The electoral college is unfair

Hillary won the popular vote by 566,434 votes. Why do we have the electoral college?!?!

For example, an electoral vote represents nearly four times as many people in California as in Wyoming.

– Miroff, Bruce; Seidelman, Raymond; Swanstrom, Todd (November 2001). The Democratic Debate: An Introduction to American Politics (Third ed.). Houghton Mifflin Company. ISBN 0-618-05452-9.

Early Warning System

History is a vast early warning system. -Norman Cousins, editor and author (24 Jun 1915-1990)

Equality

In 2011

  • 2.3% of preschool and kindergarten teachers were male (from menteach.org)
  • 2.4% of Fortune 500 companies were female (from the Huff Post)

In 2013

  • 16.9% of corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies were female (from cnn.com)
  •  18.3% of Congress were female (20% of the Senate was female & 17.9% of the House was female) and State Legislators were 24.1% female.  (from the website of the National Women’s Political Caucus)

How to Read Body Art

How is the observer intended to interpret the atemporal durational corporeal installative performance of an apple core tattooed to the left temple of a white male? Does the left side of the head indicate the leftward (cognitive) political leanings of the individual? The apple core representing the ingestion of sustenance that reveals the means of regeneration. Or is it indicative of Eve, an Illustration of the fault and acceptance of said fault of the fairer sex? What is the observer supposed to do if left up to her or his own devices?

Contemporizing JFK

And so, uh, my fellow Americans: like, ask not what your country can do, um, for you—ask what you can do for, for, for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America, like, you know, will do for you, but what together we can do, uh, for the freedom of man, you know what I mean. Finally, like, like, whether you are citizens of, you know, America or, like, citizens of the world, ask, um, of us the same high standards of, uh, um, you know, strength and sacrifice which we ask of you, yeah. So, with a good conscience our only sure reward, you know, with history the final judge of our, uh, deeds, let us, like, go forth to lead the land we love, you know, asking, uh, His blessing and, um, His help, but, like, knowing that here on earth, like, you know, God’s work must truly be our own.

Social Attitude Test

Political Values
Radicalism
96.75
Socialism
56.25
Tenderness
46.875
These scores indicate that you are a progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a university professor. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear neither committedly capitalist nor socialist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as a political centrist. 
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an idealist with many strong opinions.
This concludes our analysis; we hope you found your results accurate, useful, and interesting.
Unlike many other political tests found on the Internet which base themselves on untested (and usually ideologically motivated) ideas, this inventory is adapted from Hans Eysenck’s own political inventory which was developed after extensive empirical investigations in the 20th Century.

CI is like Champagne

Only bubbly white wine
that comes from the region of 
Champagne, France 
is given the name 
champagne.

Contact Improvisation, some people maintain, is more than just a physical practice. It is a political movement, a way of life, a way to interact with our fellow humans and the world. Some might even go as far as to say CI is a social modality that can change the world.

Contact Improvisation was not created in a vacuum. It arose in the United States during a time of great flux and change. It was a time of great social and political upheaval. Therefore, the environment in which CI arose is inherent in the form.

If CI is a political/social/gender/economic etc. movement then to truly understand CI one has to come from the same soil that birthed CI.

Are, then, only denizens of the United States of America fully capable of understanding CI and manifesting true corporeal self-determination in the moment?

(it could also be that all the concomitant -isms that people attribute to the physical form of CI have nothing to with it, that it is purely the physical practice and form. Yes, CI can be a tool for creating those -isms, but it is not those -isms. A hammer can be used to build a house, but it is not a house.)

Blame

Corporations, corporations, corporation…the root of all evil.  Faceless disembodied entities that are ruining the world, the environment and now the political system in the United States by their ability to funnel unlimited amounts of cash into the coffers of willing politicians.  The Supreme Court of the United States blocked a ban limiting how much corporations could spend on political campaigns.

It is all the fault of corporations.  These mindless soulless beings that wreck havoc in the world, utterly uncontrollable.

But what a minute…don’t these corporations have presidents and CEOs and board members?!?

Aren’t those the people who are actually making the decisions, the bad decisions that we all hate?

And isn’t it possible to find out who these people are?

So why don’t we go after these people more?  Instead of saying that corporations are ruining the political system, why not actually name the people who are making the decisions?  Why not put a face to those actions?

Yes, that would be harder to do.  It is much easier to say that the corporations are at fault as opposed to naming every Tom, Dick and Harriet who sits on the board of those harbingers of doom.  It is much easier to blame(and here I will automatically lose this argument, some say, by invoking Hitler) Hitler than all the generals, colonels, captains, corporals who also decided to kill people.

Corporations…Hitler…it is much easier to demonize a single entity than all the actual individuals involved.

Is it any more effective?