Satirists are having a field day with our political situation; it is better to laugh than cry. Fortunately, political wit and humor have been with us as long as there have been politicians.

Winston Churchill’s wit is legendary and oft quoted. Recently, I stumbled across a forgotten wit from Congress.  Thomas Brackett Reed of Maine was elected to the House of Representatives 12 times and was the Speaker for 8 years until he resigned in 1899 to protest the Spanish-American War.  He was a principled man, a strong supporter of civil rights and widely regarded as honest man who did not tolerate fools.

A Republican (when Republicans were the liberal party), he believed in protective tariffs, federally protected voting rights for African Americans and a strong navy. He opposed capital punishment, federal subsidies for railroads, supported women’s suffrage and had a dim view of organized religion. His overbearing personality and great intellect earned him the nickname Czar Reed.

Congress was as broken back then as it is perceived to be now.  At the time, the House Democrats (the minority conservative party) wanted to make sure that there was no legislation, no change.  Their strategy was to attend sessions but refuse to say “present” at role call; meaning there was no quorum, and no business could be done. In 1890, Reed formulated the “Reed Rules” of parliamentary procedure which eliminated this behavior, facilitated the passage of legislation, and increased the influence of the Speaker of the House.

In the process, he bestowed withering wit on his foes and friends alike.  Here is a sample:

He referred to the Senate as “a place where good Representatives went when they died”; and the House as “a gelatinous existence, the scorn of all vertebrate animals.”

Reed coined the classic definition of a statesman, “a successful politician who is dead.”

Of Representatives who quoted religion, he observed: “One, with God, is always a majority, but many a martyr has been burned at the stake while the votes were being counted.”

When another Congressman said that he would rather be right than be President (quoting Henry Clay), Reed replied “The gentleman need not be disturbed, he never will be either.”

When another member, notorious for uneducated opinions, began some remarks with, “I was thinking, Mr. Speaker, I was thinking…,” Reed expressed the hope that “no one will interrupt the gentleman’s commendable innovation.”

Once referring to two of his House colleagues, he said, “They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge.”

When asked to attend the funeral of a long-time political adversary, he declined, but stated, “that does not mean to say I do not heartily approve of it.”

He was especially dismissive of the conservative Democratic party.

“The best system is to have one party govern and the other party watch, and on general principles I think it best for us to govern and the Democrats watch.”

“We live in a world of sin and sorrow. Otherwise there would be no Democratic Party.”

He was also critical of his own party. When asked if his party might nominate him for President, he noted, “They could do worse, and they probably will.”  He described his rival, McKinley, as having “the backbone of a chocolate éclair”.

Here are some more:

Reed was a large, corpulent man with a bland appearance, and when he saw his official portrait he exclaimed. “Well, my enemies have gotten their revenge.”

“What I most admire about you, Theodore,” Reed said of Teddy Roosevelt, “is your original discovery of the Ten Commandments.”

“Copernicus did not publish his book until he was on his deathbed. He knew how dangerous it is to be right when the rest of the world is wrong.”

At a dinner party, a famous raconteur, Senator Choate, remarked that he had never made a bet on a horse or card or anything else in his life. “I wish I could say that,” another guest said earnestly. “Why can’t you?” Reed replied, “Choate did.”

And a more modern one, just because it is so funny:

“In a recent fire, Bob Dole’s library burned down. Both books were lost. And he hadn’t even finished coloring one of them.” —Jack Kemp

I thought we all needed a laugh.

Angela Rieck, a Caroline County native, received her PhD in Mathematical Psychology from the University of Maryland and worked as a scientist at Bell Labs, and other high-tech companies in New Jersey before retiring as a corporate executive. Angela and her dogs divide their time between St Michaels and Key West Florida. Her daughter lives and works in New York City.

It is hard to imagine anyone not being outraged by the murder of George Floyd and the racism in the justice system. But it has given us something that we have never had before…a national consensus that this must change.

We are angry. We want punishment. We want convictions for all the officers involved. We want police forces defunded and the money allocated to programs that help marginalized citizens. Minneapolis is going as far as disbanding their police force…they view it as unfixable. Many Americans share that belief.

Punishment feels good, it feels right, it fixes nothing.

