By Alan Resnick / Detroit My side of our family conducts two grab bags a year. At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon (which many in my household would say is accurate), I’m not a big fan of either. The gifts are mostly useless and sometimes literally garbage. After each event I promise myself “Never again,” but invariably get cajoled, guilted, and sucked into participating again the next year. One grab bag occurs during Hanukkah, which runs for eight days. We celebrated as a family on Sunday, December 5 this year, after a one-year hiatus due to Covid-19. Our annual party consists of lighting the menorah, sharing a holiday buffet meal, and the infamous grab bag. Our grab bag rules are very straightforward. Each family member draws a folded slip of paper containing a unique number out of a bag or hat. The person drawing “1” goes first. He or she gets to select from any of the gifts strewn among the coffee tables in the middle of the room. Some are wrapped, while others are in gift bags. Easy-peasy, right? Some wise guy always decides it will be great fun to pack their present in a series of progressively smaller boxes like Russian nesting dolls, so we all get to watch the lucky winner spend five minutes opening box after box and tearing through packing peanuts and bubble wrap invariably to find a coffee mug. The person drawing “2” goes next. After picking their gift, they have the option of keeping it or, if they prefer the gift that the first person selected, they can trade. This process continues until everyone has selected a gift or taken one from someone else. The person drawing “1” then gets the chance to select from any of the gifts. So, the best numbers to have are ”1” because you get any gift you want, and the higher numbers because there are fewer chances that the gift you selected will be swiped by a loved one. But if you’ve drawn something like “2” or “3” you’re pretty much hosed and might as well spend the remainder of the event staring at your phone and deleting old emails or checking your Twitter feed. You’ve either selected a crummy gift that no one else wants or something that is going to be stolen. I’ve found over the years that there is a certain strategy to selecting gifts. You want to fly under the radar and select something that you have some desire for, yet will not attract the attention of anyone else. Selecting cash, scratch-off lottery tickets, or a Starbucks gift card is the equivalent of pasting a sign on your forehead that says, “Steal this.” My wife rolled the dice this year at number 13. She traded the acrylic salt and pepper shakers she originally selected for 25 $1 dollar coins. I told her that she would never hold onto the coins, as there were eight more people yet to pick gifts. But she snuck through and went home with the loot. Picking at number 19, I left with a ceramic knife set that I’ll likely rarely use, but was preferable to holding onto my original selection of a slot-machine bank. The rules for the gifts are also very basic. The retail price of the gift needs to be at least $25 dollars. It is perfectly acceptable to use store coupons toward the purchase, either to go on the cheap and spend less than the minimum or to upgrade to a fancier present. And the gifts should be appropriate for both males and females and for family members who range in age from the upper 20s to almost 80. These criteria result in mostly bland, safe, and forgettable gifts, such as insulated coffee mugs or collections of assorted teas, or prized things like the aforementioned gift cards. But every year there are a few family members who either do not comprehend or simply choose to ignore these simple criteria. This Hanukkah there were three gifts that fell outside the established guidelines. One was a gift consisting of 20 bath bombs and a small, quilted pillow apparently designed to function as a headrest while leaning back and luxuriating in the bathtub. The second was clearly a women’s coin purse that contained $15 in cash. And the third was set of six pairs of Ralph Lauren Polo men’s socks. As it turned out, the last gift that was opened were the men’s socks. Fortunately, the person who opened the gift was a man. But–and I swear on a stack of latkes that this is true–the man is a double-amputee. Luckily, he has a sense of humor and laughed when he unwrapped his gift and saw the socks. Needless to say, he did not keep them; he traded for the women’s coin purse with the cash in it. Now I have six months of nervous anticipation before the second grab bag, which occurs in summer during part of a family barbecue. The rules for the summer grab bag are the same, but the gifts are infinitely worse. This is the dreaded “white elephant” grab bag The gift rules could not be clearer: bring a new gift that for which you have no use or need. It can be something you purchased, but regifting is also perfectly acceptable. No doubt some of the gifts opened during our Hanukkah party will reappear next summer. This Hanukkah there were two giant pepper mills given away and I’m betting at least one of them rears its ugly head come July or August. Once again, though, there are family members who do not comprehend or simply flout these guidelines. For them, the idea of a white elephant gift is defined as “bring any old piece of crap lying around your house.” One summer I received a pair of cheap used slippers like those that would be found in an upscale hotel room along with a plastic ice bucket displaying the Holiday Inn logo. My cousin once received a variety of half-full bottles of assorted household cleaners. And another relative opened a gift to find a popcorn maker that obviously was not new. The person who brought this “gift” actually announced: “We only used it a couple of times and this was easier than returning it.” These are not white elephant gifts, but rather things that people were too lazy to throw out in the garbage. I told my wife after the last summer grab bag in 2019 that I was done. Call me privileged or snobbish, but I have no need for my relative’s trash. Then again, it’s only December and I have six or seven months to calm down before the next grab bag. And I’ll probably forget about the ceramic knives now that they’ve been shoved into a drawer, so I’m good to go for the next white elephant. Alan Resnick is an industrial psychologist with over 40 years of professional experience. He and his wife are sheltering at home in Farmington Hills, Michigan. He is passing the time by cooking, exercising, catching up on friends’ recommendations of must-see TV and writing.

