Bag of Randomness for Wednesday, November 16, 2016
In a freak home accident yesterday, I suffered a mild concussion and was even unconscious for a brief moment. What’s weird, ten years ago yesterday my mother suffered a head injury which resulted in her death two days later. I’m not sure if I’m more surprised I’ve been without living parents for a decade or that I’ve kept up with this blog. This is now my third or fourth concussion, most happened on the football field.
Even though I have a spell checker (you’re surprised, I know), I always have to look over “Wednesday” a few times. Spelling that day is a mental hurdle.
Sometimes it’s really hard to understand what a coworker is explaining, so I’ll try to break it down by asking yes/no, true/false, this/that questions to see at what point my misunderstanding begins. While I understand certain answers are more complex than a yes/no or true/false, there are a few coworkers that seem to avoid answering that way by all mean possible. For example, the other day I asked one if he/she was using Firefox as his/her web browser. Here’s another, “Are you using your work computer or personal computer when you ran into the issue?” And no, I don’t work in any type of customer or tech support.
There’s also a handful of coworkers who will “Reply All” even when it’s not necessary. In my line of work, I get anywhere from 30-80 emails a day, excluding those unneeded who “Reply All” when not warranted.
For the most part, I really do enjoy my job and my coworkers, but we all have “those things” that get to us every now and then.
Some of my most productive work days start by writing down three to five things I want to accomplish before the end of the day as soon as I get to the office. Next to each item I’ll draw a square check-mark box, and will check off each box as I complete each task. Most of the time, those tasks aren’t anything major, but just stuff I need to get out of the way or have been lingering for longer than I’d like. I’m surprised I don’t do this more often if I find it so effective, and I enjoy the tiny sense of accomplishment once they are all completed. Sometimes, those things don’t take longer than an hour to do, and I’m left wondering why I put them off for so long in the first place.
The greatest chance of getting rid of the Electoral College would have been when Obama first took office. However, with the great recession and our troops fighting overseas, any attempt would have looked poor.
I’m about 65/35 on getting rid of it.
One argument for keeping it would be that candidates would only campaign in highly populated areas. But my argument against that is the candidates are basically doing that now but in swing states.
One argument for keeping it is another sense of check and balances. The winner of the Electoral College can still be prevented from taking office if the electors of each state choose not to cast the vote according to the election, and those faithless electors could be penalized. I think that explanation is bastardized, but you get the idea, I hope.
I don’t like the idea that my vote counts but doesn’t matter, sort of speak. Trump was going to win Texas without a doubt, but if I chose to vote for Hillary, it doesn’t really do any good.
I’m split whether or not the will of the people or if state representation is the best way to go. I get we live in a republic, but it’s a democratic republic. There appears to already be a balance with the Electoral College, but I’m not sure if it’s the best way to represent both interests. There’s logic with what the Founding Fathers created, but they also recognized the need to be able to amend.
I’m not trying to sound like a sore loser, I’m just trying to process my thoughts. It’s not my attempt to come across that way.
In college, I was surprised when some friends told me their favorite cartoon characters were Foghorn Leghorn and Marvin the Martian. To me, they were just secondary characters and at the time couldn’t comprehend why a major character, like Bugs Bunny, wasn’t their favorite.
Marvin’s design was based on a conception of the Roman god Mars. “That was the uniform that Mars wore — that helmet and skirt. We thought putting it on this ant-like creature might be funny. But since he had no mouth, we had to convey that he was speaking totally through his movements. It demanded a kind of expressive body mechanics.”
His dog is named “K-9”.
Marvin attempts to destroy the Earth because, he reasons, “it obstructs my view of Venus”
The offensive video was first uploaded to Snapchat Monday morning and shows an unidentified female Abilene Christian University student with her face covered in black makeup. “I’m a strong black woman,” the white student says before putting on a pair of oversized costume lips, while several people can be heard laughing in the background. The video is accompanied by a caption reading, “This is why black lives matter exists.”
I attended Hardin-Simmons University which was just down the road (literally) from ACU. You’d often see HSU men driving through the ACU campus because the women there were extremely attractive. One of the best dates I ever had was with an ACU girl.
ACU is affiliated with the Church of Christ, and they don’t use musical instruments during worship services. I remember helping to dispose an old piano in college and someone jokingly said we should just dump it at ACU. At the time, it was funny.
I used to attend a worship service on Sunday night at ACU. It worked out that I could watch the ‘X-Files’ and make it to the auditorium in time. It was basically an auditorium of about two-thousand students with the lights dimmed, one student would spontaneously start singing a worship song and the rest would follow along. Since it was all acapella, it was really beautiful. Some songs had parts in which the opposite sex sang, and when the girls sand, it was very angelic.
