Our obsession with negativity is the real hidden pandemic of the 21st century

This post won’t be for everyone.  But if you find yourself loathing people or feeling wrought with anger after spending time on Facebook or Twitter, then I hope you'll read this. And let me first admit openly that at one point, this applied to myself as much as ANYONE. That is until I finally woke up.

Ask yourself a question; Do you have the same types of interactions with family, friends and even complete strangers in person the same way as you do online? Arguing, swearing, condescension, accusations, hurling insults, walking away thinking everyone is out to get you, or God forbid “unfriending” them? 

Unless you are truly sociopathic, then that answer is likely NO.

And there is a logical reason for this.  Being online changes our behavior. And this is not an accident. We joined these "communities" out of good intentions.  But there are extremely clever developers out there creating algorithms that can literally "learn" how to influence our actual behavior while online. These behaviors literally have cash value to them. 

These words are critically important to make clear:

It is highly likely that everything you think you know about people online is either false or severely skewed information that is causing you to develop an unjustified feeling of resentment toward them. 

This is driven by false information, cognitive biases and assumptions we make about people we simply do not know as well as we think we do. We cherry-pick obscure news resources that validate our opinions and reject those that say otherwise, all without confirming that either of them are accurate. We identify a microscopic community of extremists on either the far Right or the far Left and then extrapolate that outwardly in our minds to represent the ENTIRE philosophical movement of either Conservatism or Liberalism.

Every issue, no matter how isolated, becomes politicized and people take sides and begin to dig their heels in. There is scarcely little real "constructive" dialogue on social media. Instead it has become an outlet for people to lose their temper, letting fly all of the things you wouldn't dare say in person. 

This needs to stop NOW. If you want to close out 2020 with something positive, here is an ideal place to start.

Social Media was supposed to be safe, casual, fun and yes… SOCIAL.  However unintended consequences are a real thing. And so here we are.

What is happening is we are being duped into believing there REALLY is a serious “us versus them” Battle Royale taking place in our country.  The truth is, there is NOT; at least not yet. But things in life can become self-fulfilling when left unchecked.

Unfortunately our behavior on these platforms is now beginning to overflow into our personal lives and it is manifesting itself in how we treat one another face to face.  You can’t possibly tell me that all of this frustration and resentment you feel on social media makes you emotionally fulfilled as a person. So what do you do to try and quell it? You attack others. “They” are stupid, racist, crazy, ignorant, evil, fascist, trying to ruin our lives or steal our freedoms, etc. We begin telling ourselves stories in our minds about other people with VERY little accurate information by which to go on. The lack of direct interaction with those people allows us to easily trick ourselves into believing those stories to be true.  We begin showboating, creating aggressive posts in cold blood that take personal jabs at other people with the false sense of security that if we avoid using names, nobody gets hurt.  This lack of empathy is a critical error. There will be plenty of people who will believe you ARE in fact referring to them.  Good luck putting out that dumpster fire you just lit. 

Stop trying to "fix" those people on social media. You hardly know "them" and in most cases, they don't need "fixing".

Social media was meant to be an online community. Communities only thrive when the majority of its members actively desire to get along with and to accept one another.  It's when people agree to communicate directly with one another and to find ways to exist cohesively. This little miracle happens when we focus on the 80% of which we share in common while finding ways to accept the other 20% as differences we can work with. And actually, sometimes those differences, when faced head on, can yield incredible solutions to complex problems. It is literally what allowed us to evolve from small tribes of nomadic hunter/gatherers always on high alert against potential invaders, into cooperative civilizations.

But whatever in our lizard brains that drives that, it appears to be null and void when online.

Look, the original intent of Social Media was not inherently bad. It was to gain as many “users” as possible and then monetize that community of users by connecting everyone with advertisers offering products or services that more closely align with each individual user based on exclusive user data.  As a “user”, you have a measurable cash value based on your behavior online and how much time you spend on Social Media.

Now this might sound contradictory coming from a staunch, free-market capitalist like myself but RIGHT HERE is where the quest for profits with ZERO regard for human dignity can begin to do more harm than good.

Developers and advertisers have discovered that keeping you online LONGER and BEHAVING in specific ways can actually increase your cash value to them. As a result, they have creatively engineered ways to make this happen. They do this by getting us pissed off at one another. They literally cause us to pick fights while they simply step back and watch.  (And count the money)

How does this actually work? When people are angry and stressed, it triggers a subconscious urge for a quick dopamine hit which can temporarily alleviate that stress.  So they create the disease, administer the cure, and then the cycle repeats itself.  We are now addicted not entirely unlike like substance users. This ironically causes MORE scrolling through newsfeeds, more “liking” and more “shares” of controversial content. When the "likes" start to roll in, the feeling is so strong, we begin to actually crave the sources of resentment which cause the stress in the first place because it allows for another little "bump".  We literally get hooked and can't put our phones down. The LONGER they keep you online and behaving in this fashion, the more money they stand to make.

