A Poem by Dr. Barry Lubetkin / New York City The family huddled around the table like a football scrum Fingers entwined, all staring down Gazing at a CVS purchase Cost five bucks, could change our lives. We each voted silently. Ten minutes to wait. Anxiety. “There is no line,” she says. “Wait,” he says, “I think it’s there but vague.” Hearts quicken, fingers tighten. “You’re wrong,” another offers. “Staring so long at the control line caused a visual echo in your brain,” she says. “You’re safe.” “My throat is sore, not there yesterday.” He demands another test. Repeat. Next day repeat. Next day repeat. Finally, positive. Line is dark. Dark means isolate. Not scared. Again repeat. Next day repeat. Line does not show. We all vote again. Negative. Relief. Repeated millions of times around the world. Is mine the only family where the test caused more fear than the disease? Barry Lubetkin, Ph.D. is the co-director and co-founder of the Institute for Behavior Therapy in New York City. The Institute for Behavior Therapy is the oldest private cognitive behavior center in the United States.

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

By Naomi Serviss / New York City I can’t get into Wordle. Apparently, I’m the only one. This ubiquitous and addictive daily word challenge seems to have freakishly appeared out of nowhere. Laser-beaming its way across myriad social platforms, scooping up word mavens. Who wouldn’t welcome an enticing distraction from Covid-triggered anxiety? In the before-times, Wordle brags would be communally shared. Water cooler fodder. Now players Facebook post or text their scores. Giddy with a winner’s high. Diehard gamers wait nervously for midnight, when a fresh new conquest awaits. The game was created by software engineer Josh Wardle late last year. After feasting ad nauseum on popular online word games, Wardle was determined to out-puzzle the puzzlers. He did by hatching Wordle, a clueless puzzle. I can barely complete the New York Times' crossword puzzle with clues. Diving into a fresh one every day, gives me a headache. In November 2021, the game had 90 players. In January, more than 2 million word junkies chased the dragon. After being kneecapped by Covid two years ago (seems longer), millions are hyper-focused on any shiny thing that creates buzz. Welcome Wordle, what took you so long? Friends report playing Wordle is respite from catastrophic thinking about: Climate Change Unvaccinated covidiots Omicron Our kids Biden’s gaffes Toilet paper…again! No wonder Wordle is the latest mood ring. Until it jumps the shark, this diversion has legs. But, for my money, it’s just not appealing. My mother was a crossword puzzle fiend. The Sunday New York Times' was her favorite. Her weekly ritual was doing the crossword in pen. Sat in a nondescript, secondhand colonial living-room corner chair, sipping Pepsi after Pepsi, chain-smoking unfiltered Philip Morris cigarettes. When brown bits dotted her tongue after every exhale, she’d nonchalantly pick off and flick them. Lucy’s vocabulary was extensive, and she knew how to use it. When angered, her dramatic theatrics were epic: “I work my fingers to the bone for you.” “You’re going to give me a heart attack.” “I’m always the happy clown.” Must give her credit. She did summon her considerable acting and directing chops, which were legion. She was Lucille Ball Lite, short red hair to boot. We lived in the second-floor apartment of a carved-up Victorian with a sizeable porch, on tree-lined Montgomery Avenue in Elkins Park, a coveted Philadelphia suburb. The landlady, Mrs. Aurora Malfitano, taught Italian at Cheltenham High School. She sang opera and was kind to me. Hired me to sweep the porch weekly for 50 cents. I saved up to buy treasures from the book shop near the Villager store on Ashbourne Road. When we moved to Colonial Apartments, across from the Elkins Park train station, I hoped that apartment would be the one in my mother’s eyes. Wishful thinking. That old worse-for-wear, three-floored red brick building reeked of ancient dust and a hint of death. There was a dumbwaiter across from the mailboxes. Our second-floor apartment was a warren of rooms with two doors. Thin walls separated our apartment from our neighbors. The middle-aged alcoholic couple drank and raged nightly. My brother put a drinking glass against our common wall to better hear the frightening arguments and slurred curses. He laughed unselfconsciously. I was terrified and ashamed, hoping Lucy’s bingo game would soon end. Games of luck juiced her, bingo was a thrice-weekly habit. Her thirst was never quenched. Lucy was a hard-working single parent of five, barely scraping by. Yet we always had a big color TV. Layaway. In one apartment, she inexplicably had wall-to-wall carpeting installed. Her maternal skills were zilch. Inappropriate behavior was the norm. Lucy threw raucous parties attended by doctors and nurses from work. She was a medical transcriptionist for a radiology office at Philadelphia’s Broad Street and Olney Avenue. A crowd of laughing, drinking adults swelled the small apartment. They were playing a version of Pin the Tail. Lucy said it was “Goose the Moose.” My seven-year-old self was eager to play. She told me to close my eyes. “Stick out your finger,” she instructed. I did. My digit was guided into a thick goo. When I opened my eyes, my mother was holding a jar of Vaseline. And laughing. My face crimsoned. I understood years later. A different game required two special silver frogs. My mother prompted me to flip them over. I puzzled over the anatomically correct amphibians. Bolting to my corner of the empty bedroom shared with two sisters and a brother, I felt flush. Sucking my right thumb comforted me for three more years until I hit double digits. We all need comforting during this awful time. Wordle fills the bill for many. I’m no longer triggered by the NYT crossword puzzle. I do my best and sometimes finish in record time. Not bragging, just reporting. That Mini Puzzle can be a beast. Naomi Serviss is a New York-based award-winning journalist whose work has been published in The New York Times, Newsday, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Highroads (AAA magazine), in-flight publications, spa and travel magazines and websites, including BroadwayWorld.com

By Victoria Rolfe / Red Hook, NY January is, of course, traditionally the time when we make resolutions, and unfortunately February is when we traditionally break them. Why is that? Well …change is hard. We are ultimately creatures of habit and a resolution by its very nature requires change. And we would much prefer going along in our daily lives doing the same things in the same ways as we have always done them. So, regrettably, our resolutions go by the wayside , life goes on and we feel bad. Instead of worrying about the resolutions you didn’t live up to this year, how about setting some new goals for yourself? “What’s the difference?” I can hear you asking. While a resolution tends to be somewhat vague (“I want to lose weight”). If you are setting them the proper way, a goal is more specific. And to help you make them specific, the genius gurus that be have come up with this cute little acronym: S.M.A.R.T (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-Bound). So, taking the example of losing weight, we would say “I want to lose 20 pounds (specific) by April (time-bound) and I will do this by losing two pounds per week (measurable).” This goal would be both attainable and realistic. Saying you wanted to lose 100 pounds by April would be very unrealistic. But setting a mini goal of two pounds per week makes it easier to work towards. You can now just concentrate on those two pounds per week, rather than the bigger (more daunting) 20 pounds by April. You can even set up a reward system for yourself every week if you make your two-pound goal : get a massage, get your nails done, watch your favorite movie, whatever. Now, let’s translate this into a money goal. Rather than a vague “I want to save more money this year,” try “I want to save $2,000 by the end of the year.” Now you can break this down into how much you would need to save each month ($167), and per week ($38), and even per day ($5.48). Once broken down this way, it is easily manageable. What can you give up that is currently costing you $5.48 per day, or $38 per week? And it is much easier to monitor your progress. It is helpful to make a chart for yourself. You can easily see if you are on track. To be even more specific make a plan for where you are going to put this saved money, perhaps opening up a separate savings account for it. And it should be earmarked for a specific purpose: a vacation, new