What Biden Must Do; Which VP he Must Pick; How We should Respond

In the spirit of The Butler Did It, there is a French saying: Look for the woman.  Very French: to blame everything on women.

A similar motif is Follow the Money, in the area of major economic and political puzzles.

At the moment, we’re concerned with several things:

Police brutality, and institutional Racism.  This breaks down into several things: How to reform the Police system; how to change their training, to remove habitual intimidation from it; how to change American Culture, to strip built-in racism from it, e.g. from school textbooks, parenting, etc.  We also need to look at bank lending; real estate practices; all instances of segregation, such as public parks and pools, and so on.  Many cities have different sorts of courts and facilities in different city parks, to encourage white kids to go to one park, and black kids to another.  Similarly, when money runs out, swimming pools in black neighborhoods are more likely to close, because the revenue from concession stands are much weaker, while damage from harsh use may be higher.

An epidemic that is racking up increasing death rates in almost all states, and a national leadership that is more eager to avoid the appearance of concern with the epidemic, which might give the impression of political weakness.  In states where the governor supports wearing masks, and social distancing (an unfortunate term that has unintended connotations; physical distancing gets the point across a lot better), the citizens also tend to wear masks and distance reasonably.  In Pennsylvania, for instance, the vast majority of Democrats (who support the Governor) wear masks and are careful.  The Republicans, who hate the Governor, openly go around flouting mask regulations.  Childish?  Yes.  We are a nation of people who hate to think for ourselves; philosophically, we tend to be like automobile customers; we follow the line that looks the most attractive, without doing our own studying of the problem.

A major problem that has been brought on, on the face of it, by the epidemic, namely the elections.  Polling stations have long lines, which mean that not everybody can vote conveniently.

Republicans, who have an interest in discouraging Blacks from voting, and discouraging the Poor from voting, and discouraging Democrats.

A President who seems to use disinformation as a major political tactic.  Let's put this here as well: a president who has subverted the Justice Department, and blatantly influences the courts.

A Senate that is highly partisan, and whose majority leader concentrates on appointing conservative judges, as opposed to considering legislation.

A Democrat nominee who is looking for a Vice-Presidential running-mate, to get the greatest number of votes in the coming election.

Now, look.  Assuming that the Democrat Party has learned its lesson in 2016: those who disapproved of Hillary Clinton got Donald Trump.  If they were happy about that outcome, we should simply not consider them Democrats.  They may not be Republicans, but to be preoccupied with how they will vote in this year's election is probably not worth the effort.  The lesson is this: if Democrats vote, Trump will have to lose.  The Republicans will vote; for the first time, rank-and-file Republicans feel that their votes are counting for something (counting for Trump, obviously).

At the moment, if all Democrats are allowed to vote, and vote, Biden will be president in 2021.  That will not change between now and November, other things being equal.  It is not the state of the economy that will defeat Trump; it will be the gradual erosion of trust in Trump.

Now we come to the problem of reforming our security forces, our police.  This is intimately tied up with systemic racism, and the way that a typical newborn black infant has to, throughout its life, fight a lot harder and be truly exceptional to be as successful as a typical newborn white infant throughout its life.  However we may view the differences in their life arcs, we have to admit that racism has determined that the the black kid has it harder.

Firstly, I must say that we’re at a pivotal moment in US history, where it might be possible to strike a blow to systemic and societal racism that will put the minority races in the US on a more reasonable trajectory.  It won’t be a single action, or a single piece of legislation that does it; there will have to be effort made over more than a decade, to eradicate all the roadblocks that we put in the path of blacks and minorities (and women) from advancing.  If there is a peaceful protest march in our communities, we ought to join it.  This is no time for sitting it out.  If our leaders know that their hopes for business as usual have disappeared, change must come.

I personally think that if Biden chooses a running-mate who is female and Black, his chances of winning will be better.  But, as I said, if we vote, he will win, no matter who his running-mate is.  But there are other issues.

