Get Rid of the Electoral College System - This is the single biggest problem with the election system. The electoral college takes the popular vote, crumples it up, and throws it out the window. Oh sure it made sense, like a hundred years ago, when the election was determined by a bunch of dudes on horseback who had to travel to DC and report on the results from their states. It might have made more sense back then for them to simply say "Texas is for Wilson" than for them to roll up with thousands of pieces of paper tucked under their arms. But while politics may not have changed much in the last 100 years, the country has. There is no longer a need for an electoral college. What that does in states like, say Arizona, is give liberals and democrats absolutely no incentive to vote. You know the state is going to go Republican, so why bother? The election ultimately comes down to a very small group of people in a very small number of states. And the candidates spend millions and millions of dollars lying to those people trying to get them to swing one way or the other. That doesn't sound like Democracy to me.
Eliminate Campaign Spending Ability - We're actually going in the WRONG direction on this problem. What we should be doing is limiting campaign spending across the board. No special interest groups. No Super PACs. Each candidate should be given a set allowance, and that allowance should be the same for each candidate. Instead, we're allowing them to break their banks outspending one another. And don't act like political ads don't work... I consider myself a pretty smart person, but when there are a million people on the ballot and you can't remember who's who, I have recalled those ads and let them swing my vote if for no other reason than just because it was a name I was a little bit familiar with. That's wrong. Honestly it's better to go in blind than to let some shitty political ad tell me which way to vote. My point is, we are now telling candidates to "go ahead and BUY the election." He or she who spends the most, wins. That is not democracy, and it's also annoying because political ads are ridiculous.
Bring Voting Online - Oh yeah, there it is, the bomb. "Are you kidding me? There would be so much fraud! That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard!" Now wait just a minute. Before you go flying off the handle, really consider this for a minute. How many times have you entered your social security number online? How many times have you handed over your checking account? Hell, I bet you give your credit card number to the damn pizza guy when you order. The idea that there would be massive fraud during the election is sort of hilarious to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure people would TRY to hack in and screw with the election... but if we can keep China from breaking in to wall street I think we can keep hackers at bay for a presidential election. It's simple... use your social security number to log in (add a driver's license number for added security if you like), cast your vote, hit submit, then log out. Done and done. It's no big deal. I just don't get why everyone makes such a mountain out of this idea... I guarantee you this would increase voter turnout at least tenfold. I know I would be much more apt to get off my ass and vote if I didn't have to go stand in line for an hour or two.
Ultimately, nothing is going to fix the apathy of our voters except for making them realize just how lucky they are to have the ability to vote in the first place. I think it would be awesome if this country required every resident to visit and volunteer in a third-world country before they could gain citizenship. Make them understand just how good we have it here, and then maybe (just maybe) they would be a little more apt to take part in the political system. As it stands right now we can't do anything that drastic, but we can at least make it to where your vote counts for something, and so that it isn't such a pain in the ass to go do something as simple as vote.
Malarchy!
Alright let's get to it. The Vice Presidential Debate, while far less important in the grand scheme of things, was far more exciting than the Presidential Debate. I'll get to the issues here in a second, but really this debate was more about character than anything. On one side of the table, you had a young, smart, energetic, unproven Paul Ryan. On the other side was the wildcard, the guy who could say or do anything and pretty much get away with it, the passionate Joe Biden.
And depending on which side of the fence you were on, Biden was either a passionate, well-spoken, heartfelt supporter of Barack Obama... or a buffoon who made an ass out of himself in front of the nation. I consider myself a moderate, but I have to say I was a little offended by Biden's actions and mannerisms. It's one thing to be passionate... it's another thing to be rude. He continually stepped on Ryan's lines, interrupted both Ryan and the moderator, pointed his finger, laughed at statements made by Ryan... it was kind of like watching a little kid fight with an adult.
Ryan, on the other hand, was limp. He was well-rehearsed, but up against someone like Biden I think that counted against him. It came across to me like he was nervous about going off the beaten path. He was unable to improvise, even to respond directly to a question posed to him by Biden or the moderator. It was a safe play, but it was also one that could wind up hurting his party in the long run. I only recall one time where he stood up to Biden's actions, and even then it was a half-attempt ("let's stop interrupting each other?" Seriously? That's all you got?)
And further, the moderator in my opinion was very weak. She allowed interruptions, she left issues without responses. She allowed both candidates to make highly inflammatory remarks about each other, and then simply moved on to other issues. It was like she was in a race to get to that final issue: abortion. And really, with everything else going on in this country, is abortion really something that should be deciding this election? You may think so. I don't. Not saying it's not an important issue... but I think the possibility of nuclear war with Iran and a crashing economy sort of take the front seat right now.
