entitlement inversion

Isn't language interesting?

I saw this meme posted on Facebook today. I've seen others like it many times before. They may have had the exact same language. I'm not sure.

But the actual argument is, essentially, "These things are not entitlements because we are actually entitled to them."

I find that curious.*
_______________________

*Please note that I am not taking a position on Social Security and whether or how it should be changed. I'm just observing the inversion of language.

 

ranked choice circus

We have a special city council election coming up in a week, with eight candidates for the one spot. There's one candidate who is (in my humble opinion) much better than any of the others, so I know who's getting my vote. But the city now has ranked choice voting, so the voter's job is more complicated than it was before. We are to pick our top five candidates, ranked in order of preference. So I did my research, looking up the candidates' positions and history. And I know how I'll vote -- barring the possibility of my learning something else significant (good or bad) between now and when I cast my ballot.

I'll give the powers that be credit for one thing. Reading up on how the votes will be counted, I became satisfied that picking my second, third, fourth and fifth preferences will not reduce the chances that my top pick wins. And that's important, because without that condition, the whole thing turns into a wild exercise in game theory. I'll also give them credit for the fact that you don't have to pick all five spots. You can make only one pick and your vote will count. That's important too. Of course, you can't pick the same name for all five spots; that will invalidate your ballot.

But the fact is, this going to make things too complicated. My son worked the polls in November. He said that a lot of people had filled in the oval for President twice -- because their preferred candidate was running on more than one party ticket. If a material number of people have trouble with that, then I don't see how we won't have trouble with them trying to rank their top five.

Grab your popcorn...we're in for a circus.

cinema history class: jodorowsky's dune

Session: Documentaries, Week 4
Movie: Jodorowsky's Dune (2013)
Directed by Frank Pavich

In 1974, a French consortium optioned the film rights to Frank Herbert's novel, Dune. The plan was for noted filmmaker Alejandro Jodorowsky to direct. Jodorowsky and his team spent several years working on the project -- raising funds, approaching big name celebrities (e.g., Pink Floyd, Mick Jagger, Orson Welles) to secure their involvement, and designing -- before it was ultimately scrapped. A film adaptation was eventually made by others, including director David Lynch.

I should note that I am neither a fan of Dune nor of Jodorowsky. I kind of remember that Dune was a big deal when it came out, but I never had any interest in seeing it. The mixed reports that I heard at the time did little to interest me in seeing it. As for Jodorowsky, I've had limited exposure to his work. I saw El Topo (which I wrote about here). and found it to be a largely unwatchable incoherent mess. I also have a graphic novel that he wrote. I bought it because it looked interesting and the shop-owner (whom I have come to trust after many years of patronage) said that it felt like a spaghetti western. He was right, and I did enjoy it. But it wasn't really memorable.

Based on that alone, I don't think I would have been really interested in the Dune that Jodorowsky would have created. And there really wasn't anything in this movie to change my mind. Still and all, it was interesting to watch the documentary, and see Jodorowsky talk about his vision, and what he would have done with the material. Of course, it also made clear why the film wouldn't have worked -- while studio folk wanted a movie of no more than two hours -- which seems reasonable considering that two hours is now considered a long feature -- while Jodo wanted to make a movie lasting more than ten hours. It was also interesting to hear him talk about the big names he approached to be in (or make music for) the movie, and the odd deals he cut to make it happen. For example, Salvador Dali wanted to be the highest paid actor, and so asked for $100,000 per hour. Jodorowsky offered $100,000 per minute, but cut the part to under five minutes.

The documentary has extensive interviews with plenty of other players who were heavily involved in the project. Notable was the artist H.R. Giger, who spent a lot of time and energy developing the visual look that the film would have. Interestingly, a lot of the designs that Giger created for this film found their way into subsequent film projects that he worked on. So this film that was never made turned out to be a huge influence on the science fiction genre.