* If Biden dies, or becomes very sick while in office, this VP must be able to handle being president.  This is not difficult; she will have plenty of help.  But leadership is more than just being elected, as we have found out with Trump.  If we want to be led well, Biden must choose well.  Most of the VP prospects will be able to do this; only Governor Gretchen, being extremely young, would have a tough time with it, but she could grow into the job, if I will be forgiven the idiom.  But she has said she is more concerned with the future of Michigan, which is a praiseworthy concern to have.

* We must choose someone who can support the anti-racism steps that the White House must take immediately.  This includes the reform of Police.  Certainly, almost any of the ladies under consideration will help do this.

* We must choose someone who will encourage Biden to pursue the Health Reform that progressive Democrats want.  At least half the casualties we have with this virus can be ascribed to poor health care.  Most of the VP choices are probably on board with this.

* We must choose someone who will help address the economic unfairness built into US society, US culture, US businesses and banking, and the justice system.  In a sense, this is the whole battle.  Solving the problems of economic disparity, if it is successful, may not solve the problem of racism automatically; when White folks find that there are economically successful Black folks competing with them all around them, it will be convenient for them to exhume long-buried relics of racial prejudice, to give their children some sort of edge over their upstart neighbors.  So racism will probably be a problem in US society and culture for decades to come.

So, my main thrust is this: solving the problem of economic inequality should be the first battle that Biden must fight, and whoever he chooses for his VP, he needs someone who is openly, or covertly, intent on leveling out the economic handicaps that everybody outside the so-called 1% face; in other words, being intent on using the tax code, the health system, everything to make sure that a penurious economic underclass is not allowed to exist.  To do that, he will have to select one of those who has supported Medicare For All, because even if that is no longer a plank of the party platform, it would signal that person’s mindset, as being determined to eradicate the impossible living conditions that many of us face.  As soon as that is underway, we can move on to dealing with Police Brutality.  Or both problems can be tackled together.

Not far behind are environmental considerations.  I cannot believe that Trump so directly opposed stricter energy standards for cars of California.  That was vindictive, wrong-headed, and twisted.  He should lose this election based on that action alone.

So remember: all our concerns can be traced ultimately to economic inequality.  Either they exist because of economic inequality, or they support economic inequality, or they enhance, or are enhanced by, economic inequality.

Some may think that there is some spiritual source for all the ills of the nation.  If you do, look at how Christian churches are responding to the wrong that Trump is doing.

Arch

Father’s Day, The Summer Solstice, Long Road Trips, and Dad Rock

Waking up after the shortest night of the year (give or take a few minutes), in my mail this morning, I received a link to this article: I'm not a Dad, but I Rock Like One, brilliantly written by Lindsay Zoladz.  (With a name like that, she's gotta be good.)

You should read the article; it heads out in a very specific direction, and will leave dads, moms and kids all chuckling to themselves.  There’s also a nice photo of the group mentioned in the article.

When Junior still lived with us, and we occasionally went on long road trips together, we agreed to compromise about what music we would listen to in the car.  We were very adult about this (though on the first instance when we did this, she may have been as young as 15 or 16).

In the end, I think I realized that her music was much more appropriate for the road than mine, though I got to bring along a tape (this was back in the tape days) of the Beatles’ Rock 'n' Roll Music, which was supplemented on subsequent occasions (there I go again, using Dad vocabulary) by Beatles rock songs which were left out of their Rock 'n' Roll compendium albums, which she liked fairly well.  If we had had access to Steely Dan, we would probably have played that, too.

On at least four instances, we undertook road trips that lasted four days, because we went from Pennsylvania to Arizona, a distance of some 2500 miles, to visit relatives out there.  Taking the car beat shelling out for two or three air tickets, because of course, once we got there, we had transport for getting around in Cactusland.

All that traveling to Arizona seems to have had an unexpected side-effect, because today Junior lives in Arizona, a possibility that did not hit me at the time of the road trips, but which seems obvious in retrospect: any kid brought up shoveling piles of snow during the eighties in Pennsylvania can be expected to make a break for it at the first opportunity, and head out to the Southwest.  I thought it would be only reasonable to ask her what she thought of those road trips, and the music we played in the car, and to warn her that whatever she may say could be used as evidence against her on a Blog-post.  But by the time she wakes up (over there) and reads her messages, it will be around noon (over here)--this being a Sunday--and I don’t know whether my inspiration would last that long!  It’s only 9:00 a.m. at the moment, and dementia is working its inexorable way into my circuitry.  What was I saying?

