Don't wear masks to slow coronavirus? Worst. Advice. Ever.

I’ll admit, I didn’t think the coronavirus would spread as far as it has, as quickly as it has. I was wrong. But part of the reason I was wrong is that the government was catastrophically wrong in issuing perhaps the worst single piece of medical advice in modern history:

Don’t wear masks.

They didn’t just issue it. Surgeon General Jerome Adams actually screamed it in all caps on Twitter: “Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!” According to Adams, masks are “NOT effective in preventing the general public from catching #Coronavirus.”

Are. You. Effing. Serious????

Take a moment to process this: Our government has been telling us for weeks that the most effective way to avoid COVID-19 is to stay at home. In other words, we need to put a barrier between ourselves and others.

That’s exactly what a mask does! Yet we’re not supposed to wear them because they’re not effective?! What the actual hell?! Are we supposed to believe the government when it’s talking out of the left side of its mouth or the right side of its mouth? Or neither, because, frankly, it’s lost a whole lot of credibility here.

Especially since data suggests masks DO work. (I used the capitals this time.)

Studies show ...

A 2004 study of SARS in Beijing found that “the use of masks was strongly protective.” How strongly? “Always wearing a mask when going out was associated with a 70% reduction in risk compared with never wearing a mask.” And wearing a mask even intermittently as associated with “a smaller yet significant reduction in risk.”

An analysis of several studies in 2011 found the same thing:

“Nine case-controlled studies suggested implementing transmission barriers, isolation and hygienic measures are effective at containing respiratory virus epidemics,” the authors concluded. And here’s the kicker: “Surgical masks or N95 respirators were the most consistent and comprehensive supportive means.” (Italics mine.)

In other words, they’re more effective than washing your hands or issuing government orders to stay home. Here’s the upshot: Because the government denied the obvious — that facemasks work — our entire society has been forced to shut itself down. Think about that for a minute. Yes, we might have been forced to take other measures as well, but if we’d started wearing masks in the first place, we might have flattened the curve, as they like to say, enough to get out ahead of this thing. We might have minimized the fallout. We might not be watching so many people die while we play catch-up.

Common sense

And yes, they were denying the obvious. The studies I quoted above were already out there, and had been for years. But when it comes right down to it, I didn’t need a study to tell me that a mask would help protect me from catching the virus.

Are masks 100% effective? Of course not. But neither are condoms, and that doesn’t mean we should all go around having unprotected sex.

Right?

Do locked doors always keep burglars out? No, but you’re not gonna leave your door wide open at night in a bad neighborhood (or even a good one) and invite one in. Are you?

Hell no.

Then there’s this: The government has been emphasizing — again, for weeks — that we should cough or sneeze into our arms. That’s just common sense and common courtesy. Mom taught me that when I was 3 years old. And the principle is obvious, even to a pre-kindergarten kid: If you put a barrier between yourself and the germs, most of those germs won’t get out there.

What’s a mask? Let’s all say it together now: “A BARRIER!”

Mommy medicine

And barriers work both ways. They keep things (in this case, germs) in, and they keep things (again, germs) out. So, of course wearing a mask makes it harder for you to catch a virus. That’s not rocket science. It’s mommy medicine.

That’s why, even as I was complaining about “social distancing” edicts, I was thumbing my nose at the government’s “guidance” by actually wearing a mask. (Oh, I’m such a bad boy.) In addition to staying home as much as possible, covering my mouth when I coughed or sneezed, and washing my hands far more often than I used to, I was, yes, wearing a mask.

Now, the government said it didn’t want us buying masks because it wanted to be sure health workers had an adequate supply … which would seem to indicate they’re effective for the health workers. Who are human. Like us. So it stands to reason they’d be effective for us, too.

So don’t tell me they’re not effective, then tell me that health workers need them because they are. I’m not that stupid.

That bit of absurdity aside, I understand the need to protect health workers, and people shouldn’t go around hoarding masks like they’re toilet paper. But even if we don’t have surgical masks, we don’t actually need them. Sure, they’re the best alternative. But covering your mouth when you cough doesn’t require a piece of medical equipment, just your hand or elbow.

Ergo, it’s possible to create a barrier even if you don’t have one of those things that tie back behind the ears. You could wear a bandanna, for God’s sake. In our case, my wife had bought a number of N95 masks for yard work before any of this went down, so we’ve been wearing those. And a couple of weeks before this got bad, I picked up a $5 fabric mask at a science fiction convention. (That’s it up there in the picture. I’m a cat person. Cute, ain’t it?)

