The Tin Foil Hat

Costa Rica

2006-09-08T12:57:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I'm a bad blogger. It seems that I only write anything when I return from an exotic locale.

We just returned from Costa Rica. I was there 12 years ago, and I was amazed at how built up the tourist industry has become. It's not quite Hawaii yet, but it's headed that way. We stayed at some very nice hotels. Last time I was there hot an cold running water was a rare commodity, but this time, we had all air conditioned rooms, cable tv (with many channels in English), and even a mini-fridge. It's still quite a bit cheaper than Hawaii, but not the $20/day level that I experienced in 1994 (more like $150/day).

But I don't think that the allure of Costa Rica is really the cost savings. It's the things that you find there that you can't find in other countries. For instance, you can see a sloth in the wild from 5 feet away, like this cute, lazy gentleman. We also saw monkeys, Aracari (smaller members of the toucan family), Agoutis which are 3 ft long rodent thingys, poisonous snakes and spiders, and many iguanas and other lizards (including the "Jesus Christ Lizard" who can run across the water). We also went on a night hike and met many varieties of Costa Rica's super-cute tree frog population, toured a butterfly reserve, and saw cranky wild crocodiles in a river.

You can see all of these creatures even with all the development, thanks to the forward thinking decision of the Costa Rican govenment to set aside 1/4 of the land in their country for nature reserves and national parks. So going there now is kind of the best of both worlds--comfortable accomodations a short distance away from amazing natural sites.

Another advantage of these parks is that they have some outstanding beaches. The one we went to, Manuel Antonio, allows your to swim in warm water on a relatively deserted beach with jungles behind it, take a nature hike through the park, and leave and go to a resturaunt a short walk away.

The other major destination that we visited was Arenal. It's an active volcano that continuously belches lava and volcanic rock. At night, it puts on one hell of show. Unfortunately, the memory card in our camera went belly-up so our Arenal pictures went into the void, but the view from our hotel's back porch at night looked a lot like this image. It was pretty cool to sit outside, drink beer and watch the volcano. Plus, the hotel that we stayed in, the Volcano Lodge, was a great place--excellent landscaping, food, pool area, etc.

We definitely want to go back and explore more of the country. Maybe in a couple of years. Here's a complete set of our pictures for your amusement.

Singapore

2006-05-18T19:07:00.000-07:00

I just got back from 3 days in Singapore (plus 2 days travel time), and despite nearly constant exhaustion, I can report that the trip was sucessful and even a little bit relaxing as well. We went there to hold a sales training for our employees from Japan, India, Korea, Malaysia, and China. The training went pretty flawlessly and this allowed me and my colleagues to see a little bit of Singapore in the process.

Some Highlights:

Chili Crabs--One of Singapore's contibutions to world cuisine. It's a large malyasian crab deep fried in oil and then boiled in a mixture of tomato sauce, water, ginger, onions, soy sauce, red chilis, vinegar, and sugar. "Yummy" is an understatement. Even better, were the Pepper Crabs, essentially the same recipe, but replace the tomato sauce with an absurd amount of black pepper.

The Singapore Night Safari--The Singapore Zoo runs a tram ride through their park after hours which allows you to get up close and personal with some Malaysian animals like the Tapir, and to see (at a short, protected distance) some semi-nocturnal jungle cats when they are most active. I saw lions, tigers, and leopards running around and had some close encounters with 3 ft tall (5 ft wing span) fruit bats.

Little India--My Singaporean friend described it as the dirtiest part of Singapore. Of course, that is sort of like saying that it is the dirtiest part of an Intel clean room. Singapore is an immaculate, crime-free city that maintains it's place as the world biggest gated community with draconian law enforcement and liberal use of the death penalty. Little India is slightly less orderly, and the most vibrant, non-anticeptic section of Singapore that I found. Most importantly, it houses the Sim Lim Market--a five story mall for everything electronic and gadgety. I didn't buy, but I was tempted. Apparently when new electronics reach the ripe old age of two weeks from release, they are sold at 1/2 price.

I promise a Singapore part two post soon, but I'm about to collapse from exhaustion. So, for tonight, I'll leave it at that.

For more pictures click here.

--TinFoil Out

RCRG Bout 2 Preview

2006-04-29T12:41:00.000-07:00

While I wait for my embroidered rollerderby jacket to come in the mail from Sublime Stitching (hat tip to joygantic), I've been pondering the possibilities for bout two of the RCRG season tonight. Here are some things that I'll be looking for:

DLF v Sockit Wenches: This is a pretty dangerous matchup for the DLF. The speed of Grave Danger gave them no trouble last week, as the lovely ladies of the Revolution are still the biggest, baddest, blockers in the land, but the Sockit Wenches are different. Pia Mess has steadily improved and is easily in the top 5 jammers in the league, along with teammate Miss Fortune. We didn't get to see Drew Blood's full potential last year, since she was sidelined with a knee injury just when everyone's defense was getting good. I predict a close one, with some late game heroics from Burnett Down helping the DLF eek out a win. Also, a lot will depend on the health of Diva State--she is one of the best at knocking down the Sockit Wenches scrappy jammers. Watch the rivarly that's developed between BD and Miss Fortune, a lot of it is campy fun, but the hits are real, and Miss Fortune still hasn't been able to come out on the winning side.

Throttle Rockets v. Grave Danger--I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if Darth Skater, Interplanet Janet, and Dirty Little Secret are in, the Throttle Rockets (who will be sporting their new uniforms tonight), will win by 10-15 points. If not, expect a close one. I still think that GD is the biggest wildcard this year since they've added big blockers Katrina Whip and Canuckle Sandwich to anchor the defense of Basket Casey, and a great new jammer in Rollin Bayou. I just don't think tonight's their night. Give them another couple of months to integrate the new pieces, and I wouldn't want to play them.

See ya tonight. If you couldn't get tickets this time, they're moving to the bigger hangar next bout, but still, buy early if you don't want to get shut out.

--TinFoil Out

Fantasy Basketball

2006-04-20T12:55:00.000-07:00

I won my Fantasy Basketball league last night, which is a good way to end months of choosing lineups, trading players, and pouring over stats. For those who aren't familiar with the process, you "draft" a team of 13 NBA players, and decide which ten you'll play each week. You match up with another team, and you win or lose is based on how your players perform in each of 9 statistical categories (points, rebounds, steals, etc.). There are also rotisserie leagues which determine a champion based on the cumulative stats for the year--I'm not a huge fan of these--if you fall behind or your best players get injured it's really hard to catch up.

Some leagues let you change your lineup every day, but I find setting a weekly lineup more challenging because:

You have to factor in how many games someone will play in a given week. If you have a player that gets 20 points a game, but is only playing 3 games, you might bench the better player in favor of one who averages 16 points a game and is playing 4.
You might have some players miss time for injuries or other reasons, and there's nothing you can do to replace them until the following week. This adds a heavy element of chance.

That said, it's sort of an empty victory to win the league. The main reason is that the Fantasy Basketball season ends on the last day of the NBA regular season, and many teams who are headed to the playoffs rest their best players, and teams who are not going to the playoffs rest their veterans in favor of rookies. This makes the "finals" of fantasy basketball come down to who has the most players actually playing. Still it was fun--I ended up winning by 1 point: 763-762. Winning is good.

If anyone is interested in joining a league next year, let me know. It's free.

--Tinfoil Out

Back in Seattle again

2006-04-13T19:28:00.000-07:00

I got back from the UK yesterday evening. The jetlag was pretty heinous the whole time I was there. My manager and I were both on the 10pm-2am sleep schedule the whole time. I slept the entire flight home (9 hours) and then managed another 7 last night. That's the most I've slept in a two day period, well, ever.

Not much time to see London--we were in meetings in Reading continuously--but we did manage to make a whirlwind tour of Harrod's, Marks and Spencer, and Harvey Nichols followed by an outstanding dinner at Chutney Mary.

The business part of the trip was outstanding. Our UK team members are great and we managed to come to agreement on a lot of issues and plan for some upcoming events. I was sitting in a meeting at one point, and I realized that I was working with people originally from: Japan, Egypt, New Zealand, Germany, and Palestine. Our program is like that. I routinely meet people from all over the world . . . It's great to see that level or frendliness and cooperation in our global company.

--TinFoil Out

Blogging from 30,000 ft

2006-04-08T20:04:00.000-07:00

So this is pretty cool . . . I'm on my way to London on SAS, and they have the Boeing Connexion wireless service, which is allowing me to post this from the air over Canada. The service is as fast as our home wireless network and it's going to make the flight much more interesting and allow me to *ahem* "work" on the way to London. :)

I'm also in business class for the second time in my life, and it is the only really civilized way to travel IMHO. Plenty of leg room--seats that lay flat--champagne on takeoff--sleepmasks, booties, and earplugs provided. I feel like Louis XIV or something . . . er, if he ever . . . you know, actually . . . flew anywhere. I heard that Condi Rice had to sleep on the floor of her plane the other day so I'm clearly getting a better deal that the Secretary of State. I'm trying not to get used to it--we have an eternal flight to Orlando coming up and that one will be coach all the way. Also, next year, we won't have the budget for this level of tomfoolery. In the meantime, hee hee :)

*Breaking news*--The scented hot towels aren't half bad either

In other (not so breaking) news, we saw Sia at the croc last night. She was outstanding! I also got to hang with my peeps, Sally, Mark, Phil, Gina, wifey, and (briefly) Dia. Check out some pics at joygantic.

--(Mile-high) Tinfoil Out

Bout 1 Follow-ups and Bout 2 preview

2006-04-02T12:34:00.000-07:00

It always warms my heart when the girls of the RCRG read the blog and respond. For those who don't comb over the comments of previous posts . . . some highlights:

Pris Toff let me know that the Throttle Rockets' new uniforms will be debuting at the next bout. No more tank toppy Throttle Rockets!
Someone calling himself the "the Professor" wrote in. (Dare I dream that it's the venerable Prof. Jake Stratton? His dissertation on "The Effects of Powerful Women Colliding with Innocent Spectators in a Vacuum" was riveting.) In any event, he provides the following update about the hair pulling fight in the DLF-GD bout: "It was D-Bomb of DLF (pronounced Da Bomb) who was pulling Femme Fatale's hair, dragging her along the ground. D-Bomb and Femme Fatale are real-life sisters, so expect that rivalry to explode this season as well!" At least they're keeping it in the family.
A sad note in the comments. PamOpticon . . . who is a great blocker, and whose Foucault-inspired name always added a literary component to the Rollergirls . . . has retired due to injury. Pam, you will be missed. Luckily for us, her new job is to "Stand in the middle and yell." Nice work if you can get it :)
mommacherry . . . who heroically allowed me to see most of the first bout by asking event staff to sit down . . . wants everyone to know that it's spelled "mommacherry" all one word, no caps. Clearly I should have checked the press guide on that one :)
Last, but not least--I mentioned how hardcore Burnett Down was for getting a tattoo of a heart with a "Roller Derby" banner. It turns out that many rollergirls got the mark when they attended a derby convention in Vegas this past year. Cherry Jubilee points out: "Four of the DLF girls have Roller Derby tattoos. In fact, a lot of RCRG girls got them in Vegas last year at RollerCon. Mine has my name in a banner across the skate, because I'm narcisistic like that. "
It wasn't only the DLF who got RollerDerby tats, though. The lovely and talented Jo Jo Stiletto of the Sockit Wenches got herself a derby tattoo too, but she decided to show her colors across the back of her neck. Tattoos on bone--ouchy. Tattoos on your spinal column--super ouchy. Jo Jo wins my (soon to be monthy) award for "hardcore-rollergirl-of the-month." Way to go Ms. Stiletto!

I can't wait for the next bout. I think that the Throttle Rockets and Grave danger match up is a huge wild card. They both underpreformed in bout 1, but both have a huge upside. If Darth is back, along with Dirty Little Secret and Interplanet Janet, anything can happen. On the other hand, if the no-longer-undersized Grave Danger might just beat down the Throttle Rockets if they can get their speedy little jammers through the pack.

For the DLF-Sockit Wenches bout. The Socikt Wenches have always created matchup problems for the DLF. In a meeting last year, Burnett Down had to upend Miss Fortune as time expired for the DLF twice to pull out the win. In a regular season 1 point victory--Burnett actually was the only person that Miss Fortune had to pass to tie (with disasterous consequences for Miss Fortune), and in the Semi-finals , Burnett had to pull out a pre-jam smackdown that all but sealed it. I think that the DLF is more more equipped defensively to handle the smaller, speedy jammers of the Throttle Rockets, and Grave Danger. But the tall, tough, wirey Sockit Wenches jammers always give them trouble. We'll see. I'm expecting a nail-biter here. The re-surgent Sockit Wenches are the biggest threat to the Revolution this year.

As I mentioned--If you haven't bought tickets yet . . . You're in danger of missing out. What the hell are you waiting for?

--TinFoil Out

Oh, the irony . . .

2006-03-28T18:12:00.000-08:00

Check this out.

RCRG Bout 1 Recap

2006-03-27T19:22:00.000-08:00

I know you've all been waiting with baited breath for my recap of the Rat City Rollergirls bout #1. The recap will probably not be as detailed as usual, as I made the mistake of sitting near the locker-room, which is a great, unobstructed view of the action--apparently the event staff and the mascots thought this too, since they stood in front of us for half the bout (shout out to Momma Cherry for making them sit down for a bit--but there's a special place in hell for Spike the Devil Dog--Someone needs to teach him to "sit"). Anyway, I won't make that mistake next time.

All bitching aside, of course the rollergirls were outstanding as always. All I can say is that the girls look pretty sharp for this early in the season, and although the scores were pretty lopsided in both bouts, I see more parity in the league this year. Some observations:

Sockit Wenches: The biggest surprise of the night had to be the Sockit Wenches' spank-down of the Throttle Rockets. Pia Mess picked up right where she left off last year--whipping by by the Throttle Rockets like they weren't even there, and I LOVE the almost-running-not-skating frenetic style of Miss Fortune. I also found myself thinking several times throughout the evening how big a blow it was to the Sockit Wenches to lose Drew Blood for much of last season--she's GOOD. The Sockit Wenches are going to cause serious problems for anyone who doesn't bring it hard this year. It they can use Jackie Hammer, Clobberin' Mame, and Shovey Chase effectively at blocker--it's going to be tough to beat them. They also pulled out a bit of little-known-rule trickey, when they took advantage of the once a game opportunity to switch the pivot and the jammer in the middle of a jam. I bet we'll be seeing more of that.

Sockit Wenches Trivia: I saw on the news the other night that one of the SW's fresh meat candidates (Hot Flash--#40 Something) is actually Miss Fortune's MOTHER. How freakin cool is that?

Throttle Rockets: I'm not to worried about the Throttle Rocket's long term prospects, and I stand by my prediction that we'll see TR and DLF in the finals this year again. TR was without the lovely and powerful Darth Skater, but their usual power jammers: Valtron 3000, Hurricane Lily, Astroglide (the list goes on an on) mostly came up empty. At least the announcers finally figured out that there are lots of sexual innuendos around Astroglide's name, though, which was refreshing and kept the bout interesting. As I mentioned there were some serious obstructed view moments for me so I could have just missed them, but where were Interplanet Janet and Dirty Little Secret? Possible rookie of the year candidate: Pris Toff.

Throttle Rockets' fashion notes:
Wins: Betty Ford Galaxy's two pairs of ripped up stockings, and the team's new star spangled warm-ups.

Loses: What's with the tank-toppy throttle rockets? Not a Judy Jetson dress in sight -- *sigh*

Grave Danger: Ok, I've been on the angry end of a few GD rollergirls for my frank comments about their not-goodness last year. This year, even though they got blown out by the DLF, I'm wondering if they could be 1000% tougher to beat once they get a chance to practice. Their "fresh meat" looks like rookie of the year material, and they are big, powerful girls. in warm ups I noticed that newbies Katrina Whip and Canuckle Sandwich, along with veterans Pam Opticon and Basket Casey (who is one of the top 5 defenders in the league), could provide a lot of air cover for the small but plucky jammers of GD. When they find the right combination to block for Femme Fatale, Bruise Lee, Tash-ya Around, etc--They'll be dangerous. Plus, Rollin' Bayou is a force to be reckoned with at jammer--she's my early favorite for rookie of the year.

Grave Danger advice of the week: Braid your hair. Lots of GD jammers have beautiful long locks. I didn't see for sure, but when Femme Fatale and an unidentified DLF staker got into it in the first half, I thought I saw some hair pulling. Best to braid.

DLF: What can I say that would add to the perfection that is DLF? Seriously, they were without Diva State, and they still cruised against a team that is much improved from last year. Burnett Down continues to play like the league MVP, jamming, playing perfect pivot, picking fights (I think Burnett and Basket Casey will be an interesting rivalry all year--kind of a Dennis Rodman v. Karl Malone thing). Kim Reaper and Hideous Braxley jammed well, and Kitty Kamikase laid some solid blocks. My girls are champions until someone takes it away (don't bet on it). Rookie of the year candidate: Ann R. Kissed (nice uniform btw).

DLF Trivia: I got a good look at Burnett Down's tattoo on her arm. You guessed it--it's a tribute to Roller Derby. Body modification--now that's dedication.

That's all til next time kiddies. TICKETS ARE ALREADY ON SALE FOR BOUT 2. Buy now.

--TinFoil Out

Politics?

2006-03-23T05:31:00.000-08:00

Ok . . . I'd like to start this post by saying that when I log on to blogger . . . I invariably type "blooger" which invariably makes me laugh. I just thought you'd like to know :)

Anyway, on a less bloogery note (I just laughed again--pathetic really) you may have noticed that I haven't been engaging in the noble struggle to oust president Bush lately. The reasons for this are:

I think that everyone (ok most people) know he's full of shit now.
Even Republicans are trying to distance themselves from him.
It's not as much fun to point out the obvious

When he was up for re-election, and his approval numbers were above freezing, I thought that I needed to change some minds. Now, I'll leave it to the professionals here, here, here, here and here.

I reserve the right to resume the political stuff when the mid-term elections approach next year. For now, Mr. Bush, you're off the hook from me (although I will point out that these "straight talking" press conferences are a disaster--the man can't think on his feet people!)

--TinFoil Out

Roller Derby first bout may be sold out--Extra Tickets?

2006-03-22T15:45:00.000-08:00

The online tickets for Saturday's RCRG bout are sold out. Their website says that some tickets may still be available by calling Concrete City Skate for in-person ticket sales at 206.782.6081. In case they are actually sold out . . . let me know if anyone has any extra tickets. I have a few friends who haven't gotten them yet.

Rat City Rollers . . .

2006-03-19T08:28:00.000-08:00

I just got that . . .or did I? Are the Rat City Rollergirls making oblique references to the Bay City Rollers? Or is there just the odd coincidence of the string "--- CITY ROLLER" in their names? It pretty much doesn't matter because THEY'RE BACK! (No, not the Bay City Rollers), but next Saturday Night, The RCRG are back with a vengence. It's a new season, and everyone is 0-0. That is, of course, until the 2005 Champions DLF sends all the other teams to the gulag archipelago (but more on that when it actually happens. Obvious bias from sports writers is so unseemly).

Buy Tickets--March 25th--Magnuson Park Hangar 30.

I haven't seen how the lineups have changed for the coming year but look for some more balanced standings throughout the year. By the end of the year last year, everyone was playing at a pretty high level, and this year there's no learning curve. Hopefully, Grave Danger has drafted a few girls who are 6'9" 280lbs to make up for their smallishness, and similarly, I hope that the Sockit Wenches have found some consistent blocking to augment their inherent pluckiness. Still, DLF and the Throttle Rockets have to be the teams to beat. I'd love to see them repeat their epic battle in the finals last year. A lot of great personalities emerged last year, but Darth Skater v. Burnett Down has become a genuine rivalry.

Yay--Rollergirls are back!

--TinFoil Out

New Coffee Table

2006-03-17T18:29:00.000-08:00

So, when my parents were in town we looked for some new furniture. We went to Macy's outlet and found a new coffee table on sale. We bought it, and this has (of course) caused a ripple effect that has made us re-evaluate the placement and effectiveness of our current furniture. Our first thought was "this is such a HUGE coffee table," but now we're warming up to it. Now we're headed down the end-table-new chair, etc. path.

Just thought you'd all like to know :)

--TinFoil Hat

Call girl update

2006-03-11T17:56:00.000-08:00

I previously wrote about a strange situation in our neighborhood. For the past few months our house and our neighbors' house have occasionally been visited by surprised looking call girls. Today, I was on my way out to the store when a tall woman in a really short skirt and really high heels, walked up our driveway and asked "Are you Kevin?" I said no, and she quickly walked back to the car and drove away.

I left to go to the store and the car passed me as it came back, so I circled around got the license plate #. I find this all patently ridiculous, but the Jim Rockford in me just came out. The car then stopped, presumably to check the address and look for "Kevin's" house. I saw my neighbor outside, and screamed "Call girl!" at him. He said "Tall girl?" I said "CALL GIRL!" The amusing part is I have probably said ten words to the guy in two years, and now four of them are "Call girl" (x2)?

He ran over to the car and talked to the startled professional woman. She apparently wanted nothing to do with this situation, and she gave him "Kevin's" phone number. This should be over soon. Unless it's a payphone, I think the silly little prankster has made his last call. Someone owns this phone, and that's a pretty concrete lead. We just saw the Sheriff over at their place, and I'm anxious to hear how it comes out. My money's on some dumb neighbor kids. Anyone else care to speculate?

--TinFoil Out

Lost in Translation

2006-03-11T08:22:00.000-08:00

I love jokes that result from bad translations. I was reading this post (via Boing Boing) and I started laughing so hard that I thought I would wake up Mikelle. It's a menu for a Japanese resturaunt that offers such delicious dishes as: "Fragrant bone in garlic with strange flavor" and "Ginger bumping milk (hot)."

For some reason, I find "bad translation" jokes irresistible. Trevor pointed out some great ones here, here, and here.

My favorite of all time was on the TV show News Radio, when Jimmy James (if you haven't seen the show, think of a less evil, bumbling Rupert Murdoch) writes a book called: Jimmy James: Capitalist Lion Tamer which is a total flop in the US, but the Japanese translation sells like crazy, prompting the publisher to issue an English version--translated back from the Japanese--which is now called Jimmy James: Macho Donkey Wrestler. The transcript of his first book talk is here. It's funnier when you see it, though . . . I'll see if I can find the video.

--TinFoil Out

Blogging to stand still

2006-03-08T21:45:00.000-08:00

Ok . . . that headline made no sense. But I do feel like I've been running around an awful lot lately.

I conducted my first international conference call this evening--my manager said, "you can handle this one, right? "

Um--sure . . .

I left work, with plenty of time to run the call from home, got stuck in traffic on 405 forever, and made it home with 2 minutes to spare. I shut myself up in my home office, grabbed our wireless speakerphone, and got online.

All was well . . . "Hello Singapore . . . Hello Tokyo . . . Hello Beijing."

Status updates--action items--outstanding.

Then, the power goes out in Renton. Really. What are the odds? Of course, every phone we own, including the wireless speakerphone is an electricity dependant model, so I'm off the call.

Thank goodness for cell phones and 1-800 call in numbers. I was back on the phone in 2 minutes, and finished up the call. In the two hour blackout that followed I had a wonderful candlelight meal with the wife. When the power came back, I was back in email land. Technology is a harsh mistress and sometimes it's OK if she gives you a 2 hour break.

Not bad for my first full day with the new job. Meep.

--TinFoil Out

Second run with the Tablet PC

2006-03-04T07:10:00.000-08:00

One of the advantages of working for a tech-savy university is that you generally get to try out cutting-edge technology. In 2002, I got one of the first-gen tablet PCs, and I put it through its paces. I noticed quickly that my handwriting was WAY TOO POOR to work with the tablet-pen thing, and I could find few opportunities to flip the LCD around and start working in tablet mode. Now, I'm faced with my second tablet (it doesn't seem that much has changed)--and I'm trying to see what works and what doesn't.

First, I will say that I like that it is super light (it has an external CD/DVD drive, so I guess that makes sense). But it seems like there really haven't been any innovations since 2002 (Although I will admit that they have hidden the stylus/pen so well that it took me a week to find it). The handwriting recognition is better, but still sucky. I have trouble believing that this tech wll lead to the next big thing but I guess you never know . . .

-TinFoil Out

Action!

2006-03-04T04:34:00.000-08:00

The nice thing about Netflix is that you can rent some obscure videos that you'd never seek out in the video store. I especially like it for series television (We've seen all the HBO shows, Sopranos, Deadwood, Carnivale, Six Feet Under, etc. this way.) Mikelle found us a true jem the other day with Action. This hollywood-is-a-cesspit series follows Peter Dragon (Jay Mohr), a big-name producer as he makes a shitty movie called "Beverly Hills Gun Club" (the climax apparently involves slaughtering endangered animals) with the help of his hooker-turned-associate producer (Illeana Douglas). This is the most cynical and rauncy show I have ever seen--and apparently it ran on broadcast TV (Fox), and there are hilarious guest appearances by stars like Keanu Reeves and Selma Hyak.

I'll throw this on the pile of brilliant Fox shows that were cancelled (Firefly, Arrested Development, Family Guy). I wish it had run on HBO or Showtime--I think it would have fit better on a more "adult" network.

--TinFoil Out

Where do I want to go today?

2006-03-02T16:58:00.000-08:00

So, it's FINALLY official. I start Monday in my new position at Microsoft. I've been a contractor there for the past year, and I was working for an onsite vendor for the eight months before that, but now, I'm proud to say, I actually work for Microsoft directly. The position is similar to my contract job (it's in the same department), but it will involve more responsiblilty, more autonomy, and more travel.