Why? Because we are missing the fundamentals: feedback, measurement, coaching, accountability. Without these, training courses are just good courses, or boxes checked. I have worked in training all my career, and I have personally developed great training courses, which resulted in no lasting change. Without follow up, coaching, measurement and accountability, it was just a good course.

We know what needs to be done to effect lasting change. Here is the recipe:

1. Willingness to Change. Every person responsible for policing our society must be willing to change. Without that, there will be no change. This includes the “Yes, but…” comments.” We used to say “everything before the but is bull***t.”

2. Listen to the Experts. Obama formed a commission from all sides of the debate that produced 30 pages of recommendations. Yet, few if any, of these recommendations have been adopted. We need to implement them now.
Training. This is what people point to the most, yet it is the least effective mechanism for change. It is fun creating new programs, it is exhilarating…it is ineffective.

3. Measurement and Coaching. The only way to get systemic change is through measurement and coaching. Let me repeat myself. The only way to get systemic change is from measurement and coaching.

4. Athletes know this well, they could not get better with a training course or a new program. They need feedback and coaching to get better.

People incorrectly assume that coaching is a negative experience, but at the hands of a skilled coach it is transformational. Let me give you an example how it can work with the police. Body cams can help coaches and officers get a better understanding of the behavior and its impact on citizens. A good coach will review body cam footage and identify opportunities for praise and improvement. Then the coach plays the video with the officer and they talk about what it. With guidance, the officer creates his or her own improvement plan and the next session, that plan and his or her behaviors are reviewed again. A good coaching session empowers the participant.

Without measurement, how do you know if you are improving? To develop measures, you need to ask a simple question:
What does success look like? From the community’s perspective, from the department’s perspective, from a crime perspective, from a budgetary perspective and from the officer’s perspective. Once you have the answer to that question, measurements naturally derive from it. Like school report cards, it is not a single measurement, it is a comprehensive assessment (e.g., crime, community response, cost). The mistake that most people make is to select the “easiest” measures; this results in the wrong behaviors. As we say in the industry: What gets inspected, gets respected.

If you choose measures like number of arrests, you will more arrests. If you choose measures like number of traffic stops, you more traffic stops. If you choose measures like community support, you will get community support.
Community Feedback. What is considered community feedback is usually a public meeting that allows citizens to vent but provides no mechanism for changing. Community feedback can take many forms, anonymous questionnaires, one on one feedback with community leaders, individual (professionally coached) sessions with those who feel that they have been unfairly treated.

Did you know that effective feedback must begin with the assumption of “positive intent?” Think about it. How much more effective is feedback if you assume that the aggressor meant well?

Accountability. Sadly, that is what I did not hear from leadership. Without accountability, George Floyd and others like him die. It is that simple. If someone is resistant to coaching and displays aggressive behavior, his employment must be terminated. It happens to people in corporations, why doesn’t it happen in the public sector? Police departments need to make it easy to report inappropriate behavior. Without it, there will be no systemic change.

I’ll leave it to the experts to tell us how to do this

Probably nothing has empowered the Black Lives Matter movement more than our President’s response to it. All Americans now understand what it is like to be criminalized. Our President’s unnecessary use of force helps us white folk empathize with the indignities that Black Americans have suffered. The clearing of peaceful protestors for a photo opp. A plethora of heavily armed guards on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. These images say it all.
Let’s get mad and then let’s make Black Lives Matter.

I recently re-read Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book Leadership in Turbulent Times. She profiled four Presidents who successfully led America through a crisis: Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson (Civil Rights).

Lincoln chose his rivals for his cabinet because he felt that the country needed its strongest leaders during this crisis.  When formulating the Emancipation Proclamation, he spoke with politicians and experts from all sides of the political debate. He spent time with soldiers, learning their thoughts on a war that impacted them the most.  While the public wasn’t yet ready for emancipation, he believed that he could convince them. He listened to all positions and opinions for when and how to deliver his message.  His thoughtful analysis worked, by the time he delivered the Proclamation, it was generally accepted despite its radical position.

For Theodore Roosevelt, it was the coal strike of 1902.  The miners struck in the spring of 1902 and the owners were content to allow the strike to continue.  As fall approached with no movement, Roosevelt recognized that many Americans, now dependent almost exclusively on coal for heat, would freeze to death. He knew that he had to find a solution.  He commissioned an expert to study the issue and worked with all parties to reach a solution in time for winter.

