IQ Poll

   Despite my frequent complaints about our voting system (it's 2012, time to take it online people), I decided to brave the polls and vote in the Texas Primary Election.  I made sure I had all of my information ready, left early, and prepared to stand in line.  Turns out it was a line of one other person.  Yes, the voter turnout at this Texas Primary was pretty dismal, which I guess I should have expected, but that doesn't mean I'm not disappointed (again) by it.

   I will never forget my college Political Science II Class.  It was taught by a guy named "Barnes," and his big thing was he couldn't stand it when people's cell phones went off while he was teaching.  Like if a cell phone went off during class, he would just up and leave.  And everything he was going to talk about would still be on the exam.  That was his major pet peeve.  I remember someone's phone going off one time during a test and he actually threatened to kick out an entire section of the class unless they ratted out the guy whose phone it was.  And then the unthinkable happened: his phone went off one day, right in the middle of class.  It was glorious.  But the point of this now ridiculously long paragraph is this: Barnes said one time that it was always funny to him how everyone made a big deal about the presidential election, but no one ever went to the state or local elections.  He said it was funny because the state and local elections had a much more profound impact on our lives than the big national ones.  I used to think that was true.

   But is it now?  Sure, local elections have to do with people who arrest and charge suspected criminals.  They help keep our sewers going and our roads in good shape (terrible job of that, by the way, here in Houston).  But it sure seems like a larger amount of power and responsibility is heading toward the federal government.  You might recall from history or political science class that this is not what our forefathers had in mind.  But the question is, what did they know?  Did they not want a strong federal government because they felt like states should have more power, and that was the better way to do it?  Or did they say the federal government shouldn't be in charge of certain things because it was simply too hard for them to keep a country this big under control during those times?  Imagine trying to pass healthcare laws back then.  Some dude would have to leave Washington on horseback and explain to every single town what the new rules were.  He would die before he made it to Colorado.  There was no TV, there was no internet, there was no quick way of communicating.

   The reality now is that the federal government must play a bigger role in our lives.  There are too many laws, and too many people moving from state to state every single day for us to have a different set of laws in each state to have to abide by.  Should the states still have some power?  Absolutely.  The federal government is way too big and inefficient to manage things like surface streets or water supplies.  But don't think that's going to stop them from trying.  And this is where it all unwinds.  Just because the federal government shouldn't be mucking about in state or local matters doesn't mean that they don't want to.

   Our federal government has grown out of control as a whole, but it does need to be there and it does need to manage certain things that maybe originally it wasn't designed to manage.  Driver's Licenses... the postal service... highways... cell phone and tv airwaves... there are certain things that would be a huge mess if it weren't for the overarching management of the federal government.  And even then some of these things are still a mess, but less of a mess.

   Man I am really rambling today.  The point of this whole thing was to tell you about my experience at the poll.  It was shocking.

   Like I said, I got to the polls and nobody was there.  So I'm thinking piece of cake, right?  Wrong.  I get to the poll guy and give him my voter registration card.  He starts flipping through his book looking for my name, only to realize he had the wrong book (like for the wrong letters of the alphabet).  So he flounders around looking for another book for a little while, and when he finally finds he he immediately goes to the RO section and starts looking for me.

   ME: "Hey uh, shouldn't you be looking in the RI's?"

   HIM: "Nah I got it man."

   ME: (after a few minutes) "Yeah but you're in the RO's right now.  My last name is..."

   HIM: "I got it."

   ME: (stunned silence)

   HIM: (after several minutes of searching) "Well, it's not here."

   ME: "Yeah you need to look under RI."

   HIM: "I looked all through here and I don't see it."

   ME: "Can you just humor me?" (At this point I flip the book back to the RIs)

   HIM: (immediately finding my name and passing right over it) "Nope."

   ME: "That's me right there."

   HIM: "...You're last name is Roberts, right?"

   ME: Uh, no, it's Rigg.

   HIM: "Oh.  Well yeah, there you are."

   At this point, he proceeded to slowly write my name down and then print my ticket, and then wave me to the nearest voting booth.  I walked to the booth, still stunned, and was barely able to concentrate while filling out the ballot.  So many questions were racing through my head... everything from "how in the world did this guy qualify to be a poll worker?" to "I wonder how many people he turned away because he supposedly couldn't find their names... as if the turnout wasn't already low enough," to "man, could this guy actually be a spy for the democrats?  Could they be so low as to plant people like this at the polls?  Do the republicans do the same thing?"  I was in a paranoid mood.

