May 10, 2022 Jeffrey D. Sachs | Project Syndicate Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has degenerated into a savage war of attrition that each side believes it will win, but which in reality both sides will lose. Ukraine should intensify the search for a negotiated peace of the kind that was on the table in March, but which was abandoned following the Russian atrocities in Bucha. NEW YORK – Wars often erupt and persist because of the two sides’ miscalculations regarding their relative power. In the case of Ukraine, Russia blundered badly by underestimating the resolve of Ukrainians to fight and the effectiveness of NATO-supplied weaponry. Yet Ukraine and NATO are also overestimating their capacity to defeat Russia on the battlefield. The result is a war of attrition that each side believes it will win, but that both sides will lose. Ukraine should intensify the search for a negotiated peace of the type that was on the table in late March, but which it then abandoned following evidence of Russian atrocities in Bucha – and perhaps owing to changing perceptions of its military prospects. The peace terms under discussion in late March called for Ukraine’s neutrality, backed by security guarantees and a timeline to address contentious issues such as the status of Crimea and the Donbas. Russian and Ukrainian negotiators stated that there was progress in the negotiations, as did the Turkish mediators. The negotiations then collapsed after the reports from Bucha, with Ukraine’s negotiator stating that, “Ukrainian society is now much more negative about any negotiation concept that concerns the Russian Federation.” But the case for negotiations remains urgent and overwhelming. The alternative is not Ukraine’s victory but a devastating war of attrition. To reach an agreement, both sides need to recalibrate their expectations. When Russia attacked Ukraine, it clearly expected a quick and easy victory. Russia vastly underestimated the upgrading of the Ukraine military following years of US, British, and other military support and training since 2014. Moreover, Russia underestimated the extent to which NATO military technology would counter Russia’s greater number of troops. No doubt, Russia’s greatest error was to assume that the Ukrainians would not fight – or perhaps even switch sides. Yet now Ukraine and its Western supporters are overestimating the chances of defeating Russia on the battlefield. The idea that the Russian army is about to collapse is wishful thinking. Russia has the military capacity to destroy Ukrainian infrastructure (such as the rail lines now under attack) and to win and hold territory in the Donbas region and on the Black Sea coast. Ukrainians are fighting resolutely, but it is highly unlikely that they can force a Russian defeat. Nor can Western financial sanctions, which are far less sweeping and effective than the governments that imposed them acknowledge. US sanctions against Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, and others have not changed the politics of those regimes, and the sanctions against Russia are already falling far short of the hype with which they were introduced. Excluding Russian banks from the SWIFT international payments system was not the “nuclear option” that many claimed. According to the International Monetary Fund, Russia’s economy will contract by around 8.5% in 2022 – bad but hardly catastrophic. Moreover, the sanctions are creating serious economic consequences for the United States and especially Europe. US inflation is at a 40-year high and is likely to persist because of the trillions of dollars of liquidity that had been created by the Federal Reserve in recent years. At the same time, the US and European economies are slowing, perhaps even contracting, as supply-chain disruptions proliferate. US President Joe Biden’s domestic political position is weak and likely to weaken further as economic difficulties mount in the coming months. Public support for the war will also likely diminish as the economy sours. The Republican Party is split over the war, with the Trump faction not much interested in confronting Russia over Ukraine. The Democrats, too, will increasingly resent the stagflation that is likely to cost the party its majority in one or both houses of Congress in the November midterm elections. The adverse economic fallout from the war and sanctions regime will also reach dire proportions in dozens of developing countries that depend on food and energy imports. Economic dislocations in these countries will lead to urgent calls worldwide to end the war and sanctions regime. In the meantime, Ukraine continues to suffer grievously in terms of deaths, dislocation, and destruction. The IMF now forecasts a 35% contraction of Ukraine’s economy in 2022, reflecting the brutal destruction of housing, factories, rail stock, energy storage and transmission capacity, and other vital infrastructure. Most dangerous of all, as long as the war continues, the risk of nuclear escalation is real. If Russia’s conventional forces were actually to be pushed toward defeat, as the US is now seeking, Russia might well counter with tactical nuclear weapons. A US or Russian aircraft could be shot down by the other side as they scramble over the Black Sea, which in turn could lead to direct military conflict. Media reports that the US has covert forces on the ground, and the US intelligence community’s disclosure that it helped Ukraine kill Russian generals and sink Russia’s Black Sea flagship, underscore the danger. The reality of the nuclear threat means that both sides should never forgo the possibility of negotiations. That is the central lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which took place 60 years ago this coming October. President John F. Kennedy saved the world then by negotiating an end to the crisis – agreeing that the US would never again invade Cuba and that the US would remove its missiles from Turkey in exchange for the withdrawal of the Soviet missiles from Cuba. That was not giving in to Soviet nuclear blackmail. That was Kennedy wisely avoiding Armageddon. It is still possible to establish peace in Ukraine based on the parameters that were on the table at the end of March: neutrality, security guarantees, a framework for addressing Crimea and the Donbas, and Russian withdrawal. This remains the only realistic and safe course for Ukraine, Russia, and the world. The world would rally to such an agreement, and, for its own survival and well-being, so should Ukraine. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/russia-nato-security-through-ukrainian-neutrality-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2022-02 Jeffrey D. Sachs, University Professor at Columbia University, is Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has served as adviser to three UN Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General António Guterres. His books include The End of Poverty, Common Wealth, The Age of Sustainable Development, Building the New American Economy, A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism, and, most recently, The Ages of Globalization.

By Andy Borowitz May 11, 2022 SAN FRANCISCO (The Borowitz Report)—In an abrupt about-face that has rocked the tech world, Elon Musk has decided to sell Twitter after it failed to make him interesting. Speaking to reporters, Musk said he was “disappointed” that his purchase of Twitter had done nothing to change the public’s perception of him as a tedious attention hog. “I really thought that owning Twitter would transform my image as a black hole of neediness,” he said. “Instead, it made me look desperate. And not in an interesting way.” Musk said that the last straw was when signalling his intention to let Donald J. Trump back on Twitter failed, yet again, to make the Tesla C.E.O. interesting. “I guess I didn’t realize that you can’t become interesting by associating with someone else who people don’t find interesting,” he said. “This whole thing has been a learning experience.”