For Franklin Roosevelt, it was the first 100 days of his presidency. After he was elected, he immediately closed the banks to prevent their collapse.  He worked with experts from all sides, convened an emergency session of Congress and passed legislation to preserve the banks.  Despite his opposition, he allowed Congress to add an amendment to create the FDIC. (He later acknowledged that this amendment was one of the best parts of the legislation.) Then he convened his first “fireside chat” where he explained to the American public in simple terms what had happened, what would happen and what he needed from them.  The first day the banks reopened, there were lines of people, not to withdraw, but to deposit their money.  

For Lyndon, it was passage of the Civil Rights bill and crucial provisions of the Great Society (e.g., Medicare).  After Kennedy’s assassination, Johnson recognized that the country needed to address civil rights. He manipulated, bullied and cajoled Congress to pass the first significant civil rights legislation.

These were quite different leaders.  Lincoln was reflective. Teddy Roosevelt was a man of action. Franklin Roosevelt was charismatic, and Johnson was a master of working with Congress. While they approached the issue from their own strengths, they all used the following blueprint:

Become an Expert.  They solicited experts and listened to every viewpoint, including the American people. (Lincoln met with soldiers, Teddy met with the miners, Franklin used Eleanor as his “eyes and ears.” Lyndon had firsthand experience.)  By the time they acted, each had a thorough understanding of the crisis from all perspectives.   

Accept Moral Responsibility. These leaders felt they had a moral imperative to solve the crisis.  Unconcerned with popularity or approval, they recognized that they had to lead America through its crisis.  Nowhere was this more evident than the Emancipation Proclamation.

Empathize.  Each leader empathized with the American people; especially the poor and the dispossessed.  Johnson never forgot the devastating poverty that he confronted when he was a school principal in a poor, immigrant district in Texas.  

Treat Adversaries with Respect. Teddy Roosevelt had to deal with coal owners who were arrogant, dismissive, and disrespectful to everyone, including the President of the United States. Time and again, they refused to negotiate and remained unconcerned about the fate of Americans as winter approached.  Nevertheless, Roosevelt refused to give up and kept trying to find a way to work with them, despite their refusal to allow the union to come to the bargaining table.

Use a Strong Team. Lincoln utilized his adversaries, Lyndon cultivated Congressional leaders.  Lincoln was not afraid of strong leaders (who often disagreed with them) to help implement the solution. Franklin Roosevelt cultivated dedicated experts, who sometimes disagreed, but worked tirelessly to implement novel solutions.

Communicate Effectively.  No one did this better than Franklin Roosevelt, who was able to lead and educate the nation with his fireside chats. He made the issues and his initiatives understandable without talking down to his audience.

Recognize Mistakes and Pivot Quickly. Teddy Roosevelt wanted to impose a solution, but his Attorney General advised him that it was unconstitutional; so, Teddy Roosevelt had to craft a different solution.  Several of Franklin Roosevelt’s initiatives were not successful.  Both quickly took responsibility and changed tactics. 

Do Not Take It Personally.  Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt especially were able to seek advice and counsel from people who disagreed with them. In Lincoln’s case, one of his cabinet members had publicly humiliated him. Yet, they were never vindictive, recognizing that the solving the crisis was more important than their egos.

Keep your Word.  While each allowed debate, once they made their decision, they kept their promise. Lyndon Johnson promised civil rights leaders that he would deliver legislation and refused to give up, despite a prolonged, and heretofore unbroken, Senate filibuster. 

Share Credit.  Each President took responsibility for mistakes, but shared credit for successes.  Even Lyndon Johnson, who was known for having a huge ego, shared credit for the Civil Rights legislation with Congress. 

We can use this scorecard to judge our current leadership in the COVID 19 crisis.  But we can also use it as a blueprint for leadership in a crisis.  Especially since this one isn’t over yet.

Angela Rieck, a Caroline County native, received her PhD in Mathematical Psychology from the University of Maryland and worked as a scientist at Bell Labs, and other high-tech companies in New Jersey before retiring as a corporate executive. Angela and her dogs divide their time between St Michaels and Key West Florida. Her daughter lives and works in New York City.

