Two things that require an explanation...

...And I can only partially explain one.

First of all, can someone explain the Star Wars-Angry Birds-Jenga game to me?  Not the Star Wars part, I get that.  Licensing is paying George Lucas' daughter's way through college, and then some, so I get that part.  It's the combination of Angry Birds and Jenga that I don't get.

The object in Angry Birds is (basically) to knock everything down as quickly as possible.
 
The object in Jenga is to keep everything standing as long as possible.

How do you mix those two?

I don't get it. Can someone please explain this to me?

Another thing I don't get came out of the last election.  Now let's put aside, for the moment, how we feel about who won what. Obviously I'm pleased at the outcome, given the Fox News-created alternative, but the point I'm about to make is one of simple math, requiring no partisan leanings one way of the other.

ONE PARTY won the Presidency, for the Second time.

THAT SAME PARTY made gains in the Senate of  of 2 seats.

Yet somehow, despite making gains, the OTHER PARTY (though losing six seats) maintained Control of the House.

Now, yes it was a close election - 51.1% of the Popular Vote (Obama) is NOT a Landslide.  But here's the thing...

If there was going to be an odd man out here, it really should have been the SENATE, no? I mean... the HOUSE is more proportionate to the population in general, with seats apportioned accordingly. The Senate is not: two per state, whether you're California or Alaska. So, putting aside whetehr we like it or not, it would make sense for the Senate to be disproportionate to the population.

So why are the White and Senate aligned and the HOUSE out?  That doesn't really make sense, right?

Unless you recall how the Republican gerrymandered the SHIT of the districts back in 2010!

Now... I will say this: Even with the 2008 districts, the Republicans STILL keep their majority, though a smaller one.  I still don't get it though...

How do you win the White House and the Senate and lose the House?!  Winnign the White House and the House and losing the Senate I can totally get.  I just don't get this.

And I realize that a lot of people DON'T vote a straight party ticket. I have the last few times, though I didn't used to. (I didn't used to be as Liberal as I am now.) But with the sharp uptick in hyper-partisan obstruction since 2008, I don't see how someone can say...

"Hmmm... I really liked president Obama, so I'll vote for him, but then I will vote for a House that will NEVER support his Agenda."

...just I could not understand someone who would say...

"Hmmm... I really like the Republicans, so I'm voting Republican in the House, but I'm going to Vote for a President that will veto everything they pass."

WTF? How can anyone seriously not vote a straight ticket at the Federal level in this day and age? (Regardless of which side or agenda you support?)

Just for the record:

Obama: 51.1% of the Popular, 61.7% of the Electoral Vote.
Democrats: 54.3% of the Popular Senate Vote, and won 54.1% of the open seats.

These kind of make sense. (Mathematically I mean.)  And actually the Senate numbers are almost odd in how closely proportionate they are! (Of course, you can't gerrymander the Senate.)  But...

Democrats won 49.2% of the House Popular Vote (to the Republican's 48.0%), but won only 44.4% of the Seats.

Despite the further, more detailed analysis of Mother Jones, which did conclude that the GOP win was not entirely due to gerrymandering, this is still a VERY unusual occurrence: In the previous century, only four times (out of fifty) did the party with a plurality of the popular vote fail to receive a majority in the House. The last time was in 1996, where the GOP kept the House for similar reasons.

Yeah... That smells a lot like gerrymandering to me. (Not to mention a load of horse-shit!)