CleverDonkey.com …Musings, Commentary, Opinions, and Drivel

First, a disclaimer:  I am not a true believer for any side, team, party, PAC, religion, or single-issue demographic.  My political and social views include both “Conservative” and “Liberal” policies, I’m not a registered Republican or Democrat, and I have no need for the President to be an older, white male.  I love America, I revere the Constitution, I think our three-branch system of government is the work of genius, and I’ve been around long enough to know that the pendulum always swings one way, then back the other way – all you have to do is wait long enough.

I also think that it’s time for a change, and that the current administration has been arguably the worst in the last 75 years.  Bush came from the oil bidness, Cheney came from the defense contracting world, and after 8 years of Bush/Cheney which two industries have had record, burgeoning profits as a direct result of the actions of this administration?  When these last two terms are studied by future generations they will scarcely believe that we, the people, stood idly by during these deadly, absurdly obvious shenanigans.

But now that era is over.  And while McCain is a reasonably competitive nominee, I don’t think there is any way the American people will put the Republicans back in charge.  So that means that the Democratic nominee will be our next president, barring a major scandal or some other Act of God/Rove.  And as of today, the Associated Press has called the Democratic race for Barack Obama.  This means that as long as he avoids mistakes, he is virtually assured of being the next President of the United States.

Yes, Hillary could continue to fight.  She could run as an Independent, which could put the election in McCain’s hands.  She could take the fight to the convention and end up poisoning the public on the Democrats altogether.  However, as much of a street fighter as she is, I don’t see her going so far as to risk putting the Republicans back in charge in order to win a Pyrrhic victory.

So, it’s going to be President Barack Obama.  And I’m scared.

Why am I scared?  Not because he’s black.  I don’t think he’s a secret Muslim.  I don’t care if he wore a lapel pin or put his hand on his heart.  My issue is that he’s an almost complete unknown, and the things that are known about him seem to be in conflict with the public persona he has created around his campaign, as follows:

• His message of “Hope” and “Change”.  Well, hope is what losers have right up until the final out, and change can be good or it can be bad.  It worries me both that he would choose such ephemeral slogans, and also that the American voting public fell for it.  I “hope” the “change” he brings is for the better.
• His portrayal as a political outsider.  A big part of Obama’s message is that McCain and Hillary represent the old guard, the political insiders, and that Obama represents a fresh, new wind that exists outside of politics-as-usual.  However, trace back the rise of Barack Obama, and if you’re like me (and not from Illinois) the first time you heard of him was when he was tapped to give the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention.  And when you’re a junior, one-term Senator and your party taps you to give the keynote address at the national convention, you are, by definition, a political insider.
• His lack of a proven track record.  I will freely acknowledge that Barack Obama could turn out to be a great president.  However, he could also turn out to be a horrible president.  The issue is that he is a blank slate, and voters are able to project their own hopes and dreams onto him, because he’s never had to really do anything or take any stands.  He’s like a new-found infatuation who has never disappointed us – it’s so easy to dream of the perfect relationship.  But all relationships must mature, bills have to be paid, children raised, daily challenges faced.  And while he is undeniably charming, handsome, and articulate, we simply don’t know enough about Obama to know if he can be a dependable head of the household when it comes time to deal with the day-to-day grind and the long-term strategic planning necessary to be a successful leader.
• His smoking.  Does smoking show the level of character and long-term decision-making ability we want in a national leader?  Do we want our children to be able to say to us, “Why shouldn’t I smoke, the President does!??”  Obama claims to have quit smoking during the primaries, but that just makes it worse, in my opinion.  So, he smoked up until the time that it could hurt him politically, then quit?  So does that mean that, as president, he will do things that are harmful in the long-term and will only quit when it threatens him politically in the short-term?
• His wacky church and preacher(s).  On the one hand, you can say that Barack Obama is not responsible for what the preacher says at his church.  On the other hand, you can say that when it worked to his advantage, Obama was very happy to have the support of Reverend Wright and the Trinity Church.  And then when Wright and the church became a liability, Obama quickly distanced himself and quit the church.  I’m not saying that makes Obama any worse than any other politician.  In fact, I’m saying it makes him exactly like most other politicians, and not some squeaky-clean, fresh-faced outsider riding into town to clean things up.  Also, if I were a betting man I’d have to say that I think Obama is an atheist, or at best an agnostic, but that he keeps up his church-going because there’s no way to advance politically in this country if you aren’t overtly Christian.  So, that makes him a hypocrite, in my opinion.  You may condemn me for calling him a hypocrite over something I can’t possibly know, but, c’mon, don’t you also think he’s a non-believer, or at least a doubter?
• His “no-lobbyists” bullshit.  Obama’s campaign makes a lot of noise about not taking money from lobbyists.  The funny thing is, that message is being delivered in part by his top strategist David Axelrod, who owns a political consulting firm in Chicago that specializes in “astroturfing”, which is double-speak for creating fake grass-roots movements to support big businesses.  For example, his firm launched Citizens Organized for Reliable Electricity (CORE) using money from Commonwealth Edision, an Ohio utility company.  CORE ran a scare campaign that warned that if a rate hike was not granted for ComEd then Ohio could face California-like electrical blackouts.  CORE was not grassroots and didn’t represent people, it represented ComEd trying to get higher revenues, but masqueraded as a grass-roots group of concerned citizens.  That, my friends, is lobbying.  Also, Obama accepts donations from the spouses of lobbyists, and from individual employees of lobbying firms who aren’t personally registered as lobbyists.  Also, any lobbyist can (and have, and do) join the Obama campaign or donate to the cause simply by de-registering as a lobbyist (and then simply re-registering later when it’s more politically expedient).  If you’re going to throw out the lobbyists, throw them out, don’t use sleight-of-hand to try to fool us.  Again, no different from any/all other politicians, but not really in keeping with Obama’s claim to be the clean and pure outsider.
• His annoying wife.  I don’t really know Michelle Obama, and she might be a great person, personally.  But so far she hasn’t figured out how to be the likely first lady.  How is she annoying?  Well, she’s very focused on minority issues and equal rights, which is great – but she has an all-female staff.  I guess men are fair game for discrimination?  She has also done a lot of work in the public sector, and comes across as a hybrid mom-slash-public-servant.  However, until very recently she was also a paid board member of TreeHouse Foods, a huge supplier for Wal-Mart, and she only resigned after her husband made some anti-Wal-Mart comments at a union rally.  Now, how well does it fit with Barack Obama’s public persona that his wife was a board member for a major supplier for a low-wage-paying, benefit-denying, small-town-destroying, union-busting, borg-ship-like retailer like Wal-Mart?  Again, I’m not saying that in-and-of-itself it is wrong to profit from supplying Wal-Mart.  However, I’m saying that it’s very annoying when you try to mold your public persona into that of a caring public servant focused on changing the world, when you were actually part of the status-quo machine until it became politically expedient to change your stripes.
• His connections to Zbigniew Brzezinski.  Brzezinski was Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, he helped arm the mujaheddin in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets (the mujaheddin later became the Taliban and sheltered al Qaeda), was a founding member of the Trilateral Commission (along with David Rockefeller, Alan Greenspan, and Paul Volcker), is/was part of the ultra-secretive Bilderberg Group, worked in the administrations of both Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr., has been a board member for Amnesty International and The Council on Foreign Relations, and has generally been involved in most major world affairs from the 1960’s until the present.  He is one of the ultimate insiders, definitely part of of the world political machine – a mover and shaker.  He’s “them”…he’s “they”…one of the men behind the screen that influence and control geopolitics like puppetmasters.  And guess what?  He was an instructor at Columbia University when Barack Obama was a student.  And now he’s Obama’s foreign policy advisor.  And Brzezinski’s son Mark is also an Obama advisor.  So, tell me again how Obama is an outsider who’s coming in to bring hope and change and a bright, shiny new America for us all?

