No, you're a bozo!

What I like best about New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is his remarkable candor. No, I'm not being sarcastic. This is a man who says what's on his mind. On matrimonial civil rights: "I've gone back and forth in my mind as to where I really stand, but I think everybody deserves to have the same rights." On the state of the NYC education system: "It's been 50 years since the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. Does anyone seriously think we have 'realized the dream' for all our children?" And no one who lives aboveground in the NYC sunshine and smog can have avoided knowing the man's unpopular (for a Republican) views on abortion -- or for that matter on inner-bar NYC cigarette smog.

But my favorite happened this week, in the case of Tiffany Schley, the high school valedictorian who was refused her diploma because of derogatory comments she made during her valedictory speech about the "overcrowding, ineffective teaching and high turnover of principals" at her Brooklyn public high school. (I first read about it in this crazy new free newspaper, Metro -- a publication I am determined to get the dirt on when I have a bit of time to spare, so stay tuned for that -- but there's a more readily accessible article, predictably, in the New York Times.)

Anyway, according to Metro, our man Bloomberg called this incident a "bonehead" decision made by a "bozo."

Heh. I love that guy.

Porn in the Time of Censorship

Recent newsworthy developments in official attitudes toward the First Amendment have presented us with something every editorialist dreams of: something that must be commented upon, but which requires almost no expenditure of effort in the way of commentary.

On Monday, the Associated Press reported that the United States Senate has refused to overturn a Pentagon ban on media coverage of the expatriation (I love that term, for its incredible morbidity) of "America's war dead." Particularly interesting, I think, is this bit (from the AP story): "A poll at that time found more than six in 10 Americans thought the homecomings should be covered." Which of course could be due to America's "reality-show" fetish for graphic realism, but even so...

And then there's the good-clean-fun news -- especially for those of us whose real-time sex lives, although good and clean, are not all that much fun: Accordng to a NY Times article, the Supreme Court today ruled against a law intended to restrict the free flow of pornography over the internet, a decision that the People for the American Way Foundation (an institution that the right-wing National Review termed "a high-profile liberal lobbying group," but which, also according to the Review, is funded heavily by "mainstream" media groups like the NY Times itself) saw as "an important victory for the principle that the First Amendment applies to the Internet."

Cool. So today's lesson: The First Amendment covers internet porn but not well-rounded war coverage. Editorialize amongst yourselves.

Bush's Approval Rating Plummets; Kerry "Disliked" by Opinionated Folk

(NY Times) President Bush's job approval rating has fallen to the lowest level of his presidency, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. The poll found Americans stiffening their opposition to the Iraq war, worried that the invasion could invite domestic terrorist attacks and skeptical about whether the White House has been fully truthful about the war or about abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison.

A majority of respondents in the poll, conducted before yesterday's transfer of power to an interim Iraqi government, said that the war was not worth its cost in American lives and that the Bush administration did not have a clear plan to restore order to Iraq.

The survey, which showed Mr. Bush's approval rating at 42 percent, also found that nearly 40 percent of Americans say they do not have an opinion about Senator John Kerry, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, despite what have been both parties' earliest and most expensive television advertising campaigns.

Among those who do have an opinion, Mr. Kerry is disliked more than he is liked. More than 50 percent of respondents said that Mr. Kerry says what he thinks voters want to hear, suggesting that Mr. Bush has had success in portraying his opponent as a flip-flopper.

Americans were more likely to believe that Mr. Bush would do a better job than Mr. Kerry would in steering the nation through a foreign crisis, and protecting it from future terrorist attacks. Support for Mr. Bush's abilities in those areas has declined in recent months, but the findings suggest that Americans are more comfortable entrusting their security to a president they know than a challenger who remains relatively unknown.

Even so, the poll was scattered with warning flags for Mr. Bush, and there was compelling evidence that his decision to take the nation to war against Iraq has left him in a precarious political position.

As he heads into the fall election, Mr. Bush appears to have much riding on the transfer of power in Baghdad yesterday. The 42 percent of Americans who say they approve of the way Mr. Bush is handling his job is the lowest such figure in a Times/CBS News survey since the beginning of Mr. Bush's presidency in January 2001; 51 percent say they disapprove.

Over the past 25 years, according to pollsters, presidents with job approval ratings below 50 percent in the spring of election years have generally gone on to lose. Mr. Bush's father had a 34 percent job approval rating at this time in 1992.

Similarly, 45 percent said they had an unfavorable opinion of Mr. Bush himself, again the most negative measure the Times/CBS Poll has found since he took office. And 57 percent say the country is going in the wrong direction, another measure used by pollsters as a barometer of discontent with an incumbent.

Yet the survey found little evidence that Mr. Kerry has been able to take advantage of the president's difficulties, even though Mr. Kerry has spent $60 million on television advertising over the past three months.

