« June 2006 | Main | August 2006 »
Reuters: California's heat heads east; power grids brace
AP: Scientists: Get used to killer heat waves, blame global warming
AP: Dakotas at 'Epicenter' of U.S. Drought
LA Times: A Primeval Tide of Toxins
It looks increasingly likely to me that the consequences of our shortsighted hubris will be felt painfully in my lifetime.
Salon: Watching Beirut die
War is the failure of humanity. It is a flaw that plays itself out time and again, emotional and physical destruction on a horrific scale. Why can't we get past it? Why can't we find the common ground necessary to resolve our differences without ending life. What purpose does the vengeance of war serve, other than to propagate itself? The concept of peace seems like a fantasy in this world; a hackneyed joke. As if you should put quotes around it and speak drly when it comes up in conversation. Will we ever rise above the senselessness of war? Maybe in the next life.
This started as a comment to a thread here on Shakespeare's Sister, but I decided it was worthwhile to make it into a full post. I was compiling a quick list of subjects that can and can't be joked about on progressive blogs, and in so doing I remembered a nagging feeling that we may be employing a double standard.
Here's the handy guide for offensive humor on progressive blogs...
Off limits:
Women
Homosexuals
Transgendered
Minorities
Illegal immigrants
Poor people
Mentally retarded people
Overweight people
Vegetarians
Fair game:
George W. Bush
Christians
Evangelicals
Republicans
Conservative bloggers
Conservative pundits
Rich people
Stupid people
People who...
live in the South
live in red states
drive trucks
fly American flags
have "Support Our Troops" stickers
Joe Lieberman
Generally speaking, you can get people on progressive blogs to laugh at jokes in the "Fair game" category even if they're overtly mean-spirted. Is this simply a case of applying a double standard to groups that we consider oppressed versus groups that we consider to be misguided? If you look at the other side of the blogosphere the columns are reversed. Is either side on higher ground? Especially when you consider the abuse we heap on George W. Bush. Why is it justifiable, because we disagree with him? Because his actions have consequences that we dislike? Does that give us a free pass to joke about his alcoholism? There may be a valid distinction to be made, but I'm having trouble seeing it.
Senators Reid, Kennedy, Biden, Rockefeller, Levin, and Reed sent a letter yesterday to John Negroponte requesting a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq. Questions they posed:
-- Sectarianism: Is Iraq in or descending into a civil war? What factors will prevent or reverse deterioration of the sectarian situation?-- Security: Is Iraq succeeding in standing up effective security forces? What factors will increase the chances of that occurring? To what extent are militias providing security in Iraq? To what extent has the Government of Iraq developed and implemented a credible plan to disarm and demobilize and reintegrate militias into government security forces? To what extent is the Government of Iraq working to obtain a political commitment from political parties to ban militias?
-- Terrorism: What is the threat from violent extremist- related terrorism, including Al Qaeda, in and from Iraq? What factors will address the terrorist threat?
-- Political Development: Is Iraq succeeding in creating a stable and effective unity government? What is the likelihood that changes to the constitution will be made to address concerns of the Sunni community? What factors will increase the chances of that occurring?
-- Economic Reconstruction: Is Iraq succeeding in rebuilding its economy and creating economic prosperity for Iraqis? What factors will increase the chances of that occurring?
-- Iraq's Future: According to press accounts, the 2004 NIE contained analysis on three possible scenarios for Iraq's stability through the end of 2005. What are the scenarios through 2007?
-- US Force Posture: In what ways is the large-scale presence of multi-national forces helping or hindering Iraqis' chances of success?
I would love to hear some answers to these questions other than 'stay the course'. But don't expect that NIE on Iraq anytime soon.
when the "America, Fuck Yeah!" crowd produces shite like this.
I emailed Barbara Boxer asking her to reconsider her support for Joe Lieberman. This is the response I got from her Political Action Committee. Her past experiences working with Lieberman have engendered respect despite their disagreement over the Iraq war. Frankly, I don't begrudge her for that. I don't know the history behind their working relationship; I didn't follow politics much 14 years ago. But if Lieberman loses the primary and runs as an independent, well, I hope she would see the writing on the wall.
Dear Erik,
Thank you for writing to me about the hotly contested Connecticut primary for Senate.
I am traveling to many states throughout the summer and fall to help Democrats take back the Senate and House. I started yesterday morning at a campaign stop for Senator Menendez and then made appearances for Joe Lieberman in Connecticut before he left for a Bill Clinton rally.