Because I didn’t trust the government’s ridiculous, and horrible, advice.

I trusted my mom.

She’s been gone 25 years, but I’ve got a feeling that wherever she is, she still cares about my health. And the advice she gave 3-year-old me still works. As for the government? Idiotic actions speak far louder that all-caps messages on Twitter.

Case closed.

P.S.: Spread this. Make it go viral. Maybe we the people can succeed where the government has failed us and actually put a stop to this thing.

Mail-in election the only humane response to coronavirus

Politicians in both parties claim that Americans’ safety during the coronavirus pandemic is their top priority. Unfortunately, their actions indicate just the opposite.

Donald Trump, true to form, is more interested in protecting his brand and deflecting blame than anything else. His first concern is his own political survival. And he’s not alone. Politicians in both parties are showing their true colors — and their hypocrisy — in calling for businesses to close, events to be canceled and people to stay home. Except, of course, when it comes to political events. And voting.

Neither political party has, as of this writing, canceled its national convention. This is the height of irresponsibility, and more than that, it’s a thumb in the eye of ordinary Americans who’ve been put out of work and are facing fines if they don’t stay at home.

The Democrats deserve more blame that the Republicans, in this case, because its convention is set for July, more than a month before the GOP gathering. The Dems say they’ve got a backup plan, but won’t say what it is. Trump, meanwhile, says there’s “no way” he’d cancel the Republican con. He doesn’t give a flying you-know-what about anyone but himself. Neither, it seems, do a lot of other people in Washington.

Alexandria Cortez-Ocasio threatened to force representatives to fly back to Washington so they could vote in person on the massive virus relief package. Republican Thomas Massie actually did so. Because a roll-call vote was more important than being safe — even though it was entirely unnecessary.

Or at least not nearly as necessary as earning a paycheck to pay the bills, so families can stay fed and housed. It won’t do any good to have a “shelter in place” order if you’ve got no shelter in which to place yourself.

It’s yet another example of the clueless Beltway mentality: Politicos consider themselves a privileged class, and rich politicos (which is most of them), even more so. While the rest of us are stuck at home, many of us out of work and dealing with monthly bills, the parties are hell-bent on having their parties. To “protect democracy.” In their minds, democracy is synonymous with their own re-election, not with a fair and honest vote count. Read on for the details.

Speaking of voting, they’re telling people to go to the polls and cast their ballots, even though poll workers are contracting COVID-19. That happened in Florida, which (along with Illinois and Arizona) went ahead with their in-person primaries March 17 despite the spread of the virus. That was two weeks ago, and it’s spread a lot more since then. But even with 80% of the nation on orders to stay home, Wisconsin is vowing to forge ahead with its April 7 vote.

Republicans are largely to blame on this one: The GOP leader of the state Assembly called the Democratic governor’s request for a mail-in election “logistically impossible and incredibly flawed.” In other words, it wouldn’t benefit them. I guess people dying of a virus doesn’t rise to the level of “logistically impossible and incredibly flawed” in their book.

And it’s funny, because somehow, Ohio managed to make the switch to an all-mail-in primary on short notice. So it’s not impossible at all. In fact, it’s the only rational, humane way forward.

Resisting mail-in voting for political reasons is nothing new. Doing so when people’s health is at risk is. It’s a time-honored (and shameful) tradition: The party in power rejects mail-in voting because it recognizes that such an option will increase the number of votes for the opposition. Party leaders and incumbents don’t want to relinquish power, pure and simple. They do it for the same reason they draw “safe” districts, resist motor-voter laws — and for the same reason they supported poll taxes, literacy tests and other anti-democratic measures in the past. They’d do it again if they could get away with it.

They say they want to protect democracy? Their actions, historically speaking, say the exact opposite. And how about protecting people for a change?

The political parties should both cancel their self-congratulatory conventions; they’re little more than exercises in free advertising (propaganda) anyway. And, more importantly, the federal government should immediately institute a fully mail-in general election. If Ohio can do it on short notice, the feds can do it eight months out. If the virus abates, they can reopen the polls, but it’s time to plan for the worst-case scenario. If the government really believes 100,000 to 240,000 people could die of this thing, holding an in-person election amounts to a death sentence for some of the people who’ll show up at the polls.