I'm really happy to have this opportunity. It seems like it's been ages since I had a job that wasn't in some way temporary (almost three years to be exact), and I'm looking forward to a little stability. Plus, I'm really excited about the possibilites. Our department develops college talent all around the world and I think there's plenty of room for interesting work in that area.

I'm off to celebrate with the dog, the cat, and the wife.

--Tinfoil Out

Ok, figure this one out . . .

2006-02-27T17:51:00.000-08:00

There have been strange doings in our neighborhood. Some of you may recall that a couple of months ago Mikelle reported that a call girl mysteriously knocked on our door, took one look at us, and said she had the wrong house.

A silly case of a hastily written address? Honest mistake? That's what we thought, and we found it oh-so-amusing.

But wait, there's more . . .

Yesterday, our neighbors came over to explain their recent "security" issues (I wasn't here, but Mikelle met them). Apparently they've received four visits over the past few months from, you guessed it, call girls who have the wrong house. Apparently it's even different girls each time. They are totally freaked out, and have purchased an expensive new security system. They're convinced that someone is trying to "case" the neighborhood to see who's home at what time.

I am more baffled by the events. Consider:

Wouldn't it be easier to sit in a van and watch people coming and going? The "call girl method" can't be the most efficient.
If I were "casing" a neighborhood, I'd try not to attract attention to myself. Sending random call girls to knock on doors isn't exactly subtle.
Mikelle asked the girl if she wanted to come in and use the phone. She said "no" and walked away without so much as looking at the interior of our house. Again--when casing, it's probably a good idea to get inside the place and evaluate the loot.
If you were casing (I just like using that word), would you do it for almost two months? I mean, it's not exactly Ocean's Eleven here--we have a few crappy things, but no Hope Diamond or anything.
I tend to think that this is someone's idea of a joke. And while it's a little bit funny to send call girls to suburban homes (sort of an adult upgrade to sending 100 pizzas to a friend's house in high school), but I would think that you could do it exactly once before the call girl powers that be ignore it as a prank, or send someone to break-a-you-legs.

Does anyone have any insight into why this might be happening? If this were an episode of CSI, I'd turn it off as an implausible fiction. Why is our neighborhood so weird?

--TinFoil Out

The Red Eye

2006-02-23T20:59:00.000-08:00

About to go to the airport for the dreaded red-eye flight. It was the only way to get to Dayton in time for the awards dinner without missing 2 days of work. I don't really sleep on planes, but I'll try my damndest to see what a bit of Scotch and Benadryl can do.

I've travelled a lot less in the last few years, and my flying muscles aren't what they used to be. Rumor has it that I'll be headed to Singapore in May, Orlando in July, and god knows where after that. Better start working on travel strategies.

Wish me luck. The blog will likely be quiet this weekend, but will return Monday at its regularly scheduled time (check local listings).

--TinFoil Out

Late night sick blogging

2006-02-21T23:40:00.000-08:00

No, not "sick" as all the young kids use it (i.e. cool x 10 but in an extreme way), actually sick. Hopefully, I'm on the downside of a flu that was most certainly brought on by excessive merry-making at the Girl Trouble Burlesque on Saturday. It was a GREAT show, and I had a hell of a time. The non-girl related highlight for me was a cameo (via video) by that famous blogger Mark , reprising his halloween persona as "Tinkerhell" in Cinderella-like tale of a floor scrubber turned spring factory worker turned burlesque performer.

You kinda had to be there.

Aclaimation of the Big Giant Cat continues. He has now been within a few feet of the pug for long periods of time, without openning any cans of whoop-ass. Of course, the pug has mostly been restrained on a harness, but we're seeing some progress here.

In other news, I'm flying to my native Dayton, OH this weekend to see my Dad get an Award for his more than 30 years of service to University of Dayton as a professor in the English Department. My parents are then flying up to Seattle for a few days the next week. I'm hoping that my work situation will be sufficently resolved by then (it should) so that I can take a day or two off to spend extra time with them.

That's all for now. Time to take NyQuil and try to drift off.

--TinFoil Out

Didn't they have a bigger one . . .?

2006-02-18T13:43:00.000-08:00

My intrepid wifey-pants made good on her drunken rant last night and got us an as yet unnamed cat from the shelter. He is the BIGGEST CAT I HAVE EVER SEEN, but he's really sweet and inquisitive. We've briefly introduced him to Fergus (under controlled conditions) and our new giant houseguest didn't turn our pug into swiss cheese--yet. If they don't get along, it's a deal breaker, so I hope they make nice. Otherwise, we have a two-week grace period to take him back. I hope we don't have to, because he's awfully cute.

Suggestions for names?
--Tinfoil Out

Battlestar Historica

2006-02-17T23:20:00.000-08:00

Tonight's Battlestar Galactica was outstanding, and I think it was a milestone in TV Scifi. The reason is that Ron Moore, who cut his chops as a writer for Star Trek: The Next Generation, finally faced what is the toughest standard in SciFi . . . The Wrath of Khan plot. For the uninitiated, Ricardo Montalban is Khan, the super-human genius that Captian Kirk wronged in the orignial Star Trek series (actually, Kirk was quite reasonable given that Khan tried to take over his ship and he still left Khan on a paradise planet with the woman Khan loved . . ., but still, Khan felt ill-used). Anyway, Kirk makes some mistakes. Khan outsmarts him, and Kirk is left to salvage the situation. The bottom line is: he can't. He's defeated Khan, but Khan's last revenge is to take the life of Kirk and his crew (paralelling the Kobayashi Maru test). Kirk should be defeated, but heroically, the always logical Spock sacrifices himself for everyone, and they escape.

Not in the BSG version--A great script that places all of the fuck-ups on the commander of the Battlestar Pegasus, Col. Jack Fisk, who is not equipped to command, and who falls into a Cylon trap (a la Kirk), and in a very non-Kirkian manner, Moore has him abdicate his command responsibilities to Lee Adama (imagine if Kirk had left the bridge in a tense moment and said "Chekhov, you have the con."). Fisk unexpectedly proceeds to play the Spock role and fix the ship at the cost of his own life, just in the nick of time. Ron Moore managed to turn one of the greatest Sci-fi movie memes of all time on its head. "The needs of the many, do not . . . outweigh . . . the needs of the few (or the one)" until push comes to shove and imperfect people make heroic (imperfect) decisions. A hero is one man's idiot, but even if you made the mistake, you can still save the day.

It's one of the best things Ron Moore has ever produced (with the possible exception of Carnivale), complicating "heroes" in a time when we're forced to do that in America as well. In case he wasn't facing enough, Moore also had this episode deal frankly with the issue of abortion. See if you see that featured on American Idol or CSI or any of the "flavors of the week."

For those non-geeks who don't follow this thread--I pity you. Please watch good television and look up from the drool-inducing America's top-Idol-Model-Survivor-Idiot-Jackass brand of television.

And for all of those who would like to make comparisons to Commodore Decker in the ST:TOS episode "Doomsday Machine," don't even go there. Totally different.

--TinFoil Out

Generation Y

2006-02-16T20:43:00.000-08:00

I've had a project proposed to me at work that amounts to, "Do some research and figure out this generation Y thing" (born 1979-1994). The organization that I work for in interested in hiring employees straight from college, so it's a great question to ask. I think we have a lot of preconceived notions about them:

They're used to having coaches, counselors, and hovering parents.
They want immediate gratification and expect others to help them reach their goals.
They don't respond to restrictive rules and regulations (or dress codes)
They are facile with technology and rely heavily on blogs, MySpace, cellphones, etc.

Interesting challenge. Any thoughts?

--TinFoil Out

Cha-Cha-Cha-Changes

2006-02-15T18:30:00.000-08:00

I'm still afraid to jinx my potential job opportunity by blogging about it, but there was additional progress today, and I got a handshake and a "welcome aboard" from our general manager--Looks like it will take shape after all, but I'll provide some details when it's official.

It makes me think in a more general way about life's ups and downs. I've had a pretty good year this year--before that, I had an awful 1997-1998, a pretty good 1999-2002 followed by a hellish 2003 and 2004. I guess the lesson that I've taken from it is that so much can change. When you're struggling with personal demons, or living through a life change (like losing your job) it can seem like it will be bad forever, but the truth is, it won't be. You always have time to turn it around. Sometimes you need some lucky breaks and the support of a few key people, but it's always do-able. I also know that things will get bad again--life's like that--but when that happens, hopefully someone will remind me to read this post and remember that it will pass.

--TinFoil Out

Watch Dermott Tonight

2006-02-14T17:03:00.000-08:00

I have it on good authority that Dermott the pug will do very well tonight in the Westminster Dog Show . He is the #1 pug of all time with 66 best in show wins, and he's considering retirement at the ripe old age of 5 1/2. Winning Westminster would be a perfect end to a great career. Tune in an cheer on Dermott (8:00pm on USA Network).

In other news. I have a new co-worker and (temporary) office-mate. She's perfectly nice, and I'm happy to show her the ropes, but I must say I've forgotten how annoying it is to share an office. It's only for a few weeks, though.

Random thoughts

2006-02-13T16:44:00.000-08:00

Here's my 10 minute post for the day . . .

I'm very amused and horrified by the Dick Cheney shooting-people-in-the-face thing. I can't wait to watch Jon Stewart tonight. It is, of course, a tragic accident, but gosh it's funny. Aaron Burr's got nothing on ol' Dick. If the victim had died, would Cheney be guilty of involuntary manslaughter? Is he guilty of obstruction of justice for refusing to inform the Sheriff as required by law?
If you haven't seen it yet, you should check out Mark's Macguyver-like ingenuity at joygantic. I've been giggling about it all afternoon.
Joss Whedon posted on Whedonesque on a variety of topics, including, I'm sad to say, the lack of enthusiasm for bringing back Firefly/Serenity. Still, he's one funny bastard.
Girl Trouble Burlesque is this weekend and should be a riotous good time. It's close enough to our home that we could cab it--anticipating the inevitable drunkeness.

That's it for now. More later.

--TinFoil Out

Return of the Blog-i

2006-02-12T20:09:00.000-08:00

I am a bad blogger . . . But I promise to be better. I've decided to adopt Wil Wheaton's strategy and devote at least 10 minutes a day to blogging, even if I have nothing in particular to say. So here goes . . .

First, the deficit. Since the State of the Union, Bush has been running around the country telling anyone who will listen that he intends to cut the deficit in half by 2009. This sounds great, but the key word here is "deficit." He's not talking about cutting the $8 Trillion national debt in half, in fact he's promising to increase it, but at half the rate that we did this year. The "deficit" is the amount of money that the government spends each year that exceeds what it brings in in taxes. What Bush is saying is, "In four more years, we'll only be half as irreponsible as we are today." This year, we spent $455 billion that we didn't have. If all goes "well" for Bush, he hopes that we only spend $225 billion that we don't have by 2009. Lovely. What a guy. I got into more detail about this in this post, but I'd like to re-iterate here, that there was NO DEFICIT when Bush took office. Bill Clinton left him with a $31 billion surplus.
Second, on a personal note, it looks like there will be some changes for me on the employment front. All good. I don't want to jinx it with a big announcement just yet, but I will just say that if things go well, your potential will soon be MY passion.
I'm also really glad that Trevor and Sara are back in the good ol' US of A. I hope they stick around permanently, but it's great to know that we have them for 5 months.
I saw the Pink Panther with Phil, and I'm happy to announce that it doesn't suck. Not nearly as funny/clever/witty as the Peter Sellars version, but not sucky.
We've seen some excellent documentaries lately via Netflix. Southern Comfort, which is about female to male transexuals in the deep South. The most fascinating part is I kept thinking, "Why don't they move?" But it occured to me that these people would feel out of place in New York or LA or Seattle--they love the South, they just wish that people wouldn't discriminate against them. The second one was Murderball, which is nominated for an Oscar, about wheelchiar rugby players. It was excellent, as both a human interest story, and a great sports epic. Both are highly recommended.
10 Minutes is up . . .

--Tinfoil Out

Hello! Um, the President admitted to criminal behavior

2005-12-20T18:42:00.000-08:00

I know that all of the liberal blogs have picked up on this, but I'm amazed at the reaction to the admission that Bush has been spying on Americans. Folks. Let me put this to you in the most simple terms that I can:

The New York Times caught the President illegally wiretapping Americans without a warrant. A crime under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It also proves that in addition to committing a criminal act, he lied to the American people.
The President went on national television several times and said the equivalent of "Hell yeah, I did it, and I'll do it again!" He even managed to accuse the people who brought his crime to light of treason.
Bush claimed that by giving him the authority to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Congress apparently absolved him of the submitting to the rule of law--which they cannot do, implictly or explicitly, because it's in the Constitution that the President must follow the rule of law (Article II: Section 3).

Hmm, this time, it doesn't seem that anyone "can't recall" a la Reagan, and it sure as hell doesn't depend on what the meaning of "is" is. The President of the the United States went on national television, repeatedly, and said that he committed a crime, and will continue to do so. To put this in perspective it's like:

Nixon saying "I AM a crook--deal with it"
Reagan saying "Well (pause) I did ignore Congress and ship arms to Iran to fund the Contras. Kiss my ass!"
Clinton saying--"I DID have sex with that woman. I liked it. And I'd do it again!"

This is truly the lowest point of a LOW LOW LOW time. Bush claims that the illegal wiretaps are "effective." This is the stupidist thing I've ever heard! Of course you'll get more information if you can place everyone under surveillence. Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany had EFFECTIVE secret police--that doesn't make it right--or American.

--Tinfoil Out

More new technology

2005-12-19T17:45:00.000-08:00

So, we went to the Microsoft Tent Sale a while ago, and accidentally bought a wireless network adapter for our Xbox. We also accidentally bought a 12 month membership to Xbox Live (and we accidentally bought 4 games too, but that's hardly surprising). Everything was about 80%-off retail, so who could resist.

This created an interesting problem . . . we don't have wireless Internet in our house.

Hmmm . . .

So I went to Fry's and accidentally bought a wireless router. Well I was there, I also accidentally put a wireless mp3 bridge into my cart. I also, accidentally brought home my laptop from work, and now we magically have many wireless devices, and music in our living room. It's a bit fun.

I'm happy with our new acquisitions, but I will say one thing about Xbox Live. It's a great online gaming service, and the membership comes with a little headset that allows you to talk to your opponent while you play. This sounds like a great concept, unless you don't know anyone else who has Xbox Live. In my case, it was something akin to making random long distance phone calls and having to talk to someone for 45 minutes while playing them in football or basketball. Once, I was greeted with the statement "whooo. That was a big drink of Bacardi!" and then got to hear badly sung sexually explicit lyrics and conversations with people off mic about who was sleeping with whom. I also encountered many little children (who, of course, kicked my ass), which made me think . . . Xbox live may be the best tool for child endangerment ever invented. Mercifully, many people play without speaking--as you can turn your mic off. I have to say, though, that I prefer the suspension of disbelief that comes from thinking that I am playing some sort of uber-gamer, instead of a 12 year old or a drunken teenager.

--Tinfoil Out

Sparky

2005-12-16T19:06:00.000-08:00

Sparky died tonight. He couldn't walk without a wobble, he'd lost 8 of his 15 pounds, and he didn't want to do anything but eat (a little), be held, and lie on the heating pad that we bought for him. It was time. The cancer had spread pretty much everywhere, and there wasn't anything that we could do to make him better.

Sparky moved in in 2003, and the only thing we had in common is that we were both total losers. I had just lost my job, and he was a 12 year-old cat who was about to be put down because he was a nusiance to a cranky hypochondriac neighbor in his native Salt Lake City. He'd already survived being crushed in a garage door when he was 4 years old, and he seemed like a great candidate for a second chance. Mikelle offered to take in the crusty ol' cat, whom she had acquired from a shelter in her 20's saying that "he wanted to get out of that cage more than anyone else." Mikelle's parents brought him up to us, and, orignally we were going to keep him in the garage and let him have access to the outside, as he was primarily an outdoor cat in Utah.

Apparently, this was not the arrangement that he had in mind. Within a few days, he was very happy indoors thank you very much (we have the torn up weatherstripping on the door to the garage to prove it), and every day, for the eleven months I was unemployed, he was my constant companion: Sitting on my lap through back-to-back episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and sitting quietly on the floor of the home office while I sent out resumes until he decided to alert me that I needed a break by jumping up on the keyboard. When Mikelle would get home, he'd sit on my lap as we watched TV, at night, he'd sleep at the foot of the bed, or on particularly cold nights, under the covers.

Sometimes, when he was hungry, he'd employ the vicious "cold cat nose" technique, where he'd climb on top of me while I was sleeping and stand nose-to-nose, purring constantly, until I woke up to a widescreen view of Sparky's face. I eventually learned to anticipate these attacks, and would put a pillow on my face, thus leading him to attack Mikelle instead. If there was no nose available to attack, he'd generally lie quietly at the foot of the bed and try again in a few minutes.
Despite my love for Sparky, we did one incredibly cruel thing to him. We bought a rotten dog named Fergus. Fergus and Sparky got along "OK." Sparky was an old vetrean when it came to dogs, and he completely understood the pug thing. Still--he now had an energetic challenger for lap time, and a really annoying, un-asked-for playmate. Still, he was a good sport and played along.

If he had frustrations about Fergus, he definitely took them out on the neighbor cats. We live in a neighborhood with many, many outdoor cats, and every so often, one of them would make the mistake of venturing into Sparky's territory. Let's just say that Tony Soprano has nothing on Sparky. One time I stepped out of the back door to see Sparky, with a cute fluffy grey kitty that he'd cornered. They were just staring at each other, but I knew Sparky's rep, so I started over there. This apparently spooked the poor grey Kitty so much that it bolted over the fence, with Sparky in hot pursuit. The next things I heard were the "cat fight" noises from the Warner Bros. cartoons. Sparky came back later, unharmed, but with lots of grey hair under his claws. Later, one late night, the cat came within view of our back door, stepped into the light, and I could see that he was shaved on one side with lots of stitches. It was a ghostly image, like Jacob Marley, warning other cats not to be like him . . .

His crowning moment as a combat kitty came two summers ago, when a 2 year old semi-ferral cat that we called "black nose" (for obvious reasons) came onto the landscaping bridge in our back yard (seen here patrolled by the Fergus and Sparky brigade). You could almost hear the gunslinger music, and watch the tumbleweeds fly across the lawn. Although Blacknose outweighed Sparky by at least 5 pounds (and Sparky was a big cat) and was at least 10 years younger, Sparky sent his sorry ass in to the pond. Blacknose never attempted that kind of incursion, ever again.

As my father-in-law pointed out, even in Sparky's golden years, he could "still kick ass." And he could. As recently as this summer, I saw Sparky in "that pose" out the front window. I couldn't see the poor cat that he had cornered, but I could see, that when the claws started flying, tufts if grey hair flew in the air, and a different grey kitty took off across the street.

In the last few months, he'd lost a lot of weight. We thought it was because we'd changed his food, but it wasn't. Eventually, I had to let my best friend go. We buried him tonight in the place that he loved to sit in the sunshine, away from annoying pugs. He loved the sun, and always found a way to find the last rays. Many times, he'd find a patch of warm grass and make a day of it (pictured here). He just couldn't get enough. And if you walked anywhere near him, he'd roll over an shamelessly ask for a belly-rub. Mikelle has often told me that I "ruined a perfectly good tomcat." But I think that Sparky was always comfortable with his "feminine side", and he enjoyed people, frankly, more than I do. I remember a friend asking "does he scratch?" before petting him, and I thought that this was the most ridiculous thing I had ever heard. Sparky LOVED people. Reportedly, the only time he every bit or scratched anyone was before my time, when he was stuck in that garage door 10 years ago.

Sparky was a great cat. He saved my life when I felt most alone and afraid and my life was out of control. He was my best friend and I will miss him. And I think, that I can say without reservations that there is a wife and a rotten pug who feel the same way. Sparky--Thank you.

--Tinfoil Out

"Lost" on demand

2005-12-01T09:31:00.000-08:00

I reached an important media milestone last night. Mikelle and I realized that we had missed last week's episode of Lost becasue we were travelling for Thanksgiving, so we downloaded last week's episode for $1.99 from iTunes and watched it on our computer (we don't have a video iPod). All in all, I would say that it was a very satisfying experience. The quality was good, there were no commercials, and I felt like two bucks was a fair price.

There are lots of shows that I would consider downloading if I missed an episode. Lost, 24, Battlestar Galactica, etc. I know that I could just buy a Tivo and record all of them, but I like this option better. If all tv shows were available for $2.00 a pop, I might download, say 10 in a year. $20 seems like a small price to pay to not have to wait for the re-run or the DVD.

When ABC announced that it would release its shows on iTunes, Mark Cuban had some great insights. He pointed out that the economics of TV could change fundamentally if consumers paid for the shows that they wanted to watch, and that for some shows, especially those that are early in their run, they might make more money and build more of a fan base through downloads. It also gives fans of a show a more tangible way to show their appreciation that ratings or ad dollars.

Obviously, this all becomes more appealing if I can download a show to my (not yet acquired) HDTV in my living room, and watch it whenever I want. We're a few steps away from that, but gettting closer.

--Tinfoil Out

End of the world spam

2005-11-28T14:20:00.000-08:00

Need to send an automated email to your non-believing heathen friends when the end of the world is nigh?

Well, here's the service for you. After the rapture, your drug using, blood drinking, non-Christian friends will get a convenient (and just in time!) message telling them to repent while you sit comfortably in heaven.

Spam from the great beyond!

Sheesh. Make sure that you read the sample letter. It's hilarious.

These people are either bat-shit crazy or incurably stupid. The problem is that they're also running the country and picking our Supreme Court justices.

--Tinfoil out

I've started a new blog with wifey . . .

2005-11-21T18:27:00.000-08:00

Mikelle and I have started a new spin-off blog called "A Displaced Hipster's Guide to Renton, Wa." Not that we were hipsters in any way, but we thought it might be funny and maybe useful for people who move to Renton. We'll catalog the good, the bad, and the ugly about our fair river city. We could definitely expand the scope it to a broader territory if others want to group-blog about restaurants, events, and fun stuff throughout the King County area. Just let me know, and I'll invite you as an author on the blog.

--Tinfoil Out

Chickenhawks beware . . .

2005-11-21T08:07:00.000-08:00

It seems like the Democrats have finally gotten the message about how to fight back when the White House "swift-boats" you. Korean War vet Rep. Charlie Rangel responded to Republican accusations that Rep. John Murtha (a decorated Vietnam vet) was a coward because of his plan to withdraw from Iraq. Rangel took aim at Cheney, saying that he was a draft dodger who found it, "easy to fight [a war] with other people's children."

It seems like the Dems have been reading this article by David Mamet, about political strategy:

A possible response to the Swift boat veterans would have been: "I served. He didn't. I didn't bring up the subject, but, if all George Bush has to show for his time in the Guard is a scrap of paper with some doodling on it, I say the man was a deserter."

Mamet says that to win in politics (or poker), you've got to raise the stakes when someone comes after you. Coincidently, this advice is similar some offered in Mamet's script for the The Untouchables:

He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way. And that's how you get Capone.

Seems like an apt comparison--Capone and Bush--they both killed a lot of people and headed up criminal organizations, so we probably should treat them the same way. Come to think of it, Pat Fitzgerald does have a bit of an Elliot Ness vibe. All the more reason for the Dems to heed Mamet's advice an strike back hard at the chickenhawk White House.

--Tinfoil Out

Oh, this is clever . . .

2005-11-18T12:16:00.000-08:00

In a surprise move, House Majority Leader Roy Blount has decided to allow a vote on John Murtha's resolution demanding the withdrawl of troops from Iraq. I think he's thinking that this will force Democrats to go on record saying that they want to "cut and run" if they support it, and that they "have no plan of their own" if they reject it. A rejection also would be a slap in the face to Murtha. It might work, but for the Republicans it's kind of like going "all in" in poker and bluffing with a pair of twos. The Democrats have the better hand here, but the Republicans are betting that they'll fold and reject the resolution--taking the wind out of recent "war was a mistake" talking points.

Not sure what the best strategy is here . . . personally, I hope that they all support an immediate withdrawl of the troops (because that's what I want), but if even if they do, the resolution won't pass and it'll generate campaign ads for 2006 that say, "Rep. So and So didn't support the mission of our troops, and voted to cut and run from Iraq before the mission was finished." The opposite vote generates the "Rep. So an So voted to keep the troops in Iraq, but now he's saying that the war was a mistake."

In retrospect it was probably a mistake for Murtha to introduce it, but either way, a united front will look better that a split decision. The only really good outcome politically would be for the Resolution to pass with bi-partisan support--that would REALLY make Bush look bad--but Blount wouldn't let it come to a vote if he expected any Republican defectors.

How do you think Dems should vote?

--Tinfoil Out

Update: I misread the article. Murtha didn't propose the resolution. Still, the choices for the Dems remain the same.

"Homicide Bombers"

2005-11-18T08:43:00.000-08:00

Fox News--the cornerstone of the liberal media establishment--insists on calling suicide bombers "homicide bombers." They've been doing this for years, but it stuck in my craw again when I saw it today, so I thought I write about it.

Their reasons are, I suppose, political. I don't know if they think that calling someone a suicide bomber evokes some sort of sympathy for them or dimishes the deaths and injuries of the victims. Whatever. The problem that I have is that "homicide bomber" is not a good description of what happened.

Anyone with a bomb can be a "homicide bomber," even if they detonate the bomb remotely from a few blocks away or halfway around the world. "Homicide bomber" just tells me that said bomber killed people with the bomb. The term "suicide bomber" tells me that the bomber intentionally blew him/herself up in the process of killing others.

