Isolation Booth Debate

 Yesterday, I suggested that last night's debate might resemble scenes from a Marx Brothers movie. Turns out I chose the wrong comedy troupe for comparison: It was more like a Three Stooges short in which the director had lost all control and Moe continued to wreak violence on his partners long after the director called "Cut".

But it gave me an idea for the next two debates. If you're of the right age, you'll remember this (or if you're younger, you'll have seen it in the movie Quiz Show):

Those sorts of "isolation booths" were common on the quiz shows of the 1950s. On some of them, the contestant's mikes were not only cut when it wasn't their turn, the lights were turned off or turned down at that time as well.

I suggest that as a way to control the kind of disruptive behavior engaged in by President Trump last night. And I suggest making it automated: "Each candidate will have two minutes to respond to a question. At one minute and 45 seconds, they will be given a signal to begin wrapping up. At two minutes, the mike will cut off and the lights will dim." Why dim the lights? So the candidates cannot try to distract from their opponent's remarks with faces and gestures.

There should be no "open discussion." That merely turns into a shouting match, especially with this President. Instead, after each candidate has had his two minutes to answer a question, the opponent (who has been able to hear the answer) has 30 seconds to formulate a question (again with an automatic cut-off, so it can't be used as soapbox) and the other candidate gets 90 seconds to respond, automatically cut off as before.

Will either side, especially Trump, agree to such conditions? Probably not--but if the proposal is made and they refuse, it says a lot about how they view the debates, doesn't it?

The Duck Soup Debate

 Why do I have the feeling a certain amount of tonight's presidential debate will sound like these two exchanges from the Marx Brothers' masterpiece, Duck Soup?

Minister: "We need to take up the tax." 

Groucho: "I'd like to take up the carpet." 

Minister: "I still insist we take up the tax." 

Groucho: "He's right - you've gotta take up the tacks before you can take up the carpet."

Or

Prosecutor: Something must be done. War would meant a prohibitive increase in our taxes.

Chicolini: Hey, I've got an uncle that lives in Taxes.

Prosecutor: No, I'm talking about taxes. Money. Dollars.

Chicolini: Dollas! There's-a where my uncle lives! Dollas, Taxes!

 You take your choice as to which candidate is playing which part in those scenes.

Return to Theater?

 This past Saturday, I participated in my first theater production since February. Two friends, Jess Stinson and Natalie Lythgoe, organized a small group to present a staged reading of a one-act play on the front-yard patio of Jess's home. A small audience of invited friends watched from the lawn, socially distanced and masked.

For those unfamiliar with the term, a staged reading means the cast went on with scripts in hand, limited props and set and virtually no technical effects such as lights and sound. We in the cast did not wear masks (except in rehearsal) and obviously could not socially distance, but we all reported as asymptomatic and had our temps taken before the show.

The performance seemed to be appreciated by the audience, who were probably as starved for entertainment as we who performed were starved for the opportunity to show our craft.

This weekend, another local group held their "Parking Lot Theater," performing a series of skits outdoors   as well. October is probably the last month this kind of thing will be possible, as weather conditions and diminishing daylight make outside rehearsals and performances increasingly difficult.

Some local community theaters have announced plans to resume their schedules in January. Though I think that's optimistic, I hold out hope.

Faith in the Voting Booth

 It's Sunday, so I guess a little discussion of religion and political is not out of order.

I am a practicing Episcopalian, who was a practicing Roman Catholic until his college years. From about my mid-20s until shortly after the birth of our first child, I remained a Christian in faith but I was, as the current phrase puts it, "unchurched." My wife and I began attending our local Episcopal parish then and I was "accepted" into that denomination a year or so later.

So, how does my faith affect my politics? On reflection, I would say surprisingly little. The religion (or lack thereof) of a candidate has had very little bearing on my support for him or her, except when I view hypocrisy on their part. Don't tell me you're a "good Christian" when you have repeatedly cheated on your spouse. Don't tell me you're "pro-life" and then support capital punishment. Don't tell me how much your faith means to you if you can't quote a single thing from the Bible or the Torah (not even the opening lines of the 23rd Psalm or a couple of the Beatitudes--or worse, you don't know what "Beatitudes" means) or you haven't been inside a house of worship for other than weddings or funerals in years.