And the cost? Well, they may not care but you and I should. Because our ability to function as a civilization is what is at stake. If you look at our current trajectory, something HAS to give or we are in trouble.

The amazing thing is it you can get away from all of the negativity for a few hours and spend some time in the real world, you'll realize that things are actually pretty good out here. Even despite the current circumstances. Most of us are going to be fine. 

And there are NO political leaders in this country that we need to fear are going to quickly advance to dictators, regardless of their ridiculous rhetoric. Remember that in our society, we have a Constitution and laws and we the people, are of the highest level of authority in the land. Neither the current president, nor Joe Biden, regardless of whom wins next month, has the authority to “destroy” our society or to become authoritarians. That only happens if we willingly hand that power to them.

I should point out that I am not making a case to defend one side or the other. The reality is we have more in common that we do not. But as humans, we are wired to focus on the negative. (I’m serious, this is real documented psychology. It’s easy to fixate on the minority of our disagreements rather than the majority of our alikeness. 

Who is more intelligent? The correct answers is: "It doesn't matter"

Social media is NOT real life. Yet I’m finding that on occasion, people in the blogosphere still can’t resist the temptation to dust off the “I’m smarter than you” defense when discussing a current hot take on social media. There are fewer worse ways to engage in a conversation with someone in your life whom you care about than to start bickering about “Who has the higher IQ” and thus try to extrapolate “Who is therefore RIGHT?”

If you are debating an issue with a friend or colleague and you feel the need to resort to the “Studies have shown that my group has a higher IQ than yours …” as late game means of trying to score some points and potentially convince your opponent that the truth and facts are on your side, I have some disappointing news. You have subconsciously forfeited the argument.

Here’s why…

You’ve reached the point where you can no longer present compelling ideas nor analytical data in any format whatsoever in order to bolster your defense and attempt to align other people into accepting your viewpoint. (not that anyone typical ever wins a political argument but anyway…). Or you are struggling to accept the reality that the opposing party simply doesn’t agree with you. Shocking, I know. Pride comes in large bites and often gets stuck on our throats.

Here are a few key reasons that the IQ defense has no teeth.

First, IQ does NOT represent how exactly intelligent a person is (or isn’t). To be more blunt, it simply is an estimator of what type of intelligence “capacity” a person may have.  It is calculated by measuring only a few factors such as memory, attention span and speed. IQ, might demonstrate a person’s ability to think “fast on his or her feet”. I’ve personally been around the sun enough times in my life to where I will acknowledge that yes, fast thinking can be  a viable skill and possibly indicative of an intelligent person. But it is most certainly not the only factor involved. For example it discounts highly analytical people that like to collect all of the data and let it simmer for a few minutes before responding. I’ve seen those who when you give them five or ten minutes to collect their thoughts and review their notes, come back in to the room with some responses that completely drop the hammer on everyone in the room. Fast thinkers can yield a decent answer. Slow thinkers can often craft an exceptional one. 

Second, IQs vary over time. Some cases have shown significant fluctuations that can change over relatively short periods of time.   I’ve personally had THREE IQ tests in my lifetime, with a 32 point deviation between my lowest score and my highest. IQ alone is only going to demonstrate a “capacity”. High IQ alone is like having an enormous warehouse. But if you choose not to fill it with any incoming and outgoing inventory, it will remain empty and untapped.

Third, attempting to calculate a given demographic’s ENTIRE population is essentially impossible. If you are querying a given ethnicity, say you want to calculate the average IQ of a Hispanic person. You’ll see variations in your results based on what part of the world they live in, what religion they belong to, their age, marital status, number of children, gender, sexual orientation, social upbringing, educational level, current salary, etc. The list of control factors is virtually infinite. Which means you can pivot this data whichever way you’d like, adding and subtracting certain sub-factors and fine-tuning your data until you reach the desired output that aligns with your narrative. (Also known as “cherry picking” data). The same applies if you attempt to determine the average IQ of an American Conservative or an American Liberal. You’d have to also control for factors such as age, region, state, education level, employment, salary, marital status in order to find any data points worth investigating. Which brings me to my final point.

What possible value can come out of knowing the “average” IQ of a select demographic? Unless you can test every last living breathing soul in a demographic in order to “average out” their IQ, you’ve failed before you’ve begun because the task is simply too daunting and wrought with factors which will skew your results. If you desire that people view you as a caring soul with good intentions, you couldn’t be much more misaligned with that notion by trying to discount the social value of an entire demographic of people based on a aggregate number that doesn’t reflect any one person in particular in that group. Instead, it only uses it as a means to discriminate against them.

Your IQ is yours and nobody else’s. You can not be given an IQ nor can you assign yours to anyone else on this Earth. Regardless of what group a researched wants to lump you into and then average you out, if your IQ is 145, yet the average in your demographic is only 128, yours is STILL 145.  Trying to stuff a high IQ person into a group where the mean is lower is horribly unjust. It is equally so to judge one group against another based on unsubstantiated averages.  

