a spot no more...

Back in December I wrote this blogpost about what looks like a legal parking spot in an area where I wouldn;t expect there to be one. At the time that I noticed this spot, I suspected that it was an unintentional oversight. The signage left an area of approximately one car-length where parking is allowed.

Well, all good things come to an end.

The signage has been changed -- the lefthand sign in the image above has been replaced by one that has a double-headed arrow, thus indicating no parking in both directions And that spot that was legal is no longer so. FWIW, I doubt that my post is what made the difference.

happy zmedsday!! (xxxi)

happy tunesday! ("mame" by the cast of mame")

I'm not sure exactly what day my paternal grandfather Ed died, but it was a little bit shy of his 91st birthday, which means that the 20th anniversary of his death is right about now.

Ed played piano. And it was a treat for us grandkids, after dinner, to sit next to him on his piano bench as he played. For some reason, though, I only remember him playing one song -- the theme from Mame.

So this clip brings back memories.

bill buckner, rip

Bill Buckner has passed away.

Having grown up a Mets fan, I remember Buckner very clearly. He was the central figure (or at least a central figure) in one of the iconic moments in Mets history.

It's actually quite a shame that this is the moment that Buckner is remembered for. He was a very good baseball player -- one notch below Hall of Fame caliber. And yet he is remembered for one error in a crucial moment. Worse, popular mythology has made that moment out to be bigger than it was.

First, the game was tied when the play occurred. This was after the Mets had staged an unlikely comeback and scored two runs off the Sox -- which was in no way Buckner's fault. So even if Buckner had fielded the ball cleanly and made the play (which wasn't a sure thing, given Mookie Wilson's speed), ot would have meant the game continued into an 11th inning. Second, it was Game 6. So the Red Sox still had to lose another game in order to blow the World Series. Yes, that play was costly, but it was only one of many things that cost the Sox the Series. The loss was a team effort.

Anyway, RIP Bill Buckner.

is she famous now?

Blair was looking through some information about the Overwatch League, and came across this video that was shot at an event that she took Asher to. She appears in it, starting at 2:43. Also, you can see Asher in one scene, playing Super Smash Bros (and beating the adults).

cinema history class: phase iv

Session: Nature Strikes Back, Week 2
Movie:Phase IV (1974)
Directed by Saul Bass

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL

Plot:
In the Arizona desert, intelligent ants battle it out with scientists. Hilarity ensues.

Reaction:
This was an extremely slow and plodding film. At times it took too long for things to happen. And yet I found myself in rapt attention. I think that was a function of the camera work -- possibly the best we've seen kin any of the films Keith has shown us. Whatever the reason, I found myself fascinated by the movie, even as I knew that it was moving too slowly.

By the time we neared the end, this was starting to change, and I found my interest waning -- interestingly, at just the point that many movies finally grab me. That wouldn't really have been a problem if this had had a string ending. Or an adequate ending. Instead, we got an unsatisfyingly enigmatic conclusion that just left me disatisfied.

The fundamental concept -- that ants have gained intelligence and the ability to cooperate to take over the world -- is actually quite interesting. And more than a little scary. Sadly, the movie itself isn't nearly as scary as the movie itself. 

Ratings:

Me: 7
Dave: 9

Joe: 9.8 (Note: Joe rates all genre films on a curve, from 9.0 to 10)

Sean: 2 out of 4

Bechdel:
Phase IV fails the Bechdel test. For most of the movie there are only three characters. Two of them are men.

it's zemdsday!! (xxx)

happy tunesday! ("sail away ladies" by the dusty buskers)

I don;t remember exactly what year it was that I first heard the Dusty Buskers, but I'm reasonably sure that it was more than ten years ago. We were visiting friends in Tucson, Arizona, which we did every year. Wandering through the Fourth Street Festival, I saw a three-piece band playing -- one guy on guitar, one on fiddle and one on washboard.

They were playing old songs with a kind of infectious rustic sound. They were selling CDs, but no one was buying. I stood and watched. And listened. Slowly growing more and more enamored of this old timey fun group. After a few songs, I bought a copy of the disc. That seemed open the floodgates, as suddenly several others who had been watching like me bought copies too. And pretty soon they were sold out.