How do I think their faith should affect how a sitting politician votes? I would never tell someone they should ignore what their religious beliefs say....but, on the other hand, when those beliefs conflict with the law of the land, their oath to uphold those laws and the Constitution should be supreme. (Otherwise, in my opinion, they are violating the Commandment against false swearing.) If you cannot reconcile that conflict, then resign. 

I would appreciate any comments.

SCOTUS Nominations Used to Be More Civil

 Thirty-eight days. That's how long we have until election day. President Trump will name his Supreme Court pick today. In 2016, President Obama named Merrick Garland with seven-and-a-half months (on March 16) until election day...and Mitch McConnell said that was too close to election day and that we should wait until the people chose a new president to confirm that choice. He refused to even hold hearings, let alone allow a vote. (Given the political atmosphere, Garland probably would not have been confirmed anyway, but he deserved to be heard.)

Yet, today, Mitch McConnell is promising a vote on Trump's pick before November 3...and claims it's a different situation, because now the White House and the Senate are controlled by the same party. In other words, timing never had anything to do with it...it was always about party. Chances are, if Obama had had the opportunity to name another justice in 2015, McConnell would have held up that one, too.  (I note that Obama's two successful nominations were made in 2009 and 2010, when the Democrats controlled the Senate.)

I remember when court nominations, though there may have been controversy over specific policies and decisions--such as civil rights, voting, campaign financing--were not fought along party lines. Even in the highly contentious Nixon era, nominees were confirmed by wide majorities, often nearly unanimously...because it was seen that a president, even Richard Nixon, would choose nominees who were largely centrist, despite leanings in one direction or the other.

I long for a return to such civility.

Death of a Republic

 The Roman Republic died when the men they elected to head the government in times of peril used the powers they were given to restore order instead to simply maintain their own positions. It began with Sulla and then moved on through the First Triumvirate (Julius Caesar, Pompey, Crassus), Caesar alone, the Second Triumvirate (Antony, Octavian, Lepidus) and finally Octavian alone as Caesar Augustus.

Is our own republic standing on the same precipice? Four years ago, did our electorate put a Sulla in charge, without quite realizing it? And now, having recognized the danger he poses, is their attempt to end his rule destined to fail because the very power they granted (or he seized with help from the Senate) protects him?

I hope not. 

Coming Up Empty

 For the first time since I began this blog on May 1, I find I have nothing to write about. It's not writer's block, per se, just that nothing seems important enough to fill this space.

You all know where I stand on the important political issues of our time, and nothing has occurred in the past 24 hours that I find noteworthy on any of them. Nothing inconsequential in the realms of science fiction, comics, or general entertainment has tickled my brain, either. On past days, when this occurred, I have struggled to find a suitable subject to expound upon, even if for only a couple of sentences. This morning, the struggle still left me empty.

After 146 posts, I suppose that's not unusual. I hope to have something to say tomorrow.

Bothered by Geography

 As I mentioned more than a few posts ago, I had been binge-reading the works of Rex Stout--the cases of master detective Nero Wolfe and his aide-de-camp, Archie Goodwin. Having finished the 46 titles Stout completed before his death, I began reading the novels by Robert Goldsborough, the writer authorized by Stout's family to continue the series.

In general, I have enjoyed Goldsborough's work; he manages to maintain Archie's "voice" as the narrator, come up with interesting plots in Stout's vein, and simultaneously keep the stories rooted in the time and place in which they were written, just as Stout did. (Although Stout never allowed Wolfe or Archie or any of their close associates to age, the world did change around them: The Dodgers and Giants moved west, the Mets became Archie's favored team, etc.)

