By Jeffrey Markowitz / Huntington Woods, Mich. Jeffrey Markowitz's Oak Park High School senior yearbook photo (1968) Judi Foster's Oak Park High School senior yearbook photo (1970) Life started for me long after I was born. I should say that living was what started. I met Judi Foster in 1968 at Oak Park High School in Oak Park, Mich. I was in my senior year, and she was a sophomore. I was waiting for my next class to begin, and Judi was standing across the hall by the lockers. We made eye contact, and at that very moment I knew the game was on. However, I didn’t know that I was getting out of the gate too late — she had a boyfriend. As it happened, Judi knew one of my friends and eventually we were introduced. There was an immediate connection of friendship, and I realized she was the one I wanted to spend my years with. My heart told me to stay with the feeling and not let it go. I settled for our platonic relationship, and we became very close. Talking on the phone late at night, hanging out after school and on the weekends was our usual routine. Judi became my best friend, but I hoped for more! After I graduated, my next stop was Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti, Mich. Judi and her friends would occasionally visit, and I headed back to my hometown every weekend. I went with my friends to Oak Park’s football and basketball games. Judi was a cheerleader and that was the main reason to attend. After completing a year at Eastern, I decided that it wasn’t what I’d imagined college life would be. So, I moved back home and enrolled in Wayne State University. What a surprise! I could see Judi more often. And as it turned out, she was headed to Wayne State as well. Carpools with both of our friends were arranged. It was a fun commute as we drove through scenic Palmer Woods in Detroit as a short cut to campus. We all had early morning classes and similar schedules. I even enrolled in a few of Judi’s classes, which also served to complete requirements for my degree in sociology. During a sociology lecture, Judi and I would talk incessantly. Finally, the professor called out our names loudly and asked us to step into the hallway. We were embarrassed and also amused because he thought we were married. After the scolding, we laughed about the craziness of his presumption. We vowed to keep our noise down to a minimum for the rest of the semester. (Years later, I discovered a well-hidden secret about two of my sociology professors:  In their classes of approximately a hundred students, everyone received a a passing grade each semester. These well-intentioned instructors wanted to keep students from being drafted and sent to Vietnam. These were acts of true compassion that continued for the duration of the war.) Judi was on a fast track to graduate from the College of Education in three years. She enrolled in six classes a semester and even took classes scheduled for the same time slot only appearing for the  midterm and final exams. Since she was on campus crazy hours, I would get on my motorcycle to bring her a late lunch. As time passed, a spark ignited and our relationship changed. Judi and I became a lot closer than I ever would have thought possible. It actually put me into shock. But that was short lived. A brief  time later, Judi became engaged to her high-school boyfriend. I was pissed off, to say the least. I was genuinely surprised, since I thought we were headed in the right direction. I was close to Judi’s parents and siblings. Contemplating the loss of their friendship was also disturbing. Surprisingly, Judi’s mother told me to break up the wedding plans. I immediately thought of the scene in the 1967 film The Graduate , starring Dustin Hoffman and Katharine Ross. Like in the movie, I envisioned myself pounding on the synagogue windows, shouting out Judi’s name in an effort to stop the marriage. It was a fantasy that never came to fruition. Jeffrey and Judi taking in the beauty of the island of Kauai, Hawaii on their honeymoon (1997) Judi and Jeffrey enjoying one of the many family birthday parties (1998) Life then became somewhat depressing for me. I needed to get back in the game. I was living in an apartment complex with five swimming pools, and I became friendly with one of the lifeguards. She asked me to go to a football game. Unfortunately, it wasn’t in the cards. On the way to the game, I had a terrible car accident. I ran into a huge, exposed drainpipe that was above ground due to erosion. I rolled my Corvette four times and the roof came off. One of the pins that held the roof in place clipped my head. Somehow, I survived the collision, receiving 90 stitches. A few days later, after soul-searching, I realized that I needed a change in my life. So, I decided to move to California to escape. I had friends living there and wanted to leave memories of my life behind, especially those of Judi. A 2001 Hawaiian family odyssey in Honolulu However, every day I would wake up and feel a magnetic pull in my heart to return to Oak Park. After a year living down on the beach with other Oak Parkers and working at an electrical supply house in the San Fernando Valley, I’d had enough. I moved back in with my parents until I could find a place of my own. While chipping golf balls across the street to a neighbor’s tree, a car pulled up along the curb. I had no idea who it was until the window rolled down. I heard a familiar voice say, “Hi Jeffrey.” It was Judi. After some small talk, I could feel my heart pounding again. Fast forward, I bought a house in Southfield, Mich. and had settled there comfortably for years when the call came. It was Judi and she told me she had gotten divorced. It was nearly 20 years in the making. My response— “What the f*** took you so long?” Shortly after, we picked up our relationship again, but it was on the slow track. Judi had four children — one with special needs. Lindsay, her oldest, had an extremely rare condition known as Marshall-Smith Syndrome. She had cognitive and physical challenges. I didn’t know what to expect. After dating for four months, I looked forward to meeting the kids. Honestly, I was a bit nervous. Todd, Chad, and Eli ranged in age from 6 to 14 years old. Lindsay was 15. I had little or no experience with children, especially one who required extra time and attention. Remarkably, when I met the crew, it seemed like a natural fit. I was invited to dinners, then multiple athletic games for the boys, and I even began to help them with their homework assignments. I truly connected with Lindsay, as we both became closer and comfortable with each other. Finally, after three and a half years with the family, my probation period was over. I asked Judi to marry me. My parents and friends thought I was certifiably crazy. I knew better. I now have a full plate with nine grandchildren and a family that keeps growing. It would have been a solitary life if not for that phone call 32 years ago. Having a purpose and a partner was the key. Judi and the kids were a gift and life itself. Judi and Jeffrey with their grandkids at Normandy Oaks Park in Royal Oak, Mich. (2024) After a 30-year career in construction management, building commercial and residential jobs, Jeffrey has turned to his passion–cooking. He is the master of the grill and has been nicknamed Chef Jeff by his family. Jeffrey also started a small catering business. Nothing makes him happier than satisfying his customers He enjoys sports and has spent 65-plus years playing golf, competing with friends, playing the course and trying to keep his head in the game for all 18 holes. He is the husband of Judi Markowitz. They have four adult children and nine grandchildren who keep them on their toes. Oh yeah, let’s not forget George, their Bernese Mountain granddog.

