Random Observations from a Grump

Just some random, semi-political observations:

• There's something wrong when your country doesn't create its own Stuff. Cars, dishwashers, TVs, refrigerators; we don't make our own stuff, and that strikes me as a Bad Idea. I don't have a solution; when you can manufacture Stuff for a fraction of the price in Taiwan or China or Indonesia or wherever, you can't continue to pay workers in the U.S. a living wage to manufacture the same Stuff. But still, something's out of whack.
• I don't think Hillary has a prayer of winning the general election, and it drives me nuts how many people try to rationalize their way around it. I don't give a rip what the polls say in "head to head matchups;" there are just too many people who hate her and won't vote for her. It's really that simple. All else is pundit-and-campaign blather.
• Speaking of Hillary, I used to really like Bill Clinton. I think he did a good job as president, and has done pretty well since then. Now, though, he simply won't shut up. He's fomenting civil war in the Democratic party just so his wife can be elected President, and it stands a good chance of putting another Republican bonehead back in the White House. Bill: shut up!
• And frankly, I'm am so ready for the Clintons to go away. Very very ready. What next; they run Chelsea for office? Go away!
  
• We have got to have energy independence. We used to, but now we're stuck. It's absurd. Why haven't we brought the hammer down on Saudi Arabia, when the majority of the 9/11 hijackers came from there? Why are we playing footsie with Iranian speedboats in the Straight of Hormuz? Why do we give a shit about Iran at all? Why did we just "sell" $20 billion of military hardware to these extremist whack jobs? Because they have the oil, and have us by the balls, is why. Why U.S. companies don't invest in alternative energies and try to corner the market now, I have no idea. It baffles me. Isn't that what Capitalist Robber Barons are supposed to do?
• We've tried Trickle-down economics now for 23 years; it doesn't work. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves, budget deficits are bad, and Reaganomics only creates huge budget deficits. Which will destroy this country in the end. The Reaganauts out there can bellow all they want about how "If there had been government cuts, it would have worked!" Well, maybe, but I think that a quarter of a century proves that Government doesn't have the ability to do that matching, so Reaganomics doesn't work. Sorry, kids.
• And due to Reaganomics Bush-style, we now have larger deficits, and a larger debt, than Reagan could have possibly imagined. And what does this do? It means that with countries like China, we have basically zero diplomatic leverage because they hold our markers on so many loans. (How much of our debt does Saudi Arabia finance, I wonder?) Ditch the Reaganomics and get back to some fiscal discipline, you boneheads.
  

That's enough bitching for one day, don't you think?

Good, Old Fashioned, Nerd-Related Whining

Or "whinging," as they call it in the British world.

Ol Steve Jobs just finished his new products announcement at Apple, and it's funny for me in a number of ways:

• I never used to give a rip about MacWorld, as I work in the PC universe pretty exclusively
• I was just whining myself a few months ago about how innovation at Palm is completely dead, and here's Apple--itself given up for dead multiple times over the years--literally en fuego with innovations
• I have resisted going to Macs for years--about 25 years, to be exact--due to the price, and the fact that as a freelancer, I need to be able to use certain particular applications that are PC based; and yet, I find myself actually considering getting a Mac (at least as a secondary system)

But that being said, let's start with the whining:

• I'm glad to be able to personalize my Home screen on the iPhone, but I would have appreciated things like Bluetooth A2DP or voice dialing.
• No announcement about a new iPhone with 16GB (or more?).
  
• No word about the timeframe for the 3G iPhone?
• No word about things like--oh, I dunno, native games?
• The worst thing, of course, is Apple's simply idiotic restrictions on "rental" content. Look, I know Jobs probably had to accept some compromises in order to get so many Old Media companies to sign on, and I can sorta accept the one month limitation on "rented" movies. (I put "rented" in quotes, by the way, because "renting bits" seems like a weird concept to me.) But forcing you to finish watching movies within 24 hours of starting them? That's utter stupidity. One of the beauties of buying a movie or TV episode is that you can watch as much as you want, whenever you want. It will frequently take me two or three or more days to watch a movie (on DVD or an iPhone); I don't see any good reason why I should be limited to "hurry up and watch!"
  