But near the beginning of the sixth novel in the series, The Silver Spire, I was temporarily knocked out of the narrative by some clearly invented geography. As most of you know, I was born and raised on Staten Island in New York City. This novel revolves around a mega-church supposedly located on the Island. No such church has ever existed, but neither does Wolfe's brownstone (the address generally given for it would place in the middle of the Hudson River). No, the problem is where on the Island Goldsborough put it--a 20-minute walk from the ferry terminal, in the hills of St. George and New Brighton.

Here's a slightly edited version of Archie's description of his trip from the ferry to the church:

After consulting the directions, I got myself squared away, heading south up Schuyler Street—and I do mean up. 

If I ever knew how hilly the island was, I’d long since forgotten. In ten minutes, I was out of—and above—the small business district and into tree-shaded residential blocks….I followed winding streets, all of which ran uphill, until, breathing hard, I reached a large open area that was level. In the center of this clearing, at least a block away, stood the Tabernacle of the Silver Spire…. 

….The clearing turned out to a parking lot—acres of blacktop, crisscrossed with yellow lines…

 And here's a map of the area, with Archie's presumed path marked. Unsure of which direction he would have turned on reaching the end of Schuyler Street, I indicated two different paths, one in red, the other in blue.

If you want a better look, here's a link to the map on line. There's no appropriate large flat area anywhere around, except for the grounds of Curtis High School--which, I assure you, have never been replaced by anything else.

Now, if Goldborough had put his mega-church somewhere on what the natives call the "South Shore"--that is somewhere south of the Staten Island Expressway, I-278--that would have worked. There's lots of flat open space down there...and there was even more in the time when the book was written, some 30 years ago. But I guess he didn't want to have Archie have to bother with Staten Island's bus routes, or trying to get a cab or the like. Of course, Archie could have driven over the Verrazzano Bridge...but that would have removed the quaint charm of the ferry ride and the hilly walk through the oldest part of the Island. (Later in the book, when Archie has to get Wolfe to the church, they do take the car.)

Anyway, I got past the problem by simply ignoring for the rest of the story where the church was supposed to be...as it doesn't seem to matter much to the resolution of the mystery.

It Isn't All About One Issue

 How do you choose who to vote for? Are you an "one-issue" voter? Is there a single cause or principle that a candidate must support to get your vote? Abortion (pro or con)? Second Amendment (pro or con)? Health care? Education?

I'm not a one-issue voter. All the things I mentioned in the last paragraph, and many others, are important to me...but no one of them is a deal-breaker. For one thing, I have found that someone who agrees with me on most of them probably agrees with me on the others, even if he or she hasn't campaigned on that issue. And even if the candidate takes a position on one of them that I oppose, well--that's just one vote on one issue. I would be cutting off my nose to spite my face if I let that one disagreement keep me from supporting someone who agreed with me on everything else.

And even if the candidate's position isn't precisely the same as mine--he/she prefers a single-payer health-care system while I think a public option among other options is a better way to go, for instance--it's still preferable to vote for someone who is close to my point of view than to not vote at all.

You see, that's the problem: If not having a perfect candidate means you won't support a good candidate--or support some "perfect" third-party person who has a snowball's chance in hell of winning--then you're giving up. You're throwing in the towel. I might even say you're throwing a tantrum: "If I can't have everything I want, I don't want anything at all!"

Don't retreat to your corner and pout because your "perfect" candidate isn't running. That's like going hungry because Mom made spaghetti when you wanted lasagna. Accept the compromise--that's ultimately what governing is all about.

Virtual Awards?

 I only watched the first hour of the Emmy Award broadcast last night, but even that led to some questions:

Going in I thought, well, without the need to have winners walk their way to the stage, exchange greeting with the presenters and have their awards brought to them...and then to be "played off" after their acceptance speeches, this should move a lot faster than normal. But it didn't. My wife thought they were giving the winners more time for their speeches than usual, and perhaps they were. Still, I've seen grade school assembly programs with more energy.

