Don't fly with this self-centered guy

Though I spend much of my day reading newspapers and our newspaper Website, I frequently get my first morning taste of news from the bedside radio that wakes me, albeit very slowly, every morning.

Today’s story, being heavily discussed, was about the man, now under the first government mandated quarantine since 1963, who had an extremely drug-resistant strain of tuberculosis.

The man, who, for obvious reasons chooses not to be identified, had been diagnosed by his doctors and advised not to fly, at least in part because of the possibility of exposing others to the disease.

Problem was that his long-planned wedding in Greece was approaching, and he wanted to go, and he was pretty self-centered about that, so he did.

He got on a plane, not knowing if any of the other passengers suffered from any health issues that might make his decision compromise their lives. He didn’t think about babies or small children, elderly people, those who might have had organ transplants or cancer patients with fragile immune systems. He had plans and he actually felt fine, so he was going regardless of his doctors’ advice. He flew from Atlanta to Paris.

It was during that trip, actually while in Italy, that his doctors notified him that the particular strain of tuberculosis he was carrying was even more drug-resistant than originally thought. They directed him to turn himself in to authorities in Italy to be quarantined.

Now, you know, of course, again placing his well being above that of anyone else’s, that’s not what he did. He became concerned about the quality of medical care he might get (or not) in Italy and didn’t want to take a chance on risking his life by staying there.

Having been told that there was a no-fly hold on his passport because of the illness, he and his new wife caught a flight from Prague to Montreal, then were able to “sneak” across the Canadian border into New York. It was there that he turned himself into authorities at a hospital for treatment.

As of Wednesday morning he was in respiratory isolation at a hospital in Atlanta, but there were plans to transfer him to a Denver hospital.

Though the Center for Disease Control is taking all the necessary steps to protect the public – particularly the other patients on the two airplanes involved in this man’s adventures – he apparently was asymptomatic during the flights and medical officials say though there were risks of spreading the disease, they were minimal.

Officials say there are no plans to prosecute the man for his decisions that, potentially risked the lives of others. I say he ought to, at least, make a giant donation to the American Lung Association.

Ladies doth protest too much, methinks

The Enterprise ran a pair of reviews of local community theater performances in Tuesday’s “Friends & Family” section. Packaged as one story, the piece reviewed Beaumont Community Players’ production of “Don’t Hug Me,” and Port Arthur Little Theatre’s presentation of “Macbeth.”

The reviewer gave glowing recommendations to BCP’s production, calling it charming and saying it “provides a humorous, entertaining evening for viewers.”

She also said some great things about the PALT show, saying, among other things, that “the staging of Banquo’s ghost scene is brilliant.”

But, she also had multiple criticisms of the performance, primarily that the PALT company appeared to have overextended itself in attempting to present the Shakespearean tragedy. She acknowledged that the PALT play was a more difficult task, in fact noting that the group was reaching “for the stars” in trying to present the difficult production.

She also gave specific examples of how she felt the presentation fell short. Her familiarity with the play is unquestionable. She’s taught it to classrooms full of students for most of 20 years.

Since the play reviews appeared on our pages, The Enterprise has been bombarded by multiple e-mails from a few individuals who have called the reviewer everything from unethical to hateful. I promise you she is neither.

The review expresses her opinion, an educated and thoughtful opinion and one to which she is entitled. Nobody from BCP paid her off for their good review and nobody from PALT offended her to draw a review that included some negative observations. There’s nothing here involving professional ethics.

The uproar, the second in as many productions from the same select group in the same theater company, has driven our editor to suggest an option in coverage of community theater: Groups might choose to allow us to provide the reading public with honest reviews, or they might opt simply not to be reviewed – reducing their overall publicity for the production, but preserving their apparently fragile egos. Of course that opt-out choice would also eliminate the possibility of any totally positive reviews, which the same group has received (from the same reviewer) numerous times.

While readers certainly have the right, and the opportunity, to disagree with a reviewer, that doesn’t mean that reviewer’s opinion isn’t valid. I’ve read movie reviews that call a movie shallow and predictable – and sometimes that makes me go see it – because sometimes I want my entertainment to be shallow and predictable rather than intriguing or thought-provoking.

Similarly, the reviewer’s characterization of the BCP performance as a “charming, excellently rendered musical” might steer some people away from it – if they don’t light entertainment or don’t care to see a musical.

It is a reviewer’s (very tough) job to give readers a realistic assessment of the entertainment being reviewed. To sugar-coat that for the sake of popularity actually WOULD be a violation of professional ethics.

Artwork provides historical perspective

A reader sent an e-mail commenting on the interesting story included on the front page of our Sunday feature section.

The story, about a painting depicting the Battle of Gettysburg, included a cursory explanation of the concept of the cyclorama, an art form that was created for display in a circular room, so that the viewer is surrounded by the battle scenes. Being a history buff myself, I too found it interesting. The fact that the artwork is 376 feet long and is expected to sell for more than $10 million probably made it even more interesting to more people.

I actually have seen a similar work on display at the Gettysburg National Military Park in Pennsylvania and found it fascinatingly detailed.

Comments from the reader also spurred me to do a bit of research on the subject. Turns out, fans of such works, and Civil War buffs have more opportunities to view similar paintings, not only at Gettysburg, but in Atlanta as well.

So, if you haven’t yet planned that summer vacation, here’s another option to consider.