licentious radio

Thursday, February 13, 2003
[9:57:17 PM]

Did you catch the head of the September 11 commission promising not to investigate the September 11 attacks. He's going to focus on the future. You don't need to cook the books if you just keep them closed.

We know for *sure* Bush ordered the FBI not to investigate Saudis with connections to Bin Laden. We know for sure that the National Security Council was busy trying to work the Afghan gas pipeline deal with an extension to India -- to try to save Enron. We know for sure that Cheney took charge of the anti-terrorism efforts and then did nothing about terrorism because he was too busy creating an energy policy to rip off the American people.

Those three items should be enough to force Bush and Cheney to resign, if it weren't for the cover-up by the Republican-owned media. And they're not even the tip of the ice berg. There's no hope of hiding everything if there's an investigation, so the only viable strategy is to focus on the future. Maybe Bush can get away with that if he starts the invasion, or if there's another big terrorist attack, but if he doesn't hit another trifecta, he could be in serious trouble.

[5:01:38 PM]
150,000 Americans might be enough to conquer Iraq. But once it's *ours*, how do we control the borders? Of those 150,000, not many of them are guys-with-a-rifle. It's the guys-with-a-rifle who will be needed all along the border with Iran to keep spies, provocateurs, and terrorists out. Same with the Syrian border. Heck, same with the Jordan/Saudi/Kuwait borders.

In Afghanistan we had the warlords already in place, and look what a disaster *that* is. With no proxies to provide internal and border security, the few Americans with rifles are going to have their work cut out for them in Baghdad, Basra, and the oil fields. That leaves the Kurdish area to the Turks, and the rest of the country to home-grown resistance and regional terrorists. Ouch.

Not saying there couldn't be a freaking *miracle*, or that *this* is the reason not to invade... just saying that it's implausible that things will work out well after the invasion.

[4:43:06 PM]
The case for Google for Big Brother of the Year award.

We just mention this Google stuff, we're not necessarily complaining about Google ourselves.

[4:36:17 PM]
In case you've forgotten the Greenspan/Bush backstory:

The senior Bush still blames Greenspan for his loss to Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential election. "If the interest rates had been lowered more dramatically, . . . I would have been re-elected," he told interviewer David Frost in 1998. "I reappointed him, and he disappointed me." (sfgate.com.)

In 2000, Greenspan raised interest rates dramatically, with the specific intent of destroying the already-waning internet stock bubble. We're just one breakfast-conversation away from proof that Greenspan repaid his "debt" to Poppy by whacking the economy to give Junior a prayer of winning (or stealing) the election. Can you look at all the other dirty tricks the Republicans pulled in 2000 and not wonder if starting the recession wasn't part of the whole plan?

The part that really gets my goat, of course, is that despite causing the current recession, we have to put up with the Republican-owned media glorifying Greenspan as if there were no recession at all.

[4:21:37 PM]
The Republicans sure are good at hardball. Here the Democrats *finally* try again to make a stand, but Rove has already trumped them by declaring Condition Orange, and getting Frist to force the filibuster.

So now Republicans can make out like "Democrats are fiddling while Rome burns." Of course, Rome isn't burning. Baghdad is about to burn, but there's more non-specific "chatter". Great. Non-specific chatter is yellow. A little more non-specific chatter is orange. Next Bin Laden tape they find will probably send them straight to red.

Just remember that in the recent past, Senators haven't had to go through with the filibuster; they just tallied up the votes and gave up if they couldn't get 60 votes to close off the debate. So when Frist makes the Democrats go through with the filibuster, *that's* the extremist position.

The last time Democrats were holding out was over the plan to use the Homeland Security reorganization to get some quick union-busint in. Rove kicked their butts in the elections, and Daschle caved in. Rove's likely to trounce Daschle on this one, too.

The only funny thing is Bush going around saying the Senate should be "fair" to Estrada. ROFL.

The other juicy tidbit is that Estrada was one of the players in the election theft. Democrats should just draw a line in the sand -- anybody involved with that gets *nothing* from the Senate. Just like anyone convicted of lying under oath to Congress should be automatically excluded from government. Poindexter-like.

So if this is a step toward *fighting*, we're all for it. But if this is Daschle setting up the fighters for a fall, we're less amused.

Breaking news: Looks like Frist has caved on his threat to keep the Senate going next week -- when they have vacation (recess) scheduled. Since the Republicans would have had to stay around, too, that was pretty transparent. We'd like to think, though, that he meant to do it, and his buds slapped him down.

[1:42:25 PM]
Ha ha. FERC -- run by Republican former and future energy company executives -- got the goods on one Reliant scam to steal from California during our "energy crisis". Reliant will pay $13.8 million. That leaves them with a $2 million profit on the deal!!!???

It's like you get mugged for $200. You catch the guy, turn him over to the cops. The perp is the judge's cousin, and the penalty for the crime is that the perp has to give you back $150. Except it's not like that at all, because in reality, California was mugged *repeatedly* by the same small group of big-time Republican campaign contributers.

