CLOSE
Authors Posts by Leah Dunaief

Leah Dunaief

415 POSTS 0 COMMENTS

by -
0 54
'Undelivered'

By Leah S. Dunaief

Leah Dunaief

“What if,” is always an intriguing question. This is true for our personal lives, as well as for history. And one way to consider many historic “what ifs” is through a newly published book by Jeffrey Nussbaum, one of President Biden’s speechwriters, called, “Undelivered.” This is a compilation of speeches, never given, by historical figures, whose words Nussbaum tracked down over 20 years.

These speeches include, among others, the draft of apology that was prepared for General Dwight Eisenhower, had D-Day ended in failure, and Hillary Clinton’s victory speech. 

Civil rights leader John Lewis’ original speech for the March on Washington, August 28, 1963, in which Martin Luther King Jr. spoke his iconic “I’ve got a dream” words, is also revealing of the tension among the civil rights leadership. PBS, the television news hour, interviewed Nussbaum this past Monday, and he said that Lewis had originally intended to declare, “We will march through the South, through the heart of Dixie, the way Sherman did. We shall pursue our own scorched-earth policy and burn Jim Crow to the ground — non-violently” but was dissuaded from those words. The sponsors of the March, who feared looking too extreme and harming the chances of passing the civil rights bill, begged him to withdraw that particular rhetoric Lewis, with his back to the wall, most reluctantly changed his words that night, writing and rewriting his draft at the base of the Lincoln Memorial until it was acceptable, but the earlier text is in the book.

One of the most fascinating speeches never given was the one awaiting the arrival of President John F. Kennedy on the lectern in Dallas on November 22, 1963.  In that text was Kennedy’s warning of the existence of “a rise in the far-right wing camp of voices preaching doctrines wholly unrelated to reality.” He would have said that “we are the watchmen on the wall of world freedom looking outside and INSIDE. [Capital letters are mine.]”

The subtitle of Nussbaum’s book reads, “The never-heard speeches that would have rewritten history,” suggests that had Kennedy’s words been heard, history might indeed have been altered. As it is, people who read it after the assassination just regarded that speech as generally one of foreign policy.

These speeches demonstrate how outcomes rest on the razor’s edge of history.  Fascinating are “those warnings made in their moment of time,” according to Nussbaum, “that resonate even more clearly today.”

Another historic instance mentioned by Nussbaum was of the three speeches written for Al Gore in the 2000 election. Gore was to give none of them that night. One was a victory speech, the second was a concession, and the third was in the event Gore won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote — prescient of the 2016 election. Nussbaum was one of those speechwriters, and that experience inspired him to write the book about other undelivered speeches. 

Not all the speeches included in the book are about politicians and policy. There is the one by Barry Jenkins, the director behind the 2017 award-winning movie, “Moonlight.” Some of you may remember the flub that night, in which the wrong picture was initially announced as the winner and the wrong cast mounted the stage at the Academy Awards before the correction was made. In the chaos, Jenkins never got to say what winning that award meant for him.  But here, in Nussbaum’s book, he does get to tell what he would have said.

“They were filming in Liberty City, Miami,” explained Nussbaum, “and as in many poorer neighborhoods, there wasn’t sufficient lighting. They had to bring in lights, which attracted children to the set. At one point during the filming, [Jenkins] looks over to Video Village, where all the monitors and editing equipment were, and he sees a young man wearing his [Jenkins’] headset who’s just planted himself in [Jenkins’] chair.” 

“And in that moment, I saw in this child the possibility which I hadn’t believed I could ever see for myself,” Jenkins, who is Black, would have read. How poignant. And missed. 

by -
0 146
Pixabay photo

By Leah S. Dunaief

Leah Dunaief

Two young boys, 10 and 8, were in a local playground last weekend, bouncing on a pogo stick, when four teenagers approached them. “Hey, could we have a turn?” one teen asked. “Sure,” said the older of the two boys, pushing the new toy forward toward them. Some conversation followed, indicating that the boys were Jewish. The teens then began ominously bad mouthing their religion, and one teen took coins out of his pocket and threw them at the boys. They were startled, then scared, and they began to run away. What had started as a fun afternoon will become a lifelong painful memory for the two youngsters.

