licentious radio

Monday, January 20, 2003
[5:59:31 PM]

What percentage of registered Democrats have to be opposed to war in Iraq before a democratic politician will show up at an anti-war rally? 95%? 130%? Are we going to have to tie them up and drag them to the stage so they can look out and see the people they "represent" -- we want to vote for someone, but "someone" has to get out in front so he/she looks like a leader.

[5:45:48 PM]

What do you hate most about having stolen the White House?

"I hate having to pet little black kids. What's up with that? I want to kill Iraqis, not read stupid children's stories. You think the Commander has nothing better to do than pet little black kids?

"We call it "the Rove tax" -- ridiculous shit you have to do so you can spend the rest of the day stealing social security, wrecking the environment, and killing brown-skins. But I absolutely *refuse* to pet little black kids more than twice a week until the Democrats' primaries start."

[5:39:17 PM]
We already *tried* a draft for democracy. It doesn't work. People like Bush use influence to get out of it, then some poor black kid dies instead.

The reason we "need" a draft is to have enough soldiers to occupy Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and such. But we'd rather pay special forces and marines and tank crews and pilots. Draftees die too quick. It's a problem, because the money to feed and train draftees would take away from the money to pay bomber pilots and special forces.

I figure the world is better off if we have a small army that can whup anybody who's really evil, but *too* small to go around conquering countries because they have oil or brown skin.

[1:58:56 PM]
Another suicide-by-CalTrain. That makes five -- so far -- in January. That's the same number as all of last year.

An intelligent person might ask what is different between January with five deaths, and December or November with none. Post-holiday blues? That would be the same every year. Economic problems -- the unemployment runs out and there are no new jobs? Does an article on page 12 of the Palo Alto Daily News provoke more suicides? More hopeless psychos on the streets? Are these people who would have committed suicide anyway, or people who only killed themselves because of CalTrain?

The obvious difference is the psycho-blasting -- louder, longer, way more often. It's hard to think of it as a "whistle" when it's so loud that it hurts.

CalTrain's response to multiple suicides is to have their train-cops go out and write tickets. What do suicides have to do with where people cross the tracks?

CalTrain publicizes a suicide-prevention program -- they have some signs to please call a suicide-prevention hotline instead of walking in front of a train. That's nice. It doesn't appear to help.

CalTrain should try being a respectful member of the community -- stop creating safety hazards, stop making life worse for people who live near or use CalTrain. Most of all, cut out the blasting horns.

And, of course, people should find something better to do than to walk in front of trains.

[12:43:08 PM]
Now Bob Novak is even saying the Bush people want war for war's sake. What's up with that?

Maybe the Republican Corporate Criminals think things have gone far enough, and it's time to let the economy recover so they can cash in on everything they bought at fire-sale prices?

Carlisle Group makes a killing on smart bombs and such, but in the last year they've bought up lots of the companies that the Greenspan/Bush recession destroyed. I figure Carlisle is at a point now where they will make *more* money if the economy recovers than if the world falls into constant war and depression.

Maybe Poppy has finally admitted that Junior is *irretrievably* stupid, and it's time to clean up a few loose ends and let the Democrats back in to fix the economy. Then in 2012 they can come back and do it all again.

[12:18:32 PM]
Excuse me, isn't secession a form of treason, and a secessionist a traitor? And if you wave a US flag, how do you reconcile that with waving the flag of traitors?

Let's start telling it like it is. Trent Lott's hero was a traitor. All these "states rights" racist pigs are essentialy a fifth column of traitors to the United States of America. Treasonous bastards shouldn't get by with pretending to be US patriots.

All this pro-Confederate garbage is glorifying people who made pre-emptive war against the United States government in order to protect their "states rights" to own slaves. This sentiment is the most disgusting (if not most dangerous) spew in the country today, and we should finally get around to labelling it for what it is, and refuse to be politely quiet about it.

[11:40:19 AM]
"I have a dream that one day, men will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by their alumni connections."

[11:30:00 AM]
If you take a handful of Bush-regime leaks and squawks at face value, it's scary -- pre-emptive strikes, axis of evil, ok to assassinate Saddam "in self defense", ok to "targeted kill" any bad guy, ok to use nukes in pre-emptive strikes, ok to depose governments of nations. It's no wonder Korea's whacko dictator might feel a little paranoid.

Iraq doesn't even have much to do with spreading evil in the world. The religious whackos in Iran -- in complete contrast -- *do* support international terrorism. As does the Saudi ruling class. As does Pakistan. Pakistan *does* have nukes, and has been sharing nuclear technology with North Korea in exchange for missile tech (and missiles). Pakistan's nuclear whackos overlap with its religious whackos -- who support Al Qaeda and other terrorists. (One of the juicy September 11 bits is a Pakistani general handing cash to Atta.)

It may well be that invading Iraq will be so provocative that nukes will spread rapidly -- as the main hope of preventing a US attack. Anti-American terrorists are likely to find their support increased by at least an order of magnitude.

It may well be that if Bush can get his generals to conquer Iraq, we'll be forced into going after Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and others.

How about this:

<quote>One American intelligence official who has attended recent White House meetings cautioned against relying on the day-to-day Administration statements that emphasize a quick settlement of the dispute. The public talk of compromise is being matched by much private talk of high-level vindication. "Bush and Cheney want that guy's head"--Kim Jong II's--"on a platter. Don't be distracted by all this talk about negotiations. There will be negotiations, but they have a plan, and they are going to get this guy after Iraq. He's their version of Hitler."</quote>

Seymour M. Hersh [newyorker.com]: What the Administration knew about Pakistan and the North Korean nuclear program.