Nationwide, Mr. Kerry has the support of 45 percent of registered voters, with Mr. Bush supported by 44 percent. When Ralph Nader, who is running as an independent, is included, he draws 5 percent, leaving 42 percent for Mr. Kerry and 43 percent for Mr. Bush

In the 18 states viewed by both parties as the most competitive — and thus the subject of the most advertising expenditures and visits by the candidates — the race was equally tight. Forty-five percent of voters in those states said they would support Mr. Kerry, and 43 percent said they would back Mr. Bush. Indeed, on a host of measures, the poll found little difference in public opinion between the nation as a whole and that of voters in the competitive states.

The tight race indicated by the poll reflects how aides to both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry have described the overall state of play for weeks. But other polls have, at times, shown Mr. Kerry or Mr. Bush bumping ahead. A CBS News poll taken last month found Mr. Kerry with a lead of 49 percent to 41 percent over Mr. Bush.

The nationwide poll of 1,053 adults, including 875 registered voters, was taken by telephone June 23 to June 27. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

For all the signs of opposition to the war, Americans appear prepared to stay in Iraq until the situation becomes stable. The poll found that 54 percent of respondents said that the United States should remain in Iraq "as long as it takes," while 40 percent said the United States should withdraw "as soon as possible."

This is the Fight of our Lives

"The middle class and working poor are told that what's happening to them is the consequence of Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand.' This is a lie. What's happening to them is the direct consequence of corporate activism, intellectual propaganda, the rise of a religious orthodoxy that in its hunger for government subsidies has made an idol of power, and a string of political decisions favoring the powerful and the privileged who bought the political system right out from under us."

-- Bill Moyers, Keynote speech, June 3, 2004

New York Libertarians: Permits are for Hacks

Press release from the MANHATTAN LIBERTARIAN PARTY.

New York, 6/25/04 - Claiming that the only permit they need to peaceably
assemble is the First Amendment, members of the Manhattan Libertarian
Party announced today that they will gather on the Great Lawn on Central
Park on the eve of the Republican National Convention to protest the Iraqi
war and occupation and the PATRIOT Act.

"If you ask the government for permission to protest it, you deserve to be
told no," said Manhattan Libertarian Party chair Jim Lesczynski, referring
to the city's denial of United for Peace and Justice's request for a
permit for a massive protest on the Great Lawn on August 29th.

"Organizers will not be available to negotiate with the NYPD, because we
don't have any organizers," said Lesczynski. "Absolutely nobody is in
charge. Libertarians are individuals, not a collective."

Lesczynski expects word of the unauthorized protest, which will
unofficially begin on Sunday, August 29th at 12:00 p.m., to spread through
the Internet and other grass roots communications channels. Don
Silberger, Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate, and Nic Leobold,
Libertarian candidate for State Assembly, are among the individual
activists expected to attend.

The Manhattan Libertarian Party advocates a foreign policy of
non-intervention, peace and free trade. Unlike other RNC protesters, the
Libertarians reject socialism in favor a free-market economy,
individual liberty and personal responsibility.

Iraq a Mistake, Most Americans Now Say

USA Today - Most Americans now say that sending U.S. troops to Iraq was a mistake, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds. For the first time, a majority also says that the war there has made the nation less safe from terrorism.

The Reviews are In...

The following are some clips from reviews of Fahrenheit 911 that I thought were worth sharing. (The list was published in the Guardian UK.)

"While Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 will be properly debated on the basis of its factual claims and cinematic techniques, it should first of all be appreciated as a high-spirited and unruly exercise in democratic self-expression." AO Scott, New York Times

"No moviegoer will be bored. The documentary's scathing attack on the war in Iraq and George W Bush's presidency is informative, provocative, frightening, compelling, funny, manipulative and, most of all, entertaining." Claudia Puig, USA Today

"Fahrenheit 9/11 is at its best when it provides talking points for the emerging majority of those opposed to the Iraq incursion. In sum, it's an appalling, enthralling primer of what Moore sees as the Bush administration's crimes and misdemeanours." Mary Corliss, Time

"Its title notwithstanding, Michael Moore has delivered a film rather less incendiary than might be expected - or wished for by his fans - in Fahrenheit 9/11. The sporadically effective docu trades far more in emotional appeals than in systematically building an evidence-filled case against the president and his circle." Todd McCarthy, Variety

"Fahrenheit 9/11 comes to many of the same conclusions as the recent 9/11 panel. The film will play to the choir and may influence voters, especially younger ones, who are straddling the fence ... If you want to be part of the debate, Fahrenheit 9/11 is must-see cinema." James Verniere, Boston Herald