So the example is more like raketeering. The gang has been shaking you down every day for a year. On a day you have a witness for, they got $200 off of you. The judge is on the gang's payroll, and orders the thug to give you $150 back, and tells *you* to shut your trap and never come back.

[1:08:28 PM]
Doonesbury hammers the Daschles of Congress: "I voted to give the president authority to go to war... But I deplore a rush to use that authority! Although if it is used, I'll support our war effort... Unless it goes bad. It's a matter of principle."

In fairness, in a country where Republican propaganda has convinced more than 60% of the population that Iraq was behind the September 11 attacks, and the ruling party is completely open about its use of international crises to attack the opposition, what are you going to do?

Well, you have a choice between cowering -- which has proved ineffective -- and *fighting*, which they are finally giving a try with the Estrada filibuster. It's a baby step of mostly symbolic value, but it's a start. A single step is at the beginning of all journeys, as they say.

The sad thing is that Doonesbury is practically quoting the Democrats. It's not irony that's dead, it's satire.

[11:35:25 AM]
I have a suggestion for how to get needed equipment to Emergency Services organizations. Fire fighters in New York need radios, for example.

The solution is to give stock in the company to one of the Bushes. Maybe put Marv on the Board. Yeah, it'll cost you some stock, but he won't be able to sell it for a while, and by then you'll probably have made ten times that much profit. And the stock value will surely go up, so you're own stock options will be worth more.

Take it from California's solution to off-shore drilling: Davis, Neil Bush to wed; California coast saved.

[11:17:51 AM]
What to click. I watch movies on DVD sometimes. I have this 19-inch monitor. The clickable areas are *tiny*. They're hard to find. Just make stuff clickable, darn it.

With stylesheets and a bit of automation, we can do better than we've done so far. Say your homepage has headlines and one or two paragraph summaries or leads. The headline should be clickable, sure.

But why not the text of the paragraphs?

First, you don't want the text underlined, and you don't want the same *loud* hover indication. We can do that with stylesheets.

Second, you don't want non-CSS browsers to have the whole paragraph underlined (because it's so much harder to read underlined text). So you have to be able to send *different* html to CSS and non-CSS browsers. You have to automate, and you have to have some server-side browser-sniffing. (Or easy client-side opt-in.)

Third, you can't nest links. If the paragraph contains a link itself, that would require special handling. But *that's* OK, since you already have to automate. Just end the paragraph link before the link in the text, and start another link after. The specific link in the text should be obvious when you hover, so customers know that they're getting the right link when they click.

As ol' Jakob says, most customers spend most of their time at other sites, so not everyone will make use of a feature like this. Some people may even get confused by it, though they're more likely to wonder why other websites don't work like this, rather than why your's does. But some people will be helped, and that's what we're here for, right?

[10:55:07 AM]
New York should allow a *march*. Shame on bureaucrats and judges.

[10:50:26 AM]
If Bush ever gets his war on, expect direct action protests to spread like wildfire. In SF there's http://www.actagainstwar.org/.

[10:41:59 AM]
It's *definitely* time for religious leaders who aren't racist kooks to smack down Bush's hatemongering, warmongering, his campaign to increase destruction of the environment, and his war on the poor. Who's healthcare would Jesus take away?

People who follow Jesus in some way should be puking every time they hear a Bush proposal. You know, (in the story) Jesus lived in the ultimate theocracy. He *opposed* it. The theocracy had him crucified for his opposition to state/church authority.

If Jesus came back today, who thinks he would be cutting services for the poor, giving huge tax cuts to the rich, and spreading war across the planet in the name of Pax Americana? Jesus Christ, people, wake up!

[10:33:14 AM]
Hey generals! Notice that Belgium gives itself the right to put war-criminals on trial, even in abstentia. Following orders is only good enough while the propaganda works -- like Gulf War I. This is a different ballgame. If you unleash the dogs of war in Iraq, crimes against humanity that you don't prevent may be held against you. Make sure Rumsfeld doesn't put you in a position to spend your retirement in a prison cell.

[10:28:03 AM]
You hear other-wise intelligent-sounding people push the line that the Bush conquest of Iraq is about creating "democracy". This is preposterous on its face, and gets worse the more you investigate.

Remember "nation-building". When Bush wasn't making up every possible excuse to conquer Iraq, he was dead-set against nation-building. Think back to his dumb remarks about Bosnia, Kosova, etc. OK, maybe he had a change of heart. Consider Afghanistan. Bush talked a good nation-building line, but he completely abandoned Afghanistan once Bin Laden got away.

Iraq may be different because of all the oil. Chevron gives us plenty of incentive to keep the oil fields pacified. But that's a different question from nation-building.

Nation-building is hard, long-term work. You're way better off if you prevent the destruction in the first place. Look at Bosnia, for example. No oil, but the UN and NATO are going to be there for a long time, no matter how much Bush smirked about it during his campaign.

The island-state of Kabul is completley untenable. Afghanistan will be a disaster for years.