By Naomi Serviss / New York City Since when did it become harder to adopt a dog than to score Music Man tickets? Droves of angsty quarantined folk sought four-legged companionship to cope last year. A tidal wave of applications and personal references swamped adoption agencies. Some asked for multiple references, a vet’s stats, your college GPA and your firstborn. City pounds were less stringent. Too bad their websites were not user-friendly. They had more pit-mixes than wee apartment pups, all the rage in New York City’s space-desert. I understand the importance of vetting wannabe pup parents. But is it really necessary to submit a video of your living space? Is this theater of the absurd? Or a voyeur’s thrill? Petfinder, a clearinghouse for multiple organizations, is a marketing whiz. So website hounds (clears throat) are privy to available dog photos, profiles and links to yet more agencies hoping to clear their shelters. Other worthy groups including Rescue Dogs Rock, Waldo’s Rescue, Bide-A-Wee et al, experienced Internet traffic booms during those initial lonely days in the spring of 2020. How do I know this? I was merely checking for a friend. Ever since hounding Central Park dogs for iPhone snaps, I’ve been designated the Puparazzi of Central Park. It was win/win! I could admire all the friendly pups (and owners) without dealing with the expense, dog poop duty, and training needed for a full-time commitment. So my close encounters of the furry kind began and ended with my daily morning Central Park walk among the four-leggeds. Full disclosure: I’ve not-so-secretly longed for another rescue ever since we moved to the city a dozen years ago. The two mutts we had saved in the past were basic brown dog treasures. Rescued from the no-frills, last-hope Huntington Dog Pound on Long Island. Especially Maggie, who had us for 15 years and grew up with our kids. She was irreplaceable, with the sweetest disposition of any animal I’ve encountered. My husband was versus having any size dog for our 750-square foot apartment. Lew prefers his dogs medium-sized and grateful. Moot point. Case closed. So it goes. On my morning walks I became obsessed with regally, aesthetically perfect Barry, a 150-pound Bernese Mountain Dog. He reminded me of Scout, my childhood friend Susie’s gorgeous Golden Retriever. Scout was laid-back and huge. He had the run of the estate. By “run,” I mean slowly amble. Barry loved lounging on my foot, leaning in with his massive bulk. No matter that he outweighed me, it felt comforting to have a massive good-natured, fur creature who tolerated my candid photo-taking. Fortunately, his owners know he was top choice among the other Central Park Berns. Barry has no peer. Tricolored, perfectly symmetrical in black, brown and white, he’s stunning. He could also be goofy, like me. Barry was my dream dog. Months later, I somehow found myself trawling Petfinder for potential sidekicks. I got hooked. I went all in, applying willy-nilly to every local agency, knowing my chances were remote. Then, miracle of miracles, Lew came on board. It might have had something to do with our kids’ thunderous encouragement. Or my relentless whining and pining. Nevertheless, the important thing Is that he saw the wisdom in maintaining good relations. He caved, but I still didn’t pass muster with the agencies. My friend Janice, another devoted pet lover, felt my pain after fruitless applications. She asked if I had tried New York City’s Humane Society. As Homer Simpson would say, “D’oh!” I hadn’t. She set me straight as to what an amazing agency it is. It’s where she found her forever friend! So, I got back on the horse, so to speak and applied. By that time, a small basic brown dog seemed beyond my reach. I just never considered other hues. I wasn’t vehemently opposed to shades of grey or black, but I didn’t ever want to be owned by a white dog. Like wearing a white T-shirt, I’d worry about keeping it spotless. That being said, my application was in process. Whatever that meant. Admittedly, it didn’t hurt having Janice as a reference, especially since she had adopted from them 11 years ago. I spoke to Sandra, the executive director who empathized with my small pup hunt. Just so happened that a nine-pound two-year-old, full-grown lass might be the one! Being summoned to meet outside the Upper East Side location was nerve-wracking and new-baby-exciting. Twenty minutes later, Sandra emerged carrying a small, fluffy white dog named Petunia. A Maltese. Zing! I was smitten with Petunia, a mirthful bundle of squirmy joy who stole a piece of my heart. Sandra said think about it and discuss with Lew. I wondered how many other people were being considered for this apartment-friendly dog? I wanted to project earnestness, so I agreed, petting Petunia one last time. Her gregarious nature and floofy hair (not fur) recalled the raspy-voiced, late rock star whose rendition of “Me and Bobby McGee” is tops in my heart. I had never considered a mini or toy variety before. But post-foot surgery, handling a medium-sized dog was out of the equation. I was cautiously optimistic, and realistic. But my friend Janice had a hunch my luck was about to turn. A confluence of coincidences was hard to dismiss. Petunia was Lew’s pet name for our daughter Emmy. Janis was my late sister Rachel’s middle name. It’s also a maternal family name. Janis Joplin is one of my favorite rockers. My friend of 20 years, Janice, directed me to the Humane Society. The fates were kind and the stars were aligned. A week later, on my birthday, no less… Kismet. Welcome, Janis Joplin Petunia Serviss! It’s going to be a very good year. 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

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."