How sad.

We know children can be cruel. Anyone who has ever read “Lord of the Flies” will certainly agree. But this is more than bullying. This is bullying with hate. And on what basis is that prejudice founded? The afternoon was beautiful, the young boys were generous in their response, and the setting should have been one of neighborly interaction among young people. Instead, it served as an excuse for bias. Where did those teens get their ideas? The deplorable answer is often “from their parents.”

How do we understand prejudice? What prompts it? What inflames it? Why should someone whose skin is one color think they are somehow better than someone of another color? Yet, children are “carefully taught,” to quote the line from “South Pacific.” Do we fear differences? Do we need to feel superior to others in order to be happy with ourselves? Why aren’t we simply judged by what sort of persons we are rather than how we look or what we believe?

Speaking of beliefs, political partisanship is threatening to rip apart our country. Never in my lifetime have people so defined themselves as being of one party or the other as now. We can’t even talk about our differences now. And never has that definition resulted in broken friendships and even broken families as now.

What’s happened to bipartisanship, to working together for greater good, for sharing our flag? Aren’t we all Americans? Don’t we all appreciate what is unique in our country, even as we try to improve its failures? When did the word, “compromise,” become an epithet? While there will always be disagreements about policies and actions, together we have moved forward and accomplished great goals since 1776. Now we can’t even get our facts straight.

The only issue that seems to pull us together is fear of being attacked by some outside force. Congress acts in unison when voting substantial sums of money for Ukraine. Suddenly, on the world stage, we are united and bringing other countries that believe in the rule of law together to oppose the Russian leader. If we can do that for the rest of the globe, why can’t we do that for ourselves? Maybe it’s because we can all agree on the same set of facts, that we are opposed to a fascist leader and his unprovoked assault, and we are afraid of who he may be coming after next?

So this is what we need to get us to work together: a common enemy. Heaven forbid that such a threat should ever materialize at our shores or in our heartland. For by then, it may be too late to undue the grievous harm being done to our nation from within. We are enduring daily shootings and killings of innocent children. Our evening newscasts reveal a society in chaos instead of under an orderly rule of law.

How much of the violence in our current lives is the result of the shouting and insults being hurled back and forth among our leaders? Rhetoric plays an important role in people’s behavior, and the rhetoric we are constantly surrounded by is hate-filled. Our citizens, especially our young, have huge mental challenges. While the coronavirus is partly to blame for the collapse of order and predictability, it is not the only culprit. 

What else is? The immoral, unconscionable grasp for power that fills our airwaves with hate.

by -
0 81
Frank Melville Memorial Park. Photo by Heidi Sutton

By Leah S. Dunaief

Leah Dunaief

“Did you hear? Ted has come down with COVID and is in the ICU.” 

The words hit me in the gut.

This gentleman, with whom I serve on the board of directors of a local community group, has now been admitted to the local hospital. I sat next to him at the monthly meeting a couple of weeks ago. We exchanged pleasantries and made small talk. Neither of us wore masks. (Ted is probably in his 70s. I have not used his real name.)

Just when we think our virus-riven world may be returning to some semblance of normal, the pathogen acts up again. We seem to be going two steps forward and one step back as weeks and months go by. Yes, we have the vaccines, the boosters, the antiviral mediations and plenty of test kits now. But the contagion is not over, not even close, no matter how much we would like it to be and pretend it is. Neither is the fear that rises and falls. Those of us who have been spared thus far really don’t want to catch the disease, and those who have fallen ill don’t want to be the virus’s victim yet again.

It’s spring. Finally, spring, with the flowers and leaves, the emerald green and the birdsong. The comfortable temperatures allow us to sit out on our patios and back decks. Once again we can feel the joy spring brings. But it is also the third spring we are living under the black cloud of a pandemic.

