By Tony Shields, M.D., Ph.D. / Detroit David Fink, J.D., S.O.B. / Bloomfield Hills, Mich. From Tony: I know we are all so tired of Covid-19 illnesses and restrictions, but the virus is not going away–ever. We will have to learn how to deal with it and carefully get on with our lives. Fortunately, the numbers are improving, and we have vaccines and treatments to help. The U.S. still reports about 45,000 cases (a real underestimate) and almost 500 deaths daily. Getting fully vaccinated and boosted are the best first steps for protection. The latest bivalent booster includes activity against the omicron variants and decreases the risk of severe disease by about 60%. I routinely test myself before and after travel and large gatherings. I still wear a mask on airplanes and in the grocery store, but we now regularly go to restaurants and eat inside. I have been lucky in avoiding the virus. Despite being vaccinated, boosted, and taking reasonable precautions, far too many of my family, friends, and patients are still coming down with infections. I regularly get calls about the use of Paxlovid for those infected and highly recommend its use. Paxlovid needs to be taken within the first five days of infection, and the earlier the better. One should test at the first sign of a Covid infection and repeat the test in a couple of days if the first test is negative. Older people or those with health issues (lung and heart problems, diabetes, etc.) should get Paxlovid immediately since it decreases the risk of severe illness by about 45% in vaccinated patients. Please don’t wait until you feel awful, since Paxlovid is meant to improve the symptoms. It may also decrease the risk of long Covid symptoms. I strongly encourage those afflicted by the virus to take it. When Paxlovid was first approved for use in early 2022, it was in short supply in a limited number of pharmacies, and a hassle for doctors to order. It is now readily available, and when a patient calls me to report that they have had a positive home test, I call a local pharmacy with the prescription. Generally, patients take 3 pills twice daily for five days (2 of nirmatrelvir and 1 of ritonavir, and all three pills come together (in a blister pack) and the most common side effect is a metallic taste while on the drugs. There can be issues with interactions with other medications, so these may need to be altered for a few days and should be discussed with your physician. Don’t let your physician discourage you from taking Paxlovid. Much has been reported about infection rebound after taking Paxlovid, but in one study it occurred in only about 14% of people who took the medication and 9% of those who didn’t. Furthermore, almost all rebound infections are quite mild. Given the benefits of Paxlovid, it should be used much more frequently than it currently is. Please do a home test if you have any mild symptoms, and if it is positive, consider starting Paxlovid immediately. From David: When I tested positive for Covid shortly after Thanksgiving dinner (nine people were infected at that superspreader event), I did what any rational alumnus of the Oak Park High School Class of 1970 would do—I called Tony. He asked me if I was planning to take Paxlovid, and I told him that my doctor had discouraged its use, because it could have adverse consequences when taken in conjunction with other maintenance meds that I take. I also told Tony that some friends had decided not to take Paxlovid because of the possibility of rebound and because of the nasty taste it is reputed to cause. Tony quickly disabused me of any concern regarding rebound. (A 14% chance of rebound with Paxlovid vs. a 9% chance without it didn’t seem significant to me.). At that point, I took a closer look at the potential interactions with my other meds, and realized I could just go a few days without alfuzosin and avoid that issue (ok, maybe that’s a little too personal, but a few days of discomfort from not taking alfuzosin was not really a big deal). Weighing the risks and rewards was not that complicated. With all of the unknowns regarding long Covid, any potential to prevent a chronic condition strongly outweighed the 5% increased risk of rebound, a few days of discomfort and a funky taste in my mouth. So, I did take Paxlovid, as did my girlfriend Carol (who naturally shared my Covid). It far exceeded expectations. I was taking it for two reasons: 1) to reduce the risk of a more serious case of Covid; and 2) to reduce the risk of developing some form of long Covid. What I hadn’t anticipated was the startlingly fast recovery that I experienced. Almost immediately after I noticed the metallic taste, my Covid symptoms dissipated. Within hours I was well on my way to recovery, and the next day I was virtually symptom-free. Of course I continued the full course of treatment, but the primary “symptom” I experienced after the first day on Paxlovid was a taste my son-in-law described as “a penny dying in your mouth.” A small price to pay for relief from the other symptoms of Covid and peace of mind that I have done what I could to reduce the risk of long Covid. Also, I protected myself from Tony ever saying “I told you so.” The authors have been friends for 61 years. Tony Shields and David Fink at their confirmations at Temple Israel in Detroit (1967) Friends relaxing at the Finks' cottage circa 1975 on Big Lake in Springfield Township, Mich. (L to R): David Fink, David Burleson, Tony Shields, Russell Steinman, Jeff "Manzana" Appel, Jonathan Licht, Mark Silverman, Michael Treblin

The Insider: With the country in a February deep freeze, let’s talk about how to stay safe in the winter. Andrea Kwok: Yes, that’s a very timely topic! The Insider: What types of winter-related injuries do you most commonly see? Andrea Kwok: I see a handful of skiing injuries every season. That might be the most common winter-specific injury. However, I do also see slip and fall injuries related to icy sidewalks and stairs. The Insider: What kind of skiing injuries show up in your office? Andrea Kwok: Most often knee injuries–ACL and meniscus tears. Sometimes hip injuries. Almost always as a result of skis getting tangled during a fall. The Insider: Ouch! Would you have advice for those people who still risk the slopes? Andrea Kwok: Make sure your boots fit and that the bindings on your skis function properly. But there are too many variables–ski conditions, and other skiers and snowboarders–that make it hard to eliminate the risk of injury. The Insider: What about us chickens who think icy streets are dangerous enough? Andrea Kwok: I wouldn’t say chickens! Icy streets pose a danger to everyone, daredevils and cautious folks alike. The tricky thing about ice is that once you lose your footing, it’s very hard to recover. Even the most agile athlete can be easily humbled if they hit a slick patch the wrong way. The Insider: Do some people unwisely delay getting help for those kind of falls? Andrea Kwok: Not typically. Usually if a fall is bad, we know it. Broken wrists are a common result, but of course the direction you fall and the part that makes contact with the ground dictates the injury The Insider: I still see runners outside this time of year! Andrea Kwok: Runners are a dedicated bunch, aren’t they? It’s fine if the ground is clear, but I don’t recommend it if there is ice or snow on the roads. The Insider: Is there anything people can protect themselves by doing in the snow and ice? Andrea Kwok: If the conditions are very slippery, the best thing you can do is stay inside! However, if you need to go out there are a few things you can do while walking on ice to minimize the chance of falling and injuring yourself. Most importantly go slow and take small shuffling steps. You should not attempt to take a full stride the way you would on dry ground. Also, leaning your body slightly forward will help you avoid your feet flying up in front of you and flipping onto your back. If you do feel you are losing your balance and have any control over the direction you fall, try to fall to the side with your arms hugged into your chest. Reaching out to break your fall with your hands, while very instinctive, is also the main reason wrist fractures are so common with these types of falls. Falling to the side will still not feel great, but your wrists and head will likely be protected. Plus, if it’s cold enough to be icy, we are probably bubble wrapped with a few layers of insulation that lessen the direct impact of the fall. The Insider: All great suggestions! And snow shoveling? Andrea Kwok: Snow shoveling is another risky winter activity. Here in NYC, I think a lot of us apartment dwellers are spared this chore, as the building superintendent is usually responsible for clearing sidewalks. However, any homeowner should be aware of a few things before they start to clear their walkways. Unfortunately, overexertion while shoveling lands people in the hospital every year, often due to heart attacks. If you have any history of heart disease you should really take your time and take frequent rest breaks. Truly, anyone with a cardiac history should avoid shoveling if possible, but I’m sure there are situations where there is no other option. A history of stroke, heart attack, or uncontrolled high blood pressure are examples of conditions that warrant careful consideration before shoveling. Recruit help from neighbors if possible to reduce your workload. Aside from cardiac risk, back injury is also common after shoveling. It is important to bend your knees to get low as you scoop the snow, keeping your back straight and your abdominal muscles engaged to protect your spine. Try to avoid large and forceful twisting motions as you toss the snow out of the way. And again, take breaks and check in with how you’re feeling. The Insider: Does health insurance generally pay for physical therapy for recreational injuries like skiing? Andrea Kwok: Insurance does not discriminate based on the nature of the injury. If you require medical attention, insurance is meant to cover the services. Every insurance provider and specific plan is different, so depending on what your benefits are you may owe some money out of your own pocket. The Insider: Last question: there are dozens of ads on TV about remedies for aches and pains these days. Short of physical therapy, does anything at home work for winter injuries? Andrea Kwok: If you have an injury–a broken bone, torn ligament or tendon, a head injury– this requires professional medical attention. If you have a bruise from a minor fall or general muscle soreness from skiing or shoveling, these will resolve with time and you can definitely manage the pain with whatever home remedies you find helpful. The Insider: Many thanks. Andrea! Safe sledding! Andrea Kwok: My pleasure! Hopefully, this will help keep everyone a little safer out there this winter! Andrea Kwok is the Clinical Director of SPEAR’s West 67th Street location. Andrea earned her Doctorate in Physical Therapy from the University of Delaware. During her time there, she completed a graduate assistantship in the Physical Therapy administrative office and served as class secretary. Prior to her graduate studies, Andrea graduated summa cum laude from Rutgers University with a major in exercise science and a minor in Spanish. Andrea was a founding member of the Rutgers club gymnastics team, where she served as team treasurer. In her professional career, Andrea has experience working with a wide range of orthopedic conditions, inclusive of sports injuries, mechanical pain, neurological pain, and post-operative rehabilitation. She pursues continuing education with a manual focus, intent on refining her ability to address joint, neurodynamic, and soft tissue dysfunction. Andrea is a large proponent of injury prevention and has participated in movement screenings for high school athletes, active adults, and local residents in the community. She is committed to restoring patient strength and function through targeted exercise and movement training.

