post-dietular me

I miss you, my loves...

It's been nearly two weeks since I spent my two weeks on a cleanse diet (on the advice of a personal trainer). So how are things going?

During the two weeks, I kept talking about how, as soon as it was over, I'd be gorging on donuts, pizza, cake... But it hasn't happened.

Since the diet ended, I haven't had much in the way of sweets. A small slice of cake on Sharon's birthday. I also had a slice of pizza last week during my cinema history class (note, that's a reduction from the four slices I would have had before the diet). And a few slices of bread. Yeah, and I've had plenty of cheese. But the fact is, my consumption of carbs and junk food is still way down, far below what it was.

I don't know exactly what has happened, but I find I'm not craving it the way I had been. I became acutely aware of it when I was in a drug store with Ethan, and noticed white chocolate Kit Kats. In the past, my reaction would have been that I just gotta try it. Now it was more along the lines of "oh, that looks interesting." I don't know if it's purely psychological, or if there's a physiological change -- like my brain reprogrammed itself to not feel the same need for sweets. Either way, I hope it lasts long enough for me to lose some more weight. I've lost some, but I'm still a good bit heavier than I should be.

I also feel a good bit better than I had felt. I haven't been experiencing heartburn or that tell-tale bloated feeling. Actually, I had that bloated feeling Thursday night after downing a slice of pizza. So the message is obvious.

The trainer is pushing me to exercise more, and I should. I keep saying I should. Well, that's another battle...

mystery solved i: me and katz's pastrami

I love pastrami. That's no secret. I have, on numerous occasions, declared that pastrami is the first fundamental deli meat.

And yet for some reason I never liked pastrami from Katz's Delicatessen. That's odd because Katz's is one of the iconic Kosher-style* delis. In fact, with the closing of the Carnegie Deli almost a year ago, Katz's may be the number one pastrameteria in New York (or the world). And yet, I don't like their pastrami. Yes, I said it. I don't like Katz's pastrami.

The question is why. I don't take this matter lightly. If everyone thought it was the best and I liked  it but thought others were better, that would be one thing. But people seem to think it's the best, and I think it's disgusting. I have tried it a few times over the years, always because I had some insane belief that I must have been mistaken, and I'll like it this time.

My complaint isn't the flavor. It's the texture. The seasoning is good. The smokiness is good. But it's too chewy. Like trying to eat a rubber glove.

I mentioned it to Ethan, since he's the food guy in the family. He explained it to me -- Katz's uses the beef navel instead of the brisket. I remember when Ethan tried cooking navel. I  couldn't enjoy it because it was way too chewy. Just like Katz's pastrami.

Duh.

Now I just have to go back to Katz's and see if I like their corned beef. If it's not made from the navel, I might like it.


*It's unclear to me whether a place that serves reubens and cheeseburgers can legitimately be called kosher style. But, whatever...

on being a nonpracticing orthodox jew

Something I like to tell people jokingly  that I am a nonpracticing Orthodox Jew. I know I've mentioned it at least once in this blog. The self-description usually elicits chuckles or surprised looks. But, while I say it with a touch of humorous intent, the fact is it's true.

It's funny because people equate practicing Judaism with being Orthodox and not practicing Judaism with being Reform or Conservative*. That, in turn, is because Orthodox Jewish practice includes a lot of ritual, while Reform Judaism doesn't. Similarly religiosity is equated with Orthodoxy.

But the fact is that, despite being nonreligious (and therefore nonpracticing), I am more comfortable in an Orthodox synagogue and service than in a Conservative or Reform one.

In addition, I am uncomfortable with the notion that Reform Jews are, by definition, irreligious. Consider a Reform Rabbi. He or she goes to services on Saturdays and Holidays, and gives sermons at these services. During the week, he or she is spending his or her time on religious duties -- researching the sermons, ministering to the congregation, maybe serving as principal in a religious school. That kind of stuff. His or her life may not be built around the rituals that define Orthodox practice, but it's not fair to say that it's a nonreligious life.

And this actually speaks to something that I disagree with the rest of the world about. Most people think of Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism and Orthodox Judaism as three branches of one religion. I tend to think of them as three different religions with common roots.

Orthodox Jewish practice involves a life largely governed by ritual. There are prayers to say when you get up in the morning, before and after eating (and the prayers vary depending on what food you eat), after using the bathroom, upon hearing thunder and upon seeing lightning. I had a teacher in junior high school who said that it wasn't a full day if he said fewer than 100 prayers. Every holiday has well-defined rituals that are effectively religious requirements -- fasting on Yom Kippur, eating in an outdoor booth on Sukkot, giving gifts of food on Purim. I could go on. Reform Judaism isn't structured around ritual the same way. To me, that makes them different.

And, having come of age attending an Orthodox school and going to Orthodox synagogues, that's where my comfort is. Even if I don;t believe in the theology or practice the rituals.

*Let's not get into Reconstructionist Judiasm. 

constitutional questment ii: eligibility for the presidency

I was thinking about who ca be president -- the eligibility rules and whether Congress can change them by simply passing a law.

Backing up, let's start with the eligibility requirements, as defined in the Constitution. Article II, Section 1 reads as follows: 

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: 

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. 

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall choose from them by Ballot the Vice-President.  

The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.  

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.  

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.  

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.  

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:-"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The fifth paragraph above defines three eligibility requirements: natural born citizen, 35- years old, a resident for 14 years. Easy, peasy, George loves Weezie.

So, of course, Congress cannot loosen the requirements. Suppose passed a law saying that the minimum age requirement is 30, or that you don't have to be a natural born citizen. Such a law wouldn't pass constitutional muster.

But suppose Congress tightened the restrictions. For example, suppose they passed a law saying simply "No one shall become President who shall not have attained the age of 40." What then? Such a law wouldn't contradict the Constitution. The document doesn't actually prohibit the addition of more requirements.

So, based on that, it would seem that Congress could add requirements. But I suspect that that would rankle some, and would be met with the argument that that was not the intention. I'm not convinced by such an argument.