Fox would have been better off to simply say "bomber." Actually, given their "fair and balanced" editorial policy, they could have just gone with "evil doer," "terrorist," "Islamofacist," or combine them all as"evil terrorist Islamofacist." Somehow, though, they need to capture the idea that the bomber is also dead. Here are some suggestions:

A bomber who killed some people, and, oh yeah, is kinda dead too.
An exploding bomber
A "self-centered" bomber
A now-facing-the-terrible-wrath-of-the-Christian-God-and-burning-in-a-lake-of-fire bomber

Any other suggestions?

--Tinfoil Out

Woodward and Libby

2005-11-17T10:40:00.000-08:00

I don't fault Libby's lawyers for trying anything and everything to get him off the hook. That's what they do for a living. I do fault the media for falling for it in preposterous ways.

The Washington Post and most other media outlets are regurgitating Libby's talking point that Bob Woodward's admission that he heard about Plame's CIA affilliation from a different source a month before Libby's leaked it to Judith Miller.

The Libby legal team seized on Woodward's testimony, calling it a "bombshell" with the potential to upend Fitzgerald's case. After spending yesterday at the courthouse reviewing documents for the case, Libby emerged with one of this lawyers, Theodore V. Wells Jr., by his side. Wells said Libby is "very grateful to Bob Woodward for coming forward and telling the truth.

First, Libby isn't charged with leaking the name (yet) or with being the first to do so. He is charged with obstruction of justice and making false statements. These are crimes that have less to do with the actual leak, and more to do with the cover-up. Libby lied and Fitzgerald caught him. That's what he's being prosecuted for.

Second, this revelation seems to fuel speculation about a conspiracy to "out" Valerie Plame. It's starting to get a bit suspicious when Libby, Rove, and another "high ranking official" leaked the same information to at least five seperate reporters (Russert, Novak, Miller, Cooper, and Woodward) in a two-month period. Especially, if the current speculation is correct, and the mystery official is Stephen Hadley, the current National Security Advisor (maybe he should advise himself not to leak anymore classified info--that would improve national security).

I think that the Woodward revelation is a disaster for Libby and the White House. Yay.

--Tinfoil Out

Update: This USA Today article offers a theory about ways that Woodward's admission could help Libby. I still think that they're pretty thin, but in the interest of full disclosure, here they are:

He could say that Fitzgerald is incompetent. After a two-year investigation, he didn't uncover the Woodward leak. For me, this actually lends credence to the obstruction charge--Fitzgerald didn't know, because Libby wouldn't cooperate.
The fact that Woodward knew about Plame a month before Libby talked to Judy Miller shows that her identity could have been common knowledge and Libby could have been telling the truth about hearing it from a reporter. Unless there are hundreds more reporters out there waiting to come forward who also knew (again--this beefs up the conspiracy argument) the fact that Woodward knew and didn't tell anyone except fellow reporter Walter Pincus has no bearing on the Libby case.

Revising history

2005-11-16T10:04:00.000-08:00

"Some of our elected leaders have opposed this war all along. I disagreed with them, but I respect their willingness to take a consistent stand. Yet some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past. They are playing politics with this issue and they are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that's irresponsible."

--George Bush
November 15th, 2005

This is Bush's current counter-attack to allegations that he lied to the country and rushed us to war. The "we didn't lie, we were incompetent--and so was everyone else" defense is pretty weak, and, surprise surprise, it's also a LIE. To characterize all of the Senators who voted "to authorize the use of force" as pro-war is absurd. The resolution that the Senate passed authorized the President to use force (a power he already had under the War Powers Act) if no diplomatic solution could be reached, and urged the President to work with the UN to find a peaceful solution. While some democrats certainly were unequivocally for the war (Leiberman, I'm looking at you), most emphasized that:

The use of force should be on the table, so as to not limit the President's options, but the war should be a last resort.
All diplomatic channels should be exhausted before the war started.
Going to war would be costly, and the rebuilding of Iraq would be expensive and would require a huge effort akin to the Marshall Plan.
We'd need a tremendous number of allies to make the war legitimate and successful.
UN support is vital to the success of any plan.
This is NOT an authorization for a "go it alone" pre-emptive strike.

None of these conditions were ever met.

Here's what Hillary Clinton and John Kerry said about the resolution (both voted for it).

"So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort."

--Hillary Clinton
October 10, 2002

"The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions. "

--John Kerry
October 10, 2002

In Bush's speech, he said "They spoke the truth then, and they're speaking politics now." I disagree completely. The reality of the situation is that this vote took place when Bush's approval ratings were sky-high and democrats were hedging their bets on whether the war would be successful. The country was supportive of military action, and democrats were afraid of having their patriotism challenged. They were "speaking politics" then to save their political asses. I was mad at them at the time for wimping out--and I'm still mad. But I think they're speaking the truth now (which, finally can help them politically). Still, if you read the Clinton and Kerry speeches, it's clear that even at the time, both only wanted war as a last resort.

It is well within the rights of anyone who authorized the use of force to say that:

They were lied to or intelligence was withheld.
The war has been managed incompetently and with insufficient resources.
They made a mistake (a la John Edwards).

--Tinfoil out

I HAD to post about this

2005-11-11T07:51:00.000-08:00

It seems that some enterprising your grad students at MIT have just proven that tinfoil hats actually ENHANCE (secret government) radio signals. That explains a lot. I guess I should have known that--when I was growing up, my parents were always putting balls of tinfoil on our "rabbit ear" antenna to get better TV reception.

It seems that I've been getting amplified versions of the government signal--maybe that's why Bush makes me so mad.

--Tinfoil out

Halloween Pics

2005-11-02T22:49:00.000-08:00

I am late in adding to the collection of pictures from joygantic's halloween party. In any event--here's my few pics . . .

Great party!!!!!

--Tinfoil Out

Interesting background on the "Yellow Cake" info

2005-10-28T12:56:00.000-07:00

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum linked to a blogger's translation of this 3 part story that ran in the Italian newspaper LA REPUBBLICA. It's a fascinating read. It describes the sordid tale of how the forged documents that started this whole Plame-gate affair came to be in the hands of the US government, and eventually, how they led to the war in Iraq. Read it yourself, but here's a quick abstract:

In 1999, three low level functionaries who served as informants for the Italian intelligence agency wanted to make some money (isn't that how all these things start), but they were short on information to sell--none of them had had any good contacts since the 1980s. At the time, the French were concerned that someone was pulling left-over uranium out of abandoned mines in Niger. This gave the three informats an idea. They got possession of some documents from the 1980s that indicated Iraq's past interest in buying uranium from Niger. They then conspired to break into the Niger embassy in Rome and steal some envelopes and letterhead so that they could forge additional documents to bring authenticity to their "old news." They sell the documents to the French, who quickly conclude (mostly because of obvious errors in the documents) that they are forgeries and worthless as intelligence.

The scam should have ended there. But after 9/11, the US government made it known that it needed proof that Saddam was still working on a nuclear program. One of the flunkies who made the forged documents, Rocco Martino, starts shopping them around again. This time, the Italian intelligence agency decides that, though they know that the documents are fake, it might improve relations with the US if they hand them over. They dispatch Martino to London to give the documents to MI-6. Later, Martino leaks the information to the Italian press, and they call the US Embassy to confirm (interestingly, even the Italian press has too many doubts about the documents and they decline to run a story). Now that the US is aware of the documents, George Tennet, director of the CIA, meets with representatives from Italian intelligence, and gets briefed on the documents. He concludes that they are probably fakes, the State department has doubts as well--especially since the story keeps changing--Now it's 500 tons of uranium that Saddam bought. And it wasn't from abandoned mines--one of which was flooded at this time, and another controlled by the French--it was stolen from a Russian facility . . . very suspicious.

Luckily for the Italians, Dick Cheney has started an "Iraq Group" that is operating independently from the CIA, and they are very interested in the Niger documents. Italian officials meet with representatives of Iraq group member Condalezza Rice, and the US decides that the documents are real. They also latch on to Saddam's purchase of aluminum tubes that they say could be used for a centrifuge to enrich uranium (even though US scientists say that they would be unsuitable). The US and Italian governments decide to leak this information to the press to build enthusiasm for the war. In the US, this leak is provided to Judith Miller of the NYT. In England, Tony Blair includes these "facts" in a speech. US officals now start using talking points that include the term "mushroom cloud"as a justification for war.

At the CIA, they are skeptical of these claims and send ambassador Joseph Wilson on a fact finding mission to Niger. He concludes that the documents are inept forgeries. Other governments chime in as well--The French tell the US that they recieved the documents in 1999 and that they concluded that they were forgeries. Italy mysteriously remains silent on the issue, though it was one of their own that created the docs in the first place. The CIA recommends that the President should avoid mentioning the Niger evidence, but Bush includes it in his state of the union anyway.

4 years later, when questioned about it, Rocco Martino admits his role in creating and disseminating the forgeries.

Here's where the article ends, but you know the rest:

We go to war. No centrifuges--No yellow cake. Joesph Wilson writes an editorial that says that the US government knew the documents were forged. Rove, Libby, and God knows who else, "out" Valerie Plame as a CIA agent to discredit Wilson. The "Downing Street Memo" confirms that the US was trying to "fix" intelligence around the war. To this day, the US claims it got the intel from Britain and Britain claims that they based it on "other evidence," not the "Italian dossier" as it has come to be called. The rationale for war shifts from 9/11 to WMD, to terrorism, and (currently) "freedom." 2,000 Americans dead. 15,000 wounded. Tens of thousands of Iraqis dead.

Interestingly enough, "Plame-gate" Prosecutor Fitzgerald has apparently asked for and received the forged documents as part of his investigation. This is all starting to fit together in ways that should scare the war-mongers. Maybe the time for truth and justice is at hand.

This story is getting traction too. Here's a summary in Slate.

--Tinfoil Out

Don't mess with the Onion

2005-10-28T10:31:00.000-07:00

You may have heard that earlier this week, the Bush administration sent a letter to the Onion, telling them to stop using the Presidential seal inappropriately. Advice for the Bushies--in a week where your approval rating is around 40%, you've been forced to withdraw your crony-Supreme Court nominee, and high ranking members of your administration are faced with indictment (Update: Scooter was indicted and resigned this morning)--Well, it's not the best time to mess with a satirical paper.

Check out the Onion's "response." It seems that the gloves are off now.

Hee Hee

(I found this via americablog)

--Tinfoil Out

iRobot domination?

2005-10-27T09:25:00.000-07:00

I was struck by two related blog posts today that give a pretty clear idea of when this whole "humans in charge" thing might come to an end:

First, joygantic linked to a story that questioned why humans are asking robots for permission to provide health care in space. Very disturbing . . . then:
A tip from Raw Story led me to a story about a Japanese company that is developing a "remote control for humans." They have even found an excellent delivery method for this technology, as one of the scientists says: "I'm really hopeful Apple Computer will be interested in this technology to offer it in their iPod."

It seems that the robots are not only running the show, but we may unwittingly be supplying them with a technology that will compel us do their evil bidding. I'm worried, because we've got some serious payback coming for the humilating uses that we're developing for robots, and the way that the military is shamelessly abducting Furbies and forcing them to travel the world wearing strange outfits.

At least the robots will probably run the country better than the current administration. Artificial intelligence is at least . . . well . . . intelligence.

--Tinfoil Out

The Colbert Report

2005-10-21T08:24:00.000-07:00

So we've had a full week of The Colbert Report (pronounced "Colbere Repore") on Comedy Central, and it is really funny. I think we've finally found a worthy partner for the Daily Show. I laughed hysterically at the following moments:

Every time the openning credits play. If you haven't seen it, watching Colbert in all seriousness wave an American flag back and forth while standing on a red-white-and-blue representation of the US while eagles fly around--well, that's just funny.
His "brand" is also hilarious. He has his name everywhere on the set--His desk is even in the shape of a giant "C."Leslie Stahl reported to him that Tim Russert now wanted a desk shaped like a "T" and Colbert suggested that he choose an "R" instead, and sit in the "R hole."
Having "real" newscasters on has been great. He and Stone Phillips had a headline reading contest (Stone was actually better, but it was close).
When Leslie Stahl told him that 60-minutes would be largely commercial free this Sunday, he asked her where Centrum Silver and Ensure would find ad time on TV this week.

In all very funny. You can see clips of episode 1 here, episode 2 here, and episode 3 here.

Still, since I am a former medicore actor with a couple of degrees in the Drama (promounced Draaaam-uh), I do have some notes for Mr. Colbert:

He seems to be trying to maintain a character throughout the show. It is the smug, self-satisfied, Bill O'Reilly type who is self-obsessed, opinionated, and loud. This works in the opening segments pretty well--when it's just him--but it doen't work as well when he's doing an interview. He seems to both want to ask probing questions and appear bored and stupid at the same time. Sometimes the guests don't get it--they try to answer his questions legitimately or they try to make jokes, but they keep getting interupted by his manufactured persona--and not in a funny way.

What to do? Colbert can go one of two ways: If he wants to maintain the persona (like Ali-G does with his "guests") he'd do better to interview less experienced, less serious people. O'Reilly doesn't ususally have Colin Powell on his show, he ususally has someone on the lunatic fringe of the news that he wants to insult and confront. This is what Colbert needs to do--Much as they did in the Daily Show segments he worked in. I want to see more Mary Carey--less Fareed Zakaria. More "the white guy who wants to distribute toy guns in Harlem" than John Kerry. The other way he can go is to do the "serious interview." But if this is the case, he should just do it, ask serious questions, and zing people in the context of the conversation with his dry wit on display from time to time.

I think he needs a "foil." Someone else who is doing a persona that can come on the show and work with him while he's "in character" for the first few minutes of the show. So far, he's looked a little uncomfortable reading the telepromter by himself--He ought to have a recurring character that sits with him while he reads the news, and to which he can comment. This could be the character of the the "legitimate" Comedy Central news reporter, who feeds stories to him and lets him comment on them. Or, he can Imus-style, have some "cheerleader" characters who help him discuss and insult people. Right now Colbert, who has a knack for playing off of other people, is trying to do a one man show for half the program.
I'm not sure that the studio audience works for this show. I'm pretty sure that O'Reilly, Chris Mathews, etc. have them, but they are mostly silent. In a show where he's trying to pull off pompous and arrogant in an "intimate" enviroment, pausing for laughs doesn't really work. He's going for laughs because his character says stupid things, when he pauses to acknowledge the laughs, it's kind of like winking at the audience to show that he's in character. It he wants to keep the audience, he should be cruel to them when they laugh "inappropriately" Scream for them to "pipe down" like O'Reilly did on the Daily Show the other night, or coach them to applaud and side with him a' la Jerry Springer. He could also use the "What's so funny?" line with them from time to time. The laughs keep reminiding me that it's a joke rather than letting me enjoy the joke.

Still, very funny and a good beginning. Comedy Central at 11:30pm (re-run the next day at 8:30pm).

--Tinfoil Out

Roller Derby Finals--DLF! DLF! DLF!

2005-10-16T00:09:00.000-07:00

The Rat City Rollergirls final was tonight, and I am pleased to announce that my beloved Derby Liberation Front claimed the title of league champions. I'd like to say that the result was not surprising, but honestly, I didn't know if the DLF could overthrow the mighty Throttle Rockets. In a strange twist of fate, I was watching The Godfather Part II on AMC today, which, in part, dramatizes the overthrow of the Cuban government by Castro's Marxist revolution. Michael Corleone sees a Cuban revoutionary on the street blow himself up and take a military officer with him. When he witnesses this dedication to the cause, he decides not to invest in Cuba, and that even though everyone thinks that the revolutionaries are hopelessly overmatched, he now thinks that they can win.

That's how I felt watching the girls of DLF tonight. Down by as much as 13 and down six at the half--everyone thought it was over. Throttle Rockets fans were looking smug, and even my own wife began taunting me for backing the wrong horse. Then the DLF pulled the equivalent of taking Havana.

Let me 'splain:

Early on in the bout, the Throttle Rockets were both kicking ass and taking names. Darth Skater pulled off a nice jam, as did Valtron. DLF couldn't seem to get out of the gates. Kim Reaper's first Jam looked great, but when the score was tallied, she got a whopping 1 point (you get points subtracted for team penalties--that's the only reason I could think of). The Throttle Rockets weren't really running away with it--DLF's defense was good, especially Kitty Kamikaze who was actually penalized for making some good hits--but the DLF just couldn't score. They barely used Burnett Down in the first half, and when she did jam, she, like Kim, looked good, but scored low.

At the half, things looked pretty desperate for my guerilla gals. They managed to chip away at the 13 point lead, bringing it down to six (largely due to the consistent jamming of Hideous Braxley), but the DLF--which is not exactly an offense powerhouse, was stuck with a meager 18 points at the half.

I tried to relax. I got a beer. I watched with some surprise as Grave Danger smacked down the Sockit Wenches by more than 20 points in the consolation game. I'm harsh on GD, but they really did play and excellent bout. Femme Fatale is still their brightest star (and she kicked ass on Saturday at both jammer and pivot) but I was also impressed with Basket Casey as a defender. I'm not sure where the scrappy, crazy Sockit Wenches jammers went (Miss Fortune only jammed once in the second half by my count), but hats off to GD for simply wanting it more and being the better team. Also, they ended the bout with an all out "brawl" where all of the skaters lovingly tackled each other and then hugged and shook hands. Now that's sportsmanship!

Finally--the main event. 14 minutes for all the marbles. Or some trophy. I actually don't think that there were any actual marbles involved. Anyway . . .

Un-F-ing believable. Hideous Braxley closed the gap a bit more with a nice jam. The DLF was chipping away at the lead, and then . . .

THE JAM OF THE YEAR. Hands down. The best.

We were all speculating about why Burnett Down was on the bench so much in the first half. She was out there in practically every jam of the semis. She absolutely carried the DLF in the semis. I'll admit to being a little pissed at the half when I thought that they were under-using her. We tossed around the "maybe they're saving her for the second half" excuse. All I can say is that if that was the plan, whoever came up with it should get the Nobel Prize for roller derby.

Burnett Down stepped onto the track and delivered the most amazing performance of the year. She jammed through the Throttle Rockets like they weren't even there. She went through the pack cleanly and was lead Jammer before anybody even knew what was happening. She then proceeded to lap the pack THREE TIMES--with no penalties, and staying in bounds. 15 points in one Jam. Burnett got some excellent help from her blockers, and some great whips, but it was like watching some ballerina in body armor dance around the track. Everyone who hit her bounced off, and I'm pretty sure that she couldn't have gone any faster if she were alone out there.

And it was a team effort, too, with excellent defense. How many did the Throttle Rockets score in this jam?--I've got to do some math . . . carry the one . . . square root of . . . OH YEAH, ZERO!The DLF defense was stifling. I think it was Astroglide who was jamming--I could be wrong, since I couldn't look away from the apotheosis that was Burnett Down--but whoever the poor Throttle Rocket was, she was getting nowhere fast, and was probably getting dizzy watching Burnett skate circles around her.

An amazing 15 point swing in one jam. Honestly, I don't remember a 15 point jam since the second or third bout when defense wasn't . . . um . . . such a priority. Certainly not in the finals. Certainly not against the Throttle Rockets. Certainly not a 15-0 jam.

How do you respond to that if you're the Throttle Rockets? Inexplicably, they responded with Strobe Lightning at jammer. Nothing against her, but when your season is slipping away, and you've got a bench that features Darth Skater, Valtron 3000, Dirty Little Secret, and a host of other super-jammers, why spread the wealth? The results were predictable with DLF widening their lead (I think it was Hideous Braxley or Sybil Unrest at jammer).

Finally, the Throttle Rockets, now down by double digits, finally brought out Darth Skater to try and close the gap a little. In my opinion, she should have been out there right after Burnett's mega-jam, but better late than never. Darth got off to a good start, but she ran into a pretty tough cookie at pivot for DLF--that's right ladies and gentlemen--say it with me, "Burnett Down." It looked like the DLF strategy was something like this:

DLF Coach: Burnett, do you see Darth over there?
Burnett: Yes.
DLF Coach: Get her!

And "get her" Burnett did, with a combination of great blocking moves, a few illegal grabs and take downs, and one unbelievable wallop that was actually kind of scary (perhaps foreshadowed by the above picture of the the two of them). Darth was down for a few minutes and had to be helped off. When they picked her up right in front of where we were sitting, there was pain in her eyes---Some of it was undoubtedly physical, but mostly, she knew that she might have to leave the big bout with her team on the ropes, and that really, really sucked. It happened right in front of me, and I and most of the Throttle Rocket fans that I was sitting with thought it was a clean hit. Still, no one wanted it to happen that way--you watch sports to see the best take on the best, not to watch the best limp off.

But without Darth's scoring ability (and she's a hell of a blocker/pivot too), the next few minutes were painful for TR fans. The DLF ran up the lead, and frustrated TR jammers couldn't break through DLF's big blockers. Darth did heroically return for the last 2 minutes, but she was at about 3/4 speed, and didn't have the time or the energy to make a dent in the lead.

DLF won, and won big. Burnett Down continues to be my overall choice for MVP of the world. She is the ONLY skater in the RCRGs that can change the game singlehandedly. She always comes through when DLF needs her, and tonight, in the biggest event in the short history of this young league, she ran the table and pitched a perfect game. Hats off to this towering Amazon. The program tonight said that her "day job" is as a bartender. I'm sure she pours a mean drink, but she was clearly made to skate, and it's a pleasure to watch her in her true calling--kicking ass and skating fast.

What a ride! Thanks RCRGs. You're all my heroes. I don't know what I'll do to amuse myself until March, but you have at least one EXTREMELY satisfied fan. See you in 2006!

--Tinfoil Out.

Roller Derby Finals Preview

2005-10-12T04:02:00.000-07:00

Here we go . . .

This should be fun. My beloved DLF will square off against the Throttle Rockets in the big damn bout this weekend. This one's for all the marbles.

I do think that this will be an uphill climb for Burnett, Diva, Kim and the rollergirls of DLF. The Throttle Rockets have the fastest team in the league and they have the size to mix it up with anyone--and, let's face it, if they had an all-star game in the RCRG world, at least half of the Throttle Rockets' roster would have a good argument for showing up. Darth Skater and Valtron 3000 are clearly among the elite in the league, and Astroglide and Dirty Little Secret are not far behind.

So what can the DLF do to continue the "revolution?" First of all, they can publish instructions so that fans can make their own "Molatov Cocktails" (this is usually frowned upon at sporting events). But secondly, they can focus on what got them where they are--grit, strength, and size. The DLF has the advantage of having the biggest, strongest group of blockers in the league. That's how they beat the Throttle Rockets earlier in the year--by slowing the game down and keeping the scores low.

This bout is a classic example of a high scoring team going up against a defensive powerhouse. For the uninitiated let me offer a few analogies:

Football: The Throttle Rockets are like the St. Louis Rams in their Superbowl days. Fast, Fast, Fast. The DLF is more like the Joe Gibbs Redskins of the 80s--Gritty gutty big and scary.

Basketball: TR--The "showtime" Lakers. DLF--The "bad boys" Pistons.

Here's what I see as the keys to a DLF victory:

I have it on good authority that Kim Reaper will be back(she said so in the comments from my last post :)—She's the key for DLF's scoring opportunities. She needs to score big every time she jams.
I think that the best lineup for maximum offensive/defensive punch for the DLF is Diva State, Lorna Boom, and Kitty Kamakazie at blocker and Burnett Down @ pivot (Punchin Judy is a very good Pivot too, as is Diva) with Kim jamming. I'd try to get this package in as often as possible--especially when Valtron or Darth are jamming.
Even with Kim back, I think DLF would be wise to use Burnett at jammer as much as possible. Although, as I said above, it's tempting to use her at pivot given the speed of the TR jammers--still, I think that for DLF to win, Burnett will have to jam at least 1/3 of the time. With Kim taking a 1/3 and the remainder picked up by Hideous Braxley and Diva.
Astroglide was outstanding in the semis for TR, but I don't think that she's as much of a threat vs. DLF's defense. Key jammers to stop are Darth, Valtron, and Dirty Little Secret.

I'm really excited for this one. I think that if DLF can keep the score in the 40s, they'll win. If it gets up much higher, it probably means that the Throttle Rocket's outstanding jammers are skating rings around my beloved revolutionaries.

--Tinfoil Out

Words of wisdom from the General

2005-10-07T10:03:00.000-07:00

Jesus' General is definitely one of the funniest, most insightful fake-conservative blogs out there. Today, he had a pithy quote in a letter to Michael Chertoff, Director of Homeland Security:

We know better. Bin Laden sees this as an opportunity to strike while our attention is diverted elsewhere. That shouldn't surprise us. He tried to do the same thing during the runup to the presidential election. Thank God we were able to thwart him by exposing his plots whenever Our Leader fell behind in the polls. Bin Laden isn't stupid (after all, he's been able to avoid capture since 9/11 by cleverly disposing of his nail clippers before entering airports).

Hee Hee

-Tinfoil Out

First nine minutes of Serenity available online!

2005-10-06T11:46:00.000-07:00

As far as I know, this is a first. Universal has just released the first nine minutes of Serenity on the Web in high quality full-screen streaming format (if your Internet connection is up to the task). They assume (correctly I think) that if you see the beginning, you'll want to see what happens later in the film. Clearly they want this film to succeed. I've never heard of a studio releasing a portion of a film online just 7 days after its release! Watch it here.

Keep in mind that this sequence is a lot of serious exposition/action. There's a whole lot that's funny about Serenity as well. (In fact, the "funny" starts right after this clip ends).

Hopefully this will pay dividends at the box office this weekend.

--Tinfoil out

Serenity--big damn reaction piece

2005-10-02T21:49:00.000-07:00

To put it bluntly--Serenity is a great film. Not just a good film--a great film. No, it's not Citizen Kane or The Godfather but, comparing it to other films in its genre (sci-fi and action), it ranks right up there with Star Wars, The Matrix, Star Trek II, Aliens, Terminator 2, and E.T.