So why did I go to Connecticut? When Joe asked me to tell his constituents about our work together on the environment and choice, I told him I would.
I realize this decision has deeply disappointed you. I completely understand your position and only hope that you will come to understand mine.
For 14 years, Joe Lieberman and I have shared an alliance on a range of progressive issues, especially two that are central to my public service -- the environment and choice.
We have worked side by side on the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee. When Bill Clinton was President, the stakes weren't nearly as high. But within hours of President Bush taking office, the environment was under attack.
Believe me, it has not been easy to fight the Bush Administration and the Republicans on this committee who try to undermine the environment, and its supporters, at every turn.
I know that's not news to you. But what you might not know about is the critical role that Joe has played in this battle.
The fact is, on every single fight I have waged on that committee -- from arsenic in the water, to air pollution, to pesticide testing on infants and children, to global warming, to Superfund and much more -- Joe has been a stalwart partner and leader.
Joe was the first author of legislation to permanently protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He was one of the first Senators to try to tackle the global warming challenge. The Republicans laughed at his efforts and refused to admit that we were right on this issue. But Joe was undeterred.
And it's the same with women's rights, especially choice. Each and every time a woman's right to choose has come to the Senate floor -- including late term emergency abortions -- I've had a reliable partner in Joe.
He is one of a small handful of Senators who has joined with me both times I have introduced the Freedom of Choice Act, the most strongly pro-choice piece of legislation in the U.S. Senate.
Because of his long record on choice and other important progressive issues, Joe has won the endorsement of organizations such as Planned Parenthood, NARAL, AFL-CIO, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Human Rights Campaign.
Of course, as you rightly point out, Joe and I don't agree on everything. And nothing has deeply disappointed me more than our complete disagreement on the Iraq War.
The fact is, I disagree with many of my usual allies on the war since my bill to redeploy troops out of Iraq by the end of THIS year is the toughest redeployment bill out there. As far as I'm concerned, I will stand alone to end this war.
Joe and I have virtually no common ground on Iraq except for one thing -- we have teamed up to provide comprehensive mental health care for our troops. Our amendment will ensure that our soldiers will not be sent into combat if they have mental health problems, including post traumatic stress, and that they will be able to get mental health help within 72 hours if they need it.
Again, this may sound easy, but the truth is, we had to work very hard to get our mental health amendment to pass the Senate, which it did.
I do not minimize the differences I have on the war with Joe -- or any of my colleagues -- but as I said, I also have a 14-year alliance on other progressive issues that are important to us, to California, and our country.
I understand that you disagree vehemently with my decision, as is your right. But, on August 8, the Democrats of Connecticut will make their voices heard on Joe's candidacy, and I will have deep respect for their decision.
Until then, I only hope that you will weigh our differences about this primary campaign against everything that ties us together, and please know that I will continue to work as hard as I can to earn your trust and support.
Best,
Barbara Boxer
Huh. What does it mean when you get this graphic in an email from your mom?
Senator Brownback makes up a new chicken and egg riddle. The best line comes about halfway in, wait for it...
Are we truly honest with ourselves when we ask such questions about what it means to live and love. That's what I wonder as I watch cars passing by. If we were honest would we continue down the path we find ourselves? Or would we snap out of the false dreams of culture driven nirvana, awakening to the possibility that we already have everything we need. Casting off the shackles of self-serving attainment to focus on the needs of our ailing mother. Connecting ourselves back to the oneness from whence we came and in the process with each other. That's where my hope lies. That we will one day give up on hubris and hate and once again see the beauty in everything that is, even pain. But these hopes are far-off in the distance of my thoughts. I'm trapped, just like you. Prisoner to a machine that rumbles and churns with a life of its own, taking us to an unknown destination.
[Inspired by Terra Naomi's Goodbye Letters.]
So here's the story. A B-movie script with the working title "Snakes on a Plane" is somehow made into a movie starring Samuel L. Jackson. The blogosphere catches wind of it and can't resist the naked foolishness of its title. Countless parodies and send-ups come into existence. (See examples here, here, and here.) The movie studio even adds a scene demanded by the blogosphere in which Samuel L. Jackson says, and I quote, "Motherfucking Snakes on a Motherfucking Plane!" Can a movie be a cult hit before it hits the theaters? Apparently so. Salon deconstructs all the delicious layers of irony here. I'll leave you with the trailer playing in theaters now.