But the Article above also defines the election process*. What if the electors choose a 35-year-old? The law passed by Congress prohibits that person from being President. But if he or she was elected by the process defined by the Constitution, then I don't see how the law passed by Congress can actually override that election.

So I guess I arrive at the same place as most people, but I take a more circuitous route.

*The process was changed by the Twelfth Amendment, but not in a way that materially affects this analysis

something to fret over

From the "every good idea has already been thought of" department comes the fretted violin.

Our friend, Tall Judy, was visiting from out of town, and wanted to get together with some friends of hers for an evening playing music. It was the first time I had met Bruce and Elena. It was a fun evening of conversation and music.

Anyway, Bruce and I got to talking about instruments. He was playing a viola, and we got onto the topic of frets. I play guitar, which has frets. The frets prove useful as a visual guide to finger placement, and they also create a certain latitude in terms of finger placement. Since violas and violins don't have frets, finger placement is much more crucial and more difficult -- a troubling combination.

Bruce mentioned the idea of a fretted violin, and talked of how he'd love to see them become a "thing." I immediately loved the idea. It would encourage people to take up the violin (or viola, as the case may be), and frets would serve as training wheels. I suppose that frets would hinder the well-trained, since there are probably things you can do without frets that you can;t do with. But there's still value in helping people who can't play at all. They can give up the aid once they don;t need it anymore.  One thing I didn't think of is the mandolin. Mandolins are the same size as violins, and have the same tuning. And, of course, they're fretted. Of course, they typically have eight strings (in four pairs). But four-string mandolins aren't entirely unheard of. But with mandolins existing and all, it should be a no-brainer to have fretted violins.

So I was going to write a whole blogpost about how freeted violins are such a great, original idea. But then I hit Google to see what I could find as an illustration. And I found that others have had the idea already. Not only can you buy fretted violins, but you can buy something called the "Fiddle Fretter" to put frets on your violin.

So, while I still feel that Bruce's idea was a good one, I have to admit that he's not the only one to have had it.

Now, if there were some way to help me learn the harp...

martin (cinema history class)

Session: Halloween Month / Fallen Filmmakers, week 3
Movie: Martin (1978)
Directed by George Romero
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL

Plot:
Eighteen-year-old Martin is really an 84-year-old Vampire living and drinking on the mean streets of Braddock, Pennsylvania. Hilarity ensues.

Background and Reaction:
Just as Romero had modernized the zombie narrative with Night of the Living Dead, he tried to update the vampire story. Now Dracula -- well, Martin, anyway -- would be living in the urban decay of the greater Pittsburgh area.

Romero did a good job of capturing the gritty feel of that late-70s environment of urban decay. The feel reminded me of other urban movies such as Death Wish and The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3. And I don;t imagine that it's easy to capture that; for example, The Warriors, as great as it was, didn't manage. In particular, I was fascinated by the scenes in the supermarket parking lot. Somehow they really captured my imagination. Part of the success was, I think, the grainy quality of the film -- which could, in some peoples' eyes, be a drawback. I don't know if this was a purposeful choice that Romero made, or if he was simply limited by budget. But it really worked.

Some of this movie is done remarkably well. For example, the home invasion scene may be the best in movie history, and it is only one of several very intense, edge-of-the seat scenes. The ending in particular was heartbreaking in its irony, and was probably the best part of the story.

But, despite the good things Martin had to offer, I really couldn't work up a whole lot of interest in this film. I was actually all set to rate this a 7*, but the ending was strong enough in its irony that it brought the movie up to an 8.

Ratings:
Joe: 9.9
Dave: 9.1-9.2
Sean: 3 out of 4
Me: 8
Ethan: 7

Bechdel:
Martin fails the Bechdel test.

Tangentially-Related Anecdote:
There are scenes in supermarket parking lots, where vaguely-threatening teens insist on carrying customers' bags in exchange for an extorted tip. These remind me of the New York of my youth, where we had the same problems. And don't get me started on the Squeegee men.

*Maybe this is an example of grade inflation. In the context of this class, a 7 rating from me is not good. Of course, a 9 rating from Joe is really bad, since (in his rating scheme) all scifi and horror films start with a 9. For him, ratings lower than 9 are reserved for other genres such as romcoms.

a lesson learned too late

On Facebook, recently, I saw some discussion about a couple of professors I knew when I was in grad school at the University of Michigan. One of the professors discussed was M.S. Ramanujan, whom I had had. In that thread, I mentioned that I had my own Ramanujan story, but that I would post it on my blog. So, here it is.

But before I start, let me note that my father had taken a class with ramanujan when he was an undergrad at the UM. That's neither here nor there.

So, it was my first semester as a grad student, and I was taking a class in real analysis with Ramanujan. On the midterm, we were asked to prove disprove the following:

The set A union B is measurable if and only if both A and B are measurable.

We were allowed to assert without proof anything that had been proven in class.

My solution was simple: Let A be a nonmeasurable set of reals. Let B be A's complement. A union B is the set of reals, which is measurable. But neither A nor B is measurable. Therefore the statement is false. QED.

I only got half credit for my solution, which really angered me.

Professor Ramanujan argued that I got half credit because I only answered half the problem. Despite presenting the problem as one statement, he had intended it to be interpreted as two statements:

The set A union B is measurable if both A and B are measurable.

The set A union B is measurable only if both A and B are measurable.

I had proven that the second statement was false, but had not said anything about the first statement. Therefore I only got half credit. Ironically, the first statement is much simpler to handle, since we had proven it in class.

I argued with Professor Ramanujan that I should get full credit; he had presented the proposition as one statement and asked us to prove it or disprove it. I did so. His response was that, if I want to be a hardass about it, he's sure he could review my paper and find points to take off elsewhere. I dropped the argument.

Looking back, I have mixed feelings about it. I was certainly right in at least one interpretation of events. Of course, as one of my classmates pointed out to me, in the name of elegance, I should have written into my answer something along the lines of "Of course, as proven in class, if A and B are both measurable, then their union is measurable."

