Everybody Wants Some!!

Jake is fresh out of high school and has just arrived at college where he has a scholarship to play baseball.  It is late August and a Thursday.  Classes start Monday.  What's a fellow to do?  The baseball team - one of the nation's best - lives in off campus housing that isn't a dorm and isn't a fraternity.  Jake finds that his team mates are a lively bunch who provide constant entertainment.

The movie goes nowhere.  It was half over when I finally realized that there was no plot.  This is the weekend before school starts and we follow how the baseball team tries to get drunk, high, or laid.  They go to the local disco, the local country bar, they have a party in the baseball housing, they crash a party held by the drama club.  Through it all, there are witty exchanges, philosophical blather, and just plain silliness.  There is a lot of male bonding, complete with foolish bravado, idle boasting, and feats of great derring-do.

 

In the end, many parts made me smile or laugh but the lack of a story arc or any conflict to be overcome made it feel like an empty movie.  It is like eating one M&M: sweet but unfulfilling.  I liked it more than his last film, but that is a low bar.

The Jungle Book

Though I am sure I saw the animated version as a child, I have virtually no recollection of it.  I have never read the book (is it a book or a short story?) but Mowgli and gang are iconic enough that I still have a working knowledge of the story.  The movie followed my scant knowledge perfectly and was most entertaining.

Mowgli is a boy raised by wolves in the jungles of India.  We meet him as he is running from a panther.  It looks like he might escape when a branch snaps and he instead falls in the path of the mighty cat.  And then they start chatting.  Bagheera (Ben Kingsley) is an avuncular figure for Mowgli, the kind that usually scowls and scolds.  He has Mowgli's best interests at heart though he often seems dissatisfied with Mowgli in practice.  During a dry spell, Shere Khan (Idris Elba) the Tiger discovers a human among the animals and demands that he be handed over when the rains return.  So it is that Mowgli must leave the wolves, which results in a number of adventures.

 

Baloo (Bill Murray) steals the show as a honey-loving bear with a soft spot for the clever human but also a keen interest in what the boy can do for him.  Without question, he delivers the best lines and offers the most comic relief.

 

King Louie (Christopher Walken) was HUGE, an impossibly big orangutan.  In fact, he is supposed to be an extinct and giant variant of the orangutan because they are not native to India (at least, that is what I read on IMDB).  He is much more menacing than I expected.  His song during the credits was lots of fun.

 

All in all, a very enjoyable movie.

Common Sense?

If you go to an American political rally and wave the flag of another country, you are in the wrong country.

If Hillary's gender makes you more or less likely to vote for her, you are a sexist.

If Obama's race makes you more or less likely to support his agenda, you are a racist.

If you overlook misdeeds committed by your allies that you would vociferously condemn when committed by your opponents, you are a hypocrite and contributing to the ugly political landscape that you decry.

 

These are axiomatic.  They are tautological.  Ponder that.

The Enthusiasm Deficit

This story shows that Hillary has won fewer votes in this cycle as the leading candidate than she won last cycle as the trailing candidate.  It does demonstrate the lack of energy in the Democratic campaign.  Obama is far more charismatic than Bernie and Hillary combined.  His life story was far more compelling than Hillary's.  Also, the Democrats have had the presidency for two terms and are clearly disappointed; Bernie is trashing the status quo and getting substantial support from the rank and file Democrat voter.  As a matter of fact, part of the reason Bernie is ignored by the media is because he is not painting a flattering picture of Obama's economy.  Back in 2008, the Democrats had been out of power for 2 terms and there was natural excitement; look at the Republican primary campaign this time around.

 

Even so, it is a problem.  It shows that there is considerably less excitement on the Democratic side and less excitement for Hillary herself.  In the infamous 'who do you want to have a beer with' poll, Trump is going to win that by a large margin vs. Hillary.  I'm no Trump fan and don't drink beer but I would certainly choose him.  The two-terms for one party then switch pattern exists for a reason and the Republicans ought to win this time.  This story just gives another indication why that is probable.  Yeah, get ready for President Trump.  Sigh.

