From the BBC, first story on the front page: "Foreign Forces' Worst Afghan Toll"

It seems June was the deadliest for foreign troops in Afghanistan since the 2001 fall of the Taleban. On the first day of July, with the toll officially tallied, this no doubt qualifies as an important story.

On CNN.com's front page , however, one has to scroll down to the tiny print at the bottom of the page to find the headline on deaths in Afghanistan, and even then it's an ambiguous "Troop Deaths in Afghanistan Surpass Iraq." Depending on your persuasions you could interpret the headline either positively (violence in Iraq is so low!) or negatively (Afghanistan's falling to pieces!), that is, if you even managed to spot it.

So, what other stories trump the fact that troops in "the forgotten war" are dying at an alarming (but obviously not alarming enough) rate? Sadly, exactly the type of stories you'd expect from "the most trusted name in news."

Is Osama bin Laden dying…again?
Did Bill Clinton diss Obama?
Obama offered shirt off woman's back
Cops: Man collected, drank boys urine
Cat Held hostage for dog's return
Will Smith, 'I was scared' of flying
Odor masking wash, dry & go toilets

In the midst of two wars this type of negligence is criminal. It's absolutely inexcusable that foreign media, as well as domestic print media, need to query the public "Remember Afghanistan?" Times like this I'm exceptionally grateful to the internet; imagine how easy it was to railroad public opinion before we could vet US media against its international analogues.

In a New York Times op-ed Paul Krugman dispelled doubts that such a view was anything more than another example of GOP myopia:

the McCain/Bush policy on offshore drilling doesn’t make sense as a response to $4-a-gallon gas: the White House’s own Energy Information Administration says that exploiting the outer shelf wouldn’t yield noticeable amounts of oil until the 2020s, and even at peak production its impact on oil prices would be “insignificant.”

[snip]

I’m reasonably sure that Mr. McCain’s advisers realize that offshore drilling would do nothing for current gas prices. But they may believe that the public can be conned. A Rasmussen poll taken before Mr. McCain’s announcement suggests that the public favors expanded offshore drilling, and believes (wrongly) that this would lower gasoline prices.

And Mr. McCain may also hope to shore up his still fragile relations with the Republican base. As anyone who has read what’s in his inbox after publishing an article on oil prices can testify, there are many people on the right who believe that all our energy problems have been caused by sanctimonious tree-huggers. Mr. McCain has just thrown that constituency some red meat.

Schaffer, too, is trying to pull the wool over voters' eyes, letting political expediency trump national good. But there's another element to Dirty Bobby's enthusiasm; he enjoys a particularly cozy relationship with the energy industry.

Colorado's 9News recently ran a "Truth Test" on Schaffer's ties to big oil, using allegations made by the League of Conservation Voters (Schaffer earned a position on the LCV's Dirty Dozen list, and so it is actively campaigning against him). The results were yet one more indictment of the shameless, sweatshop-enthusiast Bob Schaffer:

QUOTE: When you look at Bob Schaffer's resume, one thing comes through. Oil. In Congress, Bob Schaffer voted to give $13 billion in tax breaks to gas and big oil…

TRUTH: This is true.

QUOTE: Schaffer then became an executive at a big oil company. . .

TRUTH: It is true that Bob Schaffer went to become an executive at an energy company after he left Congress. Whether Aspect Energy is a "big oil company" depends on how you define big…

QUOTE: And went to Iraq to secure a contract for Iraqi oil…

TRUTH: This is also true.

QUOTE: So, it's no surprise that Schaffer's campaigns have taken $150,000 from gas and big oil.

TRUTH: This is true.

Fortunately, Schaffer dirt is not going unnoticed; more and more Coloradans recognize that Colorado deserves cleaner representation in Washington. A new Rasmussen poll of 500 Colorado voters gives Udall a 9-point lead over Schaffer — the biggest lead of the still young race.

The same poll shows Obama with a narrow lead over McCain in Colorado, where the convention will be held in August. Could it be that this (formerly?) red state is ready to fully embrace the blues? Only time will tell, but with the GOP so clearly putting corporate before national interest, it's no wonder if they are.

A donkey for the Democrats? The news consistently testifies; the only thing mulish about Democrats is their stubborn insistence on acquiescence. In fact, they are the anti-donkey.

Watch the Democratic leadership dismiss its imperative to impeach the president!
Watch it cave on the Iraq War!!
Watch it agree to build a border wall!!!
Watch it crumble on FISA!!!!
In short, watch it roll over and show the Republican brass its soft underbelly at every opportunity.

As Dems converge on Denver this summer, how about they march under a more appropriate banner, one emblazoned with, say, a lapdog? It's comforting, it's friendly, and its got a cute bark to go with its pathetic bite.

The elephant is a bit harder to ridicule because it's most conspicuous traits are a) its size, b) its might, and c) its thick sin — all germane to the Republican party. It's position next to the prostrate Democratic party only accentuates the image.

But the similarities are only skin-deep; with the largest brain of any land animal, elephants are among the most intelligent species on earth. They are also one of the most sensitive, living in tight-knit, matriarchal communities that offer love and support to all members. The dead are elaborately mourned.

Though the Republican party may thump its chest and claim superior values, any one with a critical eye knows the reality — love and support go to a select few, women are an afterthought and the dead are buried under the rush to profit.

There is, however, an important symmetry at the heart of the elephant and the Republican party; they are both near-sighted.

When any situation necessitates forward-thinking, the Republican party is sure to fire off a half-cocked solution. I'm sure you've already got some examples in mind, but here are two recent gems indicative of the Grand Old Party's myopic legacy:

1) Address the oil addiction by drilling offshore, thereby ending a 27-year ban imposed during the freewheeling early 80s (?). Forget that it may exacerbate the (not for long) long-term problem of climate change. Ignore the fact that the oil thereby gained won't be available for at least another decade, and when that TBD day arrives the oil harvest will have an "insignificant" effect on oil prices.

2) Dismantle the constitution by granting telecoms immunity and keeping details of the president's surveillance program under wraps, thereby allowing the president to "protect" us in the here and now. Forget that, as Josh wrote, "there is no clause in the Constitution that says the executive branch can ignore provisions in the bill of rights when they deem it necessary…Give no thought to the long-standing principles this undermines."

In keeping with this willful handicap, and the party's proclivity for old, white men, I think the venerable Mr. Magoo would make a smashing new standard for the GOP.

True to its lapdog form, the Democratic party deferentially joins Mr. Magoo on all his wildest rides; dismantling the constitution, erecting a border wall, murdering innocent Iraqis, and bypassing every opportunity to really stand up for something.

I'm sick of watching this country get raped, I'm sick of Republicans stumbling over themselves to stick it in, and I'm appalled at Democrats who help otherwise impotent Republicans get it up.

What's up with the Green Party?