to chip or not to chip

In the aftermath of Red's disappearance and return, we've been talking about a new issue -- whether to have the cats chipped.

It's something we've talked about before. Every time one of the cats gets out -- and it does happen, since, well, they're cats -- we talk about getting them chips. This time, the lady who had taken Red in mentioned that he "wasn't even chipped." But Ethan has been against the idea of chipping. Based on his research, it's uncomfortable for the animal and therefore detracts from its quality of life. And, he said, it's illegal to remove the chip once it's put in.

But our vet suggested it this time. "Maybe," he said, "you should consider getting him chipped. I pointed to Ethan's objection that it causes discomfort, and the vet said that's not true. So that's something to consider.

One thing to keep in mind. The chip isn't like kitty lojack; there's no GPS on it, so it's not as if you can just call up a service and have them say "Oh, he's in your neighbor's yard, under their pool." In fact, it's a radio-opaque chip with a code. So if someone finds your pet and brings him to a vet who checks for a chip, he can then call the company that monitors the chips, who can then contact you.

But there are a couple of things to remember. The vet cannot call the chip company and report the pet found, as that is a violation of medical privacy. So the finder can refuse to use this obvious path to locating the owner. Also, you getting your pet chipped does not make you the owner. Legally, that is.

So for the chip to work, the following sequece of events must occur:

• Your lost pet is found by someone who takes him in.
• The finder brings him to a vet.
• Either the finder asks the vet to search for a chip, or the vet suggests it.
• The vet finds the chip and gives the finder the information to call the chip company
• The finder makes the call, and the chip company informs you so you can be reunited with the pet.

There are a lot of things that can short-circuit the process, notably the finder may think you (by virtue of your pet having escaped) don't deserve to have the pet, or may simply want to keep the pet. If your pet is particularly sweet and beautiful (as is Red), then I can see a finder wanting to keep him and then rationalizing it by convincing himself that you are irresponsible and don't deserve to have him.

I feel very lucky that Red's finder had the decency to return him, despite her son being somewhat attached.

FWIW, our vet told us of an anecdote. Someone brought in a beautiful Persian cat who showed up at his door. They found a chip, but the finder said he wasn't going to call it in, since the owners didn't deserve the cat. But he made a mistake. He called the chip company to have the ownership changed to him. The chip company, not bound by medical privacy issues, called the owner of record to ask for his confirmation of ownership change. The police were called, and the cat was returned. I asked the vet about the fact that chipping the cat doesn't establish ownership. He said that the finder could have fought, but decided not to.

lids at sixty

Gene Moglia and Irene Bossert get plaques in appreciation of their long-term
membership in LIDS

I'm a bit late on this, but better late than never, eh?

A week ago The Long Island Daylily Society (LIDS) had its January meeting, at which we celebrated the society's 60th anniversary. In truth, it seems that no one is sure exactly how old LIDS is, but it's about 60 years, so what the hey...

Most LIDS meetings feature a speaker about daylilies themselves -- tips for hybridizing, gardening suggestions, health issues. But this was devoted to talk about the history of LIDS. Two longtime members -- Irene Bossert and Gene Moglia -- spoke about their experience with the club. It was fascinating to hear Irene's experience, as she joined in 1966.

What was interesting for me personally was the fact that Irene seemed to fall into LIDS accidentally -- a lot like I did. She was looking for plants for her garden, and went to a nursery to buy daylilies. The proprietor told her about LIDS, and how they were offering deal. Join LIDS and get free daylilies. It was cheaper to pay the membership fee to get flowers than to buy them. It's not exactly the same as me, but similar enough.

Oh, and I won a hellebore at the Chinese auction.

Here's to another 60 years...

the cat came back

Back home: Red

Well, he didn't really come back so much as we went to get him.

When Sharon asked me to work with her to make "lost cat" posters and put them up, I wasn't particularly enthusiastic. Two of our cats had gone missing -- one (Wiglaf) last spring and one (Red) last fall. And I felt bad about it, but I'm not big on putting up lost pet posters. I mean, can they really work? Actually, we tried putting up posters for Wiglaf last Spring. The only bite was a neighborhood woman who was feeding strays and though Wiglaf might be one of them. We never got close enough to the maybe-Wiglaf to be certain (which I take as evidence that it wasn't him). At any rate, even if lost pet posters can work, I figured that there was no way that, after this long, we'd have any luck. Oh, yeah, I should mention that a neighbor had mentioned putting poison bait in their yard to kill raccoons (who were interfering with their attempt at getting sod to take root. So there was plenty of reason for skepticism.

