Blogs

GOP Tries to Steal Election; Democrats Do Something

| Fri Oct. 5, 2007 3:35 PM EDT

The New York Times yesterday offered up an interesting new take on the California ballot measure that has garnered a great deal of media attention as of late, suggesting that its probable demise next month will be largely due to a shock-and-awe style assault on it by supporters of Hillary Clinton. The initiative would redistribute California's electoral votes by congressional district, effectively handing Republicans 20 free points in the otherwise blue state. The measure, sponsored by a Republican law firm, has been linked to supporters of Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani. Surprisingly, however, opposition has come not from grassroots internet stalwarts but instead from influential supporters of the Clinton campaign.

The snappiest analysis comes from Bruce E. Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, who the article quotes as saying that "Clinton's people have taken the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military strikes against hostile nations and applied it to domestic campaigns."

The article attributes the bulk of the tactical work to Chris Lehane, a former member of Bill Clinton's administration and a Democratic heavy-hitter with enough influence to rally national Democrats, state Democrats, and the Democratic mayors of three major California cities to an unprecedented level of active opposition. But why this sudden vigilance, when normally it takes an outcry from local and internet activists to elicit even general condemnation from the elite—never mind actual action? Is this a sign that Clinton's people simply don't want to take the risk of losing those votes, or a long-awaited expression of moral certitude? Let's hope it's the latter and that our Democratic Congress takes the hint.

—Casey Miner

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Friday? Sigh, Music News Day

| Fri Oct. 5, 2007 3:07 PM EDT

The Wu

  • The Wu-Tang Clan announce they've cleared the first-ever legal Beatles sample, and then get shot down by, well, everyone, since it turns out the track actually "reinterprets" the sample, which makes this what we call a "cover." But the song's still great.
  • Arcade Fire pull a Radiohead, as it were: the band have launched a cryptic website, beonlineb.com, that announces something interesting will happen on October 6th. Hey, that's tomorrow! Rumors are swirling that it's a Neon Bible remix album of some sort ("beonlineb" is an anagram of "neon bible"), possibly involving tour mate James Murphy of LCD Soundsystem.
  • The Sex Pistols may record new material in the wake of their live reunion tour. The band will play seven dates in the UK as well as a special radio show in Los Angeles, and are reissuing "God Save the Queen" on Monday.
  • A federal jury has found a Minnesota woman guilty of copyright infringement for using online music sharing services and fined her $222,000. Wired's "Threat Level" blog has the list of the 24 tracks that each cost Jammie Thomas over $9,000; it includes Vanessa Williams, Goo Goo Dolls and Richard Marx.
  • Why Online Education Will Never Replace the Classroom Experience

    | Fri Oct. 5, 2007 3:05 PM EDT

    The University of Phoenix, a for-profit online school, recently hired this guy as an adjunct English professor. Among other things, he allegedly ogled a student's chest while teaching in Virginia public schools, something that should be a little harder to do over the Internet...

    Outrages, Outrages Everywhere But Not a Word Gets Written

    | Fri Oct. 5, 2007 2:37 PM EDT

    I'm with Dahlia: what's with the QT on Sophie Currier?

    A columnist whose work I all but inhale, Slate's Lithwick wondered recently why women, let alone feminists, had assumed radio silence about a story which makes its own gravy: Harvard Med's Sophie Currier won a landmark appeal allowing women everywhere (probably) to have extra break time to express milk during the grueling, nine-hour medical boards. This story's got everything: motherhood, McDoctors, babies, boobies and plain old boobs on the lower court. So offended they were that mothers hesitate to traumatize their infants (and risk turning their milk ducts into infected milk duds) by all of a sudden one day withholding the goods. Speaks volumes about our real interest in 'family values' and the plain old value of women: I'm here to tell you that breasts become a special kind of hell when you need to breastfeed and can't. Breastfed babies tend not to like it either, so the fact that we're talking about doctors here adds a lovely layer of surreality. So why didn't the 'breastfeed til puberty' crowd board buses for Boston while female pundito-activists bumrushed the blogosphere? (It fell to the whip smart Bill Mahr to take a stand (it's at the end of the clip) on this prickly issue, though it precedes Currier and is tangential to the issue of work-related breastfeeding.)

    You should read Lithwick for her excellent analysis - to prove her point, I had never even heard about the case until her piece - but a larger point needs to be made. It's the cheapest trick in the book to go looking under bushes for the one measly outrage your enemies missed while picking up their cleaning one day, but every now and then the bullshit flag simply must be thrown; both feminists and the family values crowd either chickened out or played politics with this one.

    Note to Mel: People Love Bill

    | Fri Oct. 5, 2007 2:22 PM EDT

    What's that old adage about how generals are always fighting the last war?