One thing I don't get... why don't Romney and Ryan explain their tax plan? I get what they're trying to say... why don't they? It's simple. Romney has a goal for his tax plan. He wants to cut them across the board, and make up the difference by closing loopholes and whatnot. That is the endgame. How you GET to that endgame is up in the air. It will take Democrats and Republicans working together, finding those loopholes, determining what gets closed and who needs to pay what. If they could just figure out how to explain that, I think they would win a lot of points and actually be able to put Obama back on his heels a little bit. But they can't. When the moderator demands specifics, they just stand there, clammy, and the media licks its chops because it now has even more to talk about. If I'm in the Romney campaign, I'm spending an entire meeting trying to get them to figure out how to explain what should be a simple answer to the question. They've already wasted too much time standing there with their mouths open on this one.
And yet, despite all of my complaining, I will say again that I think this was one of the best debates I've ever watched. This is by far the easiest election I've ever seen. Not to say my DECISION will be easy, but determining who stands where on the issues is, for once, not a problem. "Romney wants tax relief for the rich," "Obama wants a welfare state," you can spin it however you want... at least you know where these guys stand on the issues. I salute them for that. And if nothing else, Biden sure was fun to watch.
Paul
From Netflix: Nick Frost and Simon Pegg star as two science-fiction freaks who, while on a quest to discover what lies at the heart of Nevada's infamous Area 51, cross paths with an alien (voice of Seth Rogen) on the run from earthly authorities. The irreverent duo that brought us Shaun of the Dead assembled an impressive cast that includes Jane Lynch, Jason Bateman, Kristen Wiig and Blythe Danner for this raucous cross-country romp.
My Take: Boy this one set in my DVR for a while. Not sure why... I really like Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. Usually I would jump at a chance to see one of their movies (well, maybe not "Hot Fuzz," but you get the point). I think it was the concept of this movie. A pot-smoking, foul-mouthed alien runs into two sci-fi geeks and they have an adventure. Yawn.
Well, I was half-right. The movie pretty much IS what I said it was, but it wasn't nearly as boring as I thought it would be. While definitely not "laugh-out-loud" funny, it did have some great moments. The casting was fantastic... even Jason Bateman was surprisingly good. Like most movies by these two, the bulk of the action takes place in the end, ramping up suddenly and not letting go until the credits roll.
Ultimately, I will admit that I enjoyed this movie. It's not one I would buy, but if you enjoy these guys' quirky style, you definitely won't be disappointed by what they've put together here.
Badlands
From Netflix: Young garbageman Kit Carruthers (Martin Sheen) and his girlfriend, Holly (Sissy Spacek), kill Holly's father in South Dakota and hit the road on the run from the law. Writer-director Terrence Malick's script (for his feature film debut), based on real murders committed by a couple in 1958, does not judge its characters as they make their way to the Badlands of Montana, leaving a trail of senseless and random murders in their wake.
My take: I rented this based on how much I disliked "The Tree Of Life." I have a friend who is a huge Terence Malick fan, and while even SHE agreed that "Tree of Life" was a miss, she said "well, you gotta see 'Badlands,' THAT'S a great movie."
I guess.
The first strike against this movie is one that can't be helped: it's old. It feels old. The film quality is meh, the acting is pretty bleh, and the story overall is just kinda boring. Malick's movies usually aren't what I would consider exciting, but at least the writing is meaningful and the cinematography is gorgeous. I guess he was still developing these talents when he made "Badlands." What was already well in place was Malick's sort of perverse look at life. A dog lying dead next to a trash can and two guys have a simple conversation about it? Yep. A weird relationship between a mid-20's dude and a 15-year-old girl? Check. Sudden, heartless, stoic violence? Got it. These are traits that Malick has fine-tuned in his later movies, but I guess you could say this is where it all started.
I dunno, everybody's gotta start somewhere. But I don't think I would suggest "Badlands" as THE go-to Malick flick. I'll just stick to "The Thin Red Line" and call it a day. You probably should to. If you're a huge Malick fan, chances are you've already seen this one. Hell you might even like it. But if you're on the fence or don't even know who the guy is, don't bother with this one. Pass.
You ever feel like this guy?
The flower, not the toaster (come on, who EVER feels like a toaster?)
Have a nice day.
No comments:
Post a Comment