Please avoid attempting to leverage a random and invalidated study that states; “The average American liberal has a higher IQ than the average American conservative and therefore when the two disagree, the Conservative must by default ALWAYS be wrong”. It is also often a place for the poorly educated and/or misinformed to try and find an inter-sectional group with higher numbers they can attempt hide behind. I have yet to see any intellectual powerhouses using this argument. Left or Right, they do not need to. Truly intelligent people do not need to remind others of it.

Modern SJW's are righteous in their battle for equal pay. There is only one snag...

First let's quickly review the definition of a "Social Justice Warrior". They are generally kind and decent people with kind hearts and good intentions. But despite these positive attributes they share a level of irrationality unintentionally masked by their own sincerity. I mean equality in itself is a good thing, correct?

Well, usually YES but in some cases it depends on the context.

SJW’s tend to lean a little farther to the political Left than your run of the mill Liberal. A Liberal tends to favor “equality of opportunity”, which is in itself a decent a noble cause. SJWs on the other hand tend to gravitate toward a notion of “equality of OUTCOME”. There is a critical difference between these two philosophies.

Equality of opportunity is rational because it focuses on the “input” of a given project with a desire that it will positively affect the “output”. Equality of OUTCOME on the other hand, disregards this critical first step of input and ONLY focuses on OUTPUT. This is a gross violation of the first Law of Thermodynamics, which you might remember from science class as The Law of Conservation of Energy. This states that energy can NOT be created nor destroyed in a given system. At the most, it can only change in form.

An excellent example of this resides in the current hot takes on the US Women’s very much deserved World Cup title and their disparity in pay between their division and the men’s.

Now the difference between genders in sports is an icky topic that for men like myself, we don’t like to discuss it much. It is an awkward subject that makes us feel a little uncomfortable if not a tad guilty.

For whatever reason and I do not know why, men were designed a little bigger, faster and stronger on average than women on this earth. And due to that, they tend to perform at a different level. Not “better” per se. Just “different”. By no means am I using the word “better”. If we want to talk about who is better, if you consider which gender commits the most violent crimes, workplace violence, spousal abuse, drug trafficking, fraud, etc., I think it would be fair to say the ladies are crushing the men in overall quality of humanity.

What does this all mean? I personally love the fact that we have women’s divisions in sports. I can watch women’s college softball all afternoon. I also enjoy watching them play volleyball, ice hockey during the Olympics and the occasional soccer match. I remember 1999, jumping up and down in my living room when Mia Hamm and her crew defeated a ferociously talented team China for the World Cup. I’ll even argue that women’s volleyball and tennis is actually more exciting to watch due to their abilities to return the serves and create some exciting back and forth. Men’s leagues tend to be an extreme serving competition and rounds are over before they even start. (snooze)

The most recent championship, which I sadly missed due to recovering from surgery, is equally as exciting. Congratulations, ladies. You are all bad asses and you make us all proud. But out of this recent title has reemerged the narrative of the ladies not getting paid the same amount as the men’s division. I mean on the surface, it does seem a little unfair. Our ladies have won FOUR titles and our men, ZERO. This year the men didn’t even qualify for the tournament. Our ladies on the world stage most certainly stack up better against their competitors than our men do against theirs. So why the pay disparity?

First we have to remember that pay is not based on championships. That is what trophies, medals and belts are for. Pay is one of the OUTPUTS we just mentioned above, an output that is contingent on the initial input. The men’s FIFA league generated 6 billion dollars in revenue this year. The women’s generated 131 million. Those numbers are not the fault of the men’s league nor any possible level of sexism existing in the upper offices. It is a direct result of the input. The input is ticket sales and merchandising.

You can complain all day long about men spending more money on attending sports in a men’s league more than those in the women’s. But the problem here is not sexism because the women are doing this as well! Women attend more NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB games on average than they do ANY of the women’s sporting leagues. This despite women in the US making up about 51% of our population. For those not good at math, that is slightly more than HALF.

So ladies, why are you not buying tickets to soccer matches nor purchasing player jerseys? That is the input. If you start selling out soccer stadiums, the revenues will increase and the women’s soccer team will get paid more. You can’t increase their pay to a level that causes the league to operate at a loss. They would no longer be able to operate. And is it fair to force the men to take a pay cut down to the level of what the women are making? I mean I suppose you could argue in favor of that. However if they have done nothing wrong so why punish them? If they are pulling in ticket sales, why is it important that they surrender a portion of their salary to subsidize the women’s division?

By the way, I should point out that female models on average earn far more than male models for the same work essentially. There is a simple explanation for this. Women make in the upwards of 85% of all consumer purchasing in the US. A significant percentage of this is apparel. Their side pulls in more revenue. The models earn more, period.