I overheard one of the guys telling another to run to Kinko's and make more copies of the disc. Yeah, this was definitely a DIY job.

As soon as I was back in the car I had the disc in, and was listening to it. I was not disappointed.

Over the ensuing years, the Dusty Buskers put out a few more albums -- all more professional-looking in the packaging. It has, however, been a struggle to find out about the releases. I don;t really know what the group is up to now, but I love the music I have of theirs.

how to file olgacoustic?

To understand this post, you have to understand that I can be a bit anal retentive about filing albums. I'm not as bad as I used to be. Three examples of how I've mellowed follow:

• Squeeze (the British new wave band): Early on in Squeeze's (the British new wave band) career, there was potential confusion between them and an American band called "Tight Squeeze." As a result, the American release of their eponymous debut album identified them as U.K. Squeeze. And, of course, the album had that different title in the U.S. For years, I filed that one album under "U" and the rest of the group's material under "S." Eventually I relented, and I now file it under "S."
• Bram Tchaikovsky (the British new wave musician and the band he named after himself): Bram Tchaikovsky named his band after himself. On the two albums, Strange Man, Changed Man and The Russians are Coming, the liner notes say "Bram Tchaikovsky are..." thereby indicating that it's a group album that should be filed under B (sort of like Brinsley Schwarz (the band)). Then, there came the album, Funland, which had no language to indicate that there was still a group called Bram Tchiakovsky. Accordingly, I treated that album as a solo effort by Bram Tchaikovsky and I filed it under T. Eventually, I gave up and started putting the all under T.
• The Toy Dolls (the British punk band): For some reason that has never been explained to me, the album, Orcastrated, identifies the band as "The Toy Dollz" on the cover. For a long time I insisted on listing the album in my database as being by a different band. I finally relented.

With that in mind, I am in a bit of a quandary. Olga, the lead singer and lifeblood of the Toy Dolls,Olgacoustic. It's a collection of accoustic versions of Toy Dolls songs. And it's great, by the way. But it leaves me wondering how to file it. The album simply refers to the artists as "Olga from the Toy Dolls." So, how do I file it? Following are the possibilities (keeping in mind that Olga's real name is Michael Algar):
has put out a solo album called

• Olga from the Toy Dolls
• Olga
• Michael Algar
• The Toy Dolls

For now, I'm going with "Olga from the Toy Dolls," but it leaves me dissatisfied.

I suppose I should admit that I'm pretty lucky if this is the kind of thing that's keeping me up at night.

cinema history class: chosen survivors

Session: Nature Strikes Back, Week 1
Movie: Chosen Survivors (1974)
Directed by Sutton Roley

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL

Plot:
Forced by the military into a cave a third of a mile underground, a collection of strangers find out that they've been chosen to survive a nuclear holocaust. Hilarity and bats ensue.

Reaction:
I was really looking forward to this session because, at its heart, we're talking about 1970's era disaster movies, which is kind of cinematic comfort food for me.

Interestingly, this movie seems to be two stories sewn together in a reasonably seamless manner. The first is the Gilligan's Island story line of several (in this case 11) people cut off from the rest of the world and trying to rejoin civilization.  The other story, which Joe reasonably compared to Hitchcock's The Birds is one of animals running amok.

The biggest problem with the movie is that there was little real character development. Joe noted -- and he was correct -- that the characters were clearly distinct from each other. And he was willing to give the film props for that. But I found I didn;t care about any of the characters. There was nothing to make me care about any of them -- whether they lived or died, or suffered. These people were very sterile and uninteresting. Which gets me to the sets. There was a kind of sterility to the scenery that made it seem very impersonal. Rightly or wrongly, I associate that sterility with early to mid 1970's science fiction -- The Andromeda Strain, Space 1999 come to mind. Now maybe that sterility makes sense. But it makes it harder to empathize with the people. This would have been more enjoyable if I had been able to care about them.

Chosen Survivors is not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination. But it delivers on its promise, and is worthy of a respectable 6.