Still AWOL: Wiglaf

But Sharon really missed the cats and wanted to try posters again. Maybe a reward would help, she guessed. And, though I didn;t expect any success from the venture, I didn't want to give Sharon the idea that her feelings don;t matter. So this afternoon I went out with her, putting up posters. They had beautiful pictures of Red and Wiglaf, and an offer of a reward.

I promised Sharon that, if she wanted, we could put up more posters next weekend.



Back at home, we were getting on with our afternoon, when Sharon burst into the office -- someone was on the phone. He has Wiglaf. Blair spoke to him, and the next thing I knew we were on our way to a house about a block and a half away. All five of us, a ragged but hopeful band hoping for a reunion. Ethan, though hopeful, was still feeling bad; they may have Wiglaf, but no Red.

We went into the house. It took me a couple extra seconds to grasp what was going on, but there was Red, strolling around the basement like he owned the place. Ethan whisked him up into his arms, and held him tightly. Red was burying his face in Ethan's neck. At this point, I still don;t know if the guy who called had told Sharon the wrong name (the poster had two pictures and two names, but didn't specify which was which) or if Sharon was just assuming it was Wiglaf.

Apparently Red showed up at their house a while back looking sick and emaciated, and he needed a bunch of medical treatment -- worms, fleas, I'm not sure what else. So there was a bit of a veterinary bill to reimburse them for. But I have to admit that he is looking well-cared for and well-groomed. Ethan noticed that he has a couple of ingrown claws, but he can take care of that.

Red and Sharon's cat, Cream, have gotten reacquainted, and appear quite happy to be together again. Asher's cat,18, has his nose out of joint, and has been hissing. I'm not sure why, since I can't imagine he's forgotten Red. It may be that he's been enjoying his role as alpha kitty, and doesn;t want to relinquish it to Red. We'll have to let them sort it out together.

Meanwhile, if only someone would call about Wiglaf...



awkward hands (cinema history class)

First of all, believe it or not, I couldn;t find the trailer for Awkward Hands on Youtube, so here is the full movie.

About halfway through Awkward Hands, there was a burst of violence, and Joe proclaimed that now it was a Spaghetti Western. Up until that point, we were lamenting that it felt more like an American Western. The good guy seemed kind of pure good. The bad guy was real bad. And there were these Romantic musical interludes that reminded me of "Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head" from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid."

Keith disagreed. After the movie was finished he pointed out all the negativity that Joe and I were overlooking. The repeated whippings of the the hero, Peter Cushmich. Dorothy's parents showing no regard for her feelings. The criminal waking up tied to a plague-ridden corpse. These elements all made this a very dark film. Still, despite Keith's objections, this didn't feel like what I expect from a European Western. At least not for the first half.

The second half, on the other hand, was very interesting. Lots of conflict. Peter's troubled past is explored. He gets revenge on the old man. And after a year's absence he finds his wife working in a brothel ("the more they humiliated me, the more I loved you!"). And the ending was truly great. Perfect.

But more than anything else, this was a real character study. Peter's background is explored and discussed, and we see him mature from the clumsy oaf to confident and formidable gunslinger. But in the process we see him lose his soul. And though Dorothy still loves him, her spark is gone -- killed by her year in the brothel (or maybe by the changes he went through and his having ignored her in his pursuit of other goals).

Next week we start on a month of Hammer films.

my name is pecos (cinema history class)

First of all, believe it or not, I couldn;t find the trailer for My Name Is Pecos on Youtube, so here is a video showing the kill count.

Sometimes something happens in film class that drives home some of what I really like about it. That happened last week as we were discussing My Name Is Pecos, the 1967 Spaghetti Western starring Robert Woods. Throughout the film, I found myself wanting to like it. But I just couldn't enjoy it as much as I wanted to. I couldn't really put my finger on why. Then, in the discussion, Joe nailed it. The movie had everything, he explained. The troubled protagonist. The conflict. The hero getting beaten up. The gunplay. Some clever one-liners.

But there was nothing memorable. So it became an exercise in movie-by-the-numbers.

Now, having said that, I should note one thing I don't recall seeing in these Spaghetti Westerns. The Mexican is the hero. Most of the Spaghetti Westerns I've seen portray Mexicans as brutish thugs, often sweaty pigs, And when they're smart, they're still undone by their lack of self control. Here the Mexican was clever and controlled. And he won in the end.

One thing that I actually found interesting was one thing late in the movie. Mary is being held by Kline's gang, who want her to tell them where she's hidden the money they want. So what do they do? They threaten to strip her clothes off and make her walk around the house naked until she tells them what they want to know. It kind of had this bizzare sanitized feel to it. Kind of like an episode of Happy Days.