As much as the subject matter -- a movie that was never made (and wouldn;t have interested me if it had been made) and a director whom I'm not particularly interested in -- doesn't interest me, I found the documentary itself to be fascinating. A good part of it is that a lot of the principal players are still alive and were available for interviews. This served to bring the subject to life in a way that didn;t happen with, say the Weng Weng documentary that we watched earlier. I'll note that it also helped to humanize Jodorowsky in my mind -- something which is a good thing considering how porrly I think of El Topo.

more at&t hoo-hah

I started the morning all set to write an angry post directed at AT&T.

Before going on, I should know that my anger was partially fueled by my horrendous experience with AT&T last summer and fall. I wrote about that experience here.* While that episode is resolved I still have a sour taste in my mouth.

Anyway, I spoke to customer service in December about a different issue. He sold me on a new plan. As he described it, I would have more and better service, with some extras (e.g., HBO Max**), at no extra cost. In truth, I don't remember if he said it would be the same cost or cheaper. But he did assure me that it wouldn't be more expensive. More for less? Sign me up! But yesterday I got my first bill on the new plan, and it does cost more.

Blair and I both twote about this yesterday, and customer service reached out. There was no progress as of this morning. But this afternoon, customer service reached out. I told her what I was angry about, and that I wanted my old plan back. Turns out the old plan is discontinued. She said she'd look into what she can do for me and call back. We left it at that. I have to admit that I was impressed by this customer service rep's poise. I was angry -- very angry. And I wasn't shy about letting her know. I didn't insult her or curse, but I did raise my voice and my tone wasn't always pleasant. She probably wanted to tell me to shove it, but she handled it all very well.

Anyway, once I was off the phone I looked back at my bill, comparing it to an old bill. And I realized that the price differential isn't nearly what I had thought it is. And now that we like HBO Max, well, if we were to revert to the old plan we'd want to pay for a subscription. That further reduces the price differential. Blair and I discussed it. The improved service makes the new service worth the price differential.

So I called back and said we'd stick with the new service. Honestly, I'm still annoyed that the rep -- the one I spoke to last month -- told me falsely that I wouldn't be paying more. I'm tempted to say he lied, but I suspect that it was more of a mistake than a lie. But all's well that ends well. I guess.

_____________________________

*The TLDR version? We ordered a phone from AT&T. We never got the phone, but AT&T kept charging us for it. It took endless hours on multiple phone calls and trips to the evil AT&T store (the one in Floral Park) over three and a half months before I finally got my money back.

**I never wanted HBO Max, but now that I have it through AT&T, I love it. They have a lot of good old movies, and I've started streaming Game of Thrones.

the pastrami shirt

First, a shameless plug. You can go to Sharon's Zazzle store to buy the shirts discussed here.

A couple years ago -- I'm not sure how many -- I asked Sharon if she could draw a pastrami sandwich for us to make pastrami-themed T-shirts. I had ideas for what the shirts should say, but lacked the artistic skills to create the shirts that my mind was envisioning.

It took a long time to get things going.

Sharon was interested in the challenge, but it was hard for me to explain what was in my head as the iconic pastrami sandwich picture. It had to be an overstuffed sandwich on rye bread. Cut in half, with both halves facing the viewer. And the top slice of bread has to be sort of arched because of the meat below it. It was really hard to convey what was in my brain. Eventually, we started googling "pastrami sandwich" and we found some pictures that looked pretty close. But Sharon was having trouble drawing a sandwich that she felt was good enough. I thought several of her pictures were plenty fine, but she was unhappy with them.

Eventually, I asked if she could take an actual picture and use software tools to turn it into a drawing. She liked that idea. But then there was another issue. It didn't seem like a good idea to start with someone else's picture and use it for a T-shirt design that she would sell. Even if she digitally altered the picture, it seemed to me that this would present an ethical problem, and probably a legal one as well. Admittedly, it seemed like a remote possibility that it would cause us problems. But, still...

Fortunately, I hit on a better idea. We could buy a pastrami sandwich at Sarge's and take pictures of it. Then she could work with the pictures. No copyright issue. No concern ethics. Of course, someone would have to eat the sandwich, but that was a sacrifice I was willing to make.