 

I have returned from Key West, a 22 ½ hour marathon.  With the help of my nephew, we drove straight through, stopping only for hygiene breaks (for us and the dogs) and food.  

Here is our story.

Due to COVID 19; I was reluctant to stay at hotels.  But the rigorous drive and my health precluded me from driving straight through.  My nephew graciously offered to fly down and share the drive with me.  He is a college student from Michigan and has experience in long drives.  I will always be grateful for his help…I couldn’t have done it without him.

We agreed that I would leave from Key West and pick him up at the Fort Lauderdale airport (about 4 hours).

First, the airport.  Ft. Lauderdale is a large, spacious airport, yet I was the only person at the entire arrivals pickup.  Remember how difficult it is to find a place to stop and pick up an arriving passenger? Not during a pandemic. It was eerie, there were no cars, no taxis, no attendants, no law enforcement.

I entered the terminal wearing my mask and gloves.  The clicking of my dogs’ toenails and my footsteps were the only sounds echoing through the cavernous terminal.  During my 35-minute wait, I saw a single cleaning attendant.  

My nephew was one of seven passengers on the jumbo jet.  Each passenger got his own row; except for the absence of food service, it was like a private jet arriving at a private airport.

We embarked on the driving part of our journey, stopping at rest stops that were spotlessly maintained.  We were the only travelers wearing masks or gloves; even in Florida, which has a mandatory mask rule.  Many travelers were elderly, yet they wore no protective gear.

Despite my focus on the environment, we used disposable gloves and masks for safety.  As we traveled through Georgia, the Carolinas and Virginia, we remained the only people wearing either masks or gloves.  Some residents and fellow travelers eyed us suspiciously.

The Interstate had less traffic than usual, but the drive was daunting and after a while, my nephew, not content with my nut and fruit diet; needed to stop at a McDonalds for some “real food.”  In one of the Carolinas, we ordered from the drive-up window, only to discover that the McDonalds was open.  The customers were observing social distance to some extent; but only the employees were wearing masks.

We finally arrived in St Michaels at 2:30 in the morning exhausted and confused. It was as if there were two worlds, one with COVID 19 and one without.

Angela Rieck, a Caroline County native, received her PhD in Mathematical Psychology from the University of Maryland and worked as a scientist at Bell Labs, and other high-tech companies in New Jersey before retiring as a corporate executive. Angela and her dogs divide their time between St Michaels and Key West Florida. Her daughter lives and works in New York City.

One of the great things about writing a column is what I learn from readers.

This week, the Spy got a call from Bob Aswell, a resident of Somerset County, who wanted to share a little known story about the devastating impact from the 1918 flu.

His grandmother, Lillian Sterling, was widowed in World War I, when her husband, Milton Byrd died from gas poisoning. To support her three children, she worked at the seafood processing plan, Handy & Sterling in Crisfield.

Times were unimaginably difficult then, and the hardy people of that era looked forward, never backward. But she wanted to make sure that her grandson never forgot the devastation from the 1918 pandemic.  To stop the spread of the disease in Crisfield, its dead were transported and buried on James Island, next to the plant. She quit counting at 383, but others counted over 500 nameless souls buried on that island, their lives marked by simple wooden crosses.

The crosses are gone now, washed away by storms and decay; but the smokestack from the plant remains, a hallowed memory of the loss and destruction that a pandemic can cause.

I have found that there are two types of people in this world—animal lovers and animal agnostics. 

It is obvious that I am an animal lover. But most of my family and some of my friends are animal agnostics.  So, what makes someone an animal lover and another person an animal agnostic?

I researched this question and I found some pretty self-serving research on animal lover websites. These websites claim that people who love animals are more empathetic, have a strong affinity to the natural world and are more environmentally friendly.  

But most animal agnostics that I know are equally generous and empathic as well as environmentally conscientious. And, let’s face it, Hitler was a vegetarian animal lover.

On the other hand, the animal agnostic researchers find that animal people are attracted to animals as something that they can dominate and to fill a deep need to be loved unconditionally. They claim that animal lovers are in search of something to protect, nurture and care for because these relationships are less complex than human relationships.

But animal agnostic researchers have not met my dogs. They rule my world more than I rule theirs. Sometimes they do make a half-hearted attempt to protect me.