Jeffrey D. Sachs | Winter 2023 | Horizons, issue 22 Jeffrey D. Sachs is University Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has been advisor to three UN Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General António Guterres. There is universal assent that we are in a period of geopolitical tension and flux. In a rough chronology, 1815-1914 was the era of British hegemony, the not-so-peaceful Pax Britannica. What followed between 1914 and 1945 was a disastrous period of two world wars and the Great Depression. The end of World War II marked the rise of the United States as the new hegemon as well as the start of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. This period lasted from 1947 to 1989. The period from 1989 to around 2008 has been described (rightly or wrongly) as the unipolar world, with the United States widely regarded as the sole superpower. In the past decade or so we have entered a new geopolitical era, but of what kind? There are at least five major theories about the current geopolitics. The first three are variants of the Hegemonic Stability Theory; the fourth is the important school of international realism. The fifth is my preferred theory of multilateralism, based on the pre-eminent importance of global cooperation to solve pressing global problems. The Hegemonic Stability Theory, favored by American elites in politics, government, and academia, holds that the United States remains the world’s hegemon, the sole superpower, albeit a hegemon that is challenged by a rising competitor, China, and by a lesser but nuclear-armed competitor, Russia. The Hegemonic Competition Theory, sometimes nicknamed the Thucydides Trap theory, holds that China’s rise has ushered in a period of confrontation between the United States and China, alongside the ongoing confrontation of the United States and Russia. The U.S.-China competition is analogized to that of Sparta and Athens in the Peloponnesian Wars, with China playing the role of Athens, the rising power in the fourth century BCE Hellenic world, challenging Sparta, the incumbent power. The Hegemonic Decline theory focuses on the fact the United States is no longer willing or able to play the role of global stabilizer (if it ever did). According to this theory, our current period will be akin to the period of British decline after World War I and before the rise of American hegemony. The Hegemonic Decline theory holds that the waning of a hegemon leads to global instability. The Realist theory holds that geopolitics is defined by great power politics, with China, the United States, the EU, Russia, and increasingly India, playing the role of the great powers, and sharing the world stage with regional powers (such as Brazil, Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, among others). The Multilateralist theory, to which I subscribe, holds that only global cooperation and multilateralism, organized around UN institutions, can save us from ourselves, whether from war, dangerous technologies, or human-induced climate change. Multilateralism is often dismissed as excessively idealistic because it calls for cooperation among nations, yet I will argue that it is in fact more realistic than the Realist theory. Of course, there are several other important approaches to geopolitics, including Marxist theories focusing on the interests and power of globally mobile financial capital, Immanuel Wallerstein’s core-periphery theory, and Samuel Huntington’s clash-of-civilizations theory. These are all well-known and have been widely debated. For the sake of brevity, I will focus on the three hegemonic theories, realism, and multilateralism. Economic Drivers of long-term Geopolitical Change America was far and away the world’s leading power at the end of World War II. According to the estimates of historian Angus Maddison (2010), the United States produced 27.3 percent of global output (measured at international prices) as of 1950, though constituting only 6 percent of the world population (and today only 4.1 percent). The Soviet Union was the next largest economy, at roughly one-third of the United States, while China was third, at roughly one-sixth. The American advantage was not only in total GDP but in science, technology, higher education, depth of capital markets, sophistication of business organization, and quality and quantity of physical infrastructure. American multinational companies circled the globe to create global supply chains. The U.S. predominance has gradually declined since 1950 mainly because other parts of the world have gradually caught up with the United States in advanced technologies, skills, and physical infrastructure. As theory predicts, globalization promoted the spread of scientific and technological know-how, higher education, and modern infrastructure. East Asia was the greatest beneficiary of globalization. East Asia’s take-off started with Japan’s rapid postwar rebuilding during 1945-1960, followed by its decade of income doubling in the 1960s. Japan in turn provided a roadmap for the four Asian Tigers (Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore), which began their rapid growth in the 1960s, and then for China starting in the late 1970s with Deng Xiaoping’s reforms and opening of the country to the world. According to Maddison’s estimates, 16 major East Asian economies produced 15.9 percent of world output in 1950, 21.7 percent in 1980, and 27.8 percent in 1990. In the 1990s, India too began an era of economic opening and rapid growth. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, the United States did not face any major competitor for global leadership. While the Western European economy was broadly comparable in size to the American economy, Western Europe remained dependent on the United States for military security and was in any event a disjoint group of nations with foreign policies generally subordinate to the United States. East Asia had grown rapidly but was even less of a geopolitical force than Europe. According to IMF measurements, China’s GDP measured in constant international dollars was 17.5 percent of American GDP despite a population that was 4.6 times the size. Its per capita income was therefore a mere 3.8 percent of the U.S. according to the IMF estimates. China’s technologies and military capacity were decades behind those of the United States, and its nuclear arsenal was small. It is perhaps understandable that policymakers in Washington assumed that the United States would be the world’s sole superpower for decades to come. What they failed to anticipate, of course, was the ability of China to grow rapidly for decades to come. Between 1991 and 2021, China’s GDP (measured in constant international dollars) grew 14.1 times, while the American GDP grew 2.1 times. By 2021, according to IMF estimates, China’s GDP in constant 2017 international prices, was 18 percent larger than U.S. GDP. China’s GDP per capita rose from 3.8 percent of the U.S. in 1991 to 27.8 percent in 2021 (IMF estimates in constant international dollars). China’s rapid gains in output and output per person were underpinned by rapid Chinese advances in technological knowhow, capacity to innovate, quality education at all levels, and the upgrading and modernization of infrastructure. Naïve and sometimes racist American punditry has dismissed China’s success as nothing more than China stealing American know-how, as if the United States is the only society that can harness modern science and engineering, and as if it too doesn’t rely on scientific and technological advances made elsewhere. In fact, China has been catching up by mastering advanced technological knowledge and taking measures to become a major innovator in its own right. Nor should we neglect the rising economic power of both India and Africa, the latter including the 54 countries of the African Union. India’s GDP grew 6.3 times between 1991 and 2021, rising from 14.6 percent of America’s GDP to 44.3 percent (all measured in international dollars). Africa’s GDP grew significantly during the same period, eventually reaching 13.5 percent of U.S. GDP in 2022. Most importantly in this context, Africa is also integrating politically and economically, with important steps in policy and physical infrastructure to create an interconnected single market in Africa. In the past 30 years, three basic economic changes have transformed geopolitics. The first is that the U.S. share of global output declined from 21.0 percent in 1991 to 15.7 percent in 2021, while China’s rose from 4.3 percent in 1991 to 18.6 percent in 2021. The second is that China has overtaken the United States in total GDP and has become the leading trade partner for much of the world. The third is that the BRICS, constituting Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, have also overtaken the G7 countries in total output. In 2021, the BRICS had a combined GDP of $42.1 trillion (measured in constant 2017 international prices), compared with $41.0 trillion in the G7. In terms of combined population, the BRICS, with a 2021 population of 3.2 billion, is 4.2 times the combined population of the G7 countries, at 770 million. In short, the world economy is no longer American-dominated or Western-led. China is of comparable overall economic size to the United States, and the large middle-income countries are a counterweight to the G7 nations. It is notable that four G20 Presidencies in a row will be held by middle-income developing countries: Indonesia (2022), India (2023), Brazil (2024), and South Africa (2025). Contrasting Visions of Geopolitics As China has matched or overtaken the United States in economic size and has become the leading trade partner with many countries around the world, and as the BRICS have matched the G7 in overall economic size, a debate rages in the United States and globally about America’s changing role and power, and the implications for the future of global governance and international affairs. As mentioned above, there are five schools of thought, which I now review in greater detail. The Hegemonic Stability theory remains the dominant school of thought in the United States, at least in the leadership circles and East Coast think tanks and academic centers. According to this view, the U.S. and the U.S. alone can maintain geopolitical hegemony and thereby provide stability to the world. When the United States speaks of the “rule-based order,” it is not speaking of the UN system or international law. It is speaking of an American-led order, in which Washington, in consultation with its allies, writes the global rules. According to this view, China remains far behind the United States in all key categories of power: economic, military, technological, and soft power. Russia is viewed as a declining, nearly