  I can see no reason--honestly, none--for "renting" a movie through iTunes when I can get the same movie, probably for a less price per-unit, from Netflix, which I can then watch whenever I want, as many times as I want, taking as long as I durn well please. This is a hugely stupid move, in my opinion.
• How about copy and paste capability? Seems pretty important. Hey, call me crazy.
  
• And lest I forget, still no eBooks! C'mon, Jobs! Get on the stick!
  

Anyway, like I said, I'm just whining. I'm still pretty excited to see what Apple will come out with over the next few months (my guess: a 3G iPhone by June).

Johnny One-Notes

Rudy Guiliani is of course one of the most terrible cases of a public figure being a Johnny one-note. For Guiliani, 9/11 is the answer to every question. How do you feel about the Iowa results? "I felt much worse things on 9/11." What do you think of Hillary Clinton crying? "I cried too sometimes during 9/11." The word "shameless" doesn't even begin to describe this guy.

But Bush is just as bad. Worse, really, since he's the President. Yesterday he gave a "wide-ranging" press conference about the economy. Here's what the Washington Post said:

President Bush gave a wide-ranging speech about the economy yesterday, but proposed no new policies to deal with the emerging economic distress.

That perfectly sums up Bush. Bush--who chooses a policy and then sticks to it no matter what--never proposes new policies. He's like all those "New and Improved!" products: the same old crap in a brand new package. With a tiny bit of rewriting, that quote can apply to every Bush speech:

""President Bush gave a wide-ranging speech about Iraq yesterday, but proposed no new policies to deal with the emerging sectarian strife."

"President Bush gave a wide-ranging speech about North Korea yesterday, but proposed no new policies to deal with the emerging dangers of their nuclear capability."

"President Bush gave a wide-ranging speech about Iran yesterday, but proposed no new policies to deal with the Iranian Government."

And so on.

I can't wait until this guy is out of office. The only question is, how much more damage can he do in his remaing 12 months?

Fluff for the Day

In reading a "Best of 2007" movie list on Moviefone, I had a bunch of random thoughts about the films and the actors that I thought I'd bore you with:

• Why do all actresses--even the naturally voluptuous ones like Scarlett Johansson and Kate Winslet and (most alarmingly) Jennifer Connally--have to be rail-thin? First of all, every guy I know likes women who are shaped like (gasp!) women. You know: with breasts and hips and a backside and so on. But second of all, what on Earth is someone thinking by taking a womanly knock-out like Christina Ricci and trying to make her look like Kate Hudson? Yeesh. Does anyone find that attractive?
• Speaking of Johansson, did anyone think that her appearance in Home Alone 3 would be the steppingstone to massive stardom? You never can tell.
  
• Do Ethan Hawke or Timothy Hutton ever comb their hair? Do they even have combs?
• Having Cate Blanchett play Dylan is genius. But it's not enough to get me to watch "I'm Not There."
• What the heck do people love so much about Naomi Watts? I admit I've only seen her in a couple of movies, but she's a) a block of wood, and b) totally generic looking in that "skinny blonde Hollywood actress" way. I mean, there have got to be a million of them (and I mean that literally) in L.A.; why so much love for this one?
• Am I the only guy in the world who feels sorry for Chris Cooper, who always seems to be stuck playing dicks?
• Speaking of feeling lonely, while I like Knocked Up, I certainly didn't find it as hilarious as The 40 Year-old Virgin or Wedding Crashers (to name a couple of recent comedies I liked). Did I miss something?
• Every critic in the world seems to love The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, and I may well too, if I ever see it. But honestly, I would have to be pretty worked up to want to see a movie about a guy who can only move his eyelid, for crying out loud. All the reviews I've read sound a lot like my mother when I was 10, telling me that I would love those lima beans, if I only gave them a try. (I tried them, nearly gagged, and ran outside and spit them out, in case you were wondering.)
• I'm a big animation fan and I love Brad Bird, but does anyone really think Ratatouille was better than The Incredibles or Iron Giant?
• I'm still waiting to see Juno, but the backlash against it kinda leaves a bad taste in my mouth. My guess is, 7 years of Bush has made reviewers grump.