By Sienna Sachs Beck / New York City 1 The number of hours in the car ride from the airport to our hotel, the Hyatt Centric, in Kolkata   2 The average number of days spent in each place I visited on this trip: Kolkata, Kalimpong, Darjeeling, Kolkata, the Sundarbans, Kolkata   3 The number of times I went to Kolkata on this trip: once for sightseeing, once for shopping and walking around, and once more for shopping   4 The number of minors on our family trip–Me. Willa, Olive and Nina!   5 The number of wild monkeys I saw on our drive to Kalimpong, in the foothills of the Himalayas   6 The age in weeks of the most adorable golden retriever puppy on the same drive   7 The number of pictures I took of the view of the sunset when we made it to Darjeeling AND of the view of the Himalayan peaks   8 The number of scary drives we went on in Darjeeling, with hairpin turns and barely any barricades between us and the cliff   9 The number of animals I saw during my trip: white spotted deer, stray dogs, goats, cows, crows, monkeys, wild boars, fish and crocodiles   10:30 The time difference between India and New York City. I celebrated New Year’s Eve twice, once at 10:30 in the morning and once at midnight!   11 The number (with a zero in the middle–101) of Sundarban Islands, one of which we resided on in cabins for two nights   12 The total number of hours that the four 3-hour car rides we took in the span of six to eight days added up to–more than I’d done in my whole life!   13 Taylor Swift’s lucky number. She kept my sisters cousins and me entertained during the car rides– and also drove my uncle insane :)   14 The number of people with whom we traveled: my immediate family (5), my uncle and first cousin (2), my grandparents (2), my aunt and new uncle (2), my new uncle’s parents (2), and my second cousin (1)   15 Times that I really wanted to eat something raw like a tomato but couldn’t because our stomachs are fragile 16 The number of times I ordered a chocolate milkshake for breakfast. I love vacations for this reason!   17 hundred–The number of rupees I spent at a store named Sienna. I wonder why I felt inclined to spend so much?   18 hours–The flight time from New York City to India. We flew Etihad Airways to Abu Dhabi, then to Kolkata   19 The number of souvenirs that collectively made my dad SO ANGRY because he was the one who had to pack them :)   20 hours. The flight time from Kolkata to New York City. We flew Qatar Airways to Doha, then to JFK   Sienna Sachs Beck, 13, is an eighth grader in Manhattan. Although she enjoys all kinds of writing (except for research papers), her favorite form of all time is poetry. An active environmentalist, Sienna especially loves writing poetry that raises awareness about global changes. And best–or worst–of all, Sienna enjoys doing Eka Pada Sirsasana (her favorite yoga pose) to excess, even while writing her next piece.

By John Woodford / Ann Arbor, Mich. People protest against ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) in downtown Minneapolis, 1/25/26 My plan for this story was to recount and ridicule Donald Trump’s most recent displays of monomaniacal egoism: his serial depositing of his name on various institutions, coins, doctrines, programs, titles, labels, logos and other receptacles. Trump’s name game served as a butt of satire for a couple of weeks, diverting public attention from the ongoing conflict in Gaza and thereby interrupting our national debate over which term best describes that ongoing American carnage: Is it genocide, atrocity, ethnic cleansing or, um, a whatchamacallit? But then came the January 3rd raid into Venezuela, the killing of a hundred or so security forces and a few stray civilians in Caracas, and the seizure of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores in their bedroom. This caper presented a new semantic challenge to the analysts, panelists and talking heads cycling and recycling through our news media. Was this a “capture”? That’s the preferred term by both our openly right-wing and our supposed liberal mass media, because it signals to the public that the Maduros were drug-running terrorists despite the fact that no evidence of their criminality has been presented to any legal or judicial authority. Or was their seizure an “arrest,” a “regime-change” a “coup,” a “profitable oil acquisition,” an act of “piracy” or, um, a whichamajig? Some members of the U.S.’ highly trained and high-tech armed troops provided a preview of what was to come in Minneapolis: They punched out Mrs. Maduro, aged 69, who must have called them a name or taken a swing at them or tried to run away. For a while, you could fairly easily find photos showing her with bandages on her head and eye, but you’ll have a harder time finding those images now. She feared she might have broken ribs, too, her attorney said, and her ribs were X-rayed, but I’ve found no reports on the extent of those injuries. No sooner, however, had our legacy media (or mainstream media, monopoly media or corporate mass media) sunk its teeth into the semantic challenges presented by our country’s Venezuelan adventure than new blood was shed more abundantly on the trail: the blood of Renee Good in Minneapolis. Just four days after Caracas, the news pack raised its assorted muzzles and swiftly gave chase to the latest demonstration of federal might. Most coverage echoed the pronouncements of the Chief Howler in Charge (CHIC). Some amplified his approval of the shooting. Others undercut public protests that the ICE agent who killed Ms. Good, Jonathan Ross, should be charged with a crime by devoting hours of programming to the question of how far and when she turned the front wheels of her vehicle away from her killer. “It is a horrible thing to watch,” President Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social very shortly after watching early videos of the shooting. “The woman screaming was, obviously, a professional agitator, and the woman driving the car was very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE officer, who seems to have shot her in self-defense.” Oh, the horror! Trump immediately ordered that Minnesota’s state investigators should have no access to evidence or suspects in the case. To the President and his supporters, the worst aspects of the mini blitzkrieg was not seeing an unarmed mother shot three times in the head as she attempted to drive away. No. what was “horrible” was having to hear women speak boldly, the victim cheerfully saying, “I don’t hate you,” and her partner not screaming but saying in a needling tone, “You want to come at us? You want to come at us? Go get yourself some lunch, big boy.” Listen to the recordings yourselves and decide if you hear a scream. Nevertheless, here’s a typical headline by the openly subservient and blood lusting segment of our news media: “Renee Nicole Good’s wife screams ‘drive baby, drive’ just seconds before ICE agent shoots her in dramatic footage taken from his phone” ( New York Post , Jan. 9). Shucks, fellas, you know how women’s voices — being higher-pitched and all–can sound like a scream when they’re saying something you don’t like, right? Women! If they’re not elite, a guy can just “grab them by the pussy; you can do anything ,” as Trump observed during the years when he was developing the qualities that led to his two electoral victories. Now we know just how far “anything” can extend. Lawrence Jones, a co-host of TV’s Fox & Friends , was on that network’s program assessing the Minneapolis shooting a few hours after Good died. Summing up the evidence as the President, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem (Good “was a domestic terrorist”) and Fox reporters had described it, Jones concluded, “It was a clean kill.” Other politicians and media figures have used the same term in the weeks after the atrocity. So, let’s look at what a “clean kill” means to people interested in the finer points of that accomplishment. “For an Operator Kill to be considered as a Clean Kill, you must finish off your target without sustaining any damage from them, whether from bullets, explosives or melee attacks.” (Source, OneEsports, in a discussion of the simulated violence in the online game Modern Warfare 3) “The assassin liked to make a clean kill and thus favored small arms over explosives”. (Source wordow.com 2026) As Ross strode away from his scene toward the car in which he and his partner would leave the scene of his “clean kill,” he glared into the candid camera and snarled this valediction at his victim: “Fuckin’ bitch!” And 17 days later, the current administration's excuse for "lawmen" killed again in Minneapolis. This time the victim was Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old off-duty ICU nurse who was trying to protect tear-gassed protesters from assault by ICE agents. Pretti had a licensed firearm on his person, but did not draw it in videos of the skirmish, contrary to claims by the President and his minions. Pretti was obviously restrained by the federal agents when he was shot 10 times. What we are being urged, seduced, conditioned into thinking or feeling, my dear fellow Americans, is that citizens who stand up on their hind legs and voice their disapproval of actions taken in their name in this land of, by and for the people, can be — even deserve to be— seized, beaten, jailed, tortured, shot. If you’re looking to the Democratic Party hierarchy and regulars to confront and resist these authoritarian measures for you, just remember, they voted 99 to 0 for Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, Bernie Sanders included. And what do you hear them saying about the ongoing genocide in Gaza? They’re as happy to have it out of the news media as Trump is. Speaking of Gaza, Arabs are known to have a keen fondness for proverbs, aphorisms, maxims and adages — pithy verbal expressions passed down via oral traditions for centuries. Proverbs express moral lessons and offer guidance in how we assess social situations and how we try to live our lives. Here’s one that’s apt for our country and others here and now: “They asked Pharaoh: ’What made you so pharaonic?’ He said, “I didn’t find anyone to restrain me.” John Woodford lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where he retired after two decades as the executive editor of Michigan Today , a University of Michigan alumni/ae publication. His career in journalism includes editing and/or reporting duties for Ebony  magazine, Muhammad Speaks  newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times , the New Haven Register , the New York Times  and Ford Motor company publications.

