Tag Archives: bp gulf oil spill

Man Claims Watching ‘Recycled News Shows on MSNBC’ Caused Him to Threaten Congresswoman

Can watching too much MSNBC affect a person to the extent that he acts in a completely irrational manner? According to a Tampa Tribune story , a Florida man convicted of threatening death upon a congresswoman for her opposition to ObamaCare believes the answer would be yes: TAMPA – A Spring Hill man who threatened U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite during the health care debate will spend more than two years in federal prison. Eric Lawrence Pidrman, 66, claims he was in an alcoholic blackout when he telephoned Brown-Waite’s office about 6:30 a.m. on March 25 and left a message saying he had 27 people who would make sure she “doesn’t live to see her next term.” “I’m terribly sorry that it ever happened,” Pidrman said this morning before he was sentenced. At the time of the morning he made the call, he said, “I very often watch the recycled news shows on MSNBC.” When agents questioned Pidrman in April, he said he was upset about threats reportedly made against Democrats during the health care debate. He said he probably thought, “Let me scare one of those righties.” “Righties.” And who frequently uses that term? I’ll give you a hint. It was the MSNBC host who recently made this “scorching” threat : “I’m going to torch this f***ing place!” he screamed during a meeting in the MSNBC newsroom according to the New York Post . “F***ers!” he added for good measure. Compare that irrational MSNBC host threat to the irrational threat left by Pidrman on the answering machine of the congresswoman: “Just wanna let you know I have 27 people that are going to make sure that this ***** does not live to see her next term.” Readers of this story have noted that there are not all that many degrees of separation between Erik Lawrence Pidrman and Keith Olbermann or…Ed Schultz: He’s right if i watched all the recycled news on MSNBC i might go nuts too. A looney leftnut was inspired by MSNBC to threaten conservatives for voicing their opinion. And this is news??? Here is just another example of where the threats and violence comes from. Not the teaparty folk etc. The union supported leftists have always been the violent ones. This guy is just typical of them. MSNBC is all I needed as they are all leftists. The big question now is if trial lawyers will begin using the “MSNBC defense” as an excuse for their clients’ threats against conservatives. 

More here:
Man Claims Watching ‘Recycled News Shows on MSNBC’ Caused Him to Threaten Congresswoman

D.C. ABC Reporter Doug McKelway Fired for Argument Over Anti-Obama, Anti-Greenpeace Bias

The Washington Post reported Friday that WJLA-TV, the local D.C. area affiliate of ABC, has fired longtime anchorman Doug McKelway for “insubordination and misconduct” after (or during?) an April report on left-wing oil spill protesters (video here ): In his piece, McKelway said the sparsely attended event attracted protesters “largely representing far-left environmental groups.” [He cited Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.] He went on to say the protest “may be a risky strategy because the one man who has more campaign contributions from BP than anybody else in history is now sitting in the Oval Office, President Barack Obama, who accepted $77,051 in campaign contributions from BP.” After a brief taped segment updating efforts to cap the BP well, McKelway added that the Senate was unlikely to pass “cap-and-trade” legislation this year, because “the Democrats are looking at the potential for huge losses in Congress come the midterm elections. And the last thing they want to do is propose a huge escalation in your electric bill, your utility bill, before then.” [Station manager and news director Bill] Lord took exception to McKelway’s reporting and asked to meet with him, according to several station sources who were granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive personnel matter. A shouting match between the two men ensued, leading to McKelway’s suspension, sources said. McKelway has alleged liberal favoritism in news reporting before; when he left his anchor chair at WRC after nine years to join WJLA in mid-2001, he blasted the station’s lack of “balance,” in a newspaper article. WJLA is owned by Allbritton Communications, which is also the owner of the liberal Politico website (and newspaper). Aside from whatever words McKelway and Lord had, it’s quite clear that McKelway was summoned for a scolding over conservative bias. Allbritton apparently expects all of its reporters to toe an Obama-friendly, Greenpeace-friendly line. Earlier: Liberal bosses may have also hated McKelway’s forceful disapproval of a gay-left “outing” advocate

View original post here:
D.C. ABC Reporter Doug McKelway Fired for Argument Over Anti-Obama, Anti-Greenpeace Bias

