Tea Party Signs - The Joke's On Them

Installment #14 of:

Dictionaries are a Liberal Plot

(and Grammar is Not My Cup of Tea Either)

I'm going to give this guy points for using the apostrophe correctly after "Obama," but I'm a little concerned about his misuse of quotation marks. As for his spelling, well, let's just say this sign isn't going to earn him his GED anytime soon.

So much hate, so little brain power.

Fact Checking the GOP Keystone Propaganda Machine

The Keystone XL pipeline is on the top of the 114th Congress' agenda and the GOP propaganda machine is in full swing. 

On Sunday, Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyoming) appeared on Meet the Press where he told host Chuck Todd that the Keystone bill would be the first legislation to land on President Obama's desk this year and that the President should sign it because it would mean 42,000 new jobs.

"(Obama's) own State Department said it's 42,000 new jobs," Barrasso said.  "He's going to have to decide between jobs and the extreme supporters of not having the pipeline."

what eye thynk:  Fact-checking would seem to be in order here. 

Jobs:
The Republican claim of 42,000 jobs is a classic case of cherry-picking the numbers and  leaving out the parts that make their argument a bit less compelling. 

1. The State Department did NOT, in fact, state that Keystone would create 42,000 new jobs.  It DID say that the project would "SUPPORT" 42,000 direct and in-direct jobs--99 percent of which would be temporary, ending when the pipeline was completed in approximately two years.  
2. The State Department DID estimate that, once the pipeline was completed, it would result in only 35 full-time jobs and 15 temporary contractors.
3. TransCanada, the company that wants to build the pipeline, estimated that the project would create no more than 2,500 to 4,650 temporary construction jobs that would last approximately 24 months.

Currently, the U.S. is adding 50,000 jobs per week, so as Philip Bump of the Washington Post noted, "Even if the 42,000 figure were hard, fast, and long-term, the effect on the national economy would still be modest.  But that figure isn't hard, fast, or long-term." 

But it does make better television than admitting the real figure is 35.

The Environment:

The Republican party likes to call opponents of the pipeline environmental "extremists," because, well, science--and the Koch brothers--are involved. 

Last March, FactCheck.org, an independent project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, published a pretty good analysis of all aspects of the pipeline.  I don't pretend to understand everything I read, but their pipeline conclusions seem pretty compelling.

(In fairness, their analysis also cited safety issues with shipping tar sands oil through the U.S. by rail--issues, however, those could be resolved with more stringent regulations.)

Re: emissions  

1. "Well-to-tank" figure--The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that producing and processing oil from tar sands produces 70-110 percent more greenhouse emissions than the average fuel now used in the U.S. 
2. "Well-to-wheel" figure--The CRS found that getting tar sand oil out of the ground and into our cars results in 14-20 percent more greenhouse emissions.  The State Department's final report put that figure at 17 percent.
3. Translating those figures for the common man, the CRS said that oil flowing through the Keystone XL pipeline "would result in an increase in U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases equivalent to adding somewhere between 770,800 and 4.3 million passenger vehicles."

Re: safety

1. According to the Department of Transportation, over the past decade, an average of 4.1 million gallons of "hazardous liquids" have been spilled each year. These spills have resulted in more that $263 million in annual property damage.
2. In 2010, Enbridge Oil, another Canada oil company, saw one of their pipelines rupture dumping more than a million gallons of oil into Michigan's Kalamazoo River--the same type of tar sands oil TransCanada wants to send through our heartland. Enbridge is still struggling to complete that clean-up after missing a December 31, 2013 deadline.
3. In 2011 alone, TransCanada reported eleven oil spills along their pipelines; however, they claim that Keystone will be safe.  They acknowledge there will be "minor" environmental disruptions but say they are outweighed by economic factors.
4. In 2013, voters in British Columbia rejected a proposed tar sands pipeline in their territory citing environmental and safety concerns.

TransCanada's claim that Keystone will be safe may look good on paper, but there is no evidence to support it.  Looking at TransCanada's and the Canadian oil industry's record in general, it is inevitable that Keystone will eventually suffer a rupture.  Will TransCanada still see it as "minor" when the rupture results in the contamination of our Ogallala Aquifer?  How many acres of farmland does the U.S. have to lose before they would call it a "major" disruption?

And whose "economic factors" are they talking about?  Canada oil will be extracted in Canada by Canadian workers before flowing through the U.S. to ports along the Gulf of Mexico, where it will be loaded on Canadian oil tankers to be shipped elsewhere for processing.   The only "positive" U.S. economic factors I can see are the profits that will find their way into the pockets of the Koch brothers, who own a large stake in TransCanada, and people like Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) who began purchasing shares in Canadian oil companies in 2009, just as the Keystone debate was heating up.  

It appears that the Republican party wants the U.S. to take an environmental risk that some of Canada's own citizens have rejected, so that Canada oil companies (and a select few wealthy Americans) can increase their net worth--all so the U.S. can add 35 permanent jobs.  At the risk of being called an "extremist," I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this is a bad deal for the United States.