I don’t know the details of what Sister Lindsay said in her article--I will go back and read it carefully, but it was the general premise of it that caught my attention--but in our case, I was easily influenced at least as much by Junior’s choice of music as she was influenced by mine.  She had been under the impression that I was paying attention to the music emanating from her bedroom.  Actually, it was on the road trips that I listened to her music.

I liked most of it.  There was one notable exception: The Dave Matthews Band.  I just did not like that sound, especially the characteristic bass saxophone (did I get that right?  Perhaps it was a baritone sax?) sound.  I know lots of my friends on Facebook like Dave Matthews, and that he is a wonderful human being and musician, but the music . . . count me out.

But there were a number of artistes whom I have come to love, that she introduced to me, sometimes artists that she was being introduced to by her classmates, because of course I didn’t allow her to blow her cash on music.  She had to get bootleg tapes from her class buddies--who had remarkably good taste in music, as it happens.  (Or she may have had remarkably good taste in class buddies!  Oops; maybe I should take that out.)

OK, I’m going to check my messages to see if she has responded; if she hasn’t, I’m just going to forge ahead, and insert her thoughts as an appendix, or intersperse them throughout the blog-post where they can’t do any real damage.

She hasn’t.  I’ll leave this paragraph open to report what my contributions to Junior’s musical tastes might have been.  Until she comes online: it would probably contain a lot of classical music, and then Beatles, Peter Paul and Mary (insert your own punctuation), The Seekers (what?  You’ve never heard of them?) and The Hollies (what? etc.)

Her influence on my musical tastes are likely to have been initially unexpected by her: The Cranberries; Frank Zappa; Green Day; Ani Di Franco; The Bangles.  She quickly learned that I could not stand things like New Kids On the Block, and desisted.  (Maybe she hated them too.)

Comedy collections were big with us; Dr. Demento was a favorite, and so was They Might Be Giants.  (They were.)  I went on to be a bigger fan of Dr. Demento than she ever was; I think she thinks to herself: “If only I had known what I was doing ...”

Luckily for her, I wasn’t by any means listening only to the Dad’s Rock genre that most Dad’s are accused of listening to--at least on long road trips.  We negotiated--at least later on, when Mom had moved to Arizona--on what we would listen to.  Eventually, I think I might have even played P. D. Q. Bach.  At one time, our car had better speakers than our house!

Anyway, a happy Fathers’ Day to everyone!

I think we’re approaching a new era--or perhaps it’s the same old era, but cleaned up a little--where in many homes, the roles of mothers and fathers are approaching a certain symmetry.  In the light of the fact that many parents try so hard, and seem to be succeeding so well, in how they parent their offspring, it is puzzling how unprepared some young folk are to living in the real world.  On the other hand, it is startling to discover, with Dr. Benjamin Spock (What? ...), that there are many more spoiling parents than there are spoiled children.

Arch

We can be safer, even if we ignore the advice of disease specialists

It looks very much as though our fellow-citizens need to eat a lot of fish (i.e. become a lot smarter) if the pandemic news is to become at all better.

Some people find staying indoors very, very difficult.  People with kids find it even more difficult, because their kids are a little more red-blooded (i.e. difficult to control) than typical kids, and parents are often desperate to get away from the little monsters (i.e. kids).  Guys are often more impatient than their women, and find excuses for sneaking out, which means that the women subsequently want to go postal!

There is, however, a lot of opinion among people who know, that even if you can’t bring yourself to follow official instructions, you can do better than toss all of them out, and behave like a loonatic (i.e. lunatic).

(01) Stay home, if possible.

(02) If you just cannot stay home, go out.  But choose a good time to go out, e.g. when there are not a lot of people walking about.  Wear a mask.  Walking about occasionally with a mask—wear one even if the sidewalk is deserted—may lessen your desperation to leave the house when it is not advisable.