defunct, regional power—albeit one with a large nuclear arsenal. In this school of thought, the nuclear threat can be contained through counter-threats and deterrence. American hegemony will ensure that Russia will play no major geopolitical role in the future. This hegemonic vision, known as neoconservatism in the United States, finds its expression in a wide range of policies. The war in Ukraine forms a central part of Washington’s strategy for continued U.S. hegemony. While American policymakers presumably bemoan the destruction and deaths in Ukraine, they also welcome the opportunity to push NATO’s eastward enlargement and bleed Russia through a war of attrition. The Washington policy elite is in no hurry to end the war. Nor is it eager to look more deeply at the roots of the war, which was surely provoked in part by the United States in its battle with Russia for political and military influence in Ukraine. This competition turned red-hot after George W. Bush pushed NATO in 2008 to commit to enlarging to Ukraine and Georgia. This was part of a long-term game plan, outlined by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard, to end the ability of Russia to project its power towards Western Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean, or the Middle East. Russia will presumably fight at all costs to prevent NATO enlargement to Ukraine. When Ukraine’s pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych—who favored Ukraine’s neutrality instead of NATO enlargement—was overthrown with American financial and logistical support in early 2014, the Russo-Ukrainian war broke out. Russia retook Crimea and pro-Russian separatists claimed part of the Donbas. The war has escalated since 2014, most dramatically with Russia’s invasion on February 24th, 2022. In turn, the G7 and NATO have committed to support Ukraine for as long as necessary, with the goal of weakening Russia in the long term. In addition to funding and arming Ukraine, the United States has now adopted the strategy of containing China, that is, hindering China’s continued economic and technological progress. The containment policy vis-à-vis China mimics the American strategy vis-à-vis the Soviet Union between 1947 and 1991. The anti-China containment policies include tariff increases on Chinese products; actions to cripple high-tech telecoms Chinese enterprises such as Huawei and ZTE; bans on exports of high-end semiconductors and semiconductor manufacturing equipment to China; decoupling American supply chains from China; creating new trade blocs, such as the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, that exclude China; and an “entity list” of Chinese companies that are, in one way or another, barred from U.S. finance, trade, and technology. On the military front, the United States is forming new anti-China alliances such as AUKUS, with the UK and Australia, in this case to create a new nuclear submarine fleet and base in Northern Australia to police the South China Sea. The United States is also aiming to step up its military support for Taiwan, in one neocon phrase: to turn Taiwan into a “porcupine.” The main competing vision of geopolitics today is the Hegemonic Competition theory, focusing on the coming clash between the United States and China. This theory is really a variant of the Hegemonic Stability theory. It argues that the United States may lose its hegemonic status to China, and that in any event, a bitter competition of the two countries is virtually inevitable. The main failing of the Hegemonic Competition vision is its belief that China wants to become, the next global hegemon. True, Chinese leaders do not trust the United States nor Europe, especially in view of China’s suffering at the hands of outside imperial powers during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. China aims for a world in which the United States is not the hegemon. Yet there is little persuasive evidence that China wants to replace America as hegemon or could do so even if it so desired. Consider that China is still a middle-income country, with decades ahead needed to become a high-income country. Consider too that China’s population will likely decline markedly in the decades ahead. In that context, China will also age markedly, with the median age rising from 47 years today to 57 years by 2100 according to UN projections. Finally, consider that China’s statecraft over centuries has never sought a global empire. The Middle Kingdom has always sufficed. China has not fought one foreign war in 40 years, and has just a few small overseas military bases, compared with the hundreds operated by the U.S. military. Rather than China’s hegemonic aspirations, which I believe do not actually exist, the real problem is the so-called “Security Dilemma,” according to which both China and the United States misconstrue the defensive actions of the other side as being offensive, thereby falling into an escalatory mode. For example, as China builds its military in the South China Sea, in its view to protect its vital sea lanes, Washington interprets this as an aggressive action by China aimed at American allies in the region. As the United States forms new alliances such as AUKUS and strengthens existing alliances, China regards these as blatant hegemonic attempts to contain China. Even when particular actions are truly defensive in nature—and not all of them are—they are readily misconstrued by the other side. This is indeed a major reason why the Thucydides Trap easily gives rise to war: not really because the two countries want war, but because they stumble into it by misinterpreting the actions of the other side. The Hegemonic Decline theory is somewhat different. Instead of emphasizing the battle between China and the United States, this third theory emphasizes the implications of American hegemonic decline, which it takes for granted. The Hegemonic Decline theory starts with the idea that the world needs global public goods, such as macroeconomic stabilization policies, arms control, and common efforts against human-induced climate change. To ensure these public goods, according to this theory, a hegemon must bear the burden of providing the global public goods. In the nineteenth century, Britain underwrote Pax Britannica. Since 1950, the United States has supplied the global public goods. Yet with the gradual decline of the United States, there is no longer a hegemon to ensure global stability. Thus, we face a world of chaos, not because of U.S.-China competition, but because no country or region can coordinate global efforts to provide global public goods. Charles Kindleberger, the MIT economic historian, was the originator and most persuasive proponent of the Hegemonic Decline theory, applying it to the Great Depression in his insightful book The World in Depression: 1929-1939 (1973). He argued that when the Great Depression hit, global cooperation was needed to address inter-country debts, failed banks, budget deficits, and the gold standard. Yet the UK was gravely weakened by World War I and the prolonged economic crisis of the late 1920s, and so was unable to act as a hegemon. The United States, alas, was not yet ready to take over that role, and would do so only after World War II. All three hegemonic theories presume that hegemons are central to geopolitics and will remain so. The first assumes that the United States remains the hegemon; the second assumes that the United States and China are in competition to be the hegemon; and the third bemoans the absence of a hegemon just when we need one. This third theory, even though declaring the U.S. a has-been, is in some way still flattering it: après l’Etats Unis, le deluge. The Realist theory denies the central role of hegemony, and perhaps would question whether America was ever truly the global hegemon. According to the realists, peace requires skillful balancing among the major powers. The essence of the realist theory is that no single power can or should presume to dictate to the rest; all need to manage their policies prudently to avoid provoking a conflict with the other powers. Leading realists such as Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer, for example, call for a negotiated end to the Ukraine War, arguing wisely that Russia is not going to disappear from the map, or from its geopolitical importance, and emphasizing that the war was partly provoked by the American misstep of crossing Russia’s redlines, notably regarding NATO enlargement to Ukraine and Georgia. The realists argue for peace through strength, arming allies as necessary, and being on guard against aggressive actions by potential adversaries who cross American redlines. Peace, in the realist view, is achieved through the balance of power and the potential deployment of force, not through goodwill or high ideals. Deterrence matters. China is a competitor that must be matched economically, technologically, and militarily, but not necessarily a military foe. War can be avoided. The most famous historical model for the realists is Kissinger’s depiction of the Concert of Europe in the nineteenth century that kept the peace for most of the century. The biggest challenge facing the realists is that maintaining a balance of power is very difficult when the relative capacities of the major powers is in great flux. The Concert of Europe broke down mainly because two major powers were on the rise economically. Germany surpassed Britain in GDP (on Maddison’s estimates) in 1908. The Russian empire was also growing economically, with a GDP about the size of Germany’s from 1870 onward. Britain feared Germany’s rise, and Germany feared a two-front war against Britain and Russia, which of course is exactly what transpired in 1914. According to many historians, Germany pressed for war in 1914 out of the conviction that delay would mean a more powerful Russia in the future. Geopolitics as a Problem Solver? The essential problem with these four prevailing geopolitical theories is they view geopolitics almost entirely as a game of winning and losing among the major powers, rather than as the opportunity to pool resources to face global-scale crises. The Hegemonic Decline theory recognizes the need for global public goods but holds that only a hegemon will provide those global public goods. The Multilateralist theory starts from the premise that the world urgently needs geopolitical cooperation to solve global-scale challenges such as human-induced climate change and financial instability, and to avoid war among the major powers. The core of the multilateralist vision is the belief that global public goods can be provided cooperatively by the UN member states rather than by a single hegemon. The focus is on the constructive role of international law, international financial