So in closing, look, I don’t disagree with the notion that I’d love to see a world where everyone makes an equally large bit fat salary for the same jobs. But that is Utopian and irrational because it discounts all of the factors that go into the equation that actually generates that money in the first place. If there is no input, you can’t expect an output. And you certainly can’t demand a higher output  of cash from an lower input of sales.

Let’s spend a little more time understanding the input and what changes we need to make there and THEN we can begin to see a more desired output.

Before The Affordable Care Act will EVER work, we need to first accept these FIVE realities.

     For most of the either years of the Obama Administration, the GOP whined about the Affordable Care Act while shouting their battle cry of "Repeal! Repeal!". This of course over time evolved into "Repeal and Replace!" as the winds of political opinion unexpectedly shifted on them when people realized "You know, it's not necessarily a bad thing to help poor people get health insurance". 

     Now with the new Trump Administration in place, the GOP is in a wind-sprint to get a "replacement" on the table before the end of Trump's first hundred days, (in order to look "zippy" I imagine).  They have thus presented a plan so badly thrown together with duct tape, it never had a chance of being passed and was thus pulled from the table before the GOP could embarrass itself by putting to a vote.  Some 28 votes (or more) in their own party were going to side with the Democrats and reject it.  This current bill can be simply called "Tweak and maintain current course and try to convince everyone this is a Repeal and Replace".  Amazingly still, during Trump's campaign, he continuously railed about the need to allow the insurers to compete across state lines and promised to add that to his "signature replacement". Note now there is NOTHING in regards to that in this new bill. Fortunately there are just enough people in Congress not dumb enough to fall for it this time. Some call this a loss for the GOP. I call it a win. They are finally beginning to stand up to their own crappy leadership. 

     Look, I will go on the record (again) as saying President Obama's heart was in the right place with the Affordable Care Act. I don't agree with the exact structure of his final delivered product nor how he attempted to roll it out but I don't doubt his intentions to fix a problem that DOES exist in this country.

     We have a large chunk of the population with no access to health care when needed. When they are included statistically with the entire middle class and up, it pulls our average life expectancy numbers (in the U.S.) down below most industrialized nations while our costs still remain the highest. It's not unlike our public school system where we spend more per child than almost any other developed country on Earth, yet our test scores are pathetically average, some even below. There is one common theme existing in both problems. That is excessive government regulation and control. The government causes the problems and then wants to be hired as to solve them. This is like hiring the fox to guard the hen house.

     To the disappointment of some naive believers, big government is not a benevolent force of good trying to protect the little guy. In fact it is usually quite the opposite. Most Washington politicians would classify as wealthy. People of lower incomes continuously vote people into office that remain wealthy while they themselves are hardly helped at all. And these people along with their supporters continuously point to everyone except themselves and say "You need to do more (and pay more) to help those people". It's easy to say that someone ELSE should be more charitable while trying to claim the moral high ground. Why do some folks keep feeding this black hole?  If this is ever going to improve, the rest of us here at the grassroots level need to intervene.

     If America truly is ready for a government health insurance program, there is really nothing saying we can't create at least a basic functional program that does what it is supposed to while at the very least breaking even. But any program to have a shred of a chance of success needs to be based on reality and not what a given political movement assumes its followers will do. It also needs to be carefully crafted by a large and diverse team of thinkers; Not just politicians, but also doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, insurers, patients themselves, financial experts, economists, psychologists, analysts, legal experts, the list goes on.  This is a massive project and the government historically sucks at managing projects.  Our federal government literally wastes billions of dollars per year in botched projects, a statistic sadly overlooked by most people.

     They reason for this continual pattern of governmental failure is they lack the same incentive for success as businesses in the private sector do. For the rest of us, failed projects can mean certain disaster in one's career. For the government, their solution is "we need more funding." In which case they'll just confiscate more of your and my money in the form of increased taxes in order to keep their failed project on life support. The only incentive they have is being reelected. If they can pump enough deficit spending into a program to keep it afloat long enough, they're golden and they can pass the problems down to their successor and let them deal with it. The cycle repeats itself.

     I cringed while watching the Affordable Care Act roll out. The federal government was making every mistake in the book. As a project manager by trade, my entire livelihood is dependent upon my ability to make sure a project is rolled out successfully.   And before hitting the "go" button, the idea is to plan, plan and plan some more. It also involves proper "Risk Management". What can go wrong? What might surprise us? What happens if it does? How will we respond?  You plan these contingency responses until you are blue in the face. This is done with teams of people, not small groups of self-anointed subject matter experts of field none of them have ever worked in. 

     There is not one person on this Earth that is intelligent enough by only him or herself to solve the complex problems introduced by the Affordable Care Act or for the problems with our entire health system as a whole.  True, the ACA did in fact help some people obtain health insurance that otherwise unable to before. But this was not without unintended financial consequences that make it mathematically insolvent within a relatively short period of time. It also shifted the costs to other people including the middle class. (This wasn't supposed to happen, remember?) The quick gut-reaction is to yank it entirely going back to how things were before. But how good were they really?