There’s more, but they aren’t as important as the above list.  The bottom line is that Barack Obama is almost a complete unknown, and what is known about him is wildly at odds with his publicly crafted and marketed persona as a pure outsider.  He *could* be a good, or even great, President.  However, I think the Democratic Party has taken another swing at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, because they are making a very risky wager – that Barack Obama can come from nowhere and become the most powerful person on the face of the earth, based on a couple of years in the US Senate, good looks, great speech-writers, oratorical genius, and a shell-shocked American voting public looking for a savior.

Four years from now I will happily come back here and post a mea culpa if Barack Obama is able to deliver.  I don’t dislike him, and I don’t know that he won’t be a good President.  However, after eight years of Bush/Cheney/Rove I think the American voters should have chosen a more known, stable leader, and not rolled the dice on the sweet-talking stranger in town.  As always, America courts both greatness and failure – let’s hope we get lucky this time.

• Leave a comment... (3)

There is much to like about this new generation – their concern for the earth, their desire for world peace, their continuation of the legacy of horrible teen musical tastes.  These Millenials, also known as Gen Y or the iGen, are beginning to enter the workforce and public life, and are bringing with them a demand for meaningful careers, work/life balance, world betterment, and the guts to stand by their principals, even at the expense of risking their socioeconomic status.  I find that refreshing and much more admirable than the conspicuous consumption of the 80's and 90's.

I don't agree with everything they do, however.  The proclivity for tattoos, piercings, and other body modifications confounds me.  Part of it is a matter of taste, and there's no accounting for taste.  Also, preferences are not absolutes, and although I unequivocally dislike their self-mutilation (my interpretation), I also realize that it is, for the most part, harmless in the larger scheme of things.  Will most of them end up regretting their youthful indiscretions?  Undoubtedly.  But the long-term consequences aren't dire, particularly since it will be an entire generation.

I also lament, as all older folks do, their tastes in music, books (if they even read them), film, art, and culture.  But that's the same song our parents sang, and their parents before them, ad infinitum.  Again, no dire long-term consequences.  Same with drug use (who am I to talk, I grew up in the 70's, man!) and casual sex (who am I to talk, I grew up in the 70's, man – er, but without rampant AIDS/HIV/Hepatitis/etc).

In short, the older I get the truer the statement "youth is wasted on the young" becomes.  They waste their time on things that are of no import, and ignore the real stuff of life.  Just like I did.  Just like all young people do.  That's part of life.

But there is one area with which I take an absolute exception, and that is that they are continuing the horrible legacy of smoking.  What in the name of all that is true and good are these kids doing perpetuating such an absolute evil in the world?  They want to halt global climate change, save the environment, move to cruelty-free foods and products, feed the hungry, and do all sorts of absolute good things.

But they support tobacco companies.

They either refuse to accept or don't care that tobacco companies are merchants of death.

They either refuse to accept or don't care that even the United Nations sees tobacco use as a human catastrophe as big as, or even bigger than, global warming.

They either refuse to accept or don't care that while they support a better environment and less cruelty to animals, they blithely fund tobacco companies, whose executives and scientists routinely test their products like this:

Poor smoking beagles.

A short non-smoke break for one…

Smoking monkey…

A monkey and a rabbit take a smoke break (and break your heart)…

Sad little puppies…

Stop for a moment and put yourself in the place of one of these animals.  A little beagle puppy, bred to trust and love humans unconditionally.  Ripped away from your mother by callous scientists (doing the bidding of their tobacco executive masters) who immobilize you in little holding pens, ignore your wagging tails and imploring eyes, day after day, week after week, year after year, and strap devices to your head, forcing you to breath tobacco smoke day after day, week after week, year after year, until you either die or get sick enough that the experiment ends, then callously toss you aside for a fresh batch. 

You know they aren't testing the flavor, because why would a Beagle being forced to smoke care how it tasted?  What they're doing is testing to determine just how dangerous their products are to health.  And so they force these poor animals to smoke, sometimes until death, so they can learn from the autopsies of their poor, imprisoned bodies exactly how many toxic chemicals they can put into their products while still allowing their human customers to live long enough to provide the maximum profit.

Okay, I get it.  You don't care about the harm you're doing to yourself.  You don't care about how nasty and offensive smoking is to those around you and the world in general.  You don't care that tobacco companies are evil and make their profits by hooking the young all around the world, while killing off their parents.  It's all about choice, right?

In the above pictures I see tobacco companies choosing to torture and kill innocent souls, and I see poor, scared animals who have no choice.

Enjoy your cigarettes, you rebels.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Update 9/1/2007: For those of you who feel that Michael Vick is being treated more harshly because he is black, and that a white person in such a scandal would be getting off easier, please see the case of US Senator Larry Craig. He’s resigning after being caught attempting to entice another adult into consensual sex, which is a victimless crime, particularly when compared to the torture and brutal killing of innocent dogs. And Senator Craig could not be any whiter…he’s the Senator from from Idaho, for crying out loud, what’s whiter than that?!!????

Original article appears below.

Michael Vick has pled guilty to some of the charges against him, and held a press conference today where he made his first public statements. What I wanted to hear from Vick, the only thing he could have said that would have given him a glimmer of a chance of redemption in my eyes, was to state that his personal enjoyment in the torture and killing of dogs was a mental illness and that he would be seeking therapy for his psychotic behavior. However, he did not.

He tried to be contrite, but referred to his behavior as “bad choices”. However, the choices are not the issue, the issue is that he has a psyche that can torture and kill helpless animals for pleasure. A “bad choice” is getting behind the wheel after you’ve had too much to drink. A “bad choice” would be attending one, single dog fight.

Michael Vick did not make a “bad choice”, he suffers from a mental illness that needs treatment. His affliction is similar to alcoholism or abusive behavior in this regard. A single instance of getting behind the wheel tipsy, striking out in anger, or participating in animal torture are “bad choices”. However a pattern (or in this case a recreational lifestyle) that regularly includes such behavior indicates mental illness.

During the press conference Vick constantly referred to himself in the third-person, one of the surest indications to me of a runaway ego and not of a contrite confessor. This press conference stank of public relations spin, and I got zero sense that Vick actually believed what he was saying. I believe that he is sorry – sorry about losing his NFL salary, sorry about losing his endorsements, sorry he got caught lying to the league, etc. But I do not for one minute get the impression that Vick thinks that there is actually anything wrong with dogfighting – it appears to me that he accepts that society (and the legal system) condemn such actions, and he’s sorry for wrecking his gravy train.

Also, his plea deal is carefully crafted to allow some hope of returning to the NFL. He says he funded the dogfighting enterprise, but didn’t actually place any bets. Please. Even more obfuscatorily, he says that dogs were killed through the combined efforts of the three defendents. He doesn’t come right out and say, yes, I electrocuted, shot, hanged, and drowned dogs for fun. His plea and his press conference lack the full truth and show that Michael Vick is simply playing the odds.