Yes, we have learned a lot as a result. We have become more aware of the tiny miracles, the blossoming of each flower on the azalea bushes along the roadside as we walk, the warbling of the mockingbird stationed on the top of the tree beside our garage. The pace of life has slowed as a result of COVID, allowing us to become more appreciative, more mindful of our existence from moment to moment. Many of us have embraced remote work habits and thrive with more at-home time. These are silver linings.

But I can’t help mourning the loss of our before-virus lives. We haven’t been to a Broadway play in three spring seasons now. We have dropped our opera subscription. Contemplating a performance of Carmen at Lincoln Center, preceded by a scrumptious dinner in a Manhattan restaurant, makes me feel a bit dizzy with desire. 

I am still not relaxed enough, even with a mask, to indulge in my former existence. If we have been fortunate enough not to have lost a loved one to the disease, nonetheless, the virus has stolen from our lives, stolen not only events and spectacles but more painfully, time with family members and friends at those events. Time missed with those we are closest to, as we live our lives, cannot be made up. Our dear ones don’t live forever. Sometimes loved ones die, from the infection or other causes, and the hours we would have spent with them are lost to us forever.

Recently, researchers have interviewed thousands to answer the question, “How many close friends can one have?” The answer, the mean average and not counting family, is 3-6. Those friends are irreplaceable. When one dies, there isn’t another to step forward and take his or her place because such friendships take years to develop. I know. When I read that study, I immediately fell to counting my closest friends and came up with four. It would have been six but two have died, though not from COVID. I want to spend as much time with those who remain as possible, and I deeply resent the virus for getting in the way.

Friendship, we know, is important for good health. The opposite, isolation and loneliness, often the by-products of COVID, can be as harmful to us physically as smoking 15 cigarettes a day, according to Psychology Professor Julianne Holt-Lunstad, at Brigham Young University.

We must make every effort to stay connected to our family and friends.  

by -
0 91
Golden Retriever puppy. Pixabay photo

By Leah S. Dunaief

Leah Dunaief

Recent impressive research tells us something we already knew: not every golden retriever always retrieves. We have been fortunate to enjoy three golden retrievers in a row over four decades, and for the first two, when we threw a tennis ball, it was enthusiastically returned and dropped at our feet. Then there was Teddy.

Teddy came to us at eight weeks, a golden ball of fur with two eyes, two ears, a pink nose and a tail. He passed on 12 years later, and during that time, we were convinced he was the most beautiful, most intelligent and most fun dog in the world. But there was one oddity about Teddy the Golden Retriever. When we took him out on the lawn and threw a tennis ball, he would politely sit down and watch its trajectory. Then he would look back at us as if to say, “Yeah? So?”

However, if we brought him to a beach and threw a rock that landed among thousands of other rocks, he would bring back that exact rock and drop it at our feet, backing off, tail wagging, and wait for the next throw. This had a terrible effect on his front teeth. Over the years, it wore them down, but he never seemed to mind and didn’t appear to be in any discomfort.

The other item he retrieved at the beach was seaweed. He would plunge into the water, stick his nose beneath the surface, then come up with a mouthful of seaweed and bring it about 10 feet up on the shore, where he would deposit it. From his many trips to the beach, there remained a line of seaweed that marked his hunting spot.

Although the current researchers never interviewed Teddy, they did surveys of 18,385 dogs and sequenced the genomes of 2,155 dogs for their research paper published in the journal Science. They were looking for predictors of canine behavior and concluded that by breed was essentially useless. This might surprise you, as it did us, except regarding the retrieving aspect we just discussed. 

But apparently, stereotypes like pit bulls being aggressive were not validated. In fact, they scored high on human sociability, with videos showing lap-loving pit bulls. According to an article reporting on this study in The New York Times this past Tuesday, written by James Gorman, “Labrador Retriever ancestry [most popular breed in America], on the other hand, didn’t seem to have any significant correlation with human sociability.”

However, the research allows, there are some few predictable traits. “If you adopt a border collie…the probability that it will be easier to train and interested in toys is going to be higher than if you adopt a Great Pyrenees.” 

Go figure.