By Bonnie Fishman / San Francisco Bay Area Bonnie and her sisters Marcia and Nancy having a mandelbrot bake off If there ever were a classic nosh in the Jewish home, it would have to be mandelbrot (mandel bread).  Not quite a cookie, it resembles the Italian biscotti–an elongated shape, not too sweet, twice-baked, and studded with nuts, dried fruit or chocolate chips. What could be bad? In my home and my sisters’ homes here at the Fishman Family Compound, we are never “mandelbrot-less.” A cookie jar, a domed cake plate, or the freezer are usually stocked with this delicacy. If someone stops by for a coffee, we are prepared. The literal translation of mandelbrot is almond bread, though nowadays, different nuts are considered interchangeable with almonds. It all comes down to personal preference or baking with varying family recipes passed down through the generations. Passing down the recipe to the grandchildren: Emet, Bonnie’s grandson, and Emma, Nancy's granddaughter In our family home when I was growing up, my mom always had a cookie jar stocked with various flavors of mandelbrot. Her standard was walnuts. Sometimes she would add raisins or chocolate chips. Many bakers choose almonds or pecans as their nut of choice. But there is one technique that I’ve never seen since my childhood, that is a two-toned cookie with vanilla on the bottom and chocolate dough on top. Gee, I might have to try that sometime! A sweet memory of mine was when I was about six years old. I shared my bedroom with my little sister, Cindy, who was three at the time. After lights out, I would encourage Cindy to raid the cookie jar for mandelbrot. In her snuggly yellow-footed pajamas, she’d crawl down the hall to the kitchen, carefully lift up the cookie jar lid, snatch a couple of treats, and run back to bed, sharing her bounty with me.  Our dad could hear the ceramic lid hitting the jar.  “Who’s that in the kitchen?!” Soon we’d hear big strides down the hall; while Cindy and I pretended to be asleep. Dad must of gotten a laugh out of these escapades. Mandelbrot became popular in Eastern Europe among Ashkenazi Jews in the 19th century. It is an adaption of Italian biscotti, developed in the Middle Ages. What these both have in common is that they are baked twice–once to thoroughly bake the cookie. Then they are sliced and put back in the oven, usually at a lower temperature, to dry out and become crisp. The drying out has its purpose: cookies keep for a longer period of time with less moisture. One other difference between mandelbrot and biscotti is that biscotti are usually made without fat. The recipes I use do not add butter or oil. Mandelbrot has a considerable amount of oil. Using oil instead of butter makes the cookie “parve,” meaning it can be eaten with either dairy or meat by those who keep a kosher diet. However, I’ve known a couple of people who always used butter. One of them was my mother-in-law, Blanche Ketai. I have to say, the addition of butter did make for a richer taste! The other person is my longtime high school friend, Andi Sklar, who lives in West Bloomfield Mich. Her mandelbrot is unlike most that I’ve seen or eaten. I’ve been known to sit by a plate of Andi’s mandelbrot, and down more than a few in one sitting! Andi Sklar of West Bloomfield, Mich. with a basket of her mandelbrot Not only does Andi use butter, but her technique for baking sets it apart from the one-inch thick traditional pieces. Andi puts her dough in a loaf pan to bake. After it cools and is refrigerated, she slices it very thin, almost like a melba toast square. She bakes them until they are crisp. I asked Andi if her recipe was passed down through her grandmother and then her mother. Actually, she got her “secret” recipe from her friend’s mother. It’s a generational thing if nothing else. My sisters, Nancy and Marcia, and I decided to have a mandelbrot bake off. Why? We all use our mom’s recipe, but we end up with three different outcomes. We wanted to get to the bottom of why this was happening. So, one day this fall, we gathered around Marcia’s kitchen island with our ingredients and equipment in hand. We discussed the process among ourselves while we were going through the steps to see who was doing what and how it might differ from the others. We learned that even though we have the same recipe, there has been a bit of deviation. I double the amount of vanilla, Marcia adds a teaspoon of cinnamon to the dough, and Nancy sticks with the original. When mixing the ingredients, Marcia used her hands, while and Nancy and I used a wooden spoon. When it was time to shape the dough, both Nancy and Marcia shaped the logs into a narrower and thicker form. Mine were broader and flatter. The end result was that theirs were doughier in the middle while mine were drier. I liked theirs better! At the end of the process, I sprinkled the finished logs with cinnamon and sugar before the mandelbrot went into the oven. My sisters sprinkled them after it was out of the oven  and before it was baked the second time. They have now adopted my technique. After the baking was done, we invited the husbands to be our taste testers, to see which was the best batch. They were useless because they loved them all! Mandelbrot is an easy gift to give. Here it is presented in gift baskets Mandelbrot       Yield:  2 logs (@ 32-36 pieces) A mountain of mandelbrot  4 eggs 1/2 c. vegetable oil 3/4 c. sugar 2 tsp. vanilla 3 1/2 c. flour 1 tsp. baking powder   1/2-2/3 c. ground walnuts 1/2-2/3 c. mini chocolate chips cinnamon sugar for dusting   Preheat oven to 350°.  In a large bowl, blend eggs and sugar together.  Whisk in the oil and vanilla.  Using a wooden spoon or your hands coated with oilblend in the flour and baking powder. Gather dough together. Divide the mixture into 2 bowls.  Fold the nuts into one bowl and the chocolate chips into the other.   Form each dough into a 16” x 2” wide log.  Place on a cookie sheet lined with parchment paper.  Flatten slightly to a 3” width.  Sprinkle liberally with cinnamon sugar.  Bake until set, about 25 minutes.  Slice each log into 12-16 pieces. Separate the pieces a bit so air can circulate.  Reduce oven temperature to 300°.  Bake more until dried out a little, about 10-15 minutes. Whisk eggs and sugar together in a large bowl.             Measure the flour carefully using a knife for leveling.   Mix the dough with your hands.             Form the logs. Flatten the logs for a drier mandelbrot. Sprinkle with cinnamon sugar before baking. Slice into 3/4” to 1” pieces. 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 Marion Blank, Ph.D. / New York City Well before they can walk and well before they can talk, infants can hold objects.  For many, the 21st century has meant that one of those objects is a phone or device. Parents, with the best of intentions, use it like a “gift from God” that calms and educates their offspring. These benefits have made it an ever-available, powerful force in the lives of most children. Studies show that almost 90 percent  of kids exceed the recommended time for its use, with toddlers averaging three-plus hours daily, and some teens hitting eight-plus  hours. No other experience in their day has anything near this power. Recently, I have had contact with Ben, a 6-year-old whose contact with devices may have led to some unique consequences. In my role as a psychologist, I am accustomed to working with learning disabled children who have severe memory problems. The difficulties they experience are unfortunate, but not confusing. They are grounded in known biological issues. But Ben displayed a problem I’ve never seen before and never envisioned might be possible. He was referred to me because of his trouble in learning to read. That’s not at all unusual. For decades, government statistics from the highly regarded National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) have shown that reading difficulties exist in about 60 percent of children in our nation—with 40 percent  showing almost no reading ability at all. On testing, Ben exhibited none of the typically reported difficulties of poor readers. But in a play session, he displayed a most unusual behavior-- a behavior I have never seen in a neurotypical child. He seemed to have no memory! For example, I showed him cards depicting common objects such as fruit, toy and people, which he easily identified. Then, when I placed a card out of view (e.g., an apple) and asked what he had seen, Ben would name something, anything ( a car, a horse, a rabbit, etc.). Never was it the item he had just seen. Later, when I showed him the apple again, he easily recognized it, while showing no sign that he was surprised by its reappearance. It clearly was somewhere in his memory bank; he simply had no idea that the past tense question (“ what did you see …?”) meant that he was supposed to call on that information. It also suggested that he had no inkling of the idea that he should intentionally put things into memory. Further testing provided repeated examples of this pattern. They helped explain his failure in learning to read. The teaching of that skill steadily calls for conscious, directed memory (e.g., answering questions like “ what sound does this letter make ?”) Gradually I came to see what I believe is the way Ben sees his world. His is the universe that appears on his six-inch phone screen. After all, that experience is the one that occupies more of his time than anything else. In that experience, when an image leaves the screen, it is gone! It is not hiding in some corner, or under a box, or anywhere else. He doesn’t expect to find it ever again since the screen keeps coming up with an endless variety of