     Conservatives need to accept the fact that social programs are going to be a part of our lives whether we like them or not. The best thing we can do is work to keep them as unobtrusive in our lives as possible, while ensuring the ones we do adopt function efficiently and cost effectively. Unfortunately these are two traits the government won't be accused of having anytime soon.

     Before the GOP can present an alternative that has some teeth, everyone needs to accept some realities.

image from Financial Times

First, everyone needs to understand the difference between health CARE and health INSURANCE. They are not one in the same. Proponents of socialized medicine like to point out that our healthcare system is the worst in the industrialized world. In their defense, they are half correct on that.  Our health CARE system is not the problem despite the cherry picked b.s. data that socialists and other big government pundits like to present. We have the BEST doctors and nurses and facilities and researchers and medical schools on Earth. I'll put them up against anyone anywhere. The problem is the insurance INDUSTRY paired with the government itself. They are the ones that actually suck at this. Additionally, single payer systems in other countries require tax rates of that average in the mid 40 percentile range to well over 50 percent.  Healthcare is far from "free' in these countries. They take it out of your paycheck and then give you something in return. This is no different than if I took $100 from you and then brought you $100 worth of groceries to your door. Sounds nice since it saved you a trip to Safeway but you never got to select which groceries you wanted. Lastly, one frighteningly overlooked statistic that keeps me up at night is how many people in the middle class might lose their houses if their taxes were to jump that highly in such a short period of time. Think about that for a moment. Scary isn't it?

     Second, calling Healthcare a "right" has a fundamental flaw; It implies that one person is entitled to another person's property. And that the government is granted the authority to make sure that exchange happens. In this case the "property" takes the form of an acquired skill. This being the skill that trained doctors and nurses have in order to care for patients. A skill like anything else is a limited resource. The government in theory would have to guarantee that doctors and nurses will provide care to everyone that needs it when and where they need it. That opens the door for forced servitude which we outlawed some years back, remember? It would only be a matter of time before a some people living in a remote part if the U.S. would demand colocated health care providers. But if no caregiver wanted to uproot his or her family and move to the middle of nowhere in order to take that job, now what have you? Some might say "that will never happen". If you allow the government THAT much authority, it WILL happen in some form or another. History shows that they eventually will capitalize on it. Some politician will see it as an opportunity to gain votes; a politician's currency of choice. They stand behind a podium demanding you to give more to someone else and then they try to claim the moral high ground. 

     Third and possibly most critical, we need to reexamine the number of U.S. citizens we used to identify as "without health insurance" before Obamacare kicked in and then break them into TWO categories; first being those that are in true need of help or as I call "tragically uninsured". These are people that have fallen on hard times in their lives, perhaps by bad luck, perhaps by choices. Nonetheless, helping these people is a virtue and I'll stand in defense of the idea of doing so. I'm OK with contributing to their aid. The second group however are those that CAN afford insurance, but simply chose not to buy it due to any number of reasons ranging from procrastination to simply thinking it isn't necessary. You can actually subdivide this further to include another group which is made of people that WERE able to afford insurance, but rather blew the cash on something else. A bigger house than they need, fancier car, premium cable and expensive vacations, etc. I'm sorry but nobody can provide an ounce of logic defending the notion that responsible people should have to pony up extra cash in order to pay for people that make stupid decisions. Both sides of the aisle need to grow spines and tell these people "no" like the children they are. This will force them into making the necessary adjustments in their lives in order to afford insurance. Just because they may not want to get a used car and a smaller apartment, does that mean the rest of us must subsidize their lifestyles? These groups need to be discounted from those that actually need a helping hand. There is plenty of money in the public dole to help those people provided it isn't leeched up by those that don't actually need it. They just jumped into the line with their hands out and politicians, like always, just couldn't say "No".

     Fourth, Conservatives need to understand the "guarantee" of insurance and why people want it. The Right likes to talk about how charity and volunteer groups will take up the slack to care for those that need help if there is no government plan. This in theory could work but will it for sure? Can that guarantee of aid be assured? if even they believe this will work, then I ask those Conservatives "Why do you buy home and car insurance?" The answer is because in life we are willing to pay real money for that peace of mind knowing that the help will be there if needed. We don't want to have to rely on charity if something goes wrong. 


     Fifth, if there is going to be a "mandate", it must be a real mandate. Not a symbolic and optional one. You are required to obtain health insurance of some kind. If you do not, we will assign the basic government plan to you and we will charged an additional tax for it.  If you cannot afford it, you will quality for Medicaid. The provided plan will not be a Rolls Royce plan. But it will get you by. If you have a condition or become gravely ill or injured, you'll get treated and won't go into the poor house.