Breed supposedly accounts for only 9% of the variations in any given dog’s behavior. Rather, behavior patterns were strongly inherited, to the tune of 25%, again according to the research, within any given breed. In studying genomes, “several genes [were discovered] that clearly influence behavior, including one for how friendly dogs are.”  So if you are about to buy a dog, check out its parents first.

The researchers found 11 specific DNA regions that were associated with behavior, and an interesting comparison can be made with those same areas in human genomics. A region that affects the likelihood of a dog howling corresponds in humans to language development, and another that marks dogs enjoying being with humans presents in human DNA with long-term memory.

So I will tell you a little more about Terrific Teddy. When company would arrive at our home, he would walk up to each newcomer, wag and, I insist, smile, until the person gave him a pat on the head. He would then go on to the next person and wait until the greeting ritual was repeated. After that, he would withdraw to a corner and watch the socializing quietly unless called.

He was a bit of a terror under the table when we were at dinner. He would stealthily snatch the napkins off the diners’ laps. Some day I will write a children’s book about Teddy, the Napkin Snatcher Dog.

by -
0 180
Pixabay photo

By Leah S. Dunaief

Leah Dunaief

The idea that wars would cease if countries were economically tied tightly together seemed to make sense to the world’s leaders immediately following World War II. It sounded like a reasonable premise. After all, why would any nation attack its neighbor if its economy depended on trading with that neighbor, right? In past centuries, wars were started to gain land and the riches they yielded.

Before the Industrial Age, economies were agrarian and depended on land ownership. But by the middle of the 20th century, a huge variety of goods could be exchanged across borders cheaply, especially with advances in transportation. Countries could be locked together by mutual profit rather than by expensive and bloody wars.

For more than 70 years, this theory actually worked in practice. Europe was a prime example. The British had already stopped fighting the French, who stopped fighting the Germans, who stopped attacking Slavic countries, and so on. Instead, they did business together, more or less peacefully, vacationed in each others’ mountains and on each others’ beaches and even formed what they called a European Union. It is not like the United States in that its 27 members must act unanimously or be expelled, but despite infighting, countries want to be in it. Once in, nations can enjoy more cheaply the fruits of economic transactions and a certain amount of financial support. 

The Russians were the world’s third largest producer of oil. They got some $123 billion of their export revenue from supplying crude oil to the rest of the globe, plus refined petroleum-like petrol and diesel at $66.2 billion, gas at $26 billion and coal at $18 billion (2019 figures), especially to neighboring European countries, including Ukraine. Russia was the largest exporter of wheat, plus iron and nickel, nitrogen-based fertilizers and a wide variety of raw materials.

If at war, Ukraine would halt its trade with Russia, which could affect Russia’s economy. So why would Russia start a war with its Ukrainian neighbor? It doesn’t make economic sense. There goes the theory that countries who trade together play nicely together. In fact, it is as if a bully in the schoolyard has begun beating up a smaller child who is supplying him with candy.

President Putin says he fears the encroachment of NATO and must have a buffer between Russia and the other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that was organized expressly to defend against a possibly aggressive Russia. Churchill always considered Russia the biggest threat. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, nor of the European Union. Putin further says more that makes no sense about denazifying Ukraine.

One thing seems to be obvious. Putin is not trying to grab Ukraine for its GDP. His army is pursuing a scorched earth attack, destroying apartment buildings, hospitals, industrial plants and whole cities, as it tries to establish a land bridge between the Donbas in eastern Ukraine and Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014. This would afford Russia uninterrupted access to the Black Sea, a goal of landlocked czars for centuries. But what he is really after is power.

Perhaps, Putin thought that his trade ties with other countries would keep them from interfering in his “special military operation” in Ukraine. No military riposte materialized after he grabbed Crimea. Perhaps he hoped his actions would serve to divide NATO members in their response to him. In fact, only Viktor Orban, the Prime Minister of Hungary, has refused to condemn Putin, straining what has been a Warsaw-Budapest alliance within NATO. On the opposite side of the spectrum, German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, said that no one could assume Russia would not attack other countries given its violation of international law in Ukraine, and that he would support Finland and Sweden if they decided to join NATO. Scholz made his comments despite Germany’s dependence on Russia for most of its import of gas.