December 3, 2021 Jeffrey D. Sachs | Project Syndicate For low- and lower-middle-income countries to pursue their development goals and do their part in tackling problems like climate change, they need to be able to borrow reliably on decent market terms. Yet the current two-tiered global financial system extends this privilege almost exclusively to rich countries. NEW YORK – At last month’s COP26 climate summit, hundreds of financial institutions declared that they would put trillions of dollars to work to finance solutions to climate change. Yet a major barrier stands in the way: The world’s financial system actually impedes the flow of finance to developing countries, creating a financial death trap for many. Economic development depends on investments in three main kinds of capital: human capital (health and education), infrastructure (power, digital, transport, and urban), and businesses. Poorer countries have lower levels per person of each kind of capital, and therefore also have the potential to grow rapidly by investing in a balanced way across them. These days, that growth can and should be green and digital, avoiding the high-pollution growth of the past. Global bond markets and banking systems should provide sufficient funds for the high-growth “catch-up” phase of sustainable development, yet this doesn’t happen. The flow of funds from global bond markets and banks to developing countries remains small, costly to the borrowers, and unstable. Developing-country borrowers pay interest charges that are often 5-10% higher per year than the borrowing costs paid by rich countries. Developing country borrowers as a group are regarded as high risk. The bond rating agencies assign lower ratings by mechanical formula to countries just because they are poor. Yet these perceived high risks are exaggerated, and often become a self-fulfilling prophecy. When a government floats bonds to finance public investments, it generally counts on the ability to refinance some or all of the bonds as they fall due, provided that the long-term trajectory of its debt relative to government revenues is acceptable. If the government suddenly finds itself unable to refinance the debts falling due, it likely will be pushed into default – not out of bad faith or because of long-term insolvency, but for lack of cash on hand. This is what happens to far too many developing-country governments. International lenders (or rating agencies) come to believe, often for an arbitrary reason, that Country X has become uncreditworthy. This perception results in a “sudden stop” of new lending to the government. Without access to refinancing, the government is forced into a default, thus “justifying” the preceding fears. The government then usually turns to the International Monetary Fund for emergency financing. The restoration of the government’s global financial reputation typically takes years or even decades. Rich-country governments that borrow internationally in their own currencies do not face the same risk of a sudden stop, because their own central banks act as lenders of last resort. Lending to the United States government is considered safe in no small part because the Federal Reserve can buy Treasury bonds in the open market, ensuring in effect that the government can roll over debts falling due. The same is true for eurozone countries, assuming that the European Central Bank acts as the lender of last resort. When the ECB briefly failed to play that role in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, several eurozone countries (including Greece, Ireland, and Portugal) temporarily lost access to international capital markets. After that debacle – a near-death experience for the eurozone – the ECB stepped up its lender-of-last-resort function, engaged in quantitative easing through massive purchases of eurozone bonds, and thereby eased borrowing conditions for the affected countries. Rich countries thus generally borrow in their own currencies, at low cost, and with little risk of illiquidity, except at moments of exceptional policy mismanagement (such as by the US government in 2008, and by the ECB soon thereafter). Low- and lower-middle-income countries, by contrast, borrow in foreign currencies (mainly dollars and euros), pay exceptionally high interest rates, and suffer sudden stops. For example, Ghana’s debt-to-GDP ratio (83.5%) is far lower than Greece’s (206.7%) or Portugal’s (130.8%), yet Moody’s rates the creditworthiness of Ghana’s government bonds at B3, several notches below those of Greece (Ba3) and Portugal (Baa2). Ghana pays around 9% on ten-year borrowing, whereas Greece and Portugal pay just 1.3% and 0.4%, respectively. The major credit-rating agencies (Fitch, Moody’s, and S&P Global) assign investment-grade ratings to most rich countries and to many upper-middle-income countries, but assign sub-investment-grade ratings to nearly all lower-middle-income countries and to all low-income countries. Moody’s, for example, currently assigns an investment grade to just two lower-middle-income countries (Indonesia and the Philippines). Trillions of dollars in pension, insurance, bank, and other investment funds are channeled by law, regulation, or internal practice away from sub-investment-grade securities. Once lost, an investment-grade sovereign rating is extremely hard to recover unless the government enjoys the backing of a major central bank. During the 2010s, 20 governments – including Barbados, Brazil, Greece, Tunisia, and Turkey – were downgraded to below-investment grade. Out of the five that have since recovered their investment-grade rating, four are in the EU (Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, and Slovenia), and none are in Latin America, Africa, or Asia (the fifth is Russia). An overhaul of the global financial system is therefore urgent and long overdue. Developing countries with good growth prospects and vital development needs should be able to borrow reliably on decent market terms. To this end, the G20 and the IMF should devise a new and improved credit-rating system that accounts for each country’s growth prospects and long-term debt sustainability. Banking regulations, such as those of the Bank for International Settlements, should then be revised according to the improved credit-rating system to facilitate more bank lending to developing countries. To help end the sudden stops, the G20 and the IMF should use their financial firepower to support a liquid secondary market in developing-country sovereign bonds. The Fed, ECB, and other key central banks should establish currency swap lines with central banks in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. The World Bank and other development finance institutions also should greatly increase their grants and concessional loans to developing countries, especially the poorest. Last but not least, if rich countries and regions, including several US states, stopped sponsoring money laundering and tax havens, developing countries would have more revenues to fund investments in sustainable development. Jeffrey D. Sachs, University Professor at Columbia University, is Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has served as adviser to three UN Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General António Guterres. His books include The End of Poverty, Common Wealth, The Age of Sustainable Development, Building the New American Economy, A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism, and, most recently, The Ages of Globalization.