     Some Americans love to point to European countries whose economies and GDPs we out perform and say "We need to be like them." My answer is "Why?" There is a reason we broke out of the European model of governance two centuries ago and walked our own path to prosperity. American has always found a better way of doing something. There is nothing stopping us from doing that yet again with the health care (and insurance) industry. Well, aside from political stubbornness of course. 

Lighten up Mayim

My Sunday was one packed with drama and excitement.

First was a little March Madness in the form of the Kentucky vs. North Carolina game. Then followed by a tornado warning here in Columbus here complete with the municipal sirens blaring outside. (No tornado thank goodness, just some heavy rain) and lastly for a little "chaser", a fun little social media slap-fight over the Mayim Bialik rant about the use of the term "girls" when referring to women.

In case you haven't seen it.....

Mayim's rant video HERE

Now I should first say I like Mayim and have a lot of respect for her. I enjoy her character on Big Bang Theory and I always dug the fact that when her acting career went quiet for several years after "Blossom", she went to school and obtained a pretty badass PhD. She ain't no dummy.

But I'm going to take exception with her comments.

First, if you watch the rant, notice that within the first 15 seconds or so, she refers to men around the age of 40 as "guys". Is this that much different than calling women "girls"?

Second, I'd like to know the context. If I said my wife is a "pretty girl", (which is very much true), is it in any way disparaging to her or to women in general? Does it imply that women are inferior to men? I agree that grown men shouldn't refer to pretty girls as "hot chicks". And for those that do, I'd say that those "guys" are disrespecting themselves as much as they are any woman by simply making the statement "This is how I talk".

Lastly, as my wife pointed out, do we refer to our significant others as "womanfriends" instead of "girlfriends"? How ridiculous does that sound? I've seen people in their sixties dating and referring to each other as "boyfriend" and "girlfriend".

I've got a major issue with people that throw terms like "sexism" around so liberally. When you do this, you undoubtedly are going to tag many of the wrong people with that accusation. "Sexist", like "racist" and "rapist" are all very serious terms that should be used sparingly only when absolutely necessary and never wielded recklessly at the risk of insulting those that are the farthest thing from it.

This happened to me on social media just last night. (the last chapter of my action filled Sunday) A friend on Facebook posted the video.  No big deal. I assume in defense of Mayim's standpoint. He didn't make any comments for or against it. He's a better person than that. He just quietly posted the video. Again, NO big deal. I'll always respect is right to do that.

However once I made the relatively harmless comment about her use of the term "guys" as being a little hypocritical, one of his "friends" pounced by called me a typical "tRump" supporter (that's how he spelled it) and a sexist.  It's sad how people like to use a friend's chat feed as a place to anonymously attack people whom they've never met, not much different than people did twenty years ago in AOL chat rooms. "Hi, since you and I will never meet face to face, I'm going to start cursing at you'. These are spineless people that lack the testicular fortitude to say these things directly to someone's face. So they hide behind their computers and throw mud pies from miles away.

(By the way, NOT a Trump supporter here)

And just to give you some perspective on the kind of socially awkward misfit this guy must be, he has action figures as his profile picture, his photo album consists of primarily his own pencil sketches of superheroes and villains and far less of his own family and wife, and the very first word of his first comment was "Fuck". If you have to lead off your post with "fuck" before ANY other word in the English language, you're most like not going to finish your commentary by winning over the hearts and minds of sensible people.

My favorite part is when he made a second comment casting blind aspersions about me and then promptly told me he was going to ignore me for the rest of the night, which lasted right up until 30 seconds after my next comment when he couldn't resist but to use "fuck" three or four more times.  I regret not taking a screen capture of the conversation to share the joy with everyone. Not the main theme of this post but still wanted to share the experience for humor sake.

So wrapping things up here, I feel Mayim is just trying to find something to complain about and further expand this level of hypersensitivity that is becoming mainstream today. One quote I heard recently is "Just because YOU have no problem with something in society today doesn't mean that others do not." I will agree with that logic. But then you can't rationally disagree with the opposite logic in that "If there is something in society that most people have NO problem with but YOU do, does that mean it is a true societal issue?" I say both arguments are both partially correct and incorrect at the same time.

People like Carol Hanisch and Tip O'Neill explained the concept that "politics are local", meaning essentially any issue is whatever it means to YOU and it does NOT have to mean that to anyone else on this Earth. This is something we need to get over already. Lobby as hard as you want for or against any issue you feel. Just don't forget nobody is obligated to agree with you. And if you are all alone or at least in the pathetically small minority in the issue, you need to make the decision between continuing to be a pundit for micro-issues or rather redirect your energy toward something a little more impactful in society.

Sure, we can abolish the Electoral College. Just show me a better idea first..... (written in late 2016)

I get it.

More times than not, the Democrats have historically pulled the shortest straw in terms of losing the Electoral College despite winning a majority (or plurality) of the popular vote.

