I’m really, really disappointed in all of us. We (and all the crazies) didn’t get sucked up into the sky or whatever, and that obviously means that we’re all doing a lot of shit wrong. I want all of you to think about what you’ve done.

Question: what if it actually had been the Rapture and we were all here? Not we, actually, you. I’m golden. Me and JC have an understanding, see? You, though, you’re fucked. It’s like this: think about a really great party that you didn’t get invited to and heard about for months after. That is exactly the way that Kirk Cameron‘s life works.

On to the headlines…

Israel/Palestine: still unsolved. What the crap, Barack? I thought you were supposed to make everything better as soon as you were elected. In seriousness, however, this most recent Israel/Palestine brouhaha has just demonstrated how much we coddle the Israeli right. Bibi is throwing a fit (extra appeal to read that link: it’s quality) because President Obama wants to meet just one of the Palestinians preconditions for even beginning negotiations—an agreement to set borders to 1967 lines. Reasonable or not (and the body of international law says it’s reasonable—check UN Security Council Resolution 242—that’s right, the US voted for it) Israeli PMs (especially Likud ones) don’t make things easy. Ugh.

Afghanistan: even more of a shitshow than its eastern neighbor. Three police officers were killed by police uniform-wearing suicide bombers struck a police station. This attack is the second in two days. Yesterday’s suicide attack on a military hospital killed six medical students. Good thing we can keep track of the money, though—it’s not like employees at Afghanistan’s “national bank” just stole almost $1 billion in reconstruction money or anything. Oh, shit…

The Libya campaign: expanding, with airstrikes on more/more diverse targets. Congress will vote soon on extending the mission, which is subject to approval by both houses after 60 days of hostilities under the War Powers Act—a deadline that expires soon for Libya. The Act was passed in the aftermath of Vietnam (despite a veto) in an attempt to reign in the imperial presidency.

Yemen’s president: maybe stepping down with typical class. Ali Abdullah Saleh, the guy who has “ruled” Yemen for 33 years (“ruled” because of incessant civil war and secessionism, which has been organized by al Qaeda in recent years) pledged to step down within a month. Or maybe he didn’t. Or maybe it was a coup. Or maybe it’s the west’s fault. Or maybe everyone protesting in the streets is al Qaeda. Dick.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn: under house arrest in NYC. He’s paying $200,000 per month for the privilege, so the city can provide surveillance and armed guards. DSK’s interim replacement was named by the IMF. Pundits are in full legal speculation mode, but that’s boring and stupid so you can go find it yourself. In real news, however, a (female) French columnist describes the depressingly male chauvinist/patriarchal norms of French political society. Highly recommended.

Malaysian orphans: in even more tragic shape than you’d normally expect. At least 16 people died after heavy rains caused a hillside to collapse.

The mighty Mississippi: not expected to recede for weeks, so already swamped shelters will stay cozy. The worst seems to have passed, however. Now we can start recriminating people.

The mighty Columbia: near flood stage in Vancouver/Portland because of this year’s late (and ongoing) heavy rains and alpine snowfall. Vancouver doesn’t seem to be in any danger at the moment.

Icelandic volcanoes: not fucking with planes again. Yet.

Minnesota Republicans: putting a gay marriage ban on the ballot. That’s so 2004, people. Didn’t you see that a majority of Americans are feeling the rainbow? And that y’all are the new gay?

The pope: taking a break from covering up pedophilia (too soon?) to bless astronauts who saw the faithful zoom past their window today over the space phone. Why? I don’t know either.

2012 Republicans: still boring. Still pizza. Why the fuck is this news already?

Steak knives: being used by crazies to stab people Downtown. Awesome!

Me and other Sonics fans: still hurting. And yet I still love Kevin Durant so. The Thunder are down 2-1 to the Dallas Mavericks in the Western Conference Finals. (Russel Westbrook had 7 turnovers? How the fuck is he a point guard again?)

Michael Pineda: stud.

Local news: slow, except for dumb editorials like this.

That’s the news for Sunday. This is an awesome song about Sunday.

53 replies on “The Morning News”

  2. “What if it actually had been the Rapture and we were all here?”

    Why are you assuming the Rapture didn’t happen?