And I had a question about security: Many of the statues were actually presented to the winners in their distant locations...including to the Schitts' Creek crew in Toronto. In order to that, the people handing them the awards had to be "on location" already...and that means someone other than the accountants charged with the vote counting had to know ahead of the envelope opening who the winner was...and, in terms of being somewhere like Toronto, possibly as much as 24 hours before. Were all those people bonded? Sworn to secrecy? "Honey, I have to fly to Toronto with a bunch of Emmy statues..." That didn't raise questions in someone's mind?

Finally, what's the point? I realize ABC has a contract with the TV Academy to broadcast the ceremony and there's money involved. But it seems to me the whole thing could have been done in about 90 minutes.

One last thing: Didn't someone realize the pandemic/lock-down gags would get old in about 15 minutes?

Ridley Marches for Justice

 Posting a bit late today:

Yesterday afternoon, there was a second Black Lives Matter march in my hometown of Ridley Township in PA. Unlike the march in early August, this one was peaceful, thanks in large part to a far more visible police presence. I didn't march but, because I live just a few doors from the end of the march at the township building, I went to observe.

I'd guess there were about 200 marchers; I can't estimate the number of counter-protesters, because they were clumped in little groups or strung out along the barricades set to separate them from the marchers. As in last month's events, the counter-protesters were vocal and, in many cases, abusive. It also seemed that, this time, they acted more like a Trump rally than a police-support group. (See the pictures below.)

The police I saw were polite and, indeed, very protective of the marchers. When one counter-protester near me began to hurl invective, one of the cops told him to knock it off. "That's what instigates violence," he told the heckler. "We want this to be peaceful."

There are times when I am both proud of and ashamed of my neighbors. In many ways, this was one of them.

Hoping Against Hope

 One of the worst fears of all progressives happened last night: Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and Donald Trump gets his chance to replace her on the Supreme Court and remake the nation further in his own anti-democratic, anti-constitutional image.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already announced--before RBG's body is in the ground and her family has been able to sit shiva--that he will push through any confirmation before the end of the year and preferably before the election, in other words in just under six weeks. The only sure way to prevent that is for four Republican Senators to step up and act on principle and conscience and not on party loyalty.

You will remember that, in 2016, McConnell refused to even hold hearings, let alone a vote, on President Obama's nominee to replace Justice Scalia, holding that, in an election year, "the people" ought to get to vote before a nomination was confirmed. Now, with essentially the same circumstances (and, indeed, even closer to the election), McConnell is rushing to prevent exactly the situation he preferred four years ago.

The GOP has a three-vote majority in the Senate. If four Republicans refuse to confirm, then McConnell and Trump's plan fails. (Three won't do--that would be a tie to be decided by Vice-President Pence...and we all know how he would vote.) Alaska's Lisa Murkowski has already said she will not confirm a nominee until at least after the election; Maine's Susan Collins is said to leaning that way; Utah's Mitt Romney, known to be completely at odds with Trump, has not said anything but is likely to vote "no" as well. 

So, who is a likely fourth GOP defector? Any thoughts?

What Makes Me Feel "Old"

 At the age of 68, I generally do not feel "old". I still move pretty well, my aches and pains are few. I have some health problems, but none of them are disabling.

I feel old when I find out that some celebrity of my youth has died (the latest was Dame Diana Rigg) or that someone of that era has passed a milestone birthday (I dread the day Betty White turns 100, though I hope she gets there). I am often surprised to discover or realize that people I once thought of as young are or were older than I imagined. (I recently discovered that Honor Blackman--of The Avengers and Goldfinger--would be just two years younger than my mother if both were still alive.) I first saw actress Diane Lane as a pre-teen in the film A Little Romance in 1979 (memorable because I saw it on a plane flying to London for the World Science Fiction Convention)...she is now 55 years old. I was enamored of Annette Bening in The American President in 1995...first of all, I'm shocked to realize that film is 25 years old, and further shocked to realize that Bening is 62 now!

What makes you feel "old"?

Political Opinions from Celebities

 A frequent complaint: "I don't watch sports or award shows or talk shows to hear players or actors or singers comment on politics. Keep your political opinions to yourself."