So much for the hope that economic ties peacefully bind.

by -
0 109
Central Park. Pixabay photo

By Leah S. Dunaief

Leah Dunaief

A man I never met had a profound effect on my early life. Indeed, I could not have met him since his 200th birthday was this past Tuesday.

There are millions of others whose lives he has touched and continue to touch all over the country. His name is Frederick Law Olmsted, and along with a colleague, Calvert Vaux, he designed Central Park in the late 1850s. He went on to design many other parks and public spaces, but Central Park was his first. 

Olmsted was more than a landscape architect, and his philosophy and appreciation of community and human nature were built into his designs. Proving that I am not the only one who feels his importance, I was pleased to notice a special section about Olmsted published in Tuesday’s New York Times. All subsequent quotes are from that section, written by Audra D.S. Burch, with sayings from essays of Frederick Law Olmsted.

“In plots of earth and green, Olmsted saw something more: freedom, human connection, public health…Olmsted’s vision is as essential today as it was more than a century ago. His parks helped sustain Americans’ mental and physical health and social connections during the darkest days of the pandemic. As COVID-19 lockdowns unlaced nearly every familiar aspect of life, parks were reaffirmed as respite, an escape from quarantine.”

Alice in Wonderland statue in Central Park. Pixabay photo

And this from Olmsted: “The park should, as far as possible, complement the town. Openness is the one thing you cannot get in buildings… The enjoyment of scenery employs the mind without fatigue and yet exercises it, tranquilizes it and yet enlivens it; and thus through the influence of the mind over the body, gives the effect of refreshing rest and reinvigoration to the whole system… We want a ground to which people may easily go after their day’s work is done, and where they may stroll for an hour, seeing, hearing, and feeling nothing of the bustle and jar of the streets, where they shall, in effect, find the city put far away from them.” 

When people ask me where I grew up, I answer, “New York City,” but I should answer “Central Park.” 

Almost every Sunday without inclement weather, my dad would take us to the park for the day, giving my mom time for herself. It worked out splendidly for him because he grew up on a farm and never liked the urban surroundings in which we lived. It also gave him some uninterrupted time with us since we didn’t see much of him during the work week. And of course it was welcomed by my mother, who then had a chance to sleep in and tend to her own needs. 

Dad would awaken early, make us a creative breakfast that always involved eggs and braised onions plus whatever other ingredients happened to be in the fridge. Never were two Sunday breakfasts the same. Then we would go off, my younger sister and I with him, to “The Park.” 

There were many different destinations once we left the street and stepped into the greenery. We roamed along countless paved paths, over charming bridges and through tunnels (always yodeling for the echo effect), climbed rocks, crossed meadows, watched baseball games on several ballfields, played “21” on the basketball courts (if we had remembered to bring a basketball), watched older men competitively play quoits (pitching horseshoes) and munched on crackerjacks — my dad limiting the three of us to one box. I usually got the prize since my sister wasn’t interested. 

On beautiful days, when longer walks beckoned, we would visit the merry-go-round and ride until we were dizzy. Or we would spend the afternoon at the small zoo. My dad taught me to row on the Central Park lake. And always the air was fresh, the seasons would debut around us, the birds would sing and the squirrels would play tag through the trees.

By pre-arrangement, my mom would appear with a pot of supper, some paper plates, forks and a blanket, and we would eat in a copse or a thicket of brush. Then, as the sun was setting, we would walk home together.

by -
0 100
METRO photo

By Leah S. Dunaief

Leah Dunaief

One of the first things we noticed when we moved from the Bronx to Wichita Falls Texas, where my husband reported for duty on the Air Force base in July 1967, was that the city had no delis. Really, no delis. “Where can we find a deli?” we asked people. “What’s a deli?” was the response.