And it appears that the NFL and the Atlanta Falcons are in cahoots with Vick in this endeavor. Shortly after Vick’s press conference, Arthur Blank (owner of the Falcons) held his own conference where he stated: “Cutting him today may feel better emotionally, for us and many of our fans, but it’s not in the long-term best interest of our franchise.” Mr. Blank also said, “We don’t know what the future holds for Michael. Having said that, I do believe in redemption.” That says it all, to me. Mr. Blank is letting us know that Michael Vick will be coming back to the Falcons, eventually. One presumes that he would not have made such a statement without the knowledge and approval of the NFL itself, so it looks like a done deal.

But Michael Vick still needs to stand up and take responsiblity not just for his actions, but for his psychological disorder. Get treatment, Mr. Vick. Deriving pleasure from the torture and abuse of helpless creatures is one of the clearest signs of mental illness that there is. It is particularly reprehensible with dogs, as we have spent generations domesticating dogs to be our trusting companions, to depend on us for shelter, sustenance, and companionship. We have an implied contract with dogs, that they will be our faithful companions and in turn we will take care of them. Turning that dependency into sadistic torture for personal pleasure is a mental aberration of astonishing magnitude.
Michael, I know that you’re sorry you got caught and lost your money train, you didn’t need to say that in your press conference. Now tell me (and the world) that you actually realize the horrific nature of your “hobby” and work to heal yourself.

Short of that, this dog won’t hunt.

• Leave a comment... (0)

We recently moved from a patio home in the big city (Houston) to a cottage in a small, country town (Brenham). In Houston we didn’t really have any outdoor living space as we shared a common courtyard with neighbors, but here in Brenham we purposely bought a house that could provide a nice outdoor lifestyle. We purchased in the fall of last year and since then we’ve made improvements to the backyard, such as putting up an 8′ privacy fence and driveway gate, giving us a private, shady retreat to enjoy.

However, this being the southern half of Texas, the coming of spring and summer meant that the mosquitos ended up taking over and driving us back inside most mornings and evenings. Also, since we have two permanent dogs, and one temp dog that we’re babysitting, our backyard has a certain amount of…how to say this delicately…um…organic….err…excretions? Natural…fertilizer? Canine compost? Okay, dog poop. And with dog poop come flies. We’re excrutiatingly uninterested in policing the poop, and we feed our dogs a very high grade of dog food, so the volume isn’t huge, particuarly for the size of our dogs (80lbs, 80lbs, and 25lbs). Nevertheless, the flies were also annoying and gross, but fortunately not the biting kind.

So we started on a project of figuring out the best way to take back control of our backyard. I won’t say that money was no object, but we weren’t going to penny-pinch and were willing to spend into the low four figures for a good solution. We first looked at the wide variety of mosquito traps out there, such as the Mosquito Magnet, SkeeterVac, Mega-Catch, etc. What we found was that while the underlying concept behind these devices appears to be sound (catching mosquitoes with CO2 and other lures), the implementations were horribly unreliable and the results were spotty.

These devices almost all work by luring the mosquitos in with some set of attractants, such as CO2, lurex, octenol, lights, and/or heat, then using a fan to suction the little buggers into a holding net where they remain stuck until they die. Also, it seems that most of the mosquitos in your yard actually live in your yard, meaning if you can trap and kill the ones in your yard, you break the cycle of population and then only have to deal with ones that stray in from the surrounding area.

But for every story of success, there were three stories of device failure, with most failures occurring at the start of the second season of use when trying to get the traps to start up again after having been stored away for weeks or months. I wasn’t able to find a single personal account of anyone using one of these devices for more than one season without having issues. Also, the company that originally introduced the product and concept, American Biophysics with their Mosquito Magnet, had gone bankrupt and their acquiring company seemed to be completely disinterested in any type of customer service. This reinforced my take that while mosquito traps could work in the short term, and the scientific concepts appeared sound, the engineering has fallen short. And at $300-$1,000 per device it was a little too expensive to roll the dice and deal with a string of lemons year after year. We’re keeping our eyes peeled and will probably buy one if/when somebody proves they can make one that both works and lasts.

After ruling out these devices, the field of possible solutions became much less clear. We knew that we didn’t want to fog our yard with insecticide or any other toxins. Bug zappers seemed particularly useless. We were so desperate we even considered the SkeeterBag, which appears to be one of the Seven Wonders of the Redneck World (and, truthfully? we’re still considering it because of its simple and logical design). We also didn’t want to have to slather anything onto ourselves, even if it were natural and safe, as having to get gooped/slimed up every time we wanted to enjoy the cool of the evening just seemed like a zen-kill.

Then we came across the CedarCide site. The site itself looks kind of rough around the edges (note to the folks from CedarCide if you read this – we do web site development and would be willing to barter web services for cedar oil goods!) which made us skeptical that they were not a “real” company. But the more we read the more sense their story seemed to make. The basic concept is that the majority of bugs out there are repelled by cedar, including mosquitos and flies. The folks at CedarCide extract the oil from red Texas cedars and package it in various liquid and solid forms for consumer use.

Also compelling was the long, long, list of testimonials on their website. Now, normally, I place no stock in testimonials for products that are placed on the site selling said products, as they are handpicked and in some cases seemingly falsified, as they quote company prose as they describe the wonderfulness of their purchase. But I don’t know how to describe it, these rang true and seemed “real”, for lack of a better word.

The bottom line was we figured that we could try their products for no great cost, cedar oil couldn’t really hurt anything, and if it worked then great, if not then lesson learned for small number of dollars (compared to propane-based mosquito traps). So we ordered the YardSafe concentrate ($49.95 for a gallon, including a hose-end sprayer attachment) and the Vet’s Choice ($99.95 for a quart, but dilutes quite a bit) bath/dip.

We first tried the YardSafe by spraying our whole backyard. I included the wooden fence and the sides of the house as well as the part of the driveway the extends to the back, and I also gave the lawn furniture a light misting. That night we went outside in the late evening and encountered zero mosquitos or bites, whereas previously we would have been chased in with dozens of bites within a few minutes. We still had a few flies hanging around, but greatly reduced from the previous evening. The beneficial effects lasted for several days, then it rained for a couple of days, and on the next non-rainy evening we went out and the flies were back in increased numbers (but still less than before the treatment) but still no mosquitos. I gave area a quick refresher spraying and that chased off all but a few flies.

We’ve been using the spray now for a couple of weeks and we have only a few occasional flies, and after about a week after spraying (or two or three days of heavy rain) the mosquitoes start to return (but only a few). Our general process is to give the backyard a good spraying every weekend after mowing, and then to do quick spot sprayings as needed if the rain interferes with effectiveness.

And that process has given us back our backyard!! It’s actually amazing how quickly and effectively it chases away the mosquitoes. In fact, even if at some future date we get a propane mosquito trap, we’ll probably still use the CedarCide because it is *immediately* effective and it doesn’t take weeks like the propane traps to have an impact.

We also dipped our dogs in the Pet’s Choice and they smelled really nice. Not sure if had any effect on fleas (not sure they had any), but it didn’t hurt them and they smelled really good. Not sure the Pet’s Choice is worth money, but we’ll use up this batch and see if it has a better cumulative benefit.

All in all, we’re going to be buying a lot more YardSafe over the years. If you have a backyard plagued with mosquitoes, flies, and other bothersome pests, you may want to give it a try!

• Leave a comment... (9)

As China emerges onto the world stage as a budding economic and political near-superpower, the United States has a great big welcome waiting for them, kind of like this:

For those of you unfamiliar with the original source image above, that’s what happened to 26-year-old Robin Ventura when he charged the mound after the 46-year-old pitching legend Nolan Ryan plonked him. That photo catches one of six straight uppercuts to the head that the veteran Ryan delivered before somebody saved poor Robin Ventura. Ryan had announced his retirement and I’m sure that young, brave Sir Robin thought he’d teach the old man a lesson before he left. Nope, wasn’t gonna happen, kid. Ryan said he had perfected his headlock technique wrassling steers for branding at his ranch. That gave Ryan the kind of experience, poise, and confidence that the younger Ventura just couldn’t bring to the table.