Of course, most of the time, this is only said when the celebrity has expressed an opinion the speaker doesn't agree with. And, I have to say, it more often comes from the conservative side of the political aisle. And, of course, you didn't hear that when Charlton Heston was spouting about prying his gun from his "cold, dead hand" or Ted Nugent is talking about hunting down liberals. Then what you get is a full-throated defense of the First Amendment right to free speech.

There's an equally frequent complaint about political speech on college campuses--that right-wing opinions are regularly shut down and left-wing opinions welcomed and celebrated. It has seemed to me that the real difference is between those (of any political stripe) who respect diversity and those who see any deviation from long-standing practice as heresy. Or between those who see the opposition as principled people with differing viewpoints and those who see it as simply "the enemy." And if you view your opposition as "the enemy," it's hard to fault them when they react in kind.

I don't have political enemies; I have people who I disagree with, for the most part. They only become my foes when they seek to silence me or ridicule me or slander me.

High School Sports in the Time of Covid

In this morning's edition of my local paper, the high school sports reporter and columnist argued that the area school districts should reverse their decisions and allow sports to be played this season. He said, in part

`...there is enough evidence to suggest that putting teenagers back on the field can be done safely, provided everyone is following CDC guidelines and, frankly, not being stupid.

It does require cooperation from every high school athlete, coach and staff member to ensure he health and safety of everyone involved. That includes high school athletes being extra mindful of one's family, friends and community.

(I hesitate to say this, but I suspect part of what motivates the writer is his own livelihood. If high schools do not play sports, what will he have to write about it?)

At any rate, I wrote a letter to the editor in response and I post it here. I have redacted the columnist's name for use here.

To the editor:

Regarding his column on Wednesday, September 16, is [the columnist] Matt Smith completely unaware of what has happened on college campuses across the country in the past month? Has he not read of the surges in corona virus cases caused by young people ignoring the rules set down by their administrations and local authorities? What makes him think that 15-to-18-year-olds will be any more careful than their older brothers, sisters, and cousins?

Is he also unaware of the virus cases that have arisen in the professional sports that have returned to play? If baseball players whose livelihood depends on being able to continue to operate in a safe, healthy environment cannot remain infection-free, what makes him believe high schoolers will be any different?

What's more, any infection that occurs within a high school football, soccer, or whatever team will not remain isolated to that team. Those student athletes attend classes with non-athletes, return home to their parents, grandparents and siblings, and, of course, will pass on the infections to the teams they compete against.

[The columnist] is living in a fool's paradise if he believes high school sports can be played safely in the current environment.

I'm very interested in anyone else's thoughts.

 

The First Thing I'll Do....

What's the first thing you want to do when you're sure it's safe, post-pandemic? What have you missed most in the past six months and will be most eager to return to?

For me, it's theater--either going to see a live performance or performing or directing in one. Mostly, I miss all the people I work with, the lively, talented, mostly amateur actors, directors, and stage crew that make working in community theater in this area such a delight.

So the first thing I will do is go see a show--even if no one I know is involved. The mere experience of seeing a live performance surrounded by other people is like nothing else in life...20, 50, 100 people, most of whom do not know each other, laughing, crying and applauding--reacting to the same stimuli all at the same time.

What's the first thing you'll do?

"Make Sure the Hurricane is On Time"

Dumb things heard on TV:

This morning, as she discussed the weather in the Gulf of Mexico, the local CBS weather person said: "We're keeping an eye on Tropical Storm Sally, which is scheduled to become a hurricane before it makes landfall...."

Yes, indeed, we're scheduling our weather disasters now, because we don't want them piling up on us all at once. "Hey, guys, be sure Sally meets the schedule to become a hurricane at 3:20, OK? We don't want it to be late and have it overlap with our coverage of the fires in California."

Filling the New TV Gap with the Old

Let's get a little less serious today.

In normal times, a new TV season would be about to begin...with old series returning with new episodes and new series premiering, hoping to last long enough to become old series. But the entertainment industry shut down production in March and has stayed largely inactive during the period when new TV production would have begun in the summer. So there's very little new to show yet.