unrelated objects. This does not mean that Ben would be shocked were it to reappear. After all, those things do happen in the world of devices. Things appear out of the blue—but nothing links them to anything that came before nor to anything that might come after. If the famous Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget were alive, he would be beyond shocked (or perhaps, he is spinning in his grave right now). “Object permanence” was a construct that he put forth as central to children’s thinking. In contrast to their behavior in the first few months of life, at about five to six months of age, babies realize that objects continue to exist even when unseen, unheard, or untouched. It seems possible that the hi-tech world may have totally changed the rules of the game for Ben. In that world, the display of objects is dramatically different from the way we see actual objects that exist around us. When people, including infants starting at about six months of age, want to see an object in the three-dimensional world, they have to intentionally turn their heads and their eyes to bring that item into their line of vision. This “decision led” visual-motor coordination is totally different from the “non-movement” vision involved in simply staring at a screen. Ben seemed to have transferred his processing of the content on the screen to what most of us over 30 years of age see as the real world. So, for him, just as what happens on the screen, when an actual object goes out of his view, it no longer exists. In other words, our brains lead us to think of the 3D world as being real, with aspects of it appearing in the world of devices; young children may hold the opposite view. They see the screen world as real, with aspects of it also appearing in the 3D world we all inhabit. With these speculations in hand, let’s return to the (slightly modified) title: Is Ben a One-Off Phenomenon or the Canary in the Coal Mine? We can’t say, but it’s a question we should be trying to answer. In the meantime, perhaps it might be wise to follow the practice used by the following leaders (all but one being male): Evan Spiegel (Co-founder and CEO of Snap) Sundar Pichai (CEO of Google and Alphabet) Bill Gates (Co-founder of Microsoft) Mark Zuckerberg (Co-founder and CEO of Meta/Facebook Susan Wojcicki (former CEO of YouTube Chamath Palihapitiya (former Facebook executive) Chris Anderson (former Editor of Wired and CEO of 3D Robotics) These experts have openly talked about the tight restrictions they impose to limit and even totally deny their children’s access, particularly their young children’s access, to the small screen that plays such a large role in our lives. Dr. Marion Blank is a developmental psychologist with a specialization in language-both spoken and written. Her research and clinical work over the course of five decades has led to her recognition as an international authority in literacy, especially for children with developmental challenges. She has held academic positions at Columbia University, Rutgers Medical School, the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, and as a Visiting Professor at Monash University, Hebrew University, and the University of London. As the creator and director of Columbia’s Light on Literacy Program , she pioneered innovative, evidence-based approaches to teach reading to children with autism—including those who were thought to be non-verbal. Dr. Blank is the recipient of numerous national and international awards for her contributions to education and child development. Her new book, Brilliance Unleashed , will be published in June 2026.

By Jessie Seigel / Washington, D.C. Originally appeared in My Washington Whispers Barely 20 days into 2026, the Trump regime is off and running on its nefarious agendas.   Piracy on the Caribbean Seas Not satisfied with illegally sinking small fishing boats, murdering the survivors, or seizing Venezuelan ships, the Trump regime began the new year by invading and kidnapping the president of Venezuela and his wife to put on show-trial in New York, allegedly for narco-terrorism and gun possession. It will be interesting to see whether Trump's so-called Department of Justice (DOJ) can provide any proof--given the destruction of the boats supposedly containing evidence. And if the Maduros possessed guns when captured, it had to be in Venezuela. While Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro is no saint, the kidnapping was clearly a case of one mobster (Donald J. Trump) kidnapping another mobster (Maduro) in order to take over his territory and its oil.  As late as December, Trump offered Maduro a deal in which he would, as reported by the New York   Times , leave Venezuela for “a gilded exile in Turkey.” Thus, the kidnapping and arrest had nothing to do with violation of U.S. laws or restoration of Venezuelan democracy. In the Godfather ’s terms, Trump was offering Maduro “a deal you can’t refuse.” But Maduro did refuse. And is paying the price while Trump moves to take over Maduro’s machine.   Greenland Next? This week Trump has been threatening a violent take-over of Greenland, a NATO ally. The representatives of Greenland, Denmark and NATO have largely been too diplomatic about it. They've been trying to address Trump’s pretended concerns about security and pondering whether he really wants something else—something they can give him. But Trump has told them what he wants. He wants Greenland. Judging by past performance, he wants it for himself, not for security, not for the citizens of the U.S., or any legitimate reason.  It  is likely, of course, that he is also doing the bidding of his patron, Vladimir Putin, so as to destroy the NATO alliance. Think of Johnny Rocko in the film Key Largo . Rocko, who when asked what he wanted, agreed he wanted “more.” And that he would never have enough. Trying to reason or negotiate with that mentality is following the path of Neville Chamberlain. When facing a Rocko or an off-balance Trump, NATO nations need to recognize these hard facts: if Trump proposes to do something nefarious—even if he subsequently says the opposite, tries to make his meaning obscure, or temporarily pretends to back off as he just did in his speech at the Davos conference --he and his minions still mean to do it as soon as they can get away with it. So, Europe and NATO would do well to follow this advice: take Trump’s threats seriously. Recognize that Trump takes diplomacy as weakness. Stop being so damn polite. Instead, consistently respond in the loud terms that he understands. And prepare a powerful, united military defense of Greenland against any possible U.S. attack or invasion. Make a strong public display of doing so.   When the Criminals Run the Government, Everyone is a Criminal The law as practiced by Trump’s attorney general Pam Bondi is reminiscent of Louis Carroll’s “The Mouse’s Tale”  in which the cat, Fury, meets a mouse in the house and insists they “go to law”: “‘I’ll be judge, I’ll be jury,’ said cunning old Fury. ‘I’ll try the whole cause and condemn you to death.’” This is what happens when the mobsters and insurrectionists take over the government. Law does not exist. Any remnant is twisted into an unrecognizable shape that serves their personal interests. Thus, Trump’s DOJ is beginning fabricated criminal investigations of Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey, and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell—adding them to investigations of Senators Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell, Special Counsel Jack Smith, and the attempts to prosecute James Comey, Letitia James, and other men and women standing up for democracy and the rule of law. Why is the Trump regime trying to investigate and prosecute military heroes like Kelly and Slotkin for quoting the Uniform Code of Military Justice’s requirement that soldiers refuse to obey illegal orders? Because the regime wants  soldiers to obey its illegal orders—like those given to bomb fishing boats in the Caribbean, the kidnapping of Maduro, or the impending violation of Posse Comitatus —setting U.S. troops on U.S. civilians. Why investigate Walz and Frey? Because they are Democrats who have pointed out the false pretext for the federal invasion and the lawlessness of ICE’s actions in Minnesota. Meanwhile, Trump’s dog-killer Kristi Noem has upped her ante, unleashing Trump’s ICE berserkers to attack and murder Minnesota citizens—and then claim those murdered were at fault. Currently, Trump is preparing to invoke the Insurrection Act and add 1500 American troops to the more than 2000 ICE hoodlums roving Minneapolis streets. Some joke, eh? A government taken over and run by insurrectionists invoking the Insurrection Act against a populace of the United States. It is apparent that Minnesota is Trump’s test ground for invading other cities, declaring martial law, and cancelling the 2026 election nationwide, or—at a minimum—preventing any city or state that might vote Democratic from voting.   Furthermore, even if Trump’s opponents win, there is no guarantee that they will be allowed to take their seats, or that any legislation or impeachment they try to pursue will be permitted or honored. Yet much of the media continues to cover all of this as if a 2026 election is a given and the Republicans must be afraid they’ll lose because their actions are so unpopular with the American people. They don’t seem to understand that if authoritarians can keep power by force, they don’t care whether the majority of the populace is against their actions.   