"What's remarkable here isn't Moore's political animosity or ticklish wit. It's the well-argued, heartfelt power of his persuasion. Even though there are many things here that we have already learned, Moore puts it all together. It's a look back that feels like a new gaze forward." Desson Thomas, Washington Post

"Moore's supporters are quick to impugn the liberal credentials of anyone who criticizes his presentation of the information he digs up (or, in some cases, makes up). For them, Michael Moore is the issues he talks about, so his detractors must be enemies of democratic principles. It's an old trick, akin to the way Pauline Kael was accused of being insensitive about the Holocaust when she didn't like Shoah." Stephanie Zacharek, Salon.com

"Although overlong and hampered by a rambling argument, the movie does make a compelling narrative. It also succeeds as entertainment ... If Moore is formidable, it's not because he is a great film-maker (far from it) but because he infuses his sense of ridicule with the fury of moral indignation." J Hoberman, Village Voice

"One last thought: Fahrenheit 9/11 is many things, but for pity's sake let's not call it a documentary." Ty Burr, Boston Globe

The Big C's MY LIFE, as seen through the eyes of a die-hard sentimentalist

In the coming days, we are sure to hear from every media outlet that employs a cultural critic in any manifestation a veritable geyser of opinion spewing forth on the matter of MY LIFE, our Fearless Leader's unfortunately titled yet nevertheless mighty tome. With advance-sales figures already nearing 2 million (according to the AP), I can hardly think of a more useless exercise: everybody who wants to know what this book's about has already made arrangements that will no doubt avail them of their very own, unique, and valid opinions, not only of the Great Work, but also, retrospectively, of the man himself.

And so they should.

The critics will say what they will (whether or not they've actually invested the vacation-length span of time necessary to digest the thing), but in the end, in a beautifully egalitarian spirit that I think can be found nestled close to the heart of this spiraling narrative, everyone must and shall evaluate for him/herself.

Know Bill Clinton's fears, his aggravations. Smile indulgently at his boyish pride. Watch as this guy, who from the way he presents himself could just as easily have been you or me, hashes through the mighty and the mundane details of performing his duties as leader of the free world (back when some parts of the world could sometimes call themselves "free"). See Bill Clinton as he sees himself (while keeping in mind as you're reading that one's self-perception is sometimes the farthest from reality).

And see these things without the filter of what the mainstream media picks and chooses to present to us. This time, the filtering mechanism is tangible, up-front, human, and understandable: a man, a human being, who wants to think he did good -- a sentiment with which I think we can all relate.

I will not tell you what this book will make you think or how it will make you feel, nor can any critic. But I will say that this earnest attempt to recount the salient events in such a crucial man's life, in such a crucial era in modern American history, offers an unprecedented window through which we can now all peer, much to everyone's edification. My hope is that the individuals who comprise this book's true audience -- not the critics, but the American people, who chose this man to act on their behalf for eight years -- will overlook the cynical hype that will bombard them in the upcoming days, and will approach this reading experience with the same optimistic hope with which, according to his account, Mr. Clinton approached his job as president -- and in a grander scale the very future -- of the United States.

Fox News Extols F911

This review of Michael Moore's new film, Fahrenheit 911, from no less than Ruport Murdoch's Fox News (not exactly a liberal echo machine), testifies to the fact that this film has serious potential - for the right as well as the left. Of particular interest is the reviewer's comparison between F911 and Bowling for Columbine, for which Moore was widely criticised for playing fast and loose with the facts. It seems like he did it right this time around and dotted all his "I's".

This Constitutional Update Brought to You By...

In the case of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada the Supreme Court ruled today that if a police officer asks you your name, you have to tell them. I suppose my days of saying "Karl Marx" are over.

Is the Best Defense a Good Offense?

Mahajan summarizes the 9/11 Commission's Staff Statement 17, Improvising a Homeland Defense, and dismisses the conspiracy theories surrounding the attacks. But he concludes with the following points:

Read more

Two points stand out. First, dealing with these attacks was an enormously difficult problem. The FAA had to take unprecedented actions, like ordering the simultaneous grounding of all flights over the United States -- which was executed without incident. When planes' transponders were turned off, it had to perform a needle-in-a-haystack search to locate them from radar returns. And it had to deal with the standard bureaucratic processes, all of which took away precious minutes.

Second, with some things like the plane that hit the Pentagon, there was a great deal of incompetence involved. The primary reason is the same as the reason that NORAD had 14 planes to call on for the whole country -- notwithstanding the rhetoric involved in talking about the "Defense" Department and the "defense" budget, there's little recognition anywhere that the United States could be attacked and that it might have to be defended. The concluding paragraph of the statement says it all:

NORAD and the FAA were unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11. They struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge they had never encountered and had never trained to meet.