Maddow’s Mic Glitch Has Her Seeing Conspiracies

Ve haf certain powers, Miz Maddow . . . In the midst of bashing Pres. Bush over Iraq this evening, Rachel Maddow’s mic went suddenly dead, forcing her MSNBC show to go to commercial. When she returned [and after paraphrasing a line from Macbeth], Maddow let it be known she was “such a conspiracy theorist” but didn’t dare tell the audience what she was thinking because “it would discredit me forever.” RACHEL MADDOW: Spreading peace and democracy.  That was the third try at made-up reasons we invaded. How’s that worked out? It’s at that point that Maddow’s mic suddenly quit. For several moments, she can be seen speaking, with no sound at all. She begins to tap her mic, and a low-quality audio can be heard. MADDOW: Are we back?  We’re not back? Well this is unusual. One, two, three, four, five. [Inaudible] conspiracy. The show had to admit temporary defeat, and cut to commercial.  When it returned . . . MADDOW: Before I was so untimely ripped from the broadcast.  It’s really weird: it’s not like I’m on a satellite feed or anything.  I’m in my home studio, in New York.  And what we lost was the hard-wired mic that pins me to the desk. It’s really weird: nothing like that’s ever happened before. I’m such a conspiracy theorist. I cannot tell you what I’m thinking right now: it would discredit me forever. But as I was saying before that thing happened . . . Rachel, we didn’t want to hit the red button, really.  But on a night of national reconciliation, for you to have criticized Pres. Obama for saying a few kind words about Pres. Bush, then compounded things with your indictment of W’s war policy, well, our itchy finger just got the better of us 😉

See the article here:
Maddow’s Mic Glitch Has Her Seeing Conspiracies

Bozell Column: Brian Williams, From Musketeer to Mouseketeer

The fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina recalls a horror show on two levels. There’s the actual disaster which killed hundreds of people – and then there’s the media smear job on the Bush administration and first responders. No one should forget pompous grandstanders like “NBC Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams signing off three months after the floods from the Lower Ninth Ward:  “This is a neighborhood that’s been left to die.” How those network anchors loved hurricane hyperbole! Williams, for one, lectured the nation that the hurricane should “necessitate a national discussion on race, on oil, politics, class, infrastructure, the environment, and more.” He underlined that a top local radio station decided not to air President Bush’s remarks from the city since “nothing he could say could ever help them deal with the dire situation unfolding live in the streets of New Orleans, where people were still dying during his visit.” It never mattered to these nattering nabobs that, as Popular Mechanics magazine documented, Katrina spurred by far the largest and fastest rescue effort in American history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm’s landfall, rescuing an estimated 50,000 residents. Not content to attack Bush on just his own program, Williams took to comedy shows to unload more spin. He lectured to Jon Stewart on how cities less black than New Orleans would have seen a lot more helicopter rescues. Williams proudly took that attack directly to Bush three months after the storm. “After the tragedy, I heard someone ask rhetorically, ‘What if this had been Nantucket, Massachusetts, or Inner Harbor Baltimore or Chicago or Houston?’ Are you convinced the response would have been the same? Was there any social or class or race aspect to the response?” On the first anniversary of Katrina, Williams repeated the mudslinging, citing radical-left black professor Michael Eric Dyson in Bush’s face: “A lot of Americans are always going to believe that that weekend, that week, you were watching something on television other than what they were seeing, and Professor Dyson from the University of Pennsylvania said on our broadcast last night it was because of your patrician upbringing, that it’s a class issue.” Bush shot back: “Dyson doesn’t know. I don’t know Dyson, and Dyson doesn’t know me.” But Williams didn’t care. His cartoon was perfect. Williams later appeared on PBS and boasted “You can’t give distance. I don’t mean that in a Jets vs. Sharks way. I’m not an adversary.” That’s laughable. He insisted Bush “appreciates the swordfight of a crackling good conversation.” Now watch Williams “swordfight” with Barack Obama. He’s gone from musketeer to Mouseketeer. On the fifth anniversary of the hurricane, Williams deferred to the statesman before him by asking about the lack of a national conversation: “Katrina was about so many things. It was about class and race and government and the environment. Whatever happened to that national conversation we were supposed to have about it?” Is that all the toughness Williams could muster? That’s how he “crackles” now? See his crackling swordfight over the BP oil spill and Obama’s lack of effort: “It’s getting baked in a little bit in the media that BP was President Obama’s Katrina. And it’s also getting baked in that the administration was slow off the mark. Is that unfair?” What about our disastrous economy? Surely Williams would challenge Obama here. “Do you have anything new on the economy?” Instead of tough questions, Williams felt Obama’s pain that too many Americans misunderstand his religious faith: “Mr. President, you’re an American-born Christian, and yet increasing and now significant numbers of Americans in polls, upwards of a fifth of respondents, are claiming you are neither. A fifth of the people, just about, believe you’re a Muslim….This has to be troubling to you. This is, of course, all new territory for an American president.” That’s not even a question! But it’s all in a day’s shoeshine for Brian Williams. He loved slinging “racist, classist” mud on Bush, but he was so distraught by Obama’s-a-Muslim rumors that he replayed the poor-Barry exchange a second time the next night. Why is this arrogant partisan the leading evening-news anchor in America? He drew 7.2 million viewers last week, as the ratings continue to decline. That’s not unexpected when an anchorman can’t be bothered to ask tougher questions to this president than his makeup artist would.