But the bigger point that I didn't understand is that it didn't really matter. In high school and in undergrad, grades on tests were crucially important, as the final grade would be some well-defined average of scores and tests and homeworks. In grad school, the professors had much wider latitude to assign grades based on how well they felt the student knew the material. So the extra points for restating such a trivial result didn't really matter.

Live and learn.

baseball stoopidstats -- 2017 edition, number 4

In an earlier post -- "baseball stoopidstats -- 2017 edition, number 1" -- I presented the results of looking at the cumulative win totals and "games over .500" for every major league baseball franchise, as well as ranking the franchises by win total. In that one file I also grouped franchises by location and by state (or state-like entity).

I have now added to that file, including groupings of the teams by name. All franchises that were "Senators" are now grouped as one. Likewise, all "Orioles." But the "Angels" (1961-2004 and 2017) are separated from the "Angels of Anaheim." It wasn't a whole lot of work to add this to the file, since the data were already included in the file.

FWIW, the file is here.

A word on methodology is called for. In the early days, team nicknames weren't as clearly defined and official as they are now. As a result, there's some subjectivity. I did an end-run around all that by accepting baseball-reference.com's judgement. There have been 119 franchise nicjknames in baseball history, as compared to 115 franchises.

Here are a few fun facts, for what it's worth:

• The name with the most wins is "Giants" (10,981).
• Among team names that are now defunct, "Senators" has the most wins (5,330).
• Among active team names that are part of the American League, "Athletics" is ahead (9,714).
• Among active team names, the one with the fewest wins is "Rays" with 855.
• In 2017:
• "Rangers" passed "Padres" to move into 23rd place.
• "Rockies" passed "Marlins" to move into 29th place.
• "Rays" passed "Colonels" to move into 40th place.

eaten alive (cinema history class)

Session: Halloween Month / Fallen Filmmakers, week 2
Movie: Eaten Alive (1977)
Directed by Tobe Hooper
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL

Plot:
Creepy weirdo runs a hotel in the swamp, and he feeds his guests to an alligator. Hilarity ensues.

Background and Reaction:
I really enjoyed the atmosphere in this one. It was incredibly claustrophobic, and fog was used to obscure the fact that it was filmed on a small set. But that just enhanced the atmosphere. Between that and the neon backgrounds, this felt like a Creepshow movie.

Neville Brand stole the show as the psychotic hotelier. Scary and comical at the same time, he looked like a demented chimpanzee as he watched his victims get eaten by the alligator. And Robert Englund, as Buck, was particularly amusing as well. Another high point came late in the film when Judd has a guest tied up in one room (but she's bouncing around loudly trying to escape), an amorous couple trying to have sex in another, and an escaped little girl crawling around under the house. As the camera alternates between the multiple scenes, it brilliantly captures the chaos and Judd's descent into madness. I enjoyed this so much that I didn't really notice that the plot was weak -- something that Joe pointed out in his comments.

Joe's criticism was spot on, and almost made me feel bad that he went before me. I was set to rate the film a 10, but his comments made me reconsider. There were, in point of fact, other reasons that I wasn't sure about the high rating. I've given very high marks to the last several films we saw, including 10s for both Deranged and The Hills Have Eyes. Can so many movies really be deservign of the highest grade? Does that devalue it? Eventually, despite my doubts I gave it that 10 because it was so much fun to watch.

I did question Joe's rating of 9.5. He said that he'll have to rewatch this; with subsequent vieings, his rating for it may go up, but will definitely not go down. From my perspective, keeping Bayes' Theorem in mind, it seems to me that that means he should rate it higher. If one of several events will occur, and his rating of the movie will be determined after that event, than the expected value of his rating is the weighted average of the possible values of the rating (weighted by their respective likelihoods). If Joe's rating will be 9.5 or higher (and the probability of it being higher is nonzero), then the expected value of his rating has to be greater than 9.5. I suppose one can argue that his rating of the movie now doesn't have to be the expected value of the rating he gives it after subsequen viewings. But that offends my probablistic aesthetics. Maybe I just need to get that pole out of my ass.

Anyway, this was another one of those movies that just got me really excited and into it. Yet it was comical enough to not really scare me.

Ratings:
Joe: 10 for the exploitation and 9 for the plot, averaging out to 9.5
Dave: 9.5-9.6
Sean: 4 out of 4
Rich: 6
Scott: 6.5
Me: 10
Ethan: 9

Bechdel:
Eaten Alive passes the Bechdel test.

Tangentially-Related Anecdote:
Years ago, on a family roadtrip, we were trying to find a campground in Sopchoppy, Florida. It was the middle of the night and raining, and there wasn't a clear boundary between the campground and the home of its caretaker. In my confusion, I ended up driving all over the caretaker's yard. Once I realized that, I drove off and we stayed at a hotel -- fearful that the sherriff would show up and arrest me for vandalism.

temptation, thy name is cake. and coffee. and ice cream...

Asher's birthday cake

My two weeks of diet hell are halfway done.

I haven't said much about it on the intertubes -- a couple of stray comments on Facebook, and nothing on this blog. No time like the present, I guess.

It's no secret that I like foods that are...less than healthful. And I weigh more than I should. For a couple months I've been seeing a personal trainer to make sure I exercise, but that doesn't really address my eating.

But a few weeks ago she suggested a two-week "cleanse" diet. Sort of a reset. I was skeptical, though I will admit that it made sense to at least try. I gave a noncomital answer -- she can give me the details of the diet, but I make no promises about whether I'll do it. Last week I made the mistake of talking to her about it near the end of our session. Without going into the details, the essence is no highly processed foods, no dairy, sugar or wheat.

I was giving my usual "maybe I'll try it at some point" response, But Blair joined the conversation and encouraged me to try it. So by the time the trainer left, I was on a restrictive diet for two weeks.

