Is It Still a July Suprise If We Knew It Would Happen?

Earlier this month, The New Republic published an article revealing that the Bush administration had been exerting pressure on Pakistan to capture a "high-value" al Qaeda target around the same time as the Democratic Convention. Well it seems that pressure may have paid off.

Of course, high-value isn't the same as famous. The terrorist in question -- wanted in connection with the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa -- is hardly a household name, so this may not be a public relations coup for the Republicans (and I doubt it will distact much from important stories like Kerry in a funny blue suit). Nevertheless, the timing is something that should be examined. Did Pakistan capture him because of White House pressure, or is this just a coincidence? And if White House influence is indeed the reason, why haven't we been exerting this sort of pressure all along?

I'll be curious to see how this plays out in the news cycle. My bet is the story gets some play only to get lost in the post-convention Kerry love fest. The Democrats have been building incredible momentum these past four days (even Andrew Sullivan is caught up in it). Capturing a terrorist that no one has heard of isn't going to be enough to trip that up.

From the GP to the GOP: The Ralph Nader Story

ABC News: Consumer advocate Ralph Nader's quixotic presidential campaign says it submitted about 5,400 signatures to get on the Michigan ballot, far short of the required number of 30,000. Luckily for him, approximately 43,000 signatures were filed by Michigan Republicans on his behalf, more than meeting the requirement.

Oh, Don't Worry, the Kids'll Be All Right

(Reuters) - Some 145,000 poor children were dropped from a U.S. federal-state health insurance plan in the second half of 2003, with more than half the cuts made by Texas, a health-care research foundation said on Friday. (Full story)

TIME'S UP! Opens a Bike Convergence Center

I thought I should share this nice news: Time's Up!, a longtime bicycle advocacy/environmental group, is opening a collective space for bicyclists in NYC. This from their announcement:

The TIME'S UP! Bike Convergence Space, located at 49 East Houston
Street in Downtown Manhattan, is having a Grand Opening Party on
Saturday July 31st at 7pm. The space will serve as a resource for
cyclists planning to protest the upcoming Republican National
Convention (RNC). The new space, which includes a basement, backyard
and a shared first floor will host bicycle maintenance, film
screenings and educational events. Volunteers have enlisted the
assistance of a number of highly skilled mechanics and have begun
collecting donations of bicycles and parts for a lending library.
Bikes will be lent out on a first come first serve basis in exchange
for a small deposit or work trade.

The TIME'S UP! Bike National Convention (BNC), beginning on August
20th, will be a week of workshops, skill-shares and fun events related
to bikes and protest. We hope to celebrate NYC's unique cycling
culture and rebellious spirit. Highlights will include NYC's legendary
Critical Mass (which is expected to top 2000 participants!), an
informational tour of local War Profiteering Corporations, a Womyn's
Only Bike Maintenance Workshop series and two Dumpster Diving Rides to
show out of town visitors the best spots to catch a free meal.

A Bike Bloc is a large group of individuals and cycling affinity
groups similar to a Critical Mass ride. Bike Blocs at street protests
have the advantage of being able to break up and reform. The
spontaneity of a Bike Bloc means that participants are able to easily
move through the streets without the needing leaders or a decided
route. Another advantage of a Bike Bloc is that arrests are rare and a
generally festive atmosphere. In the past, Bike Blocs have provided a
tremendous amount of solidarity and logistical support to
demonstrators who are on foot.

Wind Power Refresher

Someone asked me to post some additional info regarding windpower. To get electricity in your home or apartment in New York State, it's really as simple as choosing a company from this list and contacting them to sign up. The company I chose, 1st Rochdale, allows you to sign up on-line.

He'll take us where, exactly?

One of the more popular conservative talking points -- one that has, unfortunately, found its way into the rhetoric of the those on the left who aren't convinced Kerry is the one for them -- is that Kerry has yet to articulate a plan for what they will do if they win the election. Kerry's inability to present a plan for Iraq that is decidedly different from Bush's does leave him open to attack, but as a broader point the message is simply nonsense.

While it's nice to have a web page to point to when you're asked what Kerry is actually all about, I think a far more effective tactic is to turn the question right around. If Bush is re-elected, what exactly is his plan for the next four years? Aside from more tax cuts, that is.

Bedtime for Bozo

This, from Jim Testa, of Jersey Beat zine fame:

I remember a moment in the 1996 presidential campaign. Bob Dole was sitting across from Tim Russert on Meet The Press, and Russert asked a pretty easy question: Why was Bob Dole siding with the NRA and opposing the ban on assault weapons? Dole thought about it a second, shifted in his seat, and then mumbled some mumbo-jumbo that his handlers had made him memorize. But you could tell this his heart wasn't in it; that inside, he knew damn well there was no reason to legalize automatic weapons and submachine guns, weapons of mass destruction that were going to fall into the hands of drug dealers and terrorists. Nobody goes duck hunting with an AK-47, and nobody needs something that spits out a hundred rounds of ammo in ten seconds to protect their hearth and home. But Bob Dole couldn't bring himself to say that, to say what he knew was true, and right. . And as he mouthed his Republican platitudes and kowtowed to a small handful of well-funded fanatics, I thought I saw something... an unutterable sadness in his eyes. Because at that moment, Bob Dole knew he was never going to be president. And somewhere, deep down inside, I think he also knew that he didn't deserve to be president.