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 Have you ever taken a bite out of raw rhubarb? We’re talking really tart. The same kind of bite as eating a raw cranberry. It’s spring, which means the arrival of one of my favorite dessert ingredients. I feel really connected to rhubarb naturally. My dad was a huge fan of the traditional combination of strawberries and rhubarb. His favorite way to enjoy it was in a pie. But over the years, I changed it up somewhat and delved into strawberry rhubarb crisps, coffee cake, and tarts. Fortunately rhubarb was still kicking around in the markets every June when I baked Dad his beloved dessert each year for Father’s Day. My sister Marcia and I would make jam in the summer and take him jars of this marriage of sweet berries and tart rhubarb. Dad would slather it on his toast in the morning. I’ve adopted his love for that duo. Back in 1981, my husband Bob and I bought a modest house in Bloomfield Township, Mich. It had a spectacular yard, probably 3/4 of an acre. The previous owner was a farmer of sorts. He had planted a large vegetable garden each year. The bonus for us were three crops that came back bigger and better each spring. Asparagus spears popped up all over the property, we had a raspberry patch that was at least 30-feet-long and six-feet-wide, and a major rhubarb patch that flourished. I had just opened my first store, Bonnie’s Patisserie, so I had an outlet for the 90-pound crop I harvested. Strawberry rhubarb tarts galore! Rhubarb originated in China over 2,000 years ago, and was used primarily for medicinal purposes. The Chinese were on to something: rhubarb has antioxidants, as well as anti-inflammatory and anti-bacterial qualities. It started to appear in England and Scandinavia by the 18th century. Rhubarb is consumed in northern and eastern European countries where the climate is conducive for its growth. (The plant prefers cooler climates for growing, as it does not do well in hot weather.) There is a classic dessert from England, Rhubarb Fool, a combination of stewed rhubarb and fresh whipped cream or vanilla custard. In the United States, rhubarb grows mainly in Maine, Washington State, the Upper Midwest, and the Great Plains. It is in these parts of the country where rhubarb desserts are most popular. Rhubarb is a perennial rhizome, returning and spreading year after year. There are several varieties, from pale pink to deep ruby red. Some stalks have a green tint. The color does not seem to impact the flavor, with all tasting about the same. Do not eat the leaves as they are poisonous, containing a high concentration of oxalate or oxalic acid. Too bad, they are very attractive and plentiful. The good news is that rhubarb is very low in calories, but alas, to make it palatable, we need to add lots of sugar to balance out the tartness. One could consider using rhubarb as a vegetable, which it really is, instead of a fruit. My sister Marcia makes a hearty lentil soup and adds rhubarb as the acid instead of lemon juice or vinegar. It can also be used in salsas, barbecue sauce, chutneys, or even paired with pan roasted chicken pieces. Think outside the box! I created today’s recipe 40 years ago to use up my massive rhubarb crop back in Michigan. We would sell it in my patisserie. It seems like a “fussy” recipe because it has three parts to it, but they can all be done ahead of time and none of the steps are difficult. I even make a double batch of the tart dough and topping, freezing half of each for a future time. Only the filling needs to be made a day or two before baking. Consider using the tart dough for other fruit tarts. The shell can be baked all the way through, cooled, spread with vanilla pastry cream, and topped with fresh berries or bananas. The streusel topping can be used for other purposes, including individual fruit crisps in ramekins. If you have excess raw rhubarb, it freezes: cut the stalks into 1/2” pieces. Freeze it on baking sheets. When frozen collect it in a freezer Ziploc bag. One last tip: this tart pairs very well with vanilla ice cream. Tell us here at The Insider how you thought about rhubarb “outside the box.” Did you use it in a dessert? Or did you create a savory dish with it? We all love new ideas! Strawberry Rhubarb Tart Yield: 10 servings Filling: 1 oz. butter 4 c. 1/2” pieces rhubarb 1/2 c. sugar 2 Tbsp. flour 1 tsp. cinnamon 1 1/2 c. sliced fresh strawberries Streusel topping: ½ c. flour 1/2 c. brown sugar 2 oz. cold butter, cut into bits Tart dough: 4 oz. butter, room temperature 1/4 c. sugar 1 lg. egg yolk 1 1/3 c. flour Make filling: In a large saucepan, melt the butter over low heat. Add the rhubarb. Cook until the juices run clear, about 5-7 minutes. Add the sugar, flour and cinnamon. Cover; cook until just tender, about 5-7 minutes. Blend in the sliced strawberries. Cool. Reserve. Can be made ahead and kept refrigerated. Bring to room temperature before use. Make the topping: Combine the flour and sugar in a small bowl. Blend in the cut-up butter using fingertips until the butter is well distributed. The mixture should resemble coarse meal. Reserve. Topping can be made ahead and frozen or refrigerated. Bring to room temperature before use. Make the dough: Beat together the butter and sugar until fluffy. Blend in the yolk. Add the flour and mix until the dough comes together. Dough can be made ahead and frozen or refrigerated. Return to room temperature before use. Assembly: Spray a 10” fluted removable bottom tart pan with pan release. Press the dough evenly into the bottom and up the sides of the pan, keeping the top of the crust smooth. Prick the dough with a fork. Freeze for at least 30 minutes or overnight. Preheat oven to 375°. Place the tart on a cookie sheet lined with foil. Place a piece of foil in the tart. Set a smaller cake pan on top of the tart to weigh down the foil. Bake for 15 minutes. Remove cake pan and foil. Bake another 8 minutes. If the crust bubbles up, take a damp paper towel and gently press the bubbles until they relax. Add the rhubarb filling, spreading it evenly in the tart. Sprinkle on the topping. Reduce oven temperature to 350°. Bake for 45 minutes or until the center of the filling begins to bubble up. Cool completely. Using a small sharp knife, loosen the top of the crust from the pan. Carefully remove the outer ring. Serve at room temperature. Press dough into the bottom and up the sides of the tart pan. Bonnie Fishman attended the Cordon Bleu Cookery School in London. Later, she owned and operated Bonnie’s Patisserie in Southfield, Mich. and Bonnie’s Kitchen and Catering in Bloomfield Hills, Mich. She has taught cooking for over 35 years and created hundreds of recipes. She is now living in Northern California.