One film journalist’s stream-of-consciousness cinematic journey through the pandemic, Part 62 By Laurence Lerman / New York City “Long-awaited” is an expression that’s thrown around too much—it should be reserved for studio publicists and shills, not excited film fans like myself who can’t hold in their anticipation. But in the case of West Side Story, it’s warranted. Originally scheduled to be released in December, 2020 by Disney-owned 20th Century Studios but then delayed due to Covid, West Side Story, directed and co-produced by Steven Spielberg and written by Tony Kushner, opens wide in theaters only on December 10. Its opening coincides with the 60th anniversary of the release of the original 1961 film, the winner of 10 Academy Awards, including Best Picture. And the advance word has been wildly enthusiastic. West Side Story has been brewing in Spielberg's stew of possible projects since 2014 and he has long professed his love of the landmark musical—both the original Broadway cast recording from 1957 and the 1961 film by Robert Wise and choreographer Jerome Robbins. And he’s been reminding everyone in recent weeks as he hits the press circuit. “I have been challenged by what would be the right kind of musical to take on, and I could never forget my childhood. I was 10 years old when I first listened to the West Side Story album and it never went away,” he said in a studio press interview late last month. “I’ve been able to fulfill that that dream and keep that promise that I said, to myself, ‘You must make West Side Story.’” Over the course of his five-decade filmmaking career, Spielberg has directed a remarkable 32 films, the majority of which are the kind of large-scale, Hollywood productions that audiences have always associated with him. He’s the rare contemporary filmmaker who only worked small when he was first starting out. Save for his first three films—the 1971 TV thriller Duel; the 1974 road movie The Sugarland Express, which marked his theatrical debut; and, of course, 1975’s disarmingly small-scaled Jaws—Spielberg has been going really big for the bulk of his career. But while he’s certainly shined in such brands as science fiction and fantasy, war epics and dramas, action-adventure, family-style entertainments and historical pieces—and revealed himself to be a little uncomfortable with romances (Always, 1989) and comedy (1941, 1979)—Spielberg has never directed a musical, that most adored of Golden Age genres. Still, the spirit of the Hollywood musical and other related musical DNA has made its way into a number of his films over the years. And not just in the form of the iconic scores of composer John Williams, who has collaborated with Spielberg on all but five of his features and won four Academy of Awards for his efforts. First came the rousing jitterbug contest in the comedy 1941, which remains Spielberg’s only bona fide box-office failure. The most engaging set piece in this overstuffed comedy finds Bobby Di Cicco and Dianne Kay and a dozen other couples dancing up a storm in a USO club as tensions run high in post-Pearl Harbor Los Angeles. The bit ends with a huge brawl between soldiers and sailors that spills out onto Hollywood Boulevard and grows into a riot. It’s as wildly energetic and entertaining a sequence as any action scene Spielberg has ever directed, which is saying a lot. Five years later, Spielberg got substantially musical again in the 1984 blockbuster Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, the first sequel in the four-film Raiders of the Lost Ark franchise. (A fifth entry is due in 2023, this one directed by James Mangold, with Spielberg serving as producer). Temple of Doom opens on a scene set in the glamourous Club Obi-Wan (Star Wars fans, take note) in 1930s Shanghai, where a group of Chinese chorus girls led by an American singer kick things off with a lavish musical number set to Cole Porter's “Anything Goes.” Magnificently shot and delightfully sung in Mandarin, it’s a killer opening, concluding with Indy entering the club just in time to take part in a furious fight that, like in 1941 before it, lays waste to the entire place. Clearly, Spielberg has a yen for musical interludes ending in destruction, though I doubt Porter or Busby Berkeley would be disappointed with what’s on the screen. While Spielberg has more or less dismissed the majority of Temple of Doom as being too nasty, what with its heart-gouging, child slavery and voodoo incantations, he’s never mentioned any dissatisfaction with the opening, which remains the most memorable part of the film. “The prettiest thing that came out of that film was my future wife,” Spielberg told Entertainment Weekly in 2011. “I met Kate [Capshaw], my leading lady. And my leading lady is still my leading lady.” Oh, did I mention that Kate is the one American singer who serves up “Anything Goes?” There have been other musical flourishes over the years: Margaret Avery’s flamboyant blues singer Shug Avery belting out the Oscar-nominated “Ms. Celie’s Blues” in The Color Purple (1985) and Leonardo DiCaprio and a gaggle of flight attendants parading through Miami International Airport to Sinatra’s inviting “Come Fly with Me” in the crime adventure Catch Me If You Can (2002) immediately come to mind. (It’s worth noting that both films were later turned into Broadway musicals.) The gravity-defying dance challenge between a pair of virtual reality gamers in the sci-fi adventure Ready Player One (2018) is quite lively, and there’s even a nightclub scene with a tango-playing orchestra and a line of high-kicking dancers in 1993’s Schindler’s List. Clearly, there’s been a feature-length musical knocking on Spielberg’s door for years just waiting to make its entrance. But Spielberg and West Side Story? For his first musical, the world’s most successful and popular commercial filmmaker makes a new film adaptation of one of the most treasured works in the American musical canon. That’s Spielberg swinging for the fences, as he’s wont to do, and the kind of serious stuff that deserves our attention. It’s been long-awaited and I can hardly wait to see it. Laurence Lerman is a film journalist, former editor of Video Business--Variety's DVD trade publication--and husband to The Insider's own Gwen Cooper. Over the course of his career he has conducted one-on-one interviews with just about every major director working today, including Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, Clint Eastwood, Kathryn Bigelow, Ridley Scott, Walter Hill, Spike Lee, and Werner Herzog, among numerous others. Once James Cameron specifically requested an interview with Laurence by name, which his wife still likes to brag about. Most recently, he is the co-founder and editor-in-chief of the online review site DiscDish.com.