furniture, a new computer. Or it can be an account that you will continue to add $2,000 (or more) into each year going forward, toward your emergency fund, or a house, or a car. Now you are not just making vague resolutions– you are setting goals the S.M.A.R.T. way. It is a specific amount (broken down into even more specific “mini” goals), it is realistic and attainable, and certainly measurable. And you can continue to monitor your progress throughout the year (and give yourself little mini rewards if you need them). When you set your goals in this very definitive way, you are now shooting towards something very precise, and keeping that goal in mind, it is now easier to give up whatever you need to do in order to achieve your goal. You are not just making your own coffee in the morning to save money–you are saving up for that computer, or furniture, or car or house. It gives you more of an incentive to make the sacrifice. In the weight-loss scenario, it makes it easier to give up the one or two things that are contributing to your weight gain and swap them for healthier options, just to make that two-pound weight loss for the week. So, try ditching those nebulous resolutions and instead set yourself some S.M.A.R.T goals in February and see if you don’t stick to them this time around. As for my resolution this year, I kept it very simple and attainable. On a quest for the healthiest possible diet, I have researched quite a few of them. While they might differ on other nutrients, every single one of them says to eat more leafy greens. So my goal is to eat leafy greens every day this year, and for the rest of my life. So far so good! Best of luck to you in reaching for your new S.M.A.R.T, goals and making some positive changes in your life this year! Victoria Rolfe has had a love of gardening all her life, from the time she was a tiny child coveting the daffodils growing in her neighbor’s yard (and wondering why she couldn’t have them in her own), to her teenage years when she took her pot experimentation in a different direction by growing the seeds she extracted from the bag into a beautiful marijuana plant on her bedroom windowsill. She went on in her adult years to feed her family by growing a huge and bountiful vegetable garden, as well as beautifying her three-acre property with an array of ornamental trees, bushes and flowers in the magnificent Hudson Valley region of New York. Victoria learned a great deal in the process of all this plant experimentation. She then added to that knowledge by taking courses with the Cornell Cooperative Extension to become a Master Gardener Volunteer. In her volunteer capacity, she helps to educate the public on gardening through classes and information booths, most notably at the Dutchess County N.Y. Fair each August. Throughout the summer months, Victoria is most likely to be found among the weeds, either in her own garden or those of others who actually pay her to play in their dirt and do the thing she loves best, delight in the magical world of gardening. Victoria is not only a gardening aficionado; she is also passionate about helping people live a better life on less money. Visit her website and blog at brightfuture2budget4.weebly.com, or email her at brightfuture2budget4@gmail.com.

By Carly Mitchell / New York City (The author is using a pseudonym for professional reasons) I work as a seventh-grade English teacher at a Title 1 middle school in Brooklyn. Roughly 90 percent of my students receive free or reduced lunches. Enrollment has declined in the past few years as more white families move into the primarily Black neighborhood, bringing with them higher rents and the creation of “progressive” (mostly white) charter schools. Teachers often raise money on their own through websites like Donors Choose if they want certain supplies or up-to-date classroom technology. I love teaching English. As a child I was fortunate enough to be surrounded by books. At one point, I even had my own library in our basement. I majored in English in undergrad and thrived in my English classes, while getting my master’s degree in the same subject. I became a teacher because I wanted to foster this love of reading and writing in young people. I wanted them to experience reading and writing the way that I did and still do–as a way to escape to another world, and to get to know yourself and others in a more intimate way. But the harsh reality is that only four of the 56 students that I teach actually read at a seventh-grade level. The average student in my classroom is reading at a fourth-grade level. And the pandemic has only made that learning gap worse. Many students who were virtual last year lacked the necessary resources at home to help them really learn. And some students stopped coming to school entirely. But we are trying our best, even with the extra challenges presented by Covid. At my school, we use a specific English curriculum, “Into Literature,” that serves as the foundation to our teaching. As an English teacher, I have few qualms about the lessons, but they are very dense and do not contain any novels, only short stories. This foundational curriculum is supplemented by an online program called iReady, a diagnostic tool that measures student’s reading levels. iReady works like this: students take an initial diagnostic test and are then classified by the system according to their grade level. iReady then tailors the online activities students complete based on their individual needs. For example, if a student’s reading comprehension is at a fifth-grade level, iReady will generate activities for that student to complete that will (hopefully) help them get to a seventh-grade level. Once a week I take each of my three classes to the school computer lab to do iReady. It’s certainly helpful in that the lessons are personalized for students and involve little planning on our part, but the program is not very writing-friendly. It only aids students in reading comprehension. I recently participated in a Phonics professional development training workshop, which we will begin implementing by mid-February. For those who don’t know, Phonics is a reading program meant for much-younger students in kindergarten to third grade, which is taught by breaking words down by their sounds. I have 10 students spread across my three classes who will be participating in this program, which means these students are reading at the K-3 level. Obviously, they need this intervention. One major wrinkle is that I need to conduct Phonics sessions once a week for 45 minutes, and that this cannot be done in the same room as the rest of the class. We fear students who are doing Phonics may get embarrassed. It also involves mostly call-and response, which would be disruptive. As of now, I am not sure how this will look or who will be with the rest of my class while I work with these students. Learning is not one-size-fits-all. Every teacher knows this. It is necessary to differentiate your materials and provide options so that all students glean the most from their educational experience. For example, if we read a text in class, I may work closely with some students who need the extra assistance while the others read on their own. In that same vein, I often give students an option when we have end-of-unit assessments. Those with artistic talents may create a storyboard; tech-savvy students can create a podcast; and those who are into creative writing may write from the perspective of one of the characters. These days though, there is just too much going on for that type of personal attention. What’s the solution? How can I possibly help to get all of my students reading at grade level? Unfortunately, I am not sure. Neither is the New York City Department of Education, which seems to think that inundating students and teachers with new curricula and schoolwide programs is going to solve all of our issues. It pains me as an English teacher that our school library is defunct because of budget cuts. Every time I walk past our now-shuttered library, I feel heartbroken that my students don’t have the opportunity to speak with a knowledgeable librarian who can help them navigate such a magical space. I will admit, at times I feel like my passion for teaching is tested. There are so many obstacles, and it can be very disheartening. Nevertheless, our sense of community is strong, and as I watch as a student experiences an ‘aha!’ moment, or tells me that they relate to a character, I am reminded of why I chose to do this job in the first place. Carly Mitchell (a pseudonym) is a public-school teacher in Brooklyn N.Y. who loves to learn, to educate, and to expose the hypocrisy of New York City politicians.