A mail-in vote is feasible this far out. But the more they put off planning, the harder it will get. It must be done now.

Failure to act will prove one thing: Our supposed representatives care more about their own power than people’s lives.

I already knew that anyway.

It’s up to them to prove me wrong.

Photo: CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 by eagle.dawg

Star Trek: Picard — Hits and misses

Star Trek: Picard attempted to go where almost no Star Trek has gone before: incorporating foundation laid by the episodic The Next Generation into the story-arc (read: “space opera”) trend that’s all but taken over modern science fiction.

I wrote “almost” because Enterprise went for an arc with its Xindi War storyline. But in doing so, it was using characters who were still relatively new to the Star Trek universe, not beloved characters from more than three decades earlier. (Has it really been that long?)

Predictably, there are some hiccups along the way. But Picard mostly succeeds, with more hits than misses.

The misses

In a word, pacing. The show starts too quickly and ends almost too abruptly. The first three episodes could have been condensed into one, and the whirlwind finish could have been drawn out for a little more suspense. As a storyteller, I know the importance of grabbing an audience quickly, and Picard doesn’t do that. It relies largely on our established connection to the main character to keep us interested.

It can afford to do so because, well, it’s Star Trek. But it’s sloppy and unnecessary. Star Trek: The Motion Picture did the same thing with its seemingly interminable prologue — and it’s still being criticized for it four decades later. Picard doesn’t step in it that badly, but if this had been a new series involving characters we didn’t know and love, would we have continued watching? I suspect many would not have.

Despite the slow start, I found myself wishing that Picard would have developed a deeper connection with Dahj early on. Most of his emotional tie to her is expressed in her connection to Data, and I wanted to see something a bit more explicit here: a scene where, perhaps, they bonded more personally. A minor quibble.

It was never entirely clear to me whether Dr. Agnes Jurati (Alison Pill) makes a certain fateful decision because she’s convinced or compelled to do so. It’s a muddled bit of storytelling that could have been cleared up by more precise storytelling. I wanted to like the Jurati character but found her annoyingly wishy-washy, especially for someone supposedly so accomplished in her field.

Samaire Wynne pointed this one out: In an early episode of TNG titled The Naked Now, Data moves at superhuman speed to replace the isolinear chips in Engineering. But Soji, though more advanced and clearly capable of superhuman fighting ability, apparently lacks this skill when working to assemble a piece of technology in the final episode. Or is she, subconsciously, holding back?

The new cast members were, for me at least, less interesting than the TNG-era characters who made guest appearances. Isa Briones turns in a strong performance as Soji, but my favorite was Santiago Cabrera as Captain Rios — and, in a fun twist, a handful of holographic alter-egos. He’s not Robert Picardo, but he does a kind of cigar-chomping twist on Han Solo.

Which brings me to another quibble: Picard needed more humor. It was a key element of most Star Trek series, but in the latest incarnations of Trek, it’s been sublimated to sense of gravitas that can feel stiflingly heavy. That’s especially in the self-important Discovery, but also, at times, here. The weighty musical score exacerbates the problem at times. Perhaps they could bring in William Shatner (who’s still very funny) or Seth MacFarlane from The Orville for some pointers.

The hits

First, it’s not Discovery. It feels like the producers have learned something about putting together a more cohesive, character-driven story, which is a very good thing. I’ve struggled to get through the first two seasons of Discovery, which I’ve watched only because they carry the Star Trek imprimatur. Still, Discovery doesn’t feel like Trek to me — not even as much as the often-flawed J.J. Abrams movie trilogy. This does. It’s not exactly the same as TNG, but it feels like a different perspective on familiar themes and characters. Ethan Peck will never be Spock to me, but Patrick Stewart will always be Picard.

The biggest hit is, in fact, Stewart as Picard, which is no surprise. But kudos, also, to the writers for taking us on a deeper exploration of Picard’s character, particularly his emotions and his connection to Data. This works so well precisely because Picard doesn’t typically wear his emotions on his sleeve, and because Stewart did such a remarkable job of crafting the character in the first place. We got a few glimpses into his feelings during TNG, most notably in The Inner Light (the flute episode), which many — not coincidentally — consider the series’ finest hour.