Many will scoff. Many will roll their eyes at this comparison (many, many more will never read it . . .) but I tell you, that Serenity is a first. It's the first time that a TV sci-fi franchise--if you can call a colossal failure after 14 episodes a "franchise"--was brought to the big screen without making it a "feel good" fan movie. This movie is HARSH on fans, and only gives the most cursory of background to newbies and critics. That is why it is so great.

It's as if Joss Whedon said, "Great, I get to make a movie! I'll tell the story I always wanted to tell." rather than "How can I make everybody happy and keep this franchise alive?" This is not Star Trek: The Motion Picture or X-Files: Fight the Future--Watered down for non-believers, with lame homage moments for the major characters, and a few fan-tingling moments. This gives up a glimpse of where Joss would have gone with a series, if given the chance. This is like Firefly concentrate. 2-hours that are equivalent to 5 seasons. There are some shocks and most of the secrets from the series are revealed. It's all here.

I also have to say, that despite hopeful pronouncements by Universal executives and Joss himself, a $10 mil openning weekend for a $40 mil film probably means no sequel. I am, therefore operating on the assumption that this is last we'll see of our beloved crew. You never know--It could become My Big Fat Greek Wedding or Pulp Fiction and see its audience grow instead of shrink--or crazy good DVD sales could make the suits think it's worth their while to make another. But I doubt it.

I won't give a synopsis of the film (except the parts I'm highlighting, of course). Most critics have already done that for you. You may have seen me savaging some of the critics who didn't like it. The vast majority did, though, although most didn't understand the characters or the 'verse (short for "universe" in Firefly speak) in the movie. A tie for the award of best review for "getting it" goes to Stephanie Zacharek at Salon.com (free pass required) and Peter Hartlaub at the San Francisco Chronicle. Read their reviews and the reviews of others. I think you'll find that a disproportionate number of critics thought that this was one of the best sci-fi movies in recent memory.

One note I'd like to clarify--In my earlier post I said that I would recommend that you see the series on DVD before watching it in the theatre. I will amend that to say that that's the way I did it, and I got a lot more out of the movie. As you can see, though, dozens of critics who had never seen an episode loved it. So go see it already, while you have the chance to see it on the big screen. If you want a taste before you go, there is a very funny episode this Friday on the Sci-fi channel @7:00PM. Mal plans a big heist with the woman who, on an earlier episode, tricked him into marrying her and tried to take over the ship. It will give you a good idea of who all of the characters are--since they all have a fairly large part in the action and play their "roles" really well.

Warning for those who haven't seen it yet: (What the hell are you waiting for?). Spoliers abound in the text below. Continue reading--all ye who have seen it or can stand to be spolied (or sit if you want--I don't care :) . . . If you haven't seen it yet, you probably don't want to read on:

So, what's my reaction? Well, I thought it was just about as perfect a film as I've seen in a long while. Granted, I'm a true believer--but I like to think that I can think critically about a film's failings. I've cringed through moments in the Matrix films, or thought that James Cameron or Steven Speilberg went way too cheesy--George Lucas . . . don't even get me started! In short, I have always been able to love, obsess over, and root for a film if I wanted it to be good, but still see the flaws. Not this time. My inner critc shut off 10 minutes in, and I was GLUED to the screen. Why? Because this was the anti-scfi-action movie without all of the comfortable conventions we've grown to expect: that the good guys win, major characters don't die--or if they do they get a grand death scene a la Spock in Star Trek II, that good guys act . . . well . . . good, and that we leave the theatre happy.

When the movie opens, we see a different side of the beloved Captian Malcom Reynolds. He could have remained his old wisecracking, confident self, but Joss decides to make him grow and develop. Mal had some dark moments in the series, but we meet him now at "rock bottom. " It's been six months since we saw him in the last episode and in the first twenty minutes he:

Kicks a man to the savage "Reavers" to save his crew.
We find out that he ran his love interest Inara off the ship (according to Kaylee)
Ever loyal Zoe is questioning his decisions (when have you EVER seen that?)
Kaylee complains that the captain will run off the whole crew when he runs River and Simon off. (When have you heard Kaylee complain about Mal?--except when he insults her.)

Mal is in crisis--the "Just stay alive, and make no trouble" code he's tried to live with isn't working. He's a hero, plain and simple, but he's convinced himself that he's really not. Remember that at the beginning of the series, Mal and Zoe started this journey--they were left to die in Serenity valley for three days while a "peace treaty" was negotiated. They were big damn heroes then, but it didn't mean a goddamn thing. The way that they picked themselves up was to stop believing in anything except protecting "them and theres" (does that make sense--It's the best I could do with the plural of "me and mine"). The series is all about Mal and Zoe's real struggle to transition from fighters who believed in something to "outlaws" just trying to stay alive--a role that never really fit for either of them.

Of course, the "Big Damn Spoliers" of the movie is the fact that two major characters die. The first is Shepard Book (played by Barney Miller alum Ron Glass). In the six months since we've seen him last he's left Serenity and started his own colony on a world called, appropriately enough, Haven. It's sort of a ramshakle missionary camp with lots of kids running around, and a pleasant atmosphere. Mal and the others go to Haven to hide from the Operative sent by the Alliance to kill River Tam.

Book spends the majority of his scant screen time trying to tell Mal that he is, at heart, a good and noble person, and that he needs to believe in something again. Mal recoils at this, saying that he doesn't have any need to believe in God--and Book says, "Why is it that when I talk about belief, you always think that I'm talking about God?" (a "shepard" is a Christian minister in the Firefly world). Book and all of his colony are killed by the Operative as he searches for River, but Mal and the crew of Serenity arrive in time to hear Book's last words. He tells Mal again to believe in something. This is a fairly typical "hollywood death" where the character gets to speak his peace and die heroically while trying to pass on his wisdom to the hero.

Shepard Book helped Mal (slowly in the series, but more explicitly in the movie) rediscover his beliefs. In the movie, he tells Mal that he has a "way." Book has always believed that Mal is a man of principle, and that he was just playing the bad guy. Mal would like to believe that too. Book was always Mal's conscience, because, we can see that he has made a similar journey--In his past, he was a high ranking member of the alliance, and he gave it all up to join the Shepard order.

Although we don't know the details, we know that Book was a bad man, who didn't believe in anything, but that he, unlike Mal at this point, has found "serenity." He's happy in his beliefs and putting the past behind him. When Book dies and begs Mal to believe in "something"--Mal seriously doubts that there is good in himself. He almost loses his humanity--He modifies his "boat" to look like a Reaver ship, and threatens to kill his beloved crew as well if they don't obey him. He almost becomes a Reaver, at least metaphorically, and when the Operative tells Mal, "Of course you care--You're a human being, you're not a reaver." But I'm not sure Mal believes that.

When Book dies, Mal loses his soul (for a while), and he's back again in Serenity Valley with all he's lost. Book had to die to force Mal to confront his true beliefs. The Operative had to kill innocents (I'm not condoning) to force Mal out of the "how will I get out of this" mentality, into the "what's right?" mentality. As a character (I think it was Jayne) says a little later in the movie--"If you can't do something smart, at least do something right."

So why does Wash have to die? Zoe was at Serenity Valley too, but unlike Mal, she found a way out of the horror of what happened to them--a wonderful, quirky, lovable dingbat (who she "didn't like" with a mustache)--Wash. As long as she had him, that was enough. Wash had to die, so that Josh could really make us understand what the battle of Serenity Valley was all about. Back then, they lost it all for nothing--and that's why Mal can't find anything to believe in, and Zoe still follows him and clings to Wash. They couldn't hold the valley, and everybody died for nothing--or so they believe. When Wash dies--Zoe truly believes that "the signal" is all that's important. She's back in Serenity Valley, too, with a cause to fight for. Zoe and Mal finally find something to believe in (the truth about Miranda) in the BDM, and for the first time, it's worth dying for--remember, the whole crew--Simon, Jayne, Wash---everyone agrees that getting the signal out is worth risking everything. I love Wash and Book too--but don't say they died for nothing or it was random. If that were true, you wouldn't feel a thing. They died to save Mal and Zoe, and to get the signal out--to reclaim everything the Browncoats lost at Serenity Valley. I know you'll miss them. I will too.

Like all of you, I'm blown away by Wash's abrupt end. Many have written that Joss could have teased it all out over several seasons on Fox if given the chance, and that may be true. But we all have to play the cards we're dealt. Joss had to tell this story as if it was his last chance. This movie was Mal's movie, and I thought it beautifully showed his character--who opens the movie a good deal meaner, sadder, and detacted than when we saw him last--go from an empty shell of a man who throws people to the reavers to a soldier who remembers why he fought the Alliance in the first place. I was sad to see Book go, but I think that the reason that Joss put him on that boat in the first place was to save Mal's soul--not to make him Christian--but to make him believe in something again.

When Mal sees Miranda, and he sees the tape--He has a purpose again. The reason that the Browncoats fought for independence is that they don't like people being "messed with." And to any Browncoat, especially a true believer like Mal (watch the opening sequence of the first episode again) the truth about Miranda is intollerable. This, finally, is something to believe in, and a cause worth fighting for--and dying for ("although, that's not exactly plan A!"). Mal foreshadows this in an earlier conversation with Inara--"When I go to war, you'll see something different." (I'm paraphrasing the quotes).

Once it's a war, people die. Mal spent the entire series keeping his crew safe. Simon tried to keep River safe. Jayne spent the series trying to save his own ass. But once they saw Miranda, they all agreed that this was more important than them--More important than their safety. This is a long winded way of saying--Joss had to kill Wash. And it had to be Wash. Everyone who wrote in to say that they felt for Zoe--that they were too emotional to pay attention afterwards--that they thought that the whole crew would die--How else could Joss have gotten you there? Once it's a war, people are going to die. When an idea is more important than saving the people you love--that's what happens. It had to be Wash, because Zoe's grief captures this perfectly. She's a soldier, she lost everything that she holds dear, but if there's a chance Mal can get that signal out--it's worth it.

I was shocked when Wash died--but the most emotional reaction I had was right afterwards when Zoe told Mal--"This is the place, this is where we make our stand" and when Mal said "You've got to hold" (again, paraphrasing). Go back to episode 1--If they had only held the valley, they wouldn't have lost everything. For Zoe, and for Mal, this is Serenity Valley all over again. This time, they have to hold.

Mal started this movie a broken shell of a man who was alienating his whole crew, and alienating the woman he loves--until he takes Book's dying words to heart and believes in something. Wash didn't die in vain. His death was about making a stand, and fighting for what you believe instead of hiding all the time and barely living. Sorry to be so long winded--I hated seeing Wash and Book go too, but they died for something. Mal may be able to find serenity after this. He was always an idealistic "good guy" trying to convince himself he was a "bad guy" until he almost believed it. He thought he lost everything in Serenity Valley, but thanks to the sacrifice of Book and Wash, he may have gotten it back. Believe me, if they hadn't died, you wouldn't have felt this so strongly. Bless you Joss, for not taking the easy way out. You and I loved these characters, but I guarantee that Joss feels their loss more. He didn't wanna kill them--but in the end he gave them a reason to live. That's what drama's all about. That's why this is such an outstanding movie.

--Tinfoil out

I have found Serenity

2005-10-01T03:01:00.000-07:00

Saw the Big Damn Movie tonight. I wrote a big damn reaction piece, but I'll hold that for a few days, since I can't talk around the spoilers with any satisfaction. Briefly:

It's better than I ever could have hoped for. Joss Whedon tells this story as if this is his last chance. I hope that's not true, but if it is, this was a hell of way to go out.
Much darker, much deeper than Firefly. It kinda had to be.
My advice: don't see it until you've watched the entire series on DVD. So much of what makes this film great relies on you loving these characters. If you're seeing it for the first time, it's a whizbang, funny, touching, sci-fi adventure--But you won't understand.

More later--don't want to give too much away. Fair warning, though--If you don't see it by Sunday night, all bets are off, and spoliers will float through my blog like a leaf in the wind . . .

--Tinfoil out

Ok . . . I have to make fun of one more critic

2005-09-30T15:59:00.000-07:00

So, the good reviews for Serenity keep rolling in. There was one gentleman from the NY Post who didn't care for it, though. His name is Kyle Smith. His RottenTomatoes profile gives us a good idea of his unique critical take on movies, while hinting of a problem with narcolepsy.

He says of Serenity--currently the best reviewed wide-release action film of 2005:

The acting is terrible, the characters have no personality and the dialogue is stuck in the setup/punchline/setup/punchline rut.

To understand the weight that we should give this scathing review, let's, well, review some of Kyle's other 2005 reviews:

He liked Batman Begins a great deal (as did I), but in the review, he admits to some unusual viewing habits for a critic: "I fell asleep in 'X-Men.' I fell asleep in 'Spider-Man.' 'Batman Begins' blew me away . . ." Maybe it's just me, but should a critic admit that he sleeps through his job? At least Serenity managed to keep him awake.

Of the Gweneth Paltrow drama Proof, based on the Pulitzer-prize winning play, he says: "'PROOF" will put a lot of viewers right back where they left off in 12th-grade calculus: asleep." Again, with the sleeping . . .

Of the well recieved Jim Jarmusch film Broken Flowers starring Bill Murray he quips: "Audiences will laugh, mainly to prove they're awake, but the humor is pretty thin." Refering, perhaps, to a defense mechanism that he uses from time to time. This review also contains the precious jem: "The film has an eye for kitschy Americana (always big in Europe, which is why the film won the Cannes Film Festival's Grand Prix — French for second prize)." It is the second-highest award given at Cannes, yes . . . and I only took two years of French, but I even I know that "Grand Prix" means "Grand Prize."

And lest you think that that last statement might have been a joke of some sort. I want to present into the evidence that our dear sweet, sleepy critic gave the Dukes of Hazzard and The Island three stars, saying that the latter was: ""[Michael Bay's] best film since The Rock."

I rest my case.

Poor guy--he just can't stay awake . . . and he has no taste. I want to be a movie critic--lots of naps, and you get to be mindlessly catty for no reason. The best thing that I can say for him is that at least he didn't like Stealth.

--Tinfoil Out

While I don't approve of gloating . . .

2005-09-29T22:23:00.000-07:00

I do approve of hypocriscy exposed. Actually, I'm all for gloating--DailyKos does an admirable job of adminstering the smackdown to "Bloggers for Bush" who think that we're being too hard on the "Hammer." You reap what you sow, assholes.

--Tinfoil Out

Big Damn Movie a critical success

2005-09-29T21:35:00.000-07:00

So I've been watching Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes with baited breath (baited with . . . chicken?) and the Big Damn Movie (um, Serenity--for all the non-Browncoats out there) is doing pretty well with the critics. The New York Times, Roger Ebert, and other influential critics have great things to say. There have been a couple of bad reviews that call into question the reviewers' drinking habits, grasp of the English language, and whether or not they've actually seen the movie, most notably Claudia Puig from USA Today. Her scant, 271-word review smacks of a phone in. Without discussing the the plot to any degree, she surmises, "Still, when films based on successful and beloved TV series have fallen flat over the years (like The Avengers or Twin Peaks) isn't it asking for trouble to make a movie version of a TV flop?" Not to dwell on the negative, but feel free to contact Ms. Puig and ask to see her ticket stub, or at least to check her blood alcohol level. If you miss a screening, Ms. Puig, don't write a review. A high school English teacher would have given you a "D" for this review, and that's only if you were blowing him in the janitor's closet every day.

So, Ms. Puig not withstanding, Serentiy is a critical success. Now, we need to shoot for a $20mil opening weekend. GO SEE THIS FILM.

--Tinfoil Out.

Nothing changes.

2005-09-28T19:07:00.000-07:00

This morning, Crooks and Liars led me to an excerpt from an H.L. Mencken column that he wrote during the Scopes "Monkey" trial in 1925. With "Intelligent Design" gaining momentum in Kansas and Pennsylvania, it seemed particularly relevant. His theory in the article, written 80 years ago, is that it's not so much religion per se that causes the Christian right in America to hate evolution so much, but the rampant anti-intellectualism that fuels the movement.

The so-called religious organizations which now lead the war against the teaching of evolution are nothing more, at bottom, than conspiracies of the inferior man against his betters. They mirror very accurately his congenital hatred of knowledge, his bitter enmity to the man who knows more than he does, and so gets more out of life. Certainly it cannot have gone unnoticed that their membership is recruited, in the overwhelming main, from the lower orders -- that no man of any education or other human dignity belongs to them. What they propose to do, at bottom and in brief, is to make the superior man infamous -- by mere abuse if it is sufficient, and if it is not, then by law

The inferior man's reasons for hating knowledge are not hard to discern. He hates it because it is complex -- because it puts an unbearable burden upon his meager capacity for taking in ideas. Thus his search is always for short cuts. All superstitions are such short cuts. Their aim is to make the unintelligible simple, and even obvious.

I've seen first-hand, as a former university professor, that there are some students who feel very uncomfortable at the thought that they will have to discuss homosexuality, evolution, existential philosophy, and feminism. When they told me this, I would tell them that college was a place where your beliefs would be challenged, and that their role was not to pre-judge the subjects that they were exposed to, but rather to understand them thoroughly, and offer a reasoned response when they had digested the information. I know that there are institutions like BYU or Bob Jones University where religion is used to sheild students from ideas, but, in these religious institutions notwitshanding, college is supposed to be a place to learn. ( I attended a Catholic college in the midwest, and had a religion professor who started a class with "So you think Mary was a virgin? I've got some swampland to sell you . . .")

Which leads me back to Mencken's observation--Keep in mind, that he is not calling the poor, or the religious, or a certain racial group "inferior" people. He's reserved that label for those who refuse to learn, and hate the people who know more than them. I think that this is a perfect description for the current crop of religious wingnuts. They've seen that, though they are often complete morally bankrupt failures in life (see Pat Robertson as the cowardly syphillis infected "liquor officer" in his Korean War battalion), they gain tremendous power over others who are thoughtful and intelligent by convincing the "masses" that things are a great deal simpler than they really are. God is in charge--he hates homosexuals, and abortion. He sends hurricanes and terrorists to punish the wicked. Send God's representative some money, and fight the evil-doers. Pray, and there will be no more problems in America.

Some things never change. Mencken was up against William Jennings Bryan--We've got our Pat Robertsons and Jomes Dobsons to deal with. Mencken summed it up brilliantly when he said:

. . .[E]nlightenment, among mankind, is very narrowly dispersed. It is common to assume that human progress affects everyone -- that even the dullest man, in these bright days, knows more than any man of, say, the Eighteenth Century, and is far more civilized. This assumption is quite erroneous. The men of the educated minority, no doubt, know more than their predecessors, and of some of them, perhaps, it may be said that they are more civilized -- though I should not like to be put to giving names -- but the great masses of men, even in this inspired republic, are precisely where the mob was at the dawn of history.

Instead of quietly and rationally explaining evolution to these fools, we should be taking every media opportunity to call them willfully ignorant idiots and opportunists. There is no debate here. They are wrong. They are trying to teach in our schools that the world is flat, and 2 + 2 = God. I feel sorry for someone who has no access to education, but I have utter contempt for those who willfully refuse to learn. They are fools of the highest order, and deserve to be ridiculed. Where is our H.L. Mencken today?

--Tin Foil Out

Serenity

2005-09-26T18:59:00.000-07:00

Another break from politics for a movie recommend:

Serenity (aka "Firefly" the movie) takes off this Friday at a theatre near you. I haven't seen the film yet (10:20pm on Friday!!!), but I have become addicted to the 14 episodes that Joss Whedon (Buffy, Angel) shot for Fox in 2001. Fox, in their infinite wisdom, gave Joss Whedon a budget of $2 million an episode (a lot for a weekly sci-fi show), and let him shoot half a season. They then proceeded to show the episodes out of order and continually preempted the show and changed it's time slot, before cancelling it. After I'd spent $26 million on a project, I might, well, promote it, instead of killing it after 1/2 a season. But that's just me.

The happy re-beginning came after sales of Firefly's DVD set went through the roof, and Universal, thinking they had something here, bought the movie rights from Fox. The movie "Serenity" (the name of the space ship in Firefly), was made for $40 million, cheap by sci-fi standards, and the cast is signed on for two more sequels if Serenity can pull in the crowds (most analysts think it would have to make $70-$80 million worldwide to warrant a sequel.)

So, go see it already! If you haven't seen the DVDs of the series--beg, borrow, or steal them. Everyone describes Firefly as a "space western"--which is fair, given the costumes, props, and well, cattle, that inhabit this world. I think a more elegant way of describing it is as a group of misfits trying to survive on a frontier (the outer planets) while escaping a totalitarian government. It's the ultimate libertarian fairy tale. And it's damn funny too. Even if you don't like Sci-fi, give Serenity a try. If you doubt me, rent the DVDs from the TV series.

National Debt and Katrina

2005-09-20T09:43:00.000-07:00

Today, a group of House Republicans put forth a noble plan to cut "wasteful" government spending to blunt the effect of Katrina (and possibly Rita) of the budget. These noble men (and women?) immediately offered to let the President's tax cuts expire, and to give back the money that had been allocated to their districts in the massive pork-laden highway bill . . .

I'm sorry, I can't do this with a straight face.

Of course they didn't offer to sacrifice anything that they support. They nobly offered to cut medicaid , the National Endowments for the arts and humanities, foriegn aid, and to delay the perscription drug benefit for seniors for a year. It's nice to know that in times of crisis, this country can run a costly war, give tax cuts to the rich, and spend $225 billion on largely unneccesary pork-barrel projects, while heroically offering to screw the poor out of health care, cut funding to arts organizations, keep seniors from affordable perscriptions, and piss off the rest of the world by cutting aid. Believe me, if this had been prompted by anything other than a natural disaster, FEMA would have gotten the axe too.

The truth is, these morons will introduce bills for all of these cuts, and precious few will be enacted, even though they'll lick their chops at the chance to eliminate all these social programs. Everyone knows that we'll just end up borrowing the money.

I think it's time to put all of this in perspective. Let's think of the US government as if it were an average American--the Joe Smith of Middle America. Joe makes only $23,000.00/yr, but for the last few years, he has decided to give $2,000 of his salary out as gifts to his rich friends--you know, beacuse he likes them. This is ok, because he somehow managed to convince the bank to lend him $800,000.00 over the years, so he can afford to be generous. He's starting to run into problems, though. His interest payments for this year will be $3,300.00, leaving him with only $17,700 to spend on everything else, right? Not so. Joe decides that he must live in the lifestyle to which he has become accustomed, so he needs to go deeper in debt. He borrows an additional $3,400. Smart move for any American, right? He probably should invest the money, or spend it fixing up his home, but what fun would that be! He buys a flashy new car, expensive suits, and a brand new entertainment center. He gives more money to his rich friends--so that they can fix up other people's houses. Everything is just wonderful.

Oh, no. Joe's car is in an accident, and it will cost at least $2,000 to fix it. It's too bad that he didn't spend $32 a few years ago to replace the part that eventually broke, but didn't think it was worth it. Now he needs a whole new engine, and he's already spent all the money. Does he ask his rich friends for the gifts back? Does he consider not giving them gifts next year? Does he sell his new purchases to get the money?

No, Joe promises to scrimp and save, mostly by refusing to pay bills. He then decides to borrow and additional $2,000 to fix the car, and doesn't get rid of anything. In the end, after threatening to not pay his bills, he pays them anyway. Next year, he plans to borrow an additional $4,000 on top of his salary, while giving even more to his rich friends. In ten years, he will owe $110,000.oo to the bank! He'll just keep piling on the debt until the bank refuses to give him more. Good plan, Joe!

Multiply the numbers in the story above by a million, and replace "Joe" with "George W." and you have a pretty good idea of the fix we're in this year:

Revenues from taxes = $2.143 Trillion
Spending = $2.483 Trillion
Deficit = -$340 Billion
Interest due on debt= -$335 Billion

TOTAL NATIONAL DEBT -$7.9 Trillion

This year, before Katrina, we were planning to spend about $340 billion more than we take in in taxes, or about 16% of the total budget. This is the deficit. Where will we get this money? We will borrow it from foreign governments and other sources. We've already borrowed $7.9 trillion. Half of which, we borrowed since Bush has been in office.

That's great, isn't it, we can just keep borrowing the money right? It's good for the economy to have this extra money floating around, right? Well, the drawback for the country is the same as for you if you have a lot of credit card debt, the minimum payments keep going up. You eventually are spending so much on the interest, that it eliminates any advantage you gained by borrowing the money in the first place. We're actually paying interest this year that is roughly equilavent to the amount we're borrowing. Any loan shark would love that racket.

The obvious conclusion is that we're passing the point of diminshing returns on our borrowed money. If we didn't have such an enormous national debt, we could almost balance the budget and maintain current spending levels. But, alas, we have to spend 15% of our budget just on interest and we have to borrow that much each year to cover it--putting us deeper in debt and increasing our interest payments, which means we'll have to borrow more, which means that our interest payments go up . . . you get the idea. There's also the danger, that if we get too deep in debt, they won't lend to us any more if it looks like we won't be able to pay ever pay it back.

On top of that, we now have a $200 billion hurricane dropped in our laps.

Well, what can we do to fix the situation?

Well, we could raise taxes back to pre-Bush levels, but that really wouldn't help, right? Wrong. In fact, we could have paid for nearly the entire reconstruction of New Orleans with the revenue lost to Bush's tax cuts JUST THIS YEAR.

REVENUE LOST TO TAX CUTS (2005) = -$191 Billion

Still, we'd rather eliminate health care for the poor and funding for the arts, right?

I know what you're thinking. Tax cuts are Bush's baby. He can't cut those, besides, Bush didn't create this problem, did he? He inherited the debt from previous presidents, including Clinton, right? Yes, but the original deficit spender who got us into this mess was Reagan. Clinton inherited a huge and growing national debt, but by the end of his second term, he finally got the deficit eliminated, and stabilized the national debt. He even managed a $31 billion surplus.

