Why the Electoral College Sucks and should be abolished

Why the Electoral College sucks, and should be abolished.

I’m not going to mince words: The Electoral College sucks, and we should abolish it post haste.

I mean come on, it doesn’t even have a sports team. How lame is that?

Whenever I bring up my dislike for this severely outdated system, I’m generally confronted with the trite response that the system ensures small states have a say because otherwise the states with the smallest populations would be ignored by candidates because there aren’t enough votes to make their time worthwhile.  

That’s why the Electoral College was instituted, because small states didn’t trust big states and thought their voice would be drowned out by their more populous counterparts. So, as a compromise, the founding fathers proposed a system where each state was given a number of electors based off the number of representatives of each state.

Just in case you forget, the number of representatives is based off of a state’s population.

So smaller states have fewer representatives, and, you guessed it: fewer electors.

How the hell did they fall for this? It’s no damn different! The only thing I can think of is that people back then were too busy struggling to survive to really think the whole thing through and bought it. Granted today we’d be too busy creeping on Facebook and worshiping moronic celebrities so we’d still fall for it. 

So as we’ve seen, small states still have less say in the matter than large states. So that line of reasoning is out the window. But it’s not in my style to let things lie. No, I beat the dead horse.

Presidential candidates already spent most of their time in a few states. Go to Politico.com and look up President Obama’s and Governor Romney’s campaign schedules. They’ve spent more time in Ohio than most people who live in Ohio. Why? Because it has a good number of electoral votes, and it’s considered a “swing” state. 

And no, a “swing state” is not a state with an open relationship.

The way things are now, candidates only spend time in states that are “up for grabs.” Obama only comes to California when he’s trying to raise money. Romney barely comes here at all. Why? Because voting Republican in California makes about as much sense as Lady Gaga’s wardrobe. And that takes me to my next point. Segue for the win! 

All the time I was growing up, the importance of voting was drummed in to my head. It’s your responsibility to vote since we all have a voice. In the words of Sherman T Potter (Had he not been censored) Horse shit! We do NOT have a voice in many states. California hasn’t voted for a Republican Presidential candidate since 1988. Texas hasn’t voted for a Democratic candidate since 1976. If I were a Dem living in Texas, I’d likely only bother voting on local issues, kind of like I’d be tempted to do here in California if it wasn’t for the fact I don’t really like either of the candidates. 

Now, I know you’re thinking, “What else would we do, Jarrod? Don’t just complain without proposing a solution!”

Now would I do that? Well, actually I might. But not in this case. My solution is simple: Nationwide popular vote.

 Under a nationwide popular vote, a ballot cast for Obama in Texas may not help him win that state, but who cares, because it still counts towards his total number of votes. Conversely, a vote for Romney in California would still actually mean something, as he could add that to his total. Isn’t that truly what one person, one vote is all about?

If we went to a straight nation-wide popular vote, every vote in every state would matter. And perhaps as an added bonus the campaigns could save some money and go on a national scale. In turn that money could be used for something a bit more productive. Like anything. 

Self plugging

If you don't promote yourself, who will?

That's what I think.

Anyway, I wanted to at least even out my number of followers from this blog, which I haven't updated nearly as much as I should, to this one which I have been doing a bit more frequently. Plus I think it's much funnier. So please jump on over and get a chuckle.

Why Santa Claus from Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer is a bastard

Far be it for me to go and destroy an icon of Christmas and favorite go-to guy for kids with Christmas wishes, but that bearded elf from the classic Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer is a bastard. I came to this conclusion while viewing the annual broadcast, which, I must note, was in freaking November. But that's for another blog entry. Don't believe my assessment of his bastard status? I'll walk you through my thought process.

Here he is, probably about to eat one of the deer.

The first indication of the fact that the man is an insufferable prick is during the reindeer practice. Here we see Comet walking eager young reindeer (who look an awful lot like regular deer, now that I think of it) through various games meant to help them someday pull Santa's sleigh.

Comet: Santa's partner in bastard crime

Except, that will never happen. In all the years we've been hearing of Santa, have you ever heard of anyone other than the original eight getting to pull the sleigh, with the obvious exception of Rudolph? No. There is absolutely NO turnover in that place. So here we get a bunch of young kids to work their antlers off making them think they have a future, when in reality the only future they have is one of crippling unemployment rates and all the problems that go with it.