The Bottom Line In a recent article in The Atlantic , David Frum pointed out that the Trump movement has "no consistent principles and no concern for truth; many of its boosters don't care whether the success is real or phony." He added: "They celebrate peace plans that don't bring peace, trade deals that don't enhance trade. The Trump movement exists to glorify Trump, in all his erratic mania. Results in the real world don't matter." All that, we already know. But Frum also points out that the anti-Trump side “hesitates to speak before it knows what it’s talking about.” Consequently, it is slow to respond to Trump's lies. Frum adds that because they care about fairmness, they "hesitate to accuse Trump of corrupt motives until sufficient evidence emerges to support the accusation." And, because they believe in the rule of law, they "can be drawn into legalistic objections..." Frum correctly concludes that Trump thrives on this ineffectiveness of his opponents. And also, that "an ineffective anti-Trump movement is an indjulgence that American democracy cannot afford or accept." Unfortunately, although Frum correctly diagnoses the problem, he does not propose a solution. I cannot fault him for that because, currently, I don't have one either. The good guys are always at a disadvantage because they follow rules, and the bad guys don’t. So, if we’re living in a time and place where the rules have been eroded or destroyed, what do we do? Pretend the rule of law is still in effect? Follow the shell of a legal system purged of its substance? That’s not the answer. Nor would I want to see the good guys go as lawless as the bad guys in order to stop them. But there are some things that can be done if pro-democracy leaders have the will to do them: To media commentators : don’t get bogged down in weighing ad infinitum  Trump’s intentions, psychology, or propriety while his regime puts the last nails in the coffin of its coup. Trump’s motives and psychology have long been established for anyone who cares to see. They don’t matter. It’s stopping his regime’s actions that matters. Discuss and weigh the ways in which that might be done. To the nation’s pro-democracy political leaders : stop playing defense. When Trump claims he’s sending ICE into cities to deal with “the worst of the worst” that allegedly have gotten out of hand, don’t weakly argue that there may be problems but not enough to warrant federal intervention. This only gives his big lie a legitimacy to be debated. And before you can finish your argument, Trump’s got his ICE goons destroying your city and rounding up your residents. Play offense.  Loudly and belligerently call the Trump regime out on all its lies. Make the regime  prove that it  is not lying. And finally, rather than get sidetracked chasing each individual outrage, the various pro-democracy forces need to gather together to brainstorm and agree on a strategy to resolve the big question—how, within the law, to rid the country of this lawless regime.   Jessie Seigel’s journalistic career began with the political Washington Whispers column, written for The Insider . Since The Insider ended its run in 2023, Seigel has continued the column as My Washington Whispers, www.mywashingtonwhispers.com . In addition, Seigel has had a long career as a government attorney, has received two Artist’s Fellowships from the Washington, D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities for her fiction, has been a finalist for several literary awards, and has had two professional staged readings of her play Tinker's Damn , with another play, The Three Jessies . More on Seigel can be found at  https://www.jessieseigel.com .

By Dr. Nancy Fishman / Morgan Hill, Calif. Happy February! Now that the beginning of the year is well behind us, many holiday celebrants are faced with the fizzling of arguably the most common New Year’s resolution: to get healthy! For many, this means striving to reach a preferred weight. Americans spend gazillions of dollars each year on weight-loss programs, gym memberships, private trainers, and calorie-controlled prepackaged meals. There are many ways to reduce weight. The rise in the use of medications like Ozempic and Wegovy suggest a level of frustration people have experienced with more traditional methods.  The fight to maintain one’s goal weight is often a “losing” battle. After investing money, time, and personal sacrifice to reach a successful outcome, why is it so difficult to succeed and sustain the glory? Sometimes the goal weight is not realistic thus difficult to maintain. Healthy goal weight is heavily influenced by body type. Those who are considered endomorphs have larger bones, softer curves and typically carry more body mass than the published averages. People in this group must take into consideration their genetic makeup when finding a realistic goal weight. Goal weight should not be arrived at randomly, but rather with the help of a physician who considers medical factors,age, and body type when calculating a patient’s healthy goal weight. Often it takes a bit of experimentation to discover the right number of calories you should ingest daily to maintain a goal weight. Physicians’ calculations are rooted in science. If their prescriptions stood alone, people would be successful. But this is not the case at all. Personal history, personality traits, and free will are factors that complicate the challenge to retrain from overeating and failure to maintain goal weight. It is not so easy to merely consume a prescribed number of calories each day. While there are many psychological explanations for the lack of success in maintaining goal weight, there are four categories I have observed over my years in private practice into which most people unable to maintain goal weight fall: 1) Concealment ; 2) Need to be noticed 3) Deprivation , and 4) True desire . The Concealment category includes those who either have a secret to hide or want to cover their bodies to be less conspicuous. For instance, people who have been sexually molested often surround themselves with extra body mass, subconsciously protecting themselves against unwanted advances. They often sabotage diets when they have lost too much weight and start to feel vulnerable. In other cases, people maintain an excess amount of body mass to prevent others from seeing more than they are comfortable sharing about themselves. Their body condition reflects a necessity for privacy. The Need to be Noticed category includes individuals who struggle to be seen and heard, stemming from unmet childhood desires to be noticed by family and friends. In making themselves physically large, they subconsciously believe they cannot be overlooked. The Deprivation category is fascinating! I have observed people falling into two groups: Group 1 consists of those who feel as if love and resources, such as food, are endless. If you put a bowl of M&M peanuts on the coffee table at a party, they typically eat a few and are rarely conscious of when others are helping themselves or how many are left in the bowl. Group 2 includes those who feel as if there is a finite amount of love, attention, and resources, such as food. When a bowl of M&M peanuts is set on a coffee table surrounded by other snackers  they don’t hesitate diving in and grabbing their share while acutely aware of how many everyone else is claiming. They feel anxious when the supply is dwindling and reach for more. People in Group 2 have what I call Deprivation Syndrome, a condition that contributes to the fear of not having enough. I see this as either a part of one’s nature or as a consequence of actual real-life experience, such as growing up in a family that has struggled to put food on the table or having a parent who withholds love and attention. Like people in the Concealment category, those in the Deprivation category have major roadblocks that prevent them from sustaining healthy a goal weight. Only with therapy to explore the origins of these roadblocks, and with diligent treatment, can they overcome lifelong obstacles. I’ve had many patients over my years in private practice who present with weight loss goals. There is often a familiar decades-long pattern of following fad diets. A certain amount of success is achieved, but my patients have typically reported how uncomfortable they have become as the pounds dropped. It was only after extensive work delving into past traumas and discovering the roots of problem that they were able to heal and sustain success in weight management. Finally, the True Desire category is unlike the first three. People I have observed in this category LOVE food. They consider themselves foodies. They definitely live to eat. They wake up in the morning thinking about food, where to shop, what to make, and when they will eat next. They appreciate the culture around food: the socializing and sense of community. Simply put, eating food is pure joy. In fact, people in this category have little motivation to lose or maintain weight. Food is far more important. When patients ask me to help them figure out why they cannot lose or maintain their goal weight, I first want to know if they fall into the True Desire category. When it is clear to us both that food is top priority, I ask them if they would like to challenge the cacophonyof voices telling them to lose weight. Why succumb to the social pressures to look a certain way? You cannot imagine the relief they feel when asked, “Wouldn’t you rather just enjoy your life with all the eating experiences you desire?” Coming to the truth about one’s inability to maintain a healthy goal weight is complicated! Starting with a realistic goal that matches one’s body type is crucial. If the struggle persists, consider that it is not the diet program, nor the amount of exercise to which one commits. If this is a chronic, lifelong battle, there are likely to be issues beneath the surface--psychological roadblocks--that prevent lasting success. This column is devoted to psychological topics that speak to the human condition, such as relationships, family, love, loss, and happiness. The ideas, thoughts, philosophies, and observations expressed here are personal and not meant as professional advice. Names and identifying information have been changed to protect the privacy of real people. Dr. Nancy Fishman moved to Santa Clara County in 2016 from Michigan, where she was a practicing psychologist. Currently, she is a strategy consultant to individuals, families, businesses, family law attorneys and their clients--working on coping, managing, reorganizing, pivoting and innovating. She is the founder of Forgotten Harvest, one of the nation’s largest food recovery operation, and is also the creator of Silicon Valley’s A La Carte food recovery and distribution initiative. Nancy lives on a family compound with her husband, sisters, brother-in-law, and a pack of dogs. NancyFishmanPhD.com ForgottenHarvest.org