institutions, and international treaties, all under the framework of the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights and supported by UN institutions. This view is often argued to be unrealistic and dismissed as too idealistic. There are many plausible reasons for doubt: the UN is too weak; treaties are unenforceable; countries free ride on global agreements; and the veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) paralyzes the UN. These points are true, but not decisive in my view. Cooperation can be strengthened if the case for it is better understood. Most importantly, neither the three hegemonic theories nor realism offer solutions to our global crises. The Hegemonic Stability theory fails because the United States is no longer strong enough and interested enough to bear the burdens of providing hegemonic stability. In the late 1940s, the United States was ready to fund and support global public goods, including the establishment of the UN, the Bretton-Woods Institution, the GATT, the Marshall Plan, and others. Today, the U.S. does not even ratify the vast majority of UN treaties. It breaks GATT rules, shirks decarbonization, underfunds the UN and Bretton Woods institutions, and gives a pittance of its gross national income (0.16 percent) as foreign assistance. The Hegemonic Competition theory fails because it presages conflict rather than solutions to problems. It is as best an explanation of global turbulence but not a strategy for peace, security, or global problem-solving. It is a predication of crisis. It is crucial to recall that both Sparta and Athens suffered from the Peloponnesian Wars. The Realist approach is far more accurate, practicable, and useful than the hegemonic theories. Yet the Realist approach also suffers from three major weaknesses. First, while it calls for a balance of power to keep the peace, there is no permanent balance of power. Past balances quickly become current imbalances. Second, as with the game theory that underpins Realism, both game theory and Realism underestimate the potential for cooperation in practice. In the Realist approach, non-cooperation among nations is assumed to be the only feasible outcome of geopolitics because there is no higher power to enforce cooperation. Yet in experimental game theory and in practical geopolitics, there is a lot more scope for successful cooperation (e.g., in the experimental Prisoner’s Dilemma game) than the theory predicts. This point has been emphasized for decades by Robert Keohane and was also emphasized by the late John Ruggie. Third, and most importantly, Realism fails because it fails to solve the problem of global public goods, needed to address environmental crises, financial crises, health crises, and others. No single hegemon is going to provide the needed global investments. A global cooperative approach is needed to share the costs and spread the benefits widely. The roadmap for achieving twenty-first-century multilateralism requires a separate essay. In short, twenty-first-century multilateralism should build on two foundational documents, the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and on the family of UN institutions. Global public goods should be financed by a major expansion of the multilateral development banks (including the World Bank and the regional development banks) and the IMF. The new multilateralism should be based on globally agreed goals, notably the Paris Climate Agreement, the Biodiversity Agreement, and the Sustainable Development Goals. It should bring the new cutting-edge technologies, including digital connectivity and artificial intelligence, under the ambit of international law and global governance. It should reinforce, implement, and build on the vital agreements on arms control and denuclearization. Finally, it should draw strength from the ancient wisdom of the great religious and philosophical traditions. There is a lot of work ahead to build the new multilateralism, yet the future itself is at stake. https://www.cirsd.org/en/horizons/horizons-winter-2023--issue-no22/the-new-geopolitics

By Judi Markowitz My grandson, Nosson, just had his very first haircut. This was no ordinary visit to the salon or barbershop. It was an upsherin —a celebration when an Orthodox Jewish boy reaches three years of age. It is a rite of passage. At this time, parents introduce their young son to the formal Jewish educational process. Learning to read the Hebrew alphabet and davening (praying) are emphasized. Torah study becomes the main focus now. At the celebration, the three-year-old receives a yarmulke (round head covering) and tzitzis. This is a garment worn under clothing which is similar to a T-shirt, except it has no sides. There are knotted tassels attached to the four corners. The tzitzis serve as a constant reminder of the mitzvahs of the Torah. A young boy is encouraged to perform mitzvot (Divine commands). Of course, this is a work in progress for any three-year-old. Some Jewish scholars compare human life to the life of a tree. It is said that waiting three years to cut a boy’s hair can be compared to waiting for fruit to be harvested. This idea stems from the hope that this child will “eventually grow tall like a tree and produce fruit: knowledge, good deeds, and a family of his own.” This tradition began in the 16th century in Safed, Israel and is connected to the teachings of the mystic Rabbi Isaac Luria, also known as the Arizal. According to custom, he took his own son to the city of Meron to have his upsherin. It was performed by the tomb of another great mystic, Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai. He is the author or the Zohar, otherwise known as the Kaballah – Jewish mystical thought. From that time, moving forward, the tradition is associated with Luria’s name when a child receives his first haircut on his third birthday. My oldest grandson, Moshe (Nosson’s brother) even traveled with his family to Meron to celebrate his upsherin when he was three years old. While living in Israel, they took a day trip from Jerusalem to visit the tomb of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai. It was a special moment to be at this holy site where they prayed, rejoiced, and cut Moshe’s hair. Moshe is now nine years old and still remembers this sacred day. Since hair cannot be cut before the tender age of three, some boys need to wear their hair in a ponytail or in clips until then. As a result, it may be difficult to discern a child’s sex, until the clothing is closely examined. My grandsons never had to endure stares or questions — boy or girl? The three boys had short hair that looked perfectly coiffed — as if they had been to a salon many times. But make no mistake, they each awaited the day they would be able to join the ranks of those they admired — their father, grandfather, and other men in the community. The upsherin took place on Friday, January 20th at my grandchildren’s school in the classroom of Rabbi Weiss. It was planned on the official Jewish date of Nosson’s birthday. Rabbi Weiss had also performed this ritual for my grandson Yehuda the previous year. The rabbi is an engaging and charismatic man. His first-grade students listened attentively as he discussed the relevance of the event and made the ceremony fun for all. Nosson was ready for his special day. He was carried into the room by his father, wrapped in a tallis (prayer shawl) and then placed on a chair so all could behold the event. Nosson knew he would be receiving his very own yalmulke and tzitzis because his family had talked about it for months in preparation. When he was barely two years old, his brother Yehuda had an upsherin, and Nosson would put on the sacred gear and pretend he was a “big boy.” Now it was his moment to shine, and he was eager — that is until he looked around the room and turned into a statue. Nosson was wide-eyed and took in the classroom filled with boys watching (no coed classes) —he was clearly nervous. But understanding the day was for him, Nosson stood perfectly still as pictures and videos were taken. Then the yalmulke was placed on Nosson’s head by Rabbi Weiss, followed by the tzitzis given to him by his father, Todd. Next, the proud parents gingerly sniped a lock of Nosson’s hair and the scissors were handed over to Rabbi Weiss. My husband Jeffrey and I took turns as well. Other family members joined in this festive ceremony too. Nosson remained unbelievably cooperative as he glanced at the snippets of hair being placed in a bag for keepsake. Chana Tova, my daughter-in-law, monitored closely so that we only cut hair from the back of Nosson’s head. She didn’t want too much taken off before he would go to a barber later that day for a professional haircut. Another detail that is given attention on this special day is sideburns — otherwise known as peyot. Torah observant men, particularly Chasidim, are distinguishable because of their long, curly peyot at the side of their face. But other observant Jews wear them at varying lengths — very short to a visible lock of hair either tucked behind the ear or left in full view. After the haircutting ceremony, Rabbi Weiss invited the boys in the class to dance and sing in celebration of the event. They excitedly sprang from their seats and joined hands in a large circle. My son Todd was holding Nosson and danced around joyfully. Nosson was then placed on his shoulders for a whirl of a good time. He was still apprehensive but enjoyed the attention. This wasn’t my first rodeo — because of Yehuda’s upsherin, it was actually my second. It was truly a learning curve for me and Jeffrey. We both grew up in Jewish homes and celebrated the major holidays — Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Passover. My parents left their orthodox roots behind and I had never heard of an upsherin — that is until my son Todd began his religious journey. Todd traveled to Israel in 2003 to study in a Yeshiva and upon his arrival he was greeted by the staff and then whisked off to a celebration — an upsherin. Todd was taken in by the joy and elation of those present at this festive occasion. He didn’t yet know the relevance of this ceremony, but the explanations followed and Todd’s formal Jewish education began. Milestones come in many shapes and forms. Watching my grandson take his first steps in the Jewish learning community brings me immeasurable joy. I was unaware of various traditions and practices within the religion. Ever since my son embraced Orthodox Judaism I have been fortunate to participate in numerous religious celebrations and learn more about the observant community. I admire and respect their commitment to Judaism. The continuum of learning never stops regardless of age — whether it’s three or 93. 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.