NATIONAL DEBT on 1/1/2000 $4.5 Trillion.
DEFICIT on 1/1/2000 NONE! $31 Billion SURPLUS!

So what has Bush done in the last 5 years? Well, he's nearly doubled the national debt, by running deficits of between $100 billion and $300 billion every year. These deficits are created by a combination of increased spending and nearly a trillion dollars in tax cuts, of which, nearly half went to people who make more than $250,000/yr.

BUSH has borrowed, to date, $3.4 Trillion (for a total of $7.9 Trillion)
TAX CUTS SINCE 2001: $894 Billion
TAX CUTS FOR THE TOP 5% (over $250,000/yr income): $361.8 Billion

So, what can we do about Katrina? The tax cuts, which are actually set to expire, are the low-hanging fruit here. If Congress does nothing, and lets them expire, that'll save us $191 billion this year--Problem solved--and that leaves us in the fine position of overspending by the original, reasonable total of $340 billion. Phew. We're still headed for financial ruin, but at least we can pay for the hurricane.

Tickets for Rat City Rollergirls finals on sale now!

2005-09-20T08:09:00.000-07:00

Tickets for the finals are on sale now. It's your last chance to see the Rollergirls this season, and it's gonna be a war in the finals--With Darth Skater and Burnett Down facing off for all the marbles. As you can see from this advertisement on the Rat City Rollergirls' site:

Roller Derby Semis

2005-09-17T22:37:00.000-07:00

Best. Bout. Ever.

Tonight, the Roller Girls faced off in their first playoff games. As I predicted, the DLF v. Sockit Wenches matchup was intense, and the Throttle Rockets v. Grave Danger was a bit of a snoozer. The new venue (Hangar 27 @ Sandpoint) was outstanding. It is a HUGE hangar, at least twice the size of the last one, and the larger space and more distant walls definitely improve the audio. The best new feautre is the beer garden seating!

The first bout was low scoring, violent and tense. The DLF came out short-handed, with a number of injuries and a conspicuously absent Kim Reaper (where are you Kim?). Lorna Boom was apparently recovering from a serious car accident, and was supposed to see limited duty, but she was out there in most jams, filling in for the fallen. From the beginning, the Sockit Wenches had more energy, more drive, and better strategy. Surprisingly enough, it was not Miss Fortune, the Sockit Wenches' heart and soul, but Pia Mess who gave the DLF fits. With most of their good jammers injured or absent, the DLF turned to Burnett Down (pictured above--courtesy of joygantic) to jam for them every other jam. She did a remarkable job after a shaky start, but at the half, it was within 2 points. Everyone wondered if DLF had enough in the tank to win. To make matters worse, DLF had more players go down in the second half--Momma Cherry left with an injury along with Punchin' Judy. Both would return, but DLF played all night long as the skating wounded.

It was tied @ 36 all with 3:00 to go, when the DLF pulled off a number of smart moves. They may have been tired, but they executed some strategic coups and strong individual efforts. First, underrated jammer Hideous Braxley skated through the pack, became lead jammer, and scored 4 quick points. She wisely called off the jam before the Sockit Wenches could score any points. Then, Burnett Down faced off against Sockit Wenches ace jammer Miss Fortune, and absolutely leveled her at the start of the jam. I haven't seen a hit like that since Lawerence Talyor knocked out Joe Montana. With the lead secured, DLF went on defense, inserting Diva State and Kitty Kamikase at blocker. Getting past these two tall, powerful ladies is nearly impossible, and with Pia Mess and Miss Fortune on the bench exhausted, it fell to poor Juliet Bravo to try and salvage the game. She could not get past the wall. Hideous Braxely scored a few extra points, while Juliet went down hard, injuring her elbow, and trying valiantly to skate the last few seconds in a losing cause. I have to wonder why Pia Mess was not out there for the last jam. With 1:15 left in your season, why not have your best jammer out there?

In the end, Burnett Down, who had jammed for the DLF nearly half of the jams, still seemed like a bundle of energy--Juliet Bravo, on the other hand, sat on the ground, holding her elbow, comforted by her teammates. The Sockit Wenches almost pulled off the massive upset, but they fell just short 45-36 (it was closer than it sounds). The MVP of the world has to go to Burnett Down. She carried her team, and seemed to get stonger as the match went on. When she JACKED Miss Fortune (and you really had to see it to believe it) , she not only stopped the Sockit Wenches' momentum, she took the heart out of them. This is the second or third time this season that the DLF needed Burnett Down to come up with a great jam to put them comfortably ahead. She can singlehandedly change the game like no one else. She's not the biggest, or the fastest rollergirl out there (although she'd be in the top 5 in both categories), but she's a big game player with an attitude a mile wide. Go DLF!

DLF will face the Throttle Rockets in the finals. TR got there with their usual combination of strength and speed. Darth Skater and Valtron 3000 were their usual dominant selves, but, surprisingly, most of the points were scored by Astroglide. Femme Fatale did play for Grave Danger, but she is shaping up as the Barry Sanders of the Roller Derby world, a great player who's incredibly fun to watch on a mediocre team. Also, inexplicably, they used her at pivot for most of the game, not jammer. She is a good pivot, but she's too small to have much effect on the taller, stronger girls who try to pass her. She laid a great hit on Darth Skater at one point, and pretty much bounced off. It would have been closer if they had used her as jammer as often as the DLF did with Burnett Down, but I think the outcome would have been the same.

The finals will be epic. The DLF beat the Throttle Rockets pretty soundly in their last meeting, but you can throw that result out the window. If the DLF doesn't have Kim Reaper back , they may not have the offense to win. The Throttle Rockets have a strong cast of interchangable jammers who can all score, and they're bigger and stronger than the Sockit Wenches, so they should match up better with the DLF. The matchup that I most want to see, of course, is Darth Skater v. Burnett Down. They're both outstanding, but Darth's fast, tough, and low to the ground, while Burnett's tall, unhittable, and cagey. The Throttle Rockets apparently wanted to see this too, when the Sockit Wenches tied the DLF late, the Throttle Rockets stood up and chanted "D-L-F." I guess your season isn't complete until you've beaten the best. Now they'll get a chance.

The finals will be CRAZY! Mark your calendars now. October 15th.

No one is conservative . . .when they hold the purse strings.

2005-09-16T08:58:00.000-07:00

I've noticed that there've been some "conservative" rumblings coming from some in the Republican party who are a bit miffed over the "blank check" that Bush seems to be giving to rebuilding the gulf coast after Katrina. Tom Coburn, the "can't we all just get along" gay-bashing senator from Oklahoma (see Crooks and Liars for a wonderful summation), called for "sacrifices" to be made in the federal government by way of spending cuts--Not, of course, by raising taxes (or even cancelling the planned tax cuts for the wealthy).

Just guess which programs Mr. Coburn would like to cut. He didn't give a list, but he sure as hell isn't going to start railing against corporate welfare, pork barrel projects, and defense spending. Which brings up a point that I've touched on before, but which seems so obvious in the face of Katrina:

There are no liberals or conservatives.

Not really. The traditional definitions of these terms in American politics have gone all topsy-turvy since (at least) Reagan decided that "liberal" was a dirty word. My understanding of what the terms used to mean is:

A conservative: In favor of a small federal government, supports states rights, a strong military, law and order, a free market economy, and private-sector solutions for problems. Strong examples: Barry Goldwater, Dwight Eisenhower.

A liberal: believes that the government should intervene to provide for the health and welfare of its citizens. Since states do not provide uniform solutions to all citizens, the federal goverment should usurp this authority. Strong believers in civil rights at the expense of law and order. Strong examples: FDR, Lyndon Johnson.

What we have are two parties who both love to spend money, but which have different priorities. They are both bastardized versions of their natural tendancies. This owes, mostly, to the strong influence that corporate interests play in politics. They've morphed into the party that wants to give corporations handouts and kinda help the poor (Democrats), and the party that REALLY wants to give corporations handouts and help the rich.

The current Congress has embraced these conservative values, without embracing the central tenant of a small, weak, federal government. Coburn, who voted for the largest, pork laden highway bill in Congressional history, is complaining, not about the spending per se, but who will benefit from the money. It's okay to spend money if it's to benefit the wealthy, but not okay to give a "handout."

How did we get here? Well, it's been a long time coming. I think the place to start is the Great Depression, when America, like the rest of the world, was a mess. Unemployment was through the roof, banks closed in droves, and people were getting restless. FDR had a desperate plan to keep the country from rebelling and turning "red." Through the "New Deal" he would raise taxes on people's already meager incomes dramatically--through the income tax (I think the rate was 90% on wealthy!) and a new program called "Social Security." How do you sell the biggest tax increase of all time to people who are miserably poor? Use that revenue to give them jobs! With the new taxes, the government is flush with money, The WPA and programs like it managed to take this money from those who had it, and give jobs to those who had nothing. Social Security was a particularly brilliant gambit, because FDR could collect a lot of money in the short term while defering the payments to later generations (hence the current crisis).

The economy recovered, and the government continued spending on a massive scale through WWII--this time, on the war effort. At the end of the war, a united country embarked on some remarkable (and expensive) projects that helped America flourish. We built a first-class transportaion system by constructing interstate highways, we educated our populace by paying the college tuition of millions of returning soldiers through the GI bill. We rebuilt Europe and Japan through the Marshall Plan. We spent freely and got tremendous returns on our investments.

Civil rights battles in the 50s and 60s led to legislation that was undoubtably "liberal." President Johnson was able to declare "war" on poverty and expand FDRs New Deal. The government would now help the poor, giving them money in the form of "welfare" and medical care through "medicaid." The federal government grew and grew under the rule of the Democrats towards Johnson's "Great Society."

Nixon expanded, not the size, but the power of the federal government. He expanded federal police powers, started the "War on Drugs" which itself demonstrates what happens when two conservative principles--small government and law and order--come into conflict. He took steps to improve relations with foreign governments, including mortal enemies of the US--the USSR and China. But, his biggest contribution to the current political climate was, of course Watergate. This is where the extreme, public, and hate-filled differences between the two parties started. There would have to be payback for Watergate, and later payback for the payback, and so on.

Through the Carter administration (I'm skipping Ford), the country focused on enegry conservation, and creating jobs (to be fair--mostly becasue of the crises in each area). While the courts issued startling new rulings on individual rights, and the right to privacy. It was the height of what Reagan would later call "The Welfare State." High taxes, out of control spending, and expansive social programs, the supreme court reduced police powers, and expanded a woman's right to choose. This, coupled with a sagging economy, made a segment of the population angry. Maybe things were so bad, not becasue of OPEC, foriegn car manufacturers, or hostages in Iran. Maybe they were bad because of these expanded social programs and civil liberties . . .

When Reagan came to office, he played on this theme, and started a "conservative" revolution tied tightly to partiotism, a strong defense, and christian values. He managed to gather votes from people who were fed up with the disappointment over Nixon, the economic malaise in the Carter administration, and the failed war in Vietnam. He made it "fun" to be an American again, while cautioning that we had lost our way. He, like FDR, stimulated the economy and created jobs by vast increases in government spending, especially on defense. Unlike FDR, however, he cut taxes, rather than raise them. He talked the talk of a "conservative" eliminating many 'pesky' social programs and talking about smaller government, while all while running record budget deficits. Reagan provided the Republicans with a blueprint for long-term success:

Focus on American's patriotism. Give voters strong symbols of leadership, and the sense (which was sorely lacking at the time) that America is the best nation on earth.
Cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes. Nobody likes paying taxes. Don't worry about paying for the cuts, run a defecit. You can run in an election saying "I'm going to cut your taxes and that guy won't." You'll be popular.
Build up the "enemy." The Soviet Union was, of course, an actual threat. But Reagan made them into the "evil empire."
Focus on the theme of self-reliance as a way to curtail social programs and give tax breaks to the wealthy. Teach Americans to "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps." Invoke frontier themes.
Court the Christian vote. Reagan, while not a big church-goer, was able to convince Christian Americans that Republicans, not Democrats, had their best interests at heart. His alliances with the Moral Majority and his strong opposition to abortion cemented a voting block that had historically largely gone to the Democrats. The Democrats lost the South, and politics was changed forever.
Under the guise of a "free market" economy, you can give tremendous amounts of money to corporate interests. Corportate lobbyists, who had begun to grow in power since the mid 1970s now had a President who would deliver their agenda.

As corporate interests grew in power, the deficit kept growing, and spending continued unabated on defense. Reagan was not able to roll back the New Deal and Great Society reforms of FDR and LBJ, but he laid the groundwork, and he got Republicans thinking that there would be plenty of money for their priorities--mostly giving away money to corporations--if the very expensive social programs would go away.

Reagan also had his share of scandals that made the "Watergate payback" urge even greater. Iran-Contra was arguably the greatest breach of public trust in history, as Reagan (yes, he knew) covertly sold missles to Iran (IRAN, PEOPLE!) to finance the Contras in Nicaragua--against the express wishes of Congress. This scandal exacerbated the tension between the two parties, and set the precident (that I think we'll see for the foreseeable future) of the "second term scandal" for all modern Presidents. Bush may avoid it with a strong majority in the House and Senate, but let's just say that since Watergate, we've had a lot of job security for "Independent Counsels."

GHW Bush continued the tax cutting/deficit expanding habits of his predecessor, but he actually paid for Reagan's policies in the form of a recession in 1991 that sank his Presidency. Also, like his son later, he failed to respond promptly and compassionately to a hurricane (Andrew). Still and all, he would have won re-election, except for one tiny problem--Ross Perot, whose Texas millionaire swagger co-opted Reagan's "self-reliance" theme and won 19% of the vote. Still, Clinton was a clever choice by the Democrats. He was a southern Christian who knew how to quote the bible when necessary. He also managed to steal the patriotism card from the Republicans and focused on the good times ahead (remember "Don't stop thinkin about tomorrow" and "It's the ecomony stupid!"). The Republicans had lost their long-fought-for stranglehold on the presidency and were determined to get it back.

To make matters worse, when Clinton was in office, he embarked on a social program that even FDR and LBJ never tried--national health care. The insurance and pharmaceutical industries went on the offensive and derailed the plan. Meanwhile, the Republicans distilled Reagan's lessons above into a "Contract with America " that promised to cut "wasteful" federal spending, i.e. social programs like Social Security. This led to an unprecendented "Republican Revolution" and doomed Clinton's social agenda forever. Clinton ultimately outmanuvered the Republican Congress during the "Government Shutdown" and the New Deal programs were left intact. Clinton moved to the center, maintaining, but not expanding social programs, while establishing better ties with corporate interests. He was forced to curtail Welfare, but he managed to cut spending and the deficit dramatically and preside over a period of economic growth unmatched since WWII. The Republicans would not rest, though. They hunted Clinton throughout his presidency, determined to provide a suitable scandal as payback for Watergate and Iran-Contra. They did, of course, but ultimately failed to remove Clinton from office, because the public, while fascinated by the scandal, really didn't think it was that bad. On the day of his impeachment trial, Clinton had a 60% approval rating. Maybe it is the economy, stupid.

The Bush-Gore election was a snoozer. The common theme was that "It doesn't matter who wins." Prosperity had made the electorate disinterested, and Clinton's move to the center had made it difficult to see the differences between the two parties. It was clear the the priority of both parties had become corporate interests--Ralph Nader based his campaign on this. No one could see that Clinton had only managed to hold the line against the Republican cause to eliminate social programs. He was actually a liberal who played a reluctant moderate out of necessity. Al Gore ran a miserable campaign, and refused to use his greatest asset, Clinton, because of the lingering scandal. Meanwhile, the Republicans crafted a candidate based on all of the Reagan principles listed above, a frontier-themed, tax cutting cowboy who was a born-again Christian. The only wrinkle was that this guy was playing a "moderate" a "compassionate conservative." Clinton had stolen so many themes from the Republican playbook that they had to co-opt one from the Democrats. And they still lost (well, not officially)--Let's just say that the election had low voter turnout and was very, very close.

For a year, America really didn't care who the president was. Bush pushed his dramatic tax cuts through Congress and stood next to Ted Kennedy and introduced "No child left behind." The Bush gameplan was clear--his majority in the senate was small (then, later, non-existent) and he wasn't particularly popular. So, he would push the corporate-giveaway, tax cuts for the rich angle quietly while hiding behind "compassion." Remember when Bush sent every American taxpayer $300? A great PR stunt to show people what "tax cuts" mean. And a great way to make unequal tax cuts seem fair. Bush was headed for a lackluster presidency and few small gains for Republicans in the tax codes . . .

Then it all changed. 9/11. The whole country stood behind Bush, transforming a weak and unpopular President into "leader" with a mandate. Suddenly, the "enemy" that was missing from Reagan's formula above showed itself. Modest goals for the Bush administration were replaced with lofty goals. After a pre-functory war in Afghanistan (you sort of have to go after the acutal enemy), Bush unveiled the Republican wet dream, modelled on Reagan:

Focus on American's patriotism. The Patriot Act stripped freedoms from Americans that had been won in the court battles of the 1970s. Long held rules of war like the Geneva Convention were "quaint." Torture was acceptable, all in the name of Patriotism. Any dissent in the Democrats, or in the media was treason.
Cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes. Do you have to finance a major war and reconstruction effort? No need to raise taxes. Just run deficits! In fact, make the tax cuts "permanent."
Build up the "enemy." Axis of evil anyone? Ever notice that Afghanistan and Al Qaeda are never mentioned? There are "no good targets" in Afghanistan, but Iraq holds considerable wealth for US corporate interests . . . Also, the creation of Department of Homeland Security (which Bush initially opposed) provides an opportunity to spend wildly on the defense industry while curtailing spending on FEMA and other vital "big government" programs.
Focus on the theme of self-reliance as a way to curtail social programs. Social Security needs to be "reformed." Headstart might need to be cancelled. We're going to create an "ownership society." While we're at it, let's make it harder to declare bankruptcy and to sue corporations.
Court the Christian vote. Need I say more?
Under the guise of a "free market" economy, you can give tremendous amounts of money to corporate interests. Bush presided over the largest giveaways to corporations ever and the rolling back of almost all environmental regulations.

Today, we see the partisan headhunting by the left swinging into high gear (as a payback for Clinton), and the stakes have been raised dramatically by Iraq and Katrina. So what we are left with is not a useful liberal/conservative distinction, but two parties that hate each other with different goals:

Republican: Destroy the New Deal and the Great Society, reward corporate donors and other interests. Dismantle the Federal "safety net" and consolidate power in the executive.
Democrat: ???--No seriously, what is their goal, except weak attempts to stop this? For the Democrats, having achieved all of their desires in the 1970s, they struggle to find a theme. Hopefully Katrina will help them to focus on poverty, jobs, and health care--Bush has handed them their mandate back, by rolling back all of their gains. And hopefully distance from 9/11 and a disasterous Iraq war will focus the Dems on rebuilding America's reputation and restoring personal liberties. John
Kerry weakly stood behind these issues, the Democrats need to stand forcefully behind them.

For the Republicans, the chickens may finally be coming home to roost. They have now played the "strong leader," 9/11, and WMD cards to death, and after Katrina blew the first two away, they're left with a President with strong majorities in Congress, but a 40% approval rating. Who knows what the political future holds? I am certain that Bush will continue to push his legislative agenda as if nothing had happened, but will Republicans in Congress who are facing re-election stay in lock-step with him? I think that they'll wait a few months to give more tax cuts to the rich, and I think that Social Security reform is on life support, but if they keep their majorities in 2006, it will be business as usual.

I actually don't know of any liberals or conservatives in either party. If Hillary is the candidate, she is much more likely to run as a moderate--like her husband in his last term, than an FDR style liberal. Still, I think the liberals would support her, or anyone, after Bush. The Republicans have the tough task of holding together a coalition of Christian wingnuts, wealthy people, and true conservatives in the face of an increasingly disasterous second term for Bush. If Bush's luck continues to fade, the next Republican candidate might look more like Gerald Ford after Watergate than Bush Sr. after Reagan. I can only hope. I can say with certainty that the days of civility between the two parties are over and that the corporate giveaways and Watergate paybacks will continue, leaving liberals like me and true conservatives longing for politician we can believe in.

--Tinfoil out

A break from politics . . . for Roller Derby!

2005-09-15T17:33:00.000-07:00

So the Rat City Roller Girls have their semi-final bout on Saturday. I have grown very attached to the sport, and it will be sad (and exciting) to see the second to last game of the season. I am afraid that my favorite team, the Derby Liberation Front, has a tough bout ahead, having to face the Sockit Wenches, who, despite a 1-5 record, have really come on of late, losing to the DLF by only 1 POINT two bouts ago, and keeping it interesting until the last jam vs. the other dominant team, the Throttle Rockets, last bout.

It will be a hell of a match-up. The DLF has a squad of Amazons led by Burnett Down and Deva State, along with speedster Kim Reaper--But they face a speedy, scrappy Sockit Wenches team, led by the last two monthly MVP's Miss Fortune and Pia Mess . Miss Fortune, especially, is not afraid to take a hit.

In the other match, I think the Throttle Rockets will easily handle Grave Danger . Especially if GD's Femme Fatale skips the bout again. She might be the fastest woman out there when she plays, but, as you can tell by the team picture, GD lacks size. The Throttle Rockets can lay a heavy hit on you, with the lightning fast bowling-ball that is Darth Skater and tall, fast Valtron 3000. The only question marks are whether the TR will have their two injured jammers back, Interplanet Janet and Hurricane Lilly. Even if they don't (it has been 2 months) they've got plenty of depth at jammer with Astroglide and Dirty Little Secret filling in nicely at the last bout.

If you're in the Seattle area, you can still get tickets. Not to be missed.

--Tinfoil Out

9/11 Conspiracies

2005-09-12T13:33:00.000-07:00

For the last few weeks while Brad has been in Crawford with Cindy Sheehan. BradBlog has been guest-blogged by Winter Patriot and others who have a decidedly wing-nuttier view than Brad does. One of their recent obsessions is the 9/11 "conspiracy" that the CIA and the military carried out the 9/11 attacks to whip up a war in the Middle East.

Hogwash.

The truth is bad enough:

That the Bush administration didn't focus enough on Al-Quaeda as a threat in the Summer of 2001.
That they used 9/11 as a springboard to attack Iraq even though there was no connection.
And they have repeatedly resisted any effort to investigate the government's response to 9/11.

If you can stand rambling, spurious logic, please read the most recent posting about 9/11. I can summarize all of it for you, though:

In each case, there is an "obvious" detail that the MSM didn't notice/highlight/investigate (Even though the explanation is actually quite reasonable).
Since they didn't notice/highlight/investigate it, there must have been a cover-up.
The wing-nut answer that they supply is the ONLY possible interpretation.

Example:

There was not much visible wreckage from plane that crashed into the Pentagon
Since the wreckage was missing from photographs, it must have been something else that hit the Pentagon.
The only possible answer is a missle/drone/small plane packed with explosives.

The only problem is that HUNDREDS of people saw the passenger jet hit the building. Also, as Popular Mechanics pointed out in their very good series of articles debunking 9/11 conspiracies that there was a lot of debris from the plane, but, as you would expect from an object moving at 200+ MPH, and which struck the building low to the ground, most of the debris was thrown into the building. There are holes in the building as far in as the "C" ring (third from the outside).

Occam's Razor requires that when you have countless reports from eyewitnesses of a plane hitting a building that's probably what happened. The Bush administration is greedy, incompetent, opportunistic, and stubborn, but all of these conspiracy theories rely on him being some sort of evil genius.

Since the conspiracy wingnuts like to ask loaded rhetorical questions, I've got a few of my own:

If Bush was so clever in planning 9/11 to get us into a war with Iraq, why not set up scenario with Iraqi commandos hijacking the plane? It would have saved them that little detour through Afghanistan, which has not exactly yielded huge financial gains for the US (or even Halliburton).
Why kill 3,000+ Americans and destroy the financial center of the country? We've been drawn into wars before over far less. Yes, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident that escalated our role in Vietnam was most likely based on a lie, but that involved a bunch of US ships pretending to be shot at, and then returning fire. A downed fighter jet in the Iraqi no-fly zone or missle launched at Israel might have been enough. Destroying lower Manhattan and the Pentagon seems like an excessive and piss-poor way to manufacture a war in Iraq.

Would Bush: authorize torture, invade a country for oil, suppress dissidents, cover up mistakes? Sure. He has. Is he clever enough to set in motion all the events from 9/11 to the Iraq War? I don't think so.

I think that, to a certain extent, we need conspiracies to help us deal with tremendous tragedies and acts of violence. It's the same impulse that causes us to invent mythologies and religions. It stems from the hope that someone or something is in charge of the world--sometimes benevolent (God, country, parents), and sometimes evil (conspiracies, devils, criminals). Usually there's a degree of truth in these conspiracies. Bush is a bad leader, he lies, and does underhanded things all the time ergo, if you don't like him and really need the world to make sense, it's pretty easy to make the leap that he is an evil genius (rather than an callous, indifferent idiot).

The "proof" for these accusations takes on a life of it's own. The Kennedy assasination is the most obvious example, culminating in the wild fantasy that is Oliver Stone's JFK. This fascinating site debunks all of the claims in that film and takes the mystery out of the wild accusations that have become "fact" to JFK conspiracy nuts. A few choice examples:

FBI sharpshooters WERE able to repeat Oswald's feat of getting off three shots from the book depository (one actually did it in 4.5 sec vs. Oswald's 9 sec)
The force of a bullet that enters the back of the head from a high-powered rifle will, in fact often send the head "back and to the left."
The "magic bullet" is actually quite reasonable when you consider that Kennedy's seat in the back of the car was raised up higher that Gov. Connelly's in front of him. The bullet made no weird turns in the air, but actually behaved very predictably based on the positions of the two men.
The "shooter" on the grassy knoll, sometimes called "Badgeman" that appears as a blur in Abraham Zapruder's famous film has been identified as an African American couple who were drinking cokes an watching the president go by from the wall. Witnesses saw them drop a coke bottle when the heard the shots, and they, like everyone else, ran like hell. Most of the "mysterious" people in Dealy Plaza have been identified and interviewed, all with innocent stories.