By Andy Borowitz  January 27, 2026 Tom Homan (R) said he would assume Greg Bovino’s post but not his helmet. (Scott Olson and Win McNamee/Getty Images) WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report )— Taking decisive action to stem a spiraling crisis, on Tuesday the White House replaced an asshole with a different asshole. Stephen Miller, widely regarded as the senior asshole in the Trump administration, masterminded the sociopath substitution, White House sources said. Minutes after the decision was made to swap psychos, Miller assembled an array of qualified miscreants in the White House Situation Room, including Kristi Noem, Pete Hegseth, Pam Bondi, Karoline Leavitt, and Marco Rubio. “Anyone who thinks this administration is going to run out of assholes any time soon better think again,” Miller told reporters. “We have a very deep bench.”

By John Woodford / Ann Arbor, Mich. Republican State Senator Greg Goode from Terre Haute, Indiana There’s an old maxim that great crises in history can repeat themselves, replays usually degenerate into farce. But sometimes, I hope my readers will agree, the recurrence of a historical drama can reinforce the virtues of its predecessor. First, we’ll return to those thrilling but troubled days of yesteryear known as the McCarthy era, when a demagogic bully got his political comeuppance after a mild-mannered courageous man stood up to him and inspired our nation to say, “Enough is enough!”  Then we’ll look at a contemporary conflict in the Trump era with similar characters in a similar setting. It’s a conflict whose resolution is still unknown, but one that we, the people, can play a part in bringing about a heroic rather than a farcical finale. I was just about to become a teenager in 1954 when Sen. Joseph McCarthy a Republican from Wisconsin, launched his Red Scare hearings against supposed Communist and non-Communist “leftists” and “progressives” who were accused of being involved in our country’s political, cultural and academic life. Although I knew next to nothing about political repression, censorship or the constitutional issues involved in the scourge nicknamed “McCarthyism,” I occasionally watched the televised Senate hearings with my parents. McCarthy, the leader of the hearings, struck me as nasty and creepy, not because of his politics but because he looked and behaved like a villain in a cowboy movie or a film noir. I happened to be watching the hearings on June 9, 1954, when Joseph Welch, an Iowan who had advanced to the top ranks of a prestigious Boston law firm, unforgettably rebuked McCarthy in a plain-spoken way. It was as devastating and thrilling as the words of that little boy in Hans Christian Anderson’s story, "The Emperor's New Clothes," who looks at the naked emperor and cries out, "But he hasn't got anything on!" The U.S. Army had hired Welch as its chief counsel after McCarthy and his servile Senate posse had opened hearings on the supposed presence of 130 Communists or other “subversives” in the American military industries. That accusation had been made by future Donald Trump mentor Roy Cohn, who was the chief counsel for McCarthy’s Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, then in its third month. Numerous citizens had already lost their jobs because of their political beliefs or affiliations during that campaign and in its wake.   When Welch challenged Cohn to provide the Army with a list of the 130 “subversives,” McCarthy interrupted by suggesting that Welch did not want to expose subversives because Welch was protecting Frederick Fisher, an attorney in his own firm. Fisher had once been a member of the left-wing National Lawyers Guild but was no longer and was not participating in the hearings. Stunned by McCarthy’s unethical move of damaging the reputation of his young colleague, Welch replied in part: “Fred Fisher is a young man who went to the Harvard Law School and came into my firm and is starting what looks to be a brilliant career with us...I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty, I would do so. I like to think I am a gentleman, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me.” McCarthy, however, began to renew his attack on Fisher. That led Welch to interrupt him with the words that are credited with rousing the nation to recognize that McCarthy and his colleagues were attacking our country’s finer principles. Welch stared McCarthy in the face and said: “Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild ... Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough.   Have you no sense of decency?" The throng present at the proceedings burst into applause after Welch’s remarks, and historians credit him with rousing public and press opinion against McCarthy overnight. That July, Republican U.S. Sen. Ralph Flanders of Vermont introduced a motion, which passed later that year, censuring McCarthy for acts that “tended to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute, to obstruct the constitutional processes of the Senate, and to impair its dignity.”  Now let’s fast forward to the present, December 11, to be exact. Like the members of several other state legislatures, Indiana Republicans, who enjoy a big majority of their state Senate, were being pressured by President Trump and his more extreme supporters to redraw voting districts so as to ensure GOP victories in elections. Most Hoosier Republicans, however, wound up opposing the redistricting plan as unfair, unconstitutional, unethical, immoral or otherwise objectionable. They rejected the measure by a 31-19 vote, in which 21 of the 40 Republicans joined 10 Democrats on the “no” side. Goode was among that majority. Here’s how the Indiana Capital Chronicle reported it that day: “Sen. Greg Goode, R-Terre Haute, had not announced a position before Thursday’s vote but told the chamber that ‘overwhelming feedback’ from his constituents–‘regardless of political leaning, or party affiliation’—influenced his decision. He ultimately voted no on the bill.  “I’ve done my very best to quietly and respectfully listen to the people I represent,” Goode said, “and I’m confident that my vote reflects the will of my constituents.” At least a dozen legislators, many Senate Republicans — including Goode — have publicly disclosed being targeted in swatting attempts, bomb threats and more. Swatting is a form of criminal harassment that involves deceiving an emergency service into sending a police or emergency response team to another person's location.   The incidents have prompted an ongoing investigation led by the Indiana State Police. “Whether we realize it or not — whether we accept it or not — the forces that define these vitriolic political affairs in places outside of Indiana have gradually, and now very blatantly, infiltrated the political affairs in Indiana,” Goode continued. “Misinformation, cruel social media posts, over-the-top pressure from within the Statehouse and  outside. Threats of primaries. Threats of violence. Acts of violence. Friends, we’re better than this, are we not?” Goode’s remarks were covered on television, radio and online. When I heard him deliver them in his calm and righteous voice, I thought, “Aha! Here is the quotation, the news clip, the meme, the voice that can awaken the country to the political peril we now face!” I eagerly waited to see and hear Goode featured in liberal, even some conservative news media, throughout the land. And I’m still waiting. The pro-Democratic media talking heads pretty much ignored Goode. Instead, their own commentary was the main story. Pundits seized on the Indiana vote as an occasion to editorialize and analyze as if they themselves were the main story. Some outlets interviewed various policy wonks to pontificate about how the episode showed “the people have power” and how “this shows how we can save and protect our democracy.” Nice sentiments. But to most citizens, if they’re like me, it all sounds like “yadda-yadda." There’s no drama, no heroes and no plain-spoken display of–or appeal to–common decency. Our news sources can be better than this, can they not?   John Woodford lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where he retired after two decades as the executive editor of Michigan Today , a University of Michigan alumni/ae publication. His career in journalism includes editing and/or reporting duties for Ebony  magazine, Muhammad Speaks  newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times , the New Haven Register , the New York Times  and Ford Motor company publications.