By Jessie Seigel / Washington, D.C. The right-wing takeover of the judiciary is as much a part of the Republicans’ fascist putsch-in-progress as are Donald Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021 attempted overthrow of the 2020 election and the conspiracies between the Trumpers in Congress and the former President’s Administration, which are coming to light more and more daily. The latest chapter in the judiciary’s role is last week’s leaked Supreme Court draft opinion regarding Roe v. Wade, which would eliminate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion. Though the opinion, if and when it becomes final, will have a devastating effect on the day-to-day lives of women, its damage to our country will be far greater than that. And it appears that at least five of the court’s six ultra-conservative justices have already signed on. In holding that Roe v. Wade “must be overruled,” Justice Samuel Alito emphasized that the Constitution contains no explicit or implicit right to abortion. Though he conceded that the Fourteenth Amendment “has been held to guarantee” some rights not mentioned in the Constitution, Alito maintained that any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” This claim that rights not specifically named in the Constitution must be rooted in “history and tradition” is plainly the opening salvo for a judicial attack on any and all such rights. That includes rights such as gay marriage, interracial marriage, the elimination of legal segregation—and that is only the start of a list. Who knows how far this reactionary court might go in abrogating the rights of American citizens? Alito pretended to reason his way to overruling the 50 years of established law Roe v. Wade represents. But he revealed his true contempt for precedent and the rule of law in a speech he gave to the extreme right-wing Federalist Society in 2015. There, Alito said of stare decisis, the legal phrase denoting precedent: “It is a Latin phrase. It means to leave things decided when it suits our purposes.” He went on to say, “it’s not difficult for a judge to make the stare decisis inquiry come out however the judge wants it to come out.” According to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s 2019 book, Captured: The Corporate Infiltration of American Democracy, Chief Justice Roberts is equally cynical. Whitehouse wrote that Roberts “went even further than Alito, announcing that he evaluates precedent in light of whether his bloc of justices objects to it.” These are not the philosophies of legal scholars. These are the approaches of political hacks. Also revealing of the court’s dishonesty is Roberts directing the Marshal of the Supreme Court to launch an investigation into who leaked Alito’s draft opinion. It is not even clear that such a leak breaks any laws, so bringing the Marshal into it may be an abuse of power. In any case, Roberts’ sole concern is the “betrayal of the confidences of the Court.” In a May 3 statement, he indignantly decried the leak as a “singular and egregious breach of … trust that is an affront to the Court.” But where was Chief Justice Roberts’ indignation or action when Justice Clarence Thomas failed to recuse himself in cases involving the Jan. 6, 2021, coup attempt—despite Thomas’ wife’s involvement and personal interest in the outcome? Indeed, where was Roberts’ concern for the court’s propriety and appearance of impartiality when, as reported by Think Progress as far back as 2011, Thomas and Alito attended arch-conservative fundraisers organized by billionaire GOP donor Charles Koch to coordinate political strategy? Roberts’ concern even for the Court’s appearance of integrity was nowhere to be found. It is apparent that Roberts’ concern is maintaining the Court’s veneer of legitimacy while hiding the Court’s real workings from the public. But it’s too late for that. For some time now, the Supreme Court justices aligned with the Republicans have barely bothered to give even the appearance of impartiality. The Court’s trappings of respect or legitimacy are now as thin and transparent as cellophane. The Judiciary’s Threat to Democracy How did the courts become a vanguard for anti-democratic forces? Through corrupt manipulations by Republican leaders, especially Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, known for twisting the Senate’s rules in unconventional ways to get what he wants--especially as it relates to judges. In 2016, as Majority Leader, McConnell famously refused to even hold a hearing on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, on the specious claim that it was not appropriate to approve a Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year. This made way for Trump—when he became president—to appoint ultra-conservative Appeals Court Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. In one of Gorsuch’s sallies against democracy in 2018, he joined in a concurring opinion by Justice Thomas arguing that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits discriminatory voting actions by government, should not apply at all to redistricting decisions. Despite McConnell’s rationale for blocking Merrick Garland’s appointment, McConnell made sure to rush through confirmation to the Supreme Court of regressive Federal Appeals Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett a mere eight days before the 2020 presidential election—thus depriving Joe Biden of the chance to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat when he won that election and became president. According to People for the American Way, among Justice Barrett’s abhorrent positions on the appellate court were her vote to allow businesses to racially segregate workplaces, her vote to reject an immigrant torture claim without considering the merits, and her issuance of a dissent that would have denied a criminal defendant his right to counsel. This corruption of our democracy extends from top to bottom of the judiciary. Appointments to the lower courts, similarly shepherded by McConnell, will likely have just as adverse an effect on the country as the current Supreme Court majority. The Alliance for Justice Action Campaign has reported that each year, about 50,000 cases are filed in federal courts of appeals and over 390,000 in district courts. Since the Supreme Court addresses fewer than 100 such cases each year, this means that lower federal court decisions are final in most cases. As addressed in detail by the People for the American Way, Trump’s appellate court judges have been responsible for decisions biased in favor of corporations, supportive of discrimination, and damaging to workers’ rights, immigration, consumers rights, reproductive rights, and other constitutional issues like money in politics, and abuse of government authority. 234 of these judges—a third of the Supreme Court and almost a third of active appeals court judges—were appointed by Trump during his four years in office. Most of Trump’s judicial appointees were chosen for their willingness to dismantle the American judicial system and democracy itself in pursuit of reactionary goals. Judicial qualifications, precedent, and legal reasoning—let alone our health and welfare—be damned. According to the Washington Post, out of a total of 22 court nominees rated “Not Qualified” by the American Bar Association (ABA) since 1989, 10 were nominated by Trump. Of those, two withdrew their nominations and eight were confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate. A Sampling of Trump’s Lower Court Judges Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, the federal district court judge in Florida who recently issued a nationwide injunction striking down the federal mask mandate for public transportation, had only been practicing law for eight years when confirmed for her lifetime position and had only ever participated in two trials before her appointment—both while she was in law school. In 2020, the American Bar Association (ABA) rated her “Not Qualified,” for the district court judgeship, based on her lack of experience. But none of those disqualifications mattered. According to Vanity Fair on April 19, Jones Day, the firm Mizelle worked for before her lifetime appointment, was the biggest firm representing Trump in his efforts to undermine the results of the 2020 presidential election. Her spouse, Chad Mizelle, was the former general counsel to Trump’s Homeland Security Department. Not to mention the fact that Mizelle clerked for Clarence Thomas—from whom she probably learned her fanciful legal approach. Needless to say, the lame-duck Republican Senate rushed through Mizelle’s confirmation between Trump’s loss of the 2020 election and Biden’s inauguration. In striking down the mask mandate, and endangering the nation’s health, Mizelle applied a preposterously narrow interpretation to justify her ruling. Among other things, focusing on “sanitation”--only one term in the statute authorizing the CDC’s protection of public health-- she wrote, “Wearing a mask cleans nothing. At most it