I'm also convinced that the graveyard was the same one used in Django. But I have no idea how to confirm that.

One final thing. I liked the music, but the theme song sounded like "House of the Rising Sun."

have a good funeral my friend...sartana will pay (cinema history class)

First of all, my apologies for the trailer above. I couldn't find a good quality version of the trailer in English, so I'm linking to the one in German.

Keith continued Spaghetti Western month in our cinema history class with the clumsily-titled Have a Good Funeral, My Friend...Sartana Will Pay, the fourth in the series of Sartana movies. I'd heard of Sartana, a kind of Old West James Bond -- primarily because I attended the adult continuing ed classes that Keith teaches at Nassau Community College. But, despite having heard of Sartana, having seen clips of Sartana, and even having bought a box set of Sartana DVDs, this was the first time I'd actually sat through a Sartana movie.

Keith had billed this session as a series of hopefuls for the role of "next Clint Eastwood." Gianni Garko, in the titular role, was credible, though I don't think he was quite up to Eastwood. We spent some time in class discussing who he reminded us most of. None of us really saw him as Clint, though I noted that he seemed a lot like Franco Nero in The Mercenary. Someone also compared him to John Holmes -- a comparison that escapes my senses. Looking back, I think the movie reminded me of The Equalizer (the TV show). Not that Garko is anything like Edward Woodward in manner or presence. But there was something about the character that made me think of Woodward's Robert McCall.

One of the things about A Few Dollars for Django, the film that Keith picked to open the year, is that the title had nothing whatsoever to do with the actual movie. There was no Django in that, and the "a few dollars for" part of the title had no connection to the film, unless you consider the first couple of minutes. By contrast, Have a Good Funeral, My Friend...Sartana Will Pay actually featured Sartana. And he was paying for some first rate funerals. So there was that. I like a movie title to have something to do with the movie.

There were a couple of other pleasant surprises in this film. The soundtrack, though not quite up to the greatness of Ennio Morricone's work, was among the better scores. And there was a lot of good work done with handheld cameras, which gave life to the sense of chaos at the right moments.

But there was also a lot not to like. There was a Chinese caricature running a casino and constantly spouting Confuscianisms. I suppose that's good if you like that sort of thing, but I don't. I also got tired of seeing Sartana the Invincible dodging bullets and never getting s scratch. And I was kind of hoping for more gadgetry. Keith did warn us that this was not the best of Sartana, so I hope to see the better ones...

cream's stairway to sharon

It's been a few years years since Sharon's cat, Cream, went blind. And he generally gets around pretty well. Actually, we're often amazed because he adapts very well to the frequently-shifting furniture.

Cream contemplates his staircase

He's not perfect, mind you. As he pads around, slowly making his way through a memorized house, he sometimes gets things wrong and bumps into walls. When that happens he adjusts and tries again until he finds his way. Sometimes he seems to get completely disoriented. When that happens, he sits and meows until someone gets him and brings him to one of a few familiar spots. We call that resetting him. And he doesn't seem to feel bad about it. As the vet explained, he doesn't know that he should have his sight, so he doesn't mope about it.

Cream exits from the bottom

But the big problem is Sharon's new bed. It's a loft bed, five feet off the floor. He can't climb up. And Sharon can't bring him to bed for the night for fear that he'll try to climb off (as he does Blair's and my bed) and have a nasty fall. This, Sharon's inability to have her cat with her at night, has been the one big drawback of the new bed.

Enter a clever work-a-way couple from Australia.

They started with an old Ikea Ivar shelving section. They cut a whole in each shelf, and arranged them in an alternating fashion -- one shelf with the hole at one end, the next shelf with the hole at the other. A sighted cat (or, we hope, a properly trained blind cat) can climb up or down by going back and forth, and through the holes. They added some carpet for better grip, some vertical pieces at the ends and plastic mesh all around (to prevent nasty falls). Voila! Cream has a staircase.

Sharon has been working with him to teach him that he can go up to her bed, or down to the floor. Cat treats are helpful in that regard. The hope is that we can get Cream to the point where we are confident that, if he's on the bed and wants to get down, he will know to do so via the staircase.

Fingers crossed!

nostalgia for an old station name

UPDATED BELOW.

On one of my recent morning commutes I started wondering about one of the stops. "Court Square, 23rd Street" on the E and M lines. I have gone through the station many, many times. In addition to being part of my commute now, the station was part of my regular commute when I was in high school. Only, then it had a different name. Back then it was "23rd Street, Ely Avenue."

And that's what got me to wondering. Some time during my years at my current home, the station changed names, but I can't recall when or why. And the bright mosaics on the station walls still call the place by it's old name. So, why was Ely Avenue banished from the station name? And when did this all happen. And who was "Ely" whose name was lent to an avenue and (for a time) a subway station?