One film journalist’s stream-of-consciousness cinematic journey through the pandemic, Part 69 By Laurence Lerman / New York City Rifkin’s Festival, Woody Allen’s 49th feature film in just about as many years (by my count), opened in theaters and on digital platforms this week on January 28. The film was completed in early 2020 and premiered at the San Sebastian International Film Festival that September . That it is only now receiving distribution in the filmmaker’s home country carries its own story, which is sadly worthy of as much attention as a standard review by this still-dedicated Woody Allen fan. There was a time not too long ago when a Woody Allen movie opened in movie theaters across the nation each and every year, frequently in autumn. “Woody Allen’s fall project” was common parlance among the industry and fans for the filmmaker’s upcoming seasonal releases, most of which were issued by major studios like United Artists, Orion Pictures and, later, Miramax, DreamWorks and Sony Classics. That was the case for 40 years, beginning with the 1977 release of the Oscar-winning Annie Hall and ending with the Coney Island-set Wonder Wheel in December, 2017. Between those two were Manhattan (1979), Zelig (1983), The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985) Hannah and her Sisters (1986), Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989), Husbands and Wives (1992), Bullets Over Broadway (1994), Deconstructing Harry (1997), Match Point (2005), Midnight in Paris (2011) and Blue Jasmine (2013), all of which are among the finest American films released in their respective years. Allen's previous film, A Rainy Day in New York, was released in the fall of 2020, nearly three years after Wonder Wheel, marking the longest lag time between Allen’s film openings in almost a half century. And it nearly didn’t make it onto American screens due to the 2019 collapse of Allen’s deal with Amazon Studios to produce and finance his films. That came along with Allen’s loss of support from a number of studios and streamers due to the controversy stirred by unproven allegations made against him decades earlier. Chicago-based distributor MPI Media Group stepped up and released A Rainy Day in New York in theaters and in Blu-ray, DVD and digital streaming formats. Its theatrical rollout found it playing in select theaters around the country, but not a single one in Manhattan, where movie houses remained closed due to Covid. That made Rainy Day the first-ever film directed by Woody Allen not to play in a Manhattan theater during its first-run theatrical release. That’s one helluva dubious distinction (and another in a long-line of sinister achievements made by that damned virus) and a far cry from the nearly 1,100 theaters that showed Midnight in Paris on their screens in 2011. That’s not the case with Rifkin’s Festival, which was completed in 2020 and has been playing theatrically around the world for the past 16 months, even receiving a release in Kazakhstan in January, 2021.. With MPI once again picking up the theatrical rights, it’s currently playing in 25 theaters nationwide, including Manhattan’s Quad Cinema in Greenwich Village. It’s also available to stream on the major platforms, including iTunes, Vudu, Apple TV, Google Play and Amazon Prime Video, the streaming division of the same company that, again, severed ties with Woody back in 2019. As for the film itself, though it centers on New Yorkers of a certain societal strata, Rifkin’s Festival doesn’t take place in New York City, but rather in and around San Sebastian, Spain and its aforementioned international film festival. That’s where the movie premiered in September, 2020—a brilliant if unsuccessful marketing ploy). Wallace Shawn stars as Mort Rifkin, a former university cinema studies professor and late-in-life aspiring writer, who is accompanying his film publicist wife Sue (Gina Gershon) to the fest, where she’s repping a young Spanish director, Phillippe, (Louis Garrel) in the rollout of his acclaimed new war movie. As Sue and Phillippe begin to get overly cozy with each other, hypochondriac Mort finds himself infatuated with a lovely married Spanish doctor (Elena Anaya) and invents a series of ailments so he can continue to see her over the next couple of weeks. Ideas about the meaning of life and love are bantered about, as decisions are arrived at regarding Mort and Sue and the future of their marriage and lives. Along the way, film lover Mort immerses himself into the spirit of the festival and its host city, as he slips into a number of film-inspired fantasy sequences that serve as homages to filmmaking legends Bergman, Buñuel, Welles, Truffaut and Godard. Underdeveloped and ultimately unfulfilling, Rifkin’s Festival, in its broadest strokes, has a story and potential for so much more than is on the screen. Woody doesn’t seem to be interested in exploring the ideas he sets forth early on— the effects of a foreign environment on visiting vacationers, the effects and possible potential for personal growth through infidelity, European film sensibilities versus Western ones (Louis Garrel’s Spanish filmmaker loves American films, while American professor Rifkin worships the European greats)—so the story remains static even as we can predict which way it’s going to head. And the performers simply don’t deliver. Shawn, for years a reliable character actor in dozens of films, is out of his depth as a leading man. His line readings aren’t varied and he frequently shouts his lines when they should be spoken. (Unless, strange as it may seem, that was what the filmmaker was going for, but I rather think that Woody was simply trying to get the job done and didn’t try to adjust his star’s performance.) Everyone else is basically on-target, though there isn’t any razzle-dazzle to be found here. I was pulling for more from Gershon and Anaya—for decades, Woody’s actresses have been the shining performance points in his films—but it’s not to be found. The fault has to be attributed to what Woody’s laissez-faire direction and screenplay, especially when it comes to his patented shtick about relationships and mortality, which have admittedly become too familiar and repetitive after a half-century of moviemaking (a handful of good one-liners, notwithstanding). Even the clearly affectionate dream scenes, inspired by his renowned love of older and foreign films, are lackluster and sort of lazy. Sending up the classic “Death Playing Chess” scene in Bergman’s The Seventh Seal again? It’s been parodied and played out so many times by now, even in not one but two Bill & Ted movies. Woody uses a Persona clip as well, but did he really have to revisit Bergman’s most referenced sequence again? Christoph Waltz does deserve kudos for his small role as The Reaper, at one point admitting that he “hates to see some poor schmuck ruin his life over the inevitable. Still—there has to be a “still”—there’s enough here to keep the curious engaged for an hour-and-a-half. Like A Rainy Day in New York, Rifkin’s Festival isn’t great Woody—not even very good, really—but it’s sustainably engaging and far from his weakest. The filmmaker’s clear love of his occupation and cinema and cosmopolitan lifestyles and foreign lands, particularly San Sebastian, definitely shines through. And the work of master cinematographer Vittorio Storaro (here marking his fourth collaboration with Woody) captures the city’s twinkling nights and hazy days with an immersive, woozy luster. So, there are at least pretty pictures to watch even if what’s going down in the story doesn’t do the trick. And it’s also still indispensable viewing for those who count decades of watching Woody Allen’s films and picking out the many jewels among them as an essential part of their lives as cinephiles. For us, the very existence of the 86-year-old filmmaker’s Rifkin’s Festival and its slot on the distribution calendar is good enough. 