traps virus droplets. But it neither ‘sanitizes’ the person wearing the mask nor sanitizes’ the conveyance.” The Washington Post characterized this as Mizelle “imposing her policy preference on the whole country, conjuring up whatever legal justification she could pull out of the air to make it happen.” I strongly agree. And at a time when variants are again on the rise, allowing people to crowd into a confined space for hours, breathing the same air, is asking for more spread of the disease as well as the emergence of further variants—which makes Mizelle’s policy preference deadly. (I must admit I take her decision quite personally. Mizelle is trying to kill me. True–her injunction affects everybody who travels by air, train, and other forms of public transport, not just me. But as Catch 22’s World War II hero Yossarian said when told the enemy was shooting at everybody, not just him: “What difference does that make?") D.C. Circuit Court Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump loyalist, was appointed in 2019, to take the seat previously held by now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In her pre-judicial years, she had written op-eds expressing her hostility to LGBTQ advocacy, insulting African-American scholars, and blaming survivors of sexual assault for being attacked. But as nasty as those biases are, even worse was Rao’s willingness to undermine democracy by maintaining in a dissent in October 2019 that presidential power has no limits, and that Congress could not use subpoenas to investigate Trump’s impeachable offenses. If presidential power has no limit, then we may as well throw out the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No one who takes that position has any place on the bench. Mathew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee to the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas who was confirmed in 2019, ordered President Joe Biden’s administration to reinstate Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, requiring asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border to stay in Mexico while awaiting a hearing. The Supreme Court backed Kacsmaryk, effectively requiring the Biden Administration to comply with the order, even while its appeal is pending. Because the reinstatement would require cooperation of the Mexican government, Kacsmaryk’s order trampled decades of Supreme Court opinions that warned against the danger of judicial interference in the conduct of foreign policy. For stability of foreign relations, other nations need to know that when they negotiate with the United States, an agreement won’t suddenly be upended by some individual federal judge who happens to disagree with it. Next on the judicial chopping block may be the longstanding Congressional authority to delegate power to agencies. If that is negated, federal courts could essentially gut agencies’ ability to implement Congress’s laws, thus hamstringing the capacity of the legislative branch of government to function. According to VOX, some lower court judges are already jumping the gun, referencing lack of delegation authority as one of their reasons for tossing out agency regulations. The Washington Post wrote in April 2022 that, for Trump’s judges, “There are no principles worth adhering to, no systems that should command respect, and no rules worth obeying if you don’t like the outcome those rules produce.” In other words, these are judges who do not believe in law. It is clear that the Department of Justice simply must be more proactive in challenging the many reactionary decisions by these various Trump judges. Admittedly, however, such challenges will come to nothing if the right-wing majority on the Supreme Court is of a mind to dismantle the democratic process, as well as encouraging and upholding such incursions by lower courts. So, the only real route to stopping this third leg of the coming fascism is the ballot box this November. President Biden and the Democrats need to stop bemoaning their inability to overcome Republican obstruction. Instead, they need, Harry Truman-style, to shout at the top of their lungs: “You want our promises fulfilled? Help us overcome the filibuster. Throw the blaggards out. GIVE US MORE DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE!” Political columnist Jessie Seigel had a long career as a government attorney in which she honed her analytic skills. She has also twice received an Artist’s Fellowship from the Washington, D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities for her fiction, and has been a finalist for a number of literary awards. In addition, Seigel is an associate editor at the Potomac Review, a reviewer for The Washington Independent Review of Books, and a dabbler in political cartoons at Daily Kos. Of this balance in her work between the analytic and the imaginative, Seigel jokes, “I guess my right and left brains are well-balanced.” More on and from Seigel can be found at The Adventurous Writer, https://www.jessieseigel.com.

By John Rolfe / Red Hook, N.Y. When our perception of reality is deeply colored by what we see and hear in the media that constantly bombards us, it’s hard to know how good or bad things really are beyond our own lives. I’ve noticed that people usually say times are tough, no matter which political party has the upper hand. According to a recent CNN poll, 89 percent of the Americans surveyed have heard bad news about the economy even though unemployment is down to about 3 percent, 93 percent of the 22 million jobs lost during the pandemic have been filled, and wages are up 5 percent. Not surprisingly, with inflation at a four-decade high, the economy ranks as the top concern of the 1,162 registered voters surveyed by Marist College for an NPR/PBS News Hour poll. The war in Ukraine is a distant second, with Covid third. Alarmingly, the active threat to our democracy is a relative blip in the poll despite the constant flood of revelations about Republican attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the party’s ongoing effort to more directly control the outcome of votes in the states it runs. Yet a sizable 31 percent of those polled still say they prefer the GOP to protect voter rights (41 prefer Democrats). Democrats edged Republicans, 33 to 29 percent, for election security. By all accounts, Joe Biden is a woefully unpopular president, with an approval rating of 41 percent, up slightly his all-time low of 39 percent in March. According to the CNN poll, more than half the Americans surveyed believe his policies have hurt the economy. I find this view myopic because much of the distress is due to a worldwide pandemic that was mishandled by a Republican president and GOP governors who fought public safety measures to limit the damage. Even so, the NPR/PBS/Marist poll says a majority trust Republicans to handle the economy more effectively. How the GOP would curb inflation eludes me. The party champions an unfettered free market, and the current rate of inflation (8.5 percent) is largely due to free-market forces (supply and demand) that were thrown out of whack by Covid-related layoffs and shutdowns of businesses. Even if everyone had kept going to work, the carnage the virus wreaked — more than one million dead in America alone — would have been far worse and still hobbled the economy. But it’s easier just to blame Biden, who actually helped keep many struggling people afloat with rent breaks and money from his $21.6 billion American Rescue Plan. He and his party also managed to pass a $1 trillion infrastructure bill (that should produce jobs and quality of life improvements) despite stiff opposition from the GOP and Democratic contrarians Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. Yet, Republicans are expected to retake Congress, and later the presidency, in a landslide. According to NPR/PBS/Marist, 45 percent of independents would now rather vote for a Republican in their district, despite the GOP’s litmus test for its candidates: Do they support Trump’s Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen despite a glaring lack of proof? Progressives and many other voters are angry that Biden hasn’t done more to address problems and issues they care about, and they will quite possibly stay home in November. Do they really think they’re going to get what they want from the Republicans? The GOP is against reproductive rights, has no desire to combat climate change, and does not offer coherent health-care or child-care plans. Even working stiffs who avidly support Trump didn’t seem to notice or mind the major rollbacks in their rights during his administration, or the cuts in protections against the kind of predatory lenders to whom they often turn. And most of us who complain about high fuel prices don’t realize that every square inch of America’s soil can be drilled, baby, drilled, but what comes out of the ground is then private property. The company that extracts the oil is free to sell it on the world market at the best available price. Companies do not