You're never going to see that kind of insight in George W. Bush. When he mouths those Republican platitudes, when he kowtows to the religious right or the NRA or the rich, he's not merely mouthing soundbytes. That's what he really believes. He doesn't think gay people deserve the same rights as the rest of America. He doesn't think the poor deserve any more than what they already get. He doesn't think the rich should pay taxes. And he doesn't care what anybody in Iraq or the rest of the world thinks about his crackpot scheme to turn a nation of Islamic fundamentalists into happy God-fearing Republican consumers and voters. That's why I've never trusted born-again Christians. They go through life always thinking they're right, that they have the one true answer. History and religion don't mean much when you've got the Lord on your side. God bless America. And everybody else be damned.

I won't even look into Dick Cheney's eyes. I'm not sure I even believe that I have a soul; but if I do, he'd be the one to steal it. I don't think Cheney is even human; he's like something out of Buffy The Vampire Slayer, the human incarnation of pure evil. Greed, power, and a callous disregard for any agenda save his own. That's what you get from Dick Cheney. And he's a heartbeat away from the presidency.

I've been voting since Jimmy Carter ran for President. I've voted for Democrats, and I've voted for Republicans; for presidents and mayors, county supervisors and Congressmen, Senators and the Weehawken Board of Ed. But I don't think I've ever cast a vote as important as the one coming up this November. If you think the last four years have been a nightmare, just think about a second Bush-Cheney term. You won't hear a word about reinstituting the draft as long as the campaign is still going on. But Bush can't run for a third term and Cheney probably won't live that long, so what do they have to lose? Tax cuts for the rich? Why not push that a little further and privatize Social Security? Let's put the future of a nation of senior citizens into the hands of stock brokers and corporate CEO's. We all know how trustworthy they are. And forget about gay marriage. The Supreme Court is already just a justice or two away from overturning Roe Vs Wade. What's next on the agenda after that? Maybe Brown Vs The Board of Education? If you're going to make gays and women second-class citizens, why not go all the way and bring back segregation too?

These are scary times. And as Hunter Thompson so eloquently put it, When the going gets weird, the weird get going. So, dammit... Register. Vote. Get that bastard and his rich, sick cronies out of the White House. The life you save may be your own.

- Jim Testa, Editor, Jersey Beat

Rush Limbaugh Soils the Institution of Marriage

I know that this is old news (June 11, 2004), but in light of yesterday's Senate vote against a constitutional ban on gay marriage, I thought that I would bring it up: Rush Limbaugh is getting divorced for the third time. Aside from this AP report, the announcement got almost no coverage in the major American media, which should enrage those of you out there concerned with defending the sanctity of marriage. I for one, am shocked and concerned about what homosexuals and Rush Limbaugh are doing to the social fibre of our beloved America.

The Lion or the Fox?

WASHINGTON -- President Bush is viewed by more American voters as decisive and arrogant than Democratic rival John Kerry, according to an Associated Press poll. Voters are more likely to see Kerry as intelligent. (Newsday)

Read full article.

Charisma and Film in the Public Sphere

I’ve been interested in public intellectuals for a little while now. I’ve been wondering about the effectiveness of a charismatic, thoughtful individual thumping podiums and providing vivid narratives for the masses. Can we, as Americans, handle someone who challenges us to think differently? Who provokes us? Will we still cheer when a polemicist gets under ‘their’ skin (whomever that might be)?

The European public sphere had Pierre Bourdieu, Levi-Strauss, Sartre, Foucault, Mill, Dickens, and Orwell. In the 1950s there were Lewis Mumford, William H. White and Jane Jacobs fighting for American urban spaces. But for the last few decades, the American scene has grown silent. Judge Richard A. Posner of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In "Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline," writes that "for the foreseeable future the dominant type of public intellectual will be the full-time, or at least nominally full-time professor." The result of a public weary of intellectualism, the best that my students at Queens College could do to name an American public intellectual was Andy Rooney.

But a few things have made me think that this might be changing.