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. After a huge amount of shoving by eager Democrats, 83-year-old Justice Stephen Breyer is finally retiring from the Supreme Court. The party’s goal is unambiguous: to make room for a liberal of younger vintage, and to permit President Biden to appoint the next justice while the Democrats still have control of the Senate. Biden has pledged make good on his promise two years ago to appoint the Supreme Court’s first Black female Justice. Of 115 justices appointed to the Court, 110 have been men and 112 have been white. As Biden said of his plan for this next appointment: “In my opinion, it’s about time.” Though the appointment of a liberal will not immediately affect the Court’s lopsided tilt to the extreme right, the appointment of its first Black woman will nevertheless be historically momentous. Black women, who comprise 7 percent of the U.S. population, make up just 2 percent of the nation’s lawyers.. “My first thought is just that it moves us one step closer in a long journey towards racial justice. It’s really about what you want America to be over the next 50 years,” Democratic California Rep. Ro Khanna told the New York Times. And Donna Brazile, Democratic strategist and former acting chair of the Democratic National Committee said, “This matters because it’s another symbol—it’s public leadership.” She added that the Supreme Court “has always been perceived as the domain of white males, and once you put a Black woman in there, honey, you’ve broken up everything.” The Possible Nominees It is clear there is no shortage of extremely well-qualified Black women for Biden to choose from for his appointment to the Court. There are three apparent front-runners, each with an impeccable legal pedigree and, importantly, young enough to have a long career on the Court. The 51-year-old Ketanji Brown Jackson is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard University as well as a graduate of its law school, where she, like Barack Obama before her, was editor of the Harvard Law Review. She clerked for Justice Breyer and is currently a judge on the prestigious U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Leondra R. Kruger, 45, graduated from Yale Law School, clerked for former Justice John Paul Stevens, and currently sits as a justice on the California Supreme Court. Finally, J. Michelle Childs, 55, graduated from the University of South Florida and the University of South Carolina School of Law. She is currently a judge for the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina and was nominated last year by President Biden to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit . According to the New York Times, Democratic Rep. James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, suggested Child’s appointment during Biden’s presidential campaign because she comes from a blue-collar background. (Her father was a police officer who died when she was in her teens.) It has been suggested that this could add an additional diversity of experience—adding justices who have not necessarily come out of working for corporations and businesses or from just two Ivy League schools—Harvard and Yale. In addition, Rep. Clyburn is said to have thought that since Childs attended a South Carolina law school and is a South Carolina District Court Judge, Republican South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham could be persuaded to vote to approve her appointment. Clyburn has shown himself to possess immense political wisdom. Nevertheless, with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell riding herd on the Senate’s Republican caucus, as well as Graham’s two-faced propensity to toady up to Republican power, I would not take bets on Graham’s vote. Opposition to the Potential Nominees Biden has not even chosen a nominee yet and, already, the disgraceful race-baiting attacks have begun. In an attempt to throw mud on these extremely well-qualified women, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page stated that choosing a Black woman “elevates skin color over qualifications.” Fox News’s Maria Bartiromo asked, “I mean, what kind of a qualification is that, being a Black woman?” Given the stellar credentials of these women, these obnoxious, naked suggestions that they are unqualified and being considered or ultimately chosen only because they are Black should not even be dignified with a response. But there are other arguments, their racism only slightly disguised, that, though baseless, cannot be ignored because if unanswered, will take root and fester. Fox News’ Tucker Carlson claimed Biden is using so-called identity politics as a test for qualifications to become a justice. And, in the Wall Street Journal, conservative constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, claimed that Biden was using “a criterion that the court itself has found unconstitutional for public educational institutions and unlawful for businesses.” But Biden is not the first to make good on a promise to choose a nominee from a specific societal group. In 1980, struggling for support of female voters, and just weeks before Election Day, Ronald Reagan promised that, if elected, he would name the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court. Once elected president, he followed through, appointing Sandra Day O’Connor. Reagan claimed he was doing so to “bring about a better balance on the federal bench.” Although O’Connor, then a judge in Arizona, was qualified, in his choice, Reagan was emphasizing the need for “balance.” As if denigrating the nominees is not enough, Carrie Severino, president of the right-wing Judicial Crisis Network—a 501c(4) group that does not have to disclose its donors—is furthering another Big Lie—that the judicial nominations by the Biden administration have been backed by corrupt dark money ties. Can a Biden Supreme Court Nomination Overcome Opposition? When President Biden appointed Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, three Republicans—Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted to confirm her. However, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has a history of herding his caucus to successfully block Democratic agendas, regardless of whether his party is in the majority or minority. So, it is less than an even bet whether those three will vote for Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, whoever she may be. McConnell is known for twisting the Senate’s rules in unconventional ways to get what he wants, especially as related to judges. While majority leader, he famously refused to even hold a hearing on President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, claiming that year four of Obama’s administration was too close to the coming 2016 election. But when the liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died just six weeks before the 2020 election, McConnell pushed through the confirmation of the ultra-conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett to replace her, over Democratic opposition, in 30 days. So far, McConnell’s main comment on Biden’s possible nominee has been that he should not “outsource” his Supreme Court nominee to the “radical left.” But on June 14 2021, McConnell told broadcaster Hugh Hewitt that a Republican controlled Senate most likely would not hold a confirmation vote on a Biden Supreme Court nominee until after the 2024 presidential election—a threat to be taken quite seriously since McConnell already did this to President Obama. Excruciatingly aware of that likelihood, Democrats recognize the urgency of confirming any nominee before the 2022 election, when Republicans might take control of the Senate. While Republicans may hypocritically decry a speedy confirmation process, I say: what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And apparently the Democrats are proceeding accordingly. President Biden has stated he will decide on his nominee before the end of February. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer reportedly “wants to replicate” the timetable McConnell used for Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And Senator Dick Durban, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, has vowed to move the nominee “expeditiously through the committee.” It appears, on this occasion, that McConnell’s ability to stymie the process is greatly limited. Since Supreme Court nominations are no longer subject to filibusters, Democrats will not need any Republican support to confirm Mr. Biden’s nominee if every Democrat supports her. And since the majority party holds the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, the Democrats control the schedule for nominees to come to the floor for votes—even if the committee vote is tied. (Because the Senate is divided 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans, the Senate is operating under an organizing resolution that provides for equal numbers of each party on each committee.) Some Republicans are hoping that Democratic Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who have repeatedly obstructed portions of President Biden’s agenda during his administration’s first year, will do a repeat performance of their votes concerning the Voting Rights bills by voting against a so-called too-liberal nominee. But Democrats take comfort from the fact that, so far, both Manchin and Sinema have been reliable votes for Biden’s lower court nominees. Commentators have pointed out there are maneuvers that could slow down the confirmation process—demanding all members be physically present in the chamber to conduct business; forcing roll-call votes; and boycotting the Judiciary Committee to deny a quorum, or forcing the Democratic majority to break Senate rules to advance the nominee. But use of some of these strategies by Democrats did not prevent the swifter-than-light confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett. Nevertheless, Mitch McConnell is a wily character. So it is a good thing that, in his resignation letter to President Biden, Justice Breyer said he would leave at the end of the Supreme Court’s current term, in late June or early July, “assuming that by then my successor has been nominated and confirmed.” This language leaves a loophole permitting Breyer to remain on the Court if the Republicans prevent Biden’s nominee from being confirmed. The Confirmation Process Since Biden made his pledge about naming a Black woman two years ago, you can bet that the White House has been busy vetting the potential nominees, including their experience, writings, and backgrounds; interviews, and doing F.B.I. background checks for a long time. As that process intensifies, the media will play an unofficial role in digging up facts (and dirt) about each potential candidate. After the president names his nominee, which he has promised to do by the end of the month, the vetting process moves to the Senate Judiciary Committee. There, the nominee will complete a questionnaire covering educational and legal experience, work history, a list of significant cases worked on, published writings, and any record of public remarks. If tradition holds, she will meet with each senator on the committee as well. The Judiciary Committee then holds a confirmation hearing, which typically lasts about four days, including an opening statement, questioning by committee members, and witnesses, pro and con. This is followed by debate and the committee’s recommendation to the Senate as a whole. The full Senate then debates and votes whether to approve the nomination. If the nominee is confirmed, the president then formally appoints the nominee. The Impact of a New Justice Replacing Breyer now will not gain Democrats a majority on the Court, but it could prevent its movement in an even more rightward direction. It would also allow Biden to bolster the longevity of the liberal side of the court. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are 67 and 61 years old, respectively, not as old as Breyer but not spring chickens either. Adding any of Biden’s short-listed potential nominees would add youth and potentially longevity to the Court. In a show of sour grapes, Republicans have been publicly dismissive of the importance of this change of the Court’s makeup. Republican Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming sneered, “Replacing one liberal with another liberal, that’s just running in place.” But it is more than that. The effect will be to prevent the possibility of Breyer, like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dying while still on the Court during a period when Republicans could install a seventh young, ultra-conservative justice. Considering the ages of Biden’s contenders, they—like the recently installed right-wing justices—would probably be on the Court for decades to come. And that not only saves what liberalism is left on the Court, but begins the long process of building towards the future. Furthermore, this confirmation process could remind midterm voters how important it is to keep a Democratic majority in the Senate. According to the New York Times, Democratic pollster Geoff Garin pointed out, “At a time when some Democratic voters are feeling unsure of what the benefit of a Democratic majority is, having a Supreme Court fight makes the importance crystal clear to voters.” In addition, as civil-rights activist Al Sharpton said, the historic first of appointing a Black woman to the Supreme Court could “energize people that have been in many ways demoralized around voting.” The chances for confirmation of the first Black woman to the Supreme Court look good—and to hell with the begrudgers. The nation has a long way to go to win the war to save democracy, let alone the fight for equality. But this is a good start. Political columnist Jessie Seigel had a long career as a government attorney in which she honed her analytic skills. She has also twice received an Artist’s Fellowship from the Washington, D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities for her fiction, and has been a finalist for a number of literary awards. In addition, Seigel is an associate editor at the Potomac Review, a reviewer for The Washington Independent Review of Books, and a dabbler in political cartoons at Daily Kos. Of this balance in her work between the analytic and the imaginative, Seigel jokes, “I guess my right and left brains are well-balanced.” More on and from Seigel can be found at The Adventurous Writer, https://www.jessieseigel.com.

By Andy Borowitz January 31, 2022 WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In a major setback for the former President, constitutional-law experts have determined that Donald J. Trump’s claim of having won the Presidency twice disqualifies him from ever running again. At a convention of constitutional scholars over the weekend, more than four hundred experts unanimously agreed that Trump’s declaration of two White House victories means that he has reached the Presidential term limit as defined by the Twenty-second Amendment. “The Twenty-second Amendment clearly states, ‘No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,’ ” Davis Logsdon, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Minnesota, said. “Since Trump claims that he was elected for a second time in 2020, he has eliminated himself from any future White House bid.” “Frankly, I’m surprised that the people on his legal team, like Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, didn’t look into this,” he said. Logsdon said that, although Trump has rendered another Presidential bid impossible, he could still make productive use of his years as an ex-President, “perhaps by building houses, like Jimmy Carter.” In a sharply worded statement, from his home in Palm Beach, Trump lashed out at the authors of the Twenty-second Amendment. “The people who wrote that amendment are doing a terrible job and should be locked up,” he said. Andy Borowitz is a Times best-selling author and a comedian who has written for The New Yorker since 1998. He writes The Borowitz Report, a satirical column on the news.

