politics is not the realm of careful thought. It is the home of visceral overreaction. John Rolfe is a former senior editor for Sports Illustrated for Kids, a longtime columnist for the Poughkeepsie Journal/USA Today Network, and author of The Goose in the Bathroom: Stirring Tales of Family Life. His school bus drivin’ blog “Hellions, Mayhem and Brake Failure” is parked on his website Celestialchuckle.com (https://celestialchuckle.com) with the meter running.

By Andy Borowitz | The New Yorker March 13, 2023 NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—A Chinese spy balloon hovered over the midtown Manhattan headquarters of Fox News for several days but found no information, Pentagon officials have confirmed. The balloon, reportedly frustrated in its attempt to detect anything of a factual nature emanating from the cable news network’s home base, gave up its mission and went home. A Pentagon spokesman defended the military’s decision not to shoot down the balloon over Fox. “Honestly, we couldn’t figure out why it was there,” he said. Sources indicate that the Chinese President, Xi Jinping, is “furious” at the military leaders who sent the balloon to spy on Fox. “This was a waste of a perfectly good balloon,” Xi reportedly shouted. 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 Steve Cash / Detroit Twenty-four years ago, I had open-heart surgery. The doctor repaired a hole in my heart and it was not a pleasant experience. They had to crack my chest open, and the recovery was quite painful. Last week, I had another health scare. It all started when I went for my yearly physical. I had changed doctors and was now seeing my high-school classmate. You can imagine how awkward it was to get naked in front of a guy I had taken the SAT test with 50 years earlier. Judging from the look on his face, it was no picnic for him either. He probed and prodded and gave me an EKG test, too. A few days later, I got the results in the mail and everything seemed fine. The EKG test, however, was never mentioned. A week after that the doctor called me. My EKG was abnormal and I needed to take a stress test. He gave me no specific details, but recommended a clinic where I could take the test. My panic immediately set in. I can be very creative in my negativity. I was sure it was heart disease. Open-heart surgery, no doubt. Chest cracked open again. I was in for a slow and painful recovery, if, of course, I survived at all. I decided to go to my own cardiologist and showed him my results. He was concerned. He said it looked like a problem, but he couldn’t be sure. He agreed the stress test was a necessity. He has no openings for 10 days, so I had to wait. Ten days of pure torture. As I waited, I imagined every conceivable bad thing that could happen. My wife and kids tried to reassure me. Their argument was that if the cardiologist was not going to see me for 10 days, it obviously must not be an emergency. They tried to comfort me with what seemed like a logical conclusion. They did not take into consideration my craziness and paranoia. In my mind, he was willing to wait 10 days, because there was no hope and any delay was a moot point. Finally, it was D-day, Sept. 3. I went for a nuclear stress test . This is a test for old, out-of-shape people who are unable or unwilling to run on the treadmill. I met the technicians and the test began. They shoot dye in your veins and watch the blood flow. As the test proceeded, I watched their faces and saw what I perceived to be sadness in their eyes. In my mind, I was convinced they could not hide their despair. I was severely blocked and although they tried to remain brave and professional, they could not hide the fact that my future was bleak. The test was over and I tried to get a further read on their emotions. Like good poker players, they were stoic and revealing nothing to me. I left the building lost and in mortal fear. The next 24 hours were hell waiting for that call. My kids and wife tried to console me. They told me they loved me and would stand by me. Although they had been positive earlier in the week, through my panic and craziness, I had now convinced them that we were all probably in for the worst-case scenario.. Now it was 11:15 am the next morning. An unfamiliar number came up on my phone, I was sure it was the doctor with the devastating news. I slowly and reluctantly answered. “Hi, this is Ed Schmidt from Marty Feldman Chevrolet. We were wondering if you were interested in renewing your extended warranty?“ I laughed in his face. What timing. I told him I was expecting a call from my heart doctor whom I hoped would offer me an extended warranty on my life. We hung up and not more than a minute later the phone rang again. It was the doctor. “Steve, this is Dr Shah. The test was great and there is no problem.” I screamed with joy. I thanked him profusely. I called my wife. I called my son MIkey, I called my son Danny. They were all overjoyed. I called my son, Bobby, whose personality is much like my own and had bought into my craziness. He seemed subdued. I asked, “Bobby, aren't you happy?” He said, yes, he was happy, but was upset that he has spent 45 minutes writing my eulogy for nothing. My dad used to say we are all hanging by a thread. Ain't it the truth? Thank you to everyone who helped me through this. Sorry I drove you crazy! 