In the last few years, Noam Chomsky has been joined at the dais by the voices of Howard Zinn, Naomi Klein, Al Gore and Michael Moore. It’s not just that they are speaking out, but I cannot help but feel that the stage is getting bigger and stirring up more trouble than ever. Al Gore’s high-profile MoveOn.org lectures have been packed and reviewed. Blogs like this one are popping up daily. This summer we have been truly treated to a flurry of documentaries, which offer speaking points for the left. Control Room, Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Corporation (which interviews most of the individuals above) offer such rich stories, fervently investigated and passionately presented. By the way, even though there will be no ‘Palabris at the Movies’ posts in the near future, I must say that, of the three, the film with the most attention is the least successful documentary. After each, however, viewers are left wanting more: Where did they get this information? How can I learn more?

Charisma, what Sociologist Max Weber called "the gift of grace" that must be validated via a following, is enough for many: Michael Moore can be persuasive, in that "Aw shucks, look at the little guy talking with this CEO" kind of way. Such a natural quality has the potential to break through old structures of thought and action, and Weber noted that charismatic leaders rise in times of crisis for such purposes.

Paired with information and technology, charisma can be powerful. The documentaries above offer a few avenues to get better informed. The Corporation site has a list of links as well as a new book that is out on the same topic. I’ve always hoped that such films would have little footnotes along the bottom of the screen. Yes, it’s silly. But, wouldn’t it be effective? How far away are we from having DVDs with links to all of the newspaper articles, think tanks and Congressional Archives available in PDF format? The links to Moore's film and The Corporation are to their 'facts' and 'more information' pages, respectively.

But charisma is also dangerous. Pierre Bourdieu was worried about those French intellectuals, particularly Sartre, who could manage to cull up an opinion on just about anything. He firmly believed that social actors knew and understood their own particular fields—dominated by their own particular rules and games—and that it was always suspicious when they ventured out of them and claimed to be well suited for others (he called them ‘total intellectuals’). You end up with polemicists, like Moore, rather than measured scholars. You end up with a populous no more inclined towards critical thought, no less willing to follow the next charismatic leader, and susceptible to any bright, flashy film to come along.

At the same time, Bourdieu felt that his countrymen and women wanted to hear his opinion, and needed to be helped along the path. So, he began to speak out on neoliberalism, the privatization of markets, labor disputes and the war in Bosnia. He appeared on television to give a lecture about, well, television, and how it has come to dominate public consciousness. It’s in a book called On Television (and yes, he was well aware of the challenges and ironies of using television to talk about television).

We’ve railed on Chris Hitchens enough here, but he does have a point that Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are cut form the same cloth. But those are the polemicists. In the public intellectual category, the right comes up thin: little more than David Brooks and Mr. Hitchens (who’s basically on loan from the left, anyway). Perhaps the continuation of the Zinns and Chomskys and the rise of the Gores and Kleins and Frankens will bring back the spirit of Mumford and Jacobs. Perhaps bringing new technological goodies with them too.

Misunderestimating the Bounce

I must admit that I underestimated the potential effects that Kerry choosing Edwards would have. While I can't really see it, there is something about Edwards that excites democrats. According to a CBS News poll, only one in ten democrats think Kerry should have named someone other than Edwards. While the poll indicates that the VP candidate has only a limited impact on voters, it is still interesting that Edwards's "favorable" rating is significantly higher than Cheney's. Most people, in fact, feel that Edwards would make a better president than Cheney, which takes a nice bite out of Bush's claim that the key distinction between Edwards and Cheney is that Cheney "could be president".

While I know it's just a "bounce", it is still exciting that, were the election held today, Kerry would likely beat Bush by a five-point margin.

US Goes Uranium Shopping In Iraq

The United States has removed from Iraq nearly two tons of uranium and hundreds of highly radioactive items that could have been used in a so-called dirty bomb, the Energy Department disclosed. (breakingnews.ie)

Finally, A Long-Overdue Tat for Hitchens's Righteous Tit

Kudos to Matt Taibbi of the New York Press. Finally, a response to Christopher Hitchens that puts intellectual honesty and journalistic courage in its rightful place, and exposes his righteous indignation for the fraud it is.

My favorite excerpt:

"Hitchens, like me and everyone else out there publishing, lives in a professional world where the idea of courage is submitting nice words about George Bush to the Nation, or maybe a "Rethinking Welfare Reform" piece to the Wall Street Journal. What Hitchens calls courage is really a willingness to offend one's intellectual constituency, and what he really means by that is honesty—something very different from courage. It's a nice quality, honesty, and the pundit out there who has it and still manages to make a living is, I guess, to be applauded. But again, let's not confuse that with courage.

"Courage is a willingness to face real risks—your neck, or at the very least, your job. The journalist with courage would have threatened to resign rather than repeat George Bush's justifications for invasion before it began. I don't remember anyone resigning last winter. The journalist with courage would threaten to quit rather than do a magazine piece about an advertiser's product, his fad diet book or his magic-bullet baldness cure. It happens every day, and nobody ever quits over it."

Read on - it's brilliant.