Another double standard

Conservative Christianists organize to endorse Republicans from the pulpit and dare the IRS to enforce the plain law that this is political activity incompatible with tax exemption. Yet when a liberal church advocated John Kerry's policies in preference to Duhbya's, the IRS investigated and revoked its tax exemption.

(h/t Philosoraptor)

Nothing the GOP won't screw up for profit

The Gas and Oil Party of two oilmen, Duhbya Bush and Darth Cheney, allowed offshore oil spills to quadruple. You'd expect them to allow child poverty to get worse. Daddy Bush presided over the previous peak of child poverty, and everyone knows they don't give a shit about that. But they let the oil industry get worse too.

Because it's all about the money.

Note: Yeah, I started my day at 5:00 a.m. in a hotel that provided a free copy of McPaper. But vacation's over after a couple of long plane rides, and I'll be back to my usual haunts as soon as time permits at work.

Sample bias

USA Today reports empathy on decline in college students and waxes Chicken-Littlish about technology. My reading of news comment threads tells me that Claire Raines, at the bottom of the story, is right:

Raines says that empathy is declining in all generations...

Traditional liberals are empathetic (by which I mean New Dealers, not the imaginary rugged individualists that excuse-making posers such as Jonah Goldberg call "classical liberals"). Ted Kennedy was empathetic. Neo-liberals are technically and analytically sure that activism from government makes society better - so long as government is not too too active, but they're not strong on empathy. John Kerry...

Reconciling these two threads of liberalism is an important political problem for the coalition of the left of center.

Maybe we can

Click image for full Joel Pett/USAToday cartoon.

Tea leaves

There's a certain kind of journalism that calls itself analysis. Sometimes it's useful for setting the background and the imperatives the actors are acting from.

Then there's this kind of piece from Peter Canellos. It strings together a few slightly inside-politics tidbits with a few quotes such as this:

"If [Sotomayor's confirmation] takes a month, it does bump things up against the adjournment time," said Dartmouth College political scientist Linda Fowler. "The worry for Obama is less the loss of bipartisan spirit than the time constraints. An acrimonious nomination fight just eats up a lot of time."

There was an opportunity here put in perspective the previous two Supreme Court confirmations:

• Samuel Alito - "Samuel Alito is gliding toward confirmation as a Supreme Court justice after a week of hearings..."
• John Roberts - "The White House swearing-in ceremony took place three hours after the Senate voted 78 to 22 to confirm Roberts."

There are two possible explanations:

• Republicans are much nastier and more focused in these fights.
• Many journalists are eager or at least willing to adopt the Republican narrative.
  

Just for a moment, I'm going to hold in abeyance my natural suspicion of both Republicans and pundits.

I bet there were analyses just like Canellos's before Alito and Roberts, and those fights hardly amounted to anything. Now, there are sixty Democrats (or should be), and the Sotomayor confirmation will most likely take place with keening, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, but it will still happen quickly.

And the analyses will continue unabated and unabashed.

Loonier even than usual

This creationist is way loonier than even the usual run of creationist, and that's saying something. Even so, his buddies among the Christian fundamentalist martyr-wannabes defend him.

Update: Finally the story reaches CNN.

Another war criminal

To the large list of Bushists who are guilty of the war crime of torture, add another name - Steven Bradbury.

A few of the other prominent users, exponents, and defenders of torture:

• Duhbya
• Darth
• Rummy
• John Yoo
• Alberto Gonzales
• Michael McConnell

These men and many others can, by the precedent of Nuremberg, be called to answer for their crimes by an international jurisdiction.

Too true

For full Jeff Stahler cartoon from USA Today, click image.

Crocodile tears from the oil industry

This is not something I know a lot about. I just have my bullshit detector set appropriately high for the profit-making corruption of modern American business, politics, and media - hard to tell where one starts and the others stop these days...

For some reason, CNN today briefly reposted this piece of propaganda from July 11, probably facilitated by the PR shell called the Petroleum Institute. More evidence that the CNN story was a PR placement is how well it matches the July 22 story from the New York Times that I already commented on in "Trying Too Hard".

So, Trilby Lundberg's claims:

1. Refineries damaged in the 2005 hurricane season are breaking down.
2. More complex environmental regulations raised the poor wittle refineries' costs.
3. Ethanol subsidies push prices up.

I'll start with the easy bullshit first. Ethanol subsidies can't be responsible for a price change, only for a part of the price. My wild guess: less than 5 cents a gallon, possibly less. But, in the interest of not purveying my own brand of bullshit, I got out a little google. USAToday provided the nuggets I needed at the end of this: In March, wholesale gas prices were about 60 cents lower than ethanol. In a 10% mix, that's 6 cents, for 15%, 9 cents. With gas above $3.

Then I found this, which erases even that small cost, assuming it is true.

Even easier BS: More complex environmental regulations during the Bush Administration? That would be funny if it didn't hurt so much.

So, what about the damage from Katrina and friends? Maybe. But I'm always skeptical of "data" that begins and ends with anecdotes about raccoons and possums. How cute for Lundberg amidst her pleading for more serious coverage of why gas prices spike, uh, change.

Nonetheless, I'm no fan of ethanol as a route to much of anything other than higher corn prices. (Hey, a point of agreement.) If it's a net gain of energy independence, it's still a pretty marginal one.

More evidence of a manipulated market? CNN is happy to oblige as long as they don't have to connect the dots. Here's "Why oil is rising but gas gets cheaper". Gas prices went up while crude prices came down; now they're going down while crude prices fall. Sure, that's a free market!

The "analysts" don't know whether their bullshit is coming or going. Witness:

Usually oil and gas prices move in tandem. Yet this time around, analysts say the disconnect is all about refining. If refineries keep churning out gas, and crude doesn't spike too much further, some say motorists could see gas prices under $2 a gallon by winter.

$80 oil lurks

Normal people's heads would explode from all this paradox, but not PR people's heads.

Lundberg thinks conservation is something consumers should "see through". And she is a global warming disbeliever, but even if it's true, she's o.k. with us changing the environment to keep our Hummers.

Let's face it, this is someone who can read, add, and take averages, not skills that demand our trust. Read her numbers, but forget her analysis.

In the long run, Asian demand will force gas prices up much higher than they are now. Of course, Lundberg ignores this inconvenient market force.

The oil industry is just thrilled they've gotten prices where they are in time for this quarter's profits.