Mojo - April 2007

California Representative Dies of Cancer

| Mon Apr. 23, 2007 11:07 AM EDT

Representative Juanita Millender-McDonald, a Democrat from Southern California, died over the weekend. The cause was cancer. Millender-McDonald served seven terms in Congress and recently worked on election reform and the genocide in Darfur.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

White House Cutting its Losses on Wolfowitz

| Mon Apr. 23, 2007 9:47 AM EDT

Forty-two former World Bank senior executives have written a letter urging the resignation of World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, and if you're wondering if the White House will turn a deaf ear to them the way they have towards the bipartisan calls for Alberto Gonzales' resignation, wonder no longer. According to news reports, the White House has drawn up a list of possible replacements for Wolfowitz. (Maybe it was the fact that Wolfie breached national security for something as silly as getting his lady friend a job.) I found this interesting:

Most prominent on the list is Ashraf Ghani, the man credited with overhauling the economy of Afghanistan after September 11... Such an appointment would mark the first time a non-American has held the position in the 60-year history of the global lender.

If you're wondering why the White House has so much control over naming the head of the World Bank, an international aid organization independent of the United States government, it's because the U.S. and Europe have worked out a sweet deal wherein the U.S. names the World Bank president and the E.U. names the head of the IMF. Asia, who is grossly underrepresented in both organizations, has little say. The situation with Wolfowitz has created calls to revamp this privilege-laden process.

Perle, PBS, and the Iranian Dissident

| Sat Apr. 21, 2007 2:26 PM EDT

A belated heads up to viewers of the PBS America at the Crossroads documentary featuring former assistant secretary of defense Richard Perle, "The Case for War: In Defense of Freedom." Midway through the documentary, Perle takes the film cameras and viewers with him to a Dubai hotel to meet an Iranian dissident who, Perle says, had just escaped from Iran. (In fact, the Iranian, Amir Abbas Fakhravar, had flown out of Tehran airport on a normal commercial flight -- more on that in a moment).

In the documentary, Perle and Fakhravar sit on a couch and Perle uses the young Iranian as a cipher upon which to project his views of why the U.S. should be promoting regime change in Iran. (In a Wired magazine blog review, writer Sharon Weinberger captures the scene: "'Oh my God, is he gonna kiss him?' my husband asked, as Perle gazed affectionately at Fakhravar"). Whatever the merits of the idea, it's worth reading my feature on Perle's chosen Iranian dissident cipher, "Has Washington Found Its Iranian Chalabi: Introducing the Talented Mr. Fakhravar," to get a better feel for just what a Hollywood version of faux reality Perle is basing his beliefs upon -- and potentially dragging the 82nd Airborne with him.

As I wrote:

But Fakhravar may be a false messiah. In interviews with more than a dozen Iranian opposition figures, some of them former political prisoners, a different picture emerged—one of an opportunist being pushed to the fore by Iran hawks, a reputed jailhouse snitch who was locked up for nonpolitical offenses but reinvented himself as a student activist and political prisoner once behind bars. Fakhravar and his supporters vehemently deny such allegations, saying that the attacks are motivated by petty jealousy and a vendetta by Fakhravar's enemies on the Iranian left.
For those like Perle who want the United States to eschew diplomacy in favor of backing regime change, Fakhravar is an essential link in the argument for confrontation with Iran. ... But by choosing Fakhravar, they may have inadvertently accomplished the opposite, exposing the ruptures in the pro-democracy movement and throwing into question the notion that America's problems with Tehran will be solved by a saffron revolution.

As later parts of the documentary show, Perle grew up in in the shadow of Hollywood, and as he says, many of his school friends' parents were blacklisted Hollywood writers. Perle's wishes for the people of the Middle East to enjoy the benefits of democracy may be deeply well intentioned, but reality has not lived up to almost any of his pronouncements about Iraq. The fact that Perle and the PBS film's producers seemingly failed to do any basic fact checking on Fakhravar's story is striking and fits the pattern. As Perle's pre-war expounding about Iraq and ardent championship of Ahmad Chalabi have shown, these things don't often work out according to the movies.

Victory for the Stanford Hunger Strikers!

| Sat Apr. 21, 2007 12:38 AM EDT

Check out their last update for Mother Jones!

