Blogs

Mashup Roundup: Tasteless Ike Turner Mashup, Tasteful Christmas Mashups, Obvious Jay-Z Mashup Album, Super Zep Mashup

| Thu Dec. 20, 2007 4:18 PM EST

Santastic

  • First of all, let's get this out of the way: I can't even bring myself to say the name of the song that's been combined with an old Ike & Tina Turner number, but I bet you can guess it. (via Mashuptown.com)
  • Okay, clean your ears out with some lovely and innocent holiday-themed bootlegs: it's another "Santastic" compilation, edited by Boston's DJ BC and featuring the work of Go Home Productions, Freddy King of Pants, and a special "Dick In a Box" mix from A Plus D! Come to think of it, maybe this isn't so innocent. (Santastic3)
  • Not street enough for you? Well, SoCal's DJ Skee has put together a version of Jay-Z's latest album American Gangster using music from another well-known gangster movie: it's American Godfather, and while I'm a bit put off by Skee's ego ("often cited as the definitive DJ for the West Coast"?!) Radar seems to like it. (Download at SendSpace)
  • Now here's what mashups are really all about: actual musical craft. Lenlow's smooth combo of Led Zeppelin, Buffalo Springfield, and a bunch more stuff feels like a whole new song, so shut up about this being a "cringe-inducing fad," Radar. You're cringe-inducing. Nyah! (Via Lenlow's site)
  • Advertise on MotherJones.com

    Coming Soon to Texas: A Master's Degree in Creation Science

    | Thu Dec. 20, 2007 4:18 PM EST

    creation_museum.jpg

    Because Baylor University is not doing enough to plumb the seas for Noah's Ark, an advisory committee of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board has recommended that the Institute for Creation Research be given the authority to grant Master's degrees in science education. Perhaps the training will help graduates stay employed in the Lone Star State, rather than getting fired like the state's former director of science curricula, a shameless Darwin booster.

    Is Texas devolving? Not at all. According to the Institute's mission statement, it will only enroll the self-motivated, responsible student who "is more self-disciplined ('whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God;' I Cor. 10:31) and takes education seriously ('And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;' Colossians 3:23)."

    The Texas Observer reports that the same guys brought us the Creation Museum in Kentucky (see Adam frolic with the dinosaurs!), and are at work stumping for Mike Huckabee in Iowa.

    Larry Flynt Doesn't Know Whether Rudolph Giuliani is Gay or Not

    | Thu Dec. 20, 2007 3:33 PM EST

    mojo-photo-flynt.JPGHustler publisher and aspiring political muckraker Larry Flynt has given an extensive interview to Vanity Fair in which he continues to promise the exposure of juicy tidbits about "hypocritical" politicians, although it's his comments about Rudy Giuliani that are raising eyebrows:

    Bush Administration to California: Eff You

    | Thu Dec. 20, 2007 1:44 PM EST

    bush-finger.jpg

    You know how the Right loves states' rights? Turns out that only applies when "states rights" means "persecuting minorities." It turns out that "Trying to avert near-certain global climactic doom," is not, apparently, a "state right."

    Earlier today, the EPA denied California's request for a waiver that would allow the state to regulate automobile emissions. (This comes after a court fight that forced the EPA to rule on the request). The decision, according to the lede of a must-read Washington Post story, "overruled the unanimous recommendation of the agency's legal and technical staffs." Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of course promised to take the decision to court. David Bookbinder, the Sierra Club's chief climate counsel, told the Los Angeles Times, "These guys are 0 and 4 in court," he said. "And they're about to go 0-5." That's the part of this story that really says "Eff You": The EPA knows it's going to lose in court. From the Post story:

    William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents officials in 48 states. . .[said the EPA] "has issued a verdict that is legally and technically unjustified and indefensible."
    EPA's lawyers and policy staff had reached the same conclusion, said several agency officials familiar with the process. In a PowerPoint presentation prepared for the administrator, aides wrote that if Johnson denied the waiver and California sued, "EPA likely to lose suit."
    If he allowed California to proceed and automakers sued, the staff wrote, "EPA is almost certain to win."

    So in this one, the good guys will probably win again. But victory will mean delaying important greenhouse gas regulations for a stupid, petty, pointless court fight the Bush administration already knows it will lose. Chalk up another point for auto industry lobbyists and bad government.

    Looking to Congress to Stop the FCC's Big Media Giveaway

    | Thu Dec. 20, 2007 1:35 PM EST
    martin_bed300.jpg

    Once again, the Federal Communications Commission has rolled back longstanding regulations that prevented further media consolidation, despite another round of public opposition. (For a detailed look at what this move means for the future of the media, particularly newspapers, check out this piece Eric Klinenberg wrote for us.) The last time the FCC pulled this under chairman Michael Powell, the courts stopped it in its tracks. This time, it could take an act of Congress. MoveOn and Free Press (which has been on the forefront of this issue for ages) have started online letter-writing campaigns seeking to get Congress to overturn the rule change. They may find some sympathy on Capitol Hill: A bipartisan group of 24 senators, including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Trent Lott, and Ted Stevens, wrote FCC chair Kevin Martin [PDF] before the decision, asking him not to ignore input from the public. Now that he's done just that, will they still be listening?

    Image: Kevin Martin (right) in/on bed with the industry he regulates—literally. Via StopBigMedia.com

    Mitt Romney's Father Never Marched with Martin Luther King Jr.

    | Thu Dec. 20, 2007 12:38 PM EST

    In Mitt Romney's major speech on religion in America, he said, "I saw my father march with Martin Luther King." When discussing the Mormon faith's uncomfortable record on race, Romney absolved his family by saying, "My dad marched with Martin Luther King. My mom was a tireless crusader for civil rights."