Ratings:

Me: 6

Joe: 9.9

Sean: 2 out of 4

Bechdel:
Chosen Survivors passes the Bechdel test, I think. There must have been a point when two of the female survivors talked to each other about something other than men. But I don't recall for sure. Certainly the male protagonists were more crucial as the movers of the plot. Which, I guess is the whole point.

it's zmedsday!! (xxix)

it's tunesday! ("que sera sera" by doris day)

Doris Day, 1922-2019, RIP

cinema history class: the demons

Session: Mark of the Devil Rip-Off Month, Week 4
Movie: The Demons (1973)
Directed by Jesus Franco

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL

Plot:
A bunch of nuns get possessed by demons and are then tortured. Hilarity ensues.

Reaction:
Sean summed it up best: "This movie was bullshit."

I can't argue with that, and that being the case I am back to thinking that I am grading things too highly. I gave it a 5.5, thinking that's a pretty bad grade. But the outsider is likely to see a 5.5 and think it's a reasonably OK film. I think we've all (except for Sean) gotten into a pattern of grade inflation. But that's another matter.

As to the movie itself, I kept feeling as if I was watching the softcore edit of a porn film (and a fetish -- nun and torture -- porn film at that). There was that much nudity, including full frontal and a couple of long loving close-ups of an attractive young woman's backside -- she is bent over anticipating oral and digital attention from her interlocutor.

Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm not prudish about nudity, and I do appreciate the naked female form. But if I want porn, then I believe there's some available on the internet. At least that's what I've heard.

Seriously, though, the problem here is that the sex and sex serve as substitutes for a plot that's missing in action. There really isn't a coherent coherent story. And the torture scenes seemed so unreal as to be comical. There was an interesting touch that one of the women turned out to be an actual witch, capable of turning anyone who kisses her (on either set of lips) into a skeleton. But that didn;t make its appearance until more than an hour and twenty minutes in. It was, as Joe put it, "too little too late."

Ratings:

Me: 5.5

Dave: 9

Joe: 9.2

Sean: 1 out of 4

Bechdel:
The Demons passes the Bechdel test easily. There are many scenes of nuns discussing religion and sex without thinking at all of men.

it's zmedsday!! (xxviii)

happy tunesday! ("burnt down house" by ken waldman)

April was National Poetry Month. Oops. I actually thought that May is National Poetry Month and was looking forward to honoring it by posting this on the first Tuesday in May. But, writing it up, I see that I got the month wrong. Bad me! No cookie!

Anyway, in honor of National Poetry Month (which ended last week) here is a poem by my favorite Alaskan fiddling poet, Ken Waldman.

I first became aware of Ken Waldman years ago when the kids were younger. We used to spend a lot of weekend afternoons at the Long Island Children's Museum (LICM). They had some really good shows there -- they probably still do, but the kids are older now and we haven't been there in a while. Anyway, Ken Waldman was among my favorite performers.

I may have some of details wrong (Ken, if you're reading this, please correct me for the record), but IIRC, Ken found himself working at a radio station in Fairbanks Alaska during the winter. Without much else to do, he learned to play the fiddle. I'm not sure where the poetry came into the mix. At any rate, rather than writinmg and singing songs to  accompany his fiddle-playing, Ken recites poems. Actually, he does do some original material -- on of his CDs that I have is a double disc in which one disc is all originals and the other is old favorites.

At his LICM performances, he would hand out papers with poems on them, and encourage the kids to write poetry, and the kids really enjoyed it. So did I, FWIW.

against the npvic: the one argument I have yet to hear

As I write this, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) has been adopted by fourteen states and the District of Columbia, representing 189 electoral votes.

By way of background, the NPVIC is an attempt to do an end-run around the electoral college and effectively change our system to one in which the President is elected by popular vote. States agree to give award their electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote, and it takes effect once its approved by states representing 270 or more (i.e., the majority of) electoral votes. Some are insisting that the NPVIC violates the Constitution, but I don't see it. The Constitution grants the states broad latitude in determining how to award electors, and I don't see any realistic challenge to awarding them on the basis of the national popular vote.

There are reasonable arguments in favor of electing the President by popular vote. Ultimately, I prefer the electoral college system that we have. But I've addressed that before, and it's not the point of this post.

The point of this post is to address a procedural problem with the NPVIC that I have not seen addressed yet: uniformity. Right now, each has its own rules for the conduct of elections. Eligibilty rules, early voting rules and voting and validation procedures are different from state to state, with each state having the power to change its own rules without regard to what other states do. The NPVIC would do nothing to change that situation; short of a constitutional amendment, nothing will create uniformity.