(03) If you think it’s too stoopid to wear a mask when you walk outside, well, keep one in your pocket, and pull it out when someone is approaching you.  Those who are watching you will appreciate it.  Not many of us look cool wearing masks.

(04) Some people advise planning a picnic in some open place, with a few of your friends, and keep a reasonable distance between everybody there.  Don’t get upset over anything; don’t argue; minimize the spray, when you talk, or sneeze, or cough.  Avoid hugging and kissing.

(05) If you have to hug and/or kiss, do it so that you’re not face-to-face.

Now we get into the dangerous area.  Each of the previous 5 suggestions is a little riskier than the previous one, so if you feel yourself about to got nuts with sheltering in place, walking outside with a mask, for instance, is better than risking your family by just going berserk and rushing into a disco and dancing till dawn, and then coming home.

(06) This next idea might not be approved by all epidemiologists, but some people suggest that, if your family is fairly clearly virus-free—and bear in mind that many people who are infected never appear to be infected at all—and a friend’s family is also virus-free as far as they can tell, it only increases the risk very slightly to consider both families together as one "family."  It still increases the risk.  But not a terrible amount.  You guys can get together for a two-family party, with only slightly more risk than the single family.  With more than two families, the risk goes up considerably, and the number of people affected is also greater.*

(07) Eating at a restaurant is risky, even if they have spaced-out tables.  The more time you spend at a restaurant, the riskier it is.  But, if your restaurant has outdoor tables, that's a lot less risky than indoor tables.  Eat fast—no need to swallow your grub like a maniac, but do try not to dawdle—and get home.  The restaurateur will appreciate your freeing up the table, unless you’re drinking, and paying for the liquor, in which case they would probably like you to stay all night.  But it is safer to get home.

I'll stop there.  It’s been several weeks since I read the article on which this post is based, and I can’t remember all of the details.  Bear in mind that (A) I am not an expert (though I can follow some of the probabilistic arguments), and (B) these principles have not been tested out experimentally.  If you want to hunt down a better-researched article, search for "quarantine fatigue is real".

Pennsylvania is Green, which means that our infection statistics is level or falling.  Members of my family live in Arizona, which never went into sheltering in place in any shape or form, but have chosen to open up their economy.  I sincerely doubt that their economy is going to be a lot better than that of Pennsylvania, for all their foolish bravery.

Tip generously; at least let personal service people suffer a little less.

Even if you go on a protest, wear a mask.  Why carelessly infect a police officer who is doing his duty as he perceives it, and beating you up?  Why be mean?

Arch

*Note: If you decide to go with suggestion (06), decide on the best choice of outside family, check with them whether they think it's a good idea, and stick with that family!!  Don't choose a different family each weekend; the risk factors multiply exponentially!  That means you could quadruple the risk (I'm not sure of the exact multiplication factor) instead of only doubling the risk, etc.
  This is a good plan, especially if you have kids; because if kids are at a certain stage of social development, it is awful for them to be cut off from their buddies.

I'm getting tired . . .

Of silly statements from the white house.  We’re being “led” by someone who would probably never pass 9th grade composition.  Or even 5th grade speaking in front of the class.  And of the bonehead supporters who pretend to love it.  It’s embarrassing.  It is cheap one-upmanship masquerading as thoughtful response.

Of the so-called “GOP” endorsing all the foolishness emanating from all branches of the government.

Of plans to suppress the vote all up and down the country.

Of using ham-handed violence in opposing protests.  Whom are you trying to impress?  There are video clips of all these acts of viciousness, which will surely be trotted out against the governing style of the Republicans.  The “faithful” will possibly watch with grim satisfaction, but everyone else will remember, with horror.

Of the stupid ways people do not socially distance.  Do not have large gatherings indoors.  A peaceful protest on a street will push the limits of safety, especially if people are walking close together.  But a big party in a room is crazy, unless you’re all people who live in the same house.

Someone in government obviously thinks that the Floyd Protests will fizzle out if the so-called Security personnel are unnecessarily rough.  Let's see whether that works out.  Maybe modern peace marchers are wimps.