A Short Story by Jessie Seigel / Washington, D.C. To round out this year of political upheavals, I’d like to offer Insider readers my short story, “Dictator in a Bottle.” It was first published in Unlikely Stories Mark V in December 2024. Perhaps it can provide a brief, whimsical catharsis for the madness that has been 2025. Welcome. By your weary look, you have come a long way. So, sit. Have a cup of tea. Now. You say a despot is threatening your country.  And you have heard rumors that I, a wise old woman, can help. Perhaps I can. For a while, my own country was threatened by a would-be dictator. Ours ran about like a crazy man, bullying everyone who came across his path. He wielded a magic weapon of loud, uncouth words—outshouting, out-mocking, and out-taunting any who opposed him. If a challenger were bald, he became “a bowling ball on stilts.” If a man had a lisp or a stutter, our bully snorted at him and flicked a wrist. Even our military heroes were not immune. Heroism was belittled and twisted, magically, into cowardice. The crowds who came to watch this bully’s antics were a mixture of those who like a circus and the sort who would enjoy a good hanging if one were available. Those of our leaders who believe in democracy were too busy being noble and above the fray to respond to the bully’s antics. They ignored him. And so, he grew. Some of his power-hungry competitors tried to react. But their counterattacks were low and mumbling. When he roared back at them, those challengers folded up as flat as hospital bed sheets and turned twice as white in the face. They would not work together against him, and they could not withstand him alone. So, they shrank and he grew some more. Finally, our would-be dictator grew so large that his britches burst at the seams. His huge head hovered over us like the Goodyear Blimp. His mouth became a black, gaping maw ready to swallow us up and spit out our bones—even the bones of his blindly faithful acolytes—though they could not see it. Ahh, you ask—if public and powerful personages could not quell him, and his followers remained faithful, what could I, an anonymous old woman do about him? I was taught young to stand up to bullies. Unlike those weak-kneed worthies, if I had to stand alone against them, I learned to take pride in standing alone. My mother taught me this. She also taught me the kind of words needed to cut tyrants down to size. So, I sought out our would-be despot. I found him churning up a crowd in a huge tent set up just for him at a public fair. I angled my way to the front and managed to ascend to the stage. No one pays attention to an old woman, so his guards did not stop me. But he saw me. Instinct must have told him why I was there because he immediately shouted: “What are you doing up here, you old bag of bones? Get out of here!” I replied, “I’m on to you, you bag of wind.” He called me fat and toothless. Showing every one of my sharp teeth, I called out: “Is that all you’ve got? All you’ve got is to call people names because you’ve got nothing else. Well, anybody can do that!" Then, to demonstrate, I called out to him: “You fart from the mouth every time you open it.” “You!” he cried, “You are disgusting. Your face is one big wrinkle, and your hair is as stringy as spaghetti. No one wants to hear what comes from your mouth!” I brought forth my fiercest weapon then, cruel truths amplified to infinity. Never mind physical imperfections. I hit him with phrases that exposed every wrinkle, blemish, flab and flaw of his soul and psyche. I shouted, loud enough for his crowd to hear, “You are a worthless, pathetic excuse for a human being who has done nothing worthwhile in this world. Clearly, you are trying to compensate because your mother never loved you and your father held you in disdain. It does not matter how much power you acquire, you will still be nothing more than a pimple on the backside of mankind. A mote in the eye of the universe. Because nothing you value is of any worth.” Those words were cruel, but such a litany is necessary when an aspiring tyrant has reached this bloated stage. My words went through the man like a pin through the skin of a balloon. He bounced off the tent’s canvas walls, the air whooshing out of him as he tried to outshout me. “I am famous and feared, and you are nothing,” he sputtered. “What have you ever done? Who even knows your name?” I replied, quietly now, “I do not need anyone to know my name because I know who I am.” And I continued my incantations until he deflated completely, his rants becoming mere mouse-like squeaks and his size small enough for me to lift him by his teeny lapels and pop him into a little bell-shaped bottle which I sealed with a cork stopper. Then I quickly descended the stage and disappeared into the night. Those attending were too astonished by this spectacle to stop me. What did I do with him? I took him home. I keep this tiny creature in his jar on a shelf in my back shed. The cork has tiny holes in it sufficient to keep him from suffocating—I’m not a murderer! —but the holes are not large enough to allow much sound to escape. There’s no heat in the shed, but the hot air from his breath as he shouts keeps him warm enough. You wish me to take you into my shed and show you the bottle? So, you can see the proof of what I’ve said for yourself? No, I cannot do that. You see, the glass only muffles the sound of him somewhat and the arrival of any audience encourages him to strut and shout all the more. And that eggs on the others in my collection to do the same. Oh, yes. I have a collection of dictators and would-be dictators. The presence of an audience can get any of them agitated, and then they all get going with their strutting and loud speeches. That is perilous. Their hot air creates steam. If enough steam accumulates, its pressure pops their corks, and they escape. Even apart from the steam, when they get agitated, they knock around in those bottles, rock them from the inside, charge the glass until the bottles fall off the shelf, hit the ground, and break. Then they run around the floor, puffing themselves up, and before you know it, I’ve got numerous full-size maniacal egomaniacs I must shrink again to prevent the entire collection from being–all of them at once–unleashed upon the world. For a fee, I could give you a packet of my incantations. But of course, you will need to find someone with the backbone and lungs to use them. Jessie Seigel’s journalistic career began with the political Washington Whispers column, written for The Insider . Since The Insider ended its run in 2023, Seigel has continued the column as My Washington Whispers, www.mywashingtonwhispers.com . In addition, Seigel has had a long career as a government attorney, has received two Artist’s Fellowships from the Washington, D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities for her fiction, has been a finalist for several literary awards, and has had two professional staged readings of her play Tinker's Damn , with another play, The Three Jessies . More on Seigel can be found at  https://www.jessieseigel.com .