It remains only to point out that, had the entire "national security" establishment had any seriousness about national security, this would not have been the case. There had been ample warning, starting as early as 1995, of the threat of terrorists hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings. But business as usual for the national security establishment is to talk about defending the United States but to expend all of its energy on planning attacks on other countries.

This makes we wonder what our plans for defense really are. After all, these were commuter aircraft. Shouldn't we be able to handle such a situation?

I'm wondering if we have a cohesive plan to defend the United States against an attack, or do we just assume no one will attack us since we would obliterate them if they did - similar to a Cold War mentality? It seems like the Dept. of Defense is still acting like the Dept. of War in this sense - under both parties in recent years.

It leaves me wanting something more.

Who's Watching the Watchers

So does crime pay? As it turns out, it not only pays, it does so in ways that would be hilarious if they weren't so damn frightening.

(link via Political Animal)

World Peace: Cancelled

According to the Detroit Free Press, the second annual World Peace Music Awards has been cancelled. The concert that was scheduled to take place in Vietnam on June 22nd was said, by its organizers, to be cancelled due to “insurmountable circumstances completely beyond our control.” Artists such as Gloria Gaynor, Lionel Ritchie, Hootie and the Blowfish and the Black Eyed Peas were expected to perform at the biggest international concert ever scheduled. The concert, supported by the United Nations, was expected to honor musicians like Bob Dylan, Joan Baez and Peter, Paul and Mary for their songs that spurred the anti-war movement in the United States during the Vietnam War.

What, pray tell, could these “insurmountable circumstances completely beyond our control” possibly be? It must take something pretty horrid to convince a world-peacenik that something is "insurmountable".

Ashcroft Squirms in Front of Judiciary Committee

John Ashcroft's "testimony" before Congress last week was a truly amazing display of evasion, but also revealed some potential cracks in the Bush administration's attempt to keep the lid on leaks. The high point was Joseph Biden (D-DE) on the Geneva Conventions: "there's a reason why we sign these treaties -- it's to protect my son in the military in the event he is ever captured by enemy forces."

Undecided Voter Is Focus of Both Parties; Efforts Shift from Base to Undecided 5%

(NYT) - Only about 5 percent of the voting public is undecided, about one-third of what is typical at this point in the campaign; with 2 sides confident of strong bases, they're looking elsewhere.

June 11, 2004

By ADAM NAGOURNEY

ARDMORE, Pa., June 10 -- They are more likely to be white than black, female than male, married than single, and live in the suburbs rather than in large cities. They are not frequent churchgoers nor gun enthusiasts. They are clustered in swing states like Ohio, Michigan and here in Pennsylvania. And while they follow the news closely, they are largely indifferent to the back and forth of this year's race for president.

These are what pollsters describe as the rarest of Americans in this election year: the undecided voters. And with aides to President Bush and Senator John Kerry increasingly confident about their ability to turn out their base voters, and thus create an electoral standoff in as many as 15 states, these people have become the object of intense concern by the campaigns as they try to figure out who these voters are and how to reach them.

Only about 5 percent of the voting public is undecided, about one-third of what is typical at this point in the campaign, according to several recent polls. That figure increases to about 15 percent when pollsters include supporters of Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush who say they might change their minds. In addition to those who are torn between the two major-party candidates, and possibly Ralph Nader, there is a sizable number of Americans who are deciding whether to vote at all.

Here in this Philadelphia suburb, as well as elsewhere across the nation, the undecided voter was the rare exception in hours of interviews that produced vociferous declarations of support for Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry. "I am very torn," said Marge Pyle, 52, a Republican who works as an administrative assistant at Bryn Mawr College. "I really -- I just don't know who I'm going to vote for."

Carol Ferring Shepley, a college instructor in St. Louis who voted for Mr. Bush in 2000, and who is in many ways an archetype for this kind of voter, said: "I am really totally undecided. At this point, I couldn't vote for either of them."

Aides to Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry described this thimbleful of voters as a source of worry to the campaigns because they are disengaged from the presidential contest and thus less susceptible to traditional tools of political persuasion.

At the same time, many of them are closely following the news of the day, pollsters said, meaning they might well be rushed to one side in the last days of this contest by a major event, more turmoil in Iraq, good economic news at home, that is beyond the control of either campaign.

Mary Beth Cahill, Mr. Kerry's campaign manager, said that if the two parties succeeded at turning out their base vote, as both sides said now appears increasingly likely, "this election looks as though it's going to come down to these late deciders."

"We all read the daily polling," Ms. Cahill said, adding. "You have to try every possible way to reach them."

Both campaigns are struggling to adjust to this endlessly complicated electoral equation. Ms. Cahill said her campaign believed that one of the most effective ways to reach many of these voters was on radio shows, and had geared its surrogate speaker program to make Kerry advocates available for many radio shows.