Still, the networks--both broadcast and cable have hours and hours of time to fill. A thought occurred to me--what if they filled it by running shows from the past that didn't get the audiences they deserved?

Here are some of my thoughts on series that might find a viewership today:

Hec Ramsey: The adventures of Hec Ramsey, a turn-of-the-20th-century detective who prefers to use his brains instead of his guns. It starred Richard Boone in the title role, with Rick Lenz and Harry Morgan in supporting roles. Ramsey used the just-developing sciences of forensics to solve crimes. There were ten 90-minute episodes that originally ran as part of the NBC Sunday Mystery Movie in 1972 and '73.

Q.E.D.: In 1912, Quentin E. Deverill, an eccentric expatriate American professor, uses his unique skills to solve mysteries in London. Sam Waterston starred with British character actor George Innes. There were just six episodes that ran as a summer replacement in 1982.

The New Perry Mason: An attempt at a revival of the series that starred Raymond Burr, with Monte Markham as the famed lawyer, Sharon Acker as Della Street, Albert Stratton as Paul Drake, Harry Guardino as Hamilton Burger, and Dane Clark as Lt. Tragg. Fifteen episodes ran in 1973. It was generally seen as a failure back then, but I suspect it might get a warmer reception today.

Finally, in memory of the recently departed:

Diana: After a divorce, beautiful Brit Diana Smythe (Dame Diana Rigg) decides to begin a new life by moving from London to New York City and starting a new career as a fashion coordinator at a Fifth Avenue department store. Clearly in the mode of the very successful Mary Tyler Moore, the series lasted just 15 episodes in 1973.

Those are my choices, off the top of my head. What are yours?

A Surfeit of Memorials--2

I hadn't intended to give two days to this topic, but this morning's newspaper spurred me to write an addendum.

This morning our local paper, the Delaware County Daily Times, devoted five full pages (not counting the front page) to covering the local 9/11 memorials. That was virtually its entire "news hole," as the journalistic usage goes. I find it hard to believe that, in a county of more than 500,000, nothing else of note occurred in the past 24 hours--no fires, no crimes of any kind, no political activity at all? I should also point out that the Daily Times also runs news about neighboring areas--Philadelphia, Chester and Montgomery counties, even the state of Delaware--there was nothing newsworthy in any of those areas on September 11, 2020?

This is what I mean when talk about a "surfeit of memorials."

A Surfeit of Memorials

This is, to some extent, a repost of something I wrote on Facebook exactly one year ago.

I'm about to post something that I suspect is going to get me a lot of flack.

Is it time to stop obsessing over the anniversaries of 9/11? Yes, it should not be forgotten, but must we make a fetish of its commemoration? I was 9 years old on the 20th anniversary of Pearl Harbor...and I do not recall TV broadcasts interrupting their schedules to show the memorial services in Hawaii. They were featured on the evening news, but not presented as a special event. I do not recall my mother and father making a big deal of the date.

When do we reach a point where we can say, "Yes, this happened--it was tragic, it was disastrous, it changed the way we live our lives...but we cannot let it rule us forever"?

Update: I was surprised to see so much about 9/11 again today. In the midst of a pandemic that has killed many multiples of the dead from that date, I am surprised that it still rates this kind of coverage. Foreign terrorism of this kind is no longer a deadly threat to the United States. (To be honest, it really hasn't been for much of the past 19 years at all.) We now face a more political threat--attempts to interfere with our elections, to divide the nation in all sorts of ways, many of which seem to be instigated and/or supported by people in our own government.

Why do we obsess over this one foreign attack and seem so oblivious to the domestic threats that have been and continue to be far more dangerous and effective?

I Want to Laugh

Where's the funny on TV lately?

I've had "comedy" recommended to me, such as The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, but I find it more sad than amusing. I've enjoyed Star Trek: Lower Decks, but more for the in-jokes than for any really good comedic writing or acting. The last comedy series I really enjoyed was The Big Bang Theory. Repetitive as it got in its final seasons, it always featured sharp jokes, characters you could like, and actors with range. Avenue 5 was fun and I await its second season.