If voters stay at home in the face of all this un-American affronts to decency, it will be a miracle.

I missed a march last evening.  I'm so mad.
And another thing: what's up with this unidentified police force?  Is it not legal for citizens to disregard someone who purports to be a policemen, but does not wear identification?  This opens the door to people legally impersonating security forces.

I just read about defunding police.  What a silly idea!  If police protection becomes unavailable, you can easily see how private militias will be created by rich businessmen to take up the slack.  This is a not-so-clever attempt to drive a wedge between the rich and the poor, and whites--who usually take the side of the rich--and blacks, who often take the side of the poor.

There are two ways in which police forces can be viewed to be professional.  They can learn how to handle civilians, how to defuse volatile situations, know how to protect evidence in a crime scene, know how to behave in a professional way with belligerent protesters.  But some would view police professionalism as consisting of: how to shoot to kill accurately, how to put people in a lethal choke hold, how to intimidate, and so on.  If that is the standard of police excellence, we may as well use the military for security.  How is it that in so many other countries--but admittedly not all--police are far more professional in the law-enforcement and peacekeeping sense than they are here?

Things I Learned in Kindergarten

‘You Can Close Your Eyes’—A Number Of Issues

We first have to talk about the George Floyd killing in Minnesota, and the riots that followed.  Accurate information is difficult to get, but I have yet to see any reason for why this policeman took the actions he did.  Meanwhile, there are rumors that the rioting and looting was led by people from outside Minnesota.  I condemn police brutality, and the repeated instances of Police using deadly force, and certainly unnecessary force, on blacks who are unarmed.

The number of COVID deaths has passed the 100,000 mark, and as many news commentators point out, the nation must mourn without official recognition.

Donald Trump was the Republican nominee for many reasons.  For one thing, he had a powerful GOP Fringe following that was impossible to oppose, and which marginalized the slightly more mainstream candidates in 2016: Cruse and Bush and company.  Once the core GOP folks saw that Trump had a strong campaign, they sat back and let it happen, because (1) there was always a suspicion that the country could be better run with a businessman in the White House.  I’ve written about this before.  (2) There has also been a theory that with a really great economy, and with a President and a Senate that has its knee on the neck of what they call the Democrat Entitlements, life would be better for the members of the GOP and those in Big Business, who paid “Too much Taxes.”  Be that as it may, the GOP is now discovering that the peculiar kind of brute force methods that Trump adopts: bullying, lying, demeaning the opposition, hollowing out the Department of Justice and the law courts; are prices that decent Republicans are not willing to pay.

Trump’s dissembling includes posturing as a religious man.  It seems that a vast majority of his followers are easily satisfied with a token show of religiosity and/or faith.  As a non-religious person, I am not so easily satisfied.  Many people I know are not; those among them who are Republicans are willing—have been willing thus far, anyway—to let it slide, in order to allow the larger Trump agenda to continue.  However, there are consequences.  The cause of honest religion has been harmed for a generation; leaders of Mega Churches who take Trump’s part will be tainted for a long time.

But Republicans are now realizing that much more is expected of the president than merely shepherding the economy along, and watching the stock market go up higher and higher.  Many Democrats desperately want a moral leader; other Democrats want a leader who will re-create a social safety-net (something Republicans think of as too expensive, and encouraging laziness among the poor, completely ignoring that most wealthy businessmen lead quite indolent lives) in case of a sequence of crises such as COVID-19 in the future.

As most of my readers know, I am an atheist.  I have many moral principles in common with most liberal Christians; in fact, I consider myself a follower of Jesus, except that most followers of Jesus are very narrow in their definitions of what other followers they will permit to label themselves thus!

Of late, I have been thinking of death.  What music will they play at my funeral; will there be a funeral?  What literature will be read?  What consolation will be offered to the bereaved, to those who survive me?  I will leave them a few dollars, and lots of CDs and books, but it seems to me that there will not be the comforting words of the scriptures.  Maybe they will all get together and decide to pretend that I was a Christian anyway, just to listen to the poetry of the bible.