The Bush campaign in May produced an advertisement on education featuring Laura Bush, appealing to suburban female voters, and placed it on the Web site of The Philadelphia Inquirer in an effort to reach voters in Philadelphia suburbs like this one.

"You can't get messages to them just by broadcasting on the major nets," said Matthew Dowd, a senior Bush strategist, referring to television networks. "Primarily, the way most of them make up their mind is with glimpses here and there that they catch of the president and Kerry."

And who are they? Undecided voters are likely to be younger, lower-income and less educated than the general electorate, said Ed Goeas, a Republican pollster.

These voters are more likely to put themselves at the center of the political scale: Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, said approximately 45 percent of undecided voters described themselves as moderate, compared with 23 percent of the general electorate.

As a group, undecided voters in some ways mirror the general electorate.

Pollsters and analysts said an in-depth examination of undecided attitudes have identified some shared characteristics of these voters that could be of concern for both candidates, but particularly for Mr. Bush.

These voters consider the environment an important issue, suggesting, some Democrats said, an opening for Mr. Kerry this fall. They tend to support abortion rights, and while they oppose gay marriage, they do not share the intensity of Republicans, said Andrew Kohut, who runs Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

Here in Ardmore, Joan Donoho, 61, an accountant who was a convention delegate for George H. W. Bush in 1980, and who voted for Mr. Bush in 2000, said she was unsure who to vote for, in part because of Mr. Bush's strong identification with opponents of to abortion rights.

"I haven't decided -- my concern is that Bush is too conservative," said Ms. Donoho "I'm disappointed that the son isn't more like the father." On two often revealing behavioral indicators, undecided voters were less likely than Mr. Bush's supporters to attend church services or own guns, findings that pollsters said should be a matter of concern for the White House. A poll of undecided voters in swing states by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center released last week found that 33 percent of these undecided voters went to church weekly or more, compared with 40 percent of respondents at large.

Ellen Plotkin, 67, a retired surgeon's assistant who lives near here, said that she attended synagogue about twice a year, supported restrictions on gun ownership and was against restrictions on abortion. Ms. Plotkin described herself as a Democrat who voted for Mr. Bush in 2000, but who this year was put off by some of his social policies and the war in Iraq.

"But I'm not sure about Kerry," Ms. Plotkin said. "Based on all the things I've heard about him, he seems wishy-washy."

By large numbers, undecided voters, like the general electorate, think the nation is heading in the wrong direction. And in another measure of incumbent distress closely traced by pollsters, just 44 percent said they approved of Mr. Bush's job performance, the Annenberg poll found.

"To me, the most significant figure is that only 35 percent think things are going in the right direction," said Mark Penn, a pollster who released a survey of swing states on Thursday for the New Democratic Network, a Democratic advocacy group. "That means there is tremendous impetus for change."

Like most Americans, these voters generally supported Mr. Bush's decision to go into Iraq. But they are more likely to say that troops should be brought home right away, according to the Annenberg survey. And some pollsters said that the high number of married suburban woman, many with children, in this group could be a matter of concern for the White House because of the demands of the military to fight the war.

"The draft issue is a huge concern -- I have a teenage son," Susan Wood, 43, an undecided voter interviewed in Columbus, Ohio.

Still, undecided voters are not convinced that Mr. Kerry would be any better than Mr. Bush at ending the conflict. Mr. Bush has a decided advantage over Mr. Kerry on the issues of security and foreign policy that the White House sees as pivotal in this election, according to the polls.

From a tactical point of view, undecided voters present a special challenge to the campaigns because of their disinterest toward politics. The Annenberg poll found that 55 percent said they were not following the campaign closely or at all, compared with 32 percent of the general electorate in swing states, which has produced a bit of a conundrum for both campaigns.

"Sometimes I just don't even want to watch the news," Ms. Pyle said here, as she walked along an outside shopping mall here. She said that advertisements "don't affect me" because she does not believe what the candidates are telling her.

Ms. Plotkin said: "When I hear, `I authorized this ad,' I tune out."

Outside of Milwaukee, Karen Pauli, 52, said she saw no reason to pay attention to the contest before autumn. "Until then, I just ignore it because it's so much confusing hot air," Ms. Pauli said, adding: "I'm not even sure who Kerry is. Too early to tell."

A senior Kerry advisor describes this segment of the electorate as "the classic picture of a relatively low-information, relatively disengaged political person. Less likely to know about the candidates, less likely to think that politics is relevant to their lives at all."

"These are the people you focus on all the way through," said this adviser. "Most of them are not going to make their final decisions until the end."

As a rule, undecided voters ultimately go against the incumbent, rejecting someone they know in favor of someone they do not, a line of history noted by Mr. Kerry's advisers in arguing that the situation augurs well for the senator from Massachusetts this fall.