Has the ability to tell a funny story in 30 minutes or less disappeared? Must everything be "bitter-sweet"? Or "dramedy"? For that matter, why is the only sketch comedy on TV Saturday Night Live?

I want to laugh!

Context Is Everything

As I read about the various recent controversies surrounding the pandemic, it has become clear that too many people simply do not understand the importance of context.

Example: There's been a flurry of complaints from Philadelphia residents and especially Philly restaurant and bar owners over a photo of Mayor Jim Kenney dining indoors while he was visiting Maryland's Eastern Shore a few weeks ago...during a time when Kenney said it was unsafe to have indoor dining in Philadelphia. "If it's unsafe, why could you do it?" was the question, calling the mayor out for hypocrisy.

Context: Just because conditions make it unsafe to dine indoors in a dense urban environment like Philadelphia doesn't mean those same conditions prevail at Maryland's very rural Eastern Shore. Philly has 145,000 cases of C-19 and nearly 8,000 deaths. While I could not find data for the entire Eastern Shore, Worcester County's case count is under 700.

I realize that educating people about such things can be difficult, but I would have thought that Philly restaurant owners would be very aware of how different their business model and clientele are from that of Maryland's Eastern Shore eateries.

More on Mandatory Vaccines

Back in June, I suggested that when a proven C-19 vaccine is available, it should be made mandatory.

Now, with controversy over President Trump's "prediction" (more like an absurd political wish-dream) that it will be ready before Election Day, there are people saying they certainly will not get it then (neither will I), and some say they will never believe it is safe. That got me to thinking of an experience from my childhood.

When I was in, I think, fifth grade, the Sabin oral polio vaccine was approved and became widely available. I remember virtually every child in my New York City public school lining up in the nurse's office, where she put a drop of the vaccine on a sugar cube and popped it into our mouths. I'm pretty sure it was mandatory; there may have been what we call now an "opt-out" provision for those with religious or health concerns, but I don't recall anyone in my class not taking the vaccine. (There might have been a few Christian Scientists in my Staten Island neighborhood, but I wasn't aware of any.)

I do not see why the same protocols could not be used in the current situation. While COVID is not as deadly or as debilitating as polio, it is certainly more contagious. And it would need to be mandated in more than schools--as I said back in June, it ought to be a requirement to get a driver's license, a passport, or any other government document.

Your thoughts?

Local Theater Issues

As I met for the first time in months with some other local theater participants, we got to talking about what might be the problems in re-opening. The biggest issue, we decided, was space.

It's assumed that, when local community theaters re-open, they will be dealing with certain restrictions. First and foremost will be limited capacity and social distancing for audiences. While this will mean a reduction in revenue, it is not a physical problem. But the bigger problem will be space for casts and staff. Most of the theaters have very small backstage areas (in one I'm familiar with, having more than four people waiting to go on was a squeeze under normal circumstances). If the cast and crew have to social distance (even if the space between is reduced to three feet), it means a cast and crew of more than about eight people is probably impossible.

Dressing room and "green room" space will also be problematic. (For those unfamiliar with theatrical terms, the "green room" is the common area where cast can gather and await their cues before going to the wings.) Most of these theaters have shared dressing rooms--one room for men, one for women--and a green room that will hold perhaps 15 people comfortably in normal spacing.

Given all that, I suspect that large shows--major musicals, for instance--will be difficult to stage for the average community theater...if not impossible.

The future will be interesting.

Another Opening, Another Show

It seems as if community theater in my area is slowly showing life again, post lock-down.

One of the groups I've previously worked with is doing an outdoor version of its annual collection of short comedy skits ("the Quickies") which would normally have been produced back in June. Another is posting a series of recorded Shakespeare monologues on Facebook (look for "Spotlight on Shakespeare). I've done one of them--I'll let you know when it posts.

And a group of actors has come together independently to put on a staged reading of a short play in a home setting. And, yes, I'm involved in that, too. More details when we get closer to the performance date.