Star Trek has dealt with aging characters before, and has always done so with aplomb. Kirk’s use of reading glasses in The Wrath of Khan comes to mind. But Stewart’s handling of Picard’s aging and awareness of his own mortality is nothing less than masterful. He’s not entirely the same self-assured captain he was in TNG, but he’s anything but a doddering fool, and he can call on that old confidence and ingenuity when it’s needed most.

Stewart’s good friend Ian McKellen captured Gandalf perfectly in The Lord of the Rings, and Stewart himself comes across almost wizardly in Picard. He doesn’t have a staff or magic, but he has a few tricks up his sleeve and (most importantly for a wizard) the wisdom to know when to use them. Most of the time. As for LOTR, one new regular — a young Romulan played by Evan Evaroga — seems to be channeling Legolas, perhaps even a bit too much. Even his name, Elnor, is decidedly elven.

The Picard-Data connection is explored very nicely, with Brent Spiner taking a turn in multiple roles. Picard’s formerly hidden, or suppressed, emotional side is brought out by his now-kind-of-deceased android lieutenant commander. It’s a touching undercurrent throughout the season that taps into one of the most potent themes explored in TNG: What makes us human? The addition of the Borg to the equation adds to the complexity of that exploration and makes the season even more interesting.

The use of alumni from TNG and Voyager is welcome and inspired. The reappearance of Hugh (Jonathan Del Arco) from I, Borg was a pleasant surprise, and 7 of 9/Annika (Jeri Ryan) played an integral role in the plot. Data, of course, was central to it. Less crucial were Riker (Jonathan Frakes) and Troi (Marina Sirtis), whose appearance seemed more like a nod to nostalgia than anything else. Even so, it was satisfying, and I wouldn’t have changed it. I’m a sucker for nostalgia, and it was great to see them again. The story could have been told without them, but it was far more fun with them!

Note to producers: I’d love to see Worf make an appearance, or maybe Guinan, and it would be fun to see Quark from Deep Space 9.

Overall, I’d give Picard 4 stars out of 5. For comparison, I’d give TNG and The Original Series five stars, DS9 4.5, Voyager and Enterprise 4, and Discovery 2. After the slow start, Picard is, indeed, engaging.

Coronavirus rant from a Grumpy old introvert

Excuse me while I channel my inner grumpy old man:

I won’t “self-quarantine,” but I will be staying in. Thank you for asking. Before you jump down my throat, it means the same thing, smart guy.

As an author and freelance editor, I’m fortunate enough to work from home, so I don’t need a lecture about “social distancing.” I’m also an introvert, so I stay the hell away from people as it is. That means the same thing, too, genius.

Frankly, it’s absurd most of us still work in offices, anyway. We spend hours in traffic, polluting the air, just so we can spend hours in meetings, numbing our minds. Brilliant, that. (I’m not talking about people in service industries, who are, unfortunately, in a really bad situation because of all this. That should be obvious.)

After hearing how the air and water are getting cleaner since this Coronavirus hit, it makes me wonder if Mother Earth isn’t using it to cleanse the old palette. Less pollution is a good thing. We should have figured that out before we got smashed over the head with a damned infectious disease.

No, I don’t need your criticism. I wash my hands in warm water a bunch of times a day, and I wear a face mask when I go out. Don’t get on my case for depriving health workers of a mask, either. My wife bought a few to do yard work months ago, so no, we’re not being “insensitive” about that. Thanks for caring.

I’m not “flattening the curve,” I just don’t wanna get sick. Or make you sick, either. That’s why I stay away from B.S. media buzzwords like the ones I’ve put in quotes: They make me want to wretch. Speak plainly, or STFU.

I’ll stay home, but spare me your artificially euphemistic PR-speak about “sheltering in place.” The very use of “sheltering” as an intransitive verb is a buzz kill for me.

Yes, I want information about the virus. But I want details, and lots of them, not rah-rah slogans and sound bites. Not shaming and peer pressure.

Don’t worry: I won’t be getting within 6 feet of you, but I probably wouldn’t have, anyway, because I actually value my personal space. Imagine that. I won’t be coughing in your face, but I wouldn’t have done that anyway, either, because it’s rude as hell. Common courtesy not to, y’know? Maybe this virus has spread so fast because we forgot about that. A shame, really.

So now people are communicating even more on social media, where they’re blasting each other left and right over how they’ve responded to this thing. I heard recently that most of what people post on social media is criticism. That seems accurate enough. And the more you insult each other, the more social distance you’ll get, so I guess that works. Except you won’t get the corona kind of virus online: You won’t cough, but you might get hacked. 

