Overheard at Table 3: Kids These Days

Writer 1: So then we have the twins come out as transgender.


Writer 2: I thought we were going to go with straight-up gay.


Writer 3: "Straight-up gay" - good one!


Writer 1: No, they're going to have their 8th birthday party in episode 3 this season, they need to come out as transgender, only Lucas will want to start transitioning NOW and Marcus will want to wait until they're closer to puberty.


Writer 3: Marcus always is the more cautious one.


Writer 2: Then we can have a big argument where Lucas will say Marcus will want to back out when Lucas is already halfway transitioned ....


Writer 1: ... which will break the pact they made in Season 1 Episode 10 to


Writer 3: ... always be a unit.  Right.


Writer 2: Cool, that could take up a solid 10 of screen time.


Writer 3: We could have the argument right through the last 20 of the episode.  Start at minute 9, go through the end.


Writer 2: Filler?


Writer 1: We still have Becca's subplot.


Writer 3: The cutting?


Writer 2: I thought we agreed to move on from cutting by Epi 2 this season.


Writer 1: Whoa whoa whoa, didn't you guys forget?   Her and Charlie?


Writer 3: "Lust for Grandpa" ?  Are you sure we really want to go with that?


Writer 2: Pushing the limits.  That's what we do.   13 year old girl wants to lose her cherry to her 60 year old grandpa.


Writer 3: Mike told me we still haven't gotten her parents to sign off on that yet.


Writer 1: Let Legal deal with that.  We're writing it in.  By the time we're shooting the episode her parents will be on board.  The studio will kick in a 20 grand bonus.


Writer 3: I'm sure if they bump it up to 30g the parents will let us film her full frontal.


Writer 1: God I love working on this show!

Overread at Booth 3: The Right to Believe

A paper left at Booth 3, type-set on a sheet of white paper.  It appears to be a first draft:

 

The RIGHT to BELIEVE

Every philosophical discussion or debate must have carefully designated conditions for debate.

The Right to Believe as one wishes is a philosophical debate.

We must therefore define the conditions.

Condition 1: That every individual has the right to believe as they wish.

Condition 2: That every individual does NOT have the right to act as they wish on their beliefs.

For example, you may believe that all women should be veiled.  I can believe that all women should be paraded around naked.  Neither of us has the belief to go around veiling women without their consent nor tearing off their clothes to expose their nudity.

Some may believe that all Jews should be rounded up and thrown into the sea.  They have that right.  They do not have the right to round up Jews and throw them into the sea.

You may believe that those who draw cartoons of the prophet Mohammad should be killed.  You do not have the right to kill cartoonists who draw the prophet Mohammad.

I have the right to believe that those who do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal lord and savior will never enter the gates of Heaven.  That belief has nothing for me to act upon, because whether another human will enter Heaven or not is completely beyond my control.

So, now that we have set the conditions, let's start the discussion...

First Cup of Coffee

I am a septuagenarian male, yet I feel like this picture upon my first cup of coffee of the day, yessirree!

Overheard at the Counter: Why Rural Communities Vote Republican

I had been wondering why so many in the non-populous states voted for Trump.

The idea that they are all ignorant or stupid seemed a little to facile for me.

Then I heard an article on NPR, about the opioid epidemic.

The opioid epidemic has actually spread faster among rural communities.

The reason, interestingly enough, is that even though there are fewer people per square mile, the people have a stronger interpersonal network.

This interpersonal network allows them to spread information quickly (as well as drugs)

I extrapolated this article to the concept of government assistance.

If people who live in cities have a weaker interpersonal network, then by necessity, they will need a stronger social safety net.

People in rural communities don’t see the need for a government social safety net, because they have one built in.

Example: If your neighbor two miles down the road needs help fixing his fence, you go help him.

In the city, if your next door neighbor is 83 years old and needs food, you will never know and even less likely, care.

So, this may be why rural areas are more Republican, and see the government sponsored social safety programs as ineffective and unnecessary.  They do not understand the breakdown of social interaction in cities. 

We always assume that the more people in a given area relates to a stronger interpersonal connection, but rather the converse is true. 

Example, go to Manhattan or Tokyo.  Millions of people.  No one looks another in the eye.  To make connection is exposure to potential threat.

These are just ideas, but they invite further thought and research.

Overheard at Table 3: Walton and Johnson Say We're Animals

"Walton and Johnson, or as I like to call them, 'Blackface Buttplugs,' were talking on the radio today about how Americans love war - which is true - but they say it's because of our animal nature - which is also true - and then they went on this rant that seemed to be saying just to embrace the animal nature.


"They were putting it in the context of war, but they talked about how when animals fight they fight until one animal gets tired and walks away, but when two humans fight and beats another guy up, the guy just goes to his truck and pulls out a gun and shoots the winner in the back, so they were saying that you just gotta go all out and kill the person before he gets a chance to shoot you in the back


"THEN came on their little announcement, WALTON AND JOHNSON - NOT TAKING LIFE TOO SERIOUSLY - or some shit like that.  Like it was all a joke.


"Motherfuckers, that ain't no joke.  They were talking about the need to just go out and kill people in any fight.   It's fucking disgusting and you can't back away from that sort of shit that's going out all over the airwaves."

On the Rooftop: Grace Potter and the Nocturnals "Medicine"

Overread at Table 4: Alejandro Zambra "Multiple Choice" Book Review

Alejandra Zambra – Multiple Choice

 

I loved the concept of this book: a novel written in the format of a multiple choice test.   When I got into it I discovered that the book was based on the entrance test for University acceptance in Chile, specifically, the format of the test given in the late 80s and early 90s.

 

Having the text in several numbered statements and then giving the reader the choice to choose (multiple choice) the order of the statements, almost feels like the “Choose Your Own Adventure books” that I loved as a kid.  It gave me that feeling.

 

It would have been easy for the author simply to rely on this schtick, however, and just write a novel in the format for the simple sake of writing a novel in this format – to make some existentialist piece with no real cohesion. 

 

There are some topics specific to Chile that most likely a non-Chilean, or at least a non-South American, reader will not understand, but frankly, the references to the history and culture of Chile give it a more exotic flavor.  For example, I did not know that Chile still had an indigenous population with their own language and that there was some discussion about whether or not that language should be taught as part of the curriculum in grammar school.

 

The story truly begins to gel toward the end of the book, the essay sections, in which the reader finally understands that the author is divorced, a parent, dealing with personal issues of family, of his own failures, both personal as well as economic.  There is a character, his employer, who seems to be more of a father figure, and some others who are only seen briefly and then disappear, like a glancing breeze.

 

Overall, it is a fun read, with some lyrical writing.  It is not, however, wholly satisfying, because we never truly understand the narrator or his life.  Maybe that’s the point.   Maybe the admissions test, meant for a university faculty to determine who gets into the school, will never be a valid method by which to determine the character of a person who will do well at that institution.  Maybe this novel is an indictment of not only the admissions test in Chile, but admissions tests everywhere.  Who can truly know a person simply from a set of multiple choice questions and some hastily scribbled lines on a two page essay?