Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 1022

How to Spy on a Blind Chinese Dissident with an iPad

The already-bizarre saga of blind Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng is approaching the plot of pulpy spy novel. Chen, who faces imminent departure from NYU after completing a year-long fellowship, was allegedly spied on using an iPad that was given to him as a gift upon arriving at the Manhattan university. NYU Law School professor Jerome Cohen told Reuters on Friday morning that the wife of Chinese activist Bob Fu provided Chen with an iPad and iPhone, on which NYU staff later discovered "software that made it possible to track the dissident's movements and communications." Referring to Fu and other human rights activists who befriended Chen, Cohen explained to the news agency that "these people supposedly were out to help him and they give him a kind of Trojan horse that would have enabled them to monitor his communications secretly."

These allegations sound quite nefarious, especially since Chen is blind and received the devices shortly after a uniquely vulnerable moment for him, having left China after escaping house arrest, which had been handed down for a variety of crimes that were never substantiated. But are these claims so suspicious? Fu protested any knowledge of installing spyware on his wife's gifts, plus the (admittedly vague) descriptions of the illicit software's functions — "turning a device into a tracking device" and "back[ing] up the [device's] contents to a remote server" — resemble stock features of Apple's iOS. Official Apple apps like Find My iPhone and Find My Friends allow anyone with a password to track a device's movement in real-time. Apple's popular iCloud service, meanwhile, can be set to periodically back up a device's content and settings. It's true that these features could be used to spy on Chen, and inspect whatever content he happened to download, but that doesn't mean they actually were. Indeed, Fu told Reuters that he simply arranged "the activation of the iPad and iPhone, basic installment, iCloud... there was nothing else there."

Other evidence suggests that Chen trusts Fu anyway. According to Cohen, Chen regularly meets with Fu and his family. And one of Chen's consultants, Mark Corallo, told Reuters that "at least to Chen's knowledge, none of these devices was ever found to have any tracking or listening mechanisms." That sense of trust appears important to preserve among Chen's circle of friends and acquaintances. As Chen indicated in a lengthy statement to the press on Sunday, and which his friends confirmed to Reuters, Chen believes that the Chinese government is conspiring with American institutions (like NYU) to suppress his activism. At the same time, his network of supporters — each of whom has an interest in leveraging his considerable global clout to advance particular political agendas in China and elsewhere — appear besieged by infighting, the latest example being Friday's accusations of spying: a particularly potent charge to level against an ally of a Chinese expatriate.

       

How to (Mostly) Fix Instagram's Slow Video Problem

[image error]Despite the Instagram community's immediate acceptance of the beloved photo-sharing app's new video offering, there is something of a backlash over the clips slowing down everyone's favorite time-wasting scroll. And the concern is legitimate — the updated version of the app includes video and pictures photos all in one stream, which for a lot of people on Twitter has made for long load times — but all those upset users have got it wrong: It's a different kind of slowness we're all dealing with now.

My Instagram feed as a whole is loading just fine, but the videos in there don't load too quickly. It takes a bunch of tapping around to make anything happen with clips on my home screen, even though I have the settings on the default auto-play. And some Insta-experts have suggested that maybe that auto-play functionality is part of the problem. To turn it off, just head to your profile (the icon on the bottom right of every screen), then click the little settings clicky-wheel at the top right, which will bring up the screen pictured at right, which is all the way at the bottom. 

Beyond technical difficulties, though, the act of scrolling through and watching videos adds a new brand of slow-down to the process of checking your Instagram feed. It's one thing to mindlessly look at a bunch of pretty pictures; it's another thing to do that, and then pause for a 15-second video, then carrying on with your time-suck. Turning off auto-play might help with some of that — at least you won't automatically have to watch if you don't want to — but maybe this new video thing will just take some getting used to. Inevitably some of you won't want to adapt at all, and in that case, well, don't update the app — and maybe stick to Vine? 

       

Army: Freedom of Information Does Not Include Edward Snowden's Military File

A Freedom of Information Act request from The Atlantic Wire for the military records of Edward Snowden was "withheld in its entirety" by the Department of the Army. Despite the public value of better understanding the NSA leaker's first stint as a government employee, the Army exercised a legal exemption allowing it to reserve information that could "reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings." Experts question that decision.