People online either get pissed at you for wanting to stay healthy. So you can survive. Or they get pissed at you for wanting to go to work. So you’ll get paid. So you can survive. Tough choice.

Is social media shaming really what people need when they’re going through something like this? I kinda doubt it, but that’s what they’ll get … which makes me glad I’ve distanced myself from all that toxic middle-finger-pointing. I need it like I need a case of Covid-19.

And please don’t tell me we’re all “in this together.” We’re not. The people who are getting sick and losing their jobs are in it one helluva lot deeper than NBA players chillin’ at home or members of Congress with those free health care plans they’re denying the rest of us.

That kind of inequity is what had grumpy old introverts like me keeping our distance from society in the first pace. I didn’t need a pandemic to tell me people are dangerous. All I had to do was look at the way we polluted the planet long before this thing started. And the way we treat each other: like objects, marks and scapegoats.

So keep your P.C. rhetoric about social distancing to yourself. We cynics and introverts invented the concept.

We just put it differently: Get out of my face, and stay the hell off my lawn.

Reading: The perfect therapy for the coronavirus crisis

Restaurants and shops are closing. Thanks to the coronavirus, people are being told to stay indoors and avoid social or business gatherings.

School’s out, and the kids are at home, so if you’re a stay-at-home mom or dad, you probably need a break. Maybe it’s daytime and they’re on the TV, watching DVDs or playing videogames, so you can’t binge-watch Netflix.

What are your options?

In a word: READ.

In a society that has, increasingly, reduced our free time and our attention spans, the good old-fashioned book has taken a beating. A lot of us have probably forgotten what it’s like to relax with a cup of tea or hot cocoa, curl up with a good book and spend the next several hours getting lost in its pages. What better time to rediscover it?

Starbuck’s is closed. So, spend that $5 you’d usually spend on a caramel latte and buy an ebook instead. Hey, if you have a Kindle Unlimited account, you can read a lot of books for free! And you can do the same with thousands upon thousands of public-domain books and magazines available via a simple Google Books search.  

Maybe even get your kids off the TV and encourage them to read, too. With school out, wouldn’t it be nice if they were learning something? Back in the 1990s, when the Harry Potter books came out, kids started reading in droves. The good news: Harry Potter’s still there, and not only that, it’s spawned an entire genre of great fantasy novels out there that are perfect for kids.

You can read a book with your kids, or you can tell them about one that made your own childhood special. Maybe you’d forgotten all about it in the hustle and hurry over everyday life. But now that life has slowed down, take a moment to remember the adventures you had. Revisit them. Start new ones. Share them with your kids. Maybe introduce them to a Hobbit or a faerie, an elf or a dragon.

If the coronavirus has you scared, try taking your mind off it with some fictional scary tales.

Maybe you’re not into fiction and you enjoy learning about the real world. Books can help there, too. There are biographies, books on ancient history, pop culture, political figures, our nation’s highways and a host of other topics. You’ll learn about things you never even imagined could have existed, and if the books are well-written, you’ll have fun doing it.

Sure, it’s a good idea to keep up on the news about COVID-19, but there’s only so much of that you can read before it becomes repetitive and downright depressing. Instead of spending all your time worrying and lamenting the current situation, you could be reading about heroes who have triumphed amid adversity. There are plenty of books out there about great women and men who’ve changed the world in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. In times like these, such stories aren’t just entertaining, they’re inspiring.

There have always been a lot of reasons to crack open a good book, but our increasingly fast-paced, Twitter-obsessed world has made it seem like we just don’t have the time for one. This crisis might last for a while, so you may even want to start a series.

Now, we do.

It’s the perfect opportunity to start reading, and you don’t even need to go to a bookstore to do it. You can get books online at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Wordery, Books-a-Million or dozens of other places.

So, what are you waiting for? This world isn’t much fun right now, but there are whole new worlds of fascination and adventure just waiting for you in the pages of your next favorite book.

OK, Millennial: The world will change on you, too

OK, Millennial.

My first point: There should be a comma after “OK” in “OK, Boomer.” Otherwise, you’re saying Boomers are OK, which is not what I think you mean to suggest.