January 5 - Monday Quote

Congress will re-convene tomorrow and Republican leadership has announced they will take up the Keystone XL pipeline in their first days followed closely by legislation to un-do President Obama's executive action on the environment.  I would like to remind them that being a politician or a scientist are not mutually exclusive.  It is even possible to be a politician and still be willing to learn.

monday quote:  We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. (Benjamin Franklin, printer, writer, politician, scientist, 1706-1790)

Quick Note: When the Pope and the President Join Forces, GOP is the Odd Man Out

President Obama and Pope Francis at the Vatican last September

It seems that Pope Francis is making some Republicans uncomfortable. Recently, Sister Simone Campbell, the sister who organized the "Nuns on a Bus" tours was quoted as saying "Pope Francis' message and tone are making Catholic Republicans a little uncomfortable.  He's stirring the concern on issues like poverty and the economy."

The unease has also been noticed by the conservative-leaning Washington Times and by The Hill, a publication created for and about Congress.

The Washington Times noted that, in the case of several issues of importance to his presidency and his party, "President Obama increasingly is finding a key policy ally in the Vatican, with Pope Francis standing virtually shoulder to shoulder with the White House."

The Hill took a more negative view, reporting that the pope "is increasingly driving a wedge between conservatives and the Catholic Church."

The article made note of Pope Francis' hand in easing the relationship between Cuba and the U.S.,  continuing: "Francis's agenda, which also includes calls to address income inequality and limit climate change, is putting him at odds with Republicans, including GOP Catholics in the United States."

Republicans and especially Republican Catholics are going to find 2015 particularly uncomfortable as Pope Francis is reportedly planning to focus a good deal of energy on urging his church and its members to join in the fight against climate change--an issue that American Republicans continue to insist is a Democratic hoax being perpetrated against business interests without a shred of real evidence.  The pope's position cannot help but enfeeble the conservative argument that, even if the planet is warming, it is part of God's plan and so should be allowed to play out according to His will. 

Is it possible to say you know God's will better than the man who stands at the head of your church?  Can you claim to be a good and faithful Catholic and still tell the Pope he is wrong?

It will be interesting to see how Republicans like Marco Rubio (R-Florida), John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) juggle the dissonance between what the Pope says and what their party tells them to say.  In the meantime, I get all warm and fuzzy thinking how much it must rankle the GOP to see President Obama and Pope Francis writing on the same page.

Update: Buddy Tries to Help Steve Scalise, Gets Caught Lying

On December 30, I wrote about Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana) and his appearance before EURO, a white supremacists group led by former KKK head, David Duke.  You can read that post, "Rep. Steve Scalise--Clueless in Louisiana? here.

Kenny Knight, long time associate of David Duke

Update:  In an effort to help Mr. Scalise out of a tight spot, Kenny Knight, a close associate of and long-time political advisor to David Duke, told Slate that, yes, he had booked Steve Scalise to speak that day, but he booked him for a meeting of the "Jefferson Heights Civic Association, which was largely comprised of elderly people who lived in his and Scalise's neighborhood."  He said it was just a coincidence that David Duke's group was meeting in the same room later that day and the media has the whole story wrong.  Mr. Knight told The Times-Picayune that he "was not a member of EURO and did not arrange for any speakers at the 2002 conference."

Unfortunately for Mr. Knight, news reporters have a habit of checking facts, and the facts say that Mr. Knight is a liar.  Documents filed in Louisiana identify Kenny Knight as treasurer of David Duke's organization.  A membership directory published in a news release for the 2002 conference where Mr. Scalise appeared also lists Mr. Knight, not only as a member, but as one of the scheduled speakers.

When a Times-Picayune reporter contacted Mr.Knight to ask him about the apparent discrepancies, Mr. Knight hung up on him twice.  Eventually, Mr. Knight answered, "Is that 15 years ago?  I don't even remember that.  I'm not communicating any more with the news media.  I'm finished with y'all." He suggested that if there were any further questions, the reporter should ask David Duke directly.

When a Washington Post reporter did just that, Mr. Duke said that he "recalled Knight reaching out to Scalise in the weeks before the conference to come and update attendees on state affairs, and that Scalise accepted without reservation."

Funny how Mr. Knight's memory was so clear in the A.M. and so fuzzy by the afternoon.  And I had to smile a little when it was David Duke himself who put the nails in both Steve's and Kenny's coffins. 

If Mr. Scalise and Mr. Knight believe this group stands for something so righteous that one of them will serve as treasurer and another will accept a speaking engagement "without reservation," why the attempt to hide their participation? 

The hatred that feeds White-pride isn't so pretty when the sun shines on it, is it, boys? 

The GOP Personal Responsibility vs. Minimum Wage Paradox

Congressional Republicans will return to Washington in a few days with repealing "Obamacare" high on their list of priority votes to be taken.  Republicans say, "Take responsibility. Take care of yourself.  We don't want to give you healthcare."  At the same time, they refuse to ensure that everyone is paid a living wage that would give them the ability to afford the purchase on their own.  
----> RANDOM THOUGHT: How is it possible that an entire party can be so completely blind to this contradiction?  It's enough to make me believe that, if you're not a member of the 1% Club, they simply don't care. (Sarcasm intended.)

Let the New Year Begin!