licentious radio

Sunday, March 16, 2003
[11:15:55 AM]

Dot Com Startup Offers Proof of WMD

Washington, DC (licentious) -- ProofOfWMD.com sells evidence of so-called weapons of mass destruction (WMD) via its new website.

Founder and President Alma Powell -- wife of US Secretary of State Colin Powell -- said, "Democracies have an urgent need for clear proof of outlawed weapons held by oil-rich rogue nations. The private sector can supply the needed proof more efficiently and cost-effectively than bloated government bureaucracies full of lazy, over-paid liberals with inadequate political accountability."

ProofOfWMD.com customers pay one low yearly fee for unlimited access to a database of documents, photographs, and audio and video recordings. A sliding-scale fee allows smaller countries to participate on an equal basis. For example, a small northern-European nation might pay only $10 million per year, while France and especially the US would pay through the nose.

According to Powell, the business model is patterned after internet companies that sell term papers to college student cheats. "Why should the US have to work hard to write a report on some dictator's abuses, when reports like that have already been written before?" asked Powell.

Powell plans a variety of add-on services to boost company revenues: "We have one service already in beta that allows you to spell-check a report before you download it. That would have been a big help to Tony Blair. My husband got caught with his pants down on that one -- praising a plagierized document with outdated (no longer true) information that was just full of typos and grammatical mistakes."

Another timely service lets you search and replace incorrect names and titles in phony documents. "That would have saved my husband from public humiliation when it turned out the ~~Israeli~~ un-named third-government forgers had got the names all wrong in their evidence that Iraq tried to buy nuclear stuff from Niger," said Powell.

Other board members include Marvin Bush, brother of the former Texas governor, and Janet Rehnquist, daughter of coup d'etat conspirator William Hubbs Rehquist.

[10:11:21 AM]
Josh Marshall [talkingpointsmemo.com]: "Wow. There are so many scales falling from so many eyes that you almost have to duck and cover!"

He then quotes the Washington Post:

"... with more diplomatic suppleness, more flexibility on timing and less arrogant tactics and rhetoric, the administration might have won the backing of long-standing friends such as Turkey, Mexico and Chile. In effect, Mr. Bush and some of his top aides, most notably Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, have managed to convince much of the world that French President Jacques Chirac is right and that America's unrivaled power is a danger that somehow must be checked -- ideally by the votes of other nations on the Security Council."

Either Bush & Co. is collosally incompetent -- they weren't smart enough to gain support -- or they are collosally dangerous -- they specifically intended to break the whole concept of the UN.

[10:01:24 AM]
The SF Chronicle wrote (not directly quoting sources) "...the more moderate party leaders and strategists cautioned that Democrats cannot dismiss the national sentiment in support of the president [sic] if they are to win seats in Congress -- and win back the White House."

This goes to the heart of the matter. The Bush appeasers were defeated -- devestatingly -- in November. If they now argue for continued appeasement, it's pretty clear what their advice is worth. Taking their advice is like shooting yourself in the head.

Instead, Democrats should *fight*. Bush's incompetence has been a global disaster. That's clear beyond a doubt. It's equally clear that Bush's *intention* is a global disaster -- unilateral unprovoked conquest must not be standard operating procedure among nations. We *should* allow for the possibility when there is overwhelming support in the UN Security Council, and when there is imminent threat. But Bush had his chance to make a case for conquering Iraq, and he failed miserably.

Bush is by far the worst president in the history of this country. The most corrupt, the most dangerous to the world, the most dangerous to the environment, the most dangerous to our own health, and the most dangerous to American democracy. Bush is truly the pinnacle of evil in the world today.

Democrats will win by *fighting*. Bush's re-elect numbers are extraordinarily low. His popularity polls just hit 51 percent -- that's LOW.

Democrats must fight against the media. The Republican-owned media produces a constant barrage of Bush propaganda. If Democrats do not challenge the lies, they will be beaten on foreign policy, and Rove will continue to use fear and warmongering to defeat Democrats on domestic issues. Democrats should have fought against the war, not to save Saddam, but to save themselves. Instead, appeasement let Republicans seize even more power.