A little research on the intertubes...

The renaming -- which, frankly, I don't remember -- happened in 2011 when free transfers were built to connect the station to the Court Square stations on the 7 and G trains. Didn't at least one of these used to be called "Court House Road" or something like that? Whatever, I've done enough rerearch for the night. As for Ely Avenue, apparently 23rd Street is Ely Avenue. Or was, anyway. It was renamed in 1915 when the Queens Topographic Bureau gave many streets numbers in 1915. What makes this peculiar is that that line wasn't built until the 1930s, so it seems odd to me that they put Ely Avenue in the name.

But what's really sad? I can't find reference to who "Ely" was.

I'll just assume it was Harry Ely. He
was a pitcher for the 1892 Baltimore Orioles.

UPDATE: An old friend from grad school -- Ray Comas -- infoms me that "Ely" is Charles Ely, who developed Hunter's Point in the 1850's. Hunter's Point would merge with other towns to form Long Island City. ALso, I assume that "Hunter's Point Avenue" is named after it. I'm actually kind of disappointed that it wasn't Harry Ely, as I'd sort of gotten emotionally invested in that. But I suppose it was a long shot. Thanks, Ray!

why i don't trust "fact checkers"

So, I got this in my inbox today.

Before: It's a fact check

Meryl Streep spent her acceptance speech commenting on the political environment. Donald Trump responded by tweeting that she's overrated. And the AP "factchecked" his opinion. Now, in all fairness to AP, the article doesn't actually render a verdict as to whether the assertion (that Streep is one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood) is true or not. In fact, they noted that it's a matter of opinion. The article then went on to catalogue the awards she has won, and ridicule Trump by comparison. The irony is that, while the intent was to point out how great an actress Streep is, the effect is to support Trump's assertion. Afterall, if someone is held in low esteem they can hardly be called over-rated (except in some kind of nasty sarcastic way -- as in when I note that a certain free newspaper is overpriced). But if

After: It's not a fact check

someone has received every award that an actress can* -- many of them multiple times -- then it's at least plausible that she is over-rated. Even vastly so. I express no opinion as to how Streep's acting compares to the level of the esteem in which she is held. But, while they do admit that Trump's statement was one of opinion and they simply ridicule it instead of labeling it as false, the fact remains that it was published as a "Fact Check." I do note that in the time between my getting an email with a link to the article and my writing this post, AP went in and changed the headline to remove the "Fact Check" label. I'm glad I have a capture from my screen. See above.


And this is one of many illustratives to explain why I don't trust the "fact-checkers." During the election season, some people were all gaga for "fact-checkers." All over Facebook they were citing findings about how Trump lied so much more than Clinton. And they were calling for live "fact-checking" of the debates. During the debates (the first, anyway -- I don't recall if it came up in the second or third debates ) Clinton even talked about hoping the "fact checkers" are hard at work.




So what could be objectionable? With all of the contradictory information being put out, isn't it good to have "fact checkers" to help us sort truth from lie? In a word, "no." More precisely, it would be good if the "fact-checkers" were simply, you know, checking facts. But they're not. The "fact checkers" are simply opinion journalists calling themselves "fact-checkers" in order to give their columns a patina of balance that they don't really deserve.


If you're fact-checking for a TV game show, things are relatively clear cut. Suppose the question is "With what team did all-time hit leader, Pete Rose, begin his Major league career?" If the answer names any team other than the Cincinnati Reds, then it's wrong. Maybe you go a step farther and confirm that Pete Rose is the all-time hit leader. The point is that game show questions are designed to have very well-defined answers. "What is the only even prime number?" 2 is the right answer. 3, 4 and 5 are not. But statements made in political speeches or opinion columns are often not so clear cut. They often rely on context and nuance. There may be statements that are technically true but being used deceptively. And there can be statements where everyone knows what the speaker means, and it's true, but the statement, as stated, is technically false. Then, there are statements of opinion or intention or expectation. And, of course, there are hyperbolic statements and metaphors that aren't meant to taken literally. I'm sure, if I think about it, I can come up with a bunch of other categories that can't easily be called "true" or "false."