My sushi. I should have taken the picture before I ate some of the
salmon and yellowtail

In some ways, it's not as bad as I was fearing. I'm not starving, and I do like eggs. Ethan has been making a lot of chicken for me -- marinaded in olive oil and cayenne pepper. And the trainer has been happy to answer texts when I have questions. Actually, she's been very tolerant when I send her stupid emails. At the supermarket, we saw a package of "superfruit" flavored jelly beans. I texted to ask if it was OK -- beans and fruit are both allowable, so why not this?

But the temptations are the hardest part. Ethan and I have our film class on Thursdays. Last week, Keith (who runs the class) put a big bowl of pretzels out. They were right next to me. I love pretzels -- left to my own devices, I could have eaten the whole bowl. But I managed not to take any. And last Saturday, when we were at an event for veterans, there was a huge hero sandwich that looked really good. And, of course, any work function. 

The biggest temptation was on Sunday, because it was Asher's birthday. That meant dinner out and a cake. We ended up with a Japanese restaurant, since I could have sushi and sashimi.** But there's no way around the cake. A beautiful chocolate mousse cake. And I stood and sang "Happy Birthday" with the family and watched as pieces were cut for everyone but me.

And what will I do when it's over? Honestly, I don't know. Part of me is thinking that if I got this far I can keep going. But, of course, part of what got me this far is the knowledge that it will end. It's easier to not have sandwiches when I know that I'll be able to have them again soon. The idea isn't to stay this restrictive forever. If I can control myself, I'll be eating a bit better after these two weeks are over than I was before.

But, God, do I miss pastrami.

*With the exception of the sugar that naturally occurs in fruits and vegetables

**In case you're interested, we ended up at Ginza in Massapequa. It was very good. Very fresh, which is of the utmost importance when you're talking about raw fish. Ethan, in particular, was wary. Among us he's the most finicky about food quality, but he really liked it. I can't recommend this place highly enough.

names

We spent last Saturday in Connecticut at a veterans event in Connecticut, representing Stack-Up at the Cove Island Retreat for veterans. The event was the brainchild of Daniel Karger who wants to support veterans with PTSD. The event was run by LZ 4 Vets (Landing Zone for Vets, that is). My understanding is that LZ 4 Vets will have its own website soon, but in the meantime they are represented here.

James Sparrow

The event largely consisted of lunch in the park, with live music. Karger explained to me that he wants the vets -- particularly those with PTSD to have things to do, to know that there are people who care and places to turn. He's hoping that this will be an annual event. We were there representing Stack-Up, handing out information and giving swag to anyone who could do thirty pushups in one minute.

I think the most moving part of the day was when James Sparrow read a poem he wrote called "Names." I can't do it justice, so I am reproducing it here (with his permission).

In the season of the fall
We rendezvoused in 82
In the city Of the commander in chief
For a week long   A quarter million strong
 Some came silently and solo
 Others came with Fanfare And entire families
 It was to be the great gathering! This time we would be heard!
 And we would march in the streets!
 It belonged to us--That city--That week
 Many came still whole and still very strong
 Others came weak from fierce firefights Far off the battlefield!
 Some came missing an arm--a leg--an eye Paralyzed!!
 We came to honor Those--who marched in our ranks no longer
 We would bury our dead With dignity
In Per-pe-tu-i-ty
 A Chevron--500 feet long
A monumental black granite  Memorial Etched--with the names of those who now patrolled with that huge army in the heavens Names!!--57,939
This would be the shield! That we bore their bodies home on As befitting the warriors they were
 We came to see--hear--touch--The Names
 We came in tight fitting uniforms--Faded field jackets-- 3 piece suits
 We came from the big cities and the small towns We came from the low valleys and the mountains We came from the farm lands--the range lands--the wood lands
 We came with long hair--short hair--clean shaven--bearded
 No longer did we look the same as we had when we talked the talk! and walked the walk! Up all night--in fancy hotel bars Intricate handshakes That dazzled the eye and ear.
  Laughin--cryin--huggin--kissin Crowed conversations clutter the air “Semper Fi” “Airborne all the way” “Anyone here served with 3/7 in 67” “Hey Remember me?” First Cav right here “Man, am I glad you made it back, all this time I thought you got zapped!” “What happened after I rotated?” “Did short round make it back?” Glasses clink, with arms held high . A midnight toast “Here’s to the best there ever was, and those of us that are left”.
 We were still young but old beyond our years for we had walked in the footsteps of giants
 Now we gathered--to see--hear--touch--The Names! To dedicate--consecrate-- Our name ladened marble memorial.
 For 3 days before A vigil we held by the light of candles In the National Cathedral From the altar Read aloud Names--57,939 More then 100 of us read the Names Friends and family members from thousands of miles away.
  They came to hear the names The name of a buddy--brother--lover--son--husband It was my turn In the evening of the second day To read aloud names Every pew--full Standing room only A solemn task I knelt on the altar A velet pillow--beneath my knees A sea of faces--asembled before me.
 Names 523 names I read aloud. The first was Kosakowski, Gerald A. The last was Lahna, Gary W. I read a name and receive a reaction from soft murmurs to hysterical pain I became those names all 523 Koo-he-e-nooe, Moses I. Kos-ko-vich, Michael L. LaChance--LaChapelle--LaClear--LaFlair LaRosa--Lackey--Lackland--Labowski--Lafferty I read 2 Lafayettes--3 Kowalskis--7 Laceys 7 Krafts--10 Kruegers And 12 Kramers Arthur-Dennis-Douglas-Howard-James-John- Joseph-Kevin-Leon-Ray Ámond-Robert and Stephen Kramer!!
 Each Name opening wide the mind’s eye of memory Of who they were and who they could have been A man in a wheelchair Medal of Honor gracing his neck. Weeped.With the sound of some names Flowers were dropped at my knees Mothers kissed me Fathers touched me Sisters and lovers hugged me Brothers and buddies--shook me
  Names Kranz Jr., William F. His Mother stopped me When she heard his name Tears in her eyes--with a simple request My signiture next to his name I humbly oblige Teardrops from hundreds of eyes Tug at my soul My mind is flooded with the pain of so many Names My knees ache My body shakes--finished!! I need a hand --just to stand
  At week’s end We walk in the sun Marching along together again Thousands of feet hitting the pavement not in unison at all The same feet that waded the paddies in Que Son and climbed the hills in the central highlands The same feet that clamored out of choppers  And the same such feet that flew those birds and drove those trucks and built those bridges and stood endless watch against the terror of the night
  Short timers canes little American flags  Held high in the hand Sons and daughters perched high on shoulders that once bore the burden
 Chanting!!--Shouting!! while feet strode down the avenue “I don’t know--but I been told Streets in haven--are paved with gold” “Vietnam Vet and damn proud!!” “Pick up your head and hold it high 5th Marines are passing by” “Big red one!”-- “Tropic Lighting!” G.I. beans--GI gravy G I wish I joined the Navy “God Bless America” 7 “I know a girl who lives on the hill She won’t kiss me but her sister will” “Sound off--1-2--Sound off--3-4 Bring it on down 1-2-3-4 1-2--3-4”
  A high school band plays When Johnny comes marching home again--hoo ra--hoo ra A Parade--of emotions down Constitution Ave.--to the end of the mall Where our Wall--Mirrores reflections And contains the Names
 Boat people--Refugees--Vietnamese Line the top of the wall A banner in hand--Proclaming brightly “Thank you, Vietnam Veterans for Defending Freedom and Democracy” Speechless dignataries give speeches “An overdue tribute to those who performed well in the most trying of circumstances”
  We!! came to bury our dead with dignity in Per-pe-tu-i-ty We!! Need no tribute we know who we are . We!! Are the men of Bedford--Exeter--Warwick-- Talbot--Salisbury and Gloucester That fought alongside Harry the King Upon Saint Crispin’s Day We!! Are that same band of brothers That stood defiantly at Lexington!! Conquered the Argonne!! Sweated on the “Canal”!! Chilled to the bone in the “Bulge”!! And Froze in the reservoir know as Chosin!! Speeches!!
 We listen standing--pressed together elbow to elbow asshole to
  belly button We are one!! Our souls--stitched tightly together with the thick twine of shared experience We dedicate in a moment of silence then a surging forth in a search for names It’s done--it’s there for all the world to see--hear--touch The Names 57,939