But Mr. Bush's campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, said that in this supercharged electoral atmosphere, voters would make their decisions based on security and economic concerns, and that would hurt Mr. Kerry.

And Mr. Mehlman argued that Mr. Kerry's wavering supporters were much more likely to drop away once they got to know Mr. Kerry and his record, or at least got to know him the way Mr. Bush is trying to portray him.

"The common theme among undecided voters is that they are not typically motivated," Mr. Mehlman said.

"We're talking about winning the war on terror and making the economy stronger. Our base voters care about that, and the swing voters care about. He's talking about why Bush is bad. His appeal is to his base, but undecided voters are motivated by different ideas and different issues."

Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides

I'm not sure where they get this stuff from, and I'm pretty sure its partially fictitious, but Capital Hill Blue's article on Bush's neuroses and temper is worth a read, if only because it sounds eerily possible that it is accurate, and that should give us pause. I think Capital Hill Blue is a bunch or libertarians or something, or at least that's what their slogan leads me to believe: "Because nobody's life, liberty or property is safe while Congress is in session". I gotta say, that sounds about right to me.

My Country, Left or Right

I remember talking with a friend from France in February of 2003, shortly after the massive worldwide protests against the invasion of Iraq. She was extremely torn about the situation in Paris, and about allegiance and support of one’s nation in particular. The irony was that only weeks before the war protests, which in France were essentially aimed at supporting Chirac’s stance against the war, the French people were on those same streets protesting against him and his corrupt political machine. The French anti-war and pro-Chirac protests were some of the biggest in the world that year. In fact, it was only the threat of the election of the quasi-fascist Jean-Marie LePen that brought the country into line to support Chirac. For the French, it was the same choice between “lesser evils” that governs most of American politics.

An article in The New York Times today reports a widespread movement in France this year to dissociate G. W. Bush from “Americans,” with the main point being that people understand that he does not represent the American public. The reporter, Roger Cohen argues, however, that this is wrong: unfortunately, many (perhaps even most) Americans do support this president, and for a host of reasons, from his evangelical messianism to his controversial tax cuts. While it is tempting to think that Bush is operating "illegitimately," this is only true within a specific and extremely narrow understanding of legitimacy. Legitimacy was legally bestowed on Bush when the American people simply sat back and accepted the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision; if the public had truly rejected that decision, they would have been in the streets, instead of wandering about aimlessly pondering the significance of “hanging chads”. It was a sad day.

Of course, all governments are illegitimate in a very basic sense. They are all based on violence, in terms of their ability both to manufacture opinion and, if need be, to send in the troops - whether Army or NYPD. All governments are also, in this sense, authoritarian and, as such, must be wary of the idea of cohesive publics as a potential threat to that power. The tactic used by many (perhaps even most) governments is to divide and fragment the public so as to leave centralized authority in tact. This reality saw its clearest articulation in Nixon’s now-famous prediction to Henry Kissinger: If they could only divide the nation in two, they could pick up the bigger half (and win).

Cohen’s point that the American people are responsible for Bush is well-taken, but only if we are to assume that a people can be gauged at all by how it supports or doesn’t support a political regime. Such support, in the final picture, really doesn’t matter as much as people tend to think, and it is thus pointless to talk of the relationship between political leaders and a nation. Just as they may come to power for anti-democratic reasons, so too will they often fall for their smallest crimes. Remember, Nixon fell not for orchestrating the murder of civil rights leaders or for waging an illegal war, but for a relatively insignificant break-in. If politics were at all about absolute standards or values, a Nixon, a Reagan, a Clinton and, yes, a George W. Bush would have never been in the running.

My point is this: we shouldn’t bother asking the question of whether a leader represents the people or whether the people are responsible for a leader’s deeds. We probably shouldn’t even bother to think about what a “nation” is. Political leaders make both good and bad decisions, sometimes because they believe in them, but more often out of political expediency. They are not moralists - they are tools that need to be controlled as much as possible, and one hopes that our chosen leaders will use whatever power we give them to this end. Sometimes they do right - like Chirac and his opposition to the war in Iraq – but this shouldn’t necessarily make the French people proud of their government. It also shouldn’t lead the French to support Chirac, who is still the same bastard he was before the war. Support needs to remain fleeting and tenuous.

Incidentally, George W. Bush is still the same bastard he was on September 10th, and if the American people happen to wake up on Election Day and vote to get rid of him, good for them. But they shouldn’t spend too long congratulating themselves for doing the “right” thing. There will be bigger things to worry about, like protesting a Kerry White House, for example. National identity and the relationship between a people and their leaders should never be cozy or complete, or even identifiable or tangible. It is the struggle that makes politics relevant, and it is the possibility that nations can make better and better decisions that makes politics endless. Could it be otherwise? Should it be?