Corzine's Driver Was Doing 91 mph, But Guess Who's Really To Blame?

| Fri Apr. 20, 2007 8:30 PM EDT

Give up? The Rutgers women's basketball team.

During this morning's MSNBC Live, New York Sun national and foreign editor Nicholas Wapshott told the country he thought the Rutgers team "must feel pretty terrible about what's happened to Governor Corzine." Corzine, whose driver was doing 91 mph., was--not surprisingly--a victim of a motor vehicle accident that has left him seriously injured. According to Wapshott, Corzine was speeding to get to a "totally unnecessary meeting of reconciliation where these women are paraded as inadequate."

Wapshott was talking with host Chris Jansing about Sen. Hillary Clinton's scheduled participation in a Rutgers forum on women and political leadership when he decided to let the world know how terrible the Rutgers team has to feel about Governor Corzine's accident. He also allowed that Imus's remarks were blown out of proportion and that Coach Stringer then had the team members "paraded as victims."

But he didn't stop there. He also took the opportunity to advise Clinton to tell the women at Rutgers to "grow up" and "be mature."

Most Americans Want Federal Government to Act on Global Warming But Still Don't Believe Scientists

| Fri Apr. 20, 2007 6:16 PM EDT

A new survey shows that most Americans are worried about global warming. They not only believe in it but are really worried. What's interesting, however, is how skeptical they still are of climate change scientists. It's not as if the public has started listening to scientists. Rather, the growing concern is based on personal experience of crazy weather. The Washington Post reports:

• Fifty-two percent say global warming is "extremely" or "very" important personally, double the percentage that said so a decade ago.

•Seven in 10 Americans want more "much more" federal action on global warming.

•Eighty-four percent think that average global temperatures have been rising over the past century, and more than half say weather has become more unstable where they live.

•Unfortunately, 56 percent still believe there is "a lot" of disagreement among scientists about climate change.

•Only a third of respondents trust what scientists say about the environment "completely" or "a lot."

•Most shockingly, a quarter of those surveyed said they trust what scientists say about the environment only "a little" or "not at all."

Why are so many Americans so doubtful of science? Skepticism is good, but these seems less like the curious, engaged kind of skepticism than the apathetic kind.

Read updates on global warming (and denial) on The Blue Marble.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

World Wonders: When Will the U.S. Learn that Guns Kill More, Better, Faster?

| Fri Apr. 20, 2007 5:42 PM EDT

In the U.S. media, coverage of the massacre at Virginia Tech has analyzed almost every aspect of the shootings in far more detail than the issue of gun control. Newsweek has an entire package up, with stories warning against demonizing "boy's play" (I'm dead serious), the role of a South Korean action flic in Cho's behavior, a careful timeline of Monday's events, and stories about survivors and victims. Only one piece addresses the gun issue at all.

In the international press, the response was universal: When will the United States stop giving its citizens the tools to kill each other?

OK, so we're not going to ban handguns as England has done anytime soon.

Side note: In some of the comments to my previous posts focused on gun control, I was repeatedly pointed to the high crime rate in Britain. Not so. New York City, whose population is a mere seventh of that of Britain and Wales, had 10 times as many firearm-related homicides last year. Britain's rate was its lowest since the late '80s. (Overall crime rates in the UK are down by almost half since the mid-1990's [PDF].)

But here's what we could do. One, close the loophole allowing people to buy guns at gun shows with no background check. That's just insane! Two, make weapons designed to kill large numbers of humans illegal: Reinstate the federal assault weapons ban.

The international press also referred repeatedly to America's gun culture. Even the Australian PM John Howard, who has strongly aligned himself with Bush, blamed gun culture. What does "gun culture" mean? One of our editors remarked that Cho looked, in his video, for all the world like the cover of Guns & Ammo (ammo vest, holster, shooting gloves—fingerless on trigger hand). She ventured that the NRA had groaned a bit when they saw that. But the question isn't why a mass murderer looks like the cover of a magazine—(a) delusions of grandeur, (b) consumer magazines work by making you want to look like the cover—the question is why do we have magazine covers that look like mass murderers? Why do we make movies where the heroes look like—and, um, are—mass murderers?