baseball stoopidstats -- 2017 edition, number 3

Last year, I wrote a post about who holds the records for the most home runs in the span of n seasons (for all positive integers n).

As of 2017, none of the records has changed. So the table I presented last year is still valid. I have therefore reproduced it here.

What has changed is that now I'm a little better with Dropbox, so I can let you peruse the file. It's here.

I realize that this is probably a job that would be best performed using Access or some other database program. But I'm more comfortable with spreadsheets, so that's what I used.

That fact, of course, raises the question of how I chose which baseball players to consider. There have been nearly 20,000 players in the history of the major leagues, and it would be a bit time consuming to look in detail at each one's record. If you look at the file I attached above, you'll see that I went through the records of 23 players. How did I pick them? How do I know that I didn;t miss someone who hit more homers in, say, nine years than anyone I did consider?

In answer, I'll explain my methodology. Note that, for data, I relied on baseball-reference.com, which is a great online resource for anyone interested in baseball stats. Conveniently, they have leader lists for every major statistic. And for each of those statistics they have lists of career leaders, season leaders, active leaders, etc. The top of their single-season leader list is shown below. To decide whether to consider a player, I need to see his highest single-season total and his career total. As described below.

Single Season Record
Barry Bonds, of course, is at the top of the single season home run leader list (having hit 73 in 2001. So I looked at his career first, calculating his highest two-season total, his highest three-season total, etc. At this point, his totals are the only candidates I have for each record. And I also know that his highest single-season total is the record for a one-year span.

Two-Season Record
Now, on to the question of who holds the record for a two -year span (and, how to know whose careers to examine). At this point, Barry Bonds' total of 122 home runs (2000-2001) is the highest total I've come across. Bonds averaged 61 homers per season during that span, so if anyone did better, he had to have at least one season with at least 61 homers. And, of course, he also had to have at least 122 career homers. Moving down the single season list, the next highest is Mark McGwire, who hit 70 homers in 1998. He also had 583 career homers, so he's a candidate to consider. Examining his career, I see that he hit 135 homers (1998-1999), which is better than Bonds' best. So that's the new candidate for the record. McGwire averaged 67.5 homers per season during that span, so if anyone did better, he had to have at least one season with at least 68 homers. And, of course, he also had to have at least 135 career homers. But Bonds and McGwire are the only players to have hit at least 68 homers in a season, so I know that McGwire's two-year best is the record.

Three-Season Record
Now, on to the question of who holds the record for a three-year span (and, how to know whose careers to examine). At this point, McGwire's total of 193 home runs (1997-1999) is the highest total I've come across. McGwire averaged 64.3 homers per season during that span, so if anyone did better, he had to have at least one season with 65 homers. And, of course, he also had to have at least 193 career homers. Moving down the single-season list, the next highest is Sammy Sosa, who hit 66 homers in 1998. He also had 609 career homers, so he's a candidate to consider. Examining his career, I see that his highest three-year total was 179 (1998-2000), which doesn't beat McGwire's highest. At this point, everyone who had a season with at least 65 homers has been considered, so I know McGwire's three-year best is the record.

Four-Season Record
Now, on to the question of who holds the record for a four-year span (and, how to know whose careers to examine). At this point, McGwire's total of 245 home runs (1996-1999) is the highest total I've come across. McGwire averaged 61.3 homers per season during that span, so if anyone did better, he had to have at least one season with 62 homers. And, of course, he also had to have at least 245 career homers. At this point, everyone who had a season with at least 62 homers has been considered, so I know McGwire's four-year best is the record.