By Bonnie Fishman / San Francisco Bay Area Call me old-fashioned, but I liked the civility of the ‘50s. I was blessed with being raised in that decade, in Oak Park, Mich. Our country was at peace, businesses were flourishing, families were growing, housing developments sprang up all over the place. As children, we could go out and play without an armed guard standing by in case someone was lurking to snatch one of us. We’d safely bike all over the place, visit friends from one house to the next and were told to be home when the streetlights came on. At my house, we never even locked the doors. Did our parents know where we went? Of course not, they didn’t need to. We were safe. During this happy time, when most women stayed at home, a new form of human connection developed: the coffee klatch. The origin of this term is from the German “kaffeeklatsch” which literally means coffee + gossip. This usually consists of a small gathering in a home for coffee and conversation. According to the website germanfoods.org: “In the late 17th and 18th centuries, the classic Ages of Enlightenment and Reason, coffee salons and at-home coffee soirees grew immensely popular all over Europe, especially Germany and the Austrian empire.” The tradition took root in this country when women had the time to socialize. After the kids went off to school, or even in the afternoon, friends, often from the neighborhood, would assemble at someone’s house for refreshments and to get up to speed on what was going on in their corner of the world. Bob and I lived in the San Francisco area back in the late ‘70s. We would stroll through the streets of North Beach, the Italian district of the city. There was a European-style coffee shop on almost every block with espresso machine set ups. If the doors were open, you could catch a whiff of freshly ground and brewed coffee. These small establishments were jammed with people in the middle of the day having conversations, coffee, and cake. I remember remarking to myself, “Why aren’t these people at work?” Keep in mind, this was pre-laptop, so nobody was connected to the outside world. What was happening in San Francisco (Peet’s Coffee began in 1966) and Starbucks opening in Seattle (1971) spread east over the next decade or so. I believe that when the advent of coffee shops on almost every corner coincided with women entering the workforce in droves, that was the death knell of the coffee klatch. When was the last time someone said to you, “Hey, do you want to come to my house for coffee and cake?” “No,” you say, “Let’s meet at Starbucks at the corner of…” I even noticed the shift in 1980 when I opened my first shop, Bonnie’s Patisserie, in Southfield, Mich. Some of our most popular items were coffee cakes, cinnamon buns, and not-too-sweet individual pastries, perfect with morning coffee or a visitor stopping by in the afternoon. By the mid-1980s, the sales of these coffee-klatch delicacies had declined. A common sweet offered at a coffee klatch was, well, coffee cake. One of the most popular cakes was the sour cream coffee cake with cinnamon walnut streusel. What’s not to love? Our house was certainly a hub for the neighbor ladies. I think it was because my mom baked coffee cake or mandelbred almost every day. She also offered an added bonus: she always had her Singer sewing machine set up on the kitchen table ready to help her neighbors with any mending, repairs, or sewing lessons. Some of the ladies brought their own needlework to keep their hands busy while they visited and enjoyed their refreshments. How civilized! Today’s offering is not quite the traditional cake. It is a nod to my Michigan roots, using maple syrup, walnuts, and oats, all products grown and produced in my home state. What is unusual about the preparation is folding whipped egg whites into the batter, creating a lovely crumb and texture. Who’s with me here? Let’s bring back the coffee klatch! Write us at The Insider when you’ve taken that first adventurous step into a true human connection over coffee and cake. Maple Oat Coffee Cake Yield: 10-12 servings 1 c. walnut pieces 1 1/2 tsp. flour 1/2 lb. unsalted butter, room temperature 2/3 c. brown sugar 1/4 c. pure maple syrup 1 tsp. vanilla 1 1/2 c. rolled oats 1 1/2 c. flour 2 tsp. baking powder 1 tsp. salt 1/3 c. milk 6 lg. egg whites, room temperature 1/3 c. sugar Glaze: 2/3 c. confectioners’ sugar, sifted 3 Tbsp. maple syrup 1/4 tsp. vanilla Preheat oven to 350°.  Generously spray a 9” fluted Bundt pan with pan release. Reserve.  In a food processor, grind together the walnuts and 1 1/2 tsp. flour. Reserve. In a large bowl, using an electric mixer, beat together the butter and brown sugar until light and fluffy.  Beat in the syrup and vanilla, scraping down as needed. Blend in the oats. Sift together the flour, powder, and salt. Add the dry ingredients in thirds, alternating with the milk. Whisk the egg whites on high speed in a clean, dry bowl until soft peaks.  Add the sugar and whisk to stiff peaks.  Using a large rubber spatula, fold one-third of the whites into the batter. Then fold in remaining whites. Pour into the prepared pan.  Bake for about 45 minutes or until springy to the touch.  Cool completely before de-panning. Make the glaze:  In a small bowl, whisk the ingredients together. If the mixture is too runny, add more sugar. If it is too stiff, add a little water. Pour over the cake using the tines of a fork. 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. “There are moments so stark that they divide all that came before and everything that followed…And they force us to confront hard truths about ourselves, about our institutions, and about our democracy.” These are the words of President Biden in his Atlanta, Ga speech on January 12, one week before the Senate showdown on two major bills. As all worried Democrats could have told you, these were The Freedom to Vote Act, and The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act—and the filibuster reform needed to permit a simple majority to pass them. Truer words than Biden’s were never spoken. In language directed at the Senate as well as the nation, the President demanded—yes or no—will you stand against voter suppression and election subversion? Will you stand for democracy? Stating the Senate’s choice in stark terms, President Biden asked point blank: “Do you want to be on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor? Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?” In short, senators were going to be judged by history on how they voted. Where each member of the Senate now stands was made clear last week on January 19 when Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona joined the Republicans to save their precious filibuster and block passage of voting rights protections. By their votes, Manchin and Sinema, along with their Republican cohorts, declared themselves on the side of racial injustice and voter suppression. The Senate Showdown The intricacies of Senate rules and procedures are complicated and difficult for a lay person to parse, but as Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said in a January 19 speech on the Senate floor, the basic issues are “quite simple.” The Senate currently is divided 50-50 between the Democrats and the Republicans, and no Republicans would vote for the voting rights bills. Nevertheless, if simple majority rule applied, the bills would have gotten at least 50 Democratic votes, with the Vice President casting the tie-breaking vote to pass them. But, under Senate rules, the bills would require 60 votes to pass—an unsurmountable obstacle in the Senate’s current climate. For majority rule to apply, the Senate would have to change its rules to reestablish a talking filibuster. This would permit a Senate minority to debate at length and try to rally the public to its view, but would not permit it to block a simple majority vote forever. Although Manchin and Sinema claim to support the voting rights bills, they voted with the Republicans, 52 to 48, to preserve the filibuster rule as it is. Senator Sanders said he understood why no Republicans would vote for the Freedom to Vote bill, but was perplexed by the Manchin and Sinema votes, saying that he did not understand why two Democrats “who will vote for the Freedom to Vote Act, are not prepared to change the rules so that the bill could actually become law…You know, it’s like inviting somebody to lunch and putting out a great spread and saying you can’t eat.” Senator Sanders may find Manchin and Sinema’s votes incomprehensible. I do not. Actions speak louder than words. And these two senators’ actions shout that they are actually against the protection of voting rights, and that they support the filibuster rule so that they can pretend they are for such rights but never be called upon to vote for the bills that would protect them. The danger of