I'm looking at the ingredient list in a packaged lentil salad. There are seven ingredients, and each one has an asterisk indicating that it's certified organic. One of the ingredients is salt, which I find puzzling. Now, I kind of get the idea that you don't want salt to disqualify a food from being organic. But this labeling offends my sensibilities. Salt is a mineral. It's not in any way, shape or form organic matter. It should not be labelled as "organic." I suppose I would make the same argument about water. Now, to be perfectly clear, I'm not accusing the makers and sellers of this lentil salad of any wrongdoing. I'm assuming there are rules for these things, and I'm sure that this label follows the rules -- both in spirit and letter. If I were king of the world and it were up to me, inorganic ingredients would not be labelled as organic. But certain inorganic ingredients would not disqualify the product from being labelled as organic. Water and salt come to mind. While I can't think of any others offhand, I wouldn't want to say there aren't any. FWIW, the salad was yummy.
Actually, this post is a plea for help from my more technical-minded friends.
Short version:
How do I upload my music collection to the cloud so that I can stream it on my phone (or a computer, I suppose) when I am not at home.
Long version:
I love listening to music, but I'm generally not into listening to music on the radio. I much prefer listening to my music. From my collection. It seems like a contradiction, but I've been this way since high school, which is when I first got into music. At the time I started making mix tapes. And I made more mix tapes. Then more. And as the technology has changed, I've changed with it. Well, I've changed behind it, but you get the picture. At this point, I've been ripping my CD collection onto a computer, so that when I'm at home I can listen to it on shuffle play. It becomes my ultimate mix tape. With tens of thousands of songs.
And on days when I work from home, I pretty much spend the whole time having music playing in the background. I turn it off for meetings, of course, but other than that, it's on.
I had tried to get the music from my computer onto my phone. But space limitations on my phone forced me to start trying to decide what to put on it, and it became a big hassle. So I kind of dropped the idea -- until someone suggested I use Google Play Music (or whatever its name is) to upload my music to the cloud. Then, he said, I'd be able to log into my account on any web-enabled device, and stream music from my collection. But for some reason I couldn't get it done. I found it cumbersome, in Google Play Music to find the page to upload my music, and when I did my computer wouldn't allow it. Maybe that was ESet, which is my anti-malware protection?
Now, I know there are lots of ways of listening to music online that don't involve it being my collection. There are radio stations that stream, and there are services that will customize the music around my taste. I kind of enjoyed Pandora for a while. But none of these solutions feel as satisfying to me as listening to my music. streaming randomly.
So, can anyone recommend a service that will allow me to make an account, upload my music to the web, and then stream it through their website or an app on my phone? I don't care if there are ads, but I want the service to be free. And easy to use. Any thoughts?
One of my favorite Israeli pop songs is "תנו לי רוקנרול" by תיסלם. The song, whose title translates to "Gimme Rock'n'Roll," is essentially a story of conflict. A guy loves rock and roll, but the object of his affection prefers disco.
Years ago when I first tried to translate it into English I got stuck on the end of the last verse. In Hebrew, it's:
הושבת אותי בחדר אתמול עד מאוחר
לישמוע אינדוניוי של אנשי הכפר
It made no sense, and I couldn't figure out that word that was pronounce indonevi. All I could figure out was that it was something along the lines of:
She sat me in a room yesterday until late
To hear <indonevi> belonging to the villagers.
Eventually a friend figured it out for me. He's Israeli, and it confused him, so I was at least in good company.
"Anshei hak'far," which literally meant "the villagers" was meant to be a translation of "The Village People." And, of course, "indonevi" was a Hebrew-accented pronunciation of "In the Navy." So the couplet translates to:
She sat me in a room yesterday until late
To hear "In the Navy" by the Village People.
It was confusing because the songtitle was transliterated from the English and the band name was translated.
But the translation was complete.
Yeah, I guess it's kind of a lame anecdote. But it's an excuse to post a video of a great record.
Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month 2018, Week 3 Movie 1: Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1988) Directed by Stephen Chiodo As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL
Plot:
Space aliens have landed and are terrorizing the town. Oh, and they look like clowns. Hilarity ensues.
Reaction:
I was very torn about what to bring for Bring Your Own Movie Month this year. Considering many candidates, I settled on Klowns because Sharon said she'd come to class if I showed it. IN the end, she couldn't come to class, as she had an Overwatch tournament to compete in, but that's neither here nor there. Klowns, is among my favorite movies, despite its sophomoric nature. The fact is, it's a better film than one would expect based on its screaming title.