If I’ve got this straight, you’re trying to say we’re out of touch, that our ideals are flawed, that we don’t know what the hell we’re talking about. Right?

Fine. Now, get off my lawn!

Wait. Hold on a minute. Let’s start again.

I said “we” with a couple of caveats. First, I’m what you might call a Barely Boomer. I was born in 1963, a year before the arbitrary generational cutoff that would have sorted me (just as arbitrarily) into Generation X. I was born to late for malt shops and even for the hippie movement. But too soon for the “me” generation of the Reagan ’80s.

So, I don’t really fit into your neat little categories. And that’s the point of my second caveat: Most of us don’t. Neither do most of you, if you’re honest with yourself, because stereotypes are a crutch, and a rather poor one, at that. Some “Boomers” really are OK by your standards: We agree with you on a lot of things; and some of you probably agree with us more often than you’d care to admit.

On Life RSS

The wheel turns

But one thing all generations seem to have in common is the way we age. When we’re young — say in our teens to our early 30s — we soak up stuff and make it ours. Our music. Our fads. Our pop culture. Our slang. We use it to help define who we are.

Then, however, the world moves on and we feel a little less at home. That’s normal. Imagine growing up on one place, calling it home for most of your life, then moving all the way across the country in your 40s. You may appreciate your new surroundings; they may even be objectively more comfortable and better suited to your needs. But you’ll always have a certain wistfulness about where you grew up (assuming you had a halfway decent childhood).

When our fads and music and lingo and culture gives way to the next generation’s, that’s how we feel. It’s how our parents felt, and it’s how you’ll feel, too. We feel a little out of place. That’s not generational. It’s human. You’ll feel the same way when you find the next generation creating its own distinct place in the world.

My parents’ tastes

I got to thinking about all this listening to a satellite radio station today. It was playing “oldies” from different generations: I remembered some fondly from my childhood, but I remembered others just as fondly because my parents had enjoyed them and shared them with me.

Now, when I was a kid, I’d close the door to my room and crank up KISS or Aerosmith, bands my parents had no affinity for whatsoever. My dad was into the Limeliters and the Kingston Trio. My mom liked big band stuff. They both enjoyed Perry Como and Bing Crosby. I didn’t listen to that stuff in my room, but when Christmas specials came on TV featuring crooners from an earlier generation, I watched. And I enjoyed them.

Because my parents found something to like there, I may have decided, subconsciously, that it was worth at least giving it a chance. Or maybe, because I grew up in a stable, loving home, I came to associate my parents’ tastes with that feeling of stability and comfort. A lot of kids who came from broken or abusive homes probably don’t want anything to do with their parents’ culture, because to them, it represents pain and struggle. That’s understandable.

Still, it doesn’t mean you ought to dismiss that entire generation, any more than an older generation should dismiss you. It would be easy for me to hold you responsible for the “death of rock and roll” at the hands of hip-hop and boy bands, because I miss what I grew up with, what made me feel at home when I was forming my own identity.

But that doesn’t mean I get to act dismissive of your culture, to the extent that it appears, on the surface to be different than mine. Because, guess what? Each of us has just as much right to our cultural comfort level as the other. And we that has to be OK. Otherwise, we’ll ignore what we have in common: the desire to create, cultivate and celebrate our own identities – and cling to them as we grow older. You’ll do that, too.

Duets

So did my parents.

They’re gone now, unfortunately. And I miss them both. When Moon River comes on the radio these days, I don’t roll my eyes and complain about their generation’s pathetic taste in music. I think about how great it was that they could enjoy something that was uniquely theirs. It isn’t uniquely mine, but because they loved it, I can at least appreciate it. Because I loved them. I also realized I could learn something from them — and I can learn something from the younger generation, too.

I may never love hip-hop, and you may never get Aerosmith. Still, hip-hop pioneers Run-DMC had a monster hit with a remake of an Aerosmith song called Walk This Way that actually featured members of Aerosmith. It wasn’t the first time something like that had happened, either. Back in the early 1970s, Bing Crosby and David Bowie sang a duet of The Little Drummer Boy. If anything, that was even more improbable.

So maybe, instead of me shouting, “Get off my lawn,” and you scoffing, “OK, Boomer,” we should try singing a metaphorical duet. Neither one of us has to give up our identity to appreciate a different perspective. And each of us might find there’s a lot more to the other than the stereotypes we’ve created in our own heads.

OK, Millennial?