licentious radio

Monday, January 27, 2003
[11:08:34 PM]

We *love* Krugman! Krugman rules! Krugman! Krugman! Krugman!

Today, we are all Krugmen.

'We can be sure that some pundits will acclaim the speech as bold and brilliant; they would do that if he read from "The Very Hungry Caterpillar." Whether their praise, and the theatrics of the occasion, will turn things around is anyone's guess. A lot depends on whether Mr. Bush is held accountable for the promises he made in his last State of the Union address.'

Bush promised low deficits and jobs. (Let's leave aside the Axis of Evil -- Bush doesn't mention it since North Korea started getting uppidy.) $300 billion doesn't seem "low" to me, and if there are no new jobs, it feels like a recession, even if Bush and Rove and Greenspan make up a different name for it.

And:

'The administration's credibility problem is made worse by the high casualty rate among top economic officials, and the uninspiring quality of their replacements. Today is the first day of hearings for John Snow, the administration's choice for Treasury secretary. One official I spoke to was rueful: "I thought Paul O'Neill wasn't suited to being Treasury secretary; he'd have been better off running a railroad. Now they've picked a man who ran a railroad."'

At licentious radio, we think Little George is toast. (Note to Secret Service: we mean that *figuratively*.) We think Blair will leave him hanging in the wind on Iraq, and the US military will oust Rumsfeld. We think Democrats will grow a spine. And we think Bush's evil plans to destroy the environment and provoke never-ending war will be a footnote to history. We think that it is a matter of months before the consensus is that the Bushlette is the worst president in American history. We think people will point to this as an example of why voting isn't so bad -- counting votes would have prevented some large part of this nightmare.

We don't take this for granted; as Krugzilla exclaims, "it's amazing how many stories you still read about his immense, unshakeable popularity." If the Media Whores stand behind him, starting the war soon might be enough to save Bush. But the military *does* keep finding reasons to postpone.... The Republican Corporate Media wasn't slacking off, though, these last few weeks when Bush's polls dropped faster than the stock market.

We believe hundreds of thousands of people marching in the streets helped our truly loyal allies stand up to the madness of dumb George. And we believe just the slightest push from Democrats could make the whole house of cards fall. The list of criminals ready for prosecution is huge. Bush, Cheney, White, Rehnquist (the daughter), and on and on. In fact, we believe that the longer Bush holds to power, the more completely we will sweep his agenda from the face of American politics. If he stays long enough, the entire Republican Axis of Evil may disolve, like the Conservative party in England.

[10:24:50 PM]
*Too* hilarious! In the New York Times, a clown from the Heritage Foundation has taken up the question of which hundred thousand civilians Jesus would shred with cluster bombs. The answer, of course, is Saddam's civilians.

It's a sad fact of life that *anyone* can find support for his pet evil in the Bible.

"Do not think I come to bring peace" -- truly, I say to you means that Jesus was here to stir things up, not to let the powerful trample the innocent. Joseph Butthead Laconte then points out that Jesus himself made a whip out of rope, and drove the money changers from the temple. In this, Butthead finds the imperative for Bush-head to bomb Baghdad for seven days and seven nights -- dropping the equivalent explosive force of an atom bomb.

Verily, he says, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, but he with the larger air force shall bomb the civilians to Hell.

What a sad, little man Mr. Laconte is, propagandizing for war in the name of Jesus. Of course, it is the most beautiful argument. Even morons will distinguish between defending civilisation from Nazis, and laying waste to a nation to eliminate one man -- and grab all that oil, to boot.

We will know Christians by whether they are immediately repulsed by this trash, or whether they prefer to kill innocent brown-skins than see Bush made the fool, forced to give up his quest for war.

[8:17:30 PM]
Senator Daschle:

I think it would be OK if you mentioned that we don't want to kill tens of thousands of Iraqis unless there is some imminent danger.

This is not only moralistic. The higher the Arab body count, and the higher the ratio of Arabs to American deaths, the more enemies we will make among the Arabs and Muslims of the world.

I also think it's fair to point out that we *had* effective deterrence of Saddam, but the sabre-rattling has probably made the situation much more dangerous than it was. That was the CIA assessment, after all. That's the kind of thing we pay the *CIA* for, not Perle, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld.

The question of how many Americans are likely to die in an invasion of Iraq is a good one. As I recall, the worst-case scenario for the first Gulf War was 25,000 dead Americans -- if we invaded Iraq. What is the military's estimate today?

It looks to me like Rumsfeld has cracked again -- like he did after the September 11 attacks. And Bush seems *way* too eager for war. Remember his "it makes me run faster" line? These are not people who should be allowed to decide to invade Iraq.