The one Newsweek story that does address the gun issue also raises another fairly obvious point. Gun sales should be limited to people who don't have a history of violent mental illness. Newsweek suggests that the law already technically calls for that, but enforcement amounts to a question on the paperwork the buyer fills out: "Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective or … committed to a mental institution?" Cho answered (falsely) "no," and then bought a semiautomatic weapon. I mean, they don't even take your word for it at the DMV that you don't need glasses.

The BBC observed that from the Democrats, nary a peep. Shame on them.

Pet Food Recalls: Blame Bush. No Really

| Fri Apr. 20, 2007 4:31 PM EDT

Rick Perlstein has an interesting and persuasive little column on AlterNet today. It goes sort of like this: First they came for the spinach. Then they came for the peanut butter. Then they hurt my dogs and I got pissed. Post pet-food recall, Perlstein looked into the Food and Drug Administration—the agency responsible for ensuring the safety of human and pet food—and found that it, too, had fallen victim to Bush's starve-the-good-parts-of-government philosophy. Between 2003 and 2006 FDA safety inspections were down 47 percent and staffing, 12 percent. Safety tests conducted on food produced in the United States were down by three quarters from last year to this. Not only is no one making sure your food is produced safely, they don't even care about your dog's kibble.

I'm with Perlstein. Bush can take my money, my health insurance, and my civil liberties, but he'll have to pry my little furry friend from my cold, dead hand.

How to Resolve Sectarian Conflict in Iraq? Follow Israel's Model!

| Fri Apr. 20, 2007 3:06 PM EDT

Since the Israeli wall was such a great idea—and has been so effective in reducing terrorist strikes against Israel—the United States has decided to build a 3-mile long wall in Baghdad. The wall will further the balkanization of the once diverse city by dividing one of the more "restive Sunni Arab districts from the Shiite Muslim neighborhoods that surround it." My favorite thing about it is that the Sunnis and Shiites actually agree that it's a bad idea:

"Are they trying to divide us into different sectarian cantons?" said a Sunni drugstore owner in Adhamiya, who would identify himself only as Abu Ahmed, 44. "This will deepen the sectarian strife and only serve to abort efforts aimed at reconciliation."

"I feel this is the beginning of a pattern of what the whole of Iraq is going to look like, divided by sectarian and racial criteria," Abu Marwan, 50, a Shiite pharmacist, said.

The fact that Shiites and Sunnis agree on only one thing—wanting the Americans out—makes a pretty strong case that us leaving gives them a better shot at reunification than us staying—and building permanent cultural barriers.

(By the way, Mother Jones has a great photo essay of life along the Israeli wall.)

Blaming the Virginia Tech Victims, and Blaming the Blamers

| Fri Apr. 20, 2007 1:56 PM EDT

Here's what two conservatives idiots had to say in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech tragedy. These comments are not only in incredibly poor taste, but demonstrate such poor judgment and such a complete lack of understanding of basic human instincts, it makes one wonder why the people who said them still have a venue to spout their opinions.

John Derbyshire, from the conservative National Review (yeah, this guy):

Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness' sake—one of them reportedly a .22.
At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands. Better yet, just jump him... And even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage—your chances aren't bad.
Yes, yes, I know it's easy to say these things: but didn't the heroes of Flight 93 teach us anything?

Nathaniel Blake of the conservative Human Events Online:

College classrooms have scads of young men who are at their physical peak, and none of them seems to have done anything beyond ducking, running, and holding doors shut. Meanwhile, an old man hurled his body at the shooter to save others.
Something is clearly wrong with the men in our culture. Among the first rules of manliness are fighting bad guys and protecting others: in a word, courage. And not a one of the healthy young fellows in the classrooms seems to have done that. …
Like Derb, I don't know if I would live up to this myself, but I know that I should be heartily ashamed of myself if I didn't.

And thankfully, the strongest condemnation comes from conservative quarters, proving there is sanity on that side of the aisle. Derbyshire's colleague at the National Review, John Podhoretz, steps in:

I have to dissent, in the strongest possible terms, from John Derbyshire's shocking posts on Virginia Tech. The notion that a human being or group of human beings holding no weapon whatever should somehow "fight back" against someone calmly executing other people right in front of their eyes is ludicrous beyond belief, irrational beyond bounds, and tasteless beyond the limits of reason.

Amen, brother. Now get your coworker who is "ludicrous beyond belief, irrational beyond bounds, and tasteless beyond the limits of reason" booted from your office.