And right now I think the same thing is happening to young, upstart China, courtesy of wiley veteran The United States of America. And the uppercuts are being delivered as problems with Chinese goods. Tainted toothpaste, toys with lead paint, defective tires, deadly pet food – the list seems endless, and it seems to grow monthly. And I don’t know about you, but all of this talk of substandard and dangerous Chinese goods seemed to have started happening fairly recently. Before that China was happily mass-producing crappy goods to fill all the Wal-Mart shelves in the US, with nary a peep about quality or safety.

But now, suddenly, scandal after scandal over defective and dangerous goods. And today a Chinese toy plant owner/manager committed suicide, presumably due to his humiliation over the recent toy recall. And a few weeks ago China executed the head of their FDA-counterpart for taking payoffs for drug approvals. None of this is building US consumer confidence in Chinese goods.

And, if looked at from a particular perspective, these events could be interpreted as a deliberate anti-marketing campaign. I mean, think about it…Chinese products are harming our children, killing our pets, causing car accidents, and poisoning people who clean their teeth. That describes the major points of most Americans’ daily morning routine. You get up, brush your teeth (and get poisoned), feed your dog (and poison him), have the kids put down their toys (off of which they’ve gnawed poisonous lead paint chips), then (if you’ve managed to survive long enough) drive them to school on your ready-to-fail Chinese tires. I predict the next two Chinese product scandals will be over breakfast cereal and coffee, which would give them 100% failure in the American morning routine.
When I apply the sniff test to all of these incidents, they come up smelling like something other than random occurrences. Somebody, somewhere is making these things happen publicly at this point in time. I doubt it’s the Chinese trying to committ some kind of geopolitical suicide. I don’t think Russia or any other nation has the resources or skill to create and exploit incidents of this magnitude. That leaves the good old US of A with the motive, means, and opportunity.

Why, exactly, would we do this to China? Let me take you back 25 years, to the rise of Japan in the 80’s. Everything was turning Japanese in the 80’s. They were mass-producing virtually all consumer electronics, buying all of the US real estate, buying up our movie studios, taking over our businesses, buying Senators and even a President (Reagan) with their massive wealth and power. Everyone was told to get ready for the rise of Japan as the new leader of the world, with the US becoming their Britain-ic lapdog. Popular movies like Blade Runner (1982) and Rising Sun (1993) had major themes that Japan would take over and set the tone for the world, not the United States.
In retrospect it seems silly that we were worried, since Japan is now such a harmless and trusted partner of the US, but back then all savvy, up-and-coming MBAs were learning Japanese, embracing sushi, and honing their golf games for the inevitable dealmaking on the links with our new Senpai.

But something happened to Japan. They over-leveraged themselves with investments and real estate, overpayed in artificially inflated markets, and then didn’t have the economic mass to survive the collapse of their real estate and financial markets. I have my doubts that the fall of Japan was a naturally-occurring market correction. Instead, my theory has always been that the US judo-ed Japan by making our real estate, entertainment, and industrial properties very attractive, artifically inflating the prices, and then ever so subtly using their economic momentum against them. I’m no economist, I don’t play one on TV, and I didn’t stay and a Holiday Inn Express last night, but that explanation has always rung true to me.

And it also rings true that it cannot be complete coincidence that a series of horrific Chinese product failures would occur so close together and all hit areas that are part and the heart and soul of America – our kids, our pets, our cars, and ourselves. I mean, what are the odds? Project yourself 20 years into the future and look back over these last few months and apply Occam’s Razor. Would you really think that these were naturally occurring events and revelations that coincidentally all happened in such a short time span and hit such near-and-dear areas of the American economy? I wouldn’t. Instead, to me, these events have all the hallmarks of a Machiavellian program by the United States directed against the economy of the Chinese state.

Now, I’m not saying that the US directly *caused* all of these product scandals. That probably didn’t happen – I mean, I can’t see the US poisoning dog food on the sly then blaming China. Maybe, but doubtful. I also don’t think the US is simply fabricating the issues – too easy to fight back against false charges. No, the two most likely scenarios I can think of are that either the US is *indirectly* involved, such as by developing a network of contacts that are alerting us to existing issues. I give this one about a 40% chance of being the case. The other likely scenario, in my opinion, is that problems with Chinese goods are ubiquitous, kind of like offensive holding on a given football play, and the US is simply “discovering” the issues in ways that are most strategically harmful to China. I give this one a 60% chance of being the case.

And why would we do this? Well, I think that part is obvious. We don’t want to (and probably can’t) simply invade China like some wayward oil state. We also don’t want them to get up so much economic momentum that we can’t exert some kind of control. And with the US being their major market, poisoning the attitudes of everyday Americans against Chinese goods is a great way to show China that we control their purse strings, ultimately. Even with a billion citizens, the Chinese economy goes nowhere without international trade.

And so the US is using a little of the tactics of the old mobster-run unions in the United States. The factory owner or shipping company suddenly finds themselves faced with sick-outs, labor troubles, unexplained equipment failure, missing goods, and spotty work quality. Then they get a visit from the union rep, expressing sympathy for their plight, and intimating that if the owners would just play ball, maybe all these troubles might just…disappear…capiche? And in most cases the math works out so that it makes more sense to play ball than to fight back, particular against an enemy with superior firepower and resources.

And so I predict that in the next 12-18 months the US and China will come to some kind of terms for China’s entry into and position on the world economic and superpower stage. It will all be couched in the language of diplomacy and may seem completely unrelated to these recent product scandals. But in the back rooms and between the lines the message will be clear. The US will make China an offer it can’t refuse. And China will accept it…or remain a frustrated backwater.

• Leave a comment... (0)

There are occasions when one person stands up and articulates a watershed moment in history, and last night it was Keith Olbermann on his NBC show Countdown:

For those who prefer to read it, the full transcript appears at the bottom of this page.

I could not have said it better myself. This Administration has inexorably eroded the trust placed in them by the American people, and their continued conniving has lost them their right to any moral authority in matters foreign or domestic.

Olbermann refers several times to the Watergate scandal of the Nixon administration. There were at least two positive aspects to the outcome of the Watergate scandal. First, the American public and the media set aside their blind faith in the office of the President and has since subjected the office to high levels of scrutiny and accountability. And second, we got Nixon. He didn’t get away with it. He did wrong – he perverted the government for his own ends, we caught him, and he resigned in disgrace. That doesn’t change what he did, but it forever puts the actions of his administration in the category of “Wrong”.

And that’s what needs to happen with the current administration. They have done wrong and they cannot be allowed to get away with it. Just for context, if you know me or read much of this site, you know that I’m not a Democrat or a Republican, I’m not a Liberal or a Conservative. I’m just an American. And I am fed up. The following excerpt from Olbermann’s diatribe sums it all up for me:

Keith Olbermann:

You both crossed the Rubicon yesterday. Which one of you chose the route no longer matters. Which is the ventriloquist, and which the dummy, is now irrelevant. But that you have twisted the machinery of government into nothing more than a tawdry machine of politics, is the only fact that remains relevant.

Below is the full text:

Keith Olbermann:

Finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on what is, in everything but name, George Bush’s pardon of Scooter Libby.