By Laurence Lerman / New York City I was 15 or 16 years old the first time I saw The Rocky Horror Picture Show in 1979 at the Strand Theater in New Brunswick, N.J. For midnight screenings of Rocky Horror, the management didn’t seem to have a problem with audiences going to town in the theater, throwing around toilet paper, shooting squirt guns, running and dancing up and down the aisles—all the things one quickly associated with the 1975 sci-fi-musical cult favorite. It was a pretty wild experience—but apparently not as over-the-top as the screenings that took place at midnight in New York City’s famed 8th Street Playhouse. “That’s where Sal Piro is the emcee and organizes the talk-backs and floor show,” my older friend who brought me to Rocky told me. Not even four years after the film was released, Piro was already nationally known as the Rocky Horror superfan who had been a prime force behind the audience participation, role-playing (or “shadow-casting,” in Rocky-speak) and live performances that would elevate Rocky Horror’s costume-filled screenings into a decades-long international phenomenon. I never attended any shows hosted by Sal Piro, but I heard a lot about them over the years from that point on. Piro died on Jan. 21 at his home in New York City at the age of 72. The announcement came from The Rocky Horror Picture Show Fan Club, which Piro founded in 1977 and served as its president until his death. No cause was given. A one-time teacher of theology and director of plays in Catholic high schools, Piro moved to New York City in the fall of 1976 and attended a midnight screening of Rocky Horror at the Waverly Theater in Manhattan’s Greenwich Village. (From the beginning, the film attracted late-night audiences.) It was the first of nearly 100 times that Piro would attend the film with friends and shout out ad-lib lines and singalongs to accompany the on-screen action of the campy film, an interactivity that accompanying audiences enjoyed. Really enjoyed. In 1978, Rocky Horror moved over to the Village’s 8th Street Playhouse and a Saturday midnight residence as the participation continued to thrive and grow. Attendees would regularly arrive to the sold-out shows in costumes inspired by the movie, with many taking part in a staged version of the movie mounted right in front of the screen as the film was projected. Piro quickly took on the role of host of the evening, organizing the live show’s musical numbers, leading the responsive dialoguing, making sure attendees didn’t trash the theater, and essentially overseeing a good and safe “happening” for all. It didn’t take too long for the interactivity to become a part of Rocky Horror midnight screenings around the country. And then across the globe. And so it continued for decades—and still does to this day, though at an admittedly smaller scale then its late-’70s-‘90s heyday. Even as Piro engaged in other professional and leisure-time pursuits—he was active on the competitive chess and Scrabble tournament circuit—Rocky Horror continued to be a major part of his life for the next 40 years. Piro wrote two books on Rocky and its cult following, Creatures of the Night (1990) and a 1990 follow-up, Creatures of the Night II. He appeared as himself in a popular scene in the 1980 film Fame that finds a pair of students of attending Rocky Horror at the 8th Street Playhouse, and he had an uncredited cameo in Rocky’s loosely related 1981 sequel, Shock Treatment. He also popped up in an uncredited bit in a 2016 television remake of the original film. Award-winning composer Marc Shaiman, a friend of Piro’s and one of the group of original Rocky devotees who helped ignite the phenomenon, tweeted a warm statement about his longtime friend Piro, whose passion for Rocky Horror became a major part of his life’s work. “Sal Piro was a great guy, a great entertainer, and it turns out a great leader,” Shaiman wrote. “He will be missed by many, many people whose life he helped change and I hope there really is a heaven so that one day, he and I can Do the Time Warp Again.” Laurence Lerman is a film journalist, former editor of Video Business--Variety's DVD trade publication--and husband to The Insider's own Gwen Cooper. Over the course of his career he has conducted one-on-one interviews with just about every major director working today, including Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, Clint Eastwood, Kathryn Bigelow, Ridley Scott, Walter Hill, Spike Lee, and Werner Herzog, among numerous others. Once James Cameron specifically requested an interview with Laurence by name, which his wife still likes to brag about. Most recently, he is the co-founder and editor-in-chief of the online review site DiscDish.com.

By Bonnie Fishman / San Francisco Bay Area I mean that literally. It’s one of those delicious dried fruits that often don’t get their due. I usually think of raisins first and foremost for baking, and dried apricots for snacking. Then I move on to prunes and figs. Oh, and what about dates? They are just as delectable to incorporate into your muffins, coffee cakes, quick breads (breads made without yeast), and other pastries. Dates are also wonderful tossed into salads, rice pilafs, stuffings for different meats, and made into appetizers with either bacon or goat cheese. Not to mention that eating fresh Medjools, with their caramel-like flavor, straight up is a real luxury. Let’s rethink their place in our pantry and recipes. Dates “date” back to 4,000 B.C., when they were first cultivated in the area between Egypt and Mesopotamia. They are considered the oldest fruit on our planet. When we hear the phrase “the land of milk and honey” from Exodus in the Old Testament, it probably refers to date syrup, or silan, and not honey, as there is no evidence of bees that long ago. Most of the dates in the world are grown in the Mideast, with Egypt the largest producer of dates. California is the biggest U.S. producer, mostly grown around the Palm Springs desert areas. The climate is similar to that of the Mideast. Dates need sandy, slightly rocky soil with lots of hot sun. I had the good fortune to chat with a date rancher, Rick Olds of Desert Mountain Ranch last week. Since I personally didn’t know much about the fruit, I asked him to educate me. Raising this fruit is not as easy as it looks. It takes a date palm shoot 10 years to actually bear fruit. I guess one needs to be really patient! Rick and his partner, Carter, started 14 years ago with 200 shoots, each one painstakingly planted by hand. Now they have a total of 300 trees, producing about 200 pounds of dates per tree each year. They do a brisk business to local residents as well as direct to consumers online at www.desertmountaindates.com, Rick explained to me that date palms do not self-pollenate. The pollen is hand collected from the male trees and pollenated–you guessed it!–by hand to the female flowers. After pollination in the spring when the fruit begins to develop, each clump of dates has to be thinned out so the remaining dates develop into nice plump specimens. Harvesting in the fall is a three-step process, making sure only the ripest fruit is picked at its peak. According to healthline.com, dates have healthful properties besides being high in fiber and antioxidants. They are rich in calcium, potassium, and magnesium. Be aware: because they are a dried fruit, there is no shortage of calories in these little beauties. For unadorned eating, try to buy Medjool, the king of dates, or Declet Noor, the queen. Both cook and bake up wonderfully. A year ago, I was given a large bag of dates. Unfortunately, I didn’t open them until recently. Too dried out to eat from the bag but, alas, I’ve been baking up a storm with them. I developed a dairy-free, dense date and nut-filled bread with undertones of coffee (why not?) and studded with chocolate chips. The bread gets better with age, developing a moister consistency on the second and third day. It’s great warmed and smeared with cream cheese. Here at The Insider, we hope that you’ll hunt down the plumpest Medjool dates for your culinary pleasure. Let us know what recipes you come up with! Date Nut Bread Yield: 1 loaf, about 12 servings 2 c. chopped dates 1/4 c. vegetable oil 1 tsp. baking soda 3/4 tsp. salt 3/4 c. packed light brown sugar 1 c. hot brewed coffee 1 lg. egg 1 Tbsp. brandy or rum (optional) 1 tsp. vanilla 1/2 tsp. baking powder 1 3/4 c. flour 1 c. coarsely chopped walnuts 1 c. chocolate chips or small chunks, optional Spray an 8 1/2” x 4 1/2” loaf pan with pan release.  Preheat oven to 350°. Place the dates, oil, baking soda, salt, and brown sugar in a mixing bowl.  Pour on the hot coffee. Stir to dissolve the sugar. Allow mixture to sit for at least 15 minutes. Add the egg, vanilla, brandy (optional), baking powder and flour. Beat gently with a wooden spoon until combined. Fold in the walnuts and chocolate chips in. Pour into the prepared pan.  Sprinkle top with cinnamon sugar.  Bake for 35 minutes.  Turn heat down to 325°. Bake an additional 20 minutes or until the center springs back. Cool before slicing. 