the anti-democratic laws being passed in state legislatures are so plain that Manchin and Sinema cannot credibly claim ignorance of them. Yet they find excuses to reject the cure. One day after Biden’s January 12 speech, Sinema gave her own speech, providing lip service to support for voting rights while staunchly maintaining that a change in the filibuster would increase divisive rifts between the parties, and reiterating her worship of the mythical beast: so-called bipartisanship. Democratic New Jersey Senator Cory Booker’s speech in the January 19 Senate debate served as a pointed rejoinder to Sinema’s view of divisiveness: “You want to know what divisive is? Telling people…that if you live in a predominantly minority area, we’re going to remove polling places and change laws so that Black folks disproportionately are waiting five, ten, 15 times longer.” On January 18, Manchin told reporters there was no need for concern because voter suppression is being challenged in various courts. He followed that statement in the Senate the next day with a rambling, word salad that made no logical sense and added nothing in defense of his position. Manchin said that, when he was Secretary of State in West Virginia, no one ever suggested to him that they should suppress the vote. But the fact that no one approached him to suppress the vote when he was secretary of state an eternity ago is entirely irrelevant to the suppression clearly occurring in 19-plus states today. Manchin knows this because Democratic state legislators from Texas met with him months ago, as have Georgia Senator Warnock and others—all telling him of the ongoing election corruption in their states. Manchin claimed that a vote to change the filibuster rule would “forever alter the way this body functions.” But he did not oppose a filibuster change to permit raising the debt ceiling only a month ago. Not to mention that the filibuster has been changed in the past to permit simple majority votes on Supreme Court justices, and numerous other matters. Manchin’s arguments became even more absurd as he went along. He spouted some strange, incoherent nonsense about a senatorial unwritten rule: “This is an unwritten rule and it’s the greatest one we have. It’s the rule of self-restraint which we have very little of any more, self-restraint. The rule will be broken … if the nuclear option is executed and…I cannot be a party to that.” Even apart from the weird reference to an unwritten rule of self-restraint, Manchin ignored the fact that, in the spirit of compromise, only a restoration of the old speaking filibuster was on the table. But he would not vote even for that. Finally, Manchin made the absurd argument that if the filibuster rule is changed, “there’s not going to be any check on the Executive Branch.” This makes absolutely no sense since the filibuster is a tool only of the Senate, affecting only the Senate. Some have suggested that it is unfair to make Manchin and Sinema shoulder all the blame when the entirety of Republican senators opposed both reform of the filibuster and the voting rights bills. But you don’t expect your enemy—in this instance, the enemies of democracy—to take your side. However, you have a right to expect those who purport to be on your side to act accordingly. The Republican Party is openly working towards establishment of a fascist authoritarian dictatorship. So, no quarter concerning protection for voting rights should be expected from them, let alone so-called bipartisanship. But Manchin and Sinema supposedly believe in democracy. They are not stupid. They have access to the same information as the rest of us. And whether they like it or not, it was their two votes that were placed to determine whether the country would have crucial tools to defend democracy. If we end up with a fascist authoritarian dictatorship, they will be to blame because their votes could have prevented it. The Depths of the Manchin-Sinema Perfidy The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prevented state and local governments from passing laws denying American citizens the right to vote based on race. In particular, Section 5 required certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to submit any proposed changes in voting procedures to the Department of Justice or Washington, D.C.’s federal district court and be approved (i.e., “preclearance”) before it could go into effect. But, in 2013, in Shelby v. Holder, the Supreme Court ruled that the old formula used to determine what states are required to get changes approved in advance was unconstitutional, thus killing the requirement until Congress enacts a new formula. Since the Supreme Court scuttled this essential requirement, state voter suppression laws have been spreading like wildfire. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, in 2021 alone, at least 34 voter suppression laws were passed in 19 states, and more than 440 such bills were introduced in 49 state legislatures. Among these were bills “to allow partisan actors to interfere with election processes and even to reject election results entirely.” In addition, at least 152 restrictive voting bills in 18 states will carry over into 2022. In the Senate debate last week, Senator Booker took the floor and spoke with passion and rightful outrage, enumerating the many ways in which minorities are being targeted by these laws. “My friends on the other side are saying that race is not an issue here?” said Booker. “I was flabbergasted that someone could stand up here and say there’s not a different experience for Blacks and whites for voting. I’m just going to continue to read the facts.” Noting that the average number of voters per polling place in the metro Atlanta area has grown 40 percent since 2012, Senator Booker decried the amount of time minorities must wait in line to vote: “I mean, in what country are we where a certain minority in predominantly minority communities has to wait 10 times as long?” While Booker’s Republican colleagues maintain that removing drop boxes and limiting vote by mail to fewer days are innocuous changes, Booker rightly pointed out that these changes are deliberately designed to suppress the vote and create the long lines. According to the Brennan Center, The Freedom to Vote Act would have instituted a national standard for voting access, including redistricting, election security, and campaign finance reforms. Reforms would also have included: making Election Day a public holiday; requiring voting lines to last no more than 30 minutes; restricting political removal of election officials; adopting automatic registration of eligible voters; and protecting against purging voter rolls. The Brennan Center has also stated that The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would, in essence, have reinstated Section 5 of the 1965 act, preventing discriminatory practices and “protecting access to the vote for all eligible voters, regardless of race, color or membership in language minority groups.” This is what Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have cost us. Where Do We Go from Here? There are some court cases challenging state corruptions of election processes that are ongoing. But court cases take time, and it is questionable whether they will bear fruit before the 2022 midterm election—the election that could consolidate partisan power over elections in advance of the 2024 presidential election. Neither Manchin nor Sinema are up for reelection until 2024. But both of them should be primaried—not as retribution for bucking the party, but because we need Democrats who are democrats, and whose first fealty is to the principles of democracy. According to Mother Jones, progressive organizations are backing out of support for Sinema in the wake of her vote. EMILY’s List, one of her top financial backers, announced that it would not support her in future elections if she continued to block the legislation. And of course, Sinema has done so. On January 18, the reproductive rights group NARAL issued a statement saying it would not endorse “any U.S. Senator who doesn’t support changing the Senate rules to pass voting rights legislation.” And on January 22, the Arizona Democratic party unanimously censured Sinema for her vote. Arizona Democratic Representative Ruben Gallego may be drafted for a primary challenge to Sinema in 2024, and Bernie Sanders said he would consider supporting a potential primary challenger against her. This may be feasible since the progressive polling group Data for Progress reported Sinema’s net approval rating among likely primary voters was negative 45 percentage points as of October. Her speech and action during the last two weeks are hardly geared to improve upon that. There has not, as yet, been a similar post-vote backlash against Manchin. Perhaps there is greater fear that he—as opposed to Sinema—would