By Andy Borowitz December 1, 2021 PENNSYLVANIA (The Borowitz Report)—Explaining his decision to enter the political sphere, Dr. Mehmet Oz said that he hopes to oust Rand Paul as the biggest quack in the United States Senate. Oz said that Paul, a former ophthalmologist, has shown an impressive obliviousness about medicine while serving in Washington, but added, “I think I can out-quack him.” “In the many times he’s grilled Dr. Fauci, has he ever asked him about the health benefits of magic coffee beans or umckaloabo-root extract?” Oz said. “I think America deserves a senator who will ask those tough questions.” Paul, speaking to reporters, seemed unfazed by Oz’s determination to supplant him as the Senate’s top quack. “I respect Dr. Oz as a fellow-charlatan, and the competition can only light a fire under me to become a bigger charlatan myself,” he said. “But if, in the end, he winds up besting me, I’ve had a good run.” 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 If it’s you, straighten up, pay attention and be the guest of the year. This is the season when many parties, events, family gatherings, and holiday meals take place. Now that COVID-19 is on the wane in some parts of the country, mask mandates are lightening, and lots of folks are triple vaccinated, we will actually be able to see friends and family members in person instead of on a video screen. Hallelujah! A long time coming. What does this mean for those who are invited? It means being a gracious guest. Yet some people are not clued in about proper etiquette when attending a brunch, holiday meal, afternoon tea, or dinner party. We all appreciate being invited but do we know how to show our appreciation? What does that look like exactly? Having been in the hospitality business for over 35 years, I’ve had a bird’s eye view of things, both good and bad. We catered many events in customers’ homes and witnessed the comings and goings of thousands of guests. Some hostesses have been given lovely tokens of appreciation as the guests arrive: flowers, bottles of wine, chocolates, or homemade jam. But some people exhibit inappropriate behavior, especially when it is a seated lunch or a dinner party. For example, when Bob and I got married, we had a sit-down brunch and a friend and his girlfriend brought along her teenage daughter and her date. The dilemma was that we were in a rented event space with a finite number of dishes, pieces of flatware and chairs. It was an embarrassing moment. Another ticklish situation is when a guest brings a dish to serve with dinner when it is not a potluck. What if it doesn’t go with your meal or worse yet, you have already made the same dish? This was particularly difficult when we catered a dinner party and a guest brought a dish that was well-intended but not up to par. Do we serve it or not? Every guest wants to do the right thing to demonstrate his or her appreciation for all the host is doing, such as planning, shopping, decorating, cooking and cleaning, Here are a few tips to follow when attending an event: • Consider showing up with a gift in hand. Does the host throw the party just to receive gifts? Does the host actually need the gift? No on both accounts. Do it anyway. • Arrive on time, especially if there is a set time for the meal. The cook really doesn’t want to serve deflated crab soufflé. • If you have dietary issues that are severe, such as allergies, gently remind your host upon receiving the invitation. • Offer to pour wine or water, or to clear the dishes. • Be sensitive to overstaying your welcome. Read the room. If the host looks tired or the conversation has wound down, say “a-hem, I think it’s time for me to get going.” • Hosts love to receive a thank-you note or a call the next day. Today, I’m offering two recipes that are simple to make and well received. Present them in decorative jars or canisters with pretty ribbon. Both the Chocolate Sauce and Nutty Oat Topping are designed to go over ice cream. Use them together or separately. The Chocolate Sauce can be used to dip fresh fruit in, too. It should be reheated in a hot water bath before pouring over ice cream. The Oat Topping can be combined with plain yogurt. Both recipes can be doubled or tripled. Store in the refrigerator. Chocolate Sauce Yield: 2 ½ cups 10 oz. semisweet chocolate chunks 1 c. heavy whipping cream Place the chocolate and the cream in the top of a double boiler over simmering water. Melt together. Whisk the sauce until well combined. Optional: Whisk in 1-2 Tbsps. of Kahlúa, rum, brandy, or other liqueur. Nutty Oat Crumb Topping Yield: 3 cups 1 c. old-fashioned rolled oats 2/3 c. chopped hazelnuts or almonds 1/2 c. brown sugar 1/4 c. flour 1/4 tsp. salt 1/3 c. butter or margarine, melted Preheat oven to 350°. Line a cookie sheet with foil. Spray with pan release. In a mixing bowl, combine oats, nuts, sugar, flour, and salt. Blend in the melted butter and mix. Spread on prepared baking sheet. Bake for 15-20 minutes or until toasted and golden. Break up with a fork. Cool. Break up with your hands. 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.