In fact, over the past century and a half, the Republicans are on a 4 election winning streak with such a scenario. Most of us are well aware that Bush defeated Gore in the 2000 election despite losing the popular vote. The same scenario happened in 1888 with Benjamin Harrison defeating Grover Cleveland and yet again with Rutherford Hayes defeating Samuel Tilden in 1876 after a bitter dispute over 20 electoral votes and a controversial final agreement.  

But... the GOP needs to stop spiking the football and dancing like jackasses in the end zone for the moment because if the shoe were on the other foot right now, they'd be throwing their own fit and Fox News would have a new story to lead with for the next 12 months while pretending everyone actually cares. 

The truth is the Democrats feel a little ripped off at the moment.  God knows we're all only human and when we get ripped off we tend to get a little riled up and start hacking at the source of frustration with a machete when we probably should have been using a scalpel.

Now out of respect for people that I care about, I've been taking a back seat on this post election angst for the past month and a half because I believe that over time, this too shall pass. Hell, I'm still not over the Indians blowing that 3-1 lead in the World Series.  But this current hot-button notion of "The electoral college is antiquated and needs to be abolished now!" is one I can't and won't bite my tongue on.  You don't get to retroactively change the rules of a completed game because you don't like how it turned out.

First and most importantly, we already DO use the popular vote. We are a nation of 50 sovereign states. "Sovereign" essentially means that each state has its own self-governed entity. It has its own unique voting laws that include rules on voting registration and early voting. In these 50 states plus D.C., we count electoral votes and when a candidate wins a state, he/she gets their electoral votes. 

Look, whether it was part of the original intent or not, one of the greatest benefits of the Electoral College is that is forces the candidates to visit the ENTIRE country during his/her campaign.  The United States is diverse land mass with a third of a billion inhabitants and captivates literally a dozen or more identifiable cultures. It also respects the individuality of each state and respects their right to protect their own identity. Candidates aren't trying to win the most votes. They are trying to win the most STATES. And states have weighted values based on population. Therefore California, New York, Florida and Texas will continue to have a larger say for years to come.

If winning the popular vote were all it took to win the election, the candidate could spend all of his or her time and money in only a select few heavily populated states, which in turn disregards the voices and opinions of a large number of other voters scattered across the remaining majority of the U.S land mass. In fact if you do the math, this doesn't let EITHER concept off the hook entirely because electoral or popular vote alike, if you ONLY win the 11 most populated states (see table 1 below), you'll hit the magic number of 270 electoral votes to successfully win the election while snubbing 39 of 50 states. You want to talk about “disenfranchisement”? You don’t get much more disenfranchised than that. One could argue the same in terms of winning those states simply in terms of popular vote. This begs the questions "Should we devise a better solution still?"

Table 1
Data source: www.270towin.com

And in response to those that want to switch to the "popular vote only" method, that is an extreme measure which would require us to rip up the Constitution as it exists right now, eliminate the borders between all 50 states and convert us us one big fat country with NO states.  A popular vote election process is a part of a "Direct Democracy", which can work for a single country where there are no independent states and the people directly select their leaders. But a "Direct Democracy" does not work in a union of sovereign states like ours. In order to allow Californians to remain Californians while Texans can be Texans, we structured ourselves in a version of Democracy called a "Representative Republic" or a "Psephocracy", which is based on a Constitution and elected groups of people to represent the communities across the entire country.  Here, since the president is selected to represent the union of states, he or she is selected by the states themselves. The states subsequently have their own independent voting laws as they deem fit to best represent their residents. So if you want to take up issue with this system, don't talk to the federal government because they have no authority on the matter. Talk to your state legislature.  And no, you can't press the state electors to jump ship and select the a candidate other than the one that one their state. Most state constitutions prohibit this and the few that don't won't provide enough electoral votes to push Mrs. Clinton over the top. And even if it were, it would have to get through the Republican congress. Yeah that'll happen.

So ultimately, the president is campaigning to win states, not votes. And states have a point value based on their population.  This concept is so mathematically sound that we even accept it in sports. In the NBA, the NHL and in Major League Baseball, you win a championship by winning games in a best-of-seven series, not by scoring the most points. And yes, this does mathematically allow for the possibility that the team with fewer total points actually loses the championship. In fact, the 1960 World Series saw the New York Yankees score twice the total runs as the Pittsburgh Pirates scored.  And despite the Yankees having three blow-out victories, Pittsburgh won 4 squeakers and took the 4 out of 7 games needed to earn the title.

Sticking with the baseball analogy for a moment longer, let me throw this final curve ball before my arm gives out. For the sake of simplicity, let's say our country is only made of only three states. In a Direct Democracy election with two candidates "Smith" and "Jones", and where each state has exactly 1 million registered voters (of which miraculously 100% of them turn out to vote), you can see Smith taking two out of 3 states but Jones wins the election by a mere 60,000 votes (see table 2 below). In this scenario, one state gets to impose its will on the other two. Does that make sense to you?