    Maybe the Rapture DID happen – and no one any of us knows has disappeared because none of us knows anyone who’s ‘worthy.’

    Face the Facts, dude… the Rapture DID happen – AND we’re all still here! It just turns out that all those so-called Christians weren’t behaving quite as wholesomely as they claimed.

    The Rapture happened, and any Christian still hanging around has been ‘outed’… by God!

  4. Listen, I love Blondie as much as the next guy, but don’t you think we all had our fill of them yesterday?

    I mean, yeah, I’m listening to the song right now, but I’m sure I had a point.

  5. What is awesome is that Blondie has released a new single and video, “Mother.” Deborah Harry looks amazing for a woman who’s turning 66 on Jully 1!

  6. The volcano isn’t affecting air travel in Europe, but it did close the airport in Iceland. Just a clarification.

  7. I wouldn’t want The Morning News to be this long all the time but I liked it just fine today. The ‘saved souls zooming past shuttle windows’ gag was grand. Thank you, Unpaid Intern PJ!

  9. Wow, that News Tribune editorial really WAS dumb. We’ve added capacity to I-5, and it still a horrible way to travel. As the region grows, more options need to be available for those who don’t define themselves by their cars.

    Yes, Cascades and Sounder could be faster. Yes, it’s not what Europe or Japan has. Yes, you can argue that Amtrak isn’t the company it should or could be, and that somebody else could do it better. But to say that we can expand I-5 into infinity to solve all our problems is just idiotic.

    And in the comments, someone actually cited Wendell Cox. Cox is a Cato Institute lap dog, and the go-to guy for every lazy reporter or conservative hack who wants a nasty quote about Amtrak. I believe He worked for Amtrak about a million years ago, and thus is considered an “expert” on passenger rail by the right-wing (which begs the question if Amtrak is so bad, how does having worked there make you an expert?). The worst thing that could happen to him is Amtrak actually ending, because he wouldn’t have anything to earn a living off of.

    I hadn’t heard anything from Cox in quite a while and assumed he had died. Maybe not.

  13. Memo from behind the Canadian Paywall: I personally think the new Unpaid Intern is nine shades of fabulous, and should be snapped up and promoted to a paid position toot sweet. Rock on, PJ.

  14. So did or didn’t Ms. Harry appear sans panties back in the early 80s? I’m in the “no panties” camp as apparently was the woman who sat next to me on a recent flight. On her t-shirt was written – “I’m Wearing Debbie Harry’s Panties”. I couldn’t think of any other explanation. But, I did find it quite amusing when the young Marine who was seated on her other side asked midway through the flight, “Care to show me?”

  18. “Why all the fuss? It’s merely a bit of hanky-panky with the help…Really, nobody died in that hotel room.”

    I’d like to say this surprises me, but any woman who isn’t living under a rock knows this attitude is par for the course when it comes to workplace attitudes toward women. What women have to silently put up with on a daily basis to keep both a job and their dignity, only to be laughed at or accused of lying when they voice concerns, should be criminal. What would be grounds for firing, when the same behavior or language is racist or homophobic, is perfectly acceptable when it’s directed toward women. We have not come far since calling Anita Hill a liar 20 years ago.

  20. Regarding Libya, the deadline doesn’t “expire soon”, it expired on Friday, May 20th. Which means for the past few days we’ve been fighting a new illegal war, yay! OBAMA 2012! OBAMA 2012!

  22. BTW, Tree of Life just took the Palme d’Or at Cannes. So either Charles is an idiot, or Charles is an idiot. You choose.

  23. Regarding the War Powers Act, which Obama and his loyalists refer to when justifying our attack on Libya, as OuterCow pointed out, Obama’s deadline already expired. Had such a deadline expired for Bush, I’m sure the folks at Slog would be diligently pointing it out.

    Also, if Bush had used the War Powers Act to justify attacking a country that posed no threat to the U.S., I’m sure someone at Slog would have pointed out that Section 1541(c) explicitly states that it only applies to “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

    But since this is Obama acting in a lawless, imperial manner, and not Bush, it’s all good.