December 6, 2021 Dear Editor, Well, here I am again–outraged by happenings in our country but also feeling a bit mopey this time. Like crawl in my bed, tired of dealing with this shit mopey. My thoughts have been running rampant since Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing. I have been unwilling to believe that the threat of Roe v. Wade being overturned was real, even given the change in the Supreme Court makeup. However, not only is it a very real possibility, it seems increasingly more a probability that the right to an abortion elaborated in Roe, and confirmed again by Casey vs Planned Parenthood, is coming to an end. If not entirely, it will be changed so dramatically to make the right irrelevant for a large swath of Americans. While the percentages quoted vary, a large majority of Americans support a woman’s right to an abortion, overwhelmingly so. That said, I am willing to bet that a very large number of Americans have given little to no thought what a post-Roe society would look like. Why would they? I am 63. In my “reproductive” lifetime, I have only known legal contraception and legal abortions. This is true for the three reproductive generations after me. It has been a given. It has been unquestioned by a majority of Americans that a woman has the right to make decisions regarding her body and her very personhood. This includes the right to determine whether or when to become pregnant and whether to remain pregnant and carry a baby to term. The line of questioning and comments made by the conservative justices on Wednesday were preposterous and maddening. Why not allow 15 weeks to be the new norm? (Because it is based on nothing scientific, such as age of viability, so what’s to prevent the new suggested norm from being 12 weeks? Ten weeks? Or six weeks, as Texas is now legislating?) What’s the harm in continuing the pregnancy and then relinquishing the baby either to adoption or to a fire or police station? (Honestly?! If they don’t understand the harm in carrying a baby to term against one’s will, I’m not sure I can explain it to them.) Last, as a country formed on the ideals of liberty and religious freedom, how is it at all proper and legal to force the opinions of a religious minority onto all? After all, there is no firm definitive answer, scientific or religious, as to when life begins. That does not even begin to address the anguish that parents of a very wanted baby will be made to feel when they hear, often at their 20-week checkup, that their baby will not survive or will survive but will suffer from fetal anomalies. Imagine spending the next four months, knowing what you know, being congratulated, asked questions about your baby, watching your belly grow. It is absolutely heartbreaking! And, please, let’s be very clear that this is not a total ban on abortions. Wealthy women will always be able to travel to another state or country if an abortion is what they desire. It may be inconvenient. It may be costly. But it will remain an option. This ban will affect those who can least afford it, whether monetarily or mentally. It will absolutely disproportionately affect the young, the poor, the BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, People of Color] among us. And it will always, always, always, be the woman who must deal with the pregnancy, no matter how supportive her male partner may be. Yesterday I spent my day as a volunteer at a women’s health facility, as I regularly do, providing patient support to women seeking abortions. Among them were women there due to failed contraception, women who were already moms and understand the joy and the work surrounding parenthood, and women who had made a decision that was simply best for her, her family, her situation, her life. Who are we to put more value on a potential life than the living, breathing, existing life right before us? This is what makes me outraged and mopey because I have supported my share of “anti-choice in theory” patients who change their minds when it’s no longer theoretical and abstract but their own lives that are affected. I take a moment to remind them how lucky they are to have that choice available to them. Sadly, I’m not so sure that will remain true for all. Stephani Tikalsky / Bloomington, Minn.

By Jessie Seigel / Washington, D.C. Lone Star Tussle: Texas Governor Greg Abbott versus challenger Beto O’Rourke The Battle for Texas is on. On November 15, Democrat Beto O’Rourke announced his 2022 candidacy for governor against the state’s current Republican governor, Greg Abbott. Their contest reflects the larger war for the soul of our nation--a clash over whether we will allow ourselves to be ruled by the callous power and greed of a few or save our democracy and reestablish the best of America’s altruistic values. And given the number of Texas’ electors (38), and the efforts of its Republican-controlled legislature to prevent votes being counted, who wins the governorship--with that office’s veto power over further incursions on voting rights--is of national importance. O’Rourke came out swinging. In his video announcement, he said: “This past February, when the electricity grid failed and millions of our fellow Texans were without power — which meant that the lights wouldn’t turn on, the heat wouldn’t run and pretty soon their pipes froze and the water stopped flowing — they were abandoned by those who were elected to serve and look out for them.” He added, “It’s a symptom of a much larger problem that we have in Texas right now: Those in positions of public trust have stopped listening to, serving, and paying attention to and trusting the people of Texas, and so they’re not focused on the things that we really want them to do—like making sure we have a functioning electric grid, or that we’re creating the best jobs in America right here in Texas, or that we have world class schools.” Given his national standing, it was no surprise that O’Rourke promptly moved to the front of the line. Although there are two other candidates running in the March 1 Democratic primary for governor, Michael Cooper, the president of the Beaumont Texas NAACP, who ran for lieutenant governor in 2018, and Deirdre Gilbert, an educator from the Houston area, they are the longest of long shots. The Democratic Governors Association backed O'Rourke almost immediately after his announcement. Abbott took no time at all in punching back at the Democratic contender with the usual right-wing Republican sloganeering. On the day of O’Rourke’s announcement, Abbott predictably tweeted that O’Rourke wants to “take your guns,” “defund the police,” and supports the “failing Biden agenda.” Rather than address the issues O’Rourke had raised