At the time (1994-1999), all freshmen had to live on campus with a curfew and not one swimming pool on campus allowed men and women to swim together.
From the highway, us Baptists used to joke that this part of their campus looked it was flipping us off. This isn’t the best angle, but you get the idea.
Bloomberg – The Spy Who Added Me on LinkedIn – Russia had operatives in New York for years, from Wall Street to the UN. Now one is headed to prison.
I enjoy David Blaine magic specials, especially the latest format he uses. Instead of being on stage in front of an audience, his segments are in front a few people, usually celebrities, and you get to see their immediate actions. And yes, I think their reactions are genuine.
One of the points of the Electoral College is to prevent the unwashed masses from electing someone utterly unfit for office. It's a check on the will of the people. If the electors actually chose their candidate independently rather than simply obeying the voters of their state, they might not elect Trump this year, and the EC would be functioning as intended. But you can imagine what would happen if enough faithless electors went against their state's results and chose Hillary. Instead, all the EC does is allow candidates to focus on 8-10 swing states and ignore the interests of the rest, including Texas. The EC needs to go. I already wrote to both our US Senators and my US Representative urging them to get rid of it.
the colorful minor Looney Toons characters were my favorites too: Foghorn Leghorn, Yosemite Sam, Tasmanian Devil, and to a lesser extent, Marvin the Martian. They were always foils for Bugs and other protagonists; they always failed spectacularly; and they had the most easily imitatable(?) voices with some great catchphrases!
Personally, I think the Electoral College should stay. However, I am glad there is a way to remove it that is very difficult. It keeps either side from changing it only when it goes against their preferences in a particular year. It forces some version of compromise vs. a knee jerk reaction. The reform side would have to come up with a very convincing argument.
That being said, I do not think it will go in our lifetime due to the fact that 38 states would have to ratify it, and more than 12 states would realize it would be signing their own 'death warrant' when it comes to impact on Presidential elections. Self preservation should keep it around forever, or at least long into the future.
I'll repeat what I posted last week, none of this electoral college stuff would be a big deal if we had a weak federal government like was intended back when the constitution was written. Nobody would care so much about who the president was if he/she had little power to affect our lives.
The United States Government belongs to the states, not vice versa.
There's something to be said for a system that has worked for over two hundred years. During those centuries thousands of legislators could have eliminated the EC and didn't. Is this generation of thinkers – almost exclusively on this election's the losing side – wiser than all of them?
I'll agree there is something to be said for a system that has worked for over two hundred years; however, I also think it highlights the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and reminds us that even the Roman Empire fell, and we are still a young country. Our Founding Fathers created a form of government in which they admitted things may need to be changed, which is why they allowed for amendments. For instance, for over 170 years, the country was functioning just fine without presidential term limits, but then FDR was elected to four terms, the topic of presidential term limits was relevant, debate and discussion happened, and the 22nd Amendment was ratified. That's not exactly apples to apples regarding your comment, but I do think the EC is worthy of debate and discussion. That's not saying the losing side of the election is wiser, that shouldn't be implied at all, but the EC is now a relevant and timely subject, and it's an appropriate time to to discuss and debate, and that was my intent.
I'm writing this on Thursday morning. I hope you get to feeling well soon.
Of course, any topic is subject to discussion. I believe that it's "timely" only in the sense that the discussion is fueled by the team that just lost the big game. The most apt analogy I've heard is that democracy (aka "the popular vote") is like two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Very specific geographic areas control some states. Look at this map of how New York voted. It's 90% red. Hillary didn't win New York state, she won New York City. Their interests will by definition be very focused and limited, even to the detriment of everyone else in their own state. The Electoral College mitigates that.
Thanks for the well wishes and taking the time to reply. We both agree how the EC works and its power of representation, but we disagree if it should be used for various reasons, and we aren't going to win each other over, at least not through comments on a blog. However, your original comment gave me the impression that the subject of the EC should not be considered or worthy of discussion because it has worked for over 200 years and those who are questioning it (mainly those who voted for the losing candidate) shouldn't because thousands of legislators could have eliminated the EC but didn't. My apologies if I misunderstood your thoughts, but that was my interpretation of them, and I was in disagreement from how I understood them. With your latest comment, you state it is subject to discussion, and I'm in agreement with that. Once again, thanks for the well wishes and helping me understand your point of view.