    But an investigation by the Phoenix, a Boston-area alternative paper, shows that Romney's father, George Romney, the former governor of Michigan, never marched with King, nor would Mitt have been able to see it if had, because Mitt was in France on a mission the only time King was marching in Michigan.

    The Romney campaign is claiming that George Romney marched in one town on one day, and King marched in a different town on a different day, but that the towns and the days were close enough together that Mitt's statements aren't technically false.

    Advertise on MotherJones.com

    Edwards and Obama Draw Contrasts on Health Care Reform

    | Thu Dec. 20, 2007 12:19 PM EST

    In my most recent article on John Edwards, I wondered if Edwards' strident anti-corporate message, courageous and admirable as it may be, would turn off voters in the general election.

    Yesterday, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek answered with an emphatic yes.

    How many 20th Century American presidents have been elected on a populist platform? That would be zero... millions of Americans still work for corporations or aspire to do so and bashing them wholesale is a loser politically. It works sometimes in Democratic primaries with a heavy labor vote (though not for Dick Gephardt). But not in general elections. The last two Democrats elected president—Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992—also campaigned during recessions. Both were smart enough to reject populism in favor of a responsive but upbeat message.

    Alter also discusses the differences Obama and Edwards have on health care. Obama says that he will initiate health care reform by sitting down at a big table with patients' advocates, health care economists, insurance companies, and other interested parties. Everyone would have the right to state their priorities, but the meeting would be CSPAN and the American people would know who is motivated by greed, who is negotiating in bad faith, and who is working against the interests of everyday Americans. Alter writes, "having triumphed over the drug and insurance companies in the court of public opinion, the legislative victories will follow."

    Edwards says it is "a fantasy" to expect insurance companies and drug companies to negotiate their power away at a table such as Obama's. The only real option, Edwards says, is to exclude these corporate interests from the discussion and "take" their power away. How he plans on doing that is never quite articulated.

    It's worth pointing out that Edwards and Obama have managed to have this debate without going negative. The debate over which approach to health care reform is less realistic continues, but gently...

    Clinton Campaign Disguises Negative Flier As Product of Edwards Campaign

    | Thu Dec. 20, 2007 11:54 AM EST

    Iowans don't like negative attacks. Time and again, when I was in Iowa chatting with attendees at Republican and Democratic events, I was told by voters that the "mudslinging" that goes on "in Washington" wasn't of any concern to them. They were less likely to vote for a candidate if he or she went negative, even if that candidate had a legitimate critique of his or her rivals.

    So if you're Hillary Clinton and you want to point out that Barack Obama's health care proposal isn't as strong as yours, what can you do? How about putting out a flier that looks like it was created by the John Edwards campaign?

    Would the New OPEN Government Act Really Open Anything?

    | Thu Dec. 20, 2007 10:44 AM EST

    After the House on Tuesday passed the OPEN Government Act to bolster the Freedom of Information Act and sent the bill to George W. Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi proclaimed,

    The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has a vital purpose: to inform American citizens about the conduct of their government. However, the Bush Administration has greatly expanded the veil of secrecy and undermined the Freedom of Information Act. The Administration's actions run counter to the values of our democracy, the public's right to know, and the ability of American citizens to hold their government accountable. The passage of the OPEN Government Act takes a first step toward strengthening FOIA and restoring transparency and accountability to our government.

    FOIA has long been broken--even before Bush. It sometimes takes years--even a decade--to get a FOIA request fulfilled. And, of course, much information is often withheld. I've had the State Department respond to requests nine years after I've submitted them--and long after I had any need for the documents. And recently I asked the Department of Interior for records related to a contract covering computer services provided to Vice President Dick Cheney's office by a company run by a fellow who paid more than $1 million in bribes to Republican Representative Duke Cunningham. (Don't ask why the Interior Department was involved.) I was told the material would be withheld under one of FOIA's many elastic exemptions. So will the new legislation make any real difference?

    For an answer, I turned to Steven Aftergood, who produces Secrecy News. He says:

    The new legislation makes several valuable procedural changes. It will increase pressure on agencies to answer FOIA requests in weeks rather than years. It will make it easier for requesters to track FOIA requests and to win fee waivers. It will strengthen the position of those requesters who litigate denials of their requests.
    On the other hand, it does not alter agencies' ability to withhold information, which is of course the heart of the process. Whatever was withheld from requesters previously can still be withheld. So even if the law is faithfully implemented, it could just mean speedier denials.

    Well, at least I won't have to wait so long to be turned down.

    Thanks to Bush, America is Both Rubber and Glue

    | Thu Dec. 20, 2007 10:13 AM EST

    From CNN: Torture House, Mass Graves Found in Iraq.

    Given our own "torture houses," the tapes of which we've illegally (not to mention, immorally) erased, how exactly is an American to process such an article? I feel myself going all Derrida and po-mo: that article is clearly meant to stimulate feelings of shock, awe, horror, disbelief etc... But how can an American legitimately muster such feelings when we, too, now are torturers and propogandists?

    I read this with a clanging sense of cognitive dissonance; one the one hand - how dare they, the Iraqis, commit such overtly heinous crimes against humanity? Still, can't be too surprised; isn't that just like them? Isn't that why America gave it's ok to invade, those lowlifes?

    Simultaneously, I have to think - how dare we, Americans, ask how they dare when we dare every day, apparently since two weeks after the Bushies took office?

    Exactly who, and what, are we anymore?