Five-Season Record
Now, on to the question of who holds the record for a five-year span (and, how to know whose careers to examine). At this point, Sosa's total of 292 home runs (1998-2002) is the highest total I've come across. Sosa averaged 58.4 homers per season during that span, so if anyone did better, he had to have at least one season with 59 homers. And, of course, he also had to have at least 292 career homers. Looking at the single-season homer list, I see three more players with at least 59 homers in a season -- Roger Maris (61 in 1961), Babe Ruth (60 in 1927) and Giancarlo Stanton (59 in 2017). Neither Maris nor Stanton got to 292 career homers, so I am not examining their careers. But Babe Ruth had 714 career homers, so I do examine his career. His highest five-year total was 256 (1926-1930), so he doesn't beat Sosa's highest. So I have confirmed that Sosa's five-year best is the record.

Six-Season Record
Now, on to the question of who holds the record for a six-year span (and, how to know whose careers to examine). At this point, Sosa's total of 332 home runs (1998-2003) is the highest total I've come across. Sosa averaged 55.3 homers per season during that span, so if anyone did better, he had to have at least one season with 56 homers. And, of course, he also had to have at least 332 career homers. Looking at the single-season homer list, I see seven more players with at least 56 homers in a season. Two of them didn't hit at least 332 in their careers, and but five did, and I examine their careers. However, none of them ever hit 332 or more home runs in a six-year span, so I know Sosa's six-year best is the record.

Seven-Season Record
Now, on to the question of who holds the record for a seven-year span (and, how to know whose careers to examine). At this point, Sosa's total of 368 home runs (1996-2002, and 1997-2003) is the highest total I've come across. Sosa averaged 52.6 homers per season during that span, so if anyone did better, he had to have at least one season with 53 homers. And, of course, he also had to have at least 368 career homers. Looking at the single-season homer list, I see five more players with at least 53 homers in a season. Two of them didn't hit at least 368 in their careers, and but three did, and I examine their careers. However, none of them ever hit 368 or more home runs in a seven-year span, so I know Sosa's seven-year best is the record.

Eight-Season Record
Now, on to the question of who holds the record for a eight-year span (and, how to know whose careers to examine). At this point, Sosa's total of 408 home runs (1996-2003) is the highest total I've come across. Sosa averaged 51 homers per season during that span, so if anyone did better, he had to have at least one season with 51 homers. And, of course, he also had to have at least 408 career homers. Looking at the single-season homer list, I see seven more players with at least 51 homers in a season. Four of them didn't hit at least 408 in their careers, and but three did, and I examine their careers. However, none of them ever hit 408 or more home runs in an eight-year span, so I know Sosa's eight-year best is the record.

Nine-Season Record
Now, on to the question of who holds the record for a nine-year span (and, how to know whose careers to examine). At this point, Sosa's total of 444 home runs (1995-2003) is the highest total I've come across. Sosa averaged 49.3 homers per season during that span, so if anyone did better, he had to have at least one season with 50 homers. And, of course, he also had to have at least 444 career homers. Looking at the single-season homer list, I see four more players with at least 50 homers in a season. None of them had at least 444 homers in his career, so I don't examine any of their careers. I know Sosa's nine-year best is the record.

Ten-Season Record
Now, on to the question of who holds the record for a ten-year span (and, how to know whose careers to examine). At this point, Sosa's total of 479 home runs (1995-2004) is the highest total I've come across. Sosa averaged 47.9 homers per season during that span, so if anyone did better, he had to have at least one season with 48 homers. And, of course, he also had to have at least 479 career homers. Looking at the single-season homer list, I see fifteen more players with at least 48 homers in a season. Ten of them didn't hit at least 479 in their careers, and but five did, and I examine their careers. However, none of them ever hit 479 or more home runs in a ten-year span, so I know Sosa's ten-year best is the record.

Eleven-Season Record
Now, on to the question of who holds the record for an eleven-year span (and, how to know whose careers to examine). At this point, Babe Ruth's total of 516 home runs (1920-1930) is the highest total I've come across. Ruth averaged 46.9 homers per season during that span, so if anyone did better, he had to have at least one season with 47 homers. And, of course, he also had to have at least 516 career homers. Looking at the single-season homer list, I see twelve more players with at least 47 homers in a season. Nine of them didn't hit at least 516 in their careers, and but three did, and I examine their careers. However, none of them ever hit 516 or more home runs in an eleven-year span, so I know Ruth's eleven-year best is the record.

Twelve-Season Record
Now, on to the question of who holds the record for an twelve-year span (and, how to know whose careers to examine). At this point, Babe Ruth's total of 562 home runs (1920-1931) is the highest total I've come across. Ruth averaged 46.8 homers per season during that span, so if anyone did better, he had to have at least one season with 47 homers. And, of course, he also had to have at least 562 career homers. At this point, everyone with at least 562 career home runs has been considered, so there's nothing left to look at, so I know Ruth's twelve-year best is the record.

Longer-Than-Twelve-Season records
If I continue in this manner, the career total necessary to be considered will only go up, so I know that there's nothing else to look at, and the records as shown in the table above are the records.

the hills have eyes (cinema history class)

Session: Halloween Month / Fallen Filmmakers, week 1
Movie: The Hills Have Eyes (1977)
Directed by Wes Craven
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL

Plot:
After suffering car troubles in the middle of the desert, a family tries to figure out what to do. But an incestuous local family of freaks has plans for them. Hilarity ensues.

Background and Reaction:
The Hills Have Eyes joins the ranks of the films that leave me breathless. It's not about having excessive jump scares or a lot of gore. It's about building tension and slowly ratcheting it up for a full movie. There's a grittiness  to this film that just gets under your skin and keeps irritating.

Sean and I disagreed about the ending. I thought it ended at the perfect point. The emergency is over, but the family is still in the desert. It would have been anticlimactic to show them slowly make their way back to civilization. As the viewer I was willing to assume they somehow get back. Sean felt that the film should have gone there.

I was particularly proud of one call I got right -- I predicted that the plot would resolve with Ruby's maternal instincts kicking in and making her save the baby.