    Republicans have apparently based their presidential fundraising strategy almost entirely on fanning fears of another Clinton presidency. The Washington Post reports that the Republican National Committee has been sending out fundraising appeals to supporters with a photo of Bill and Hillary stamped "4 More Years?"

    Apparently chairman Mel Martinez and the RNC brain-trust missed the memo noting that thanks to Bush, the Clinton years look pretty darn good today, what with the budget surplus, peace, grownups at FEMA and all. Is it any wonder Republicans haven't been inspired by these appeals to dig deep?

    Well, "Happy" May Be a Stretch

    | Fri Oct. 5, 2007 2:15 PM EDT

    Best quote of the day, from GOP strategist Ed Rollins on why the Republicans lag nearly $100 million behind Democrats in presidential fundraising:

    "The Democrats, they're out there, they're hungry. We just got fat, dumb, and happy."

    Advertise on MotherJones.com

    Turning Tutu Away

    | Fri Oct. 5, 2007 1:48 PM EDT

    What issue could possibly cause a university to disinvite Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the ever-grinning South African human rights crusader, from giving a talk on peace and nonviolence? As Scott Jaschik at InsideHigherEd reports, an Israeli/Palestinian issue did. The University of St. Thomas in Minnesota rescinded an April speaking invitation to the Nobel Peace Prize winner because criticisms he made of Israeli policies were judged to be "hurtful" to some Jewish people. Tutu's main crime was uttering the name Hitler during a 2002 speech in Boston about Israel's occupation of the West Bank. But while the Zionist Organization of America criticized Tutu for his "vicious libel that Israel is comparable to Hitler," Jaschik points out that interpretation is a stretch.

    Tutu references Hitler in a part of the speech, delivered to the Palestinian ecumenical group Sabeel, where he encourages the audience to challenge the U.S. "Jewish lobby" and reminds them that radical change is possible:

    "People are scared in this country [U.S.], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful, very powerful. Well, so what? ... The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end, they bit the dust."

    Tutu's use of the phrase "Jewish lobby" is regrettable, mainly because the pro-Israel lobby he is referring to is not made up exclusively of Jews (remember Texas preacher John Hagee's Christians United for Israel?). But one minor slip five years ago is hardly grounds for blacklisting him. It's also worth noting these dialogue-squashing disinvitations aren't the province of one particular group or ideology. Witness the University of California's recent stay away order to former Harvard president Larry Summers.

    —Justin Elliott

    U.S. Military Faults Blackwater in Shooting Incident

    | Fri Oct. 5, 2007 12:50 PM EDT

    It looks like military sources on the scene of the Nisoor Square massacre support the horrifying descriptions put forward by the Iraqi government and by the New York Times. (That Times article is a must-read, by the way.)

    "It was obviously excessive, it was obviously wrong," said the U.S. military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the incident remains the subject of several investigations. "The civilians that were fired upon, they didn't have any weapons to fire back at them. And none of the IP or any of the local security forces fired back at them," he added, using a military abbreviation for the Iraqi police. The Blackwater guards appeared to have fired grenade launchers in addition to machine guns, the official said.

    Of course, none of this stopped the Pentagon from handing Blackwater another contract. But it may lead to the beginnings of oversight.

    Senate Session Southern Style: State Senator Punches Peer

    | Fri Oct. 5, 2007 12:20 PM EDT

    Chaos in the Alabama State Senate! After Democratic State Sen. Lowell Barron of Fyffe called State Sen. Charles Bishop of Jasper a "son of a bitch," Bishop responded by punching Barron in the face. Watch the video!

    And just to double the funny, the Calhoun County GOP actually gave Bishop — the puncher, not the punched — a trophy of a boxer. He deserved the honor, said the local party, because of the extent to which Bishop went in the "defending of womankind."

    Update: I'm going to use this as an opportunity to post one of my favorite videos from YouTube. It's two politicians from the Czech Republic sorting out their differences. Note the subtitles.

    Widestance Forever!

    | Fri Oct. 5, 2007 11:08 AM EDT

    Larry Craig is sticking around, even though his guilt was reconfirmed yesterday. Craig, who earlier said that he would resign if his guilty plea was not withdrawn, released a statement making it clear he intends to serve out the rest of his term.

    "As I continued to work for Idaho over the past three weeks here in the Senate, I have seen that it is possible for me to work here effectively," Craig said. "I will continue my effort to clear my name in the Senate Ethics Committee -- something that is not possible if I am not serving in the Senate."

    Republicans are not happy. "It's embarrassing for the Senate, it's embarrassing for his party," said Republican Senator John Ensign of Nevada.

    This is completely awesome.