Uniform Candidates

A thought that came to me as I watching and reading about Trump's latest outrage. Many of his critics have noted that his comments on military men and women come from a men "who has never served in uniform." Now, I get that complaint, especially in regard to someone who used a specious thing like "bone spurs" to beat the draft and then suggested that anyone who couldn't find a way to avoid the Vietnam era draft was "stupid". (Full disclosure: I also avoided the draft on a medical issue, the result of a broken arm when I was five. But mine was discovered when I went in for my physical; I had no idea it would make me 4-F.)

But I am concerned that there are those--especially on the right wing--who seem to think military service is a prerequisite to sitting in the Oval Office. And, yes, a majority of our Presidents were in uniform. (26 out of 45, for the record). But there's nothing in the Constitution that says a President must have a military background...and if you think there should be, there's a remedy: amend the Constitution.

Personally, I prefer a candidate who did not serve...not because I think that's a bad thing...but because it means he probably sees every conflict through the eyes of a soldier--and especially if he was a high-ranking officer. I'd rather have a diplomat than a soldier as President--and, apparently, so did our founding fathers: three of the first five Presidents were Secretary of State.

Your thoughts?

Labor Day

 What does a three-day weekend look like in a time of pandemic and lock-down? Well, based on what happened over Memorial Day and Independence Day, it looks like a time when a lot of people think the rules are suspended.

Naturally, that worries me...especially with school having already started or about to start. How many kids, teachers, staff will be exposed to the virus who haven't been up to now....and I'm not even talking about anyone who foolishly attends some big gathering where people go maskless and crowd together too close. I'm talking about the ones who will inadvertently come into contact with the idiots who do ignore safety and sense for the sake of a little temporary fun.

Here's some advice: You may think the virus is a hoax; you may think the whole thing is overblown...but why not take the precautions anyway? You probably think you're a good driver and you won't have an accident--but you buckle your seatbelt anyway. Think of masks and social distancing the same way.

Vote Early, Vote Often?

President Trump actually advised, even urged, his supporters to vote twice yesterday. He framed it in terms of "preventing fraud," but what he actually told them to do was to mail in their ballot and then, on Election Day, go to the polls anyway and, if their ballot had not yet been counted, vote again.

Since, in most states, mail-in and absentee ballots are not counted until the polls close, of course a mail-in ballot will not have been counted yet. OTOH, in Pennsylvania's primary, I requested a mail-in ballot but it had not arrived by Election Day (in fact, it arrived the day after). When I went to the polling place, the roll book indicated I had requested a mail-in ballot...and while I was not allowed to cast a regular ballot, I did cast a provisional one...which was eventually counted as my vote, when my mail-in ballot never arrived.

That's the way it's supposed to work. If you received a mail-in ballot, filled it out and mailed it on time, if you show up at the polls anyway, you should get a provisional ballot...which will only be valid if your mail-in ballot does not arrive by your state's deadline.

Things You Don't See Anymore

Ignoring that the pandemic may skew results a bit, when was the last time you saw:

A hopscotch board chalked on a sidewalk

Kids playing football in the street

Girls jumping rope (single or double-dutch)

Boys just having a catch

A bicycle with a card or a balloon attached to make noise on the spokes

People just sitting on their front porch

School Sports Protest

It sometimes seems to me that there is a certain type of parent who believes that school exists to provide a place for their kid to excel in sports. Virtually all the high schools in my county have decided to cancel or postpone the fall sports season as result of the pandemic. And yesterday, a group of parents from those schools held a rally to oppose that decision, arguing we were one of only two sports districts in Pennsylvania to do so. (Of course, the fact that both of those districts are in the most densely populated areas, with some of the highest incidence of infections, seems to have escaped them.)

I have to wonder what these parents would do if the schools had decided to go forward with football, soccer, field hockey, cross country, etc. and a large number of student athletes had contracted COVID. And then those student-athletes spread that infection to their families.

 I have something to say to those parents: If playing football (and I firmly believe it's mostly that segment that is involved) is the most important part of school for your child, then you have a bigger problem than a cancellation or postponement of his season.