I could find no empirical data to support the notion that self-appointed therapy animals (NOT those trained for specific purposes) provide a benefit.  

When I was in graduate school, attributing characteristics, such as love, and affection were considered pejoratively to be anthropomorphic. Scientists believed that animals did not have the same capabilities as humans for love and affection and were merely instinctual. Jane Goodall’s research with the apes, elephant research and many European dog lover researchers have demonstrated that to be a fallacy.  Animals are capable of great affection and, yes, love. Animals grieve, and recent research has shown that dogs prefer human affection to food (probably not my dogs).  

Dogs are one of few the species that can successfully cultivate cross species relationships. Dogs adapt to us, they modify their instinctive behavior to please us (again, not my dogs.)

So, we know that animals connect to us, but not all of us connect to them.

What makes us different?  There is a new scientific field of study that is looking into the differences, but they have been able to gain little insight.

My dogs will approach an animal agnostic, try to stare into their eyes and give them their best affectionate wiggle or smile.  But my animal agnostic friends perceive them as dirty, furry, slobbery beings that are an impediment to a conversation.

(My personal favorite is my 3-year-old nephew.  When one of my dogs snuggled up to him I asked my nephew if he wanted to pet my dog. He looked at my dog, then at me and replied, “No, I want better one.”)

To me, the ability to love animals is simply a gift.  When I look into their dark brown eyes, I can see love. During these times, I enjoy their companionship, their antics and their affection.

I am very grateful for this gift.

Angela Rieck, a Caroline County native, received her PhD in Mathematical Psychology from the University of Maryland and worked as a scientist at Bell Labs, and other high-tech companies in New Jersey before retiring as a corporate executive. Angela and her dogs divide their time between St Michaels and Key West Florida. Her daughter lives and works in New York City.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this pandemic is the contradictory, confusing and frightening information that we receive daily. To get accurate information, we need accurate and valid tests.

In an effort to give us broader access to COVID-19 testing, the FDA provided Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) which only requires validation from 20 to 30 test samples. If you read my columns, you know that these are small samples; and some of the confusing data is due to the speed with which these tests have been created. But in a crisis, we must move quickly.

There are basically two types of tests for COVID-19 (although the FDA classifies 3.)  The first test, sometimes called an antigen test, looks for copies of the virus via nasal and throat swabs in patients who show symptoms of the virus. (As a recipient of this test, I can assure you it is very unpleasant.)  Fortunately, the FDA has approved a saliva test.  

The other test is an antibody test, designed to test antibodies generated after the symptoms of COVID 19 have passed.

The only way to assess the accuracy of the first test is to compare it to the results from the second type of test, the antibody test, using a nonparametric test for statistical significance.  Simply put, if you tested positive for the virus in the antigen test, and have the antibodies, the antigen test was accurate.  If you tested negative but have the antibodies it could be a false negative.  

The critical test to get us back to “normalcy” will be the antibody test. Despite wide-spread availability of antibody tests, only four have met the minimal EUA standards.  Some of the unapproved tests, often from Chinese manufacturers, have reliabilities as low as 20%.  (In psychological testing, we reject any reliability less than 95%.)

We know that an accurate antibody test is needed to enable us to “get back to normal.”  Some scientific modelers accept that 40% of the population with antibodies can create “herd immunity” thus making it safe for us to resume our normal routine. But most prefer 90-95%.  In addition, some experts predict that the antibody test will demonstrate that many more have recovered from the virus than our current statistics suggest.

Here is what appears to be true from data that has been gathered.  Approximately 10% (in Florida) to 13% (in Iceland) of those who are symptomatic test positive for the disease.  According to the article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Icelandic researchers found that .8% of the population who are asymptomatic test positive for the disease.  

I am a numbers person, and given everything that I have read, it is obvious that we will not have a herd immunity in the near future. Our current infection rate across the United States is less than 1%. With only 10%-13% of those being tested with symptoms having the virus, and only .8% of a percent without symptoms having the virus, it is unlikely that more than 2% of the population will be “immune”. Even the most optimistic projections predict that only 5% population will have antibodies.  In Wuhan, it is 3%.  New York City, currently writhing from the illness, only a little over 1% of its population has tested positive.  You can do the math.