switch parties, giving Mitch McConnell and the Republicans control of the Senate during Biden’s current term. Nevertheless, Manchin should also be primaried, preferably by someone who can articulately explain to West Virginians how he has failed to represent their interests. And Manchin should be deprived of any funding from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. However, events may have overtaken the degree to which Manchin and Sinema can or will be held to account. It was announced today (January 26) that Justice Stephen Breyer will retire from the Supreme Court at the end of this term. Since the filibuster does not apply to Supreme Court appointments, Breyer’s replacement can be approved by the Senate with a simple majority. But in this 50-50 Senate, Manchin and Sinema still hold the key to that majority. Either of them could scuttle a Biden nomination if annoyed by how their fellow Democrats have treated them in recent weeks—either by voting against Biden’s nominee, or by changing parties to give Republican Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, the power to prevent any nomination at all from being considered. So Democrats will likely need to grit their teeth and handle the two dissident Senators with kid gloves yet again. In any case, even if Sinema and Manchin cannot be replaced by true-blue Democrats, adding more Democrats to the Senate would eliminate the duo’s future ability to thwart filibuster reform and the passage of needed legislation. Of course, to get more Democrats into the Senate may be extremely difficult if nothing can be done to halt the Republicans’ corruption of state election processes. Though the restrictive election laws are largely meant to target minority groups—Black and Hispanic people, students and the disabled—if white, able-bodied people think that this won’t also affect them, they will be in for a dismal surprise once authoritarianism takes hold. Win or lose, those who care to preserve democracy must continue the battle. 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 Naomi Serviss / New York City When I became a Newsday family entertainment columnist in the ’90s, the world was my oyster. As in Oyster Bay, a cozy hamlet on Long Island, lauded for oyster shucking and ingesting (if you’re so inclined). My Sunday column’s purpose was to inform readers about regional cultural, historical and just plain, good old-fashioned fun activities for family and friends. Bonus: My kids Emmy and Ben were invited cohorts. Not exactly as guinea pigs per se, but their preteen perspectives were duly noted and appreciated. On second thought, maybe they were guinea pigs. The Long Island Oyster Festival was a joyous occasion for all, pre-pandemic. Canceled in 2020 and 2021, organizers hope to bring it back in October 2022. It’s a big deal. More than 150,000 participants traditionally hang out for the live music, carnival rides and the star attraction. We scoured Long Island and Manhattan, covering the sublime (Broadway!) to the ho-hum (an old time-y General Store). It was a dream gig, right up my proverbial alley. As a suburban mom, I was forever on the lookout for kid-friendly creative outlets and teachable moments. We learned some stats and fun facts. The Isle of Long is 118 miles from east to west and 22 miles at its widest. The eastern end is divided into two narrow peninsulas, the North Fork in Orient Point and Montauk marking the far south end. In the mix we discovered a plethora of beaches, from the Rockaways to Jones. The long split, aka Fire Island, is a national seashore, treasured by generations of families who appreciate its car-free lifestyle. With Emmy and Ben in tow, we soaked up the island’s enticing and disarming sites. We charged around Teddy Roosevelt’s historic Sagamore Hill, the summer home of the 26th president and his flock of relations. He had a big flock. We learned that his Oyster Bay-area estate Included 83 acres of nature trails, woodlands, beaches, a salt marsh and a chicken coop. But wait, there’s more! The house tour was fascinating, in all its stuffy, musty glory. We averted our eyes from the animal head trophies hanging spookily on the walls. But learning about Roosevelt’s prescient conservation efforts made us feel better about the dead animal head distractions. The Theodore Roosevelt Sanctuary was the country’s first National Audubon Society songbird sanctuary. The 14-acre park protects goldfinches, grackles, kingfishers and kingbirds. Planting Fields Arboretum would make a nature lover out of the most cynical. It’s a sprawling, lush, 400-plus-acre Gold Coast oasis for nature lovers. Gold Coast as in The Great Gatsby. The air smells expensive. Tree tunnels (!) cozy cottages, fountains and stately structures impressed us all. The arboretum played host to myriad family events in the summer. What’s not to love? It’s listed on the National Register of Historic Places, meticulously landscaped and nourished by groundskeepers and horticultural experts. Two lush greenhouses overflow with exotic and Crayola crayon-colored blossoms. Hidden benches beckon and a visitor’s center has an interactive exhibit about the estate’s history. We explored museums in Nassau, Suffolk and New York counties, counted our lucky stars in planetariums and visited a taxidermist. It wasn’t all light-hearted reverie and galivanting around, though. Like other parts of the country, Long Island has a shameful enslavement past. Jupiter Hammon, the first published African-American poet, was born into slavery at Henry Lloyd’s estate in über-wealthy Lloyd Neck. He was granted access to the manor’s library and educated with the estate owner’s children. The Lloyd family encouraged Hammon to attend school, where he learned To read and write. He went on to work for Henry Lloyd As a bookkeeper and negotiator For the family’s business. His first work was published in 1760 and he was considered a religious scribe. While a slave, Hammon preached to other enslaved members of the Lloyd estate. He became a member of the African-American community and in 1787, Hammon delivered a speech at the African Society of New York. He was buried in an unmarked grave on the Lloyd property. On a more light-hearted note, we checked out a Long Island game farm, explored a guitar museum, played at the Children’s Museum of New York and ventured backstage during the run of Broadway’s Beauty and the Beast. The kids were young enough to believe my whopper when we visited the world-famous toy museum: FAO Schwarz. No critics, please. I didn’t always exaggerate, only when it served a greater purpose. My sanity. Regardless, it was win-win. Ben and Emmy made music on the second-floor keyboard from the movie Big. I was able to luxuriate among the over-the-top, futuristic playthings and insanely priced stuffed animals. They marveled at the giant Teddy Ruxpin mechanical bears taking up valuable real estate inside the magical establishment. The bears were all the rage in the ‘90s. But to be honest, it was a creepy toy, in a hauntingly sinister Twilight Zone way. Meanwhile, Emmy caught my Broadway fever and she got it bad. She was already a creative, published writer, and became an entertainment columnist for ZuZu, an outstanding children’s newspaper. It’s worth a Google. But my all-time favorite outing was to the annual New York-hosted Toy Fair, where hundreds of toy representatives hawk their wares to vendors strategizing for the following year. Broadway actors love Toy Fair because they’re hired as interactive superheroes. A job’s a job. They boldly strolled the three floors decked out to the nines. Latex and spandex bodysuits and he-man duds turned the joint into performance art. They improvised and goofed around among themselves and onlookers. Rainbow-shiny bubbles freestyled dreamily through the air. Moods were buoyant. Toy vendors gamely courted toy buyers. Free samples and sweets at every booth. It was a three-floor kids’ party Shangri-la emporium teeming with brand-name dolls, stuffed animals, classic games and industry stars. Another year the original Bozo was afoot. R.L. Stine signed his latest YA book. Slinky aficionados, of which I am one, were rewarded when the inventor’s family showed up to celebrate the toy’s 50th anniversary on February 18, 1996. They were funny, warm and not afraid to look silly. After all, playing with a Slinky is supposed to look silly. They gifted me with an autographed Slinky Dog and posed for photos. Exploring and writing about Long Island’s unsung treasures was a dream gig. The world was indeed our oyster And each outing was a pearl of a day. Naomi Serviss is a New York-based award-winning journalist whose work has been published in The New York Times, Newsday, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Highroads (AAA magazine), in-flight publications, spa and travel magazines and websites, including BroadwayWorld.com