Yeah, she's cute now. But wait until the stress of no income causes Rudolph to give her an Irish kiss. Then we'll see her on cops wearing a tube top and spandex crying about him hitting her, but not wanting him to go to jail as she holds two young kids with another in the oven and smoking a cigarette.

But the really troubling issue is Santa's apparentl dislike of Rudolph, simply for being different. Yeah, the guy who would only be more creepy about kids if he had a van instead of a sleigh, is critical of someone for being different. And not just critical, but warns Rudolph's dad that if he has any hope of pulling the sleigh (Which he doesn't anyway) he better get that whole glowing nose issue under control.

Ho ho! When I was your age, we took freaks like you and drowned them in the Arctic Ocean!

I mean, I guess I shouldn't be surprised about his dislike for anyone different. Look at his elf corps. The females look like Hitler's wet dream but short. The guys all look the same except the head elf and oh, get this, another character who is chased away from being different. This is starting to be a serious issue here. Maybe that's why Santa keeps his operation at the North Pole, no pesky Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to make sure he hired that one minority elf that keeps applying for a job.

"Why would I hire him? I can't even pronounce his name!"

The whole intolerance thing really makes you wonder what Santa considers naughty-list worthy offenses. "Oh, Billy. Yeah, he has those big ears. Coal. Samantha? Psh. Big feet. I'm not wasting all that leather on shoes. COAL! Steven..yeah, STEVEN want's a BARBIE! The only Barbie he'll be playing with is a Barbie-Q cause he's getting coal!"

This apparent intolerance combined with lack of support for his labor force really calls in to question the whole jolly old elf image we're bombarded with since childhood. Makes me really believe that the more realistic possibility here is he's just like every other old white dude with a long beard who lives in the middle of nowhere. He's just a redneck bastard.

Serving "suggestion"? I have a suggestion for you...put more syrup on my damn waffle!

I never understood the serving suggestions you see for a lot of meals. One of the most confusing is the suggestion for waffles.

Seriously, could you be any more stingy with the syrup?

What the hell is up with that? Look at all that undeveloped real estate, a swath of syrupless squares, a dearth of dark goodness, insert more mildly alliterative adjectives here. Just who the hell is "suggesting" that as a serving? Is someone out there hoarding the syrup? Is Canada going all OPEC on us and holding back on the maple trees' bounty to drive prices up to cover their health care system? If that's the case, I can actually be fine with it, as it gives me one more reason to hate Canada.

I should note, I don't really hate Canada. It is a wonderful, noble country with a rich culture that has contributed many wonderful additions to the world. Celine Dion...Bryan Adams....wait, you know what? Eff you, Canada!

In all honesty, it makes no sense. Especially when you consider the biggest name in waffles, Eggo, (Not John Kerry..that was the biggest name in waffling) also sells syrup. You'd think they would show a waffle drenched in syrup to help drive sales.

-Editor's note: A John Kerry reference? really? Way to be timely. What's next, a gag about that new fad, reality television?

See those little squares all over the waffle? They're not there for aerodynamics. They're there to hold syrup in. Putting a little dab in the middle like it's some reward for muffling through a dry, boring-ass waffle makes about as much sense as Lost. Seriously, I don't get either. The only difference is I didn't stop eating waffles.

They're looking for syrup too.

I understand that they're going for aesthetics and what not. It's the same reason that the fastfood joints show you a burger that's been cooked for about five seconds on the commercials, it looks nice for the camera. But what about a little realism? Who doesn't ensure that each square has equal amounts of syrup in them, with a little swirl of melted butter as well? The only people I can think of are probably the same types that would criticize someone's meal for having too many carbs about five seconds after they got on the Atkins diet, like reading that book and going on the world's stupidest diet somehow qualified them as a dietitian.

Maybe they are trying to get me to be more healthy. But to be honest, an overabundance of syrup on my waffles is the least of my issues when I'm eating waffles. I'm sure the cholesterol from the unsafe amount of bacon I'm eating alongside the waffles will cause my heart to seize long before the diabetes from the syrup gets me.

Pictured: Heaven. And most likely my ticket there as well

Eating healthy may lengthen my life, but what's the point if I don't enjoy it. So when it comes to syrup, or any topping really, be it gravy, Hollandaise, marinara or hot fudge, don't scrimp. I am by no means subtle, and neither should be my food.