Our initial request, sent on June 10, asked for "The military records of Edward Snowden, formerly employed by the United States Army, originally from Elizabeth City, North Carolina." At the time — and still today — not much was known about Snowden's time in the Army Reserve, during which he apparently sought a position with the special forces.

What little we do know comes thanks to a Guardian article on the same day, in which the paper's Spencer Ackerman reported that the Army had refused to release the service record without citing a reason. The Army did, however, share the tenure of his service and the reason for his discharge: "he broke both his legs in a training accident." And it revealed Snowden's birthday. Today, he turns 30. Yesterday, the Wire received a response to our request for the complete file. In it, Army Information Release Specialist Monique Wey Gilbert cited the seventh of the FOIA's nine exemptions. (The eighth, if you're wondering, is "information that concerns the supervision of financial institutions.")

[image error]

It's not clear if charges have yet been filed against Snowden. The Justice Department has repeatedly indicated that it plans to do so, and, during his interview with Charlie Rose, President Obama indicated that an investigation was "taking place," and that "the case has been referred to the DOJ" for that purpose.

Given that Snowden's military service lasted from May to September of 2004, according to the Army spokesman Ackerman spoke with, it's highly unlikely that it is conducting any enforcement action. Alex Abdo, staff attorney at the ACLU's National Security Project, told The Atlantic Wire by phone that the exemptionwas "not inconsistent with our experience" — but generally for those facing enforcement action by the military. The ACLU has seen information withheld under a 7(a) exemption, specifically in a case being investigated by the Army Criminal Investigation Division. Whether or not the Army withheld the information at the behest of the Department of Justice is unclear; a Justice spokesperson declined to comment.

That we know Snowden's period of service raises a question of its own. Under FOIA, the government is supposed to release any information that it possibly can. Clearly, the length of Snowden's enlistment is information that would be included in his personnel file and, therefore, should have been released under our request. "It's not supposed to withhold whole batches of documents just because some of it is withholdable," Abdo told us. "It's suprising that they're withholding everything."

Eugene Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School, agreed. "If they denied access to the entire record, en masse, I think that's problematic," Fidell told us by phone. He, too, had seen the exemption used in the past, but "not simply for personnel records." Fidell suggested that detailed records, which, for example, might explore a psychiatric condition or stigmatizing discharge, could be withheld under FOIA's sixth exemption. Even Snowden had a right to privacy, Fidell pointed out, ironic though it might be.

The FOIA process allows for an appeal of a withholding; the Army does so through its Initial Denial Authority. We plan to exercise that option in an effort to present as full a picture as possible of a man who left high school, then the Army, and then the NSA before he was supposed to.

       

'Mad Men' Stands at the Window

Mad Men's penultimate season ends on Sunday, leading to preemptively high spoiler-alert levels of conversation at the water cooler: How will this show, however flailing, ultimately come to close? But TV endings are tricky, especially when you're talking about one of the greatest shows of all time. The final chapter can be absurdist, like Seinfeld's, or confusing, like The Sopranos. To some, however, Mad Men had its ending in its beginning, thanks to that instantly iconic animated man of opening-credits infamy, setting down his briefcase and tumbling down past buildings with billboards of beautiful women and happy families, perhaps toward his shadowed death. And while creator Matthew Weiner now says that his show will not end with a jump—just think how clichéd that would be—the image seems ever more important as Mad Men hurdles toward the brink.  

During an interview, The Wrap's Tim Molloy said: "With so many people saying the show should end with a jump out the window, that must be pretty much the only thing you can't do." To which Weiner responded: 

It never even occurred to me. I’ll be honest with you. Never occurred to me. That jump out the window was always meant to be symbolic and internal. I never meant it literally. I think it’s fascinating, though—I think people think it would be cool. But it hasn’t been an option. And now that we’ve had this conversation, I really can’t do it. 

[image error]Weiner has always said that the man falling to the theme song was not supposed to be Don. He told an audience at the Paley Center that "the origin of the credits was I had an idea about a guy getting up in the morning—a faceless man, not even Don, I didn't know who he was—going to work and going in, walking past the office, going into his office, opening the window and jumping out." He explained: "To me the American businessman jumps out the window, that is a statement and it only happens—it's part of our iconography, so I wanted to say that's what's going inside of this man."  

