Episode #335: Happy Holidays No Standing Anytime
First Broadcast: 12/22/03
Renovated Edition: 12/20/04 Transmission began in progress at 2:00:33 AM, cutting off our "Free New York" title. Audio buzzing and bursts of audio static sporadically appeared during transmission. Transmission ended at 2:27:45 AM, cutting off all our contact information.
Repeated: 12/27/04 Transmission began with at 2:00 AM with plain black signal until 2:00:27 AM; signal was then replaced by MNN graphic until 2:01:11 AM. Audio buzzing and bursts of audio static sporadically appeared during transmission. Transmission ended at 2:29 AM, cutting off some of our end credits.
Repeated: 12/19/05 Another program began at 2:00 AM, lasting for 30 seconds before our program began at 2:00:30 AM. Program cut off in progress at 2:27:59 AM.
Repeated: 12/18/06; 12/24/07; 12/22/08; 12/21/09; 12/20/10; 12/19/11; 12/24/12; 12/23/13; 12/22/14; 12/21/15
Accidental Repeat: 12/28/15
Repeated: 12/19/16 Episode started in progress after all our opening titles had ended.
Once again, we take a look at the holiday season in Manhattan, with some holiday-appropriate themes in the background as well. So, what do we listen to when we want to get in the holiday spirit? Well, you might want to try some Kurtis Blow, The Waitresses, Clarence Carter, Otis Redding, Julia Lee, The Ramones, The Sonics, Booker T. & The MG's, Chuck Berry, and Run-D.M.C. for starters. (Some dogs probably wouldn't hurt either.) So, thanks to Free New York, you can look forward to at least one Christmas show with an urban bent to it this year. Will this turn into an annual tradition? Stay tuned and find out!
Episode #336: The Facts Are Out There
First Broadcast: 1/12/04 Transmission began about 20 seconds past 2:00 AM with a few seconds of color bars, then switched back to the "Coming Up Next..." bumper for a few seconds, then back to the program, about 3 seconds into the beginning, during the opening theme.
On October 14, 2002, I pointed out on this program that George W. Bush appeared to be completely misleading the American people (and the rest of the world) about the alleged "Iraqi Threat" to the United States. Specifically, Bush said that Iraq was then in the process of building "atomic weapons" with which Saddam Hussein was planning to "threaten" the U.S. and the rest of the world. However, I was able to cite a statement by U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter, who said that, when the U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998, Iraq no longer had the capability to develop biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, and that any attempts to build those weapons from that point on could be easily detected. In other words, information was publicly available as far back as 1998 that Iraq did not have "weapons of mass destruction" in its possession--information that Bush, his cabinet, and several mainstream media outlets seemed to ignore in the months leading up to and during the Second Gulf War. And now, 10 months after the American invasion and conquest of Iraq, we have yet another confirmation that no weapons of mass destruction existed there in 2003: a Washington Post article from January 7, 2004, titled "Iraq's Arsenal Was Only on Paper." How much more work needs to be done before everyone admits that George W. Bush lied over and over again in order to get this country into a war for a gigantic money-grab for American corporations?! Hm?!
In addition, the Republican National Committee and the Simon Wiesenthal Center were both annoyed with a contest submission to MoveOn.org that compared George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler. My question is: Shouldn't all these people be more offended with the actual actions that Bush has done in a manner so similar to Hitler, rather than become offended with the people who point this out?
Episode #337: Arctic! Arctic!!
First Broadcast: 1/19/04 Transmission began at 20 seconds past 2:00 AM with our color bars, then back to "coming Up Next" for a few seconds, then our program started at the beginning normally. Promptly at 2:28 AM, transmission ended, cutting off all but a fraction of our end credits!
Shot during a record-breaking cold-snap in New York City (the temperature sank to 1° F in Central Park later that night, the coldest January 16 in New York since 1893), and introduced by a snippet of Lewis Black describing a Minnesota Winter, we shivered our way through a discussion of temperate zones like New York being afflicted by polar air (a.k.a., the "Siberian Express"), and how this could very well be one of the consequences of global warming--or "climate change," as Republicans are more likely to put it. According to USA Today, the general average warming of the earth "can even include some parts of the Earth growing colder." The Philadelphia Inquirer says "Some researchers believe that both the mild winters of the 1990s and the current resurgence of the Siberian Express could be related to the same thing: slow changes in surface temperatures in the North Atlantic and the North and Equatorial Pacific," and "In the last two winters ... a pattern more favorable to extreme cold has taken hold over North America," leading to an increased frequency of the "Siberian Express"--which, ironically, is known as the "Hawaiian Express" in Alaska, where the temperatures become much warmer as a result. More warmer temperatures in Alaska and the Pacific? Polar air in New York City? Global warming? Can't anyone connect the dots?? Also discussed: How U.S. troops tortured three Reuters journalists in Iraq, claiming they were the "enemy"; and how unchecked Western industrialization, despite being far away from the North Pole, is making the Inuits' traditional diet hazardous to their health. Good job everybody!
Episode #338: You Can't Eat Off A Blueprint
First Broadcast: 1/26/04 Mirror Production logo cut off at end.
This week, we discuss the 2004 State of the Union address, which, you might have noticed, contained considerably less allegations about weapons of mass destruction than last year's address. Nevertheless, it definitely contained many mangled instances of the English language, with more than a few sentences structured to construct contrasts which don't exist, along with slanderous characterizations of the anti-war movement, and a not-to-subtle "fuck-you" to the United Nations. Oh, and Bush's idea to put a base on the moon and a man on Mars? It might all be part of the larger plan of the U.S. military to dominate space in the name of "national security". All that, and CNN picked up on my thought from last week: is all this extremely cold weather in the U.S. related to global warming? Apparently, it could very well be. And I thought I was the only one wondering about that...
