gutrot

We wub you rewy much

Oh, how we laughed. The bespectacled buffoon so lovingly lampooned as a polyester-clad puppet stole our hearts with a close encounter of the turd kind, chatting away the chilliness with the angel of death herself.

Chin, chin!



Now like who'da thunk it but hey, it was all just a photo opportunity, last week's New York Times informed us:

TOKYO, Feb. 10 - In a surprising admission, North Korea's hard-line Communist government declared publicly today for the first time that it has nuclear weapons.

It also said that it will boycott United States-sponsored regional talks designed to end its nuclear program, according to a North Korean Foreign Ministry statement transmitted today by the nation's wire service.

Pyongyang said it has "manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration's undisguised policy to isolate and stifle" North Korea, and that it will "bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal."

Whoah, hang on a minute, Noam Chomsky told a throng of New Mexicans on the doorstep of destruction. Let's not get blown away by all this nonsense when we got weaponised stratospheres on our radar and extra nukes in the budget:

"Last summer, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, which is very sober and respectable and not given to hyperbole, ran an article by two prominent strategic analysts, John Steinbrenner and Nancy Gallagher, in which they pointed out, these are mostly quotes, that the military programs and aggressive stance of the administration, carry in their words, 'appreciable risk of ultimate doom', and they go on to say that you have to look very hard -- in fact, I can't think of a case where such words have ever been pronounced in establishment -- respectable establishment circles. They go on to say that, 'If the United States is to remain a democracy worthy of the name, the political system will have to acknowledge that the United States is now the dominant threat to everyone else.' Their words. The 'super outlaw state.'"

Oh now really. This is too much. Shut up already. That's like so beside the point. And waiting to point it all out to us was an Economist scribe.

Annals of Journalism

Kudoes [sic] to the New York Times for making possibly the most egregious use of the unsourced third party quote in history:

But in today's statement, Pyongyang zeroed in on Dr. Rice's testimony last month in her Senate confirmation hearings, where she lumped North Korea with five other dictatorships, calling them "outposts of tyranny."

"The true intention of the second-term Bush administration is not only to further its policy to isolate and stifle the D.P.R.K. pursued by the first-term office, but to escalate it," the statement said, referring to North Korea by its formal name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Outside critics and defectors say that North Korea is neither democratic nor popular, since it has been ruled for the last 60 years by the Kim family, an avaricious clan that does not permit multiparty elections or the slightest whisper of dissent. Today Pyongyang told the Bush administration to talk to the kinds of North Koreans it likes.

Wouldn't want to go out on a limb there by just saying outright that North Korea is a brutal dictatorship led by a man who is neck-in-neck with Michael Jackson for the title of "weirdest human being on the planet". Better dredge up some "critics" to make the point so you won't have to defend such an outlandish accusation.



The learned Ms Galt has clearly never tried sneaking things past a New York Times sub. It's wholesale distortion or busted; preserves the illusion of objectivity, you see. Such qualms do not trouble Ms Galt's employers, who trade in a mercurial blend of fact and whimsy that allows them to call "the mercurial dictator['s]" bluff:

"Lashing out under pressure is a Kim trademark. So is demanding hefty bribes, from China and others, for better behaviour. Mr Kim may yet change his mind again about the nuclear talks. But expect him to take his time about it."

So now we know, as one does if one takes The Economist. But what is this thing that it is? Let's take the long view back down memory lane from the perspective of the pundits of Washington think-tankery:

"At Albright's side stood Kim Jong-il, who took a double risk in 2000: not just in embarking on this opening, but in sacrificing his own long-honed personal purdah for a new public role--first visiting China, then welcoming Vladimir Putin as well as Kim Dae-jung--from which there can be no going back. A memorable Economist cover caught the moment with the irreverent caption: 'Greetings, earthlings.' But if spaceship DPRK has finally landed, what exactly do the aliens and their newly visible yet still inscrutable chief want? The skeptical view, that this is just the latest bold move in Pyongyang's old poker game rather than a whole new leaf, will gain added weight with a Republican president in the White House."

Good golly. It was written. Now just how did they know which way the Kimaraderie would crumble? Cynics say The Economist likes to cut through the fug of propaganda with propaganda of its own. Thinking man's porn, innit?



"The Economist is a publication that always seems to present the issues in such a seemingly unbiased manner, citing the pros and cons of each position but in such a way that the corporate interest approximates the best solution."

Hmm, sleight of hand to put the The New York Times to shame: nice work, fellas. No wonder sales have been on the up under Bill Emmott's tutelage. Who cares about the politicians when you're in with the guys behind them, with interest, and your rivals still think George Bush is "Man of the Year"?

"Yet how can 75 people, however brainy, attempt to explain the world in a week? Well, loftiness helps. Emmott is not on Blair's Chequers guestlist; access to the White House or Number 10 is not an issue. 'I do not expect a visit from Mr Blair. The thing is, we don' t care. We don't have to hunt for scraps of news and leaks from the government, we are in a different market. That makes the paper less vulnerable to journalists making things up, or sources making things up to tell journalists.'

No need for that. The establishment ethos is in-built when your institution's at the heart of Clubland:

"The territory we are talking about comprises the dogleg of Pall Mall and St James's Street, S.W.1., as well as the immediate environs. The message transmitted by each of these imposing buildings, none with a name on its door, is a very simple one: This is a private institution: Go away."

A million sales and counting, more than four out of five overseas.

"That is the odd thing. The Economist may be edited in the heart of St James's, but it seems to be a stronger force abroad than in Britain."

Not too hard to fathom, surely. With the information lockdown in force across the pond, is it really so strange that people are eager to decipher what drives policy from a junior partner's perspective? Love it or hate it, neoclassical conservative liberalism still calls some of the shots.

According to the Guardian's media monkey's perusal of The Economist's sales figures, a solitary copy a week is dispatched to a lone subscriber in Cuba:

"Word has it that the free-market capitalist organ is posted to one Fidel Castro."

Well I never. You'll be telling us Nelson Mandela rates it next. Even if he does call Bliar the American foreign minister.