Note the similarity between the Kennedy "evidence" and the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. They're all about a mysteriously overlooked detail that only has one possible "fantastic" explanation. I guess, for me, I'm outraged enough about what is actually happening, and I don't need to pile on a CIA financed 9/11 before I want Bush impeached and in jail for war crimes. Most times the simplest explanation is the right one.

-Tin Foil Out.

Cindy Sheehan provides a much needed laugh

2005-09-02T10:59:00.000-07:00

With all of the horrible news coming out of New Orleans, I really need a good laugh. It came from an unlikely source, Cindy Sheehan. In her blog on the Huffington Post, she was talking about touring through Texas on her way back from Crawford and meeting with politicians. She apparently even asked Tom Delay to meet with her. Her exchange with his aide is hillarious:

. . . Tom Delay's aide said he probably won't meet with me because I don't "comport" myself properly. I told him that we don't think Tom Delay "comports" himself properly and I could probably get a meeting if Casey had a feeding tube in him instead of being dead for his boss's support of a horrible war. His aide said he didn't know what I was referring to…when are these people going to stop thinking I am stupid?

Priceless. This woman has no fear.

TinFoil Out

Save New Orleans

2005-09-01T15:17:00.000-07:00

I love New Orleans. My wife and I have strong memories of visiting in the first few months of our relationship, and, later, sharing a wonderful 2001 New Year's Eve with some of our closest friends. I am currently:

Sad beyond words to see that city "destroyed." That's the only term I can think of for it. It will be uninhabitable for months or years. There are even statements by short sighted Republicans that it may not be worth rebuliding. It is one of the only American cities that should unquestionably be rebuilt, regardless of the cost or difficulty. It is a city that has the history, art, and culture that so many US cities lack. We must rebuild it.
I'm also ashamed of the leaders of my country--I know that this is not a surprising sentiment coming from me, but, trust me, this is no philosophical difference or policy quibble. The largest natural disaster that we have ever experienced in this country, and our President and Congress were on vacation, and when they finally got off of their asses, they responded painfully slowly. In 2005, in the richest country in the world, people are dying of starvation and dehydration (the irony!) in the streets of New Orleans, surrounded by dead bodies and human waste while they wait for aid and transportation out of the city.
Don't believe them when they said they didn't know how bad it would be. Two days before the storm made landfall, they were predicting a direct hit on New Orleans, by a storm that was category 5. TV, radio, and print media were all doing stories about the "bowl" that New Orleans was sitting in, and how this storm could flood it completely. This was a surprise to no one--our government was simply unprepared and did not move quickly enough.
Where's the aid? There should be a caravan of buses a hundred miles long going into that city (I know that there is only one reliable route into the city, but why isn't it jammed with relief traffic?). If our government can't mobilize these forces after THREE DAYS have already passed, maybe citizens should take the initiative. Every bus, truck, RV, or van in the American south should be filled with food and get to New Orleans. Feed the people and get them the hell out of there.
I don't want to here another goddamn report about looters. I don't want to hear our President say that there will be "zero" tolerance for them. I couldn't care less if Wal-mart is down a few (or even a few thousand) TVs at the end of this. People are stealing becasue they have nothing, and because the US government is not doing enough to help them. Let's also be clear about the guns and violence among the looters--They are desperate, and they wouldn't be holding guns and shooting at rescuers if they weren't. Get them fed, treated medically, and the hell out of New Orleans, and they won't shoot you or steal TVs. Mr. Bush, the looting is the fault of the authorities--not the looters. HELP THEM!
For some reason, known only to him, Bush is not accepting assistance from other countries. Jamaica, Canada, and UN have all offered, but Bush refuses. What the hell is his problem?!?!?! PEOPLE ARE DYING. RIGHT NOW. You're on the clock Mr. President take every offer of help that you receive--every death in the streets of New Orleans in the aftermath of this disaster is on your head.

This is an appalling situation. America should be able to do better than this.

Rick Santorum Sums It Up

2005-08-05T09:53:00.000-07:00

I just listened to the audio of Brian Lehrer's recent interview with Rick Santorum. You can find it here at WNYC's site. I was shocked, because I actually developed a small (very small) glimmer of respect for Santorum. He perfectly and mostly calmly described the post-Reagan, religious right conservative movement, and how it weaves together completely contradictary ideas about personal freedom and support for big business into a semi-coherent-sounding position. I'm appalled by the sentiments he expresses, but the reason that I have a modicum of respect for him after listening to him is that I have come to the conclusion that:

Santorum actually BELEIVES the crap he says. I have frequently accused Bush and most conservatives in congress (and on Fox News) of using religion and patriotism to fool the American people into selling themselves out to the wealthy. Maybe Santorum, as a "young Republican" graduate has had too much of the cool-aid, but I am conviced that he actually thinks that his view will bring about a better America. He's wrong (more on that below), but at least he's genuine.
He is willing to talk about it. It's refreshing to hear a conservative who actually wants to defend his positions without avoiding questions, yelling and screaming, or trying to end the conversation. Santorum was mostly respectful of Brian Lehrer (and Lehrer was too). I have been getting sick of all Bush's "fake" town meetings (Santorum apparently has real ones), carefully scripted press conferences and all of the hyper, nastly, screaming matches by the talking heads. This was a conversation for a change. Very refreshing.

Now, on to the substance of what he said:

Listen for yourself, but I'll sum up Santorum's position:

We've ruined the American nuclear family in this country, through a proliferation of messages from Hollywood, radical feminists, government (mostly the courts), and the Liberal elite (mostly Hillary in his mind) that encourage people to think that they can do whatever they want. To quote Neo in the Matrix--"The problem is choice."
We've created government programs like Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., that teach people that when they do whatever they want, the government will take care of them, even if they do nothing to help themselves.
The point of all laws, and social institutions like marriage is that one man should work and one woman should raise the children in a stable environment so that society can continue and be "healthy."
One reason this can't happen is that families can't subsist on a single income. This is not, as you might be thinking, because of the piss-poor economy, historically low minimum wage, out-sourcing of manufacturing jobs, etc., but rather, because our federal taxes are too high. It's not the fault of big business either. When Lehrer points out som of the reasons above, Santorum says:

What you're suggesting is that the government needs to come in, because they're created a higher burden of taxation (on the American family), and now we have to force business to do what the government won't do,which is to give breaks to the American family.

Putting aside the fact that Santorum's Republican Congress just passed a budget yesterday that has them spending like drunken sailors, you can see why, on paper this is a good argument to convince people to support the Bush tax cuts (if they were actually progressive.) Basically, he's saying, here's the 25% percent of your salary that you used to spend on Federal taxes--now you can afford to leave the wife at home and raise the kids. I think Santorum's figure is high--we pay around 17% and we don't even get any child credits--but I agree, it sounds great, right?

If he really meant it, maybe. It's a very Libertarian idea, and completely antithetical to strong defense, tax breaks and subsidies for big corportations, and regressive tax cuts for the wealthy that the Republicans are currently enacting.

It's just bullshit. Santorum is proposing a solution that no one is offering. If he wants to introduce a bill that eliminates all corporate subsidies and tax breaks, and uses the savings to eliminate all federal taxes for poor and middle class Americans, I'm all for it. If he did this, it would probably be wise, though, to raise income taxes for the wealthy and raise capital gains and inheritance taxes to make up any shortfall. By Rick's argument, our country is in peril because people can't afford to leave one parent home to raise the kids. The wealthy do not have this problem, so taxes that affect them most should be raised. If we don't increase taxes on the wealthy, our infrastructure will collapse--no highway money, no defense spending, no Social Security. So, great, we have a plan: No taxes for the poor and middle class--Sounds great Rick! When do I get my tax break?

Then there's the "choice" problem. I actually attended a "Favorite Professor" luncheon at the University of Washington, sponsored by (I found out once I got there) the Campus Crusade for Christ. The speaker used exactly this argument. While never mentioning abortion, homosexuality, or feminism, he talked about how kids these days have too many options to do things that will distract them from getting married, having kids, and serving God. He also said that Hollywood and Liberal (with a capital L) educators (i.e. me), were clouding their path with giving them too many choices of lifestyles, careers, and beliefs. He thanked us, and we each got a free copy of C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity (I was happy--great book).

Santorum has the guts to actually name these choice-mongers--as abstract straw-man stereotypical characters--and says that radical feminists shamed women into the workplace, the liberal elite created the welfare state, etc. But just what is the fundamental problem with these choice-o-holics?

Here is the quote that Santorum read on Lehrer's show from the 1992 Supreme Court Decision of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Lehrer made him repeat it twice, and affirm that this was "the problem" with American society (Santorum obliged). See what you think. The Supreme Court said:

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of the meaning of the universe, and the existance of human life.

Rick Santorum call this "mantra of the Left" the problem with American society . . . I thought that it was the basis for American society! The Constitution is pretty clearly based on the concept of "liberty." I remember a passage in the Constitution that is buried in Article . . . O that's right. It's the FIRST LINE:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty . . .

And later, there are a few amendments in the Bill of Rights, that establish freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and all kinds of other nasty things that Santorum doesn't agree with. Is it not an important part of liberty that I can choose my own beliefs? Should the government make choices for me based on a Christian religious or moral principle?

What Constitution is he reading? Hint, he spells it B-I-B-L-E.

Ewww! The sad part, is that this proves conclusively that Santorum DOES UNDERSTAND what the left is saying. Damn it, we do think that we should be able to think for ourselves, and not have the moral codes of a few imposed on us. He disagrees with this, and would like to socially engineer our society by mandating by law that all families look and act like his family. Is this imposing his moral views on others? "No" he says! It the opposite:

You don't think that people running around, doing whatever they want, is imposing a moral view on me?

Um, what? No.

When you listen to Santorum, a distinct type of American society comes through: No legal abortion, no gay marriage, no childless couples even, no civil liberties, censored films and music, prayer in schools, federal money for churches, Christian principles that govern congressional and judicial decisions. This is how--Brave New World style--Santorum would like to engineer the perfect American society. Sound like a utopia to you? Actually, it's even worse than Brave New World--at least the people there had sex and drugs.

Like I said, give him credit--he's honest about what he wants, and not shy about talking about it. This is why he is going to lose his next election, and NEVER be President. Most people would find his ideas repulsive. Especially, I would think, the true conservatives in the Republican party who want the government to stay small and stay out of their lives.

The most telling exchange in the interview, which sums up the shaky logic in his dumb positions, is his reaction to his now famous "man-on-dog"quote. For those who missed it, here was Santorum's reaction to the Supreme Court overturning Texas's sodomy laws:

If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, the right to polygamy, the right to incest, you have the right to adultery, you have the right to anything . . .

Santorum takes pains to "correct" the way that the quote was reported. Everyone said that he was equating consensual gay sex (the subject of the case) with the "illegal" activities above--but he wants to clarify that his true intention, which is actually MUCH MUCH worse.

How you say?

You may have noticed "adultery" on his list. Why? That's not illegal is it? Well, Rick believes that the court should have used the "original" standard for legal sexual activity, which is marriage (I wonder where he got that precedent?). By saying that any "consensual" sex in your home is legal, he thinks that the court is saying that anything goes.

Raise your hands if you think that you should go to jail for having consensual sex in your home with someone to whom you aren't married?

Thought so.

This, I think, sums it all up. According to Santorum, we are beseiged by people who are ruining our country by "doing whatever they want:" having sex, not having children, expressing free ideas, and making "popular culture" that is causing the destruction of our children. To fix this, Santorum would like to redefine freedom, without the word "choice."

The right's view of freedom, what I would say is a traditional freedom [. . .] as our founders understood it, which is a freedom with responsibility to something beyond yourself. A freedom to do, not what you want to do, not simply "choice," but the freedom to do what you ought to do . . .

I can't quite fathom how laws restricting me from consensual sex gives me the "freedom to do what I ought to do." If I obeyed them, I would be doing what Rick thinks I ought to do and would have no freedom at all. In fact, the word "freedom" doesn't even apply here.

The punch line of this exchange comes when Santorum is asked about the long-time aide on his staff that was just "outed" as a gay man. Santorum says that he's known about it "for quite a while," but that he doesn't discuss it with him, or try to disuade him because:

(Drumroll)

"His personal life is his personal life."

In other words, he can run around and do whatever he wants, and it's not Santorum's business.

He's really good at blaming the liberal elite, radical feminists, gay activists, and hollywood--and restricting the rights of every American, but when it comes down to someone he knows and works with, the guy's tolerant. This is totally consistant with crap like Rush Limbaugh railing against drug users while popping hundreds of vicodin a day, or Jeb Bush saying that it was a "private, family matter" when his daughter Noelle, was caught with drugs--while he advocated for jail time for non-violent drug offenders. It's easy for these guys to stir up hate for people when they are abstract concepts, but when they are friends, co-workers, and children they let them off the hook. It's really easy to say that "those people" are ruining your society--Jews, blacks, feminists, liberals, etc.--but it's a lot harder to look someone in the face and condemn them. That's the next step towards fascism, and I hope we never take it.

I wish all of these wingnuts would be so honest about their positions. What Santorum wants is not American. What he wants is a Christian state, where "choice" is removed, and laws force you to follow their moral codes. Do you want this? If not, please vote.

--tinfoil out

Told ya so! . . . Bush uses religion for political gain.

2005-02-15T12:06:00.000-08:00

What did I just say? It was confirmed today by David Kuo, former Special Assistant to President George W. Bush and Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, that Bush never seriously cared about his "faith based initiatives." As Kuo--a longtime Republican and former staffer of William Bennet and John Ashcroft-- says:

Capitol Hill gridlock could have been smashed by minimal West Wing effort. No administration since LBJ's has had a more successful legislative track record than this one. From tax cuts to Medicare, the White House gets what the White House really wants. It never really wanted the "poor people stuff."

To be fair, he blames both Democrats and Republicans for the failure of the programs:

At the end of the day, both parties played to stereotype -- Republicans were indifferent to the poor and the Democrats were allergic to faith.

He describes how Bush's major funding for faith-based initiatives was diverted at the last minute:

In June 2001, the promised tax incentives for charitable giving were stripped at the last minute from the $1.6 trillion tax cut legislation to make room for the estate-tax repeal that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy.

Wake up people. If you aren't rich, Bush doesn't care about you--No matter how "hard" you pray.

--Tinfoil out

What is Bush exactly?

2005-02-11T10:23:00.000-08:00

He's not a Republican--at least not the kind I grew up with. He's not fiscally conservative. He's not for smaller government or reduced spending (just saying it doesn't make it true). If you had to classify him, I'd say he is the first President in recent memory to be completely owned by corporations. I'm not talking about Manchurian Candidate-style conspiracies here. It's considerably more simple and obvious than that. He has spent his whole life with the richest people in the world. His father was President, and heir to large old-money North-East fortune. You don't hear it as much anymore, but when he was elected(?) in 2000, a lot of people called him the first "CEO President"--Which is largely correct. He has an MBA from Harvard Business School, and has served as CEO of Spectrum 7 and later the Director of Harken Energy. (Both companies lost money during Bush's tenure, and he was investigated by the SEC for insider trading for selling off a large portion of his Harken stock to buy a share of the Texas Rangers).

Much has been made of Bush's religious beliefs and "moral values," but, at the risk of stating the obvious, I'd say that his religious beliefs are often used for calcuated positions, whereas his pro-wealth and business ideals have actually formed the core of his political philosophy.

Really, what has he done for his religious base? A lot less than they thought he would. He threw some money their way with "faith based initiatives," never got them the school vouchers that they wanted, he has cooled on an amendment banning gay marriage, and he still has yet to appoint a conversative Supreme Court justice (He undoubtedly will in the next 4 years, but it remains to be seen if he can really make strides towards overturning Roe v. Wade). The religious posturing seems to be calculated to get people to the polls.

On every policy issue, he has consistently given the wealthy and the powerful everything that they want and more. It could be that he really does not understand poorer Americans--he has never been poor, and had never really even met any poor people before become in President. As reported by Ron Suskind in the New York Times Magazine in October, Bush admits this to evangelical pastor Jim Wallis:

''I've never lived around poor people,'' Wallis remembers Bush saying. ''I don't know what they think. I really don't know what they think. I'm a white Republican guy who doesn't get it. How do I get it?'' Wallis recalls replying, ''You need to listen to the poor and those who live and work with poor people.''

He doesn't understand the needs of the poor (or even middle class). He has lived his life in an isolated, unbelievably weathly world akin to growing up in the British royal family, and as a consequence, all of his policies seem to be driven by fixing the "problems" of his wealthy elite clique. All politics is personal they say.

To understand GWB, you must understand the rules he lives by:

1. The wealthy in America are entitled to keep all of their wealth--This translates into:

lower income taxes for the wealthy
lower capital gains taxes (the poor rarely have gains to tax)
the elimination of inheritance taxes

2. Corportations are entitled to maximize their profits without government regulation:

Repealing (or just not enforcing) "pesky" environmental legislation. Even his own former EPA director says so.
Supporting companies to outsource labor overseas.
Encouraging America to "go shopping" to show our patriotism immediately after 9/11
Creating a Medicare benefit that gives billions to pharmaceutical companies, preventing any kind of price controls on perscription drugs, and trying to prevent cheaper drugs from coming in from Canada.
"Reforming" Social Security by diverting trillions of dollars into the stock market.
Giving businesses one of the biggest tax cuts in history.
No bid contracts for Halliburton and other "friendly" companies in Iraq.
Encouraging deregulation of power companies, leading to debacles like Enron.
Opening up the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve for oil drilling.

These rules can explain virtually every policy decision he has ever made (including, I think, the war in Iraq).

The funny thing is that while Bush's policies have certainly led to large payouts for certain wealthy people and corporations, he has presided over a disastrous economy, with a lengthy recession and lower than expected economic growth which is likely to continue. In general, corporations fared better during Clinton's tenure. I don't think that the President--any President, can control the economy absoultely, but I think that it's getting harder to believe that the Bush tax cuts were an effective stimulus to the economy, as Dr. Walter Williams of the University of Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs says:

Efficient stimuli would have been concentrated on putting funds in the hands of those who would spend it rapidly. Shapiro and Friedman have noted that Bush spurned the most efficient means, such as extending unemployment insurance benefits that generate 73 cents per dollar of lost revenue. Instead, he unwisely opted for a dividend tax reductions that only generated 9 cents, and hence far greater budget deficits.

I'm not an economist, but it seems that the corporate interests that support Bush are rather short-sighted. Government handouts and de-regulation might be effective ways to boost the bottom line in the short term, but isn't a robust, growing economy the best way to be profitable in the long term?

I find it funny when Bush is portrayed as a bumbling, religious, "man of the people." He grew up as wealthy and priviledged as anyone in America, but somehow, it's not the Yale and Harvard education and millions of dollars in family assets that people focus on--it's his supposed piety and values. Wake up and smell the oil here people, George Bush is much more interested in helping "his people," the wealth and powerful of America, that he is in doing "God's work." He dosen't understand the needs of middle class America, or, especially, the needs of poor Americans. He gets Americans to vote against their own economic interests with calls to partiotism and religion--calls that are disingenuous at best.

Think before you vote in 2006. To take a page out of the Reagan playbook, ask yourself "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" Unless you're a CEO--probably not.

--Tin Foil Out

Thong Statute Update

2005-02-11T10:15:00.000-08:00

It seems that the Virginia State Senate shared my opinion on the no-underwear-above-the-belt law passed this week in the Virginia House of Representatives. They UNANIMOUSLY defeated the bill yesterday, with many State Senators calling the bill a "distraction" and an "embarrassment" to Virginia. I'm pleased that sanity was restored. I have to wonder, however, if it would have passed without the overwhelming worldwide ridicule it received.

Ah well, a victory is a victory. No fashion police in Virginia--for now.

-TinFoil Out

The Thong Statute

2005-02-09T08:21:00.000-08:00

In another news story for the "America is going completely nuts" file. The BBC reported today that the Virginia House of Representatives passed a bill, by the unbelievably large margin of 60-34, that creates $50 fine on anyone who exposes his or her underpants above his or her pants in a—quote -- “lewd or indecent manner.”

. . . I'll let that sink in for a minute.

. . . Ok

So apparently, this is a reaction to low-rider jeans on girls, and the baggy, worn-almost-at-the-knees hip hop jeans for boys.

DEMOCRAT!!!!! Algie T. Howell proposed the bill , saying:

To vote for this bill would be a vote for character, to uplift your community and to do something good not only for the state of Virginia, but for this entire country.

The only redeeming moment of the debate seems to have come from Rep. Howell's fellow Democrat Lionell Spruill who reacted thusly (according to the BBC story) :

He asked fellow politicians to remember their own former fashion faux pas, including Afro haircuts, platform shoes and shiny polyester "shell suits".

He also, correctly I think, pointed out that this bill will unfairly target African-Americans.

Let's hope that the VA state senate is able to prevent this laughing-stock of a state-dress-code bill to be passed into law, but in case they don't, I have a few questions about the bill:

If a woman wears low cut jeans without any underwear, is that a violation under the law?
Conversely, if a man who is exposing baggy boxer shorts above the top of his baggy jeans were to drop his pants as police approached, would he be assessed the fine? (It's technically not "underwear" at that point.)
If one can prove that the underwear one was wearing was meant to be displayed as outerwear (the Tommy Hilfiger/Madonna defense), and that it was displayed that way on several billboards around Virginia, does it no longer qualify as "underwear?"
What if you had 2 pair of underwear on--which one would be considered "underwear" under the statue?
At say--Virginia Beach--would a bikini be a violation of the law? Would it become a violation only after it was covered up by low-rise jeans? Would the "that's not underwear, it's a swimsuit defense (which I believe I saw on an episode of Three's Company once) be valid?
Are we going to see Jay-Z fined by authorities every time he performs in Virginia?
Since the fine is predicated on the exposure of underwear in a "lewd and indecent manner," does the fine only apply to attractive people? Are the overweight plumbers of the world safe from these fines? Not hot?--no fine?
Is this law enforcable? Are the police honestly going to approach an attractive women in low-rise jeans and say, "I'm going to have to fine you $50 for exposing your underwear--and can I have your phone number?" Don't they have criminals to catch?

If you'd like to write to Representative Howell and tell him to stop wasting Virginia tax payers' money with this crap, his email is Del_AHowell@house.state.va.us You might want to remind him that Virginia already has "indecent exposure" laws that are not based on the arbitrary position of one's underwear in relation to one's pants.

--Tin Foil Out

"Nutsack" unleashed

2005-01-26T09:10:00.000-08:00

A quick note today. I found a really interesting media/pop-culture item today on Jeff Jarvis's Blog.

The FCC has decided that 36 complaints about indecent language on television were not, in fact indecent. Feel free to say "dick, ass, penis, vaginal, nutsack, three-way, hell, damn, breast, nipples, can, pissed, crap, bastard, and bitch" the next time you are on television. In fact, try to work them all into one sentence. (There may be prizes for anyone who does this successfully)

My favorite passage is a ruling on Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me.

In another scene from this film, a male and a female character are in bed together, but no sexual or excretory organs or activities are depicted or discussed.

There is almost a tone of sadness in this statement . . .

Hey, things are loosening up again @ the FCC (they also recently ruled that the F-bomb was ok as long as it is in Saving Private Ryan.

Maybe we'll get some more breasts at the Super Bowl this year after all!

Tin Foil Out

An open letter to evangelical Christians

2005-01-21T09:40:00.000-08:00

If you are a “moral values” voter and you’re reading this post (as unlikely as that may seem), I have a few things to straighten out for you. You know those two issues that filled you with the holy spirit and sent you to the voting booth in November? The two evils that Bush was ordained by God to eliminate?

[dramatic music]

Abortion and Gay Marriage.

Well, I’ve got news for you. Your guy isn’t very likely to do much to outlaw either. First, his interest has waned considerably on these issues since November (funny that), and he knows (and always has known) that the chances are slim to none that he’d even be able to do much anyway.

You been 'hoodwinked and bamboozled' (as Malcom X would say). You were willing to endorse tax cuts for the rich, the gutting of your Social Security system, a $10 trillion bill for your children to pay, and an immoral and unjust war for issues that this president (or any president) has very little chance of affecting.

Abortion Rights

Hoping to pack the Supreme Court with Roe-v-Wade haters? Don't hold your breath. The current tally on the abortion issue in the court is 6-3. You have Justices Renquist, Thomas, and Scalia firmly opposed to abortion rights, and you have O’Connor, Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter, and Breyer firmly in favor. Justice Kennedy is a bit of a wild card. He has voted several times to uphold the “right to privacy” that Roe v. Wade is based on, but has shown some willingness to place limits on abortion (although he is unlikely to vote to overturn it).

Bush is most likely to be able to make only one appointment to the court—to replace Justice Renquist who is quite ill, and he has an outside shot of replacing O’Connor and Stevens. Renquist’s replacement does nothing to affect the likelihood of overturning Roe v. Wade, and the justice that is confirmed may be less likely to make a decisive move (Renquist has said that Roe was a “mistake” many times). Even though I am certain that Bush will at least try to nominate someone who is hostile to Roe, it’s unlikely that that nominee will make it through the Senate (as Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) famously said shortly after the election).

Even if Bush somehow gets a conservative anti-choice justice though the Senate, Supreme court justices have a funny way of thinking for themselves once they are appointed for life to the highest court. Keep in mind that 7 of the 9 current justices are Republican appointees.