Nevertheless, I was kind of nervous about how well it would go over. My choices for BYOM month have received mixed reviews. So I was pleased by the reactions.
I was expecting Sean to like it, and his grade was no surprise. I had discussed my choice with Keith, so I was also aware that he likes the film. In a sense that's out of character, as Keith tends not to like it when horror is played for comedic effect. But he apparently makes an exception for KK, because of its unique cleverness.
Joe and Dave were the two guys in the class who had never seen this, and they both surprised me by giving it high marks. They appreciated the campy quality, which seemed out of the 1960s, and they both (correctly) felt that John Vernon (as police officer Mooney) stole every scene he was in.
Despite having seen this many times, I gained some new insight. I forget who made the observation -- maybe it was Keith. But one of the things that makes the film work is the fact that the clowns seem to to seduce their victims, luring them in with comedy or other entertainment before turning on them. It's an interesting aspect to the dynamic that I had never noticed before.
Score!
Ratings:
Dave: 9.8
Ethan: 8
Joe: 9.67*
Keith: 9
Sean: 3 out of 4
*Joe specified his methodology: It scored a 9 as a sci-fi/horror film, a 10 as 1960's (esque) camp, and a 10 for the Dickies. He said to weigh those three scores equally. Thank God I'm an actuary.
There's something I don't understand about the E and F subway lines in Queens.
By way of background, for the non-Queensians, the E and F trains end (or begin, I suppose, depending on your perspective) their runs in Jamaica. After leaving Manhattan, they both follow a trunk line under Queens Blvd. Just past the Briarwood Station (which purists among us still call the Van Wyck Blvd. Station) they part course. The E goes to Jamaica Center while the F goes to 179th Street.
The E train goes closer than the F to my office in Manhattan, but the 1479 Street terminal of the F train is my home station. So on days that I work in Manhattan ("the city" in local parlance), my return commute starts with an E train but I switch to an F -- usually at Union Turnpike.
But sometimes an odd thing happens. The E train will get rerouted over the F line and go to 179th Street. When that happens, I feel like I've hit the jackpot. Instead of having to get up and wait for another train, I get to stay on the one that I'm already on. Of course, lots of other commuters are annoyed at the inconvenience for them But that's their problem.
Anyway, when the rerouting happens, we are notified by an announcement from the conductor along the lines of "This is an E train running over the F line. For Jamaica Center, please wait for the next E train." What I don't get is why they insist on calling it an "E train running over the F line" rather than an F train. Once the rerouting has occured, the train is effectively an F.
And it's not just a pedantic point I'm making. There are many immigrants in the area, some of whom aren't native English speakers. I would think that a simple announcement like "This is now an F train to 179th Street" would be easier for people to understand.
ANd don't even get me started on the occasional morning E trains that start at 179th Street...
Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month 2018, Week 2 Movie 1: The Unholy Three (1925) Directed by Tod Browning Movie 2: The Unholy Three (1930) Directed by Jack Conway As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL
Plot:
Three former circus performers hatch a plot to steal from the rich. Hilarity ensues.
Reaction:
Thinking out of the box yet again, Joe decided to show two interpretations of the same story, followed by two cartoon shorts that tied in.
The films in question were 1925's The Unholy Three and the 1930 remake by the same title. The remake, which featured two of the same stars (Lon Chaney Sr. and Harry Earles), was largely a scene-by-scene copy of the original -- even down to the dialogue which was often the same. I'm not generally a fan of remakes unless there's something important to justify it. In this case, the justification comes in the form of sound. The 1925 film was silent, while 1930 remake was a talkie. In fact, it was the only talkie Lon Chaney Sr. ever made, and the last film of his career.
The casts were both strong, but these films were really tours de force by both Chaney and Earles. Chaney was genius acting as the Professor acting as Granny O'Grady. And Earles, as an adult pretending to be a baby is simply sublime. His ability to alter his facial appearance with hardly any noticable movement is truly amazing. I'd seen it before in Freaks, the 1932 film that Keith showed us at the inauguration of this class years ago.
If I have to choose one version over the other, I'd have to take the 1930 film. There were some plot points that I missed in the original because of the way the title cards were used. Also, one crucial part of the film involved the animosity between Hercules and the ape. This subtle point was explained better in the remake. I also found the Hector character more sympathetic in the remake. That said, I preferred the ending of the earlier film (the endings were slightly different). But I do admit that there's something poetic about how Chaney rode off to end the last film of his illustrious career.