Joe Strummer Wannabe, or Bin Laden Operative?

Anybody whose read Chekhov's Ward Six might relate to this story from This Is London:

"The guitarist in a rock tribute act was quizzed as a terror suspect after sending a text message containing lyrics from a song by punk rock act the Clash to the wrong person." Read on.

"Wind in Their Ales"

The Brooklyn Brewery has been using wind-generated electricity since last August. They pay about 15% more for their clean renewable energy.

New York recently deregulated electricity production (natural gas suppliers too). About 50% of our total electricity cost comes from the delivery, which continues to be regulated (ConEd in the NYC area). The other 50% of our bill is for the electricity supply - which is deregulated - meaning we have a choice of various energy companies. We also have the option to split our purchase between "green" and traditional energy.

Read more...

Con Edison is the largest supplier to NYC right now. The breakdown of their energy is:

44% Natural Gas
30% Nuclear
16% Coal
5% Oil
4% Hydro
1% other

In comparison, in NYC we have these options (and maybe more):

The coop 1st Rochdale uses 40% wind, 30% landfill gas, and 30% small hydro. ConEd Solutions, a subsidiary of ConEd, uses 75% hydro (small, or certified low-impact) and 25% wind.

Here's a short attempt to weigh the pros and cons of each energy. I'm not an expert in this field, so I'd be eager to hear comments.

Wind power is clean and renewable and could provide up to 10% of New York's energy needs. There was a problem at one wind farm in CA with birds running into the turbines, but apparently that was because it was mistakenly put in a migration path, otherwise it isn't much of a problem.

Natural gas is extracted from the ground (often with oil), and the U.S. supply is almost exclusively from Canada. Natural gas is burned to create electricity, and so creates CO2 which contributes to global warming, but it is a cleaner burn that coal and causes less air pollution.

Biomass burning of methane from landfills is similar. Organic materials decompose and produce methane (the main ingredient in natural gas), and this can be burned to create electricity.

I don't know much about hydro power. Some negatives are that land needs to be flooded if a reservoir and dam are created, and large hydro projects can impact fish and other water life, but it's also clean. Small hydro would have less of an impact, but also create less energy than large hydro.

Regarding nuclear, I don't think it's preferable that we rely on an energy that produces such a dangerous radioactive by-product, and I also wonder if it enhances the production of nuclear weapons - although I understand that the enrichment process is different and can be detected when countries try to hide their weapons programs in their energy program. But it does produce lots of energy without harming the environment with the exception of accidents and the stored by-product.

Wind and small hydro appear to have the least negative impact. And there's the added benefit that these can be created locally here in New York, as opposed to relying on foreign sources. I don't know enough to compare nuclear vs. coal vs. large hydro, but it seems we should use wind as much as possible. Comments?

It's easy to sign up. For New York residents, you can call the NYS Public Service Commission at 1-866-GRN-POWR to find the suppliers available in your area, and then simply call the supplier you choose and sign up.

CIA Director Resigns

The New York Times is right: this is bizarre. I wonder if (and when) this book will come out.

"Mr. Bush announced the resignation in a way that was almost bizarre. He had just addressed reporters and photographers in a fairly innocuous Rose Garden session with Australia's prime minister, John Howard. Then the session was adjourned, as Mr. Bush apparently prepared to depart for nearby Andrews Air Force Base and his flight to Europe, where he is to take part in ceremonies marking the 60th anniversary of the Normady invasion and meet European leaders — some of whom have been sharply critical of the campaign in Iraq.

"But minutes later, Mr. Bush reappeared on the sun-drenched White House lawn, stunning listeners with the news of Mr. Tenet's resignation, which the president said would be effective in mid-July. Until then, Mr. Bush said, the C.I.A.'s deputy director, John McLaughlin, will be acting director.

"The president praised Mr. Tenet's qualities as a public servant, saying: "He's strong. He's resolute. He's served his nation as the director for seven years. He has been a strong and able leader at the agency. He's been a, he's been a strong leader in the war on terror, and I will miss him."

"Then Mr. Bush walked away, declining to take questions or offer any insight into what Mr. Tenet's personal reasons might be."

Bush: This is Our World War II

Orwell once wrote that a key feature of blind nationalists is that they are unable to draw correct analogies. I think Bush has shown that Orwell was right (again). But if the war on terrorism is World War II, then what is Abu Ghraib? Is Kuwait analogous to Poland, circa September 1939. Moreover, what will be Bush's Hiroshima? This is getting AWFULLY confusing. Read on.

Addressing Cadets, Bush Sees Parallel to World War II (NY Times)
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

COLORADO SPRINGS, June 2 — President Bush told nearly 1,000 cadets at the United States Air Force Academy on Wednesday that they would soon be part of a struggle against terrorism that he likened to World War II as the historic challenge of the time and "the storm in which we fly."