Over time, Mad Men's jumping American businessman has served as fodder for both conspiracy theories—they're fun to indulge, but ultimately worthless—and heady controversy. Last year's season-five poster isolated the show's falling man, and was deemed insensitive for recalling another falling man, the one so famously photographed leaping from the World Trade Center on 9/11. "On the one hand, the poster is merely a continuation of the art that has accompanied the show since its inception — a bit of shorthand that refers as much to the viewing public's impatience to get Mad Men back after its extended hiatus as it does to the existential consequences of Dick Whitman impersonating a dead man named Don Draper," wrote Tom Junod, who chronicled the 9/11 photograph for Esquire. "At the same time, the poster dispenses with the corporate context specific to Mad Men, indeed with context altogether, and, by concentrating on one falling man, seems out to remind viewers that the show is really about the Falling Man... that for all its American-Century trappings, it's set squarely in the age of American decline."

[image error]

So, Mad Men will not end with a jump, but the image—or at least what Weiner wants the image to represent—appears increasingly relevant as we approach Sunday and the finale season. We entered season six in a haze of death, with Don pitching ads that were not so veiled premonitions of killing himself. And that was right after season five had left us reeling from the suicide of Lane Pryce—in perhaps the moment that had most resembled the opening credits, here was a man at his wits end, driven by office culture to take his own life. Mad Men returned with Don's collapsed doorman. The rest of the season has existed in a depressive, drug-induced fog. In 1968, the world has collapsed around our besuited cocktail drinkers. With riots and war and rage, they are anomalies, so much so that Peggy stabs her boyfriend in an effort of self-preservation. 

Our characters, at this moment in their fall, are miserable. Don is disgusted with himself. Sally is disgusted with her father, having walked in on him cheating with the next door neighbor. Peggy, despite her remarkable progress, still is not getting the treatment she deserves. Ted, the good man, is in love with Peggy, who is not his wife. Pete has, for all intents and purposes, been abandoned by his family. Bob Benson has now been outed in more ways than one. There's something ghostly about this season. Margaret Lyons at Vulture has espoused the theory that Don is a version of Rosemary from Rosemary's Baby, which Sally Draper read and multiple characters went to see at the movies this season. Over at Grantland, Andy Greenwald writes: "Don Draper has been surrounded by doppelgängers, mocking shadows that flit around him the way ghosts teased and enveloped Dante on his long walk to hell." Even though Weiner has said that no one is going to die this season, it wouldn't be shocking if one of the characters—maybe Don, maybe Pete—took that leap.

But that leap is a metaphor, Weiner insists, as so much in this show is. So while Mad Men may not end in a leap, we may feel a progressive push of our favorite doomed characters toward that window, toward the edge. Don, all curled up in the fetal positon as he was at the close of the last episode, now seems to understand that his American Dream, his assimilation as someone not himself, was futile. 

       

The Best Slides from the Closing Arguments in the Apple Ebooks Case

MORE FROM PAIDCONTENT:
Why I Will Never Click on Your Instagram Video
DOJ Compares Apple & Publishers to Oil Cartels
The Netflix Algorithm Is Working

Apple and the Justice Department made closing arguments in the ebook pricing case Thursday. Apple argued that a ruling against it would lead to a “chilling” effect on commerce and content markets in the U.S., while the DOJ said this is a straightforward antitrust suit and compared Apple and publishers to Saudi Arabian oil cartels.

While we wait for Judge Denise Cote’s verdict — which could take weeks or months — here’s a peek at some of the funniest and/or most interesting slides from the closing arguments.

Apple wins on graphics and iOS imagery

Apple made a calendar to show the dates and times of its calls with publishers. Apple argues that the breaks between the calls show that it wasn’t acting as a behind-the-scenes “ringmaster.”

[image error]

Apple took apart some of the slides from the DOJ’s opening argument, in which the DOJ mentioned a “spiderweb” of calls between Apple and publishers. Taking out calls that lasted less than a minute and calls after January 20 (which, Apple says, were negotiating calls right before the launch of the iPad), Apple wanted to show again that it actually made very few calls to publishers.

[image error]

[image error]Apple argues that its negotiations with publishers were difficult, and said this would not have been the case if Apple and publishers colluded.