   But seriously though, how can this be?  Are these people paid?  Are they interviewed by the party before going out and representing them at the polling locations?  How does this system work?  I am intrigued that someone with that level of intelligence could play any role in our country's government.  But then, maybe it's government that put him there in the first place.  Gotta take everyone, right?  Can't have any kind of qualification test that makes sure that only the people who are qualified for the position actually get it, right?  That would be unfair, after all.

   Shocking.

Couples Retreat

   From Netflix:  Desperate to save their marriage, one couple convinces three other couples to go in on a group rate price for an island retreat designed for troubled unions. But the "mandatory therapy" brews up nothing but trouble for everyone.

   My take: Here are a bunch of funny people put into a painfully awkward situation on an island with a bunch of weirdos.  The only way to make it any more uncomfortable is to put Ben Stiller in there.  And they didn't!  What more could you ask for?  In all seriousness though, this movie is pretty damn funny.  Near perfect casting all the way around.  There were some great lines, some excellent moments, and some very nice bikinis.  But still, I couldn't help but not really like this movie very much.

   I'll admit I've struggled to put my finger on what it really is.  And I think the closest I can get to determining my problem with this movie is that it never really goes anywhere.  Sure, the couples all go through challenges and do some funny stuff and then hate each other and then make up with each other.  Sure there is some sort of lesson about really getting to the root of what your relationship is with your spouse.  There is a story... it's just not told very well.

   There are several points where this movie stalls.  Things that could and should be funny are, but they just don't seem to really fit with the rest of what's going on.  Probably the best (worst?) example of this is the "shark attack" scene.  It went on for way too long, it wasn't very funny, and it really didn't play that big a role in the rest of the movie.  It's like it was just tacked on... or rather like it originally served a bigger purpose, but that purpose was taken out by some studio exec who felt like they needed to shave 15 minutes off the length of the movie so it would be more marketable.

   The ending is also terrible.  No payoff, no explanation.  It's like an entire scene was just deleted from the movie.  There's some offhand joke about the guy waiting for them since sunrise... but you never feel like there was any real reason for why he acted the way he had the entire movie.  He just hands them their statues and acts like he taught them this great lesson.  But he didn't.  It just made no sense.

   Bottom line: this is a funny movie.  It will make you laugh.  But if you're looking for something that is funny and actually has a good story, I really think this movie will leave you wanting.  As much as I hate to say this, you might actually be better off renting a Ben Stiller awkward-fest.

The Adjustment Bureau

   From Netflix:  A congressman (Matt Damon) who's a rising star on the political scene finds himself entranced by a beautiful ballerina (Emily Blunt), but mysterious circumstances ensure that their love affair is predestined to be a non-starter. Screenwriter George Nolfi (The Bourne Ultimatum) makes his directorial debut with this romantic adaptation of Philip K. Dick's classic sci-fi short story "Adjustment Team."

   My take:  Here's a story that will not work for everybody, and I think it has a lot to do with one reason: the story centers around God.  More specifically, it centers around Free Will and God's apparent lack of control over Free Will.  For me personally, this idea registers, because I have always believed (I thought I read it somewhere) that God willingly gave us all Free Will.  I thought it was part of the whole "in His image" thing, and that the idea was we were going to be able to do what we wanted, but we would also have to face the consequences.

   If you go at this movie with that mindset, or if you believe in that idea, then I think you will really enjoy yourself.  Here are some agents of God who are trying to help humanity survive, and while they know we would just blow ourselves up without them, they also have to deal with absolutely no gratitude or even realization from us.  It's got to be frustrating.  On the other hand, you have a story about true love and how it conquers everything, especially when free will is involved.  It's actually a pretty interesting story.

   I do, of course, have a couple of problems.  My main problem is that I seriously doubt Matt Damon's character would be regarded as important enough by any of these "adjustment" folks to where they wouldn't just wipe his brain.  Once he proved that he wasn't going to do what was expected of him, you'd think they would just zap him and be done with it.  Sure that one guy liked him enough to break the rules for him, but the rest of the people wouldn't seem to care.  Or maybe they had orders not to do it?  Whatever the case that seemed kind of silly to me.  And also it bugged me that their love was still part of a previous "plan."  Kind of takes the spontaneity out of it, and also removes some of the "we're battling the system" feeling too.

   Still, this is a good movie.  Yes you will hear people say they didn't care for it, and no, it certainly isn't for everyone.  But it is an intriguing way of thinking.  Sort of a peek behind the curtain, or at least one imagining of what that curtain could be.  A movie that makes you think.  Imagine that?

And I saw "Avengers" again.  And it was just as awesome the second time.  Keep 'em comin.'