Wednesday, May 8, 2019
Tuesday, May 7, 2019
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.
Sunday, May 5, 2019
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.
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.
Saturday, May 4, 2019
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
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:
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
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 1, 2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)