Even with all that, it took a while before everything was done. This wasn't exactly Sharon's top priority. She's a teenage girl who's into drawing animals. I don't really believe she was greatly enthused about drawing deli meats for her middle-aged father. But she did it eventually. I think one thing that helped encourage her was when her friend started selling mugs online with one of her drawings. It wasn't pastrami -- it was a drog. I guess it helped when she saw how easy it is.

So now she has her Zazzle store with three different pastrami T-shirts. And one drog. Next I'll see if I can get her to add T-shirts with math jokes on them. 

a guinness float

 A Facebook exchange reminded me of an incident from a couple decades ago. I was living in Flushing, and occasionally had lunch at Bridie's, an Irish pub/restaurant in the area.

I don't know exactly what gave me the inspiration, but for some reason I decided that the perfect dessert would be a Guinness float -- vanilla ice cream drowned in Guinness Stout. The request caught my waitress by surprise. She asked me to repeat it, and had me describe what I had in mind. Of course, I couldn't back down so I feigned confidence and sureness as I repeated the order and described it. Satisfied that I knew what I was doing, she scribbled it into her pad and disappeared.

A minute later the bartender popped by to question me. I repeated for him what I wanted. I turned down the suggested whipped cream. Shrugging, he walked away. And soon the waitress was back with my float.

I was happily anticipating the dessert, expecting -- well, I don't quite know what I was expecting. Something good. I was disappointed. The odd blend of bitter and sweet was revolting. But I noticed that the waitress, keeping a distance, was watching was an intense look of interest. So I couldn't back down. I hated every disgusting spoonful but I finished the damn thing.

I paid and left. The walk home was a short one - maybe a quarter mile. But it seemed to last forever as I fought the urge to vomit. But I figured that was the end of it. It was an experiment. A failure, I suppose, but an experiment.

And the next time I went to Bridie's for lunch? No sooner had I taken a seat than the same waitress came over carrying a baby in her arms. She pointed to me, and said to the baby (in her heavy Irish brogue) "That's the funny man who ordered a Guinness Float." At least, I consoled myself, I had become a legend.

 Bridie's isn't there anymore. The neighborhood changed, and it has been replaced by a Korean barbecue place. I don't live near there anymore, but I sometimes drive by. And every time I do I'm tempted to stop, go in, and order a Mek-Ju float.

25a? impeachment? how does that affect my stoopidstats?

After the disgraceful events of Wednesday, egged on my President Trump, there's renewed interest in impeaching him again (and this time convicting him and removing from office) or removing him via Section 4 of the 25th Amendment (25A§4).*

I'm not here to opine on the relative merits of the two courses of action. But I'm a bit of a process geek, and I also have my weird StoopidStats thing. So on that basis alone I'm kind of fascinated by the possibility of Pence becoming president for less than two weeks. He would go down in history as the shortest-serving president (passing William Henry Harrison who served for a month), and his presidency would likely be of little consequence -- other than the symbolism of Trump being forced from office. But the history books would record that he was President.

But then I started wondering -- can it really happen?

The impeachment route would require both houses to reconvene. The House of Representatives would have to vote to impeach, and the Senate would have to have a trial** and convict. My understanding is that both houses have the necessary votes. I suppose it could be accomplished in the few days left. But that would require all parties to act quickly. Given the logistics, I don't see it happening in time to remove Trump from office before Biden is sworn in.

That leaves 25A§4. Before I address this, let's look at the actual language. But first, note that this interpretation is my own, and I am not a lawyer.

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

If you're interest is in the symbolism of the first ever invocation of this procedure, then have at it (assuming you can get Mike Pence and a majority of either the Cabinet or the appropriate Congressional body to start the process). But for the Stoopidstats geek like me, it won't matter. Trump would remain President until his term expires this month.

To see why, consider the language quoted above. There are, essentially three steps (as described below). For brevity, I am not reiterating the timing involved, and I'm further editing the language. If you don't trust me, read the actual language above.