  24. @15 – So what happened next? I’m curious how many people think that a woman wearing a vulgar t-shirt makes it okay to ask her socially inappropriate questions. I’m on the fence, myself. Does it matter that the guy was a Marine rather than a homeless guy or the head of the IMF or the prime minister of Italy?

  26. @21/24, before we attacked Libya, Gaddafi was slaughtering protestors.

    From Wiki:
    Two Libyan Air Force colonels …defected, claiming they refused orders to bomb protesters….The town of Zawiyah, 30 miles from Tripoli, was bombarded by planes and tanks and seized by pro-Gaddafi troops, “exercising a level of brutality not yet seen in the conflict.”… Organs of the United Nations, including United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the United Nations Human Rights Council, have condemned the crackdown as violating international law, with the latter body expelling Libya outright in an unprecedented action urged by Libya’s own delegation to the UN… The United Nations Security Council …voted to refer Gaddafi and other government officials to the International Criminal Court for investigation. On 17 March 2011 the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1973, … establishing a no-fly zone and the use of “all means necessary” to protect civilians within Libya. … Former top officials, including Gaddafi’s former “number two” man, Interior Minister General Abdel Fattah Younes al-Abidi, the former justice minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil … and several key ambassadors and diplomats resigned their posts in protest over Gaddafi’s heavy handed response to the demonstrators. …German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she considered Gaddafi’s Tuesday, 22 February 2011 speech as the equivalent of “him declaring war on his own people”

  27. @27 So is your point that when a government attacks its own people, our President shouldn’t have to follow our laws? They had 60 days after combat began to get approval, they can do these things legally, but that’s no longer a priority.

  28. @27, that’s all true and, I’m afraid, completely irrelevant.

    Libya was one of many countries attacking protesters. Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Sudan, and Iran are all guilty of the same.

    But that has nothing to do with when it’s legal to wage war against another country. As I quoted above, Section 1541(c) of the War Powers Act authorizes military action only when “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

    Besides the likelihood that Libya’s crimes are more deemed important based on its oil reserves, there’s the inarguable fact that Libya did not attack the U.S., “its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

    Another inarguable fact is that in 2008, Obama said this:

    “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

  32. @28/29 – the group which should object if the Executive Branch oversteps its war powers is the Legislative Branch. If you don’t like the fact that the Legislative Branch is pleased to have the Executive Branch overstepping its bounds, take it up with Congress.

  33. @33, that goes without saying, while avoiding the major point. When Obama exceeds his authority, the responsible thing to do isn’t to shrug one’s shoulders and say, “well, it’s congress’s fault for letting him.” Of course, it’s congress’s fault, but it’s also Obama’s fault.

    So, the responsible thing to do isn’t just to “take it up with Congress,” but to “take it up with the President,” as well. Refuse to support candidates at all levels who willfully ignore the Constitution.

    Unfortunately, loyalists won’t do that, because getting Obama re-elected is much more important to them than getting him to follow the rule of law.

    Republicans and Democrats alike, loyalists don’t care how many laws are broken or how many lives are destroyed. So long as their man or woman wins the election, all is right in the world.

  34. @32: “tedius[sic] obnoxious little pricks”?
    Well, Freud might possibly say that your use of the word “prick” is rather telling. Rather than call me a jerk, bastard, moron, idiot, or ne’er-do-well, you chose to use a pejorative synonymous with “phallus”. And not only did you call me a prick, you called me a LITTLE prick. Given the inordinate importance placed on penis size in masculine society, this is quite informative, and suggests that you are subject to anxiety relating to the length of your phallus.
    Additionally, you omitted the ‘o’ from the word “tedious”. In his lectures on parapraxes, Freud relates that such simple slips of the tongue (or keyboard, in a modern context) generally are the result of subconscious desires or fixations. Since you did not type ‘o’, despite typing perfectly ‘i’ and ‘u’, which are together directly adjacent to ‘o’, it is quite likely that this is indeed relevant, and was intentional in a subconscious way. The round and hollow, perhaps even sphincter-like, shape of a lower-case ‘o’ is very similar to the human anus, suggesting that you are fixated on your own asshole.
    So if I radically overthink your statement from a Freudian perspective, you’re a tiny-dicked loser who wants his ass rammed. Congratulations!