Jarrod's laws to life

I'm sure we've all heard of Murphy's Law. If you're so far under a rock that you haven't heard of it, I doubt you're the blog reading type. You're still living in a cave discovering fire or something. But just in case some spelunker found your cave and dropped an iPhone and you've managed to discover the Internet, basically, Murphy's Law states "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong."

Much like Murphy's Law, I've found some truths to life that annoy me. And what's a blog for but the random whining of people who either can't get their fill of whining to their friends and need a larger audience, or their friends have all abandoned them due to their incessant whining. So, without further ado, here's Jarrod's laws to life. This will probably be added to and revised a lot.

1) The Stacking Law: When cleaning/organizing and stacking items, any object protruding over the one below it, no matter how small the overhang, will see the force of gravity multiplied how ever many times necessary to make that upper item topple over. Do you know why the Leaning Tower of Pisa hasn't fallen? It's not "over" anything. If something were below it, it would fall like a band geek's self-esteem at a jock party. (I can share from personal experience, the fall is meteoric in nature.)

Pictured: Stuff about to fall.

2) The Belt Law: This is similar to the first law. If you place your belt on a surface and any part of that belt hangs off the edge, that part of the belt will weigh several times more than the rest, and make it fall.

The next group of laws are traffic laws. No, not the things that some dude in aviator shades with an awesome mustache will make you follow.

What's the problem here, meow?

No, I mean laws in that these things can never be broken. Ever. I'm sure you've experienced it.

1) Inverse speed law:
There is an inverse relationship between the speed of the car in front of you and whether or not you're in a passing zone. Meaning, if you're in a no passing zone, that bastard is crawling. Once those double yellow lines open up into a pattern of dotted freedom, that same bastard now becomes Tony Stewart, except you're the one whining about coming in behind, not him.

Pictured: A bastard. In more ways than one.

2) Inverse traffic law: While driving behind that person who apparently has never heard of cruise control, you will also notice that there is an inverse relationship between the amount of traffic and passing zones. When you're stuck in a no passing zone, there is not another car coming. But the second that long awaited spot comes, and you're actually able to get around the bi-polar driver, all of a sudden a parade the likes of which no Memorial Day Celebration has ever seen immediately comes the other way.

3) Timing law: This is one I'm sure we've all experienced. The later you are, the worse traffic will be.

That guy is running very, very late.

I've found that the frustration follows us, despite traffic woes, to the store. It would seem that there is a relationship between how much you enjoy a product, and the likelihood that it will be discontinued. This is determined by those barcodes. You thought the UPC scanner was just to help inventory and what not. Right...and the social security number is just so you can get money from the government some day. (Wrong on so many levels.) No, the UPC is how they track what you buy, see what you purchase the most and then discontinue it. Why? Because they're bastards. That's right, they're the same jerk who was in front of you laughing as he altered speeds along with the passing lane situation.

I'm sure there are more laws...I'll be adding to this as I think of them. For now, enjoy this bit of knowledge, for knowledge is power.

Late to the party again, but I liked it

So I saw avatar last night.

Yeah, I know. With the exception of one primitive South American Amazon River tribesman who was battling malaria when they missionaries showed it down there, I'm the last person in the world to see it. It really is a common theme in my life. I've consistently joined in to the latest trends about five seconds prior to their relevance ceasing. I'm honestly surprised the world hasn't quit blogging since I started mine a week or so ago.

But this blog isn't about that...I'll save this gripe for another day. No, today I thought I would actually give my views on the movie. If you would like to move on to another blog that is a little more timely, like perhaps something discussing the 2008 presidential election, I'll understand.

First off, I didn't get to see the movie in all it's 3D splendor. I've heard from some people that missing out on that aspect really ruins the movie. Fortunately, I didn't share that experience. That's a good thing, if you ask me. If a movie has to rely on the latest, greatest special effects advancements to prop up a weak or nonexistent storyline, then the movie should not have been made. (I'm looking at you, George Lucas. No really, I am. Close your blinds!)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a movie snob. Those people honestly drive me nuts. There are a few types of these annoying souls. You have the typical movie critic, who thinks that every movie has to "say" something. They're the type that if it isn't Citizen Kane, they raise their nose like I would at "boxed" wine. The second kind over analyzes a movie, questioning everything, searching for things that are unrealistic. Another kind is the comic book guy, who hates any comic book movie that doesn't adhere to the canon of the comics. I'm sorry "graphic novel" That's like calling two moron beating the piss out of each other "Mixed Martial Arts." Oh wait...anyway...