As a bonus, Joe showed two cartoons -- "Baby Buggy Bunny" (starring Bugs Bunny) and "Baby Rattled" (starring Snooper and Blabber). Both were written by Michael Maltese (one of Joe's cartoon-writing heroes), and featured diminutive adult criminals disguised as babies. Joe talked about how, seeing these cartoons as a kid, he thought it was ridiculous that an adult would pass himself off as a baby. His whole perspective was changed when he saw The Unholy Three. Myself? I vividly remember "Baby Buggy Bunny" from my childhood -- I watched a lot of Bugs Bunny. I doubt that I'd ever seen "Baby Rattled" before. And, never the big Hanna-Barbera fan, I couldn't help but note that the Bugs Bunny cartoon was vastly superior. In fairness, as Joe noted, the Bugs Bunny cartoon was made for theatrical release, and more effort was put into it. The Snooper and Blabber cartoon was made for television and required a tighter turn-around. Still...
Ratings:
Me: 9.5
Dave: 10
Ethan: N/R
Keith: 10
Update: Initially, I referred to Harry Earles as "Harry Styles" in a couple places.
I was watching some reruns of Frasier, and noticed the ending theme. Specifically, the fact that it was sung by series star, Kelsey Grammar. Which made me start to think about what other TV series featured theme songs performed by stars of the show. Here is a (partial -- duh!) list of 10. I am opening to being reminded of others.
But first, note that for some of these, you have to catch the right season. For example, season one of The Brady Bunch featured a theme song sung by other-than-cast. For the theme sung by the Brady kids, you have to go to season 2.
For the third year in a row I clerked at the LIDS annual flower show. Two years ago I wrote about my first experience.
Mostly more of the same, though this year I had a couple of realizations...
I wasn't really planning on entering anything, but I was open to the idea. In the morning I was out in the yard to see if anything I had seemed worthy of entry. But nothing passed muster. I was all over, thinking "that one has a crease, that one has uneven color, that one's not symmetric. So I didn't enter anything. But during the judging I was mentally checking out all these flowers and realizing that some of the flowers I had passed up could have stood proudly. I wouldn't have won best in show or anything like that. But I would probably have ribboned with some of my flowers if I had entered them.
Maybe next year. Well, no not next year. Next year LIDS is hosting the regional meeting so we won't do a show. Maybe in two years.
The other realization isn't so much a realization as an observation. The rules for judging are clear about scapes with more than one bloom. The judges are to grade based on the worst bloom on the scape. Given that, I have trouble wrapping my head around the fact that people enter scapes with multiple flowers. In theory, there's no potential loss from removing a bloom. If the bloom you remove is the worst on the scape, then your score will be higher. If you remove a bloom other than the worst, your score won't go down. It's Operations Research 101. That said, I can think of a few reasons to keep multiple blooms on a scape:
For whatever reason, you think that the extra bloom(s) improve(s) the aesthetic appeal of the entry, and that will sway the judges who are, afterall only human.
If two entries are tied for best in show, the judges can use number of blooms as a tiebreaker. But seriously...For that to work you have to have a scape with multiple blooms where they all score exactly the same. Then you have to tie another scape. How likely is that?
Your as rational as pi.
So...uh...what was my point?
Oh yeah. If I enter the contest in a couple years, I'll be sure not to enter any scapes with multiple blooms.
For those who don't know, we don't work with Stack-Up anymore. It wasn't a real surprise the organization made its decision that we should go our separate ways; the writing had been on the wall for a while, and it was really more a matter of when and how than whether. If I recall correctly the split came on June 26. But it had been coming. Since then, there have been developments that have surprised and pleased me.
During the last year or so we've made a lot of connections with the local veteran community, and the last several months of our events have reflected that. We did several service projects with The Mission Continues, and we've been at several of their social events as well. Our last activity for Stack-Up consisted of attending a Veterans stakeholders meeting in New Jersey. At that meeting, Ethan spoke about what Stack-Up can do. We've have spent time helping fix up VFW posts and an American Legion Hall. In fact, the American Legion Hall in Weehawken honored us at their reopening on May 26. At the time of our departure, we had plans to attend an event at Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn -- an event at which there would be thousands of veterans and current members of the military. The fact is that we went to more events than we had really wanted to. But when local groups (and in one case a politician) asked us to be at events, it was hard to say no.
So, I was uncharacteristically at a loss for words when I was asked what we'll be doing next. That's a question we had thought about, but hadn't come up with any definitive answer. But Ethan and I went to the American Legion Hall in Weehawken to celebrate July 4. One of the people we knew there -- one of the very people who had given us a plaque a month ago -- asked me the simple question of what we would be doing next. I had to admit that I wasn't sure.