[image error]

Apple says Amazon’s move to agency was a rational business move, “for prudent and intelligent business reasons.”

[image error]

Apple argues that the iBookstore benefitted the ebooks market.

[image error]

Apple closes its argument on an iPad.

[image error]

The government: No iPad shots here

The DOJ opens with a slide showing that ebook prices rose after agency pricing was enacted.

[image error]

“We have a calendar too, Your Honor,” government attorney Mark Ryan said.

[image error]

The DOJ argues that Apple’s insistence on an MFN required other retailers to adopt an MFN as well.

[image error]

Apple’s witnesses repeatedly provided unreliable testimony, the DOJ says.

[image error]

When the iPad launched, Walt Mossberg asked Steve Jobs how the iBookstore could compete if it had higher prices. Jobs replied that the prices wouldn’t be higher. The DOJ then cited an email exchange between Simon & Schuster executives describing Jobs’ response as “incredibly stupid” — the DOJ says they knew it was something Jobs should not have revealed.

[image error]

Apple and publishers knew that ebook prices would be higher under agency, the DOJ argues.

[image error]

This was straightforward price-fixing, the DOJ argues.

[image error]

       

Five Best Friday Columns

Gary Younge at The Guardian on Obama's Bush conundrum Can we blame President Obama for carrying the torch of Bush-era policies? Gary Younge considers the weight of empire resting on Obama's shoulders: "America did not come by ... power through its own innate genius. It acquired it, as do all empires, in no small part through war, invasion, subterfuge and exploitation. Spying and lying about it comes with the job description for which Obama applied and was reappointed." Younge continues: "None of this is inevitable. But changing it cannot be entrusted to a single person at the top. It will change because there is a demand from Americans that is both large in number, deep in commitment and active in pursuit, to enable a fundamental change in America's role in the world. That does not exist yet." Still, the evolved NSA programs seem to be documented differently. Richard Benedetto at RealClearPolitics writes: "While the news media have not shied away from covering the controversial program and its citizen-privacy ramifications, the style, tone and use of language are far different from the Bush days."

Timothy Noah at MSNBC on the value of unpaid internships Timothy Noah weighs the value of unpaid internships in the context of recent court rulings undermining their legitimacy, as well as larger economic and social forces: "Might this be the end of our modern free-labor apprentice system? If so, good riddance. Unpaid internships are hardly new—I had one myself back in the 1970s–but they’ve proliferated in recent decades. ... Unpaid internships were always kind of a racket, and as they’ve gotten more common they’ve become more so." He adds: "The unpaid-intern model has run its ignoble course. If Judge Pauley has dealt it a fatal blow, good riddance. And if he hasn’t—if other judges fail to follow suit, or if he’s reversed on appeal—then that’s a pity. Interns are workers, and workers are supposed to get paid." As for the class dynamics of internships, Jordan Weissmann at The Atlantic writes: "Broadly speaking, unpaid internships don't seem to hurt the poor because they're out of reach. Instead, they're too in reach. Middle class and poor students are choosing to work for free, even if they can't really afford it. And it's not at all clear that sacrifice is paying off."

Jamelle Bouie at The American Prospect on the GOP's reformist movement Can GOP leaders forge a new path for their embattled party? After reading Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's much-discussed Politico op-ed, Jamelle Bouie wonders whether change is possible. "Change-hungry Republicans have no shortage of smart analysis ... and convincing rhetoric; both Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan, for instance, can speak well on the need to emphasize economic mobility and the concerns of ordinary people," he writes. "But it’s hard (if not impossible) to find elected officials who will support the substance of reformist critiques. And with the ascendance of right-wing libertarianism as a “governing” philosophy, I doubt they’ll be able to find someone who can stand as an advocate." Buffy Wicks at The Daily Beast highlights the GOP's stance toward female empowerment: "Bad policy is bad policy and women voters can see through this. That is not the type of leadership women voters or this country want, need or reward. ... Sadly, today's Republican Party lacks any understanding of the struggles women face today."