In a grim commencement speech on a sparkling morning at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, Mr. Bush outlined in the most detail yet what he sees as the continuing threat of terrorism. Rather than expressing any misgivings about the course of the war in Iraq, Mr. Bush emphatically affirmed his belief in striking enemies before they can strike first to protect Americans against Al Qaeda and other terrorist threats.

Quoting from a statement on a Qaeda Web site last year, Mr. Bush said that Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, a spokesman for the terrorist network, wrote: "We have the right to kill four million Americans — two million of them children — and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons."

Mr. Bush warned the crowd of 29,000 gathered in Falcon Stadium that Americans must not lose heart or patience as his administration tries to bring democracy to Iraq and the Middle East. He compared today's efforts to those in Europe immediately after World War II, noting that two years after the Nazi surrender there was still starvation in Germany and reconstruction appeared to be faltering. In 1948, he added, Stalin blockaded Berlin. In 1949, the Soviet Union exploded a nuclear weapon and the Communists in China won their revolution.

"All of this took place in the first four years of the cold war," Mr. Bush said, in a speech that was interrupted intermittently by applause, most of it modest. "If that generation of Americans had lost its nerve, there would have been no `long twilight struggle' only a long twilight."

The phrase Mr. Bush quoted was from President John F. Kennedy's 1961 inaugural address describing the American cold war mission.

Mr. Bush's speech was the second in a series of what the White House is billing as major presidential addresses on Iraq leading up to the transfer of authority from the Americans to a new Iraqi government on June 30. The president's remarks appeared to try to strike a balance between frightening Americans and offering himself as the only choice to lead the nation out of danger and to shore up his credentials as commander in chief in an election year when polls show support for the Iraq war and his presidency declining.

Mr. Bush outlined what he called a four-part strategy for fighting terrorism, all of it pre-existing policy. The United States, he said, will use "every available tool" to dismantle and destroy terrorists and their organizations, deny them places of sanctuary and support, stop them from obtaining chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and deny them "the ideological victories they seek by working for freedom and reform in the broader Middle East."

Mr. Bush also tried to answer critics who say that his policies and the war in Iraq have simply created more terrorists.

"No act of America explains terrorist violence, and no concession of America could appease it," Mr. Bush said. "The terrorists who attacked our country on Sept. 11, 2001, were not protesting our policies. They were protesting our existence."

If America were not fighting terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, Mr. Bush said, "What would these thousands of killers do — suddenly begin leading productive lives of service and charity?" He added, "Would the terrorists who beheaded an American on camera just be quiet, peaceful citizens if America had not liberated Iraq?"

Mr. Bush opened his series of speeches about Iraq with an address last week at the United States Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., where he outlined the shape of the new Iraqi government. This Sunday, he is to make a speech in Normandy on the 60th anniversary of the D-Day invasion, and deliver another address at a summit meeting of the world's leading industrialized democracies in Sea Island, Ga., later next week.

Last will be a speech at a NATO summit meeting in Istanbul at the end of the month, just before the restoration of sovereignty in Iraq.

Casting forward to his D-Day speech, Mr. Bush told the cadets that "on this day in 1944, General Eisenhower sat down at his headquarters in the English countryside and wrote out a message to the "Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Forces" who would soon be invading Normandy. Mr. Bush said Eisenhower wrote that "the eyes of the world are upon you" and "the hopes of prayers or liberty-loving people everywhere march with you."

Mr. Bush omitted the first line of Eisenhower's message, which was, "You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months."

The president used the word "crusade" once soon after the Sept. 11 attacks to describe the campaign against terrorism, and it was criticized in the Arab world for its association with the medieval struggle between Christians and Muslims.

Mr. Bush said that the conflict "will take many turns, with setbacks on the course to victory," but he recalled former President Ronald Reagan's words that "the future belongs to the free." At the end, he invoked Eisenhower once again.

"The eyes of the world are upon you," Mr. Bush told the cadets. "You leave this place at a historic time, and you enter this struggle ahead with the full confidence of your commander in chief."

The motto of the graduating class was "Ready for War."

"I'm always really careful when I say that," said one cadet, Ben Buchta, 22, from Medford, Ore. "And, I honestly really didn't ever say that with a real true heart until today because I had not matured fully until today. And, `Ready for War,' that's a serious statement. I don't really want to go, but I will go. That's why we're here."

Tube staff to Strike on Election Day

If only this were America. Actually, if there were a transit strike on election day, more people would be stuck home, and maybe more would bother to vote. It does bring up a nice two channel question, though: why don't Americans vote, and why don't they strike? Do these two phenomena spring from the same source?