The Bush people seem *bent* on provoking terrorism. We should fight terrorists, not attack the non-terrorist populations of Arab/Muslim countries. Afghanistan was bad enough. Iraq could be a horror. Loose talk of using nukes is outrageous. Even in response to a gas attack on our soldiers, nuking Iraqi civilians would be a crime against humanity. If Bush creates a situation in which a nuclear weapon, that would be a disaster.

As you say, there is no rush worthy of the massacre of Iraqi civilians and death of Americans. But it *is* true that the economy is suffering, and is likely to go into limbo as the build-up to war drags on.

The right answer here is to use inspections and gradually stand down from the invasion.

If Democrats make a stand for peace, that will strengthen Labor in England, and give Blair even more room to stall or opt out of the invasion.

But now is the time to come out strongly against this war. You, personally, can make a *huge* difference. Remember what happened within days of the peace marches on January 18: Germany, France, Russia, Canada, and China all came out against invasion?

If Blair is forced to opt out of invasion, even the Republican corporate media would turn against a solo war.

Good luck.

[5:21:22 PM]
"Does Saddam Hussein pose a threat to our national security so imminent that it justifies putting American lives at risk to get rid of him?"

That's mighty racy for Tom Daschle.

What a screwed up country, though, where he can't include the lives of Iraqis in the calculation for "is it worth it". Any politician who asks, "is it worth killing tens of thousands of Iraqis to 'git' Saddam" would be crushed under the full force of racist America, egged on by the Republic Hate Mongers, and the Republican Corporate Media.

[4:34:42 PM]
We repeat: any American or British politician or military officers involved with using nuclear weapons on civilians in Iraq should count on being convicted of crimes against humanity, and should consider the chances of being executed for their actions.

In fact, we assume no professional military officer would carry out any order involving first use of nuclear weapons.

However, even the *suggestion* that nuclear weapons are an option is a horror in itself, and dangerously destabilizes the one "good" thing about nuclear weapons -- that they are held primarily as a deterrent.

Even the notion of "bunker-buster" nukes is disasterously dangerous. A giant, permanently radioactive hole in Baghdad would surely create hatred of the United States on a scale undreamed of.

[2:57:47 PM]
Transcript of Bush's State of the Union Address:

"So up here on the left in the short skirt with the boob job is Christi White, the courageous young woman suing Michigan to stop their practice of discriminating against dumb white kids. Take a bow, Christi. You could have studied for tests, you could have turned in your homework, you could have been born rich, or you could have gotten the boob job in time to improve your grades.... But that's no reason to let some blacko into college instead of you. So thanks, dear. Keep up the good work."

[1:34:37 PM]
Wow. And William Safire has *another* article in which he proves the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. This new article doesn't mention his *old* article, in which he propagandized a lie. Safire doesn't say whether he *knew* his previous report was false. But we're supposed to believe the new evidence, just because he says so.

The important thing isn't whether Safire was actually lying before, or whether he is actually lying now.

The important thing is that Al Qaeda is not like a nation, with borders and a precise chain of command. Al Qaeda is pretty darned loose. Al Qaeda seems to be willing to shovel (Saudi and Pakistani) money to anybody willing to cause some mischief.

Similarly, *everybody's* got connections to Al Qaeda. Maybe Saddam has let some Al Qaeda people in. But you think about Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. There are three countries that have given Al Qaeda a lot more support than anything Safire has claimed.

Even Safire's new claims miss the essential point: Iraq wasn't involved in the 9/11 attacks, as Safire previously claimed.

Now, it's not the case that because Safire spread lies or false information before, that he is incapable of telling the truth. It's just that we are incapable of distinguishing between his falsehoods and any accurate information he might present. Eventually, the evidence will come out. But the point of Safire's timing *might* be to help justify conquest today, knowing that his claims won't be refuted until after the tanks are at the gates of Baghdad. Kind of like the Kuwaiti incubator babies that weren't discovered to be a lie until after Congress voted to let Poppy "roll".

[12:27:17 PM]
We're not taking on a permanent Whore-Watch role, mostly because the whores are so boring. A point-by-point analysis of their articles is tedious and would typically miss the whole point of their propaganda. Good whore propaganda doesn't try to prove "X", it talks about "Y" and just *assumes* "X" is already proved.

Thus Saunders went on the assumption that discrimination against gays is OK. Sandalow took the tougher approach, trying to find evidence that Bush is a "master" of politics.

[12:22:04 PM]
Debra J. Saunders, again.... File this one in the "your lips are moving but you aren't saying anything" category. Her spew goes on and on, without quite getting to the bottom line. The bottom line is that it's OK to discriminate against gays, and it's ridiculous to take any step that reduces support for discriminating against gays.

It's the banality of evil. Saunders may worship some God once a week, and she may volunteer to help the elderly or poor, but here she is promoting acceptance of discrimination. In every time -- up until now -- there have been people who defended discrimination against one group or another. If this were 60s US, the column would be promoting discrimination against blacks. In 20s Germany, it would be promoting discrimination against Jews.