So what happens if O’Connor and Stevens retire and Bush somehow manages to get the court packed with enough conservatives to be a threat to Roe v. Wade?

He will still have an uphill climb—Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for 32 years (today is the anniversary, in fact) and the Supreme Court has historically been reluctant to completely reverse its own decisions. There is a principle that justices have applied in cases concerning Roe v. Wade called “stare decisis” (latin for “to stand by that which is decided”), which means that justices will need overwhelming evidence of a need to overturn the decision, even if they would not have voted for Roe in 1973. For you football fans out there, think of it as the NFL’s replay rule. You need to see something on the replay that definitively contradicts the ruling on the field to reverse a call.

Ok. Now let's assume that all of these unlikely events occur. Bush gets two more conservative justices on the bench, and Roe is overturned 5-4. Abortion is illegal in America, right?

Wrong.

Overturning Roe v. Wade puts abortion rights back in the hands of the individual states (where it was pre-1973). True, several states will outlaw abortion (some even have laws on their books waiting for the court to act), but many will not. Safe, legal abortions will likely remain available via a short car ride to a sympathetic state (or a long car ride if you live in the South).

In my opinion, the only thing that overturning Roe v. Wade will really do is confirm for the rest of the world that we have taken another large step towards theocracy. A quick look at world abortion laws shows that we'd suddenly have more in common with Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia than with our traditional European allies. With a few exceptions (heavily Catholic Ireland and Poland) the members of the European Union have moved further and further towards more freedom and choice for women. Thanks to Bush, we're already moving ideologically closer to the developing world.

In a recent poll in the New York Times 43% of Americans expected most forms of abortion to be illegal throughout the United States by the time Bush leaves office. I have to believe that this group is made up of both evangelical Christians and discouraged pro-choice advocates. The truth is, however that there is practially zero chance of criminalizing abortion in all fifty states in the next four years, and there is very little chance that there will be any change to the current law.

I had a co-worker who was an evangelical Christian. He was, however, committed to voting for candidates that he thought would work for better health care, reducing poverty, and other Christian values. He urged his fellow Christians to avoid being "one issue voters" and vote for candidates who would encourage social justice. I urge you to do the same.

In addition to the question of abortion's legality, there is the real question of how to reduce the need for abortion. Despite what the pro-life movement would have you believe, there is no such thing as a politician who is pro-abortion. It's tragic that we live in a world with hard choices that must be made about the quality of life for a mother and an unborn child. I think that every most reasonable people would prefer to live in a world where abortions are not necessary. We do not, however, live in such a world. Abortions will be performed in this country. They were
performed before 1973 (mostly illegally), at a rate of anywhere between 200,000 and 1.2 million a year before Roe v. Wade. If you are serious about reducing the number of abortions, vote for politicians that will fight the root causes that force women to make this choice: Poverty, lack of education (about sex and in general), hopelessness, and, yes, the lack of "family values."

The solution does not lie in limiting a woman's right to choose, but in presenting her with more viable choices for keeping her baby or avoiding pregnancy in the first place. Don't confuse criminalizing a problem with stopping it.

Gay Marriage

Here's the other "wedge issue" that drove evangelicals to the polls in vast numbers. This is, and has always been a purely political manuver by the Bush team. They had no intention of going ahead with a Constitutional amendment to ban Gay marriage. Bush made this clear this week, when he backed off his "committment" to the amendment. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post summed it up best, I think. An excerpt:

There is no reason to press for the amendment, Bush told two Post reporters on Air Force One, because so many senators are convinced that the Defense of Marriage Act -- which says states that outlaw same-sex unions do not have to recognize such marriages conducted outside their borders -- is sufficient. "Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take their admonition seriously . . . Until that changes, nothing will happen in the Senate."

Are we supposed to believe that this information was unavailable before Election Day? Or that Bush was simply exploiting passions on this hot-button issue without really intending to follow through? If I was an evangelical Christian who felt strongly about this issue, I'd be plenty mad. And liberals can be forgiven for concluding that Bush was just interesting in demonizing them on the issue.

Funny how he can pick up more seats in the House and Senate, and then announce, after the election that he suddenly realized that he couldn't get the amendment through. Come on, Bush LIED to you, evangelical moral values voter. He wanted you to come to the polls and put him in office, and he would say anything to get you there. Anyone who had taken a government class knew from the beginning that the odds of 2/3 of each house of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures voting for this bigotted amendment were a million to one. Count the blue states, people!

Not only was it unlikely to pass, but wildly unneccesary, as John Edwards pointed out in the VP debate:

I want to make sure people understand that the president is proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that is completely unnecessary. Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state's marriage. Let me just be simple about this. My state of North Carolina would not be required to recognize a marriage from Massachusetts, which you just asked about. There is absolutely no purpose in the law and in reality for this amendment. It's nothing but a political tool. And it's being used in an effort to divide this country on an issue that we should not be dividing America on.

Hmm. Seems like he was right all along.

Please, please, please think about these things before you vote next time. The President, and the Republican party know the political realities here. They know that they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of criminalizing abortion nationwide, or banning gay marriage through a Constitutional amendment. But they rely on the fact that you don't know the facts. Don't let them use your fear, religious views, and homophobia to make you vote against your interests. If you are poor or middle class in this country, you have no excuse for voting for someone who wants to give handouts to corporations and the richest one percent--the "moral" issues that the Republicans embrace will have no effect on you.

To paraphrase John Stewart:

People who live in red states are very worried about terrorism and gay marriage when they don't have any of either. Here in New York, we have both, and we voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry.

Tinfoil out

Tin Foil Hat back on for a second term

2005-01-21T08:19:00.000-08:00

Loyal readers (or "reader" as the case many be). I have taken a bit of a hiatus in the last week to contemplate a second term for Mr. Bush. I will be posting twice today about the fears that I have for the next four years, and the things in which I take comfort.

Stay tuned!

" . . . a Confession, a Regret, Something"

2005-01-14T08:12:00.000-08:00

"Regrets . . . I've had a few. But then again, too few to mention. "

--Frank Sinatra, "My Way" (written by Paul Anka)

""I don't know if you'd call it a regret, but it certainly is a lesson that a president must be mindful of, that the words that you sometimes say. … I speak plainly sometimes, but you've got to be mindful of the consequences of the words. So put that down. I don't know if you'd call that a confession, a regret, something."

--George W. Bush (written by ???)

The president has had a startling revelation. Only four years after assuming the position of "leader of the free world," (*shudder*) he has discovered that his words have consequences. Perhaps in another four years, he'll say that starting pre-emptive wars on shoddy evidence might have been a mistake that turned world opinion against us.

Sheesh.

This most recent, stunning, sort-of-apology came as the long awaited follow-up to a question that a reporter asked him in an April press conference:

"After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?

At the time, the President responded with the witty and reassuring:

I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet [. . .] I hope I -- I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.

Asked again in the October presidential debates (he has now, it seems, had 6 months to prepare for the follow up question). He replied:

Now, you asked what mistakes. I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name them. I don't want to hurt their feelings on national TV.(LAUGHTER) But history will look back, and I'm fully prepared to accept any mistakes that history judges to my administration, because the president makes the decisions, the president has to take the responsibility.

The only mistakes HE'S made are in appointing others--way to take responsibility George.

So now, finally, almost 10 months after he was asked to discuss even one mistake he's made post-9/11, we get two examples:

He regrets saying about Iraqi insurgents: "Bring 'em on."

'Bring 'em on' is the classic example, when I was really trying to rally the troops and make it clear to them that I fully understood, you know, what a great job they were doing. And those words had an unintended consequence. It kind of, some interpreted it to be defiance in the face of danger. That certainly wasn't the case."

Actually, I think that people were offended by this for two reasons (1) American troops were the people to whom "'em" would be brought. When "'em" were brought, they brought with 'em things like improvised explosive devices, mortors, RPGs. To date, 'em have killed more than 1,400 American soldiers. (2) We have a US president who says things like "Bring 'em on."

He regrets saying that Osama Bin Laden was "Wanted Dead or Alive."

One first wonders if Bush regrets this statement becasue, now, more than three years later, Mr. Bin Laden is still "wanted" and is most assuredly alive. Again, the most distressing thing about this statement was that the leader of the free world (*shudder*) sounds like Steve McQueen when he should be emulating, say FDR or JFK.

Recalling that remark, Bush told the reporters: "I can remember getting back to the White House, and Laura [Bush] said, 'Why did you do that for?' I said, 'Well, it was just an expression that came out. I didn't rehearse it.'

It's nice, I suppose that Bush is finally making half-hearted apologies (?) for the things he says. Maybe now, he'll make some for the things he DOES. If he can't think of any, then he'll be happy to know that the kind folks at the Center for American Progress, have provided him with 100
more to jog his memory. Sadly, I don't think that this is an exhaustive list either.

Tin Foil Out.

Constitution-Schmonstitution

2005-01-10T09:50:00.000-08:00

First of all, let me say that I am not one of those people who buys into the "slippery slope" theory. You know what I mean--those who say that we are headed for a police state because we have to wear seatbelts and motorcycle helmets, or those who say that we are headed for anarchy because of woman's right to choose and gay marriage.

I do, however have some strong reservations about where this country is headed under the rule of the Republican party. I was sad to learn, for instance, that Congress recently passed a "doomsday plan," that allows for Congressmen who survive a terrorist attack or natural disaster to run the legislature without a quorum. This seems to violate Article 1, section 5 of the Constitution, and some critics have said, rightly, that this law, provides a broad definition of "catastrophic circumstances" that would allow a small number of legislators to pass laws or declare war in the event that a majority of congressmen could not make it to the capitol. If this law were in place on 9/11/2001, it could be interpreted to mean that once the planes hit the World Trade Center, any congressmen who were in town at the time (even if there were only 2 or 3 of them), could go to the Capitol and start enacting binding legislation.

This alone, while troubling, is not the worst thing that has happened to the Constitution in the last few years. It seems that since the 1960s and 70s, we have been drifiting towards more andmore governmental control of our private lives.

Let me make a historical case:

Pre-9/11 assaults on personal liberty. After a period in the 50s, 60s, and 70s when a number of court cases defined civil liberties--giving much more freedom to individuals and restricting the power of the government to intrude on people's private lives. For instance:

Roe v. Wade--Gave women the right to terminate a pregnancy. Also defined the "right to privacy."
Miranda v. Arizona--Defined rights for citizens accused of a crime limited police powers to question and search a suspect.
Draper v. U.S. --Defined "probable cause" and restricted indescriminate searches of suspects.

This move to limit police powers and expand personal liberty defined the term "free county" to me as a young American citizen. I came to see the United States as a place where freedom was encouraged by the goverment, and checks and balances on police powers kept that freedom from being stolen from us.

At these same time, however, there was a strong undercurrent in the government that was attempting to limit personal liberty. First, the expansive "War on Drugs," declared by Richard Nixon in brought a series of laws and court decisions that, in my view, violate the Constitution and greatly expanded the power of the Federal government. Alexander Shulgin, a former DEA chemist and pro-drug activist, noted in a lecture to students at Berkley University that the 1978 Psychotropic Substances Act, took away a number of civil liberties from suspected drug offenders, including the right to due process.

If you are reentering the country from abroad and the stub of a marijuana joint is found in your coat pocket, the immigration authorities can seize your passport. If I, as a person with sufficient authority, discover that you have a $23,000 savings account in the local Wells Fargo Bank, and I think the money came from drug transactions, I can and will seize this money. I no longer haveto file a criminal charge or even a criminal complaint, and I certainly don't have to wait until you are convicted of an unlawful act in a court of law. I merely have to state that, in my opinion, there is a preponderance of evidence that you have been naughty.

In other words, if you are suspected of a drug offense, you can have your property seized by the goverment, before the trial, and it will not be returned to you, even if you are found innocent of the charges. In fact, the government does not even have to charge you with a crime.

This statue has been upheld countless times in US courts despite (in my opinion) its clear violation of the the Constitution's fifth amendment:

No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I'm not sure how it could be more clear than that.

The War on Drugs has also led us to ignore the ban of the use of the military in civilian law enforcement as stated in the Posse Comitatus statute. We routinely use the military (AWACs surveillance planes, troops and helicopters in Columbia, etc.) to detect drug shipments and bring drug offenders to justice.

9/11. Once police powers were broadly defined for drug offenses, it became easy, via the USA PATRIOT Act to apply the same anti-constitutional logic to suspected "terrorists." The Patriot Act allowed for increased surveillence of US Citizens , and fewer restrictions on detaining US citizens and seizing their assets. USA PATRIOT II, which will soon come before Congress, will expand these powers even more, letting the government hold US citizens indefinitely without a trial, and defining "terrorism" so broadly that civil disobedience could be construed as terrorism.

Also, since 9/11 the Bush administration has attempted to say that torture is permissable when interrogating terrorism suspects and that US citizens can be held indefinitely as "ememy combatants." Thankfully, public outcry and the cooler heads of some judges have reversed some of these abuses. Like I said, I don't believe in the "slippery slope" theory, but let's hope that 9/11 wasn't our Reichstag Fire.

Whether it's drugs, terrorism, or fictional weapons of mass destruction, Republicans have used national crises to chip away at civil rights and justify military or police action. This is nothing new, of course. Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus during the Civil War, FDR approved placing Japanese Americans into internment camps during WWII, but never has it been done so deliberately, with so little provocation. Not to diminish the tragedy of 9/11, but the "War on Terror" (at least with Al Queda) is not even close in scale with the conflicts of the Civil War and World War 2. Yet our liberties continue to be stripped away.

I was in Seattle for the anti-WTO demonstrations in 1999. I watched as people who were lawfully protesting the event were subjected to tear gas, pepper spray, and mass arrests. I saw the creation of an illegal "no protest zone." In that moment, it becme pretty clear to me that Constitutional protections do not protect us from abuse. We may be able to go to court AFTER the abuses have happened, and seek damages, but at the moment of protest, the government can do pretty much anything. The Constitution only protects us if our leaders respect and use it, otherwise, they can create laws that violate our most fundamental liberties.

We have an administration that seeks to curtail civil liberties at every turn. The only thing that we can do is be diligent and yell and scream like crazy when they try to take away our rights.

-Tin Foil Out

Democratic Senators to Challenge Ohio's Electors

2005-01-06T09:23:00.000-08:00

It will be interesting to see how big a splash this makes. Several sources (including the Brad Blog) are reporting that at least six Senators have joined John Conyers' challenge of Ohio Electoral college votes:

Senator Barbara Boxer will stand to challenge, and will be supported by at least the following Democratic Senators: Hilary Clinton (NY), Harry Ried (NV), Barack Obama (IL), Dick Durbin (IL) and Christopher Dodd (CT). [from The Brad Blog]

Notably absent is Sen. John Kerry (boo!).

So, as I discussed in a previous post, this seems to be largely a symbolic gesture--since the outcome is decided by a simple majority of both houses of Congress (and this majority is, indeed, made up of simpletons). But, if it generates enough press, it might at the very least tarnish Bush's "mandate," and in the best case scenario, might create enough public outcry to get rid of partisan election officials and paperless electronic voting machines.There have been reports (that I'm not taking too seriously) about Republicans being concerned that absences by members of the House and Senate today, might:

Prevent a quorum. Delaying the certification of election results until there are enough Congressman there to vote, or
Actually give the Democrats a majority of votes in Senate--enough to disqualify Ohio's electors

Even in the "in your wildest dreams" scenario, all that could happen is that Ohio's electors are not counted, and then, I believe, the election goes to the House of Representatives (Bush wins no matter how this plays out).

Kind fun, though. No? It's the first sign of life from the Democrats (except Kerry--boo!) since the election.

Happy Holidays

2004-12-31T04:49:00.000-08:00

Hi all. I've taken a bit of a break, but I resolve that after the new year, I'll be back to daily postings. We've had a revolving door of family and houseguests for the holidays and the it has left the tinfoil crew a bit tired. Some final thoughts from 2004 to leave you with:

Coverage of the Tom Feeney (R-Florida) vote rigging scandal is starting to heat up on the Brad Blog.

Keith Olbermann and others are reporting that Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) will challenge the Ohio electors, and is looking for a senator to join him. It seems to be a largely symbolic gesture, since the challenge is decided by a majority vote in each house of Congress. It makes me wonder . . . if Kerry had won Ohio (and the election), could Republicans have used a challenge to invalidate the vote, and put Bush in office? It seems to me that we should have a better system than letting the majority party decide if there was fraud. I guess there's the Supreme Court, but we all know how that turned out in 2000.

Lastly, the Tsumani is a terrible thing. Revolting. It has remined me that for all of our technology, we are really just (relatively) hairless monkeys that can't do squat if nature decides to put the smack down. As of this posting, Olbermann is projecting that the death toll could rise to nearly half a million once authorities get into inaccessible, currently unexplored regions to assess the damage. Half a million people in a matter of hours . . . That might be the deadliest day in human history. Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings together were responsible for 110,000 deaths. The firebombing of Dresden, over several days, killed upwards of 200,000.

Folks, be good to each other. We're all we've got.

Tinfoil out

American Academy of Achievement

2004-12-20T10:46:00.000-08:00

In talking about the Reagan years in a previous post, I became nostalgic for one of the few times in my life that actually touched world events . . . I attended the 1989 American Academy of Achievement conference in San Francisco in the summer of my senior year in high school. I went as a Junior Achievement representative, and was billed in the "yearbook" that they distributed as the "Ambassador of Free Enterprise." I know, I know. . . I was 18, what do you want?

Anyway, the American Academy of Achievement is the coolest thing in the Universe (imho), because they hook up "promising" high school students with the movers and shakers of our times--in 1989, I got to personally chat with Jim Henson, George Lucas, Tom Selleck, Oprah, Tom Clancy (asshole), Tom Brokaw (nice, but too well tanned), and Diane Sawyer, who was amazing.

At the conference, I met Lawrence E. Walsh, independent prosecutor of the Iran-Contra hearings. He sat behind me at a speech by Tom Selleck in the dining room of Alcatraz . We were told it was the first "civilian" meal there since it had been re-occupied by the federal government after Native Americans asserted their rights to the land. I asked him what I thought was a simple question, based on the news coverage I had been watching: "Do you think that President Reagan knew about the money being transferred from the Iranians to the Contras?"

He said: "Yes, son, he probably did."

Wow!

The funniest moment of the conference for me was at the final awards ceremony where each celebrity in attendence got a "golden plate award." Steve Wynn (owner of the Mirage casino in Las Vegas) was giving his acceptance speech and was clearly, um, how to put it delicately . . . smashed. He mumbled something like, "You kids, are great. Great kids . . ." for about 10 minutes, and turned to his right to return to his seat.

Which would have been fine, except that the podium was at the end of a raised platform (sort of like a model's runway), so when he turned to his right, he stepped out into empty space and fell about 6 feet to the floor.

The audience gasped. Luckily for Wynn, the nearest celebrity on the dias was none other than Colin Powell who lept down to help Wynn, dusted him off, and helped him get back to his seat.

My friend Elisa, who is--to this day--one of the smartest people I've ever met, leaned over to me and said, "See how the military industrial complex supports the capitalists?"

Tin Foil Out

Disbelief Fatigue

2004-12-16T22:09:00.000-08:00

"I've lost all capacity for disbelief. I'm not sure that I could even rise to a little gentle skepticism"

--Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead

I'm going to venture a guess. If you're reading this (I realize that this is a big "if"), then you probably are suffering from, at least, a mild case of what I'm going to call "disbelief fatigue." This is a condition that arises from being liberal in America through 4 years of the Bush administration, and living through thousands of dishonest, scandalous, and even criminal abuses of power by the Bush team, fighting hard to get him out of office, and . . .

. . . watching him get re-elected.

It's getting harder and harder (for me) to get passionately excited about recent Bush-related scandals, because:

Bush has already been accused of lying to the country and the united nations, torturing prisoners, violating constitutional protections, and rigging the last election.
Rather than resigning in disgrace, he's talking about a mandate.

I swear, any one of these scandals would have been the end of Clinton (after all of the hunting, can you believe a blow job brought him down?). The press called Reagan the "Teflon President" because no scandal would stick to him, what does that make Bush II, the "frictionless surface president?"

I still think that Bush is headed for a reckoning in the next four years, but I can't imagine the scandal it will take to bring him down. Then again, given the short attention span and sensationalism of TV news, it would probably need to be a sex scandal.

That said, I would like to enlist someone (male, preferably) to go to Washington D.C. and have elicit sex with W, take pictures, and walk over the Washington Post and turn them in. I know it's a difficult (and yucky) mission, but it would really help America. Come to think of it, give Cheaney a little love too. Oh, then you'd have to get Dennis Hastert . . . oh forget it.

Too many Republicans in the line of succession.

Sigh.

Tin Foil Out

My Favorite Bush Associate

2004-12-16T11:37:00.000-08:00

I know you'll find this unbelievable, but there is one resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave that I like and respect. You can find a short video here about his attempts to join the Bush Cabinet.

It's too bad he didn't get appointed. He would have done infinitely better than, say, Rumsfeld. He might be a good candidate for the open Homeland Security post. He's qualified.

Tin Foil Out

Intelligent Design

2004-12-14T13:36:00.000-08:00

Looks like the Scopes Monkey Trial didn't settle it. The ACLU has brought a lawsuit against a Pennsylvania school district that is requiring teachers to tell students that "intelligent design" is a viable alternative to the theory of evolution. Basically, this theory asserts that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by an intelligent being (read: God).

I'm not opposed to people believing in God. I'm not opposed to people believing in creationism (if you want to be stupid, who am I to stop you?). I am opposed to holding a science class for kids that teaches them that the theory of natural selection and evolution, which has been accepted as mainstream science for more than a hundred years, is flawed, has been disproved, and that an alternative has been found.

That's just not true.

Next thing you know, they'll be lobbying to tell students that "thee" and "thou" are legitimate modern English alternatives to "you" because they are in the King James Bible.

Folks, theres a place for this crap, and it's called private school.

Also, I have always had numerous problems with creationism, stemming from my own experience. I was born with a blood disorder called "hereditary spherocytosis." Basically, a certain percentage of my blood cells are strangely shaped (like spheres, not doughnuts as in "normal" people). My spleen decided that these oddly shaped blood cells were invading bodies and started destroying them. Eventually, this led to severe anemia, and they had to remove my spleen to keep it from killing me.

"Intelligent design," my ass! One of my organs was trying to kill me. This is the way I was "designed." God didn't even have an extended warranty. Luckily, science saved me.

Another thing that I've never been able to grasp is that scientific fact is rarely irreconsilable with religious ideas--this is true for "intelligent design" and modern evolutionary theory. I can't believe that people who supposedly have such faith in God, can believe that He (or She) couldn't have started the ball rolling with a good "big bang" and watched the huge chain of events unfold in wonderfully random ways to produce the disorganized mess of world we have now. Maybe "God's plan" was to set in motion a process that could have (and did) bring forth human life. Still sounds pretty impressive to me. I guess that doesn't jibe with the whole Adam and Eve, clay, ribs, and snake stories, though.

Let's keep religion out of public schools.

Tin Foil Out

Unemployed Kerry Staffer

2004-12-14T10:05:00.000-08:00

Just a quick post today to introduce the riveting reading that is:

http://www.unemployedkerrystaffer.blogs.com/

A blog by . . . well . . . an unemployed Kerry staffer. Having recently been unemployed, and obsessed with getting Kerry into the White House, I can relate to the guy.

Tin Foil Out

Armageddon Conspiracy?

2004-12-09T14:46:00.000-08:00

Ok, I realize that I'm actually going to have to put a tin foil hat on if I keep writing stories like this one, but . . .

I think that the Republicans are TRYING to destroy the world. To this point, I had assumed that they were incompetent (in my less generous moments), or at least that they were so beholden to corporations, oil companies, and defense contractors that they were ruining the planet as a tragic of side effect of the pursuit of money and power. Now, I'm not so sure.

Let me 'splain:

Ecomonic Armageddon

In a previous post, I talked about the mammoth deficits that Bush was running up, and the precarious position in which it puts Social Security. I blamed Bush for being incompetent. Now I am beginning to suspect that he might have a touch of evil genius in him.

I think that Bush is trying to bankrupt the federal government, so that we will have no choice but to eliminate "big-goverment" entitlements like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The tax cuts and deficit spending may be calculated to force us to abandon these programs.

I know what you're saying, and, for the record, the sources of information for this post are not my dog and the voices in my head. They are as follows:

In his address to the nation about the government shutdown in 1995, Bill Clinton was pretty explicit in saying that he thought that Gingrich and his cronies were intentionally trying to undermine social programs:

. . . the Republicans are following a very explicit strategy announced last April by Speaker Gingrich, to use the threat of a government shutdown to force America to accept their cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, to accept their cuts in education and technology and the environment.

Backing that up, NY Times columnist and Princeton Professor Paul Krugman wrote this in 2003:

It's no secret that right-wing ideologues want to abolish programs Americans take for granted. But not long ago, to suggest that the Bush administration's policies might actually be driven by those ideologues — that the administration was deliberately setting the country up for a fiscal crisis in which popular social programs could be sharply cut — was to be accused of spouting conspiracy theories.

He cites an editiorial in the not-exactly-liberal-at-all Financial Times, stating:

Proposing to slash federal spending, particularly on social programs, is a tricky electoral proposition, but a fiscal crisis offers the tantalizing prospect of forcing such cuts through the back door.

Even REPUBLICANS think that Bush is intentionally bankrupting the government to get rid of entitlements. Peter G. Peterson, Nixon's Commerce secretary, wrote in a 2003 article:

For some Republicans, all this tax-cutting talk is a mere tactic. I know several brilliant and partisan Republicans who admit to me, in private, that much of what they say about taxes is of course not really true. But, they say, it's the only way to reduce government spending: chop revenue and trust that the Democrats, like Solomon, will agree to cut spending rather than punish our children by smothering them with debt.