It was then that we learned that a deli, short for delicatessen, was indigenous to large urban settings generally found on the coasts, that made fresh sandwiches and sold side salads from their display cases and bottled sodas from their glass-front, vertical refrigerators. We explained that they were mighty convenient for a quick take-out lunch. Sometimes a few people ate at the handful of tables, but mostly it was an in-and-out experience and one hoped the line would not be too long. “We have diners,” they offered helpfully. “You could probably take out an order from one of them.”

How to describe the difference between a diner and a deli? I had never thought about delis before. I just knew there was one every couple of blocks in New York. Some of them were quite elegant, with imported products, cured meats and cheeses, and even exotic foods, while others, in the neighborhoods, just sold the usual turkey, bologna or ham and Swiss on a roll or white bread.

Ah, but then there were the kosher delis, the ones with overstuffed pastrami on rye and spicy mustard, with a pickle and a soda, maybe even a potato knish on the side. That’s the classic New York deli sandwich. They were the best, and there were fewer of those but enough to feed the discriminating in all five boroughs. Often kosher delis were part of a restaurant in which diners could sit at tables and be served by wise-cracking waiters. Patrons might slurp up chicken soup before they attacked their fulsome sandwiches.

In fact, there were 1500 kosher delicatessens in New York City in the 1930s, brought here primarily by German-Jewish immigrants in the late 19th century. There were fewer than 15 as of 2015, and I’ll bet there are only a handful today. This is how they started, or so the story goes.

A Lithuanian named Sussman Volk, who arrived in New York in 1880, owned a butcher shop on the lower East Side. He befriended another immigrant, from Romania, and allowed the fellow to store his meat in the shop’s large icebox. To thank him, the friend gave Volk a recipe for pastrami, which then proved so popular with Volk’s customers that he opened a restaurant at 88 Delancey Street and served the meat on rye. The creation was soon repeated in delis and became the city’s iconic sandwich.

Delicatessens originated in Germany during the 18th century, started by a German food company called Dellmayr in 1700 that still exists, and spread to the United States in mid-19th century. They catered to the German immigrants, offering smoked meats, sausages, pickled vegetables, dips, breads and olives. Just in case you are on “Jeopardy!”, the root of the word comes from the Latin, “delicatus,” meaning giving pleasure, delightful, pleasing. After WWII, from about 1948 on, they were simply referred to as “delis.”

Today, even supermarkets have deli sections. There are two delis within walking distance in my village and more up and down the neighboring villages. And they exist in many countries with slight variations on the theme. Australia, Canada, Europe (Milan, Paris, Vienna, London, Munich, Zurich), Ireland, they all have delis. They are different from Subway or Jersey Mike’s, or Wawa, which, too, make sandwiches to order. They are also different from McDonald’s or Wendy’s, who specialize in fast food. Some of them have hot prepared foods as well, and all of them require interaction with a clerk behind the counter as opposed to a more digital ordering process. Those clerks may whip up an egg on a roll with bacon and cheese if you ask. Some delis even have small groceries attached to them.

Delis are generally unpretentious eateries that welcome you. For my lunch tastes, you can’t spell delicious without “deli.”

by -
0 115
TBR News Media

By Leah S. Dunaief

Leah Dunaief

Another year has rolled by and we again marvel at another anniversary this week of the news group now known as TBR News Media. It started with the lowly Village Times 46 years ago, and actually there was nothing lowly about that first issue. It was 52 pages, mailed to every house in Setauket, Stony Brook and Old Field, and carried some pretty interesting news and graphics.

I guess the biggest news in the April 8th issue, although we didn’t say so, was that there was a second newspaper in town, coming out every Thursday, a day later than the first newspaper, The Three Village Herald. We planned it that way so we could carry most of the week’s news that same week. For example, school board meetings, one of our most important beats, ended late on Tuesday nights and often their agenda didn’t make the other paper until the following week, there being no internet or website in those days, of course. But by coming out on Thursday, while we could report the school news, we couldn’t capture the local supermarket specials, a rich, full page or even two sometimes, because those ads traditionally ran on Wednesday “to give the lady of the house a chance to plan her weekly shopping for the family’s weekends.” Yes, I am quoting the supermarket managers.