I’m sure many authors have written inspirational prose and verse just for this purpose, but I don’t know where to look for it!  We atheists are not an ‘organized church’ of any kind; the closest thing to an organized church is The Rationalists Society, which flourished in the sixties, but may still be around.  It is difficult to find what those who were once called Rationalists are doing now.  There were a couple of articles written in Australia, one of which was called Rationalism: a 21st Century World View, to which I provide a link.

There is a twisted kind of rationalism—which the author of the previous link refers to—which he calls economic rationalism, which (like it does in the US today) supports economic principles which are argued to be the only public good, without references to human or moral values.  I am not happy with Rationalism of this variety, and if that dooms me to be criticized as inconsistent or irrational, so be it.

When a Christian family loses a member, they have no right to mourn, because it ought to be their belief that that deceased goes on to a more blessed state, with less pain, and fewer cares.  But when an atheist family loses a member, we have every right to mourn and rail, because that friend or lover or partner or spouse or child is gone, leaving only mortal remains from which we can obtain no consolation.  Religious folk view the corpse and think: the essential person is gone.  This is just the dross matter, from which the divinity has been taken away.  But for us, the mortal remains only remind us of the wonder of the living person, with all their faults and their genius.  It is a machine that is irreparably broken.  It was not an unanticipated failure of health, possibly; but we know that life is a condition that must be supported by a myriad things working together perfectly.

It appears that this lady from the Harvard Divinity School is interested in what atheists do to find meaning as they approach death: Facing Death.

There is a Web page that focuses on writings and quotes appropriates for eulogies and epitaphs.  How utilitarian!!  Some of the items listed there are merely flippant and trite, while others are thought-provoking and heart-warming.  Here is a selection.

Death is much simpler than birth; it is merely a continuation. Birth is the mystery, not death.
--Stewart Edward White

The deep pain that is felt at the death of every friendly soul arises from the feeling that there is in every individual something which is inexpressible, peculiar to him alone, and is, therefore, absolutely and irretrievably lost.
--Arthur Schopenhauer

Quite by accident, I came upon a performance of a song, by James Taylor, by the two-person team of Kami Maltz, and Josh Turner.  Miss Maltz has a lovely voice, and plays an autoharp, an instrument commonly used in folk music in the sixties.  Josh Turner is a personality well known on You Tube, and is a skilled guitarist.  The song was You can close your eyes.

I have known James Taylor’s music for decades; the first song I knew was you’ve got a friend, the Carole King song which was his first hit.  Many other songs followed: fire and rain, and so forth; in fact James Taylor’s songs were ubiquitous while I was in grad school, but I had never heard this one.  Apparently it has great significance for James Taylor, and Joni Mitchell, who was with him when he wrote it.  There is a video on YouTube about the writing of the song.

The chorus of the song goes as follows:

I don’t know no love songs,
and I don’t sing the blues anymore;
But I can sing this song,
or you can sing this song, when I’m gone

What does it mean?  I’m almost certain that the phrase ‘when I’m gone’ does not have any connotation of death; the song is essentially a lullaby, but to an adult.  It says: ‘You can close your eyes, it's alright.’  It is safe to close your eyes, the song says; tomorrow is going to be a good day; we’re going to have a good time; nobody can take that away from us.

Having ambiguous meaning is the hallmark of the lyrics of a good song, and so we cannot insist on a clear interpretation of these words.  But to use this song in a funeral gathering might be to tag it with the aura of death, and spoil it for other uses.

Arch

Traveling Around the US, and—Unrelated—Militarism

Well, readers, I hope you had a wonderful Memorial Day, and suitably distanced yourselves from those crazy, hyper-enthusiastic people who may have tried to affectionately involve you in various contact sports!  Under ordinary circumstances, I'm right there, hugging and kissing people left and right; I'm a touchy-feely sort of guy in a modest way, though I don't love mouth-to-mouth kissing too much.  I bet there are a ton of people out there who are just plain frustrated by not being allowed to go out and give certain people a hug.  It is a normal human urge, especially to hug kids.  Kids, of course, are not up for hugs very much, as child psychologists and ultra-feminists have been at pains to let us know.  So, though I think hugging a little miss is one of the few consolations that are available for free to humans, thus far, apparently it is no longer available.  And now, with Covid 19, it is completely out of the question.