It's really a *good* thing to air views like Saunders' in public. It's easier to defeat such sickness when it's in the open. But I don't see that it has a place in mainstream media -- as if it's normal and acceptable. Except, of course, to show us all that the mainstream media is no longer normal or acceptable.

[12:08:47 PM]
Marc Sandalow's job at the SF Chronicle appears to be glorifying El Stupido: "George W. Bush has not only embraced the art of politics, he has become a master." That's "news analysis", Republican Corporate Media style.

Does Rove have anything to do with Bush's "mastery"? Sandalow quotes that idiot, Frum, as if he's a source of wisdom. In chess, that move would rate two question marks. Frum's evidence is that it takes a political master to recognize good advice. I don't think so. All you have to do is follow whatever Rove says.

I mean, are we supposed to believe that Dim Dubya orchestrated Lott's political assassination?

And then there's SF mayor Willy Brown who obligingly says "It's not Rove" based on the assertion that "you can't surround yourself with political people unless you are that way yourself."

So Bush's true jenius is evident in his association with Rove.

Then there's the usual bullshit.... Bush's power soared after September 11, 2001, and has been sinking ever since -- according to "detractors" -- but it was "positioning" that "erased the perceptions of a weak leader". And every element of that was orchestrated by Rove, which proves that Bush is a jenius, or he wouldn't be doing whatever Rove sez.

There is, of course, no mention of the incessant Republican Corporate Media hyping as a factor in Bush's popularity, no mention that *any* president's popularity soars when the country is attacked (or attacking), and no mention of Bush's stupid remarks that have helped provoke crises around the world and dissolve the goodwill toward the US post-9/11.

[11:14:12 AM]
And how about that Ariel Sharon! More campaign finance scandals than you can shake a stick at, so it's time to blast the Gaza Strip quick before the election. New scandal? Hmm, let's talk about *re-occupying* Gaza. Wag the dog? More like wag the *elephant*.

[11:09:54 AM]
Don't forget the anti-war protest in Palo Alto on Saturday. Noon at City Hall Plaza (downtown at 250 Hamilton Avenue).

http://www.peaceandjustice.org/

[10:25:22 AM]
Senator Lautenberg "has skied for more than 50 years and was wearing a helmet when he was cut off by another skier and fell."

Don't even *think* of asking why only Democratic Senators have life-threatening accidents, plane crashes, and anthrax letters, damn it!

[10:21:55 AM]
These are lame days for politics. Bush's whole war-mongering propaganda can be exposed in *one* political cartoon.

Bush with big ears and silly hat:

"We have proof Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks!"

"OK, we don't... but we have proof Iraq was developing nuclear weapons!"

"OK, those aluminum tubes were really fly rod cases, but we have definite evidence they have chemical weapons!"

"OK, those shells were empty, but our other evidence against Iraq is particularly damning!..."

Citizen:

"I'd say so..."

[10:17:11 AM]
Infoworld.com redesigned again. I give up. This design is so awful that they've just lost me.

What I want? A quick scan of headlines and two-sentence summaries. Is that hard? Is that unheard of?

It's so bad they left the contact information off the Contact Us page. If the editor's email address were still there, his inbox would probably crush their mail server under the weight of the complaints.

They can add the email addresses in a couple weeks after everyone has stopped visiting the site.

Cutting costs is a good thing. This design will sure save bandwidth.

[10:12:55 AM]
Well, g'day campers!

Lovely day for news. In the trustworthy computing arena, one of Microsoft's security holes in SQL Server did a big-time number on the internet over the weekend, but apparently with only 22,000 hosts taken over by the worm. Good thing it was a SQL Server hole, not another IIS hole. Why not configure SQL Server by default to ignore UDP packets that aren't from the local subnetwork? Meanwhile MS patches proved to be confusing, and require a service pack installation first. That makes *me* feel trusting toward Microsoft. Brother Bill is on our side.

Then over in England, there's a legal process for if you're storing private information about your customers. Microsoft apparently forgot to renew their certificate. That's trustworthy computing -- so trustworthy they don't have to follow the laws.

Where I live, the local power company is in bankruptcy, and the local power seems to go out as often as power in Serbia. I'd like to think the power moguls are playing hardball with PUC... one of those "if you don't play nice, your voters won't have electricity" things. But it's probably just a matter of priorities. They could *either* give huge bonuses to executives, *or* avoid firing thousands of the employees who keep the electrical system working. Since it's the executives who make that decision, you can tell how it came out.

But *my goodness* we've had the loveliest weather in the SF Bay area. When homicidal lunatics are racing to murder tens of thousands of brown-skins, it's nice to at least have pleasant weather.