in his announcement, Abbott’s campaign released an animated image of O’Rourke morphing into Biden. He called O’Rourke “a socialist,” “a part of the Ocasio-Cortez wing of the Democrat Party” and tried, Trump-style, to label him “Wrong Way O’Rourke.” Abbott, 64, was described by the New York Times in July as “the driving force behind one of the hardest right turns in recent state history.” His past record fully supports that assessment. As early as 2003, as Texas Attorney General, Abbott supported the state legislature’s move to cap non-economic damages for medical malpractice cases at $250,000, with no built-in increases for any rising cost of living. This was beyond hypocritical; in 1984, when Abbott was permanently paralyzed from the waist down by a falling oak tree after a storm, he sued the homeowner and a tree service company, obtaining an insurance settlement that provided him with a lump sum every three years until 2022 along with monthly payments for life—both adjusted to keep up with the rising cost of living. As of August 2013, that monthly payment amount was $14,000 per month. As Texas AG, Abbott also kept busy filing lawsuits—31 of them—against the Obama Administration, including against the Affordable Care Act. Abbott’s personal experience clearly did not result in the development of any empathy for others faced with a similar situation. During his two terms as governor, Abbott has consistently skewed to the right. He has attempted to purge nearly 100,000 registered voters from Texas voter rolls, and signed both an open-carry gun law, and a campus-carry law, allowing the carrying of a concealed handgun on public college campuses. He has also backed the GOP-led legislature’s effort to financially penalize Texas cities that reduce police funding in favor of social services and emergency response. Most recently, Abbott signed the controversial legislation effectively banning most abortions in the state. And on the Covid-denial front, he signed legislation punishing all businesses that require proof of vaccination, as well as issuing an executive order banning mask mandates in public schools with a $1,000 fine for noncompliance. O’Rourke has vehemently attacked Abbott for the new laws he’s backed that ban most abortions in Texas, limit the ability to vote, and allow permitless carry of handguns. O’Rourke said of Abbott: “He doesn’t trust women to make their health care decisions, doesn’t trust police chiefs when they tell him not to sign the permitless carry bill into law, he doesn’t trust voters so he changes the rules of our elections, and he doesn’t trust local communities [to make their own pandemic rules].” For months before his announcement, O’Rourke was already calling out Abbott for his policies on Covid, which have included an executive order banning mask- and vaccine-mandates and, more recently, preventing employers from protecting their customers and employees. O’Rourke pointed out on his Facebook page in October that 68,000 Texans had died from Covid under Abbott’s policies, and forcefully concluded: “Abbott is killing the people of Texas.” Abbott’s campaign spokesman, Mark Miner said, “The contrast for the direction of Texas couldn’t be clearer.” Unlike many falsehoods and twisting of facts by Republican politicians and their spokespersons, that statement at least is true. O’Rourke’s Background and Strategy Beto O’Rourke, 49, started his political career on the El Paso city council, where he spent six years. He followed this with six years (three terms) as a U.S. Representative from El Paso. In 2018, he ran for Senate against Ted Cruz, and came surprisingly close to winning, only three percentage points from beating Cruz. O’Rourke achieved a reputation as a whiz at fundraising and campaigning—receiving more than $80 million from small donors for his Senate run while conducting an energetic campaign in which he traveled to at least 254 Texas counties, held campaign events in solidly Republican strongholds as well as Democratic areas, and live-streamed his efforts on Facebook. After coming so close to beating Cruz, it might have been most helpful to democracy if O’Rourke had used his popularity, fund-raising ability, and momentum to make a 2020 run against the other senator from Texas, right-winger John Cornyn. If O’Rourke had done so and won, there might now be enough Democrats in the senate to change the filibuster rule and pass the voting rights laws needed to overcome reactionary voting legislation passed in Texas and other states this year. Instead, O’Rourke squandered his momentum on a short-lived run in the primaries for the Democratic presidential nomination. And Abbott is now using O’Rourke’s statements during that brief run against him. In particular, Abbott has flagged a proposal O’Rourke made during his campaign in the presidential primary to require buybacks of assault weapons, emphasizing O’Rourke’s blunt, impassioned statement at the September 12, 2019 Houston debate: “Hell yes, we’re going to take away your AR-15, your AK-47.” Abbott likely counts on O’Rourke’s declaration going over like a lead balloon in gun-loving Texas. But for O’Rourke, that position was especially heartfelt given that, on August 3, about five weeks before the debate, 23 people were killed in a mass shooting targeting Hispanic people at a Walmart in El Paso—the city O’Rourke had represented for so many years both on its city council and in Congress. Boldly, O’Rourke is not backing away from his stand on assault weapons now that he is running for governor. According to the Texas Tribune, he has said: “I think most Texans can agree — maybe all Texans can agree — that we should not see our friends, our family members, our neighbors, shot up with weapons that were originally designed for use on a battlefield.” In addition to maintaining his integrity on the weapons issue, O’Rourke has not only talked the talk about Texas’ needs, but walked the walk. Between his withdrawal from the presidential primary and his announcement of a run for governor, O’Rourke raised money for relief efforts in areas of Texas harmed by last February’s electric grid failure. Moreover, he has traveled to numerous counties, personally volunteering in those efforts. O’Rourke also formed a PAC named Powered by People, focused on voter registration and voter rights, along with attempting to help Democrats obtain a majority in the Texas State House in the 2020 election. In addition, according to Politico, O’Rourke gave major support to the Texas Democrats’ attempt to get federal voting rights legislation. Last summer, Texas Democratic legislators left their state en masse to prevent the quorum necessary for the Republican majority to ram through