  35. @25 – His question was no more vulgar or inappropriate than her tshirt. And considering the way she flirted with him, I imagine she was quite happy to show him the panties. Or did you assume because she was a woman she couldn’t have possibly had a sex drive, been attracted to the Marine, & wanted to fuck his brains out?He was cute. A steady paycheck. Health benefits. So, yeah, I think she was more receptive to him because he wasn’t homeless. Or in your world is it wrong for a woman to have standards?

  37. @36 – I was genuinely curious what happened next. Glad to hear that his comment came in the context of an ongoing flirtation between the two of them.

  38. @34 The executive branch always over-reaches. Anyone who would want to be president in our crazy-ass world is going to be power-hungry. We have a constitutional balance of power because we don’t assume that our president is a saint.

    I knew Obama wasn’t my dream candidate when he betrayed us on FISA, in June 2008. But do I think he’s better than any of the electable alternatives — yes. Not because he’s “my man” but because he’s sane, intelligent, pragmatic and competent, which is more than I can say for any of the other options.

    Which electable candidate do you prefer to Obama?

  39. @39, there are no “electable candidates” I’d vote for at all, because Democrats and Republicans have worked for decades to create laws which make it much harder for independents to run than Republicans or Democrats.

    I agree 100% with you that Obama is intelligent, but he’s also demonstrably dishonest and a hypocrite. And as far as being sane, pragmatic, and competent, I don’t think any of those adjectives describe these actions:

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/cl…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/world/…

    http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/rawagall…

    I wonder if the family members of these men, women, and children who were violently killed for absolutely no practical reason whatsoever would agree with your assessment of Obama as “sane, pragmatic, and competent,” because it seems rather obvious that his foreign policies are none of those things.

    So, why would a liberal vote for a guy who is against gay marriage, believes in indefinite detention for terror suspects, believes he has the authority to assassinate U.S. citizens abroad, has continued to raid medical marijuana dispensaries and interfere with states’ decisions to license them, has prosecuted more government whistle-blowers than have been in the last 40 years (despite campaigning in support of them), while ignoring the crimes of the previous administration?

    Obama does these things because he knows he can count on the support of people who don’t want similarly evil things done by a Republican.

    Claiming to be liberal while voting for someone like Obama is like claiming to be a vegetarian while eating a Big Mac.

  40. Claiming to be a liberal while voting for someone like Obama is like choosing to eat an omelet over a Big Mac, if those are the only two options and no vegetables are available.

    On Supreme Court appointments alone, I’m satisfied with Obama over my other option in 2008. And, yes, the president of the US is going to authorize bad actions like the ones you cited. He’s not the messiah, he’s not able to change our war-centered militaristic culture all by himself.

    Why don’t you start a grass-roots movement to campaign for what you care about? I’ll gladly help try to move Congress & Obama to the left.

  41. @41, both of Obama’s Supreme Court appointments just voted to let cops break down people’s doors if they claim to hear a toilet being flushed.

    The military actions Obama authorized are not just “bad.” They are horrific atrocities. And they are happening week after week month after month precisely because of tactics Obama has approved, despite their lack of positive outcomes.

    And it’s important to remember that liberal Obama critics like myself don’t want or expect a messiah and don’t expect him to change our culture. But Obama has had and continues to have the ability to stop using those tactics with a single order. He can end drone attacks and checkpoint policies with the stroke of his pen. He has chosen not to.

    I was in grass-roots movements 25 years ago, during the Reagan administration. I learned a lot. I believe there’s no point in trying to change a man’s direction if the man has no decency. With his continuing assault on civilians overseas, his bigotry against homosexuals, his attacks on government whistle-blowers, his hypocritical stance on marijuana policy, and opposition to due process, Obama has demonstrated that he has no decency.

    The way to move Congress and the Democrats to the left is to refuse to support them when they act exactly like the right, (which is most of the time). As long as people vote for them, no matter what evil they do, they will continue to do evil.

    But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t find some grass roots organization and join up. You seem sincerely interested in improving things. Just be sure to judge the organizations and candidates by what they do, instead of what they say.

  42. @42:
    >implying internationally-mandated airstrikes against Libyan military forces who are currently targeting civilians are horrific atrocities

  43. @43: Nope, I was referring the actions that EricaP was talking about. The ones I linked to. You should check them out. It’s rather clear evidence that Obama doesn’t care one bit about civilians.

    The bombing of Libya wasn’t an atrocity, it was merely illegal and misguided and politically motivated.

    Also, can I play?

    @43
    >stating that the U.N. can mandate that the U.S. has to bomb another country.

    What do I win?

  44. @44:
    >implying that Obama somehow authorized the shooting of the firewood gatherers, rather than it being due to human error
    >implying that your second link isn’t about how new measures are being successfully put in place to REDUCE civilian casualties at checkpoints
    >implying that the bombing of Granai was targeting civilians rather than suspected Taliban outposts
    >implying that poor military policies with regard to minimizing collateral damage are equivalent to purposefully targeting civilians
    >implying that the American armed forces under Obama haven’t been working to reduce civilian casualties
    >implying that those efforts to reduce civilian casualties haven’t been successful
    >implying that greentext is something that is played
    >implying that I implied that the USA was given orders, rather than simply given approval, to participate in airstrikes on Gaddhafi’s forces
    >implying that American participation in Libyan airstrikes is illegal
    >implying that it’s a bad idea for us to aid freedom fighters who are genuinely working to establish democracy in place of a dictatorship
    >implying implications

  45. @45 how sure are you that the people opposing Gaddafi are nice freedom fighters, genuinely working for democracy, as opposed to being assholes who will wreak vengeance on all who oppose them, if they ever get power? I’m not against an international effort to oust Gaddafi, but I don’t think we should delude ourselves about who is likely to replace him in Libya.

  46. @45, okay, you win at that format. You are the master, in that I don’t have the patience for back and forth accusations of implying things we didn’t imply. It’s really kind of childish and not my cup of tea.

    Every point you make has been made by neo-conservatives defending Bush/Cheney policies. Some of them are strawmen, in that I never implied we’re targeting civilians or that we’re not trying to reduce civilian casualties.

    Your argument is basically that it’s okay if these men, women, and children, if these parents and sisters and brothers and grandparents are blown to bloody pieces now and again, because Obama says it’s important and he’s trying to keep the collateral damage to a minimum.

    I don’t know if you can imagine that one of those kids was yours or one of those old people was your aunt or uncle or mother or father. But if your family member had been dismembered by high-caliber weaponry, I wonder how comforted you’d be by assurances from American partisans that, “We’re trying to REDUCE civilian casualties.”

    You also seem to be in support of Nixon, who said, “If the President does it, it’s not illegal.”

    Well, there’s nothing in the War Powers Act that allowed Obama to authorize bombing Libya.

    So, if you want to explain to me how it was legal or how all the civilians we’re killing in Afghanistan have to die in order to make the world safer, I’m all ears. I may even agree with you on a point or two. But let’s cut out the “>” game, or whatever it is. It’s not really constructive, is it?

  47. @47:
    >implying that Obama is responsible for us being in Afghanistan and Iraq
    >implying that our efforts to reduce civilian casualties haven’t been successful
    >implying that Watergate is comparable to Libya
    >implying that it’s constructive to make appeals to emotion rather than any sort of rebuttal
    >implying that greentext is supposed to be productive
    >implying that Afghanistan would be better off if we packed up out of there right now and let the Taliban go back to running things
    Also, you claim that you never implied that Obama is targeting civilians? Check your wording in post #42.

  48. Yeah, I didn’t. I said civilians were dying because of tactics he approves of. Why not quote me, instead of accusing me?

    But you don’t seem really interested in discussing this, so much as repeatedly accusing me of implying things I never did via this kind of childish game you’ve gone and made up all by yourself.

    I know that’s easier than having a real conversation, but I’m not interested in what you’re doing, here. I learn things all the time from people I disagree with. But that’s not going to happen this time, I’m afraid.

  49. @49: “his[Obama’s] continuing assault on civilians overseas”
    >implying I invented this form of discourse
    >implying you never implied those implications you implied
    >implying that drone strikes inherently cause more collateral damage than sending in boots on the ground

Comments are closed.