Roxane Gay at Salon on Paula Deen's charged testimony Roxane Gay explains the uproar over the recently published deposition of cooking show host Paula Deen, focusing on her comments about African Americans. "This entire debacle reveals that there are unspoken rules around racism. There is a complex matrix for when you can be racist and with whom. There are ways you behave in public, and ways you behave in private," she writes. "There are things you can say among friends, things you wouldn’t dare say anywhere else, that you must keep to yourself in public. In her deposition, for whatever reason, Deen decided to break these rules or ignore them. Maybe she knew she was rich and successful enough that the rules, frankly, no longer apply to her." James Poniewozik at Time assents: "Deen didn’t just insult black people ... she insulted the present-day south and the decent people in it; she insulted the fans who wanted to like her food and TV shows and not be embarrassed; and she insulted the home-and-hospitality culture she purports to stand up for."

Christine Rosen at Slate on the ethics of big data "Our increasing surveillance capabilities, coupled with the rise of Big Data, have not as yet been matched by a sustained effort to craft ethical rules for digital human subject research," says Christine Rosen, after tracking the ways large amounts of data have been used to augment social systems. "Safeguards are erected in piecemeal fashion, if at all, and questions about what informed consent even means in this environment are left largely unanswered." She concludes by asking, "Are there alternatives to intrusive technological surveillance?  ... When and how should we create structures to provide ethical review and oversight of these technologies? In the era of Big Data, we are all potential research subjects." Andre Mouton at USA Today analyzes the temptation at play: "Big data is now used to foil terrorist attacks, and to decide elections. It might just as well be used to win a war. For governments and businesses both, it has become something irresistible."

       

Paula Deen Wants You To Forgive Her For the N-Word Thing Because She's Southern

Paula Deen, who apparently said some terrible things about black people in a lawsuit deposition, has responded to the widespread outrage that followed after the news broke. And basically, she's hoping that her age and her southern heritage will make her fans pretend that all this never happened. Here's a statement released Thursday from her legal team, via ABC: 

“During a deposition where she swore to tell the truth, Ms. Deen recounted having used a racial epithet in the past, speaking largely about a time in American history which was quite different than today...She was born 60 years ago when America’s South had schools that were segregated, different bathrooms, different restaurants and Americans rode in different parts of the bus. This is not today...To be clear Ms. Deen does not find acceptable the use of this term under any circumstance by anyone nor condone any form of racism or discrimination.”

Deen, in case you forgot, underwent a deposition related to an employment discrimination lawsuit. During it, she answered a question about whether she's used the N-word with "Yes, of course...It’s just what they are — they’re jokes... most jokes are about Jewish people, rednecks, black folks... I can’t determine what offends another person."  

Maybe Deen, 66, has put her N-word uttering days behind her, at least after entering the world of celebrity. Except, according to the deposition, there's the other part of Deen's tone-deaf take on how to be a not racist person living in the present: in 2007, she fantasized about hiring an all-black staff to for what she admits to characterizing as a “really southern plantation wedding." While Deen has denied saying the content of the specific accusation in the suit, including that Deen used the N-word to describe the men, she did describe a scenario that doesn't sound much better: 

“I remember telling them about a restaurant that my husband and I had recently visited. And I’m wanting to think it was in Tennessee or North Carolina or somewhere, and it was so impressive...The whole entire wait staff was middle-aged black men, and they had on beautiful white jackets with a black bow tie. I mean, it was really impressive. And I remember saying I would love to have servers like that, I said, but I would be afraid that somebody would misinterpret.”

Based on the deposition, it looks like Deen at the very least carries some nostalgia for pre-segregation America. And even though the chef would like us all to forget about this, it looks like the Food Network might not: they're "continu[ing] to monitor the situation." 

       

Who Wants George Clooney to Be Their Sidekick in 'Tomorrowland'?

Today in show business news: Two young actresses are up for a potentially huge role in the year's most mysterious movie, the world is not done with Bad Teacher, and HBO says no to another big literary adaptation.