Memorial Day is about two entirely different things: it is about remembering those who have lost their lives in wars, and the opening of the Summer Season.

About War Dead: I am of two minds.  Many of the wars the US has fought have been wrong-headed.  Starting with the Vietnam War, I think these modern wars should have been avoided, not least the 2nd Iraq War.  I must admit that the dead of these wars must be mourned, because it was no fault of theirs that they were sent out to fight battles that were not wholeheartedly supported by the populace.  (Unfortunately for those of us who do not support wars in general, the populace at large tends to be eager to be up and at almost any nation that even looks at us askance.  Also unfortunately for us, the political leadership tends to believe that if they engage in a war, their electorates will approve of them almost certainly.  Most often, this suspicion is borne out by polls.)  On the other hand, we must remember that these soldiers killed in war were volunteers, and they and their families pretty much signed on to the possibility that they could lose their lives.  I suppose that them's fightin' words for the families of defunct soldiers, but look at it from our point of view: they joined the military for their own reasons, but many of us do not want anyone to join the military on our behalf, and do not want to have to mourn them when they die.

I do not feel as strongly about this as to argue it at length, but I never have been given the opportunity to complain about personal militarism anywhere else, and so I put it here.  It's my blog, and I'll not cry if I want to.

About the opening of the Summer Season, the whole idea of distancing has been understood by many people.  Now, once even the little folk among us know all about distancing, there can be gradual getting into sort of activities with friends and relatives, keeping a little distance, but enjoying the fellowship all the same.  Remember: outdoors gathering is much safer than gathering indoors.  The breeze blows away the virus, but it is difficult to force kids to refrain from touching each other.  I don't know what to advise; allowing them to touch each other is definitely very bad, and much worse in places where the adults do any traveling, which might bring them in contact with those who carry the virus.  In my neck of the woods, nobody travels much at all.

I have a lot of friends who think that these lockdowns are silly.  Some of them have to travel in order to ply their trades.  They also have young children.  There is a small chance that they will come in contact with the virus; there is a small chance that the virus will survive the cleaning procedures that these people will adopt, quite conscientiously.  There is a small chance that any surviving viruses will be transmitted to the kids.  There is a small chance that the kids will develop the disease.  And there is a small but significant chance that they may not survive the disease.  And, if one of these little ones passes away, I will once more be in the position of having to mourn a death caused by activity against which I would have advised.

Well, now for something completely different!

One of my friends got hooked into a social-media chain in which people were encouraged to publish a list of those of the 50 states that they visited.  Doesn't that sound like a fun thing to do in these boring days of cloistering?  Well, I jumped in to play, and I discovered that I have visited forty of the fifty states!!

According to the information that accompanied the instructions for the Name the States You Have Visited game, we were told that the average number of states visited by Americans is 8.  Well, this is pathetic.  And now, the conditions are no longer favorable; for environmental reasons, everyone is encouraged not to drive around for pleasure.  Even Greta Thunberg does not travel needlessly, and she certainly does not fly.  We have a hybrid that does around 40 miles per gallon in the summer, so we don't feel too guilty about driving around.  But we do feel a little guilty.  My wife keeps mentioning just how much she would like to drive out West; well, I'm too feeble to ride a bike out there, and so is she.  What does that leave us?  No; we have to drive.  She doesn't like to camp, either, so we have to live in motels, and eat out; this is going to be expensive.

I close with a plea to everyone: once the virus is under control by some objective measure—and I don't trust the ad-hoc declarations that the president makes, using his gut feelings which have a poor record of being correct—if we all make an effort to visit various states in which we have family, or which are home to some entertainment that we look forward to sampling, that we should eat in the local restaurants!  One of the most awesome meals I have enjoyed was in a hole in the wall in Amarillo, Texas, served by a poor family of Mexicans, who practically blinded us with their smiles of welcome!  I hope they have survived and thrived since then—1999, that's some 20 years ago—in order to give many visitors the benefits of their cuisine.  What are the chances of that?

Arch