Contrary to what you might have heard, I prefer cordial discussion to flamethrowing. 🙂 In my opinion a good debate is one in which ideas are challenged and defended, but that doesn't mean it has to degenerate into name calling. Respectful disagreement is possible among people of good will. (Having said that, I'm very capable of tit-for-tat, as you may have seen on that lawyer's blog. I have no desire to be anyone's punching bag.)
From the highway, us Baptists used to joke that this part of their campus looked it was flipping us off. This isn’t the best angle, but you get the idea.
One of the points of the Electoral College is to prevent the unwashed masses from electing someone utterly unfit for office. It's a check on the will of the people. If the electors actually chose their candidate independently rather than simply obeying the voters of their state, they might not elect Trump this year, and the EC would be functioning as intended. But you can imagine what would happen if enough faithless electors went against their state's results and chose Hillary. Instead, all the EC does is allow candidates to focus on 8-10 swing states and ignore the interests of the rest, including Texas. The EC needs to go. I already wrote to both our US Senators and my US Representative urging them to get rid of it.
the colorful minor Looney Toons characters were my favorites too: Foghorn Leghorn, Yosemite Sam, Tasmanian Devil, and to a lesser extent, Marvin the Martian. They were always foils for Bugs and other protagonists; they always failed spectacularly; and they had the most easily imitatable(?) voices with some great catchphrases!
Personally, I think the Electoral College should stay. However, I am glad there is a way to remove it that is very difficult. It keeps either side from changing it only when it goes against their preferences in a particular year. It forces some version of compromise vs. a knee jerk reaction. The reform side would have to come up with a very convincing argument.
That being said, I do not think it will go in our lifetime due to the fact that 38 states would have to ratify it, and more than 12 states would realize it would be signing their own 'death warrant' when it comes to impact on Presidential elections. Self preservation should keep it around forever, or at least long into the future.
I'll repeat what I posted last week, none of this electoral college stuff would be a big deal if we had a weak federal government like was intended back when the constitution was written. Nobody would care so much about who the president was if he/she had little power to affect our lives.
The United States Government belongs to the states, not vice versa.
I hope HeadGeeding feels better soon, take care.
There's something to be said for a system that has worked for over two hundred years. During those centuries thousands of legislators could have eliminated the EC and didn't. Is this generation of thinkers – almost exclusively on this election's the losing side – wiser than all of them?
I'll agree there is something to be said for a system that has worked for over two hundred years; however, I also think it highlights the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and reminds us that even the Roman Empire fell, and we are still a young country. Our Founding Fathers created a form of government in which they admitted things may need to be changed, which is why they allowed for amendments. For instance, for over 170 years, the country was functioning just fine without presidential term limits, but then FDR was elected to four terms, the topic of presidential term limits was relevant, debate and discussion happened, and the 22nd Amendment was ratified. That's not exactly apples to apples regarding your comment, but I do think the EC is worthy of debate and discussion. That's not saying the losing side of the election is wiser, that shouldn't be implied at all, but the EC is now a relevant and timely subject, and it's an appropriate time to to discuss and debate, and that was my intent.
I'm writing this on Thursday morning. I hope you get to feeling well soon.
Of course, any topic is subject to discussion. I believe that it's "timely" only in the sense that the discussion is fueled by the team that just lost the big game. The most apt analogy I've heard is that democracy (aka "the popular vote") is like two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Very specific geographic areas control some states. Look at this map of how New York voted. It's 90% red. Hillary didn't win New York state, she won New York City. Their interests will by definition be very focused and limited, even to the detriment of everyone else in their own state. The Electoral College mitigates that.
Thanks for the well wishes and taking the time to reply. We both agree how the EC works and its power of representation, but we disagree if it should be used for various reasons, and we aren't going to win each other over, at least not through comments on a blog. However, your original comment gave me the impression that the subject of the EC should not be considered or worthy of discussion because it has worked for over 200 years and those who are questioning it (mainly those who voted for the losing candidate) shouldn't because thousands of legislators could have eliminated the EC but didn't. My apologies if I misunderstood your thoughts, but that was my interpretation of them, and I was in disagreement from how I understood them. With your latest comment, you state it is subject to discussion, and I'm in agreement with that. Once again, thanks for the well wishes and helping me understand your point of view.
Contrary to what you might have heard, I prefer cordial discussion to flamethrowing. 🙂 In my opinion a good debate is one in which ideas are challenged and defended, but that doesn't mean it has to degenerate into name calling. Respectful disagreement is possible among people of good will. (Having said that, I'm very capable of tit-for-tat, as you may have seen on that lawyer's blog. I have no desire to be anyone's punching bag.)
Ugh. I hope your Ok. Sending good thoughts.