“I didn’t vote for him,” an American once said, “but he’s my President, and I hope he does a good job.” That, on this eve of the 4th of July, is the essence of this democracy, in 17 words. And that is what President Bush threw away yesterday in commuting the sentence of Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

The man who said those 17 words, improbably enough, was the actor John Wayne. And John Wayne, an ultra-conservative, said them when he learned of the hair’s breadth election of John F. Kennedy instead of his personal favorite, Richard Nixon, in 1960. “I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my President, and I hope he does a good job.”

The sentiment was doubtlessly expressed earlier, but there’s something especially appropriate about hearing it now in Wayne’s voice: The crisp matter-of-fact acknowledgment that our form of government has survived, even though for nearly two centuries now, our Commander-in-Chief has also served, simultaneously, as the head of one political party and often the scourge of all others. We as citizens must, at some point, ignore a President’s partisanship. Not that we may prosper as a nation, not that we may achieve, not that we may lead the world, but that merely we may function. But just as essential to the 17 words of John Wayne is an implicit trust, a sacred trust: That the President for whom so many did not vote, can in turn suspend his political self long enough, and for matters imperative enough, to conduct himself solely for the benefit of the entire Republic.

Our generation’s willingness to state “we didn’t vote for him, but he’s our President, and we hope he does a good job,” was tested in the crucible of history, and far earlier than most. And in circumstances far more tragic and threatening. And we did that with which history tasked us. We enveloped our President in 2001. And those who did not believe he should have been elected, indeed those who did not believe he had been elected, willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of non-partisanship.

And George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and sharpened it to razor-sharp points and stabbed this nation in the back with it. Were there any remaining lingering doubt otherwise, or any remaining lingering hope, it ended yesterday when Mr. Bush commuted the prison sentence of one of his own staffers. Did so even before the appeals process was complete; did so without as much as a courtesy consultation with the Department of Justice; did so despite what James Madison, at the Constitutional Convention, said about impeaching any President who pardoned or sheltered those who had committed crimes “advised by” that President; did so without the slightest concern that even the most detached of citizens must look at this chain of events and wonder to what degree was Mr. Libby told: “Break the law however you wish, the President will keep you out of prison”?

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you broke that fundamental compact between yourself and the majority of this nation’s citizens, the ones who did not cast votes for you. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you ceased to be the President of the United States. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you became merely the President of a rabid and irresponsible corner of the Republican Party. And this is too important a time, sir, to have a Commander-in-Chief who puts party ahead of nation.

This has been, of course, the gathering legacy of this administration. Few of its decisions have escaped the stain of politics. The extraordinary Karl Rove has spoken of “a permanent Republican majority,” as if such a thing, or a permanent Democratic majority, is not antithetical to that upon which rests our country, our history, our revolution, our freedoms. Yet our Democracy has survived shrewder men than Karl Rove. And it has survived the frequent stain of politics upon the fabric of government. But this administration, with ever-increasing insistence and almost theocratic zealotry, has turned that stain into a massive oil spill.

The protection of the environment is turned over to those of one political party, who will financially benefit from the rape of the environment. The protections of the Constitution are turned over to those of one political party, who believe those protections unnecessary and extravagant and quaint. The enforcement of the laws is turned over to those of one political party, who will swear beforehand that they will not enforce those laws. The choice between war and peace is turned over to those of one political party, who stand to gain vast wealth by ensuring that there is never peace, but only war.

And now, when just one cooked book gets corrected by an honest auditor, when just one trampling of the inherent and inviolable fairness of government is rejected by an impartial judge, when just one wild-eyed partisan is stopped by the figure of blind justice, this President decides that he, and not the law, must prevail.

I accuse you, Mr. Bush, of lying this country into war. I accuse you of fabricating in the minds of your own people, a false implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. I accuse you of firing the generals who told you that the plans for Iraq were disastrously insufficient. I accuse you of causing in Iraq the needless deaths of 3,586 of our brothers and sons and sisters and daughters and friends and neighbors.

I accuse you of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely-motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but instead to stifle dissent. I accuse you of fomenting fear among your own people, of creating the very terror you claim to have fought. I accuse you of exploiting that unreasoning fear, the natural fear of your own people who just want to live their lives in peace, as a political tool to slander your critics and libel your opponents. I accuse you of handing part of this Republic over to a Vice President who is without conscience, and letting him run roughshod over it.

And I accuse you now, Mr. Bush, of giving, through that Vice President, carte blanche to Mr. Libby, to help defame Ambassador Joseph Wilson by any means necessary, to lie to grand juries and special counsel and before a court, in order to protect the mechanisms and the particulars of that defamation, with your guarantee that Libby would never see prison, and, in so doing, as Ambassador Wilson himself phrased it here last night, of you becoming an accessory to the obstruction of justice.

When President Nixon ordered the firing of Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox during the infamous Saturday Night Massacre on October 20, 1973, Mr. Cox initially responded tersely, and ominously. “Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men,” he said, “is now for Congress, and ultimately, the American people.”

President Nixon did not understand how he had crystallized the issue of Watergate for the American people. It had been, to that point, about the obscure meaning behind an attempt to break into a rival party’s headquarters; and the labyrinthine effort to cover up that break-in and the related crimes. But in one night, Nixon transformed it. Watergate instantaneously became a simpler issue: a President overruling the inexorable march of the law of insisting, in a way that resonated viscerally with millions who had not previously understood, that he was the law. Not the Constitution. Not the Congress. Not the Courts. Just him.

Just, Mr. Bush, as you did yesterday. The twists and turns of Plamegate, your precise and intricate lies that sent us into this bottomless pit of Iraq; your lies upon the lies to discredit Joe Wilson; your lies upon the lies upon the lies to throw the sand at the referee of Prosecutor Fitzgerald’s analogy. These are complex and often painful to follow, and too much, perhaps, for the average citizen. But when other citizens render a verdict against your man, Mr. Bush, and then you spit in the faces of those jurors and that judge and the judges who were yet to hear the appeal, the average citizen understands that, sir. It is the fixed ball game and the rigged casino and the pre-arranged lottery all rolled into one, and it stinks. And they know it.

Nixon’s mistake, the last and most fatal of them, the firing of Archibald Cox, was enough to cost him the presidency. And in the end, even Richard Nixon could say he could not put this nation through an impeachment. It was far too late for it to matter then, but as the decades unfold, that single final gesture of nonpartisanship, of acknowledged responsibility not to self, not to party, not to “base,” but to country, echoes loudly into history. Even Richard Nixon knew it was time to resign.

Would that you could say that, Mr. Bush. And that you could say it for Mr. Cheney. You both crossed the Rubicon yesterday. Which one of you chose the route no longer matters. Which is the ventriloquist, and which the dummy, is now irrelevant. But that you have twisted the machinery of government into nothing more than a tawdry machine of politics, is the only fact that remains relevant.

It is nearly July 4th, Mr. Bush, the commemoration of the moment we Americans decided that rather than live under a king who made up the laws, or erased them, or ignored them, or commuted the sentences of those rightly convicted under them, we would force our independence, and regain our sacred freedoms. We of this time — and our leaders in Congress, of both parties — must now live up to those standards which echo through our history — pressure, negotiate, impeach —- get you, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, two men who are now perilous to our democracy, away from its helm.