This might not strike you as being a particularly significant decision for the newspaper, but it was symbolic of how we viewed our product: news first, advertising second. If we could get the readers, we strategized, the advertising would follow. And history proves us right. We were always something of an upstart. In the beginning, we stopped mailing to every house after the first couple of issues and gave the paper away from news racks in the local stores. Ten months in, we put coin tubes on our newsstands and started to charge a dime, the same as our competition. I can’t tell you, in powerful enough words, how satisfying it was that first day when the dimes rolled out of the tubes and into our palms. Residents were willing to pay, even if only 10 cents, for our efforts.

A couple of years later, we raised the newsstand price to 25 cents, then the industry standard. We were asking a pretty brash question: Were we 21/2 times better than our competition? Yes, there was some tongue clucking about “who did we think we were!” To our relief, our readership grew. Readers put quarters in our tubes and gratification in our hearts. We vowed to work even harder.

What is a community newspaper, really?

We asked ourselves that as we read every other hometown paper we could get our hands on in order to better answer that question. Joining the New York Press Association, which we did two years after we started, helped us network with other publishers across the state for pointers.

We knew that we wanted to be non-partisan, meaning that we would be without party affiliation and completely independent. It was vital that village government news and town board news reach our readers. We particularly favored bragging about our young people, their academic, musical and sports accomplishments. And we created a second section in the paper for cultural events, science and medicine, giving space to local artists and columnists.

We were eager to hear what our readers had to say and made sure we had clearly marked opinion pages for that purpose. Our opinions were there, too. And we thought of the paper as a mirror that was held up to reflect the community we served, providing future historians with the chronology and sentiments of the day.

Most especially, we believed in fairness. And facts. In a controversial situation, we wanted all sides to be heard and heard accurately. We left it to our readers to judge. They were intelligent beings and we never dumbed down the stories for them. Further, we saw as part of our job to protect our communities and their natural beauty from those who would cause harm. Come to think of it, in our six papers, on our website and our social media platforms, that’s about what we still do.

by -
0 147
Pixabay photo

By Leah S. Dunaief

Leah Dunaief

Just as we are trying to decide whether to get the second COVID booster of Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna that is now authorized by the FDA for those over 50, the color-coding system that tracks the rate of contagion has turned from green to yellow in New York City, indicating an increase in cases. We know that what happens in the city eventually spreads to Long Island, so that would encourage us to get that fourth shot, yes?

To further complicate the decision, a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine Tuesday suggests that “additional boosters are likely to provide fleeting protection against omicron infections in older recipients, and are consistent with evidence that vaccine effectiveness against infection wanes faster than against severe disease,” according to The New York Times.

I say, what?

Let’s consider this carefully. The results of the large new study from Israel are telling us that a second booster shot does provide protection against omicron infections and severe illness among older adults. It is also saying that such protection against infection is short-term and wanes after four weeks, then almost disappears after eight weeks. 

That doesn’t sound so good, right?

But hold on. Protection against severe illness-—again, severe illness— did not lessen in the six weeks after receiving the second booster, but the follow-up period has been too short to know if that second shot continues to offer better protection against severity. By the way, the study involved those ages 60 and older, with nothing on younger populations. So “vaccine effectiveness against infection wanes faster than against severe disease,” concludes The Times. And a previous study from Israel that has not yet been published in a scientific journal, according to The Times, “found that older adults who received a second booster were 78% less likely to die of COVID-19 than those who had received just one booster shot.” The methodology of that study has been criticized, however, with scientists pointing out that those who have received one booster are already likely to be protected from severe illness and death. 

In the new study of 1.2 million adults, “the rate of confirmed infections was twice as high in the three-dose group as in the four-dose group. By eight weeks after the fourth shot, the additional protection against infection had almost disappeared, the researchers found. However, “rates of severe illness were 3.5 times higher in the three-dose group than the four-dose group four weeks after the booster shot. That protection did not appear to wane and actually ticked up slightly by the sixth week after the shot, when rates of severe disease were 4.3 times higher in the three-dose group.”