To take a recent example of the last category I cited, consider this item from Politifact, which is considered one of the authoritative "fact-checkers." Trump was discussing trade agreements. To make the point that these are very complicated and we don't have anyone who can properly navigate the agreements, he said "It's like you have to be a grand chess master. And we don't have any of them." Politifact jumped on that. Citing the fact that the US does have chess grandmasters, they rated the statement "Pants on Fire," which is their bottom rank in terms of honesty. I'd like to say that this was an honest mistake. That, while I interpreted Trump's statement as a metaphor, Politifact's Louis Jacobson read it as a serious assertion of fact. But that strains credulity. It's as if I came in from a torrential rainstorm and said that it's raining cats and dogs, only to have someone call me a liar because it's actually just raining water. If Jacobson isn't an idiot, then he was being deliberately obtuse.

By contract, it's quite possible that the AP's Mark Kennedy wasn't intending his article to be a "fact check." The text never called it a "Fact Check." Also, as noted above, he acknowledged that Trump's statement was one of opinion and never did state that it was false. So maybe it was an overzealous headline writer made the jump from "Trump is wrong" to "Trump is lying" and took it upon itself to label the article as a Fact Check. But I digress -- only to avoid being unfair to Kennedy.

Getting back to the fundamental problems of "fact-checking," as I noted above, much of what is said in speeches and articles depends on nuance, choice of statistics, shades of meaning and the like. As to whether something is true or false, there is plenty of wiggle room to argue either way. The "fact-checkers," being mostly left-leaning, are generally likely to argue in favor of the Democrat. It's not that they're dishonest -- it's that they're human, and the human mind has plenty of tricks up its sleeve.

To take one example, consider this and this. When Bernie Sanders said the the black youth unemployment rate was 51%, Politifact figured out what government statistics he was using, and labeled his claim "mostly true." But when Trump made a substantially similar claim, they had no idea what he was talking about, and rated it "mostly false."

Eugene Volokh describes another example in which Politifact purposely chose to interpret one of Trump's claims about crime rates in such a way as to make it false, and thereby rated it "Pants On Fire." But if there is a relatively straightforward interpretation of a claim, and the claim is true under that straightforward interpretation (as was the case here), then it's dishonest to call the claim a lie.

With all the pitfalls that "fact-checking" entails, I am reminded that, during the election there were calls for live factchecking of the debates. Again, like the concept of "fact-checking" in general, there is some obvious appeal. With the back and forth and claims and counterclaims, it can be hard for the average voter to know who is telling the truth. But a good quality fact-checking, if it can be done, requires research. And with the time constraints that live "fact-checking" a debate would entail, more mistakes are bound to be made. Remember the 2012 election? Obama and Romney got into a verbal scrum over how long it took, after the Benghazi attack, for Obama to call it terrorism. Monica Crowley, CNN's moderator weighed in, saying that Obama was right. Afterwards, she acknowledged that Romney was correct on the substance (see video), but the damage was done. She single-handedly shifted the momentum of the debate because of what can most-charitably be described as a misguided attempt to provide clarity and move things along.

All these "fact checkers" and their opinion pieces? Print them if you like. But be honest. Label them as opinion pieces instead of "fact-checks." As far as your nuanced interpretations? I am actually more likely to take them seriously if they are not used to call someone a liar when he's not lying.

*For the record, in case any "fact-checkers" are reviewing this, that was meant as hyperbole. I am not seriously trying to claim that Streep has literally won every award an actress can.

watching the vote count

Well, it's official -- the electoral votes have been counted and certified.

I find this fascinating to watch -- largely because I tend to be really into process. In an age of near instant communication, it's interesting to see the pomp and ceremony. I love the repetition:

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of [State Name] seems to be regular in form and authentic. And it appears therefrom that [results].

I particularly liked it that they kept having to mention the Commonwealth (as opposed to State) of Virginia, since Tim Kaine is from that state. Er, that commonwealth.

The formalized language leaves me wondering what would happen if they went off script? Suppose Amy Klobuchar has said "Hey, Joe, everything looks good with California. They're giving their votes to Hillary and Tim. But you already knew that. I mean, come on, you read the newspaper."

I do have a few additional thoughts:

• With all the formality, I was disappointed that Rhode Island was just called "The State of Rhode Island" instead of "The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations," which is its full name. See at about 22:30 into the above video.
• I'm not sure which is the best moment. Possibly near the end (at about 33:27) when Joe Biden can be hear saying "God save the Queen." 
• Another possibility? Just after the 31 minute mark, as Joe Biden is reading off the names of people who got votes for President, he gets to Faith Spotted Eagle. I mean, he had to. She got a vote from Washington, which is cited earlier. But, seriously...Faith Spotted Eagle? Am I imagining it, or is Paul Ryan stifling a smirk. 
• Regarding the protests, I kind of feel sorry for Biden. He's probably not happy about the result, but he has a job to do. And I can practically hear him thinking "let me just get this done so I can go back to saying stupid things." And then, despite the fact that he wants to just plow through, he has to deal with these interruptions. And those protests were nothing more than theatre. None of them could be entertained because, as Biden kept pointing out, an objection must be in writing and signed by both a Representative and a Senator. None of them had a Senator's signature, and so the Representatives must have known that it was pointless to stand up and object. So I can only assume that they only made their objections so they could tell their constituents that they did what they could to stop Trump. My question: Did they actually try to get a Senator to sign on?

some dollars for django (cinema history class)

As we got back in the saddle (or Keith's basement, anyway), Keith continued an age old tradition of his cinema history class. What tradition? Starting every year with a month of spaghetti westerns. It's a sacred rite dating back to 2016.