No. Even the best-case scenarios for occupying Iraq don't work. And how many casualties per month do you think the US will accept during the occupation, if you get a slightly less than best-case situation? The fact that the US is likely to cut and run in the face of significant casualties makes the situation even more dangerous, since it provides lots of incentive for taking pot-shots at the Americans scattered around the oil fields and running the civil administration.

And whoever heard of a Bush promoting "democracy", anyway? That's malarky, through and through. There won't be democracy. There will be a fig leaf of voting for Bush's choice for dictator -- somebody who gets a cut of Chevron's action for risking assassination.

Let's stop with the "war for democracy" non-sense.

[10:09:54 AM]
More dogs of war: Turkey's planning to occupy a big chunk of northern Iraq. Maybe they'll grab themselves some oil. Maybe they'll just cleanse themselves some Kurds. But don't expect the Kurds not to shoot back.

The NATO planning to "protect" Turkey would also support Turkey's invasion of the Kurdish area. NATO's alliance is about defending each other from attack, not supporting unprovoked invasion and conquest.

[10:01:28 AM]
What's up with hyping this North Korean missile? The headline is that it can reach California. Buried in the story is that it has never been tested. A missile that doesn't work isn't much good. You only get them to work by testing and fixing the problems.

So is this part of the general campaign to ratchet up fear? Or is the CIA is striking back to make it more obvious that North Korea is the problem we should be focused on? You're not going to tell me Tenet first got the information Tuesday afternoon, and immediately released it to the papers for their Wednesday edition deadlines....

Hey! And how 'bout those Iraqi missiles. Instead of a 90 mile range, they have a 110 mile range. That sure as hell proves we need to reduce Baghdad to rubble, doesn't it? How about we just promise to bomb any missile that gets within 20 miles of Iraq's borders? Oh, I forgot, we can never *find* the missiles. Well, that was true in Gulf War I, but Saddam wasn't trying to drive them to the border then. I think we're safe.

[9:57:09 AM]
Even the numbers listed here are probably low.... (San Francisco's march is Sunday.)

Guardian:

<quote>Up to 10 million people on five continents are expected to demonstrate against the probable war in Iraq on Saturday, in some of the largest peace marches ever known.

Yesterday, up to 400 cities in 60 countries, from Antarctica to Pacific islands, confirmed that peace rallies, vigils and marches would take place. Of all major countries, only China is absent from the growing list which includes more than 300 cities in Europe and north America, 50 in Asia and Latin America, 10 in Africa and 20 in Australia and Oceania.

Many countries will witness the largest demonstrations against war they have ever seen.

The majority will be small but 500,000 people are expected in London and Barcelona, and more than 100,000 in Rome, Paris, Berlin and other European capitals. In the US, organisers were yesterday anticipating 200,000 marching in New York if permission is given. A further 100,000 are expected to march in 140 other American cities.

What is extraordinary, say the organisers, is the depth and breadth of opposition that the US and Britain are meeting across the world before a war has even started.

"This is unprecedented. Demonstrations only got this large against the Vietnam war at the height of the conflict, years after it started," said a spokesman for Answer, a coalition of US peace groups which helped organise a march of 200,000 people last month in Washington. </quote>

[9:50:21 AM]
Zeldman found his bug [zeldman.com], in his Javascript. Javascript is dangerous stuff. It's easy to write something that works in one situation, but breaks unobviously when something -- seemingly unrelated -- changes.

[9:39:59 AM]
The poor internet access providers. A few of their customers use a lot more bandwidth than the rest. Bandwidth hogs should pay more, right?

At licentious radio, we like turning arguments on their head.

The bandwidth cost to an access provider comes from wires, routers, maintenance, and the charge for spewing the bits onto the internet. The cost of the bits is what they're most complaining about. And yet, why is the cost per bit so high?

In the 90s, we put down enough fiber to handle orders of magnitude more traffic across the internet than we use now. This unused capacity goes by the tragically romantic name "dark fiber".

In fact, as traffic increases, the cost per bit *falls*. This stands old-fashioned economics on its head. In fact, the cost per bit falls faster than the number of bits increases. *That* puts old-fashioned economics into free-fall.

If internet traffic had risen faster, the bandwidth cost for access providers would have dropped.

What slowed the increase in internet traffic? The access providers. The phone companies don't want you using the internet for voice calls. The cable companies don't want you sharing movies over the internet. Even AOL and its ilk wants customers trapped in "mindless consumer" mode -- for the pennies of ad revenue, but also to keep the customers away from competitors.

If internet access were treated as a public utility, the total cost of our bandwidth would be lower, and we would have orders of magnitude more bits flowing around.

How much bandwidth will we use? High quality video conferencing. Streaming video weblogs. Email home movies. When you go to an ecommerce site, you won't see a cheesy little picture of a product, you'll see print-catalog quality photos, and streaming video, and if you have a question, you'll get a sales person in live video. Plus we do more of everything we already do, and give it all to billions more people.

And when we've done all of that, you'll pay three bucks a month, not twenty.