1. The VP and a majority of either the Cabinet or the appropriate Congressional body send a letter to the House and the Senate a declaration that the President is unfit. At this point, the President is stripped of his duties and responsibilities. The Vice President becomes "Acting President," and assumes the duties and responsibilities. But the President does remain President -- this is made clear by the language at the beginning of the second paragraph that still refers to him as the President.  
2. The President sends a response saying that he is fit.
3. The VP et. al. reassert that the President is indeed unfit.
4. Congress decides the matter and either the President is removed (at which point the VP becomes President), or the President resumes his duties and responsibilities.

For President Trump to be removed from office, all three steps of the process would have to play out. That is just not going to happen in the time remaining. In fact, the language of the Amendment doesn't specify how long the President can take before responding. So President Trump could simply shrug, go golfing, and spend his remaining time as a powerless and dutiless President. But he would still be President. Given the short time involved, I suspect that's what he'd do.

So I could be proven wrong, but I doubt that Trump will be removed from office before the end of his term.

At any rate, the process of 25A§4 brings up an interesting question. Well, it's interesting to me, anyway. Suppose a President is inaugurated as scheduled, and then 25A§4 is invoked later that day. Can the President refuse to respond for four years and effectively spend a full term as a powerless President?

Further (and, yeah, I know this is deep within the realm of crazy), suppose that happens but our powerless President somehow gets reelected. Does his powerless status continue? Or does he get his powers back with the second inauguration? If the former, suppose he is not reelected, but is then subsequently elected to a second nonconsecutive term. Does he get his powers with that second term?

One final note: If Trump is removed from office before the end of his term, that will slightly improve his "SCOTUS Days Ratio," which is a statistic I invented to measure a president's influence on the Supreme Court as a function of his time in office. I defined that statistic here.

______________________________

*Most discussion of this issue seems to refer simply to the 25th Amendment without specifying which section. 25A covers other presidential replacement/succession issues (such as death or resignation). Sections 1, 2 and 3 have all been invoked at least once. I prefer to refer to 25A§4 to make clear that I am specifically referring to Section 4.

**What a "trial" consists of is left to the Senate to decide, so it could be very very quick.

zmedsday (c)

 

happy tunesday! (baby's liquored up)

I was originally going to post this for Tunesday last week, but it got bumped for a timely post related to Eytan Mirsky. That post was here. There are YouTube videos of the Beat Farmers' studio version of this, and the vocals on those are easier to make out. But I don't think they capture the true spirit of one of music's great live bands.

Anyway, the Beat Farmers have been on my mind because I recently bought a DVD of Pay Up Cheaters! which is a documentary about the Beat Farmers. Also, I ended up putting together a cowpunk sampler disc for a friend, and the Beat Farmers are cowpunk ground zero for me.

One of my favorite concert experiences was at a Beat Farmers show in the early 1990s. It was at the Lone Star Roadhouse in Manhattan. Before the show I saw Country Dick (the guy singing lead in the video above) sitting at a table talking to someone. I approached, just to tell him how much I appreciated his music. His reaction? He looked me in the eye and said "start drinking." So I took a big gulp from his beer. Yes, that was pretty stupid of me. But he reacted with a deep hearty laugh.

Country Dick was one of a kind.

question of the day: how did bernie do it?

Speaking of Bernie Madoff, there's something I don't get. What kind of reports was he providing to his clients? Based on my limited experience with money managers, I just don't see how Madoff could have kept his scam going for any length of time.

Before she met me, Blair entrusted money with an investment manager who opened a brokerage account and traded on Blair's behalf. As with any brokerage account, we get trade confirmations, monthly statements and year-end summaries (which include tax documents). Years ago I used to help out my father, who was an accountant, with the paperwork for some of his clients. I recall a couple who similarly had money managed by professionals. They also received all the usual paperwork from their money managers.

In these cases, it would be impossible for the money managers to falsify returns. If an account went down, you can't simply say it went up; the trail of statements and confirmations wouldn't support it. You just couldn't falsify the returns with any kind of expectation that none of your clients would look at the ticker symbols and history and figure out that something is wrong.

So how did Bernie do it?