Episode #339: "I Don't Think They Existed"
First Broadcast: 2/2/04
That was the verdict of Dr. David Kay, former chief weapons inspector for the CIA, who was in charge of the U.S. government's effort to find "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq until he resigned on January 23, 2004. Specifically, that was his answer to a point-blank question by a Reuters reporter who interviewed him that same day:
Q: What happened to the stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons that everyone expected to be there?In another interview with James Risen of The New York Times, Dr. Kay expanded on that:
A: I don't think they existed.
"I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction," Dr. Kay said. "We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on."Compare this with the assertions of Bush and his cabinet during the buildup to the Iraq War:
"We do know that the Iraqi regime currently has chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction."All those assertions, and yet no one has found any biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons in Iraq to date, and Bush's handpicked weapons inspector now says he believes no weapons of that kind were ever there after the first Gulf War in 1991. So, when Bush & Company said they knew those weapons were there in Iraq--when they obviously didn't and couldn't have known--weren't they lying?!? Shouldn't they all be impeached?? I certainly think so. And it doesn't help that the administration now says that it never said Iraq was an "imminent" threat. Apparently, synonyms (and the word "imminent") don't count. Compare and contrast:
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, September 18, 2002
"If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"
"President" George W. Bush, October 7, 2002
"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets. Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly five times the size of Manhattan."
Secretary of State Colin Powell, February 5, 2003
"We believe [Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
"Vice President" Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
George W. Bush, March 17, 2003
"The area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003
"One of the reasons that we went to war was because of [Iraq's] possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all."
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, May 7, 2003
"I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.' ... Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering threat.'"
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, January 27, 2004
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
Donald Rumsfeld, September 18, 2002
"And all of us, and many others in Congress, are united in our determination to confront an urgent threat to America. And by passing this resolution we'll send a clear message to the world and to the Iraqi regime: the demands of the U.N. Security Council must be followed. The Iraqi dictator must be disarmed."
George W. Bush, September 26, 2002
Q: Is [Saddam Hussein] an imminent threat to US interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?
A: Well, of course he is.
Q & A on CNN with White House communications director Dan Bartlett, January 26, 2003
Q: Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?
Q & A with Ari Fleischer, May 7, 2003
Again, who's lying? The people keeping track of these remarks, or the people making these remarks in the first place? Investigate! Impeach! Elect!
P.S.: Now The New York Times thinks this extreme cold could be caused by global warming as well! You heard it here first!
Episode #340: "I'm Sick Of Evil"
First Broadcast: 2/16/04
I'm sick of the types of evil minds that would dare to propose an Amendment to the Constitution that would prevent gays and lesbians from making the bonds of their love legal and permanent. I'm sick of people who think that Janet Jackson's exposed breast is more appalling than a "President" who lies to the world and causes thousands of people to be killed in an unnecessary war in Iraq. I'm sick of people who would portray a complete moderate as a liberal extremist. And I'm sick of people who say they're in favor of one thing, but then vote in favor of something else when it counts. Do I have to settle for only the lesser of two evils on election day? I would rather get rid of evil altogether, thanks.
Episode #341: "An Airplane And A Squid"
First Broadcast: 3/1/04
First: EMI should not punish DJ Danger Mouse for his creation of The Grey Album, a mix of Jay-Z's vocals from The Black Album and The Beatles' music from "The White Album" (a.k.a. The Beatles). You can probably find a copy you can download here, since it's technically not for sale. I recommend it. It kicks ass.
Second: George W. Bush is an idiot for calling for a Constitutional amendment to prohibit legal recognition of gay marriage. Just because he thinks he's somehow acting as an instrument of God does not give him the right to turn the United States into a theocracy. It's only one more reason to throw him out of office this November. It's definitely not a reason for the front-running Democrat to rely on technical nuances that only make him sound like he's opposed to Bush, when in fact he's endorsing policies that could very well have the same effect. This country needs more people like Dennis Kucinich: people who are willing to boldly endorse genuine progressive policies that will simultaneously repair the damage that this crop of vindictive Republicans has done to this country over the past 3+ years, and also break the deadlock on "bipartisan" dilution of even slightly progressive proposals that has been going on for even longer. That's why I think people in and out of New York should vote for Kucinich on "Super Tuesday". Whether that will have any effect on what happens in Boston later is yet another question.
Episode #342: "Beefly Transmitted Disease"
First Broadcast: 3/15/04
Repeated: 7/19/04 volume lowered at least 5db
Once again, I point out how the Bush administration is a bunch of hypocrites when it comes to safeguarding the public against disease. How, you ask? (Thanks for asking, by the way.) My answer: compare Bush & co.'s attitudes towards sexually transmitted diseases, and diseases you can get from bad beef, such as Mad Cow, E. Coli, etc. Whereas the official White House policy on preventing people (specifically, public school students) from getting STD's is that abstinence is the only solution (i.e., don't have sex), the White House policy on preventing people from getting diseases from beef is basically telling people not to worry (i.e., keep eating beef). Mad Cow and E. Coli can be just as deadly (if not more so) as HIV or Syphillis, but does the federal government go around saying, "The only way to prevent transmission of these diseases is to not eat beef"? No, they say things like, "Be sure to cook your hamburgers well-done," and "Never buy any beef that smells off," and so on. Conversely, the current government doesn't say things like, "Be sure to always use a condom when you have sex," or "Two forms of birth control are better than one," or "You can take emergency birth control within 5 days after sex to avoid unwanted pregnancy." No, their attitude is "Don't have sex." Two very similar health concerns, with two completely different policies. Hypocrisy, for sure!