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 Jessie Seigel / Washington, D.C. As Donald Trump revs up his 2024 presidential campaign’s noxious rhetoric, enquiring minds want to know what has happened to former Republican Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney’s promise to keep him from ever again entering the Oval Office. And will she or won’t she run for president in 2024 to spoil Trump’s chances? Many hope she will. Despite being an arch-conservative who had backed 93 percent of former President Trump’s policies, Cheney voted to impeach him for his role in the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. And, as vice chair of the House Select Committee investigating that January 6 coup attempt, she demonstrated an integrity lacking in almost all of her Republican colleagues—not to mention showing more backbone than any other leaders in her party. It may well be that the Democrats granted Cheney a leading role on the Select Committee because a Republican could be more effective than a Democrat in convincing other Republicans of the facts the committee was presenting. But Cheney lived up to the role in spades, surpassing all possible expectations. Her questioning of witnesses was sharp and incisive, and her public statements were no-nonsense and plain-spoken. In summing up evidence against Trump, she declared: “The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.” However, no good deed goes unpunished, and Cheney paid a heavy political price for hers. Because she dared to vote for Trump’s second impeachment, the Republican party of Wyoming censured Cheney on February 6, 2021. Subsequently, on May 12, 2021, she was ousted from her post as chair of the House Republican Conference, the third-highest position in the House Republican leadership. This was followed, on November 16, 2021, by the Wyoming GOP Central Committee's vote to no longer recognize her as a member of the party. Finally, Cheney lost Wyoming’s 2022 Republican primary last August to the Trump-endorsed Harriet Hageman, who won against her by nearly a 70 percent landslide. None of this seems to have fazed Cheney whatsoever. She appears to have become a woman with a righteous cause. She has expressed a recognition of the fragility of democracy—that when it is lost, it is irretrievable. According to the New York Times, in reaction to her ouster from leadership, Cheney defiantly told reporters on May 12, 2021: “I will do everything I can to ensure that the former President never again gets anywhere near the Oval Office.” In her parting shot to those ousting her, she asked God to “help us remember that democratic systems can fray and suddenly unravel. When they do, they are gone forever.” In August 2022, after loss of her primary, Cheney announced the creation of a political organization called the Great Task which she said would be mobilized to oppose Trump. And on the Today Show, Cheney said she was thinking about running for president. At that time, she had over $7.4 million that she could transfer to the organization for these purposes. Cheney quickly began her crusade to stop Trumpism by crossing party lines to support three Democrats in the 2022 midterm elections: centrist Reps. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, Abigail Spanberger of Virginia, and Tim Ryan of Ohio. Two of the three—Slotkin and Spanberger—won their House reelection races. Ryan, who was running for the Senate, lost. Cheney’s choice of which Democrats to endorse was apparently based in large part on the fact that the Republicans opposing them were election deniers and conspiracy-mongers. In August 2022, she told the Times, “I think we have to make sure that we are fighting against every single election denier. The election deniers, right now, are Republicans. And I think that it shouldn’t matter what party you are. Nobody should be voting for those people, supporting them or backing them.” Cheney’s PAC financed a $500,000 TV ad in Arizona in which she entreated Republicans to vote against election deniers Kari Lake for governor and Mark Finchem for secretary of state on the grounds they were a threat to the nation’s democracy. They lost. After the midterms, Cheney kept a low profile until March 1, when the University of Virginia announced that it was “thrilled” to have her become a professor of practice at its Center for Politics. Of the post, Cheney said, “There are many threats facing our system of government and I hope my work with the Center for Politics and the broader community at the University of Virginia will contribute to finding lasting solutions that not only preserve but strengthen our democracy.” Cheney’s appointment begins immediately and will run through 2023’s fall semester, with an option to renew for one or more years. But it would still be possible, at the end of the fall semester, for Cheney to choose, instead, to challenge