But someone else asked about a possible event. If they could get the equipment could we run the event? It seemed strange for a second. But, thinking about it, it makes sense. There's no reason we need to be members of any specific organization in order to serve. So, while there are no guarantees that it will come to fruition, there's every likelihood that we will be putting together an event. And if we put one together, there's no reason we can't do another... And, while we're at it, The Mission Continues has made it clear that we're welcome to keep signing up for their service projects.
Now, Ethan is talking about his ideas for what kind of charity is really needed. So the future has yet to be written.
Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month 2018, Week 1 Movie: Bride of Frankenstein (1935) Directed by James Whale As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL
Plot:
The monster has survived, but he's lonely. Frankenstein and Pretorius work together to find him a wife, but we're not exactly talking match.com. Hilarity ensues.
Reaction:
First, I should probably acknowledge two relevant facts. First, I've never seen the original Frankenstein, to which this was a sequel. For some reason I had been under the impression that Bride was generally considered an inferior film, hokey in execution. I'm not sure why I had that impression, but I had it. So I was somewhat surprised when Keith noted (or was it Dave? I'm not sure) that this is generally considered to be one of the situations where the sequel is better than the original. And, while I can't say whether this was better than the original, I can confirm that it's a great film.
In some ways, I kept thinking of this as a kind of mirror image of a Spaghetti Western. What I like about Spaghetti Westerns is that the heros, far from being icons of goodness, are conflicted and -- at best -- mixed. They're more sympathetic than the antagonists, and they do some good. But they ... how do I put this? Let's just say that they typically have their own selfish agendas. Here, the Monster is, well, a monster. But he's clearly a victim -- of his circumstances, of the townspeople, and of his creator.
All he wants is to have a connection to someone else, but he just can't have it. The sequence with the shepherd girl illustrates it beautifully. He sees her and approaches, clearly just wanting a friend. She sees him, screams in terror and falls off a cliff into a pond. He pulls her out of the water, thereby saving her life. But when she regains consciousness, she sees him again and starts screaming, which causes local hunters to come and shoot him. Later, he manages to find a potential friend in the form of a blind hermit. But then hunters show up (those damn hunters again!) and ruin everything.
In some ways the movie -- or its title, anyway -- is a tease. I expected that Mrs. Monster would be a major character, but the fact is she doesn't even show up until the end, serving the Monster his final humiliation. After all that effort and pain he's gone through, wanting a companion, you're really rooting for him, expecting -- or at least hoping -- that he'll finally have found love. But, well, you know how these things end.
The visuals in this movie were incredible. The sets, the lighting...everything. ANd the use of odd camera angles, inspired by the German films of the 1920s, did a great job of adding tension, as did the extreme closeups of the scientists during the scenes where the Bride is being brought to life. But what really did it was the sequence showing Dr. Pretorius' creations in their jars. With modern technology, that would have been nothing special. But this was made in 1935, and is incredible, given the vintage.
I was thoroughly impressed.
Ratings:
Me: 10
Ethan: 10
Joe: 10
Keith: 10
Sean: 3 out of 4
That said, I would have preferred that the Republicans had given Garland a fair hearing. Perhaps they could have kept us off the road we're on now. With Scalia, the opening came nine months before the election. But the slope can get slippery very quickly. Next time it could be an opening eleven months before the election. Then thirteen months. Where does one draw the line? And why there? Politicians may start making assertions couched as principled stands, but -- as with Biden's and Schumer's arguments, these will be matters of naked political expedience.
I wrote that in April, 2017, when I was talking about the Senate confirmation of Judge Gorsuch. And I was right, as we are now seeing with the rhetoric over Judge Kennedy's announced retirement. That post was here. And don't start with the disingenuous arguments about how this isn;t an escalation because we're less than nine months away. Everyone knows that all the rhetoric about Garland (and the Biden and Schumer quotes that the Republicans used for cover) were references to Presidential elections. By the way, it's also important to remember that Kagan was nominated and confirmed in 2010 -- another year of midterm Senatorial elections. But, rhetoric aside, the Democrats are really limited in their weapons. Blame Harry Reid for his destruction of the filibuster. Still, there are a couple of aspects that I find interesting: The Republicans only have 51 Senators, and John McCain is incapacitated. So, for practical purposes, they have a bare majority of 50-49. They can't afford any defections. Which brings us to Susan Collins of Maine who has indicated that she won't support a nominee who she thinks is hostile to Roe v. Wade. That effectively gives her a veto. It kind of strengthens the argument that McCain should have retired earlier. And if Ginsburg dies in a circumstance where Trump (or a Republican successor) gets to pick her replacement, it will strengthen the argument that she should have retired when Obama was President. Trump and the Republican senators are in a rush to nominate and confirm a replacement for Kennedy before the midterms because there's a very real possibility of the Democrats winning back the Senate. But that's not guaranteed. It'll be kind of interesting if Trump picks a relative moderate in order to secure Collins' vote, and then the Republicans have a net gain in the midterms. And, on that note, keep in mind that Ginsburg is 84 and Breyer is 78. Trump could, conceivably, nominate their replacements. You think the fighting is nasty now?