Anyway, his theme this time is Clint Eastwood wannabes. That's my paraphrase -- not his words. And he kicked it off with Some Dollars for Django, starring Anthony Steffen as Django. Scratch that. Steffen's character was named Regan. There wasn't a Django to be seen.

I was surprised by that, though I shouldn't have been. I was already familiar enough with the facts: Sergio Corbucci's Django (which is among my favorite spaghetti westerns, was so popular and influential that many other movies of the genre were branded or rebranded as Django films even if there was no relationship. Going into this class I was naively thinking that they would have named the character Django to be consistent. Apparently this was made before Django, and so didn't have that name for the character. But then given the name to cash in.

And, while we're at it, the marketing (as you can see from the above trailer) was designed to evoke Sergio Leone's "man with no name" trilogy that starred (and made the career of) Clint Eastwood. And many of Django's -- uh, I mean Regan's -- manners are clearly meant to remind us of Eastwood in thos movies.

But Steffen is no Eastwood. He's good looking in that rugged way. Keith noted that he had fought with the Italian partisans during World War II, so some of his toughness may have come from that. At any rate, despite his good looks he lacks the charisma. So what we got was a poor man's Clint.

The movie itself wasn't bad. The plot, thin though it was, was engaging enough. But it lacked the complexity of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, The Mercenary or even Django. But I think the thing that disappointed me the most was that this didn't feel like a spaghetti western. My line about the genre is that American Westerns have good guys and bad guys while spaghetti westerns have bad guys and worse guys. Regan didn't have the purity of an American western hero -- he was bounty hunter -- but his character was more on the good side than I am used to seeing in these. Add to that the fact that the ending was much more positive and hopeful than I wanted it to be, and you have a western that's much more American than I wanted it to be.

Of note also was that Keith welcomed a new guy to the class. That brings it up to six people (not counting Keith). And I think that he's closing it at this level. Six still works, but much more than that and it would be too unwieldy. Oh, and the new guy brought beer (Raging Bitch Belgian IPA), which was nice. One thing that surprised me is that, despite this being his first night with us, Keith went to him first for commentary. I would have thought that he should have a chance to hear how the rest of us comment before being called on. That way he'd have a template to work from. But I suppose Keith's approach made more sense. It forced him to define his own identity rather than feel he had to fit his commentary into some framework based on what the rest of us do. Each one in class has his own unique interests and style, and it comes through in the way we approach our comments differently. So hats off to Keith for a bold move.

This, by the way, is the fifth movie I have seen with "Django" in the title. The others (in the order that I saw them were:

• Django (the original)
• Django Strikes Again (the only actual sequel)
• Django Kill...If You Live, Shoot! (not a sequel, but branded as if it were one)
• Django Unchained (more an homage than anything else)

in defense of the electoral college

Recently I've seen and heard a lot of hate directed at the Electoral College. We all know why, so I won't belabor that point. I have other points to belabor. I'm coming out here to support the EC.

But first, I should make some disclosures. Too often people's views on the matter are colored by their particular partisan loyalties -- It's not the Trump fans complaining about the EC, and it's not the Clinton fans supporting it. It's not so much that people are dishonest; they're human. Anyway, that being what it is, people are likely to want to know my loyalties so they can factor that into their reaction to what I have to say.

This year, I preferred Clinton to Trump, though I felt that both were egregiously bad choices. Living in a deep blue state I had the luxury of writing in Evan McMullin. If I lived in a purple state I would have held my nose and voted for Clinton. Back in 2000, the last time the EC split from the popular vote, I voted for Gore. Stepping back from these two instances, I have been an eligible voter for nine presidential elections -- dating back to 1984. In that time, I have voted for the Republican candidate six times and the Democratic candidate once. I have opted for a write-in vote twice.

Now that I've said that feel free to take what I have to say as seriously or unseriously as you like.