And for you, Mr. Bush, and for Mr. Cheney, there is a lesser task. You need merely to achieve a very low threshold indeed. Display just that iota of patriotism which Richard Nixon showed, on August 9, 1974. Resign. And give us someone, anyone, about whom all of us might yet be able to quote John Wayne, and say, “I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my President, and I hope he does a good job.” Good night and good luck.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Updated 6/20/2007, originally posted 6/3/2003

Update 6/20/2007: Yesterday Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, announced he was leaving the Republican Party and will now be an independent. This follows on his switch from the Democratic to Republican parties a few years ago. Mr. Bloomberg has also been travelling to states with upcoming Presidential primaries, inflaming speculation that he will be running for President. Based on what I know at this point, Mr. Bloomberg is the first Presidential candidate in a long while for whom I would be willing to vote, and I hope he runs.

He fits the profile of an ideal candidate (from the article below) in that he has had a career outside of politics, he’s not a Republican or a Democrat, he can speak extemporaneously, he acknowledges that the system is broken, and he’s not a lawyer. I’ve liked what he’s done in New York so far, and I think he’d be an absolutely refreshing change from the past eight years of idiocracy.

Below is the original post from 6/3/2003:

Disclaimer:

I rarely vote. Many folks tell me that by not voting I am neglecting my duties as an American, but I beg to differ. In fact, from my perspective it is the people who vote out of a sense of duty who are being un-American. Why? Because by virtue of their participation they are demonstrating tacit approval for a system that is fundamentally flawed. How is it flawed? Let me count the ways:

• The Monopoly of the Demoblicans and the Republicrats.
  With exceedingly rare exception, all serious candidates are the product of either the Democratic or Republican parties. And although there are superficial differences between the parties, they both strive to maintain the status quo, and to evolve the system to the advantage of the politically connected. So your “choice” between their candidates is like the choice between french vanilla and vanilla bean ice cream. Yes, they’re different, if you’re talking vanilla, but they’re both still just vanilla. Right now our political process is Baskin Robbins 2 Flavors.
• The Electoral College. Back when our electoral process was developed (when delivery by horseback was the fastest communication method), it made a lot of sense to have the individual states compile their results and turn them over to a representative who would then deliver those to the central government in person for the final tallying.  But now we have instantaneous, secure, ubiquitous communications, and the selection/use of the electoral college is outdated, outmoded, inefficient, inexact and unnecessary.
• Functional Qualifications: Rich, White, Photogenic, Ruthless, with Powerful Supporters.
  Yes, there are a few serious Candidates that don’t match these qualifications, but they are so few and far between as to be irrelevant. Show me a grass-roots candidate that doesn’t meet the above, and I’ll show you a loser.
• The Campaign Process: Glad-hand, Recite Speeches, Make Promises, Raise Money, Run Ads, Smear Opponents.
  The primary objective of our elected officials is to get re-elected. Their secondary objective is to make sure they have a good job lined up when they leave politics. Their third objective is to legislate and govern to the extent that it does not conflict with objectives one and two. The campaign process is the candidate trying to convince the voters that objective three is their primary (and only) objective.
• Your Voting Options: Straight Ticket, Uninformed Choices, Single-issue Votes, Vote for Somebody You Know.
  Are you personally acquainted with all the candidates for whom you vote? If not, then you are probably making an ill-informed choice, in my opinion. As per the disclaimer at the top, I have no patience for straight-ticket or single-issue voters, and presume the fact that you are still reading means that you are neither of those. So, that means that you are making your choice based on the candidate’s marketing campaign, which contains the carefully crafted and spun tale of who the candidate thinks you want them to be in order for you to vote for them. Yes, there are other sources of information such as voter’s guides, political analyses, anecdotes, writings, astrological characteristics, height, weight, race, religion, and reputation, but all of them are either inexact or also based on the candidate’s spin control.

I know many people who agree with some or all of the above list, but still vote regularly. When I ask how they can participate in such a flawed process the most common answers I get are:

• The right to vote is so precious that it must be exercised. If you change this one to read “the right to vote for candidates we believe in…” then I’m in full agreement.
• I don’t want someone else making all the decisions. If you are choosing between two pre-selected, preprocessed, generic candidates, then the decisions have already been made for you (“Welcome to Baskin Robbins 2 Flavors, can I get you french vanilla or vanilla bean, sir?”).
• The only way to change the political process is from the inside. This is true, unless you count armed insurrection as an option (and if anyone is interested, such as the NSA or NIPR, I don’t), but it requires there to be candidates who are truly agents of change, and I haven’t seen one of those in a loooong time.
• I’m anti-(blank) and/or pro-(blank) and want to be sure that our government is full/free of (blank)ists. I see no difference between single-issue-voters and straight-ticket-voters, so please see the disclaimer at the beginning of this article.

So, does this mean I *never* vote? No, it means that I *rarely* vote. I only vote when I feel that there is a candidate who has an actual chance of making a difference. For example, the last time I voted it was for Ross Perot, the first time he ran for President. Mr. Perot was certainly an odd duck, but the things I knew about him were that he was not the product of the political machine, he had enough money to not be beholden to other interests, he admitted he didn’t have all the answers but would do his best to find them, and he did not go to the trouble to polish or spin his rhetoric, and instead spoke almost exclusively off-the-cuff. I do not know if he would have been a good or bad president, but I did know that he would be different, and that’s what we need in this country today…someone to make a difference.

I haven’t voted since because I have not found another candidate (including Ross Perot’s second candidacy) who met my personal qualifications. Here, in no particular order, is a partial list of those   qualifications/characteristics:

• Career outside of politics – Asking a career politician to help change the existing system would be like asking a Creationist to help carbon date some fossils.
• Not Republican or Democrat – I’m tired of vanilla. Also, since there is no serious competition to keep them sharp, the quality of their products just keeps declining. Think the US auto industry in the 1970’s.
• Speak extemporaneously – I’m tired of electing speechwriters.
• No lawyers, please – We hold this truth to be self-evident.
• Acknowledgement that the system is broken – Admitting there is a problem is the first step in fixing it.
• Sense of humor – I don’t mean grabbing the mic and doing an hour at The Improv. I mean being able to see the ridiculousness of the process, to be truly self-deprecating, and to speak with wit and verve.
• Warts – Everybody has flaws. If a candidate has no apparent flaws, that means they’re hiding something.

So, those are my minimum requirements for any serious political candidate. But meeting the above is not enough to get my vote, it is simply the buy-in to be a serious player in the game. The candidate(s) who get my vote(s) will have the following philosophical platform:

• Restructuring of terms and term limits – We should remove the temptation to legislate for re-election by eliminating *all* consecutive terms. But, extend the terms to six years, which gives elected officials enough time to formulate, implement, and realize the results of their efforts. But then make them sit out another six year term before running for re-election (or any other elected office). All other term limits should be removed, and in this system a candidate should be able to be re-elected as often as they can win (as long as they sit out every other six year term).
• One-third of all representative positions (federal and state Senators and Representatives) should be At-Large – As an example, in this system each state would retain two senators in the federal government, and we would add 50 at-large senators, who aren’t elected to represent a geographic constituency, but instead a philosophical constituency. Let’s say that there is a candidate who represents the philosophy and values of 10% of the entire US population, but doesn’t represent the majority of any particular state. Under the current system this candidate would probably never be elected. Under the new system the candidate would have a good chance of getting elected, and their constituency would then be represented. This will allow for a broader spectrum of ideas and philosophies in government, as opposed to the bland, middle-of-the-road, least-common-denominator philosophies which much be espoused today in order to win a majority election.
• Complete reform of income tax – I could *almost* be convinced to become a single-issue voter over this topic. The fact that our stupendously problematical existing system remains in place really says all you need to know about our current political process. My personal preference would be for a national sales tax, with only basic necessities (unprepared food, medicine, etc) exempt. The infrastructure is already in place to collect taxes at the point-of-sale, we’d finally be able to tax the spending of criminals (who don’t report their drug sales as income, but do buy beer, cigarettes, gasoline, and clothes), and the honest, middle-class schlub will never suddenly find himself thousands of dollars in the hole and faced with either giving the rent money to the IRS or fiddling with their tax return.
• Complete reform of the electoral process – What if we were to eliminate *all* private campaign spending? All public forums, debates, glad-handing visits, television commercials, and travel would be paid for by the government, and dispensed equally to all qualified candidates. To qualify for this largesse candidates would be required to meet qualifications as a serious candidate, such as gathering signatures (real or electronic) on a petition, or alternatively there could be a Primary (unrelated to any political party) where anyone can list their name, nobody can spend any money campaigning, and the top 5 candidates qualify for the structured and fair campaign system.
• Elimination of *any* public support or consideration for political parties – Parties could choose to continue to exist, but *all* functions would be privately funded and staffed. If you think this is the way it works now, check with your local voting and election officials and find out how much of their daily work is done in support of the Democratic and Republican parties. Or ask the staffs of our elected officials how much Party business they conduct. Also, Party primaries actually have absolutely nothing to do with our governmental or electoral process, and are simply the selection processes for private organizations. They should be treated as such.
• Addition of “None of the Above” to ALL ballots – If “None of the above” wins the election, then current election results are discarded, and the process is restarted with the goal of having another election in 3 months. The incumbent remains in office during this delay.

You may notice that none of the above philosophies has anything to do (directly) with Social Security, public health care, defense, the economy, abortion, gun control, religion, or any of the other typical hot-button political issues. It’s not that I think all of those things are perfect, or that I don’t have very definite opinions about them, it’s that I believe that we have to fix the system before the system can fix any problems.

And so what I do is continue to not vote for the candidates I don’t like, and to watch and wait for candidates who I think have some chance of beginning these types of fundamental changes. However, there don’t appear to be many of those, and instead the political debate focuses on the surface issues without addressing the fundamental problems. In fact, from my perspective most of the political debate of today is analogous to the passengers on a cruise debating the relative merits of the dinner selections while the ship slowly sinks. We all need to get up from the table, get down into the bilge and start patching and bailing.

For me that means looking harder for candidates who come close to matching the requirements described here, supporting them, letting them know why I support them, and telling others about the candidates and their platforms. This rant is the first step in that process, for me. I urge you to do the same.

Look beyond party politics, single-issues, conservatism, liberalism, trickle-down theories, safety nets, and all of the other rhetoric at the forefront of today’s politics, and instead look for candidates who will help repair the sinking ship of state by fixing the fundamental flaws in our electoral and governmental processes. There’s an old proverb (that I just made up) that says you can’t drive home a nail with a broken hammer, no matter how hard you swing it. Let’s fix the hammer.

• Leave a comment... (0)

If you own a TiVo there is a new service available to you from an Amazon/TiVo partnership called Unbox. Also, if you don’t yet own a TiVo GO AND GET ONE RIGHT NOW!!!!! I’ll wait…

Amazon Unbox is a service that allows you to locate movies, TV shows, and other video content on Amazon, purchase or rent them, and have them download directly to your TiVo for your viewing convenience. No schlepping down to the video store, no waiting for DVDs to arrive in the mail. Just an hour or two of download time, and it’s ready to watch. Sounds pretty cool, doesn’t it?

It is, kind of. You see, the technology is pretty good, with only a few quibbles, as follows:

• You only get the main feature, none of the DVD extras (deleted scenes, commentary, etc)
• Video quality is not nearly the same as DVD, for example, there is noticable artifacting in dark scenes
• Sound quality is simply “stereo”, not 5.1 or any other home-theater-quality sound
• No hi-def content
• You have to wait for the entire movie to finish downloading before you can start watching it
• You can’t transfer downloaded content between your TiVos or move it to a PC running TiVo Desktop

Other than that, it works pretty good – you log into Unbox with your Amazon credentials, locate a movie you like, click to purchase, tell it which TiVo of yours to download to (if you have more than one), then wait the 30-120 minutes for it to download, depending on the length of the feature and your available download bandwidth.

The big disappointment, however, is the number of titles available for download. When I heard that I would be able to download movies from Amazon directly to my TiVo, I was ecstatic – FINALLY entertainment technology that worked how I wanted it to – I figured with Amazon’s huge selection of DVDs that I would have virtually anything I wanted at my fingertips. But it ain’t so, not by a long shot. As best as I can figure, Amazon carries about 190,000 DVD titles. And how many are available for download to your TiVo? About 3,300. That’s a little less that 2% of the available DVDs. And that makes Unbox extraordinarily frustrating.

Since the service went live a few weeks ago, I’ve looked for, conservatively 150 different titles on Unbox. How many have I found that were actually available? Four. Four measly titles that I’ve wanted to get from Unbox. For this article I combined the top movies from both IMDB and the AFI to get their combined Top 20 films of all time – in other words, the twenty greatest films that have ever been produced according to IMDB and the AFI. Check the table below – one, count ’em, one of these films is available from Unbox for TiVo:

Now come on Amazon, what the hell? If this is the best you could do, you should have delayed the launch of this new product until you had some semblance of an actual library of available films. Now, I’ll give Unbox this, it has a whole lot of recently released Hollywood crap, that’s for sure. What do I mean by crap? Glad you asked:

• Ten Adam Sandler films
• Eight “National Lampoon” movies (not counting Animal House, which they have and which was great)
• Both “Jackass” movies
• Nine films with Rob Schneider
• Six films with Martin Lawrence
• Alien? Nope. Aliens? Nope. Alien Resurrection? Yup. Alien vs. Predator? Yup.
• Truman Show? Nope. Cable Guy? Yup.
• The Matrix
• Four Michael Bay films.
• Nine Ben Stiller movies.
• Original “Godzilla”? Nope. Crappy “Godzilla” remake? Yup.
• Original “Stepford Wives”? Nope. Crappy “Stepford Wives” remake? Yup.
• Original “Swept Away”? Nope. Crappy “Swept Away” remake? Yup.
• Original “Psycho”? Yup. Crappy “Psycho” remake? Nope. (so they get some things right, so what?)
• Original “Poseidon Adventure”? Nope. Crappy “Poseidon” remake? Yup.
• Original “Alfie”? Nope. Crappy “Alfie” remake? Yup.
• Original “Village of the Damned”? Nope. Crappy “Village of the Damned” remake? Yup.
• Original “Carnival of Souls”? Nope. Crappy “Carnival of Souls” remake? Yup.
• Original “Fun With Dick and Jane”? Nope. Crappy “Fun With Dick and Jane” remake? Yup.
• Original “Manchurian Candidate”? Nope. Crappy “Manchurian Candidate” remake? Yup.
• Original “Mr. Deeds Goes to Town”? Nope. Crappy “Mr. Deeds” remake? Yup.
• Original “When a Stranger Calls”? Nope. Crappy “When a Stranger Calls” remake? Yup.
• Original “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner”? Nope. Crappy “Guess Who” remake? Yup.

Now, I’m a bidnessman, and I know that they’re going to focus on the films that they can a) get the rights to allow for digital downloading and b) generate the most revenues. That’s the way it works. However, today, Amazon Unbox is like the video rental counter inside your grocery store – stocked only with titles that appeal to the least-common-denominator. It appears that Amazon is expanding their available inventory by a couple of hundred titles per month, so progress is being made.