The main host, Scott Rogowsky, is really frickin' annoying
The other hosts are even more annoying
When I first started playing, their schedule seemed more regular. Is the jumping around a bad sign? Or are they just experimenting?
Someone said that it's really an elaborate exercise in data mining, and I'm giving them lots of information for very little money.
The first question is always easy. A gimme. ANd yet there are always a few people who get it wrong. Are those people who don;t speak English? Do people's fingers slip? Or do the makers of the game program a few bots to go in and get eliminated quickly (so as to make real players feel better)?
I have five friends on HQ. They are all people I know IRL. I also have five pending requests. But they're from names I don't recognize. And I can't find any way to ask "who are you?" Still, who goes onto HQ and sends friend requests to random strangers?
After you make a choice, can you change it before the time runs out? Or is the first choice final. I wonder about this. But not enough to try it and possibly hurt my chances of winning a game.
UPDATE:
A friend emailed me to say that he is unfamiliar with HQ, and it would have been helpful for him (and any other readers) if I had given a little background.
Fair enough, though in my defense I will note that it can be a challenge to strike the proper balance. How much background to assume versus how much exposition to provide. Also, in case anyone wants more background than I have written below, here's the Wikipedia entry.
HQ is an online trivia game available for Android and Apple iOS devices. Gameplay is live, so you have to play when the game is being played.
The host presents a series of (usually 12) multiple choice questions. In order to win, you have to get every question right. The questions start out ridiculously easy, but they get harder as you go along. Winners split the prize money, which is usually $5,000, but has been as low as $1,000 and as high as $400,000. In my experience, winners usually get a few dollars each, but I did see one game where the winners each got over $8,000. That was a game with 15 questions and a $25,000 prize -- there were three winners. The one time I won, I got $1.29 -- and I did get the money, so it is legit.
Those are the basics. There are variations, and details that I'm not describing. PLay for yourself. But if you do go and download the app and sign up, please use my referral code, which is my last name. I'll get a free life if you do.
Session: Documentary Month, Week 3 Movie: 42nd Street Memories (2016) Directed by Calum Waddell As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL
After two documentaries about movies, Keith showed us a doc about a time...a place...an experience. 42 Street at its gritty, grimy best. 42nd Street in the Times Square area is a huge tourist attraction these days. But it's sanitized, corporate and safe -- not like the 42nd Street of a few decades ago, which was full of porn and peep shows. In all fairness, there were legit movie theaters as well, and (to hear the talking heads tell it) the area was a paradise for movie fans. Owing to my age and a somewhat sheltered childhood, I never really experienced that phenomenon, but I had* a friend from high school who would wax poetic about the place. The bulk of the movie consisted of movie industry insiders reminiscing, and it was interesting to watch -- though possibly the most interesting part was seeing movie titles on marquees and saying "We saw that in this class!" I actually was impressed with the wide assortment of characters who spoke:
Joe Dante -- possibly best known as the director of Gremlins
Lloyd Kaufman -- the impressario behind the Troma brand of movies
Veronica Hart -- a porn star from long ago
42nd Street Pete -- Some guy. Seriously, I couldn't figure out what his significance is other than being some guy.
The one thing that did annoy me was the repeated complaints that the 42nd Street they love was killed by "corporations," who gradually made over the whole area into what it is now. I could sympathize -- in a couple of recent blogposts I touched on the decline of the Jewish deli. But more people (or at least more people in Queens) want Korean barbecue than Jewish deli. Similarly, corporate interests transformed the area because that's where the most valuable use for property is. There's more money in the sanitized cheap imitation that the area is today than there was in the classic version. Because that's what people want. Of course, it should also be noted that the availability of home video also had something to do with it. And the seedy street of yore will be no more. *I say "had" because he and I haven't had any contact in six years, and I doubt that we'll ever speak again.
I'm looking at the ingredient list in a packaged lentil salad. There are seven ingredients, and each one has an asterisk indicating that it's certified organic.