Still don’t know what to do?

Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky, said on Tuesday that her agency “really would encourage people who are over 50 who have underlying medical conditions and those over the age of 65” to get a second booster shot.

There is controversy among immunologists and vaccine experts over whether to recommend that fourth shot, at least for those under age 65. Twenty million people 65 or older are now eligible and 10 million between 50-64, according to the CDC.

So if you have decided to get the second booster, which would you get?

Dr. Peter Marks of the FDA suggested in a podcast that there was “a little bit of data” that switching vaccines may provide better protection, but “probably the more important thing is just to get boosted with whatever vaccine you can get.”

I will be getting the second booster this week. My thinking is that in the face of newly rising infection rates, even eight weeks could provide a substantial barrier against falling ill and then having the additional worry of incurring long-haul Covid. But reaction across the country is mixed.

With limited data, we are left on our own.

by -
0 132
Pixabay photo

By Leah S. Dunaief

Leah Dunaief

Unless you are a conspiracy theorist and view “the slap heard around the world” as a publicity stunt cooked up by Will Smith and Chris Rock, the episode at the Academy Awards Sunday night left you first puzzled, then shocked. After we caught on, there then ensued an outpouring of opinion and punditry about the incident. But there seems little consideration about how Mrs. Smith might have felt about the matter, or how societal values have dramatically shifted.

Mrs. Smith, otherwise known as the actress and producer Jada Pinkett Smith, is a force of her own. An award winner and named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2021, does she need defending by her husband? Although it was only a quick shot on the camera, she seemed to grimace at Rock’s joke about her baldness. And indeed, alopecia is a serious and anguishing condition that usually occurs when the immune system destroys the hair follicles and causes hair loss that can last for months or years. She had revealed the diagnosis, sharing a video on her Instagram showing herself with a shaved head, in 2018.

Back in the day, my day, women expected the men in their lives to defend them physically. That was the rationale for men walking on the outside of the sidewalk if a man and woman strolled down a street. The man would be there to protect the woman from any danger or even any mud splash that might come from the road. It was part of the definition of manhood that the male was there to protect the female. Is that an expectation today? Do men still take the curb position during any sidewalk stroll? In truth, I haven’t noticed. I haven’t even thought about it. The idea goes with men opening doors or pulling out chairs for women. I suppose it still happens, and it’s thoughtful if it does, but it doesn’t seem like de rigueur today.

This is a significant societal change. I remember an exchange I had in Cambridge, Massachusetts, with a graduate student who was a friend at the time. As we were passing an ice cream parlor, he suggested we go in for cones. I readily agreed and stood in front of the door, waiting for him to open it. How surprised I was when he asked, “Why do I have to open the door for you? Is anything wrong with your arm?” He was clearly ahead of his time, believing as he did in equality of the sexes, and I was glad he wasn’t my boyfriend.

It is my sense today that whoever is in front opens a door. Is that correct or am I just an aggressive woman?

Later, when Will Smith won the award for best actor as the father of tennis stars Venus and Serena Williams in the movie “King Richard,” he made the first of his apologies, explaining that he had acted because he had become emotional. Hey, again, back in my day, men were not allowed to show any emotion, unless they were wimps. Macho meant the strong, silent type. Men who cried were certainly not poster models for unfiltered cigarettes or Marines. If a man cried, there was probably something wrong with him.

Today, men are praised when they offer their “soft” side. Men are allowed to have feelings and to show them. Even the President of the United States, any one of them, has been seen wiping away a tear. For men, feelings can even be a license for strange behavior, which is how Smith explained his behavior. Never mind that he could have stood up and walked out or even turned his back on the comedian. His feelings freed him to be violent, and in front of 15 million people no less.

I wonder what his wife said to him when they got home.

Prev1...91011...42Next Page 10 of 42
TBR News Media is your local news and entertainment website.
We provide you with the latest breaking news and information for your community.
Contact us: [email protected]

Most Viewed

©