[image error]Major casting is underway for Tomorrowland, the big sci-fi adventure film written by Damon Lindelof (and Entertainment Weekly geek scribe Jeff Jensen), directed by Brad Bird, and starring George Clooney. Well, see, it's more featuring George Clooney. The real lead character is a teenage girl who seeks help from Clooney's character, "a disgruntled inventor," according to The Hollywood Reporter. The teen role is big, one that THR says "has potential to be star-making." Ooh. That's always exciting. So who's it going to be? Supposedly it's down to Britt Robertson, from The Secret Circle and the upcoming Under the Dome (and, of course, Avalon High), and Naomi Scott from the late Terra Nova. So, not exactly household names at the moment, but they could be soon! You know, the way Henry Thomas shot to huge fame after E.T.. Of course, they're only in the testing phase right now, so it's possible that neither of them will get it, but the pressure must be on at this point. Imagine reading in the trades that you're one of two people up for a role that "has potential to be star-making." That's intense. Do you call the other person up and graciously wish them luck? Do you call Melisandre instead and ask her to make you a shadow baby? Maybe you just curl up in a ball and pray as hard as you can that you don't screw it up and ruin your life forever. Whatever you do, good luck, ladies. May the best woman become hopefully not the next Brandon Routh. [The Hollywood Reporter]

The Bad Teacher TV show that's set to air in midseason isn't enough. People want more Bad Teacher, so Sony is putting together a sequel to the raunchy Cameron Diaz comedy, with director Jake Kasdan back aboard and, presumably, Diaz too. It makes sense. The first one earned over $200 million globally, a huge number for a comedy, especially considering its $20 million budget. (Diaz must have made a killing in backend money. In fact, it seems she did.) There are no details about the sequel's plot, but I'd guess it involves her being an even worse teacher? I mean, she can't be less bad, can she? What would be the point of that. [Deadline]

Well, they're doing a remake of Poltergeist. It will shoot this fall, directed by Gil Kenan, who did the animated Monster House, from a script by David Lindsay-Abaire. It's being produced by Sam Raimi, who might not be so good with trips to Oz, but he certainly knows his way around crazy horror. So, yes, there is a slight pedigree to the project. But still. We're talking about the world of the supernatural, where in theory everything is possible. Why then repeat old stories? You can make up any story you want! We're talking about ghosts and spooks and magic holes in the wall! You can make up any wacky thing imaginable. So don't just do what someone else has already done. Come on. That's silly. [Entertainment Weekly]

HBO has, quite surprisingly actually, passed on Hobgoblin, the alternate-history WWII series from writer Michael Chabon. Not only was Chabon involved, but Darren Aronofsky was going to direct the pilot. The show, about a group of magicians and conmen defeating Hitler (or something), seemed like a sure thing at such a prestige-happy network, but maybe it was too ambitious or too expensive or something. (They've already got Game of Thrones, after all.) And, y'know, HBO passed on another classy literary adaptation, Noah Baumbach's take on The Corrections, not too long ago, so I guess nothing is a sure thing there. Better start crossing your fingers, The Leftovers. As for Hobgoblin, there's talk that FX might be interested, even though Aronofsky is no longer with the project. A minor setback! If not FX, maybe AMC. If not AMC, maybe Showtime? If not Showtime... A&E? There are options. Options all the way down to USA, even. Take heart, Chabon. It's not done yet. [Vulture]

Here is a trailer for The Smurfs 2. I don't know if you want to watch it, but here it is if you do. Katy Perry apparently plays Smurfette? Nobody told me this. I did not know that was happening. Everyone else is back too, from Neil Patrick Harris to Hank Azaria to Anton Yelchin. Plus they're joined this time around by Christina Ricci and Alan Cumming, playing bad Smurf-like creatures created by Gargamel. And they're in Paris. So. There it is. If you have kids who liked the first one, I'm afraid you'll likely be sitting through this soon. Good luck. And I'm sorry.

And here is a trailer for the indie romantic comedy Drinking Buddies, starring Olivia Wilde, New Girl's Jake Johnson sporting a scruffy beard, the seemingly ubiquitous Anna Kendrick, and Ron Livingston. It's a whole couples swap and break up kind of a thing, but it looks pretty good despite its familiarity. Olivia Wilde seems likable, right? Jake Johnson looks good with his beard. And who doesn't enjoy those other two? This is probably a perfectly decent little movie. There's maybe an unrealistic amount of beer drinking in it — have some damn wine at some point, sheesh — but other than that, sure.

       

Wu-Tang's Sign-Language Interpreter Is Someone to Grind With

We realize there's only so much time one can spend in a day watching new trailers, viral video clips, and shaky cellphone footage of people arguing on live television. This is why every day The Atlantic Wire highlights the videos that truly earn your five minutes (or less) of attention. Today:

This is the Wu-Tang Clan at the Bonnaroo music festival last weekend. The real star, however, is their American Sign Language interpreter. Her name is Holly: 

Warning: This video will make little to no sense to you if you don't play World of Warcraft. Warning No. 2: If you do play World of Warcraft, this video isn't going to make you any cooler. 