reactionary election laws, and lobbied Congress in Washington to pass the Voting Rights Act. During that time, O’Rourke traveled up and down the state to build public pressure for such legislation. Because the Texas Democrats were outnumbered in their legislature and the Democrats in Washington were blocked by two feckless senators, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, all of these efforts ultimately failed. But both O’Rourke and the Texas Democrats cooperated, each in his or her own role, doing their very best in the battle to preserve democracy, and proving O’Rourke is a fighter for the people, not merely his own advancement. And the Democrats need such fighters. O’Rourke has said he will—as he did in his senate race—campaign in parts of Texas hostile to Democrats. And he’s already off and running. According to CBS News, O’Rourke announced the campaign stops he'd be making in his first week: on November 16 in San Antonio and Laredo, November 17 in McAllen and November 18 in Corpus Christi. These stops were mainly in South Texas where, also according to CBS, Democrats have been losing ground. In addition, compared to his senate run, O’Rourke is making some pragmatic changes in his approach. Previously, he had refused to accept PAC money. According to The Texas Tribune, he will now accept such donations because he doesn’t want to “run this campaign with a hand tied behind our backs.” This is a sensible decision, given what will be needed to counter the $55 million in resources Abbott already had at the end of June. O’Rourke also plans to run ads drawing a contrast with Abbott, possibly use polling to make informed decisions about where to deploy his resources, and has said he will accept unlimited donations, which is permitted by Texas’s campaign finance system—all of which he had declined to do in his Senate campaign against Cruz. The Political Horse Race On November 15, CBS reported that a recent poll by the University of Texas at Austin and the Texas Tribune found O’Rourke was running nine percentage points behind Abbott. AP has pointed out that the same year O’Rourke came so close to beating Cruz, Abbott won reelection to the governorship by double digits. AP speculated that the crossover helping O’Rourke then was based in part on the “ideological blurriness” of his Senate campaign—but that since he has established himself as a liberal who stands for policies unpopular in Texas (like mandatory gun buybacks and decreasing immigration enforcement), that helpful ambiguity no longer exists. The Texas Tribune has noted that O’Rourke is now better known than he was in his Senate run and that polls show more Texas voters have a negative view of him than a positive one. Also working against O’Rourke are the political maps gerrymandered in favor of Republicans that Abbott signed into law in October. Furthermore—though it seems inexplicable— according to AP, Republicans have made strong advances with Hispanic voters along the border. On the other hand, although Abbott recently had a nine-point lead, O’Rourke has only just announced his candidacy, and thus, has only truly begun the race. He has a year to catch up. And according to Forbes, a poll of 1,402 voters between October 14 and October 27, conducted by the Texas Hispanic Policy Foundation and Rice University, suggests the race may be much closer than the University of Texas and Texas Tribune poll indicated. Based on the poll cited by Forbes, in a four-way race, Abbott garnered 43 percent support among all registered voters, O'Rourke garnered 42 percent, with two percent going to a Libertarian candidate and one percent to a Green Party candidate. Of course, in this cockamamy world, there always seems to be a wild card—in this case, actor Matthew McConaughey—who had been contemplating a run. But on Sunday, November 28, the actor announced he would not be running. That is good news for Beto: the Texas Hispanic Policy Foundation and Rice University poll suggests that, while only nine percent of registered voters would support McConaughey on a five-candidate ballot, his presence would mostly take support away from O’Rourke. But polls are only snapshots in time and so of limited value. Although Abbott is currently ahead, his handling of the pandemic, the winter power failure, obstacles to voting, banning of almost all abortions, and banning of mask and vaccine mandates within the state has caused Abbott’s approval rating to slip. Time and events may see it slip more. In addition, the Trump-accommodating Abbott faces competition from even farther to his right—primary challenges from former Texas GOP Chairman Allen West, former Dallas state Sen. Don Huffines, and conservative commentator Chad Prather. Huffines has claimed that his candidacy pushed Abbott to a more conservative stand on issues like banning private business Covid vaccine mandates. To top this off, although former President Trump has endorsed Abbott, he has been pressuring the governor to audit the state’s 2020 election results based on false claims of fraud—even though Trump won Texas. Abbott has refused. Given Trump’s spiteful, grudge-holding nature, that could ultimately result in a withdrawal of his endorsement. Zack Malitz, a Texas Democratic consultant who was statewide field director for O’Rourke’s 2018 senate campaign, has said of this gubenatorial contest, “On both sides, this is gonna be an angry and existential election.” The Texas election is clearly going to be a hard-fought race. And at this early point, it looks to be an uphill one for O’Rourke. But with his stamina, stomach for the battle, and ability to speak plainly to his fellow Texans about Abbott’s outrageous failures and their true best interests, he may have a good chance. The future of Texas and, given the restrictive voting laws recently passed, the future of the nation, may well depend on Beto’s ability to go the distance. 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.

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 Andy Borowitz November 29, 2021 TEXAS (The Borowitz Report)—What is being called a “troubling variant of stupidity” has been identified in Texas, Dr. Anthony Fauci has confirmed. Although the powerful variant of stupidity is not new, it has recently displayed alarming virulence, the esteemed physician said. “What’s concerning about this variant is that it appears to have developed immunity to all information,” Fauci said. “Of the many mutations of stupidity found in Texas, this one stands out.” The immunologist urged that steps be taken to prevent this variant of stupidity from spreading. “We know that it has travelled as far as Cancun,” Fauci 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.