By Laurence Lerman / New York City SCREEN TIME The year 2025 will be remembered as the kind of cinematic annum that almost never happens anymore—one where the conversation wasn’t driven by IP or franchise bloat, but by filmmakers with something electric on their minds. It was a year in which two  horror films crashed the best-of lists, a rarity in any era, and where a remarkable spread of auteurs—from newcomers sharpening their blades to veterans pushing themselves into riskier terrain—delivered a wide variety of work that felt bracingly alive. The result was an impressive slate of films unified only by their ambition, artistry, and refusal to play it safe. Here are 10 of them, in no particular order, that really worked for me: One Battle After Another Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson   Writer/director Anderson’s masterful latest work reimagines revolutionary fiction as kinetic, black-humored action. Leonardo DiCaprio stars as a former insurgent drawn back into conflict when a corrupt officer (Sean Penn) hunts him and his daughter (newcomer Chase Infiniti) across a fractured America. With magnetic support from Teyana Taylor, Benicio del Toro, and Regina Halli, Anderson, shooting in the glorious widescreen VistaVision format blends anarchic set pieces with emotional stakes, making this both a political rumble and a surprisingly intimate father-daughter drama.   Sinners Directed by Ryan Coogler Genre-bending Sinners  blends period drama, gothic horror, and social commentary. Coogler’s go-to leading man Michael B. Jordan—the De Niro to Coogler’s Scorsese—gives a tour-de-force dual performance as twin brothers Smoke and Stack in 1932 Mississippi who set out to open a juke joint — until a malevolent vampiric force upends their plans. With Hailee Steinfeld, Miles Caton, Wunmi Mosaku, and Delroy Lindo adding rich texture, the film feels like mythic American folklore updated with eerie dread.   A House of Dynamite Directed by Kathryn Bigelow Return after an eight-year hiatus, Bigelow fires on all cylinders with this 21 st  century nuclear thriller that unfolds in near real time and feels wired to explode. A House of Dynamite  places viewers in the tense cockpit of national crisis: an unidentified ballistic missile has been launched toward the U.S., and government and military officials have only minutes to react. The ensemble is led by Idris Elba as the U.S. president and Rebecca Ferguson as a top communications officer, alongside strong supporting players Jared Harris and Tracy LettsAll of them find themselves engaged in personal and political decision-making on the brink of possible extinction. Eddington Directed by Ari Aster  Featuring fine work from stars Joaquin Phoenix and Pedro Pascal, Aster’s ambitious work veers from the straight-on horror parameters of his earlier films and delivers a sprawling, strange and horrifying satire. Set amidst a pandemic-era America roiling with conspiracies and technological fear, the story follows a New Mexico community spinning into suspicion and paranoia as fringe theories metastasize into real danger. The film’s narrative pulls at the fault lines of trust and terror, mapping how misinformation and social fracture can feel as frightening as any supernatural threat. Nouvelle Vague Directed by Richard Linklater  This exuberant and affectionate plunge into the birth of cinema’s French New Wave follows a young Jean-Luc Godard as he scrambles to make his rules-shattering 1960 film Breathless  with a crew of hungry collaborators and almost no money. Linklater captures the chaotic ingenuity of the “nouvelle vague” movement as it shattered all the rules, began crafting new ones, and rewrote narrative film grammar. Energetic and playful and presented in French with English subtitles ( oui! oui! ), it’s a valentine to creative rebellion and the messy thrill of artistic reinvention. And Zoey Deutch shines as Godard’s hesitant leading lady Jean Seberg. Sentimental Value Directed by Joachim Trier   Stellan Skarsgård and Renate Reinsve star in Danish-Norwegian powerhouse Trier’s tender but powerful family drama about reconciliation through art. After their mother’s death, estranged sisters Nora (Reinsve) and Agnes (Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas) face the return of their filmmaker father, Gustav (Skarsgård), who casts Hollywood star Rachel Kemp (Elle Fanning) in his comeback project about his family after Nora, an actress, refuses. Old wounds and unresolved affections quickly rise to the surface with the meta-film project becoming part of their emotional reckoning.   An Officer and a Spy Directed by Roman Polanski An Officer and a Spy  finally reached U.S. audiences this year after its 2019 Venice premiere, and it was clearly worth the wait. Polanski’s meticulous historical thriller dramatizes France’s notorious Dreyfus Affair through the eyes of the principled officer who risked everything to expose a conspiracy against an innocent man. Anchored by a compelling performance from Jean Dujardin, the film unfolds like a procedural moral tragedy, resonating with present-day anxieties about truth, power, and institutional betrayal. Hamnet Directed by Chloé Zhao Chloé Zhao’s moving adaptation of Maggie O’Farrell’s acclaimed 2020 novel stars Jessie Buckley and Paul Mescal as Agnes and William Shakespeare, whose tender marriage fractures after the tragic death of their son Hamnet to the plague. With fine supporting turns from Emily Watson and Joe Alwyn, Zhao’s lyrical storytelling (from a script she co-wrote with O’Farrell) transforms grief into a universal meditation on love, loss, and the artistic impulse that springs from deep sorrow. Weapons Directed by Zach Cregger Zach Cregger’s Weapons  opens when 17 children from a third-grade class slip out of their homes at 2:17 a.m. and vanish, a nightmare that rips through their small town of Maybrook, USA. Julia Garner’s shell-shocked teacher, Josh Brolin’s enraged father, and Alden Ehrenreich’s conflicted cop anchor intersecting stories of blame, grief, and supernatural dread in the form of…witchcraft, perhaps? Rising tensions, violent interludes and a dose of jump scares elevate this one into an unsettling, unpredictable, and fiercely original horror entry. Misericordia Directed Alain Guiraudie From France, Guiraudie’s darkly comic thriller follows a man who returns to his rural hometown for a funeral and is quickly drawn into a tangle of flirtations, suspicions, and half-spoken desires. The film moves with a languid but palpable erotic charge of what might be best described as “queer noir”—where every gesture feels like a clue and an invitation. Guiraudie’s blend of mystery, humor, and yearning turns this small town into a seductive maze of motives and longing.   Laurence Lerman is a film journalis and a former editor of Video Business -- Variety's digital media trade publication. Over the course of his four-decade career, he has conducted one-on-one interviews with just about every major filmmaker working today, from Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino and Clint Eastwood to Kathryn Bigelow, Bernardo Bertolucci, and Werner Herzog. Most recently, he is the co-founder and editor-in-chief of the online review site  DiscDish.com , the founder and curator of  FilmShul.com , a multi-part presentation on the history of Hollywood and Jewish America, and a commentator on various 4K UHD and Blu-ray home entertainment releases.

By Andy Borowitz  December 11, 2025 Dan Mullan/Getty Images WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report )— Donald J. Trump exploded with rage on Thursday after gold paint peeled off his FIFA Peace Prize, White House sources revealed. The regrettable incident occurred in the Oval Office as Trump was celebrating his recent pardon of the former Honduras President and convicted drug kingpin Juan Orlando Hernández. As Trump lifted the trophy to show it off to Hernández, flakes of gold paint cascaded to the ground, causing Trump to roar, “Peace Prize? More like piece of shit!” Attempting to appease Trump, FIFA released a statement stressing that they had used “only the highest quality gold paint, like that used on the Oval Office, the new White House ballroom, and your hair.”