But, for now, for me, Unbox is really just a frustrating tease – a taste of the way things *should* work, but don’t yet. My fear is that Amazon is running into licensing issues with studios and other rights-holders who are either resisting making their products available for download or who are trying to be too greedy about their licensing terms. One hopes that video media rights holders will look at the example of iTunes and see that, yes, making content available digitally is a good thing to do and will both generate revenues for them while preserving their copyrights.

• Leave a comment... (0)

I just read an article where the voting records of Supreme Court Justices were analyzed to determine if justices tended to stick to their leanings at the time of appointment (Liberal, Centrist, Conservative) or if they strayed over time. To the surprise of the investigators, the justices tended to drift over time, and sometimes even oscillated between positions from ruling to ruling.

I find this to be not only not surprising, but also dramatically refreshing. Interpreting the law of the land is not the milieu for rigid dogma, it is the place for thoughtful consideration of all sides of an argument. And, if one is to thoughtfully consider all facets of every argument, it becomes increasingly more difficult to stick to preconceived notions of right and wrong, of liberal versus conservative, of Republican versus Democrat.

If you then remove the external motivations of re-election/re-appointment or personal enrichment and replace them with the fact that justices are evaluated almost exclusively by the backward lense of history, and that the railings and wailings of any pundits du jour have absolutely no effect on the life or career of a justice, we find (to me simplistically) that over time justices tend to actually try to do what is right and just.

Now, we all have differing opinions on what is right and just – that’s why there are nine justices. And I certainly don’t agree with all decisions by the Court, however, if/when I take the time to actually read the opinions I find that the rulings, while not what I would have decided, are (with exceedingly rare exception) based on law, logic, and justice.

What I find most surprising is when self-labelled Conservative or Liberal talking-heads bemoan the fact that one Justice or the other “betrayed” their ideology by voting in a certain way in a certain case which said talking-head is holding up as a rallying flag for “the cause”. The judges are then labelled as “activist”, which in the US political arena is apparently defined as “making decisions with which I do not agree”.

Well, guess what? That’s *exactly* how it’s supposed to work. Supreme Court Justices are *supposed* to be free from the political pressures of re-election or re-appointment, specifically to allow them to practice rationality instead of dogmatism. And the pundits and talking heads flail about in histrionic rage which they direct at the justices, when instead they should direct at their own stupidity for not understanding the basic construct of the US government.

Suck it, true believers, the system works.

• Leave a comment... (2)

As a divorced father I can understand the frustration that arises from conflict with an ex-spouse (as I'm sure my ex can, as well). As a father I can state unequivocally that the ranting, vitriolic, spiteful, hateful voice mail message that Alec Baldwin left for his 11 year old daughter is completely inexcusable. It doesn't matter what his daughter or his ex (Kim Basinger) have done. It doesn't matter that his daughter didn't answer his call. What matters is that his daughter is 11 years old and as a child of divorce needs a loving father.

What the message demonstrates, to me, is that Alex Baldwin is truly a psychopath, which is defined (by our friends at Wikipedia) as: A condition characterized by lack of empathy or conscience, and poor impulse control or manipulative behaviors. I think that describes him perfectly, particularly if you throw in a dash of pathological narcissism. For those who may have missed it, here's a transcript of the cell phone message that Baldwin left for his daughter:

Alec Baldwin Parenting Skills:
“Hey I wanna tell you something OK? And I want to leave a message for you right now because again its 10:30 here in New York on a Wednesday and once again I've made an ass of myself trying to get to a phone to call you at a specific time. When the time comes for me to make the phone call I stop whatever I'm doing and I go and I make that phone call at 11 o'clock in the morning in New York and if you don't pick up the phone at 10 o'clock at night and you don't even have that god damn phone turned on. I want you to know something okay, I'm tired of playing this game with you. I'm leaving this message with you to tell you, you have insulted me for the last time. You have insulted me, you don’t have the brains or the decency as a human being, I don't give a damn if you're 12-years-old, or 11-years-old, or that you're a child, or that your mother is a thoughtless pain in the ass, who doesn't care about what you do as far as I'm concerned, you have humiliated me for the last time with this phone, and when I come out there next week, I'm gonna fly out there for the day just to straighten you out on this issue, I'm gonna let you know just how disappointed in you I am and how angry I am with you that you've done this to me again. You have made me feel like shit and you have made me feel like a fool over and over and over again, and this crap you pull on me with this god damn phone situation that you would never dream of doing to your mother and you do it to me constantly, and over and over again. I am gonna get on a plane or I am gonna come out there for the day and I'm gonna straighten your ass out when I see you, do you understand me? I'm gonna really make sure you get it. Then I'm gonna get on a plane and I'm gonna turn around and I'm gonna come home. So you better be ready Friday, the 20th, to meet with me so I'm gonna let you know just how I feel about what a rude little pig you really are. You are a rude thoughtless little pig, OK?”

The above doesn't capture the seething, hateful anger in his voice, and the ominous tone of his threats. The above is not an angry parent snapping out a too-harsh rebuke. These are the prolonged, deranged ravings of a lunatic. Note how this is about *him*, and how she made him look foolish and humiliated him – “over and over and over again” and “for the last time”.

Imagine for a moment the actual event. A big kahuna like Alec Baldwin certainly has a cell phone, and one would presume that he certainly takes and makes calls all day long. So, at the appointed hour he picks up his phone to make the scheduled call, and his daughter doesn't answer. Would this be frustrating? Certainly. Would this be a source of anger? Maybe, if it was regular behavior and/or if the behavior was potentially influenced by the mother. We all get angry from time to time, even justifiably angry. But being justified at being angry does *not* lead a normal, sane person to unleash that kind of harangue on an 11 year old.

No, what we have here is somebody who, in public, comes across as sane and apologetic. Of course, in public he knows people will hear him, and he has the ability to prepare what he's going to say. However, in private, leaving a voice mail that he never thought the world would hear, he curses, threatens, demeans, insults, and berates an 11 year old girl for not answering his call.

For further information, do a web search for “Jan Maxwell” and “Saving Mr. Sloane”. Ms. Maxwell was an actress in a play (Saving Mr. Sloane by the Roundabout Theatre Company) which co-starred Alec Baldwin. She left the production, saying in a leaked email that the “bottom line was my physical safety, mental health and artistic integrity — none of which Roundabout was supporting” and that Baldwin put his fist through a wall and was “throwing things around with all of us cowering”. That sounds about right, doesn't it?

The saddest part of all of this is that Alec and Kim's poor daughter, who is caught in the middle of an adult problem. First of all, she might finally be learning from the worldwide reaction just how abhorrent and irrational her father's behavior is – which would be devastating for a child to learn about a parent. Although there is a good chance that she may have already figured that out for herself. In any case, she has to be devastated and embarrased by all of this, and my heart goes out to her.

And what of Alec Baldwin? Is he well-intentioned but with an uncontrollable temper? Is he a manipulative bastard who uses his daughter to twist the knife in his ex? Is he parenting the way he was parented and doesn't know any better? That last one is a cop-out, because any reasonable adult who was raised in such a way should figure out that it was wrong and not copy it. Unless they themselves inherited the crazy from their parents. And, sadly, I think that's the best explanation for this debacle. Alec Baldwin is just plain crazy. He should lose his parental rights and he should lose his show (“30 Rock”, for which we have already cancelled our TiVo Season Pass until such time as he leaves the show).

• Leave a comment... (0)