One of the concerns is voting rules. Some states allow early voting, with varying windows to vote. Elections by mail are a thing in some states and not in others. And polling hours differ from state to state. All of these are concerns. But my bigger concern is about eligibility to vote and determination of who is on the ballot. And that's where the rest of this post focuses.

When I first heard of the NPVIC, I expressed concern that it would incentivize states to expand their voter roles in order to increase their influence. The minimum voting age is 18, but there's no reason that it can't be lowered to 16. Or 12. Or lower still. The laws regarding voting by convicted felons also vary from state to state; some states allow prisoners to vote, while in others anyone ever convicted of a felony is permanently disenfranchised.

Now, recently, Bernie Sanders is arguing that prisoners should be allowed to vote. And Nancy Pelosi is arguing to lower the voting age to 16. Some prominent Democrats have been arguing that noncitizens (and in some cases illegal immigrants) should be allowed to vote. Now, admittedly, they're not talking about doing it for their own states specifically, so these arguments aren't necessarilly about the NPVIC. But they are clearly about running up vote totals for Democrats by extending the franchise to people they believe would be natural Democratic party constituents.

On another front, legislators in some states have been pushing the idea of legally requiring candidates to release their tax returns in order to appear on the ballot. These pushes are couched in high-principled rhetoric about transparency, but the undeniable fact is that they're targeting Trump. I don't like the idea of such restrictions, but I don't have standing to object to how Washington or Connecticut conduct their elections -- as long as we're talking about their conduct of their own elections. But under a system where the vote within a state affects the other states' electoral votes, it's very different.

Related, there's the issue of California's peculiar Senatorial election procedures. In California (and, I think, Washington) there's one Senatorial primary with candidates from all parties. The top two finishers appear on the ballot in the general election. What that has meant in recent years is that their Senatorial elections have featured two democrats on the ballot. Of course, that's the Senate. But I don't believe there's anything to stop deeply partisan states from adopting a similar system for their presidential election. If that were to happen, it would severely impact the meaningfulness of the popular vote.

Finally, it's important to note that the Constitution doesn't even require that states let the people within vote in Presidential elections. Early on, some states' legislatures debated and determined who would get their electoral votes. A system that effectively determines the election by a national popular vote would create an external incentive for states to have their citizens vote. I suppose, for most people that's a feature. But I really don't like the idea of forcing states' hands like this.

Again, there are reasonable arguments in favor of a national popular vote, but doing it through means that don't create uniform election rules is not a good idea.

cinema history class: mark of the devil part ii

Session: Mark of the Devil Rip-Off Month, Week 3
Movie: Mark of the Devil Part II (1973)
Directed by Adrian Hoven

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL

Plot:
In a town run by a tribunal that interrogates and kills witches and heretics, a beautiful noblewoman gets on the wrong side of the authorities. Hilarity ensues.

Reaction:
Mark of the Devil Part II was, as Joe put it, "not a good, well-made film." Dave put a point on it by saying that it was "pretty bad." They're not wrong. For most of the movie, the plot was difficult to follow -- as if those responsible felt it was more important to shove in as much exploitation as they could. Characters seemed to come in and then disappear for no apparent reason. It really was a big miss, although I will admit that at the end parts of it did coalesce into coherence.

Despite the title, this was not a sequel in any meaningful way. The characters were different (though Reggie Nalder did appear in both films, playing similar roles), and this didn't actually continue the story from Mark of the Devil. IN fact, judging from the European trailer, this was also released under the simple title, Witches.

All that said, Reggie Nalder was deliciously evil as Natas. And I did enjoy the way the expected deus ex machina didn't quite come in time. Oh, and I was intrigued by the line, "The virginity of my soul will always belong to my husband."

Ratings:

Me: 6

Dave: 8

Ethan: 4
Joe: 9.6

Sean: 2 out of 4

Bechdel:
Mark of the Devil Part II contains a scene in which two nuns (one of whom is topless) discuss the state of their souls and then flagellate each other. That's enough for it to pass the Bechdel test.

it's zmedsday!! (xxvii)