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 Lydia Hope Wilen / New York City It was the worst of times, it became the best of times. Joany quit her job and I didn’t have a job to quit. Both of us stayed home to care for our ailing mother. Along with allopathic treatments, we spent her and our meager savings on promising alternative therapies, not covered by insurance. Nothing helped. To keep ourselves sane during this trying time, we started thinking of creative projects to do that would eventually pay off. One of us came up with a catchy, sexy title for a cookbook that would have decadent recipes. A day or two earlier, Joany had read a newspaper article about Mary Ellen, a woman in Minnesota who had started her company by publishing her own books that became best sellers. (This was long before self-publishing became a thing.) The following Monday morning, after one of the worst weekends, out of sheer desperation, Joany said, “Call Mary Ellen and pitch her our book idea.” As Manpower’s Training Director, Joany’s usual advice was: “Never call anyone first thing Monday morning.” And as Manpower’s Sales Manager, why would she ask me to call to do a selling job on the publisher when, clearly, she was the salesperson? Joany’s reasoning was that I had some writing credits and my name is Lydia. Mary Ellen’s last name is Pinkham. If your name is either Lydia or Pinkham, chances are you would know of the herbal-alcoholic women’s tonic invented by Lydia Pinkham in the 1800s and that is still sold today. Okay, so I called Mary Ellen Enterprises on a Monday morning, not realizing that Minnesota is an hour earlier than New York. It was really early when I asked to speak to Mary Ellen. She got right on the phone. (We joked that it was the first and last time she got on the phone when we called.) I did the whole Lydia Pinkham name shpiel and told her that my sister and I had an idea for a novelty cookbook. She told me not to tell her the idea, but to send her a proposal for it. We figured out what a proposal is and came up with pages, decorated with pictures cut out of magazines and we mailed it to Mary Ellen. We forgot about the proposal as my mother’s health deteriorated. Weeks later, my mother passed away. While we were sitting shiva -- the time for Jewish spiritual and emotional healing after a death -- and the time for us to decide how to proceed in terms of earning a living, the phone rang. It was Mary Ellen. She said that our cookbook was not for her family-oriented publishing company, but she liked our style and wanted to meet with us. We didn’t know we had a style. She was coming to town the following week and made a breakfast appointment with us at her midtown hotel. When we showed up at the hotel’s restaurant and went to Mary Ellen’s table, it was love at first sight between Mary Ellen and Joany. Both had a weight problem. So what that my name is Lydia and she’s Pinkham? Because I didn’t need to lose weight, I became invisible. After a long breakfast, the restaurant needed to be set up for lunch and asked us to leave. Mary Ellen suggested we continue over lunch at a different restaurant. Late afternoon, still not talked out, Mary Ellen had a meeting and dinner with her lawyer and asked that we go to her hotel room after dinner, adding “bring along some ice cream.” Over bowls of vanilla fudge, triple chocolate and butter pecan, Mary Ellen made it clear that she wanted to work with us. She said she would fly us out to her office in Minneapolis, for us to pitch book ideas to her staff. (These days, it’s known as her team.) Joany and I came up with a list of what we thought were viable book ideas, including a book of folk remedies. Keep in mind, this was 1981 and there was no Internet or google and, as far as we knew, there were no easy-to-read, lighthearted folk remedy books. Our Minneapolis pitching session went well. Everyone loved everything, but Mary Ellen put each idea on the back burner. We finished going over our list of ideas and not one of them was on the front burner. It turned out that Mary Ellen had a hidden agenda. She asked if we thought we could write a baby name book. We didn’t have babies, but we did have names. So, yes, we could write it. And while you’re at it, and since you don’t have babies, would you be willing to ghost write a baby hints handbook? “Of course!” At that time of our lives, we would have said “yes” to writing a sisters’ version of The Brothers Karamazov had we been asked. Miraculously, we left Mary Ellen Enterprises with a two-book deal and a $10,000 check. Hey, we thought this publishing business is great. Little did we know, that’s usually not how publishers work with writers. We soon discovered that Joany was a whiz at research, having visited every library within a 50-mile radius. We also discovered that I was fairly good at coming up with a first draft. Then it was Joany’s turn to rewrite and edit. Before long, we had completed both books. Mary Ellen rejected all of our titles for the baby name book. Instead, she came up with the title that was used. We later found out that a pair of successful Minnesota husband and wife writers were her get-even targets. The wife had written a book called, Feed Me, I’m Yours and the husband had written a baby name book. Put ‘em both together and we got to revenge-write Name Me, I’m Yours! Exactly one year and one day after my mother died, Joany and I were authors on a first-class media tour, with a $3.95 book that, thanks to Mary Ellen’s imaginative marketing skills, smelled from baby powder. We had fun, sold a ton of books and had invitations to come back with our next venture. With the name books flying off the shelves, Mary Ellen was able to do a deal with Random House. She sold our two books for $100,000. According to our contract, we should have received a big chunk of that, but never did. We decided not to sue her because we are not litigious and because we were so grateful that she took a chance by giving us a chance. Also, our success with the name book got us in the door at Random House, who published our book with a new title. During our meeting with Random House, we took the folk remedy idea off the back burner, pitched it and got an instant greenlight to write it. Who knew that decades earlier, Random House had successfully published Folk Medicine by D.C. Jarvis, M.D. and they felt it was time for a more modern version? That’s how Chicken Soup & Other Folk Remedies happened. We were so lucky Mary Ellen didn’t want it. The publisher was not going to send us on a media tour, so Joany used our baby name contacts to book us on shows across the country. Those were the days when the shows paid for travel, hotel and meals, even if you weren’t a superstar. That’s when we became known as the Chicken Soup Sisters. What are the chances of living in the book-publishing capitol of the world and going to Minnesota to get a publishing deal? What are the chances that Mary Ellen Pinkham reads this and sues me for spilling the beans? If you have a “What Are The Chances...? story you would like to share, I’d love to know about it. Email it to me at editor@theinsider1.com. Don’t be shy! 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 Naomi Serviss / New York City My husband Lew retired from the New York Times at the end of December. His first bittersweet send-off (virtual and actual) was a thoughtful champagne toast on December 21 in a generic meeting room. The farthest wall from the door was aglow with zooming colleagues from here and there. About 30 people showed up in person, seated on the perimeter of the cafeteria-like tables. Some were standing. Others joined from the doorway. All cheered the guest of honor. Few people wore masks. It was the first large-ish social gathering we’d attended in (how many?) years. Laudatory remarks were made. Hands were shaken, people hugged, tears flowed. It got juicy. One young Zoom mentee lamented Lew’s departure and tagged him with “Giving Dad vibes.” Laughter peeled. I know what you’re thinking. Superspreader. It was a no-brainer, yet. Here’s the thing. I caught Covid last January. It was a near non-event, a very mild, cold-like bug that didn’t linger. A few days of annoying sniffles, then gone. It wasn’t a big inconvenience. I hadn’t courted the bug in any way. It merely existed. And wended its way to me, as it did millions of people worldwide. Lew lucked out and got away scot-free. What if we both came down with Covid after joining in the hoopla? How bad could it be? Which is how a decision was made to participate wholeheartedly in the festivities. How often does one retire, anyway? We’re both fully vaccinated, boosted and have kept low profiles. Masking became second nature, near-obsessive hand washing and respecting personal space made up our social fabric. Dr. Fauci (remember him?) would be proud. But I figured it was only a matter of time. And luck. Inevitably, Lew caught Covid first, big surprise. After all, he had met with colleagues for congratulatory lunches, hockey games and drinks. Inside bars and restaurants. Enough said. The day after a Rangers/Montreal Canadiens game he didn’t look so hot. The coughing started. “Uh-oh,” we thought. Symptoms included severe coughing, a little wheezing, exhaustion and existential kvetching. Appetite was fine, energy was low. No fever. Flu-like aches but no scary breathing concerns. At this point, I still felt fine. But reality stared us in the toothpaste. Couples toughing it out in small one-bedroom apartments have a 50-50 chance of catching the virus from significant others. Soon my impersonation of a cheerful, caring spouse wore thin. His constant coughing got on my last (third-rail) nerve. I know it sounds callous. But constant nighttime coughing can disturb a partners’ sleep as well. Not complaining, just reporting. While Lew was catching up on sleep between coughing spasms in the daytime hours, I did my best to avoid close contact. More than a challenge in a 750-square foot home. It’s virtually impossible and we let the fates decide which way the Covid gusts would blow. I still felt well, but my luck was about to turn the following day. I tested positive on a home test. Terrific! Two sick people with a pup to walk. Three times a day. Que será. Just when I was about to organize the junk drawer, sort old Playbills and declutter all the surfaces, I get slammed. My head felt sledgehammered. The doomsday migraine (no aura) trumpeted the virus. Neighboring construction noise augmented our aural misery. The outside elevator engine raucous thundered ever loudly. Our full-fledged symptoms seemed non-life-threatening. Merely life-interfering. Concentration was out. Patience was thin. It was time to seek a higher authority. I scored two virtual urgent care doctor’s visits. While waiting for the designated time, we behaved like couples who’ve been married a long while. Tolerant, up to a point. Admittedly, I did get a little testy. Communicating within three rooms shouldn’t be vexing. Yet our dialogue centered around these basics: “What did you say?” “I don’t understand what you just said!” “Would you come in here before you say something?” “You know I can’t hear you when the water’s running!” Au contraire, it vexed plenty. Another Covid symptom? Understandable, I reasoned, trying my best to be compassionate with my perfect spouse. I give myself a “C.” Maybe “A” for effort. In my mind. With Covid, every small task seemed insurmountable and had a steep cost. Reaching for a tea bag pulled my right shoulder muscle. Tossing and inevitably turning in bed nagged my left hip. The mouthwash tasted salty. All the news was bad. We should have been celebrating the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Instead, pro-choice women were again marching on Washington. I thought of my friend Faye Wattleton, the first African American and youngest president of Planned Parenthood. My Central Park dog walking mate and I had discussed the dire straits of women’s reproductive rights many times while strolling. I tried jumping back into her memoir, Life on the Line, but concentration was net zero. I felt a little anxious about not being able to focus. Sleep was difficult and my morning yoga routine was shot. 