Trump in Republican primaries and/or the 2024 general election. What Would Be the Effect of a Cheney Run in Primaries or in the 2024 Election? Some have worried that if Liz Cheney runs explicitly as an anti-Trump candidate in the Republican primaries, she could simply split anti-Trump GOP voters between herself and others like Mike Pence who have recently grown somewhat critical of Trump—thereby helping the former president to again obtain the Republican nomination. Cheney speaks strongly, directly, and takes no prisoners while Pence and his ilk are largely anemic equivocators. If there is a debate like the one the Republicans had in 2016, I would take odds that Cheney will wipe the floor with the lot of them—Trump included. Of course, that probably would not change the minds of the MAGA crowd or get her the nomination. So a Cheney challenge could backfire, resulting in a Trump candidacy. The New York Times has warned that if Cheney runs as a third-party candidate, she could take votes away from Biden or whomever else is the Democratic presidential candidate. According to the Times, a so-called centrist group called No Labels has acquired $50 million in commitments for an independent candidacy. It has tried to court West Virginia’s conservative Democratic Senator Joe Manchin as a possible candidate. Politico reported as early as last August that some in the No Labels group had suggested Cheney as a running-mate for a nominee like Manchin. Such a combination would thwart Cheney’s stated goal of preventing another Trump presidency. With someone like Manchin in the mix, votes could be drawn away from the Democratic candidate, permitting Trump or one of his fascistic clones to win. That would be the final nail in Democracy’s coffin. No Labels might successfully persuade some moderate Democrats that Manchin and Cheney are a viable centrist alternative. But neither of them is. Manchin is the senator who repeatedly obstructs the legislative efforts of his own party by blocking elimination or reform of the filibuster. And while one must give Cheney her due for standing against Trump, she has a long history of promoting ultra-conservative policies. In addition to voting for the Trump agenda an overwhelming amount of the time, Cheney has a 71 percent score for supporting legislation in accord with the positions of Heritage Action, an affiliate of the right-wing Heritage Foundation. As late as May 2021, Cheney told Axios that she would not oppose the Republican push for reactionary restrictions on voting. As Axios put it: “Cheney is trying to put former President Trump's Big Lie about the election in a silo.” Apparently, Cheney’s care for democracy is limited to opposing violent coups. Furthermore, as recently as last summer, Cheney praised the Supreme Court for overturning Roe v. Wade, which eviscerated women’s rights over their own bodies. Until the coup attempt, Cheney was an avid and faithful Trump supporter. She defended his birtherism theories. She voted against his 2019 impeachment for trying to strong-arm Ukraine into helping him subvert the 2020 election. And despite massive evidence of Trump’s abuse of power and obstruction of justice related to that first impeachment, Cheney voted for him in the 2020 election. Furthermore, according to Mother Jones, when Biden won the election, Cheney—then still third-ranking House Republican—declined to acknowledge his win for weeks. There is no indication that Liz Cheney has experienced a sea-change on any public issue other than Trump’s denials of the 2020 election results, conspiracy-mongering, and his attempt at a violent overthrow of the duly elected government. In addition, according to the New York Times, Cheney “believes that the country…can be pulled from its downward spiral only by those who answer history’s call.” The Times added that Cheney “is a firm believer in the ‘great man theory’ of history—the notion that America has been sustained by leaders who emerged at critical times to lead.” In an August interview, Cheney said, “It’s absolutely clear that the only thing that makes a difference is individuals. It’s the only thing that makes a difference.” These convictions may be responsible for Cheney taking on Trump with such determination. But however grateful one must be for that, her philosophy smacks of a paternalistic sense of destiny ensconced in a Napoleonic view of the world. Not a truly democratic one. The Bottom Line Liz Cheney is smart, tough, and a force to be reckoned with. She surely will have a prominent place in history for her role in exposing and combatting Trump’s autocratic aspirations. If a Cheney entry into the Republican primaries or as an independent candidate can counter the ongoing Trumpist power-grab, it will be a tremendous service to the country. On the other hand, it would be a great disservice to democracy if an independent run for president by Cheney resulted in Trump—or some Trumpist clone—gaining power again. Given all the uncertainty in the 2024 political landscape, it would be wise to be cautious about what we wish for. 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.