First of all, I should note that people are mistaken when they say that, since Clinton won the popular vote she would have won the presidency if not for the EC. That's essentially the myth of the inevitable double. On steroids. The campaigns would have been run differently and voters would have acted differently if victory was achieved by winning the popular vote. I should also note that any change in (or abolition of) the EC is prospective only. You don't change the rules after the game is played. So a change won't prevent President Trump.

So, why do I like the EC, being that it is undemocratic?

Well, I won't deny that there's appeal in having the Presidency determined by the popular vote. It's simple, it's easy to understand. And it is, democratic. Of course, so is two wolves and a goat voting on what's for dinner. More on that later.

But determining the presidency by popular vote ignores the essential nature of how this country was formed. The states are not supposed to be simple administrative units serving one central government. They are supposed to be separate semi-independent states. The federal government is a product of their mutual agreement, and supposed to serve them. On that note, I point out that into the 19th century states fought wars against each other over borders. And, no, I'm not talking about the Civil War. I realize that that structure is somewhat outdated, and the reality is that we are one nation. But I have a strong preference for decentralized government, and keeping the EC as is is part of that.

With that in mind, I like the current concept. States each get their votes, and when I vote I am voting on how I want my state to vote.

Scrap the EC with a constitutional amendment?
In terms of the alternatives, let's start with the most obvious possibility -- simply doing away with the EC and going by popular vote. Not gonna happen since it requires a constitutional amendment which would require a bunch of states signing on to a scheme that lessens their power and influence. And I'm glad that it won't happen. Aside from the points I already made, there's the fact that the EC limits the effectiveness of shenanigans that any state tries to pull. Concerned because you think that southern states are trying to disenfranchise minorities? Concerned because you think that California makes it easy for noncitizens to vote? Concerned that Virginia's governor is trying to increase Democratic turnout by using an executive order to pardon 200,000 felons? Concerned that people are voting multiple times, or in the names of dead people?  You can take heart that the damage done by any instance of fraud is contained.

In addition, there's something to be said for the notion that winning requires you to build broad support that isn't limited to a small geographic region. I understand the argument that people matter more than land, and if an area has fewer people it should get less say. But does it really make sense to have the entire makeup of our government determined by the large population centers on the coasts? With little knowledge of or concern for the needs of the rest of the country, they could pass laws that make life in the rural areas impossible -- effectively turning the rural areas into communities of serfs, beholden to the coastal elites. Remember what I said about two wolves and a lamb? This is where that comes in.

One can argue that the reverse is true, since the rural areas have an influence out of proportion to their population. But you can't realistically argue that the rural areas control the levers of government the way the coasts could if we had no EC. The fact is that, even though less populous states get more votes per person in the EC (and, in fact, in the Senate), there is greater power in having a large voting block in Congress.

In addition, the popular vote would bring with it all kinds of logistical nightmares. Remember the chaos in Florida in 2000? Imagine a nationwide recount in a close election.

Other possibilities
Since a constitutional amendment isn't going to happen, the ECF is here to stay. But there have been various ideas proposed to either eliminate or mitigate its effect.

Chief among them is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, (NPVIC), which is essentially an end-run around the EC. In signing on to the NPVIC, a state agrees to assign all of its electors to the winner of the national popular vote -- once enough states have signed on that they represent a majority of the EC. In that way, the popular vote would decide the election.

This would be worse than abolishing the EC by constitutional amendment (except, of course, for the fact that it could be undone more easily than a constitutional amendment. If we were to eliminate the EC with a  constitutional amendment, at least there would be a prayer of having that amendment (or a law create uniformity in voting rules and procedures. That way every state would have the same eligibility requirements, the same extent of early voting rules. With the NPVIC, that won't happen.

The Constitution grants states broad latitude in deciding how to pick their electors. And since it didn't envision a popular vote system, it doesn't really lay out rules for how the elections should be conducted by the states (except for piecemeal amendments that forbid discrimination). A system that awards the presidency to the winner of the popular vote coupled with no standardized rules has the potential to become a race to the lowest common denominator. How does a state increase its clout? By increasing the number of votes it contains. Lower the voting age! Why should the franchise be limited to those 18 and older? Let 17-year-olds vote. And 16-year-olds. hell, let anyone vote once they're out of the womb. And why limit the franchise to citizens? Noncitizens are part of the fabric of society, so let them vote.

The fact is that reasonable arguments can be made for expanding the franchise. And if some other state wants to expand it, that's really not my business under the current system. But I don't want them to expand it because they are racing with other states to increase their clout. And with the popular vote determining the winner, it is my business. That gets us back to the fact that currently shenanigans can only affect the state in which they are committed.