This clever apologia would be more believable if Republicans — in all matters other than cutting the aggregate tax burden — were to speak loudly and act decisively in favor of deficit reductions. But it's hard to find the small-government argument persuasive when, on the spending front, the Republican leaders do nothing to reform entitlements, allow debt-service costs to rise along with the debt and urge greater spending on defense -- and when these three functions make up over four-fifths of all federal outlays.

Makes an evil kind of sense I guess. If you were married and your spouse went out one day and bought a very expensive car against your wishes, and you were saving for, say, a new dinette set, you could get him/her to get rid of it by spending all of your savings and running up huge amounts of debt. Your spouse wouldn't be able to make the payments, and the car would be repossessed. Once you managed to get rid of the car, you could pay off the debt and make sure that the remainder of both of your salaries went into an account that you controlled, so you could spend it on your dinette set (If you could avoid absolute financial ruin and a divorce).

An aggressive plan to be sure. Horribly tough on your credit rating (not to mention your marriage), but, if you played it right, you might just get what you want. That's the kind of a game of economic "chicken" that Bush is engaged in: ruining the US's finiancial standing in the world to get rid of some New Deal and Great Society programs that neo-conservatives find distasteful.

ACTUAL Armageddon

Alright. I'm writing this section while wearing my tinfoil hat. It has also been recently reported that Bush and Co. might not just be planning an "Economic Armageddon"--They might be actively working to create a REAL one.

Stay with me . . .

My partner-in-blog, SJ, brought some disturbing facts to my attention in her comments to this post:

It seems that some sects of evangelical Christians are firmly convinced that the end of the world is coming soon, and that this is the last generation of humans before the "rapture," when God will call the faithful to heaven, punish the "evil doers" and pretty much end the world. This story is told in the hugely popular Left Behind books, which have sold an astonishing 56 million copies (Please do not read this as an endorsement). SJ, noted that this idea has entered the mainstream, and many commentators (including Bill Moyers) are concerned that Republicans, and the evangelicals that elect them, are destroying the environment because, if the rapture is coming, why bother to preserve the earth for future generations?

*Shudder*

I'll add to that. If the rapture is coming, why not make it come a bit faster (waiting for Armageddon sucks) by starting unnecessary wars with Muslims, letting the Palestinians get clobbered by Israel, calling everyone we don't like "the Axis of Evil" and turning a blind eye as they acquire nuclear weapons. Everyone knows that there are "signs" in the book of revelation that indicate that the end is near. Why not create them? The ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy.

Before you call the men in white coats with the butterfly nets to come get me, I'm not the only one who thinks these things.

I urge you to read the Moyers lecture, he puts it pretty succinctly, and you should also read a great article that Moyers references by Glenn Scherer of Grist, that gives a basic history of the evangelical apocalyptic movement.

Friends, the end is nigh . . . If we can't stop these lunatics from ruining the world. I say, if they want to have their apocalypse, they should have the decency to have it somewhere where it won't bother us. I hear Mr. Bush is keen on Mars. That would be a great place to hold a rapture.

Tinfoil out

Error Rates in the 2004 Election Results

2004-12-09T10:57:00.000-08:00

News Flash:

Not only are the politicians screwed-up-cheaters, but the voting methods we use make determining a clear winner in close races impossible.

My good friend Dr. Philip Howard of the University of Washington and his colleagues at www.campaignaudit.org have produced a study that examines the margins of victories in the Presidental, Senatorial, and Gubenatorial races in the 2004 election, and compares them to the known "error rates" of various voting technologies. The surprising conclusion is that, since all voting technologies "lose" a certain number of votes (some more than others, between 1%-2%) , several close races can never be decided with certainty, since the margin of victory was within the error rate. The authors of the study conclude that:

There are, however several states where the margin of technology error was
higher than the margin of victory for a presidential candidate (Iowa, New Mexico, New Hampshire), the margin of victory for a gubernatorial candidate (Washington), or the margin of victory for a Senate candidate (Florida, Kentucky, South Dakota).

This is a non-partisan study, but only one of the "questionible" races put a Democrat in office (Kerry, narrowly, in New Hampshire). No comment on that, except to say that Mr. Bush seems to pull out all of the close ones . . . Hmm.

It boggles the mind, that in 2004, we can't count votes accurately, and we don't seem to care. The question that I'm left with after reading this study is: Fraud aside, what can we do to make vote counts more accurate? Is there a magical system that everyone should use? Should we, at the very least, mandate the systems with the smallest error rates: optical scan (1.2%) and Datavote punch cards (1.0%) ? More hanging chads anyone?

Tin Foil Out

More on Tax cuts and flip flopping

2004-12-07T13:39:00.000-08:00

George Bush cracks me up (the same way that the iceberg cracked up the Titanic).

He made a huge campaign issue out of Kerry's alleged "flip-flops," and of course, he never changes his mind (except on the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the 9/11 Commission--which he opposed and then took credit for). Bush has proven to be a resolute (read: bullheaded) leader on one issue: Tax cuts. Regardless of the economic circumstances or world events, we apparently still needed a $1.9 trillion dollar tax cut.

Tax Cuts to "Give Back" the Surplus
When he was running for President in 2000, Bush told us in his first debate with Al Gore, that we needed the tax cuts, because the country had been so prosperous in at the end of the 1990s that we should give some of the money back to the people (Sigh, remember prosperity?) CNN reported Bush's comments:

"I want to send one-quarter of the federal budget surplus back to the people who pay the bills," he said. " Of the surplus, which some government accounting entities have predicted could amount to more than $4 trillion over the next decade, Bush said of the $25 trillion the government takes in the course of the next 10 years -- including the surplus -- "surely, we can afford to give back 5 percent of what comes into the treasury."

First, imagine what kind of shape we'd be in with a $4 Trillion dollar surplus, instead of a $500 Billion dollar deficit every year (Sigh). Then note that Bush's main motivation for the Tax cuts lies in the fact that the goverment has a large surplus and should give part of it back.

Tax Cuts to "Stimulate the Economy"
Shortly after his innauguration, with the "Bush recession" beginning, and the prospect of large surplusses dwindling, Bush insisted that we needed those same tax cuts to stave off the recession. Again, reported by CNN, Bush said:

"For several months, our economic growth has been in doubt and now it may be in danger," the president said. "A warning light is flashing on the dashboard of the economy, and we can't just drive on."

CNN's Ian Christopher McCaleb goes on to comment that: "The plan closely mirrors the cuts that Bush made the centerpiece of his presidential campaign, including reducing income-tax rates, easing the marriage penalty, phasing out the estate tax and boosting tax breaks for charitable contributions. "

So, let me get this straight--we need the tax cuts when times are good, AND we need the tax cuts when times are bad. They are "magic" tax cuts, apparently, that work for whatever economic state the country's is in.

Tax Cuts for the Post 9/11 Economy
After 9/11, Bush couldn't possibly advocate for these same tax cuts, in the face of an expensive war (or two) and a devestating economic downturn. Could he? You bet he could:

In his 2002 State of the Union, Bush prouldly trumpets the budget increases he's proposed while at the same time, lobbying for those SAME tax cuts:

" Our men and women in uniform deserve the best weapons, the best equipment and the best training and they also deserve another pay raise. My budget includes the largest increase in defense spending in two decades, because while the price of freedom and security is high, it is never too high. Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay. "
The next priority of my budget is to do everything possible to protect our citizens and strengthen our nation against the ongoing threat of another attack.

Time and distance from the events of September the 11th will not make us safer unless we act on its lessons. America is no longer protected by vast oceans. We are protected from attack only by vigorous action abroad and increased vigilance at home.

My budget nearly doubles funding for a sustained strategy of homeland security, focused on four key areas: bioterrorism; emergency response; airport and border security; and improved intelligence. "

After making such proud statements about his budget increases, he makes a call for making the tax cuts permanent:

Good jobs depend on sound tax policy. Last year, some in this hall thought my tax relief plan was too small, some thought it was too big. But when those checks arrived in the mail, most Americans thought tax relief was just about right. Congress listened to the people and responded by reducing tax rates, doubling the child credit and ending the death tax. For the sake of long-term growth, and to help Americans plan for the future, let's make these tax cuts permanent.

To sum up: These "magic" tax cuts are good for America during prosperous times, recessions, and times of war. The work equally well when you have a surplus, and when you are increasing the budget by record amounts.

The good news is--well, there really isn't any. Bush's bullheaded insistance on the SAME TAX CUTS, regardless of circumstances has left the United States in serious trouble--Running budget deficts of 35%-40% each year of his presidency, and leaving us $7.5 trillion in the hole. 9/11 and the economic problems and extra spending associated with it simply exaserbated the problem, and Bush made no adjustment to his already short sighted policy.

Way to not flip-flop George!

Sigh.

Tin Foil Out

Howard Kurtz is back

2004-12-07T09:36:00.000-08:00

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post has been taking a break for the past two weeks from his Media Notes Extra online column. Thankfully, he's back writing again. It's an excellent "behind the scenes" media blog that summarizes and comments on most of the punditry on the issues of the day.

UPDATE--Bev Harris v. Keith Olbermann

2004-12-06T13:55:00.000-08:00

There's an update on this story. Bev Harris has posted her side of things:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/dcforum/DCForumID4410/29.html

Tax cuts, budget deficits, and a falling dollar (Oh my!)

2004-12-06T11:01:00.000-08:00

This morning, I heard on NPR that the Japanese and Europeans are so concered with the weak dollar (~$1.30= 1 Euro) that they are thinking of ways to stop the slide of our currency. Why would they do this? Well, our government is not about to do anything, and they depend on a strong dollar to make money from trade with the US. While the weak dollar is good for US trade in the short term, eventually, it will cause foreign governments, who currently lend us billions to finance our national debt, to abandon our currency for something more stable--the Euro--and will lead us into a huge financial crisis of high interest rates and record inflation.

Does this bother anyone else? Our federal goverment is facing one of the largest finacial crises in its history (in the next ten years or so), and we have a president who insists upon trillions of dollars in tax cuts, leads us into a very expensive war (in money and lives, unfortunately), and who refuses to veto a single spending bill that comes out of the Republican controlled Congress?

There was a time in my 20s when I thought that credit cards were a pretty good idea. I was able to live way beyond my means by charging more and more, and making the minimum payments on those cards. This worked for a while, and I got some good Vegas vacations out of it, but eventually, I had to pay the piper. For the past four years, the old US of A is taking up the spending habits of my younger days, and most politicians: A) agree that we're headed for a reckoning when Baby Boomers start collecting Social Security and medicare, and B) that they won't do anything about this issue becasue it would make them unpopular with everyone from seniors (who will almost certainly have to take a benefit cut) and younger workers (who will almost certainly have to pay higher payroll taxes).

Neither presidential candidate wanted to touch this in the debates, becasue there is no good solution (i.e. one where no one has to pay more or earn less), but I did believe Kerry when he talked about his Senate budget cutting resume. Even with a Republican Congress, Clinton and Senate Democrats managed to control spending and create surpluses, even going to extreme measures to prevent unneccessary spending. Remember the "government shutdown" in 1995? That was one of my favorite Clinton moments.

When I was growing up, I remember that the popular conception was that Republicans were fiscally reponsible, wanted to limit spending, and make goverment smaller. Unfortunately for conservatives, this didn't happen under Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II, all of whom ran record budget deficits.

W is, in my view, either crazy, stupid, or just tragically shortsighted. It seems that conservatism now means: cutting taxes for the rich regardless of circumstances, spending like a drunken sailor on any program that benefits the military or big business, and claiming that God told you to.

I have visions of Bush appearing in a popular credit card ad:

Tax cuts : $1.9 Trillion/10 yrs
Iraq War: $148 Billion (and counting)
Increased spending: Over 10% per year
New Medicare Perscription Drug Benefit: $400 billion/10 yrs
Budget Deficit: $521 Billion (2004)
National Debt: $7.5 Trillion (and counting)
Screwing Baby boomers out of their retirement benefits: Inevitible

Now it doesn't take a genius to figure out that without the tax cuts (mostly for the rich), a very costly medicare benefit, an unnecessary war, and unusually high spending, we'd be a little better off, and at least have a chance of keeping the debt under control.

Add to the $7.5 trillion national credit card bill (growing by 1/2 $ trillion per year) the fact that social security benefits will be going through the roof, and I don't know how we'll get out of it without a huge tax increase or reduction in benefits. Even Alan Greenspan , not known for his liberal views, is concerned about deficits enough to make them a central point in his address to Congress this year. The most dire predications I've heard are from Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley who predicted that we have a 1 in 10 change of avoiding "Economic Armageddon."
He said: (As recounted by the Boston Herald):

To finance its current account deficit with the rest of the world, he said,
America has to import $2.6 billion in cash. Every working day. That is an
amazing 80 percent of the entire world's net savings. Sustainable? Hardly.

To make maters worse, he says that the weak dollar, and larger deficits will force the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates in a desperate attempt to keep inflation low and will cause Americans with unprecedented personal debt to default and declare bankrupcy in record numbers.

Got an adjustible rate mortgage on that house you can barely afford? Thousands of dollars in credit card debt? Guess what? You also own a $25,526.56 share of the national debt, and each member of your family owes an equal amount.

Good luck. You need it, and so does the country.

Tin Foil Out

Welcome to The Tin Foil Hat!

2004-12-03T13:20:00.000-08:00

I've finally decided to stop ranting and raving about politics and art, etc. in private. I've decided to blog. In the future, you're likely to see commentary on politics, popular culture, dogs (Pugs primarily), and anything that I notice (I have a short attention span).

Not going to go too deep into my personal life (probably), but I'll let you know that I am an overeducated, underpaid, married, pet owner from Seattle who works for a major software (and hardware) manufacturer.

Here's what's on my mind today:

The Stolen Election (not the one in Ukraine): Bev Harris v. Keith Olbermann

I'm a bit mad a Keith Olbermann these days. For those of you who are not familiar with the ongoing investigations of voting "irregualities" on Nov 2nd, Keith Olbermann, the host of MSNBC's Countdown, is pretty much the only mainstream journalist covering the story that the presidental election was "rigged" in favor of President Bush. First, let me say that I love Keith Olbermann. He was great on ESPN when I was in college, and Countdown is pretty much the only cable news show I can watch without gagging. Here's my beef with him now, though:

Bev Harris is the co-founder of BlackBoxVoting.org which is a non-profit organization dedicated to making our elections fair and vote counting transparent. She is disturbed by the trend of states replacing paper ballots (which can be recounted and examined) with touch screen voting machines that produce no paper trail and count votes using proprietary software developed by one of three major manufacturers (Deibold is perhaps the most well known). Sounds good, no? Why would anyone, in any political party, with any sense, with two brain cells to rub together, ADVOCATE for a voting system that is proprietary, and which produces no verifiable paper trail. (If you would like to advocate for it, there may be $1,000 in it for you).

Anyway, Bev Harris has been shaking things up since election day, filing lawsuits and Freedom of Information Act requests in Florida and other states, trying to find out if there was fraud on Nov 2. Keith Olbermann has been on a parallel track since election day, covering statistical anomalies, undercounted ballots, provisional ballots, and recounts in Ohio, New Hampshire and Florida. They should be fast friends, right?

This week there has been a blog war between the two, stemming from some statements Keith Olbermann made about her on Countdown and in his Blog. To summarize, he said that she was hurting her cause with some guerilla tactics ("public confrontations with public officials involving crashing meetings and videotaping their reactions, etc."), he intimated that she might be in it for the money (proving election fraud--the next big moneymaker!), and said that she has refused to appear on Countdown (Olbermann admits that he scheduled her once and bumped her for another more "mainstream" guest) or to let them air her video tapes.

Harris responded on her Web site (the post has since been removed) that this last charge was patently false, and that she had been asked to appear on Countdown twice in early November and then not again. She also said that she had already shared her videos with other media outlets and would gladly have done so with Countdown, if asked.
She demanded that Mr. Olbermann retract his allegations (and apparently called his staff--more on that later).

I don't ususally do this because I don't expect anyone to read it (kind of like blogging), but I emailed Olbermann to get to the bottom of this. Here's the email I sent to Keith:
___________________Email begins____

Keith,
I’m sure you’ve seen the posting from Bev Harris (or her associates) on http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ where she asks you to retract your statements on Countdown last night (I’m sure she would have asked for a retraction of your blog comments from last night as well if she had read them). I’m a big fan of yours from the old ESPN days, and I love the current Countdown show. I appreciate your coverage of the voting irregularities in this election, but I’m a little confused about a few things. I REALLY think that you should have Ms. Harris on ASAP to clear these questions up:

Did you cancel her appearances on the show twice (not once as you claimed in your blog)?
Is it true that your staff has not asked her back since, and has never asked to broadcast her footage? From what she says on her Web site, she has shown her footage to CNN, and promptly provided tapes to a local affiliate in Florida.
Does “making a documentary” disqualify people from having pure motives?

On the last point . . . Anyone who has even taken a 15 second glance at her Web site would see that she is working with a team of documentary filmmakers making a film called “Votergate.” She even links to their Web site where the project is clearly explained. Your blog makes it sound like she has a secret plan to cash in on her cause, and that this somehow disqualifies her as a good spokesperson for fair and transparent voting. She is working with filmmakers—so what. Got any cameras in the Countdown studio, Keith? Get any ratings boost from this story? Maybe MSNBC has a secret plan to cash in on it. People who live in glass houses . . .

Also, I found it more than a little disingenuous to hear you complain that Ms. Harris wouldn’t provide you with her footage (If that is indeed the case). Maybe she’s deferring to her documentary film crew—making sure that they can release the footage first. Maybe she’s waiting for a bigger news show (no offense) to break the story. Maybe she wants to finish her investigation. None of this makes her any less credible in my book. She wants to use her footage her way—so what? Keith, can I have footage of every Countdown show to use in my blog as I see fit? What’s that you say? Copyright? Intellectual property? Lawyers? Again, glass houses.

In Bev’s account of the LePore incident, she recounts that she went to the podium and said, “Since we can't get your attention any other way, I'm serving you with a courtesy copy of the lawsuit we served on your office this morning." In the blog, you made it sound like an out and out ambush—If you tried to contact a public official though multiple means and got no response, wouldn’t you resort to extraordinary (and possibly theatrical) measures? All I’m saying is that LePore should have known that a reckoning with Harris was coming.

Your characterization of the LePore meeting, while accurate: “She burst into LePore’s retirement ceremony,” leaves out a few important points

Ms. Harris explains (on her site): “Black Box Voting went to the meeting because it was on the official schedule as a speech by LePore on retention of election records. LePore seems to have been retaining records too aggressively, by failing to provide public records to the public. Unfortunately, it seems that the agenda was changed, unbeknownst to Black Box Voting, and instead of a speech it was to be an event honoring LePore prior to her retirement (she was voted out of office by Palm Beach County residents), and congratulating her on surviving so many lawsuits.”

These accounts are a little different, no?

Have her on the show. Sort this out. A lot of us who are following this story have lost a little faith in the accuracy of your reporting and any biases you might have. Clear this up for us.
___________________________________Email_Ends_____

I must not have been the only one emailing him, because the next night he addressed his comments about Bev Harris in his blog, becoming even more annoying if possible (it's the Dec 2nd entry--the last few paragraphs). I guess Bev Harris contacted Countdown, and was, understandably, a bit miffed. She apparently "threatened" Keith and his staff, and Keith announced that he was retracting his invitation for Harris to appear on the show (if he had ever indeed offered it), and that she was "belligerent, threatening, and demanding."

Now, I don't know Bev Harris, but I have seen her on video. She is a housewife and mother from Seattle. She seems very determined and unafraid of confrontation in a Michael-Moore-kind-of-way, but I can't imagine that her "threats" were of the "I'll breaka you kneecaps" variety. She probably threatened them with a lawsuit unless they stopped talking uncorroborated smack about her on a national news show.

This made me a little mad. Olbermann has been on a high horse during this whole election fraud investigation: calling other media outlets "whimps," and dismissing a lot of Internet evidence as "Saran Wrap Hat" or "Tin Foil Hat" (nice name!) thinking. Now, he was announcing that he wasn't going to allow key source in the investigation to come on because, in my view:

He made shit up about her
She got mad

I felt compelled to write another email:
________________________________Email_Begins___
Keith,

I think it’s time for you to get a tinfoil hat . . .

From your Blog: “Only today did she (Bev Harris) even get back in touch with us, and was so belligerent, threatening, and demanding, that we have chosen to withdraw our invitation to her to appear, or to have videotape of her efforts played, on Countdown. Threats against myself or my staff will not be tolerated.”

Let me get this straight . . . a middle aged woman “threatened” you and your staff? Was Bev going to send goons to beat you up in the parking lot? Come on Keith, this is the kind of thing that you would make fun of if the shoe was on the other foot.

If she “threatened” you with a lawsuit for defamation of character for what you said about her and wrote in your blog—I think she might have a case. She has already filed two this week—what’s one more? In the future, maybe you’ll want to watch what you say, check the accuracy of your sources, and stop complaining about being understaffed (do you think Dan Rather should have tried that one?). You are a journalist, when you make false statements about people on national television, they will complain, and, yes, occasionally threaten you with lawsuits. Put aside any petty silliness, retract your statements about Bev Harris, apologize, and HAVE HER ON THE SHOW. SHOW US HER FOOTAGE. This is a vital story, and I appreciate your work on it, but you’re leaving out a major player and key evidence.

And now for your tinfoil hat moment:

“These are my people — they are running professional risks I can’t begin to describe — and I will stand up for them, first, last, and always.”

First, I appreciate your loyalty to your staff. That’s a good way to run a business. But Keith, if you think that your “firing” caused people to put on tinfoil hats, statements like: “professional risks I can’t begin to describe” ought to inspire calm, don’t you think?

God help you if you ever get a chance to interview the President, or Osama Bin Laden—someone really dangerous—If one little middle aged housewife-turned activist can put the fear of God into you and your staff. Grow up and cover the story.
___________________________End_Email__________

We'll see what's going to happen next, as I mentioned, Bev Harris took down her posting that Olbermann retract his statements--Maybe they're working it out. Let's hope so.

To Bev and Keith: Now, girls, you're both pretty. Stop fighting and work together.

That's all for now.

Tinfoil Out.

Brazil--A timely movie

2004-12-03T13:04:00.000-08:00

And now for something completely different . . .

Seemed like the appropriate way to start a post about a Terry Gilliam movie (he was a member of Monty Python).

I saw Brazil over the weekend. It was my first time seeing it in almost 20 years (eek!). I saw it in high school when it came out in 1985. I remember it being pretty and weird--and it is--but I was floored by the timeliness of the movie for 2004. The movie takes place "Sometime in the 20th Century" (there was still some 20th century left when it came out), and is a portrait of a dystopian society where everyone lives in constant fear of terrorist attacks. The goverment has used the terrorist threats to assume absolute power to arrest citizens suspected of terrorism, detain them indefinitely, and torture them into confessing to crimes they may not have committed. The rich in this society get richer and are obsessed with plastic surgery and cuisine, the poor live in dangerous slums, and a large central corporation controls everything.

Sound familiar?

Watch it. Let me know what you think. It's got a hell of a cast: Jonathan Pryce, Robert Deniro, Jim Broadbent, Ian Holm, and many more. Tom Stoppard is credited on the screenplay, too.

The Tin Foil Hat

Costa Rica

Singapore

RCRG Bout 2 Preview

Fantasy Basketball

Back in Seattle again

Blogging from 30,000 ft

Bout 1 Follow-ups and Bout 2 preview

Oh, the irony . . .

RCRG Bout 1 Recap

Politics?

Roller Derby first bout may be sold out--Extra Tickets?

Rat City Rollers . . .

New Coffee Table

Call girl update

Lost in Translation

Blogging to stand still

Second run with the Tablet PC

Action!

Where do I want to go today?

Ok, figure this one out . . .

The Red Eye

Late night sick blogging

Didn't they have a bigger one . . .?

Battlestar Historica

Generation Y

Cha-Cha-Cha-Changes

Watch Dermott Tonight

Random thoughts

Return of the Blog-i

Hello! Um, the President admitted to criminal behavior

More new technology

Sparky

"Lost" on demand

End of the world spam

I've started a new blog with wifey . . .

Chickenhawks beware . . .

Oh, this is clever . . .

"Homicide Bombers"

Woodward and Libby

Revising history

I *HAD* to post about this

Halloween Pics

Interesting background on the "Yellow Cake" info

Don't mess with the Onion

iRobot domination?

The Colbert Report

Roller Derby Finals--DLF! DLF! DLF!

Roller Derby Finals Preview

Words of wisdom from the General

First nine minutes of Serenity available online!

Serenity--big damn reaction piece

I have found Serenity

Ok . . . I have to make fun of one more critic

While I don't approve of gloating . . .

Big Damn Movie a critical success

Nothing changes.

Serenity

National Debt and Katrina

Tickets for Rat City Rollergirls finals on sale now!

Roller Derby Semis

No one is conservative . . .when they hold the purse strings.

A break from politics . . . for Roller Derby!

9/11 Conspiracies

Cindy Sheehan provides a much needed laugh

Save New Orleans

Rick Santorum Sums It Up

Told ya so! . . . Bush uses religion for political gain.

What is Bush exactly?

Thong Statute Update

The Thong Statute

"Nutsack" unleashed

An open letter to evangelical Christians

Tin Foil Hat back on for a second term

" . . . a Confession, a Regret, Something"

Constitution-Schmonstitution

Democratic Senators to Challenge Ohio's Electors

Happy Holidays

American Academy of Achievement

Disbelief Fatigue

I HAD to post about this