Worrying wasn’t helping my mental state. Yet, it was a familiar fallback. I was kvetching about all things great and small. Whining became my love language. Unintentionally, of course. Sharing is not always caring when it comes to communicable diseases. Who knew misery loved company? Everyone. After all, that red flag wedding vow (“For better, for worse”) hadn’t stopped us, because we felt great the day we were married! So naïve. When finally granted our separate doctor screen time in the late morning, we cited our symptoms and were each prescribed the flavor of the day: Paxlovid. The perfect elixir! Both doctors had the same caveat: There might be a slight metallic taste and possible stomach distress after ingesting the pills. Not a problem. After the never-ending, unfinished symphony of sneezing, coughing, deep sighing and zapped energy, we were willing to chance tasting aluminum foil. On board in a nanosecond. Through a series of mishaps with the pharmacy, delivery of the “miracle cure” wouldn’t be sent until the next day! The show got worse. We were both feeling miserable, and our pup needed walking. Talk about conundrums. Lew slept between bouts of coughing. Sleeping was a briefly visited foreign land for me. My usual 4 a.m. get-out-of-bedtime still roused me hours before sunrise and offered quiet respite from? pre-construction sounds drilling. Delivery of the acclaimed medication finally arrived and we began taking two sets of three pills twice a day. I’d like to report that all symptoms dissolved immediately, but nay, not true. What was immediate? The tinny metal taste both doctors predicted. It wasn’t vile, just an unpleasant undercoat per swallow. Our symptoms slowly abated over the course of a week and our personal world began to right itself. My headache receded and my appetite returned. Lew’s cough has faded and we’re on the mend. Last I checked, the news has gotten worse. Police brutality. Ukraine Women’s rights Climate change Deforestation Gun Control Fortunately, we’re both completely symptom-free. And Janis still needs walking. Naomi Serviss is a New York-based award-winning journalist whose work has been published in The New York Times, Newsday, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Highroads (AAA magazine), in-flight publications, spa and travel magazines and websites, including BroadwayWorld.com

By John Rolfe / Red Hook, N.Y. “The lunatics are in my hall. The paper holds their folded faces to the floor and every day the paper boy brings more.” Those lines from Pink Floyd’s song “Brain Damage” ring as true now as they did when the album they are on — The Dark Side of the Moon — was released in 1973. But these days the “hall” tends to be our electronic devices (phones, tablets, laptops) and the “paper boy” is social media. Unfortunately, there has never been a shortage of lunatics and a contingent of them is assailing the band’s use of a rainbow (actually, it’s the spectrum created by the prism on the cover of the album) in a logo celebrating the 50th anniversary of Dark Side’s release. “Why does there have to be a bloody woke rainbow,” one denizen of Twitter groused. “Lose the wokeness,” another tweeted. “Longtime fan. Do you now have handlers? Kanye has exposed this part of the industry. Been listening to your music since ’70s. Let’s see your response.” “Are you going woke with rainbows?” a Facebook user wondered. “Is there a straight flag? I want equal representation, don’t get me wrong, we should all be true to who we are.” “Lose the rainbow,” wrote another Facebook grump. “You’re making yourself look stupid.” Never mind that the Dark Side spectrum, which has long been synonymous with the band, predates the LGBTQ rainbow flag by five years. No one associated with Pink Floyd has ever said the cover image was intended as a statement of support for gay rights or even general inclusiveness — not that those things should be a genuine cause for outrage either. As the 50th Anniversary of Dark Side’s release (March 24) approaches with its commemorative re-release (a deluxe boxed set) a book, and events such as planetarium laser shows, I expect bigger, louder voices to be raised in ignorant anger. This ridiculous brouhaha is tailor-made for someone like Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, who has been busy foaming at the mouth during the flap about the makers of M&Ms candy using “inclusive” cartoon characters for advertisements. (If you are unfamiliar with the story, this clip will fill you in.) The Dark Side of the Moon has sold more than 50 million copies worldwide while setting a record for longevity on Billboard’s Top 200 album chart: more than 950 weeks, including 741 consecutive weeks from March 1973 to April 1988. Brilliantly played, immaculately recorded, and loaded with classic, sound-and-voice-effect-laden songs such as “Money” and “Time,” the album examines life and things that drive people to despair and madness: greed, violence, alienation, indifference, divisiveness, and mortality. It continues to resonate with listeners across generations because the music still sounds fresh and the themes lyricist Roger Waters addressed are timeless. The album’s iconic cover image is a triangular prism refracting a beam of white light into a multi-colored spectrum on a black background. When that spectrum was included in the band’s recently unveiled 50th Anniversary of Dark Side logo, conservative social warriors with homophobic inclinations objected in sadly predictable fashion. Never mind that the image came about because Pink Floyd’s keyboardist Rick Wright had requested something “clean, elegant and precise” for Dark Side’s cover. Graphic artist/photographer Storm Thorgerson, who had been doing the band’s artwork with partner Aubrey Powell, came up with the prism after seeing a photo of one that made him think of the light shows that were a famous feature of the band’s live performances. “The other thing was the triangle,” Thorgerson told Rolling Stone in 2011. “I think the triangle, which is a symbol of thought and ambition, was very much a subject of Roger’s lyrics.” Ten cover ideas were presented to the band, among them a silver surfer traversing the universe — a reference to a line in the song “Breathe” (“Balanced on the biggest wave, you race towards an early grave”) — but the prism was the Floyd’s instant, unanimous choice. “It’s a brilliant cover,” guitarist David Gilmour told Rolling Stone. “One can look at it after that first moment of brilliance and think, ‘Well, it’s a very commercial idea: It’s very stark and simple; it’ll look great in shop windows.’” Now, in our delightfully polarized, overheated age, some can look at it and see a political statement that triggers their knees and makes them jerk wildly. Ironically, the band’s liberal views have hardly been a secret during its 55 years as a major recording act. Waters lost his father to combat in World War II and was raised by an outspoken mother who was a school teacher and avid socialist. His lyrics for the Dark Side song “Us and Them” lament the military (“Forward he cried from the rear and the front rank died”) and how the plight of the poor is ignored (“For want of the price of tea and a slice the old man died”). Waters attacked greedy capitalists and conservative scold Mary Whitehouse, an early social warrior, on the Floyd’s 1977 album Animals and included Ronald Reagan among the “colonial wasters of life and limb” in his song “The Fletcher Memorial Home” from the band’s 1983 album The Final Cut. Most recently, the Floyd, now led by Gilmour, released a song called “Hey Hey Rise Up” to raise money for humanitarian support for Ukraine. But the biggest stink Pink Floyd ever raised was with its chart-topping hit “Another Brick in the Wall Part II” from their 1979 album The Wall. Decrying a cruel school teacher, the song featured English children singing “We don’t need no education. We don’t need no thought control. Hey, teacher! Leave those kids alone!” The backlash was fierce with many (teachers among them) interpreting the song as being anti-education and an endorsement of ignorance. Oh, the irony. The Wall, the story of a tormented rock star who descends into fascistic madness, also included a song called “In the Flesh?” where he vows to find out where his fans “really stand.” It includes these lines: “Are there any queers in the theater tonight? Get 'em up against the wall (against the wall) Now there's one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me Get him up against the wall (against the) And that one looks Jewish And that one's a coon Who let all this riff-raff into the room? There's one smokin' a joint And another with spots If I had my way I'd have all of them shot.” Meanwhile, The Dark Side of the Moon’s cover image never raised an eyebrow until a few weeks ago. Homophobia and paranoia about pedophiles is at a fever pitch on the right, due largely to QAnon, which posits that our government is run by a blood-guzzling cabal of child traffickers. Less crazed conservative commentators and politicians have been decrying as “grooming” and “indoctrination” any attempts to understand or accommodate the LGBTQ community. During the past year or so, whenever I’ve worn my Dark Side of the Moon t-shirt in public, I couldn’t help wondering how many people would now see the prism as a gay pride symbol and react negatively. Sure enough: “What is that, Pink Floyd what a disgrace,” is yet another recent comment from a Facebook troll on the side that supposedly champions free speech and abhors cancel culture. “From this moment I don’t listen this band…” I’m sure the Floyd will weep bitter tears when they read that one. I can’t wait until 2025 when the classic hard rock band Rainbow celebrates the 50th anniversary of its founding. One can easily imagine what the frothing folks on the right will say about that even though the band’s name came about by chance. However, the following could surely cause an uproar: In a 1995 interview, guitarist Ritchie Blackmore said, “[The name] came from the Hollywood Bar & Grill (aka the Rainbow on LA’s Sunset Strip). I was in there with [singer] Ronnie [James Dio] getting drunk as usual and said: ‘What shall we call the band?’ and he just pointed to the sign.” “Lucky you weren’t in the Pheasant and Firkin,” Blackmore’s interviewer said, to which Blackmore joked, “Or the Bull And Bush. Or all the other transvestite bars we used to go to.” As Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters wrote 50 years ago, “And if your head explodes with dark forebodings too. I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.” 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 January 30, 2023 PALM BEACH (The Borowitz Report)—As Ron DeSantis reportedly prepares a White House bid, Donald J. Trump accused the Florida Governor of lacking the classified documents necessary to be President of the United States. “A President needs nuclear codes, weapons designs, top-secret stuff like you wouldn’t believe,” Trump said. “How are you gonna get all that without classified documents? The answer is, Ron DeSantis should not be allowed to run.” Trump predicted that “if the F.B.I. raided Ron’s house today, they wouldn’t find a goddam document. Not a goddam document. This is what makes Ron DeSantis so dangerous, quite frankly.” In perhaps his most damning accusation, Trump alleged that DeSantis “never even tried to buy classified documents from me.” “I had all these beautiful, gleaming documents for sale, and Ron never picked up the phone and said, ‘Sir, I’d like to buy some documents,’ ” he said. “Ron DeSantis is a disgrace.” 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.

One film journalist’s stream-of-consciousness cinematic journey through the pandemic, Part 117 By Laurence Lerman / New York City In November, 2021, it was announced that there would be a third film in the Magic Mike series, with star Channing Tatum returning as the likable and ambitious nightclub stripper Mike Laine. Steven Soderbergh, who helmed the first film in the series, 2012’s Magic Mike, would also return to direct. A year and change later, Magic Mike’s Last Dance is set to open wide on February 9 (right before Valentine’s Day, lovers!), and as the pre-release buzz builds, stories that popped up during the production are resurfacing. The most repeated one involved the difficulties of pulling off a production during those months, led by the trickiness of shooting a physically demanding film featuring sweaty, heavy-breathing, scantily-clad dancers during Covid. Also making some noise was the departure of co-star Thandiwe Newton in mid-production (for “personal reasons”) and being quickly replaced by Salma Hayek Pinault. What’s most fascinating and much less discussed when it comes to Magic Mike is the surprising success of the first two films and how this latest and final film in the series (at least, at this point) came about. Don’t get me wrong—I understand that hit movies always have the potential to generate long-lasting franchises. But Magic Mike is not a effects-filled sci-fier or comicbook conception or action juggernaut. Even with the first film grossing $167 million worldwide on a $7 million budget and Magic Mike XXL, directed by Gregory Jacobs, bringing in a healthy $117 million at a cost of $14 million, it doesn’t seem like the kind of sexy comedy-drama double-shot that would prompt a return dance. According to director Soderbergh, Magic Mike’s Last Dance was not what he, co-producer/star Tatum or either of their teams had in mind at the outset. In fact, for at least a couple of years following the second film, Soderbergh was developing a Broadway-styled stage version of the story, just as Tatum, screenwriter Reid Carolin and their choreography team were developing their own! Months into development, Soderbergh saw a finished version of Tatum and Reid’s show in London and was convinced it could also play as a movie. “I was so captivated by it that I got on the phone and said ‘I think we should abandon the Broadway idea, and I would like to make a movie that is a fictionalized version of how Mike comes up with the idea for the live show,” Soderbergh told the website Total Film earlier this month. The Magic Mike Live show, meanwhile, opened in London in November, 2018 and is still playing there (following a Covid hiatus). It’s also yielded a production in Vegas and a touring roadshow. As for the new film, Last Dance (the trailer of which feature’s Donna Summer’s 1978 hit) once again follows the adventures of Mike Lane, who is now bartending in a Florida after a bad business deal has emptied his bank account. There he meets Hayek’s sexily-monikered socialite Maxandra Mendoza (trying saying it lustily!), who offers him a chance to put on a Magic Mike-styled male revue in London. Mikey and Maxy boogie across the pond and make it happen—while also checking out the city’s postcard-perfect sites and partaking in a romantic interlude or two, in the grand Hollywood tradition of the musically inclined when they set down in Europe. (Mamma Mia or An American in Paris, anyone?) Distributor Warner Bros. Discovery's publicity department has been very tight-lipped when it comes to any plot specifics, but Soderbergh has confirmed that the movie will end with 30 minutes of straight dancing. That’s right: 30 minutes, a half-hour of dancing. “We have this dance number with Channing and Salma right up front. And then the last 30-plus minutes of the movie are just this giant dance sequence,” offered Soderbergh to Empire Magazine a couple of months back. “My job is, how do I make each one of these distinct? I can't shoot them all the same way, I have to come up with a different approach for each dance. And that was really the challenge.” Channing Tatum appears to be having a good time in the run-up to what is sure to be a deluge of promotion for the film. (Get ready for him and Ms. Hayek to be doing the circuit of morning chat klatches and nighttime talk shows.) In his cover story in the February issue of Vanity Fair, Tatum has a lot of fun trumpeting his skills as an exotic dancer, a talent he developed during his well-known early days as a stripper in a Tampa, Fla. nightclub. His stint on the stage began when he was 18, a gig that he abandoned soon after to pursue a career in modeling and acting. But it was that brief period in Tatum’s life and his confident interest in making a movie about it that sparked the attention of Soderbergh and original screenwriter Carolin and thus got the ball rolling. Both Tatum and Carolin served as producers on all three Magic Mike movies. On the lighter side, when it came to his thoughts on who he could defeat in a “strip-off” against Hollywood’s other onscreen exotic dancers, Tatum proudly proclaimed he could hold his own. “I would go harder, if I was stripping against her,” Tatum offered to Vanity Fair when asked how he thinks he would fare against Jennifer Lopez, who did the deed in 2019’s Hustlers. “I’m just saying, I’m gonna take it to J.Lo’s front door. I don’t know if I’m gonna win, but I like my chances, depending on who the audience is.” Tatum had similar opinion of his Magic Mike co-star Joe Maganiello, though he was quick to acknowledge Joe’s formidable physique. “When you look in the dictionary next to, like, the perfect specimen of a man, probably Joe Manganiello is one of the bodies that like pops up,” said Tatum. “He’s kind of weirdly flawless.” “But as far as stripping goes, I would put myself, I would put myself above him dance-wise,” he added. Like the dancer he once was and the one he’s portrayed onscreen for the past decade, Channing Tatum knows how to work it. Laurence Lerman is a film journalist, former editor of Video Business--Variety's DVD trade publication--and husband to The Insider's own Gwen Cooper. Over the course of his career he has conducted one-on-one interviews with just about every major director working today, including Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, Clint Eastwood, Kathryn Bigelow, Ridley Scott, Walter Hill, Spike Lee, and Werner Herzog, among numerous others. Once James Cameron specifically requested an interview with Laurence by name, which his wife still likes to brag about. Most recently, he is the co-founder and editor-in-chief of the online review site DiscDish.com.