And going the other way? Recall that the states aren't required to let their residents vote for the electors. Any state can determine its electors by vote of the legislature. The NPVIC essentially forecloses that possibility. Some may argue that that's a good thing, but I disagree. As I noted before, I prefer to give states as wide a latitude as possible in setting their own procedures.

Another problem is that the issue of a national recounts is complicated. Currently, many (all? -- I don't know) of the states have rules as to what triggers an automatic recount. With the NPVIC, states would have to rethink all that. And it would be difficult to get them to all rethink it in the same way.

Of course, there are other ways that states could play with their electoral votes. Nebraska and Maine don't have a winner take all system. In those states, there is one elector for each congressional district, picked on the basis of the vote in that district, plus two votes that go to the winner of the statewide vote. I can see the appeal of that, but I don't like it. Again, I prefer the idea that the state gives its support to whomever the voters of the state support. But I live in new York. If Maine and Nebraska want to do things differently, then that's their business.

I have a similar opinion about the idea of apportioning the state's electoral votes pro-rata, based on the popular vote in the state. It also would weaken the purple states' influence; mobbing the meter a little would change one electoral vote instead of the state's full complement. But this could create more recount problems. I don't know what the different rules are regarding automatic recounts. But if there are specific thresholds that trigger a recount (e.g., the state will automatically conduct a manual recount if the result is closer than 1%), would recounts be triggered if the vote is within the threshold of having one electoral vote flip? If that were the case, then California, having 55 electoral votes, would always have to have a recount under a 1% standard.

In conclusion
Keep the electoral college. It preserves some semblance of the states' independent nature, and it saves us from potential logistical nightmares.

NOTE: I made a correction from the way this originally appeared. I changed the word "bad" to "good" in the sixth paragraph under "Other Possibilities." I meant "good." I really did.

supermarkets need the snake ride

I assume it's been studied by whoever studies this kind of thing, but can anyone explain why supermarkets generally have one line for each register and banks have one snakey line for all teller windows?


I think about it sometimes, and I was reminded of it the other day when I was at the Whole Foods on Ridge Road in Yonkers. Ready to check out, I saw a few open registers with short lines -- one or two people waiting behind the person being checked out. But I also noticed a register without a line. There was a cashier standing there, and the sign with her lane number was illuminated -- the sign that the lane is open. And since there were no customers there, I skedaddled my butt right over. When I got there, the cashier looked at me sadly and said she was closed.


I was disappointed, but went back to one of the other lines. No harm no foul? Not really. In that short time it took me to go to what appeared to be a valid line and then return to the other lines, others had joined the truly valid lines. So I now had to wait longer.


So then, while I am on line, still waiting to get to the cashier, the cashier who told me her line was closed opened up. Immediately, customers from behind me ran over to her for service. So if I had stayed, I would have gotten served sooner. But, since she simply said she wasn't open, I had no way of knowing to wait for her to open.


Then, to cap it off, as soon as I got close enough to start putting my groceries on the conveyor, another cashier opened up another register. He came over to the guy behind me and brought him mover to be his first customer. Aaaargggh!


Now, I know that none of this was a really big deal. It didn't even rise to the level of first world problems. But it was annoying at the time, partly because it seemed as if the entire supermarket apparatus was conspiring against me. And it wasn't really anyone's fault (except maybe the cashier who forgot to keep her light off while her line was closed). Please tell me you can relate?


So, as I said, this had me thinking about the snake ride that you get at the bank. And the post office. I wish they would use it at the supermarket. Anyone know why they don't?

cinema history class: the private life of sherlock holmes

I've put this off for a few weeks, since I haven't really known what to say about The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, the last film Keith showed in our cinema history class before winter break. But at this point I've waited too long, so I'll just write whatever comes out of my fingertips.

The odd thing about this movie is that it was sort of two movies in one. There was a half hour of gay (or is he just acting) Sherlock Holmes turning down an indecent proposal, followed by an hour and a half of more traditional Sherlock Holmes on a case. I didn't realize until afterwards how little the two parts of the movie interrelated. In fact, Dave showed up as the movie was transitioning between them and didn't really miss anything important.

There was some strong disagreement within the class about which was better. By "there was some disagreement" I mean I disagreed with the rest of the class. Joe, who's a traditionalist when it comes to these things preferred the "second" movie. In many ways it's like a typical Sherlock Holmes movie, though there is a twist. I preferred the first part, which didn't have a mystery as such, and played like a comedy.

Keith said that this difference made sense to him because Joe is a traditionalist and I'm into the nontraditional and gay stuff. He pointed out that, for the first BYOM session, I chose to show The Rocky Horror Picture Show, which has some gay-themed elements.

Once Keith pointed that out, it all made sense to the class, and it was decided that I must be gay. Well, that would explain some things.