Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Westmoreland stands by ‘uppity’ remark about Obama, claims ignorance of racial connotation Previous entry: They Used To Call It The Vig

If We’re Going To Do It Like This…

Media

...Let’s just not do it.

The Washington Post “fact checks” four statements, one by each member of the presidential tickets during their convention speeches.  And by “fact check”, I mean “equivocate uncontrollably”.

Sarah Palin lied about her “opposition” to the Bridge to Nowhere.  John McCain got a basic fact about a world crisis wrong, and has repeatedly.

Barack Obama’s programs are paid for by estimated savings, subject to tweaks and world events.  Joe Biden said that McCain voted with Bush based on last year’s figure rather than his lifetime figure, which is slightly smaller. 

These are the equivalent statements - one ticket fundamentally misrepresents facts in order to create a false narrative about their joint candidacy, the other uses figures of verifiable factual origin that, if you use different figures, are potentially not the right ones if you’re making an argument that you’re probably not making. 

Next up: how John McCain spent two years organizing his retreat community to get a Vanilla Coke fountain - was he a better community organizer than Obama?

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Jesse Taylor on 11:57 AM • (4) Comments

Which retreat community would that be?  Does he remember?

Comment #1: Ms Kate  on  09/07  at  12:10 PM

Agreed that the fact checking should be done in real time so that the media org doesn’t feel the need to establish an equivalence that isn’t there (and thus pander to those who think that politicians are all alike). I disagree that the media might as well not do it at all, if they don’t do it in real time. It might not help us out now or for this election, but over time, those who can be reached will start to notice that one of these things is not like the others.

Comment #2: ploeg  on  09/07  at  12:44 PM

Which Party Will Make or Break Biofuels?

Biofuel is a bright spot in our economy. Corn Belt states now have cheap fuel, expanding economies, and budget surpluses. Ethanol refineries are coming online in numerous other states: Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, New York, Pennsylvania, and California. Alternative feedstocks such as sorghum, organic waste, biomass and algae are being introduced. The State of Louisiana and Renergie are building a network of small, localized sweet sorghum ethanol plants, with a 5 to 1 return. Subsidizing biofuels creates jobs, stimulates our economy, and generates County, State, and Federal tax revenue. Money back in your pocket. Every dollar spent on biofuel subsidies results in $10 in economic stimulus. So go figure.

Merrill Lynch reports that ethanol blended into regular gasoline lowered the cost by 15% and saved 60 billion dollars this year. The new ethanol blender pumps will make a bigger impact, depending on who gets elected President. Typically, blending ethanol with gasoline is done in large quantities by oil companies or fuel distributors. Who ever does the blending gets the 51 cent per gallon tax credit. With the new onsite blender pumps, the retail gas station will get the tax credit. That changes everything. Retailers are expected to pass along most of the blending subsidy to the consumer. Thus, the various blends, E20, E30, E40, E50, E85 will be about 40 to 50 cents a gallon cheaper at the blender pumps. Cheaper than ethanol already is. The Republican Party wants to discontinue the blending subsidy and take this discount away from you. The Democrats want you to have it.

Ethanol blended at the pump will compete head-on with regular gasoline. This is why Big Oil wants the Republicans to get rid of the blending subsidy. They are threatened by the coming blender pumps. Ethanol blends might soon outsell gasoline, as is the trend in Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas and other ethanol producing states.

The Republican Party receives huge campaign contributions from Big Oil and their intermediaries. Their battle cry is drill, drill, drill, which we need to do. But drilling now will only impact fuel prices moderately, 7 to 10 years from now. And why all the fanfare about offshore drilling, when oil companies already have 6,000 oil leases they’re not using?

The Republican platform also calls for eliminating the 54 cent per gallon import tariff on foreign ethanol. What they advocate is that we should lessen our dependence on foreign oil by replacing it with a new dependence on Brazilian Ethanol. This would increase our Trade Deficit and the interest we pay on the National Debt, because we pay for imported fuels with debt instruments and Government Bonds. Importing Brazilian ethanol would not save you much. After shipping and handling costs from Brazil to the U.S., oil companies would pocket the rest. The consumer might save a penny or two at the pump, but your hidden cost would be 6% floating interest on imported fuel paid for with debt instruments.

By following the Republican plan to end the ethanol import tariff, we would trade one dependency for another, drive up the Trade Deficit and the National Debt, and pay more revolving interest on imported fuel. Instead, we need to keep stimulating domestic biofuels.

The subsidies we pay on petroleum based fuel are SIX TIMES higher than what we pay on ethanol and biodiesel, even while oil companies make record breaking multi-billion dollar profits. If the Republicans want to discontinue the biofuels subsidies, they should also discontinue the petroleum subsidies. But, instead, they fight to keep $50 Billion worth of annual petroleum subsidies intact. Republicans are clearly aligned with their benefactors - Big Oil.

The Republican plan to end affordable biofuel subsidies would disrupt a sector of our economy that is thriving and cost you 40 to 50 cents a gallon at the pump. Ending biofuel subsidies is poor judgment and NOT in our National Interest.

The Republican Deception is: Big Oil First – Not Country First.

© ANONYMOUS, OPEN SOURCE, PUBLISH FREELY

Comment #3: Jeff Baker  on  09/07  at  05:22 PM

Some biofuels are promising, but corn ethanol is not.  It takes more energy to produce it than you get back.  It’s bad for the environment and energy independence, and it’s contributing to the increased cost of food, which hurts poor people the most.  It will be a bright day in America when corn ethanol subsidies, and all agricultural subsidies, get shit-canned.  It’ll also be a cold day in hell.

Comment #4: keshmeshi  on  09/08  at  01:44 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.