I also want to note that I loved the line, "Do you always try to stop trespassers by hanging yourself?"

Ratings:
Ethan: 9
Me: 10
Scott: 9.5
Sean: 3 out of 4
Dave: 9.5 - 9.6

Bechdel:
The Hills Have Eyes passes the Bechdel test.

Tangentially-Related Anecdote:
Back in 2012, on our family roadtrip, we enterred Death Valley National Park from the East. That was through the small part of the park that's in Nevada. We did this because that way would take us past a ghost town. I forget its name. But the dirt road into the park had the same desolate feel as the dirt road in the beginning of this movie. I remember constantly wondering if I had gotten us lost in the middle of nowhere. Fortunately that was before I saw this movie.

apple will never be my platform of choice

Reason number 4,785,678 that apple will never be my primary platform.

Before I begin, let me acknowledge that there's a whole lot to like about the iPad. Garage Band is a great program for playing with music. Asher loves the games available --apparently they're much better than the games available on an Android tablet. And the big screen is great. Also, Apple is really good with product design. Their devices have a great intuitive feel. I used to have an iPod, and it was remarkably easy for me to get the hang of it.

But they are terrible at customer service.

My iPad had a broken screen. Blair took it to the Apple Store in the Queens Center Mall, since we have their warranty. ApplePlus, I think they call it. The screen is shattered. The first guy she spoke to said he didn't see any problem. After she recovered from that, she was told it would be a two-hour wait for service. She didn;t have two hours to spare.

A few days later we went to the Apple Store in Grand Central. This time they didn't deny the existence of a problem, and the wait was only a half hour. Better. So we waited and eventually spoke to someone who processed the order of a replacement. It was a bit frustrating that we'd have to come back, but I guess I can't really be annoyed about that.

A few days later we came to pick up the replacement. The first person told me to go over "there" (she did gesture to indicate where "there" was) and tell her boss I was there for a pickup. So I went "there." Eventually the boss asked if I was there for a pickup. I said yes. She acknowledged that, and told me she'd help me in a minute. She then disappeared and never returned. Eventually Blair spoke to a different greeter who gave her different instructions. "Go there, tell that man with the iPad you're here for a warranty replacement."

OK...Why the different instructions? He explained that the first greeter probably misunderstood us. OK. I'll buy that. But why did the boss say she'll help us in a minute and then disappear? And I note that that had happened without anyone taking our name. At an Apple Store, standing there without having had your name taken is a sure way to get ignored.

I went off to be one step closer to my iPad, while Blair stayed to complain about the treatment we had received.

"I'm sorry," the guy told her.

"And what's that worth?" she asked.

He was puzzled. Didn't know what she meant.

"You said you're sorry. Monetize it." Waive the fee for replacing the iPad."

"I can't do that."

"Then what's your sorrow worth?"

"I'm giving you my time."

She pointed out that giving her his time was his job, and went to find me, waiting where I was told so that eventually the Apple Gods would fulfill their promise.

Anyway, I eventually got my replacement iPad.

All's well that ends well? I guess, but the whole experience leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. I've had to deal with Apple stores before, and it's always an unpleasant experience. The people don't seem to care, and they treat the customers like cattle. "Go here." "Wait there." And it seems like it's a lot of waiting to move from one place to another to wait some more. In many ways it's like the worst satire of the DMV.

Now, I get that there are things to like about Apple. As I said above, their products are well-designed. I used to have an iPod and found it to be very intuitively easy to use. But that doesn;t make up for the company treating me like shit. I'll stick to Android and Windows.

baseball stoopidstats -- 2017 edition, number 2

Sometimes I have wondered about what has been the most prevalent win/loss record in Major League Baseball. Fortunately, with access to the historical records I can figure it out.

But, before looking at it, what do I expect? A couple thoughts I had before looking at the actual numbers:

• In aggregate, teams have a .500 record -- exactly as many wins as losses. That's obvious. I would expect that the distribution of winning percentages to be something akin to a normal curve centered at .500.
• The season has been 162 games long since 1961 for the American League and 1962 for the National League. It had been 154 games long for most of the 20th century before that. So we had the shorter season for longer. But, with expansion, there have been more teams since 1961. So it's very clear that more 162-game seasons have been played than any other number.*

Given those facts together, I would expect to see more records of 81-81 than anything else.

And I would be wrong.The most prevalent record is 86-76. That is a 162-game season, so I was right on that count. But that's a record that could plausibly get a team into the playoffs, so I am very surprised by that. Teams have finished the season at 86-76 forty-seven times. For the record, 81-81 has occured thirty-five times, putting it in 11th place. Go figure.

There are 590 different records that have occurred once and only once. I am not going to list them in this post, but you can see them in the file, which is here.

Another couple of interesting facts:

• The 28 most prevalent results all consisted of 162 games.
• The most prevalent result with other-than 162 games was 75-79, which occurred twenty-one times.
• With 2865 seasons played, there have been 911 different win/loss records.

*After writing that sentence I checked. There have been 1,167 162-game seasons played. There have been 504 154-game seasons. In third are 153-game seasons, which represent teams that had 154-game schedules with one rainout.

the town that dreaded sundown (cinema history class)

Session: Cinematic Serial Killers, week 4
Movie: The Town That Dreaded Sundown (1976)
Directed by Charles B. Pierce
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL

Plot:
A mysterious killer is brutally murdering the citizens of Texarkana. Hilarity ensues.

Background and Reaction:
The Town That Dreaded Sundown is based on a real-life string of unsolved murders in Texarkana, AR, in 1946. Because it's based on true-life events, there's the inevitable tension between historical accuracy and quality story-telling. So, despite being relatively true to reality, the movie added a climactic shootout near a railroad -- a scene that Keith said was made up from whole cloth. That scene works very well. It is, in fact, one of the best scenes in the movie.