owe Americans cheap gas. They owe their investors the highest possible returns. That is fundamental capitalism. The GOP’s midterm strategy is to blame Democrats for the economy (and everything else), to focus attention on culture war issues (abortion, critical race theory, LGBTQ rights etc.) and to hope voters ignore the elephant in the room: the ongoing investigations into the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and Trump’s businesses. So far, it’s working. The flood of leaks about the House Select Committee’s findings about Jan. 6 is expected to create a “so what?” reaction to its upcoming public hearings. Most Americans are apparently much more concerned about the cost of living. And the criminal investigations into Trump are grinding along so slowly that nothing is expected from them. The stark reality: Failure to report a highly probable crime, or not try to stop it, isn’t illegal, nor is insisting an election was stolen. Prosecutors need strong evidence beyond a reasonable doubt — evidence that can survive an extremely well-funded, prolonged defense — that Trump and his inner circle helped plan or actively aided and abetted the insurrection or illegal attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. As the Mueller Report found, Trump and his allies were well aware of Russia’s efforts to help him win in 2016 and, while they welcomed the help, they avoided any direct involvement or appearance of it. They probably did the same with right-wing militias, rioters and even Republican House members who were directly involved in Jan. 6. I’m gobsmacked that so many Americans consider the GOP’s behavior no big deal. It’s merely “legitimate political discourse” and politics as usual despite the perilous precedent that has been set. According to the April 14 New Republic, most Americans, including 48 percent of Democrats and 44 percent of Republicans, feel our political system is broken and our democracy is in jeopardy. Yet, when they go to the ballot box in November, a shockingly high percentage of voters say they are likely to choose the candidate from a party that is actively working to solidify its power by any means necessary, because these voters feel the GOP will ease the strain on their wallets. Democrats are now on the brink of being legislated and adjudicated out of any significant power for the foreseeable future. Many Germans enthusiastically traded away their rights in the 1930s for secure, living wage jobs that gave them a cheap annual vacation … and they ended up with what Adolf Hitler brought to their formerly democratic nation. Personally, I prefer a system with a least two parties that keep each other honest and focused on the best ideas for helping citizens. But decades of bitter battles between the Democrats and Republicans have created so much frustration in Americans that many are willing to risk the end of our traditional system of governing. So what happens if the GOP wins? I see the Republican party locking itself into power via even stronger oversight and control of local election processes. I also see a quick end of inquiries into Trump and the insurrection, and the beginning of an era of political retribution (via questionable impeachments of Democrats and harsh punishments of dissenting businesses like Disney) rather than effective governance. Social spending will be cut. NATO will likely be abandoned, and the environment left at the mercy of corporations. Personal rights such as privacy, abortion, gay and interracial marriage, and press freedom will be strongly curtailed. I also expect a rise in unpunished police brutality and violent crackdowns on protests as “law and order” becomes the mantra. As both history and current world trends show, the simplicity of one party control in chaotic times holds great appeal. It’s the old “Mussolini made the trains run on time” trope. A former co-worker of mine who avidly supports Trump grew up in Greece during the rule of dictator Georges Papandreou and fondly recalls the efficiency of that era. He believes America would benefit from something like it. It’s really not a stretch to see a sizeable chunk of America’s population content to live in a “Land of the Free” that is anything but, with everything draped in red, white and blue mythology and proud claims of freedom and justice for all. At some point, you’ll still be free to vote but the GOP’s approved cookie-cutter candidate will be guaranteed to win. As the old saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Pardon the indelicate analogy, but when the authoritarian toilet inevitably backs up and overflows into your life, and you have no recourse to a plumber, all you can do is hold your nose and pretend to like it even if you originally welcomed that authoritarian leader. So how many Americans are truly concerned about this likelihood? How many are willing to vote for Democrats who are likely in the pocket of special interests but at least not trying to subvert our democracy? How many fully grasp the meaning of the reported illegal breach of voting machines by Trump allies in eight locations where once-secure systems are now very likely compromised? The leak of the Supreme Court’s draft of its likely Roe v. Wade decision may awaken more Americans to the grave threat to things that matter as much or more than their immediate financial bottom line. But we are a notoriously materialistic society living in a land founded as a place where you are free to make an unlimited fortune with little or no concern for anyone else. Voting to preserve democracy and jeopardized rights will require most of us to give a damn about others — pregnant women, the LGBTQ community, racial minorities, refugees, people of differing opinions and religions. Do enough of us really care about them? And have voting regulations and oversight procedures already been changed to the point where our votes no longer really count? I wish I didn’t feel compelled to say this, but I doubt it. 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.

One film journalist’s stream-of-consciousness cinematic journey through the pandemic, Part 82 By Laurence Lerman / New York City The Australian composer Brett Dean’s Hamlet had its world premiere at England’s Glyndebourne Festival in June, 2017 to rave reviews. This Friday, May 13, five years and a pandemic lockdown later, the opera makes its stateside premiere at New York City’s Metropolitan Opera. Set in a manor house in contemporary dress (with the performers wearing a smattering of Kabuki-white makeup), the opera’s libretto reportedly uses only a portion of the play’s text and takes a lot of inspiration from the First Quarto of Hamlet (in Shakespearean scholarship, that refers to an earlier, shorter version of the text or possibly an unauthorized printed edition pirated from a theatrical performance). Whatever its source material, the opera sounds both contemporary and conceptual to me. For those of us who don’t plan on attending this MET premiere (or whose opera tastes lean more towards traditional takes on such standards as La Traviata, Carmen and La bohème), there are a number of cinematic versions of the Shakespeare’s endlessly powerful, popular and influential play out there just waiting to be streamed. Naturally, there’s a lot to consider when pondering which film to sink your teeth into. Like the Bard’s Macbeth (which I looked at in the Feb. 14 issue of The Insider), dozens of filmed versions of Hamlet have been produced by filmmakers around the world since the dawn of cinema. There were no fewer than a half-dozen feature-length versions of Hamlet produced by 1920—including Sarah Bernhardt’s cross-dressed variation in 1900—and that’s just the silent era! Since then, actors ranging from Laurence Olivier, Maximillian Schell and Nicol Williamson to Kenneth Branagh, Mel Gibson and Ethan Hawke have let loose their antic dispositions onscreen in a number of Hamlet adaptations, various time periods notwithstanding. The truth is that listing all or even some of the film versions of Hamlet isn’t really all that imaginative or challenging in the era of Wikipedia. So instead, I’ve tracked down eight films that aren’t straight adaptations of the text but rather are inspired by Hamlet. Or they at least took their lead from the Hamlet’s story of a vengeful young man seeking revenge against the uncle who has murdered his father, seized his father’s throne, and then married his mother. Or as we call it in my household, “Tuesday.” None of them are more conceptual than Dean’s opera appears to be, so why not? And so, from this point forth, my thoughts be bloody…or be nothing worth! The Bad Sleep Well (1960) Directed by Akira Kurosawa One of a handful of underappreciated film noirs from the Japanese master, this one stars the great Toshiro Mifune as a young man advancing in a corrupt postwar Japanese company in order to expose the men responsible for his father’s death. It also doubles as a strong critique of corporate greed and corruption. Strange Brew (1983) Directed by Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas This Canadian comedy features the popular SCTV characters Bob and Doug McKenzie, portrayed by director-co-writers Moranis and Thomas. Nutty and at times surreal, the film finds the two brothers getting jobs on the bottling line of the Elsinore Brewery, only to discover that there is something rotten in the state of it! The distinguished Max von Sydow co-stars as the evil Brewmeister Smith. Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (1990) Directed by Tom Stoppard Playwright Stoppard steps behind the camera for his one and only directing effort, based on his 1966 absurdist play by the same name. Shakespeare’s play serves as a backdrop as Hamlet’s courtiers take center stage and ponder the existential crises that accompany being the playwright’s best-known tertiary characters. Gary Oldman and Tim Roth star as the winsome twosome. Let the Devil Wear Black (1999) Directed by Stacy Title This modern-day take on the tale is set in Los Angeles and follows a grad student with a history of mental illness who launches an investigation into his wealthy father’s death. He begins to suspect that his mother and uncle may have been involved, and then the whole affair plays out like an L.A noir thriller. The title is inspired by one of Hamlet’s most ironic bits of dialogue, “Let the devil wear black, for I’ll have a suit of sables.” The Banquet (2006) Directed by Feng Xiaogang This loose adaptation of Hamlet and Henrik Ibsen’s Ghosts is set in the “Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms” era in 10th century China. A colorful, martial-arts-flavored period drama, it stars the acclaimed actress Zhang Ziyi as one member of a group of royals determined to vanquish their enemies over the course of the titular lavish meal. Ophelia (2018) Directed by Claire McCarthy Daisy Ridley hung up her light saber between her second and third Stars Wars movies to take on the role of Hamlet’s tragic girlfriend in a romantic drama that follows the story from her point of view. Fine production design and solid performances from Ridley and co-stars Naomi Watts and Clive Owen are the highlights in this adaptation of the 2008 young-adult novel by Lisa Klein. The Northman (2022) Directed by Robert Eggers The third film from filmmaker Eggers following his lauded horror entries The Witch and The Lighthouse, The Northman is inspired by the medieval Norse legend of Amleth, a figure who served as the direct inspiration for Hamlet in Shakespeare’s great tragedy. And like Shakespeare’s agitated protagonist, Eggers’ Amleth, a warrior prince portrayed by a very pumped up Alexander Skarsgård, has vengeance on his mind. Johnny Hamlet (1968) Directed by Enzo Castellari Alright, I broke my own rule--Johnny Hamlet is a relatively straight-ahead adaptation of Shakespeare’s play. But it’s brought to life in the old West as depicted by Italian low-budget genre master Castellari. That’s right, it’s a Spaghetti Western version of Hamlet that’s also known by the not-nearly-as-cool title That Dirty Story in the West. 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 Jessie Seigel / Washington, D.C. Move over, Deep Throat! Scoring a seismic news leak that must have left the editors at the Washington Post green with envy, the spunky online publication Politico on Monday, May 2, published a 98-page draft of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion that would overrule Roe v. Wade. Even seasoned court watchers were shocked both by the combative content of the draft, which would overturn 50 years of settled law and obliterate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, as well as the unprecedented breech of Court secrecy. But less than 24 hours later, Chief Justice John Roberts angrily confirmed that the draft was authentic. The draft, circulated on February 10, indicated that the five ultra-conservative justices on the high court—Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, had initially voted to overturn the decision. It is not clear whether Chief Justice John Roberts would completely overturn Roe v. Wade or dissent in part. There is no question, however, that the three remaining liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor would bitterly dissent. By Tuesday, there were demonstrations nationwide protesting the opinion. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts joined the large demonstration that gathered in front of the Supreme Court building. She was as mad as hell. While others have been making rhetorical pronouncements about the draft or about the leak, Warren talked straight talk, showing the passion and sense of fight that the Democrats should be expressing on all of the assaults on democracy, of which this attack on women’s rights is only one. As The Cut suggested, Warren “looked just about ready to explode.” Elizabeth Warren is our Sam Adams—the passionate firebrand whom the Democrats need. If the nation is to overcome all the anti-democratic attacks arrayed against it, other Democratic politicians need to find a fervor and drive within themselves that matches hers. Elizabeth Warren rouses pro-choice protestors outside the Supreme Court this week Approached by reporters while making her way through a crowd, Warren declared, “I am angry. I’m angry and upset and determined. The United States Congress can keep Roe v. Wade the law of the land. They just need to do it.” Mincing no words, Warren added: “Republicans have been working towards this day for decades. They have been out there plotting, carefully cultivating these Supreme Court justices so they could have a majority on the bench who would accomplish something that the majority of Americans do not want. Sixty-nine percent of people across this country, red states and blue states, old people and young people, want Roe v. Wade to remain the law of the land. We have a right. We’ve heard enough from extremists and we’re tired.” In stating that the Congress could “keep Roe v. Wade; they just need to do it,” Warren was clearly referring to the Women’s Health Protection Act, which aimed "to protect a person’s ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider’s ability to provide abortion services." The bill, meant to be a protection against the Court’s expected overturn of Roe, failed in the Senate in March because Republicans were against it and one Democrat voted with them to block it, pursuant to the filibuster rule, from being brought up for debate. Who was the Democrat? West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, of course. Manchin’s reaction to the leak of Alito’s draft decision was his usual stiff-necked response: “The filibuster is the only protection we have in democracy. I’m not going to comment on a leak from the Supreme Court.” Arizona Democratic Senator Kyrsten Sinema, the other staunch protector of the filibuster, tweeted her usual mealy-mouthed lip service that “a woman’s health care choices should be between her, her family, and her doctor,” and that protections in the Senate safeguarding against the erosion of women’s access to health care “are more important than ever.” Sinema self-righteously claimed that “Throughout my time in Congress, I’ve always supported women’s access to health care, I’m a co-sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act, and I’ll continue working with anyone to protect women’s ability to make decisions about their futures.” But these are empty words. It is entirely disingenuous for Sinema to say she will “work with anyone” to protect women’s ability to make decisions about their future, when experience has taught us all—her included--that there are not even 10 Republicans who will, in good faith, work with her. As Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York tweeted: “We could protect Roe tomorrow, but Sinema refuses to act on the filibuster. Until that changes, she can take a seat talking about “women’s access to health care.” If the hypocrisy of Manchin and Sinema is unrelenting, the transparent hypocrisy of the Republicans is nauseating. Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins—who has, in the past, advertised herself as a “liberal” Republican who supports women’s reproductive rights—voted to place both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. In 2019, Collins defended her vote to confirm Kavanaugh, saying in an interview with CNN that despite his vote in a recent abortion access case, she did not believe he would ultimately vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Even at the time, one would have been justified in asking whether Collins was born yesterday (unlikely)—or, like the rest of her ilk, was pandering for support from the right wing of the Republican party. On Tuesday, in reaction to Alito’s draft, Collins said: "If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office." When asked if she was misled by Kavanaugh, Collins told CNN, "My statement speaks for itself." So, even now, when the nation’s women are reaping the bitter harvest that Collins sowed with her votes for these men, she can’t bring herself to acknowledge straight out that they lied to her. After all, one never knows in what direction the wind will turn, and who can afford to lose those campaign dollars? Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski hedged her bets in a slightly different way, saying, “Roe is still the law of the land. We don’t know the direction that this decision may ultimately take.” She further said, “Sen. Collins and I in February introduced a bill that would codify Roe v. Wade. I thought it made sense then and I think it makes perhaps more sense now.” Of course, it’s easy to have it both ways by introducing a bill that, because of the filibuster, you know has no chance of passing. At least, Murkowski was willing to say, "If it goes in the direction that this leaked copy has indicated, I will just tell you that it rocks my confidence in the Court right now." As one would expect, Republican Minority leader Mitch McConnell immediately tried to deflect attention from the substance of Alito’s opinion to the leak, claiming it was part of “the radical left’s ongoing campaign to bully and intimidate federal judges and substitute mob rule for the rule of law.” This from the master manipulator who tried to prevent former President Trump from being tried by the Senate for his actions related to the January 6 mob attack on the Capitol and, when Trump was tried, voted against conviction. Talk about the deliberate projection of one’s own actions! Furthermore, although there’s no indication that the leak violated any laws, both McConnell and Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz called for prosecution of the leaker if and when found. All their hyperbolic huffing and puffing of hot air makes one crave an open window. On the other hand, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement reading: “The Republican-appointed Justices’ reported votes to overturn Roe v. Wade would go down as an abomination” and that several of those Justices “lied to the Senate, ripped up the Constitution and defiled both precedent and the Supreme Court’s reputation.” They added that every Republican senator who voted for Trump’s justices “will now have to explain themselves to the American people.” Would that that last statement comes to pass! But I have my doubts. Though the Pelosi-Schumer statement rightly condemns what the justices are doing and uses strong language to do so, it still does not call for strong, effective action to correct the wrong. Rather, it is Elizabeth Warren who is laying out what needs to be done. Sharply and succinctly setting out a plan of action, she tweeted the battle cry: “End the filibuster. Codify #RoeVWade with a national law protecting abortion rights. Expand the Supreme Court. Stop this horrifying injustice in its tracks.” Elizabeth Warren for President in 2024, anyone? Political columnist Jessie Seigel had a long career as a government attorney in which she honed her analytic skills. She has also twice received an Artist’s Fellowship from the Washington, D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities for her fiction, and has been a finalist for a number of literary awards. In addition, Seigel is an associate editor at the Potomac Review, a reviewer for The Washington Independent Review of Books, and a dabbler in political cartoons at Daily Kos. Of this balance in her work between the analytic and the imaginative, Seigel jokes, “I guess my right and left brains are well-balanced.” More on and from Seigel can be found at The Adventurous Writer, https://www.jessieseigel.com.

By Bonnie Fishman / San Francisco Bay Area The 1979 Sister Sledge hit had it all going on (with a slight tweak) as far as I’m concerned: “We are family I got all my sisters (And cousins) with me!” Another great verse from the song: “All of the people around us they say Can they be that close Just let me state for the record We're giving love in a family dose.” It all began about six months ago when my first cousin Jane and her wife Carmela, from Savannah Ga., made plans to visit the Fishman Family Compound here in the south San Francisco Bay area in mid-April. “Let’s have a reunion! Just Fishman first cousins, no offspring.” Had we ever done that before? Nope. Well, why not now? My two sisters and I, all compound residents, rallied the rest of the cousins. They came from far and wide–-all the surviving first cousins except for one. The cousins arrived in waves, Jane and Carmela first, then the rest, from Detroit, Minneapolis and Tel Aviv. Upon arrival, all of us donned our custom-made Michigama West T-shirts and gathered in front of my barn (our house) for a family photo. My good friend, Marie, came over to take the pictures. She told me the joy and excitement were palpable. And they were! We are all big animated talkers (and opinionated!). We had lots of laughs, too. Pure joy! We Fishman cousins are the products of four Fishman brothers born to Russian immigrants between 1910-1920. Two of the brothers, my dad, Mickey, and his older brother, Herman, started a sports camp in 1946 in northern Michigan known as Camp Michigama. Seven of us grew up together at the camp for three summer months a year. We were raised as one pack - a boy and six girls born within six years. It was almost commune-style: whichever parent was available to watch the litter, that’s whose job it was. We spent many summers together for 15 years. We stayed close. As a matter of fact, four of us, two sets of sisters, shared a house in Ann Arbor one year while attending the University of Michigan. Distance didn’t squelch our friendships over the years. Prior to the cousins’ arrival on April 15th, my sisters and I had a meeting to discuss who would be sleeping where, airport runs, shopping, swimming, and even a piano night sing-along with Motown tunes as well as old folk songs. Our discussion then turned to more “serious” matters of who among us would host which dinner and what we would serve. Nancy created a meticulous meal schedule so, God forbid, no one would go hungry. Not with this bunch! We even tucked in a few meals out to give us a break. Also, one night, Carmela made a beautiful Italian dinner and another night, Beth cooked a traditional Persian-Jewish meal. We passed leftovers around from building to building, swapping items out as if they were bargaining chips. The Persian dinner that Beth made was one of my favorites. It consisted of the classic Persian rice–a large rice cake with a crispy potato top–and gondi, which are meatballs. You place the rice in the middle of a large soup bowl and pour the gondi and soup on top. Beth has graciously provided us with her mother-in-law’s gondi recipe. It is simple to make, nutritious, and a good do-ahead-of-time meal for company. Let us know here at The Insider what you and your family enjoy. Sometime the simplest things in life are the most joyous–being with relatives, friends, and great food! Gondi Yield: 15 meatballs 2 medium onions, cut into large chunks 1/2 lb. ground chicken 1/2 lb. ground beef 1 tsp. cardamom 1 tsp. salt 1/4 tsp. black pepper 1/4 c. vegetable oil 1 3/4 c. chickpea flour chicken broth (see below) Mince the onions in the bowl of a food processor. Add the chicken and beef. Puree together until well blended. Scrape down the sides of the bowl when needed. Add remaining ingredients and puree thoroughly. Using wet hands, scoop the mixture into 1/3 cup portions. Line a cookie sheet with foil or parchment paper. Gently roll the portions into balls and place on the pan. Refrigerate for at least an hour before adding to the broth. Chicken Broth (for Gondi) Yield: 8 servings 3 qt. water 3 lb. chicken thigh quarters, on the bone 1 lg. onion, 1/4” dice 3 carrots, cut into 1/4” rounds 2 medium parsnips, 1/4” rounds 2 celery stalks, 1/4” dice 1 tsp. turmeric Place all the ingredients in a large soup pot. Bring to a boil; turn down to a light boil or simmer. Cook for 1 hour. Remove the chicken from the soup. When cool enough to handle, remove and discard the skin and bones. Shred chicken meat and add as much as desired to the soup. Reserve the rest for another time. Season well with salt and pepper to taste. Add meatballs to the soup. Heat through for 15-20 minutes. 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 May 5, 2022 WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In a public appeal for help, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has asked if “anyone has seen” a briefcase he accidentally left at a bar late last week. Speaking to reporters, Kavanaugh said that, after work last Friday, he dropped into a bar near the Supreme Court “to have a few pops,” and inadvertently forgot to take his briefcase when he left. Kavanaugh, who appeared to have some difficulty reconstructing the time line of the evening, said that he arrived at the bar “around seven” and that it was “ten, maybe ten-thirty when they asked me to leave.” The jurist was evasive when asked to describe the contents of his briefcase, saying only that it was “work papers and junk” that he would “really like to have back.”