[9:30:43 AM]
Ah Buzzflash: "Transparent Industrial-Military-Bush Campaign Contributors-Iraq War Support Scam. Bush Gives Poland 6 Billion Dollars. Poland Supports War. Poland Buys 6 Billion Dollars in War Planes from Lockheed Martin. Holy, Greased Pigs at the Trough! 3/16"

That's "Holy, Greased Pigs at the Trough!"

[12:04:19 AM]
Notes on the march in San Francisco today....

It was rather unsatisfying at the start. Endless speeches aren't why I go. People started marching off while the speeches continued. I walked for a block with an almost grimly silent group. Nuts to that. I went back to look for drummers. Eventually I caught up with a small group, and clapped/danced the length of the march.

Lots of witty signs. "Bush's motives are transparent" -- from three women in very see-through dresses. "Peace is Sexy" -- from a woman who proved the point. I still like the classic "Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot".

We wound up at a grassy park on the side of a hill. It was very pleasant, and there were lots of people hanging around. Good food. Speeches. OK, they weren't so bad. I learned a few things. My respect for the longshoremen's union went up.

After I had my fill of speeches, I took off in search of the black flaggers. I caught up with them at Fourth & Market, but I think most had slipped away by the time I got there. There were cops all over, but they finally had traffic moving in all directions.

Best news of the day: the cops evidently learned from last time, and left their horses home. Horses may be appropriate during all-out street riots, but probably not. In tense, not-yet-violent situations, cops on horses are dangerously provocative. It's also unfair to the horses to be placed in chaotic and -- to horses -- scary situations. SF cops couldn't quite control their horses a month ago, and wisely ran away.

It's very important that the SF cops learned this lesson before the direct action protests that will accompany the invasion of Iraq. The number of protesters will be greater, and the number of locations will be greater.

At Fourth & Market, a little band with drums and saxophones arrived, playing Down by the Riverside. I stayed around for a while, then went off in search of the black flaggers.

Follow the helicopters. This was long after the main parade. There were two helicopters and a small plane overhead. I just watched where they were circling, and aimed for the center.

Note to cops and FBI: helicopter noise promotes tension. Better to leave them home, or keep them very high up -- so the noise doesn't add to the drama.

When I caught up with them again, a handful of very young protesters were trapped by cops in front of a liquor store on Third, just south of Market. The cops blocked off the block, and lined both sides of the street. They had a bus, and handcuffed and processed the kids, one or two at a time. It took a long time.

As a practical matter, closing off Third Street for more than an hour to arrest a few teen-agers huddled in front of a liquor store... might not be such a slick move. Today it seemed to end the affair. That might not be the case next week.

The sidewalks were lined with onlookers. I can't say why the kids got to be arrested, but the arrests were done without explicit violence, and with explicit respect for the protesters' property. A lot of them had cameras or packs. Of course I don't know what happened once they were on the bus.

The dumbest cop moment of the day was surely when an older, more in-charge-looking cop destroyed some signs and a flag. The crowd and the cops were all mostly pretty congenial. Gratuitous property destruction is a bit provocative. The day would have had a different feel if the cops were breaking all those cameras, for example.

Note to cops: we *pay* you. You are professionals, not amateurs. Leave your ideology at home. At *least*, if you want to destroy signs, do it later, out of sight of the demonstraters. You will see us again, and you need *us* to be civil and respectful, just as much as we need you.

Note to police leadership: You must strongly emphasize that unprofessional behavior is unacceptable. Remind people to keep cool. We're all in this together. It's possible that things will get much more tense and chaotic. Be prepared.

It seemed as if the arrests were the only action. There were tons of cops there. I wonder why the black flaggers didn't create other disturbances to draw police away from the arrests. Why not block another street, to prevent the arrest-bus from returning?

Note to protest organizers: drums and whistles!

At the Third Street scene, the onlookers were spread out by the effective police control of the street. There wasn't a lot of noise from the crowd. If people had chanted "Let Them Go!", there wouldn't have been a lot of energy to it. But add just a few big drums, and it would have been different. More people would have come toward the noise, and the drums would add a *lot* of volume.

For the record, I have no enthusiasm for vandalism and property destruction. On the other hand, I think it is important to protest against Bush and his mad strategies.