On the other hand, the ending stayed true to reality. That is to say, there wasn't an ending. The Phantom Killer (as he was known) was never caught, and the killer in the movie wasn't caught either. That was actually one of film's two big weaknesses. The storytelling seemed incomplete without a resolution. This was something that really bothered Joe, as he's big on being told a good story. It's as if he feels there's a contract between the movie and the viewer -- the viewer puts in the time and the movie provides closure.

The other drawback that bothered both Joe and me was the comic relief. Now, I'm perfectly fine with some comedy thrown in to a horror film to act as a pressure valve. But this movie had a character, Patrolman A.C. "Sparkplug" Benson, whose main role was to provide some laughs. And that would have been fine, except that they overdid it. Forgetting his keys when he's supposed to drive a VIP around (and emptying his desk drawer looking for those keys) was OK. But when he drove his car over an embankment and into a swamp, I thought I was watching Smokey and the Bandit. It was simply too much and detracted greatly from the film.

Of course, I don't want to sound like I'm completely down on the film. The creative killings that seemed to make this a groundbreaking proto-slashet movie were interesting in their own right. And stars Ben Johnson and Andrew Prine were very good in their roles. I will admit that Prine seemed a bit too much like a young Robert Reed, but that's beside the point.

This wasn't up to the level of Deranged that we had seen a week earlier, but it was pretty good.

Ratings:
Sean: 3 out of 4
Scott: 8
Me: 7.5
Ethan: 9
Joe: 9.3
Dave: 9.2 - 9.3

Bechdel:
The Town That Dreaded Sundown fails the Bechdel test.

Tangentially-Related Anecdote:
I remember my first visit to Texarkana. I was coming East on I-30 from Dallas. I got off the highway at US 71 (which happens to run down the border between Texas and Arkansas. At a gas station, I asked the lady behind the counter what state I was in. "Well," she said in a slow drawl, "right now you're in Texas. But if you cross the street you're in Arkansas." When I left the gas station, I drove South on US-71, in the left lane. I'd stick my arm out the window, then pull it back in, while saying to myself, "My arm is in Arkansas. My arm is in Texas." I did this over and over again Fun times...

baseball stoopidstats -- 2017 edition, number 1

Major League Baseball's regular season is over, which means my favorite part of the baseball year has arrived: The time I get to update my Baseball StoopidStats.*

The first installment is the cumulative won-loss records for all of the major leagues. This is a bonanza for anyone who likes graphs that have too much information to really process efficiently, and which are incomprehensible through lack of labeling. Yay! Fun times! For anyone interested in the file that I am referencing below, it is here.

My file has lots of graphs, but here are three:

This first is a graph showing the cumulative games over .500 (i.e., wins minus losses) for every franchise in baseball history. In this graph, when a franchise ceases operation (as 85 franchises have), its data series ends. The file I linked to above has a similar graph in which defunct franchises show as horizontal lines in the years after they ceased operation (since, playing no more games, their cumulative games over .500 stays constant.

This second graph is similar in concept, but results are grouped not by franchise but by geographic location (as indicated in the team name). For example, the series for "New York" (the gray line that finishes more than 3000 games over .500. That chart includes the Highlanders/Yankees, The Mets, The Giants (through 1957) and various now-defunct teams from the 19th century. The Dodgers (Brooklyn through 1957) are not included in "New York," as they are included (with various now-defunct teams) in "Brooklyn." As before, a series ends after the last of a location's teams ceases operation or moves away. Some series appear as horizontal line for a while before going up or down because they represent locations that had teams at one point, then didn;t have teams, and then did again. An example is Washington (D.C.); The Senators left after 1971, and there wasn't a franchise there again until the Expos moved there (and became the Nationals) beginning in 2005. There have been 54 locations indicated in team names, of which 27 are still being used.

This third graph is similar to the first, but results are grouped by state. Here, New York and Brooklyn are part of the same series (along with Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Troy. For these purposes, I am treating the District of Columbia, Ontario and Quebec as states. To date there have been franchises in 28 states, of which 19 still have teams.

All of my data are taken from Baseball Reference with the following two exceptions:

• If you look at the results for the 1890 American Association(according to BR), the wins and losses don't add to the same total. After some checking I found that, according to Wikipedia, the St. Louis Browns had a record of 78-58 (BR showed them having a record of 77-58). Using Wikipedia as a source for their record, the wins and losses balance.
• In 1884 the Union Association had a team that moved during the season. The Chicago Browns/Pittsburgh Stogies had a record of 41-50, but BR does not indicate the breakdown of that record between the two locations. I found that information on Wikipedia and am accepting it.

A few things to note for 2017:

• The Cardinals passed the Braves in wins this year, becoming the fourth-winningest franchise.
• The Rockies passed the Marlins in wins this year, becoming the 27th-winningest franchise.
• "Texas" passed "San Diego" in wins this year, becoming the 21st-winningest location.
• "Tampa Bay" passed "Florida" in wins this year, becoming the 29th-winningest location.
• The Mariners passed the 3,000-win mark.
• "New York" located teams collectively passed the 21,000 win-mark.
• Teams in Massachusetts collectively passed the 15,000 win-mark.
• Teams in California collectively passed the 22,000 win-mark.
• Teams in Texas collectively passed the 8,000 win-mark

* I Really need to trademark that word.

spreadsheed solution

Last month I wrote a post about a problem I was having in graphing with spreadsheets. Specifically, I have a file with series that may or may not come to an end at any point. If the series has ended then the formula for the entry in the series is evaluated as a blank. I want Excel, in graphing that series to show no value for blank cells. But if a cell is calculated to be blank, Excel treats it as a zero. That post was here.

One of my actuarial students had the solution. Instead of making the entries in the series calculate to blanks, have them calculate as errors. That, for some reason, makes Excel evaluate them as nonvalues.

In the illustration above, the first data series grows linearly. The second one is flat. But, as can be seen in the illustration, it is forced (by formula) to be an error when the first series is greater than 10.

This is not a perfect solution; it would be prettier to have the table display blanks. I guess that can be accomplished with conditional formatting. On the other hand, it may be more clear to display the error value.