Let's remember that 1990 was 23 years ago. Let that sink in:

And finally, bring on the weekend. Oh right, it's Thursday. Bring on the yawning cute animals! 

       

House Farm Bill Suffers Stunning Defeat as Finger Pointing Begins

Partisan accusations of broken promises erupted Thursday as a House five-year farm bill was defeated in stunning fashion, 195-234, with 62 Republicans joining a majority of Democrats against the bill.

Blame was being cast mostly on the bill's huge cut to the food-stamp program, exacerbated by a late Republican amendment that some Democrats -- who may otherwise still have voted for the wider bill -- felt was too punitive in forcing work requirements for food-stamp recipients.

"This turned out to be an even heavier lift than I thought," said House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., of the events that now send the House back to the drawing board to try to come up with a measure that sets agriculture programs and policy for five years.

[image error]
MORE FROM NATIONAL JOURNAL 2016 GOP Prospects Lay Groundwork for Invisible Primary Congress: Still Not a Fun Place to Be a Bill For $1,000, You Can Learn to Dance Like a Congressman

The Republican-led House's "Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act" would have cost $940 billion over a decade.

The Democratic-controlled Senate already has passed its own $955 billion version, which does not cut as much from the food stamp program.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, supported passage of the House bill, and he voted for it on Thursday. Its differences with the Senate's version were expected to be worked out in a two-chamber conference. But instead, there looms uncertainty in whether the House can even pass a bill regarding the nation's long-term agriculture policy.

On a broader scale, the bill's defeat Thursday will inevitably be dissected as yet another set-back or misstep by Boehner and his leadership team – Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. -- in terms of their strategic instincts or even simply vote counting.

The defeat will also resurrect questions about Boehner's perceived lack of control over his own unruly Republican conference.

In fact, Republican aides had expressed confidence in recent days it would pass, even as they knew many Republicans did not believe it cut enough from the food-stamp program.

Outside pressure from some conservative groups, including the political arm of the Heritage Foundation, kept the heat on for Republicans to reject what they called a wasteful, nearly $1 trillion bill, even though the House bill would have cut projected spending in farm and nutrition programs by more than $40 billion over the next 10 years. About $20.5 billion would have come from cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps.

The Obama Administration had given that as one reason why the president would not support the House bill.

Still, senior House Republican aides were blaming the defeat Thursday more on what they say was a failure – or even a double-cross – by House Democrats on promises to deliver at least 40 more votes than the 24 Democrats who supported the bill.

A McCarthy aide, Erica Elliott, even e-mailed to reporters an Associated Press story dating from Wednesday in which Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, had predicted "at least" 40 Democrats would support the bill.

In a statement, Cantor more directly blamed Democrats for Thursday's vote outcome.

"I'm extremely disappointed that Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leadership have at the last minute chosen to derail years of bipartisan work on the Farm Bill and related reforms," said Cantor.

But Collins, speaking to reporters after the bill's defeat, suggested that the fault lies more in the GOP leadership's decision to allow passage of the late amendment from Rep. Steve Southerland, R-Fla., which would give states an option to require people receiving food stamps to find work.

That cost dozens of Democratic votes for the wider bill, Peterson said. Even before that amendment was passed, most Democrats opposed that bill on the grounds it cut $20.5 billion from the food-stamp program.

"When I was chairman, I had to come up with the votes," Peterson added, deflecting claims that Democrats were at fault for the outcome.

However, Cantor said that while "far from perfect," the inclusion of language like the food-stamp amendment authored by Southerland was one of the ways to achieve "meaningful reform."

But House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., also bristled at a suggestion by Cantor that Democrats had "turned a bipartisan bill into a partisan one." Hoyer noted that 62 Republicans voted against the bill. "We take no blame for the farm bill," he said. "None. Zero."

Also following the vote, Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesman, sent out his own e-mail, titled "refreshing your memory," listing other miscues by Boehner and his leadership team in terms of bills defeated on the House floor, or votes suddenly called off because of a lack of support.