Tune in to my next fluffy offering, weeks from now!

A Romney "By the Way"

Am I the only guy in America who has noticed that Mitt Romney bears an uncanny resemblance to the late Fred Gwynne, most famous for his role as Herman Munster? Judge for yourself:


Illegitimate son? Illegal clone? Separated at birth and cryogenically frozen for a couple of decades?

I can't believe all those political columnists--and, more importantly, political cartoonists--have missed this. Tom Toles, get cracking!

In the meantime, contemplate the prospect of a President Herman Munster. America, the choice is yours!

Auto-Bush

I have long maintained that Bush can't possibly be as dumb as he is portrayed (or sounds when he's mangling English). Personally, I think he suffers from dysnomia, aggravated by alcohol and drug abuse when he was younger. But even if you're a legacy, it's tough to get through Yale and then Harvard Business School if you're a dolt.

(I do have some friends who disagree, though, insisting that Bush's family put pressure on those institutions to help him slide through.)

That being said, it does drive me nuts that Bush absolutely and adamantly refuses to actually talk to people. He has his talking points, and then he has his joking, frat-boy, friendly mode that a lot of people seem to respond to (I friggin' hate it, but that's me). For the benefit of both my readers, I herein give examples of how Bush would react to everyday situations with his pre-programmed, Auto-Bush responses:

Hits another car: "This is an unfortunate situation that I am sure trial lawyers such as John Edwards will be quick to take advantage of, which is one of the things holding our country back."

Bounces a check: "Tax cuts would alleviate these kinds of problems."

Overbilled at a restaurant: "Tax cuts would alleviate these kinds of problems."

Homeless person asks for money: "What you need are tax cuts that stimulate the economy, creating jobs."

Attends a party and, with the other guests, trashes the house, accidentally dumping beer in the aquarium (killing all the fish) and running over the family dog his car: [watching host clean up] "You have to stay until the job is done. Leaving would be defeat. Not finishing the job is to become a defeatocrat. Complaining would give succor to the enemy." [leaves, handing cleanup bill to homeless person's kids]

Gets caught shoplifting: "As the Commander in Chief in a time of war, I have to do whatever I feel is necessary to ensure our victory. These supplies are desperately needed by our brave troops. Do you want to be seen as not supporting our troops?"

Gets caught beating someone up: "America does not torture. I refuse to comment on the sources and methods we use to obtain information."

As Molly Ivins said, in times like these, sometimes the only fun we can have is making fun of the folks in charge.

Where Are the Results?

Today--Iowa caucus day--I drove from Lake Charles, Louisiana back home to Austin. We left late to miss the Houston rush-hour nightmare, not getting in until a little after 10. So as a political junkie I figured: "Excellent; I'll find out the results of the Iowa caucuses!"

Well, what a stupe I am.

Reuters gives lots of news about Obama and Huckabee's big wins. Lots of talk about Edwards coming in second, and Clinton third (of course; it's been "beat up on Hillary" time for a few weeks now, and now they have some actual data). But who came in second in Iowa among Republicans? Third? What are the percentages? Reuters is mute.

So is Yahoo news. And Andrew Sullivan. And Salon. And if you can find the info on the Iowa Caucus Results web page ("in real time!" they proclaim), you're a better man (or woman) than I.

I'm currently googling to get the actual, you know, results, but I have to say I'm utterly appalled. It's bad enough that the "mainstream media" spends 'waaaaaay too much time on giving us opinions and bullshit; now they think their opinions matter more than the results.

Jeez, guys; even with baseball games (even local minor league games!) I get a box score if I want it. What are the friggin' RESULTS?

If the media can't even report the most basic, salient facts, what the hell is the point of them? (Over 10 MSM web sites now, and I still haven't found out how Ron Paul did other than "fifth".)