Popular Vote vs. Electoral College

There has been a push to move more toward a popular vote system for electing the president rather than the existing electoral college.  This proposal really came to life in the wake of the 2000 election where Al Gore got more votes but George W Bush had more electoral votes.  A number of states have agreed to allocate electoral votes based on the popular vote rather than winner-take-all.  This is a bad idea but the current system is a hard sell to the casual voter.  However, what if such a system had been in place for the last 100 years or so.  Here are the new results:

1912: Thanks to Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party, the Republican vote was split and no one won a majority of the popular vote, though Wilson had the plurality at 41.8%  Dividing the electoral votes on that basis, no one wins.  The House - run by the Democrats - select Woodrow Wilson as President.  However, the Senate - run by Republicans - chose Nicholas Butler (Taft's running mate) - as the new Vice President.

1916: Running for re-election, Woodrow Wilson failed to win a majority of votes but again had a plurality of 49.2%.  Fortunately, the House and Senate are both controlled by the Democrats and he is selected for his second term with a Democrat VP this time.

1948: Truman fails to win a majority of votes but does get a plurality of 49.6%.  However, both the House and the Senate are controlled by Republicans so Dewey really does win!

1960: JFK has a narrow lead (49.7% vs. 49.6%) over Nixon in the popular vote but didn't win a majority.  As such, the election goes to the Democrat-controlled House and Senate who select JFK and LBJ.

1968: Though Nixon emerged with a plurality of 43.4% of the vote, the Democratically-controlled House and Senate select Hubert Humphrey.

1992: Bill Clinton won a plurality of 43% and the Democrat Congress selects him and Al Gore as President and VP.

1996: Though Bill Clinton won a plurality of votes (49.2%), the Republican-controlled Congress select Bob Dole as President.

2000: Al Gore wins plurality of the votes (48.4%) but the Republican-controlled Congress selects George W. Bush as President.

In every other election, the winner also had more than 50% of the popular vote.  It should be noted that in 4 cases (1916, 1960, 1992, 2000) the results are unchanged though the person who "won" would have been harmed by having been selected by Congress.  Also, three out of four of these cases would have hurt the Democrats.  In the other four cases, the results change.  The Republicans would have benefited from 1916, 1948, and 1996.  Democrats would have benefited in 1968.  Of course, all of those flipped elections would have been deemed corrupt.

Looking at the history, it does seem strange that those most supportive of using the popular vote are the very people who would have done worse under it.

Unexpected Danger

Here is something to ponder though it is amazingly unlikely.  What if no one reached 270 electoral votes (or a majority of the popular vote) and the election was therefore thrown to the House of Representatives?  After the inconclusive election, there is no mechanism for replacing a candidate who dies.  If one of those candidates were to die (heart attack, assassination, etc.), the House would not be allowed to choose the VP nominee instead.  Thus, assassination in the wake of an inconclusive election could be extremely effective in picking the president.

 

This problem becomes ever more likely as there is the move toward proportional electoral votes.  In the winner-take-all system that has existed, a third party candidate rarely gets any electoral votes.  Ross Perot got nearly 20% of the popular vote in 1992 but earned 0 electoral votes.  Under a proportional system, Clinton's electoral landslide (370 to 168) would have instead been decided in the House of Representatives.  Also under such a system, Dole would have won in 1996.  That is a discussion for a different post.

 

It is extremely unlikely that a candidate will die in the narrow space between the election (early November) and the convening of the new Congress (early January).  Nonetheless, with the two lead candidates nearly 70 years old, it would not be a bad idea to be prepared.  Both parties could get on board prior to the danger but if one or the other happened to die in December, the other party might block any efforts to assure their candidate wins in January.

 

 

This isn't News! It's Froth

This story observes the Donald Trump could get the most votes of any candidate in GOP primary history.  It is nothing but a puff piece.  Of course he has the most.  When was the last time that a primary wasn't decided by now?  For the last 40 years, the campaign has been long over by now with the nominee already chosen.  Once that happens, voter turnout plummets.  Now we are in a year where the nominee is not settled which inevitably drives up turnout.  Duh!  In our media-saturated world, nothing stories get written.  We have 24/7 news, which is why we have so much non-news, analysis posing as news, news agency run polls that become news on that news agency, and so on and so forth.  So much froth!