So what next?  For now, it will be a balancing act between our flailing economy and our health.  I leave it to the experts to make those decisions.

But what is critical is that this is the time to think longer term:  VACCINE and TREATMENT.

According to the New York Times, 35 startups, Universities and smaller medical companies are working on COVID-19 vaccines. Three vaccines are currently being tested in human trials.  However, the scientific community warns us this virus may be resistant to a vaccine.  

Sadly, vaccines are not profitable enough for our largest resources, big Pharma, because vaccines have a low profit margin.  

Since this and other viruses will be with us for some time, we need to focus on developing treatments. Vanderbilt University Medical Center is testing a new antiviral drug, Remdesivir. But there is little in the drug pipeline.

So, how can we prioritize both treatment and prevention?  I leave it up to the experts, but here are some of my “top of the mind” thoughts.

1. First and foremost, we must make vaccine and medications to address pandemics profitable. It could include tax breaks, research funding, extended patent protections.  
2. How about creating a prestigious award, with a significant revenue attached, for collaborative efforts that yield products for COVID-19 and future pandemic viruses?  Let’s face it, the best products come from collaboration.
3. Finally, funding, I personally would be happy to pay a dollar for a “pandemic tax”. Of course, only if the revenues were awarded by independent Federal agencies (e.g., CDC, FDA, NIH) to US medical companies and “out of reach” of politics.

Rather than believing that this is something that we need to get past; it looks like we must recognize that this is part of our future.    Some infectious-disease experts believe the scientific tools already exist to develop vaccines and drugs that work against a wide range of pathogens. We need to create a global monitoring system to identify and monitor potential high-risk viruses. 

Our scientists and medical professionals are racing to find the answers, but in this crisis, it is hard to give them what they need the most.

Data, patience, funding and leadership.

Angela Rieck, a Caroline County native, received her PhD in Mathematical Psychology from the University of Maryland and worked as a scientist at Bell Labs, and other high-tech companies in New Jersey before retiring as a corporate executive. Angela and her dogs divide their time between St Michaels and Key West Florida. Her daughter lives and works in New York City.

COVID 19 has arrived, trailing debris and confusion in its wake. In February who would have imagined schools closed, empty restaurants, cancelled travel and events? 

We did not see this coming. Sure, there have been movies and books about this possibility, and we heard about the 1918 flu. We assumed that this would happen at some point. We just didn’t see it happening to us.

All we know is that we don’t know. Hindsight will teach us the best strategies. If hindsight is used to learn, we will be prepared for the next one. If it is used to punish, we will merely be a blame-oriented society.

Those of us who fled the cold weather are flummoxed. If we had anticipated this, we would have returned sooner.  But here we are.

Apprehension is a constant companion.

I can’t speak for other “snowbirds”, but I can tell you about Key West.  Key West was “ahead of the curve” in closing restaurants, theaters, hotels, beaches, bocce ball courts, tennis courts, watersports, boating, piers.  Famous Duvall street, home of countless bars, restaurants, theaters, quickly became a ghost street. Unlike some parts of Florida our infection rates remain very low, less than ½%.

We have been practicing social distancing for weeks now, beaches and piers are barricaded like crime scenes. The Key West that we flocked to is filled with masked people walking aimlessly to fill their days.

Our daily question is when and if we should return. It is safe, but boring, here.

The return trip is treacherous.  For me, it is a long stretch of interstate with stops for sleep, food, and gas. For those who fly, there are the airports and taxis. All chances to get infected.  

Then there is the need to self-quarantine for 14 days to prevent others from being impacted by my choices.  

Still, I yearn for Spring, the fragrances that change with each flower, the brightly colored bushes and flowers, the rain, the bright green grass and newborn leaves, the cool, moist soil.  I deeply miss my family and friends. I miss my neighbors; I miss the St. Michaels community.

So, I wonder, when should I return?  How can I return? Should I return? The daily question.  

There are no guidelines, hindsight will be the only teacher.  All that we snowbirds can do is guess and hope.

Angela Rieck, a Caroline County native, received her PhD in Mathematical Psychology from the University of Maryland and worked as a scientist at Bell Labs, and other high-tech companies in New Jersey before retiring as a corporate executive. Angela and her dogs divide their time between St Michaels and Key West Florida. Her daughter lives and works in New York City.