Bush is clearly a threat to world peace -- having allowed terrorists to strike this country, having killed *thousands* of innocents in Afghanistan and left the country in violent chaos, being on the verge of the conquest of Iraq, having provoked North Korea into a truly epic crisis, etc.

If people want to disrupt business and traffic in San Francisco, I'm not going to argue against it. And I'll show up with my camera (sometimes) to help keep everybody clean -- the whole world is watching.

By the way, I think interested onlookers are *good* for the cops. We can report that they are mainly behaving well, and that they are learning from their mistakes. Other cities have had police riots with the use of gas and a mob-mentality with excessive arrests and a disregard for public safety. Safety first. Protect and Serve. SF cops have done pretty darned well, from what I've seen.

Having a lot of cameras around should also inhibit any cops whose professionalism lapses. A little extra social restraint on angry or ideological cops is a *good* thing for the rest of the cops. Maximize peace.

In the first days of the invasion, there are plans for disruptive actions at more than thirty sites in SF. The cops have done very well dealing with one group. Next week, perhaps, cops will have to deal with simultaneous disruptive protests in many locations. The right approach for the cops to take is to keep everyone safe and avoid provocations that could lead to violence on either side. Better to let traffic stall than to club teen-agers or send them running away in fear.

Back to the march.... I didn't like the route. Parading along Market was fun because of the crowds. No crowds showed up to watch today. It's easy to understand "Market Street". This march route was harder to understand, harder to sell, and less accessible, too. Figure they lost a lot of people, just because of the route. I suppose it was nice to go through the neighborhood, and it was nice to end up on the grassy hillside.

I suspect the energy for organizing the march was distracted by the immediacy of organizing direct actions for the start of the invasion. I think the numbers who showed up on January 18 made the point we needed to make in terms of how many people oppose Bush. But I wonder if Bush will look at smaller protests today and think the political cost of invasion has gone down. Remember, though: the January 18 march in SF drew people from all over the western United States. Today there were marches in many cities.

I think the protests have been very successful. Except for the protests, we are inundated with Bush propaganda. The protests couldn't be covered up completely, and the mainstream of America realized that Bush's war is crazy. (A poll today showed support for war without a UN resolution at the same percentage as those who believe Saddam instigated the September 11, 2001 attacks. Everyone who has seen through Bush's 9/11 propaganda opposes unilateral conquest.)

Clearly, protests and public opinion emboldened leaders in France and Germany to oppose the conquest. Clearly the outbreak of democracy spilled over into Turkey.

With Bush's polls slipping, and the arms inspections producing results, it may be now or never for the conquest. Even Democrats are saying we should give the inspections months to succeed (or fail). If Bush waits a few more weeks, he might not get his war on at all.

Another sign of success is that tomorrow's Axis of Evil meeting -- US, UK, Spain -- will be held in the only place they could think of where they could meet without millions of protesters taking the streets. Bush is a coward, as well as incompetent. Blair may try to make his case, but Bush was too craven to take on an 82 year-old woman. No way he's going to juxtapose the Axis of Evil meeting with mass protests in the streets.

Certainly all the signs are that the war's on. UN relief workers are out of Iraq. 200 out of 250 weapons inspectors have left Iraq, and they have a jet fueled and ready on the runway for the rest. Expect war before the weapons inspectors have time to verify that all the VX was destroyed.

There's still a bit of hope. International law matters -- a little. Cheney may want to destroy international law, but that's a radical step. Saner voices would argue for a fig leaf. The problem is that the last UN resolution said Saddam would face serious consequences if he didn't disarm. But the weapons inspections will take months, yet. If disarmament were the issue, you would finish the inspections. No, immediate regime-change is the issue. There's no resolution for that.

If Bush gets his war, have we failed? I say, no. Do not appease these ruthless aggressors. Fight them at every step. Bush has *published* his strategy of unilateral conquest of any country he says isn't "with us". He may kill thousands of Iraqi children next week, but we'll be in an even better position to fight Bush on his next conquest.

And remember, Bush's war against democracy in America is just as much the issue as grabbing the oil. We fight for ourselves, as much as for world peace.