Hello! Um, the President admitted to criminal behavior

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

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

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

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

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 . . .

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 . . .

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 . . .

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"

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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?

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

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!

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

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

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