Democrats fare just fine in elections when they understand the rules of engagement. President Obama spend significant time and money in rural America connecting with and gathering supporters there.  Hillary Clinton stood back and called them "deplorable" while assuming she was entitled to a victory. She could not have been a more overly confident candidate. 

Therefore I am open to any suggestions that can improve our current system while still respecting the independence of our 50 states.  Everyone’s voice should be heard. Not just the ones that agree with you (or me).

Stop blaming guns for all of your problems in life.

Only a week into the tragic terror attack in Orlando, I can’t say I am shocked to see the rhetoric going back and forth about gun control already. It happens like clock work every time. Granted, there is typically a silent grace period of one to two days when the tragedy is as horrific as this one. But nonetheless, people have failed to disappoint once again. 

So we all are aware that a deranged and extreme religious zealot murdered 49 innocent souls. Yet so many of you focus on the guns; the inanimate object that had a human hand stuck in it pulling the trigger repeatedly.  Nobody seems to be pissed off at the man holding it nor his extremist views nor how he and others are attempting to warp and bastardize an entire religion of 1.8 billion that for the most part, does NOT condone his behavior.

Look, we get it already. You hate guns. You hate them for your own unique reasons and I respect your opinion regardless as to why you have it. Your concerns are not without some validity. But stop cherry-picking certain world events as a means to justify your beliefs and to impose them on others as a Utopian solution to a much greater problem. 

I strongly believe that most human beings do not have what it takes bring themselves to kill another human being. The few that do, might use an assault rifle if available. But if not, they can easily find or build an array of other potential weapons to do the job.   I suppose you have no explanation for Timothy McVeigh’s fertilizer bomb that killed 168? What about the Chechnyan brothers’ backpack bombs in Boston? Suitcase bombs in Belgium? Or perhaps the crazed extremist in England that killed a harmless and innocent military drummer with a butcher knife? Some even lock people in a cage and light them on fire. And I suppose I don't need to point out that nearly 3000 people were killed by 4 jetliners that were hijacked with cheap box cutters. The methods are almost infinite. Guns are used on occasion because they are convenient. But if we remove the guns, they will find other means as they often already do. The root cause of the problem is unchecked evil - not their weapons of choice. 

I’ve been noticing false trends on both sides of the aisle. People on the LEFT seem to think that the RIGHT wants 100% freedom for anyone to buy ANY kind of gun ANY time they want. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Even the NRA supports a thorough background check and prohibiting the sale of guns to those deemed as threats. I’ve yet to meet someone that says “Let’s keep selling guns to crazy people”. The problem here is not to expand the background checks but to improve the means of collecting data and the data architecture itself. The private sector is good at this. For crying out loud, Washington, start recruiting some of these experts and pay them what they are worth to get the job done. And the RIGHT seems to think that the LEFT wants a 100% ban on ALL guns and that the politicians are going door to door to collect your guns. That is not true either. I know registered Democrats with guns. I also know registered Republicans with guns that fully agree with an intense background screening process. As far as assault rifles go,  I agree they are a bit silly. But the weapon is harmless until put into a human hand. So are knives, bricks and cars for that matter. Everything requires responsibility and safety and not allowing certain people to have access to it. Some people aren’t allowed to drive simply because they could have a seizure behind the wheel. I don’t hear anyone rejecting that safety measure. 

I can easily be a Monday morning quarterback here but let’s face it, despite the FBI’s numerous victories in intercepting potential threats, (and they have),  they blew this one big time. But nobody bats a thousand. Let’s learn from it, improve and move forward.

There are literally millions upon millions of guns in circulation. It is just as impossible to make them all disappear as it is to deport 10 million illegal aliens. Let’s focus on realistic solutions for a moment. I’ve made this point before but I am willing to bet real money that if we ban assault rifles entirely or ALL guns for that matter, the first time we see a deranged person rampage into a room and kill 20+ people with an assault rifle he was able to obtain on the black market, we’ll have to say to ourselves, “well, that didn’t work.” Then when we see a deranged person rampage into a room and kill 20+ people with a hand gun or run them down with his car or detonate a homemade fertilizer bomb, we’ll have to again say, “well, that didn’t work either.” Then where do we all go from there? Who will you have left to blame?

I say let’s test the theory. Let’s pass a temporary ban on assault rifles for three years and see what happens. Let’s find out if it works. I’ll give you a hint: Britain has extremely strict gun control laws. Yet Jo Cox from Parliament was just gunned down there last week. How did that happen? Again, It happened because of evil people that want to kill. Not because of a gun.

Let’s please remember one thing; this division between us is exactly what they want to see happen. They attack us and we respond by attacking each other while allocating desperately needed resources away from the true source of the problem and applying it toward those of us that are supposed to be working to fight it. If we don’t stick together we’ll fail together.

Remember that Rome fell from within.