One film journalist’s stream-of-consciousness cinematic journey through the pandemic, Part 81 By Laurence Lerman / New York City A year ago, Reel Streaming took a look at the theatrical release schedule for the 2021 summer and fall seasons. At that time, a number of major films initially set for summer release were being rescheduled for after Labor Day (like the James Bond adventure No Time to Die) or even later. Others were set to bypass theaters completely and receive both digital and streaming releases (the Jason Statham actioner Wrath of Man). And still more were receiving same-day theatrical and streaming premieres (Godzilla vs. Kong anyone?), giving audiences the option of either watching them at home or on the big screen. Well, a year and a handful of Covid variants later, the summer release schedule (which begins in May as per Hollywood’s unique interpretation of the calendar) is looking much plumper, with a healthy number of major films on the theatrical release slate. While last year’s column looked at six months of upcoming titles, this year’s look-ahead is only covering a very busy May alone, with the rest of the summer schedule bursting at the seams. A handful of theater-bound titles will also be available on streaming platforms within a couple of weeks of their theatrical premieres, but the key here is that they are having theatrical premieres! Here's a look at 10 of the most prominent movies opening theatrically in May, with a specialty film or two thrown in for a little artistic credibility. See you at the movies! Vortex (Now in theaters) Controversial Argentinian filmmaker Gaspar Noé (Irreversible, Enter the Void), returns with a psychological drama revolving around the last days of an elderly couple stricken by dementia. Presented in split-screen as the two are each followed around their Paris apartment, the film stars horror maestro Dario Argento (!) in a rare acting turn, Françoise Lebrun and Christian Lutz. Released in New York City last week, it opens in L.A. on May 6. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (May 6) Mighty Marvel Studios’ first assault of the season comes in the form of the second entry in the Doctor Strange franchise. Benedict Cumberbatch’s magical medic is joined by the Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) as they traverses the mind-bending unrealities of the Multiverse to confront a powerful new baddie. Sam Raimi, of the first three Spider-Man movies, directs. Marmaduke (May 6) Saturday Night Live’s Pete Davidson provides the voice of the Winslow family’s lovable Great Dane in this animated film rendition of the famed comic strip canine. (There was a live-action effort back in 2010). This time out, Marmaduke is plunged into the world of the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show. Operation Mincemeat (May 11) Director John Madden’s adaptation of Ben Macintyre’s 2010 nonfiction bestseller recounts the fascinating World War II story of how two British intelligence officers utilized a dead secret agent and a bunch of falsified papers to deceive the German troops about the 1943 Allied invasion of Sicily. Colin Firth, Rufus Wright and Matthew Macfadyen are the stars. Montana Story (May 13) The longtime independent filmmaking duo of Scott McGehee and David Siegel (Suture, Uncertainty) return with an original story about two estranged siblings who return home to the sprawling ranch where they were raised to confront a deep and bitter family legacy. Firestarter (May 13) Thirty-eight years ago, 13-year-old Drew Barrymore starred in the first film adaptation of Stephen King’s 1980 bestseller about a girl with “pyrokinesis,” the power to telepathically set the world around her ablaze. The new version stars Zac Efron and young Ryan Kiera Armstrong and is helmed by Keith Thomas, who creeped out critics a few years back with his 2019 feature directorial debut, The Vigil. Pleasure (May 13) Young Bella Cherry (newcomer Sofia Kappel) of Sweden arrives in Los Angeles with dreams of becoming an adult film star but quickly learns that porn fame isn’t all that easy to attain. Swedish filmmaker Ninja Thyberg based this feature on her 2013 short film by the same name. Downton Abbey: A New Era (May 20) This sequel to 2019’s Downton Abbey (itself a theatrical follow-up to the popular television series) finds a number of members of the Crawley family traveling to Southern France. Meanwhile, the rest of the dapper Downtonians host a group of guests from Hollywood. Like the first film and TV series before it, A New Era is written by Julian Fellowes. Top Gun: Maverick (May 27) Originally scheduled to be released in July, 2019, then rescheduled to the spring of the following year and and then hit hard with even more delays due to Covid, Tom Cruise finally returns to flying jets in the long-awaited sequel (we can say that now, right?) to the 1986 blockbuster. This one is directed by Joseph Kosinski who proved he’s got an eye for action and CGI sequences when he helmed Cruise’s 2013 sci-fi action thriller Oblivion. The Bob’s Burgers Movie (May 27) The Fox Network’s popular animated comedy series gets its shot at theatrical glory in its first feature film incarnation. The stars of the show’s original voice cast from the series reprise their roles as the Belcher family tries to save their restaurant from a growing sinkhole and an encroaching mystery. 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.

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."