AP: Maine lobsterman pulls up rare lobster
The lobster caught by Alan Robinson in Dyer's Bay that is a typical mottled green on one side; the other side is a shade of orange that looks cooked.
GAO Report: We're not achieving our stated goals in Iraq.
The November 2005 National Strategy for Victory in Iraq and supporting documents incorporate the same desired end-state for U.S. stabilization and reconstruction operations that were first established by the coalition in 2003: a peaceful, united, stable, and secure Iraq, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism. However, it is unclear how the United States will achieve its desired end-state in Iraq given the significant changes in the assumptions underlying the U.S. strategy.
The original assumptions were wrong, which is to say it's not clear that any real thought was given to 'cause and effect' at any stage of this war. We have lacked a foundation of rationalism from the start, a reflection of the moralistic worldview favored by this administration.
The original plan assumed a permissive security environment. However, an increasingly lethal insurgency undermined the development of effective Iraqi government institutions and delayed plans for an early transfer of security responsibilities to the Iraqis.
Hindsight provides a clear view of the paradoxical dilemma our troops continue to face as both the source of and solution to Iraq's civil unrest. This challenge obviously requires a fresh approach. We're not achieving our goals in Iraq, plain and simple.
The plan also assumed that U.S. reconstruction funds would help restore Iraq’s essential services to prewar levels, but Iraq’s capacity to maintain, sustain, and manage its rebuilt infrastructure is still being developed. Finally, the plan assumed that the Iraqi government and the international community would help finance Iraq’s development needs, but Iraq has limited resources to contribute to its own reconstruction, and Iraq’s estimated future needs vastly exceed what has been offered by the international community to date.
Reconstruction is all but impossible in the current climate. Just as we failed to understand the true costs of the war before it was launched, we continue to lack a clear vision of the ultimate cost of victory in Iraq.
I find this definition of victory from the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (NSVI) quite apropos:
Short term: Steady progress fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, standing up security forces.Medium term: Iraq leads fight to defeat terrorists and provides own security, constitutional government fully in place and is on its way economically.
[???]
Long term: Peaceful, united, stable, secure, well integrated into the international community, and a partner in war on terror.
Just fill in the gap with your own creative solution.
9/11 changed everything.
You're suffering from a pre-9/11 mindset.
The War on Terror is unlike any war we've fought before.
We must take extraordinary measures to protect America in a post-9/11 world.
I am sick and tired of these vapid old canards being trotted out by the right. They fit any scenario, no matter what new government program you're talking about. Warrantless wiretapping, preemptive strikes against sovereign nations, detention without trial, it all falls under the umbrella of 'protecting America in a post-9/11 world'. This is not a rational justification because it applies equally to any conceivable action. Do we round up all the Muslims in the United States and send them to concentration camps because 9/11 changed everything? Do we detonate a nuclear bomb over the entire Middle East because the War on Terror is a new kind of war? No, we don't do those things because they neither reflect the spirit with which America was founded nor the spirit of what America is today. And in that vein we must consider issues like detention without trial on their merits, and not rationalize them with platitudes.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) had this to say about the position of "White House Director of Lessons Learned".
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President said we continue to be wise about how we spend the people's money.Then why are we paying over $100,000 for a 'White House Director of Lessons Learned'?
Maybe I can save the taxpayers $100,000 by running through a few of the lessons this White House should have learned by now.
Lesson 1: When the Army Chief of Staff and the Secretary of State say you are going to war without enough troops, you're going to war without enough troops.
Lesson 2: When 8.8 billion dollars of reconstruction funding disappears from Iraq, and 2 billion dollars disappears from Katrina relief, it's time to demand a little accountability.
Lesson 3: When you've 'turned the corner' in Iraq more times than Danica Patrick at the Indy 500, it means you are going in circles.
Lesson 4: When the national weather service tells you a category 5 hurricane is heading for New Orleans, a category 5 hurricane is heading to New Orleans.
I would also ask the President why we're paying for two 'Ethics Advisors' and a 'Director of Fact Checking.'
They must be the only people in Washington who get more vacation time than the President.
Maybe the White House could consolidate these positions into a Director of Irony.
A political advertisement with a sense of humor? I kid you not.
I'm glad I'm not the only one addicted to YouTube. Salon's Video Dog found this badass animation called "Tyger". Inspired by William Blake's poem "The Tiger".