As for the first type, it's a pretentious approach that is annoying to the average Joe, and makes it hard for those people to enjoy a movie. The second type finds themselves unable to be immersed, and have a hard time enjoying a movie. The third type spends their time too pissed off that they dared kill off Cyclops to enjoy the movie. Notice a pattern there? They can't enjoy the movie. When I watch a movie, I WANT to enjoy it. It's a way to escape the stresses of reality. I TRY to enjoy a movie. I don't care if it doesn't have a message, I don't care if it's unrealistic. I get plenty of reality, give me something new. I didn't read comics, it's probably the only nerd-thing I DIDN'T do. So who cares. I want to be entertained.

That brings me to the movie. (You thought I forgot, huh?) I enjoyed it. I had read a lot of negative things online (big shock, since everyone online prides themselves on fitting in to one of the above categories) and as such, was prepared to dislike the movie. But I found myself immersed in the imaginary world of Pandora. The visuals were stunning, the characters were fun and the plot was tolerable.

Yes, the plot was lifted from another movie. No, I don't mean the Pocahontas plot that has been circulating the interwebs. I mean it was lifted from pretty much every movie that involves a love interest. Think about it. Boy meets girl. Girl doesn't like boy at first. Boy wins girl over. Boy does something to screw it all up, girl leaves. Boy redeems himself. All is well. All you have to do it "fill in the blanks." The who, the when, the what did the boy do to piss her off, and you have a movie. It's how those blanks are filled that determines if the movie is good or not.

I thought those blanks were filled quite well. I was entertained, wondering how he was going to pull the solution out of his ass...or whatever orifice it is that Na'avi have. The journey was a fun one to take. I always enjoy a movie where the weaker guy kicks the crap out of someone stronger. I have no idea why...as a smaller guy who was always shorter than the guys picking on him, I can't come up with a psychological explanation for it... *cough*

I also remember reading some reviews saying they felt there could possibly be a comparison between the Na'avi and Native Americans. To that I say: "Gee, ya think? Did you notice they were blue, too?" The veil of the Na'avi and the early settlers treatment of the Native Americans is about as thin and transparent as a piece of wet one ply toilet paper. As such, this movie really did say something, but it did it in such an entertaining manner that I didn't find myself rolling my eyes as I'm preached to. Instead, it allowed me to reflect on how we really do treat "lesser" cultures in such a manner, and that there needs to be a balance between human needs and the needs of nature.

All in all, I really enjoyed the movie, and I'm curious to see how they work out a sequel. While I wait, maybe I'll show up late to another party. I hear there is an English playwright who is really quite the genius. Shakespeare or something like that...

Intro to blogging

I've often thought about creating a blog. There have been numerous reasons not to. I spend too much time on the computer as it is. There is already not enough time in the day to do other things I want, why start something else? I already share too much random stuff on Facebook. I could go on.

The truth is, I enjoy writing, I just rarely sit down and do it for personal reasons. I guess it goes back to one of those reasons up above. I spend so much time writing things for other people, businesses etc, by the time I get home, I don't feel like writing for myself. However, I've been doing a lot of thinking lately, hence the name of the blog. I've gone through some big changes in my life over the past year, I'm facing a milestone birthday next month, I tend to overthink things anyway. Who knows? The point is, I figured it was time to put some of these thoughts down on paper...or something a touch less 20th century.

Are my thoughts interesting to anyone but myself? Probably not much. I'm quite familiar with the site of a listeners eyes glazing over like a doughnut in the kitchen at Krispy Kreme. That's one of the benefits of the blog...I can write it but no one has to read it. I still get the thoughts out, no one is subjected to them that doesn't want them.

Finally, the irony of me not having a blog was just too much to live with anymore. I deal with social media for a living. Me not having a blog is like Steve Jobs not having an iPhone. Or an ounce of iCreativity when it comes to naming new products. Seriously, that much innovation in products, but the marketing department apparently has the vision of Mr. Magoo in the dark. But I digress, which I will. A lot. Just saying.

Anyway, I figured I might as well give in to one of the last social media trends out there. Knowing my luck, I'm starting this right about the time that they are no longer relevant. Ooh, maybe I'll be ironically cool...