See the article here:
Bozell Column: Brian Williams, From Musketeer to Mouseketeer

Brad Pitt: Let’s Execute Some BP Executives

On July 27th and 28th, the  New York Times  published the  following headline:  “The oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico appears to be dissolving far more rapidly than anyone expected.” In the story that followed the headline, readers were informed: “The immense patches of surface oil that [once] covered thousands of square miles of the gulf after the…oil rig explosion are largely gone.” Ironically, the man who predicted this would be case was the much-maligned Tony Hayward, former Chief Executive of British Petroleum (BP). While being grilled on Capital Hill about the oil spill earlier this year, Hayward described it as a ” relatively tiny ” one in comparison to the “very big ocean” in which it had occurred.  Although the backlash Hayward faced by Democrats was nasty, Rush Limbaugh concurred with the BP boss, and stories like the one I cited from the  New York Times  seem to demonstrate that Hayward and Limbaugh were both correct. Yet, not only does BP continue to be the target of heavy criticism by Democrats and environmental groups, it has even found itself in the crosshairs of Brad Pitt, who recently “said he would  consider the death penalty  for those to blame for the Gulf oil spill crisis.” According to the UK’s  Daily Mail , Pitt’s exact words were: “I was never for the death penalty before – I am willing to look at it again.” With all respect to Pitt, a seemingly reasonable guy who has made some great movies, it may be a bit over the top to support (or even consider supporting) the death penalty for a human being simply because that person was involved in an environmental disaster. How out of whack has our world become when someone of Pitt’s stature can spend his whole life opposing the death penalty for men who commit crimes like rape and murder, then suddenly find a way to condone that punishment for men who accidentally spill oil in the waters of the Gulf? Talk about turning teleology on its head. Making matters worse, Pitt said these things almost a month after the  New York Times  and other media outlets informed readers that the spill will not be as bad as first thought. And while Pitt is talking up the death penalty,  Jeffrey Short , a former government scientist who now works with Oceana, is telling reporters that “40 percent of the oil in the gulf might have simply evaporated once it reached the surface” while another “unknown percentage of the oil would have been eaten by bacteria.”  (This doesn’t even take into account the percentage of oil that was dissolved by the dispersants BP put into the Gulf.) Simply put, the extent of the disaster predicted by many talking heads has been greatly reduced, if not done away, in many parts of the Gulf. And while this isn’t to condone any degree of environmental recklessness, it is to say that we shouldn’t be talking about “the death penalty” for men who may (or may not) have played a part in an oil spill that is “dissolving far more rapidly than anyone expected.” Crossposted at Big Hollywood

See more here:
Brad Pitt: Let’s Execute Some BP Executives

PolitiFact Catches Keith Olbermann In Another Significant Error

Keith Olbermann had a terrible day on Tuesday. In baseball terminology, he went 0 for 3.  After NewsBusters reported two segments from his low-rated “Countdown” program that either included selectively edited transcripts to mislead viewers or material misrepresentations contradicted by numerous sources, the fact-checking website PolitiFact determined another statement made by MSNBC’s hottest property as “False”. So egregious were Olbermann’s comments that Politifact almost gave them their lowest rating, “Pants on Fire,” which readers should recall from their youth always came after “Liar, liar.” Before we get to PolitiFact’s analysis, let’s witness Olbermann at his worst (video follows with transcript and LOTS of commentary, h/t Lachlan Markay): KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: BP and its co-conspirators are also gaining from previously unreported tax benefits. It‘s allowed to write-off the rent it paid for Transocean, the company that owned the Deepwater Horizon, in order to lease the oil rig. That saves BP hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Transocean, meanwhile, having fled first to the Cayman Islands and then to Switzerland to lower its corporate tax bill by almost 15 percent. The Center for American Progress counting nine different subsidies that the U.S. government gives to an industry that makes more money that any other industry, including refunds for drilling costs and refunds to cover the cost of searching for oil. Subsidies for oil and gas companies make up 88 percent of all federal subsidies. Just cutting the oil and gas subsidies out would save the U.S. government $45 billion every year.   Uhhhh, no! Frankly, not even close as PolitiFact reported Friday: We tracked down the Center for American Progress paper the statistic was drawn from — “Pumping Tax Dollars to Big Oil: Getting Government Priorities Right on Tax Subsidies for Oil Companies,” published on April 14, 2010, by Sima J. Gandhi, a senior economic policy analyst with the center. In the paper, Gandhi wrote, “Tax expenditures are government spending through the tax code. They are distributed through deductions, exclusions, credits, exemptions, preferential tax rates, and deferrals. What makes them look different from grants or checks is that they are delivered through the tax code as part of tax expenditure spending programs. These tax expenditures can amount to a significant portion of federal subsidies for oil and gas. The cost of tax expenditure programs for oil and gas companies made up about 88 percent of total federal subsidies in 2006.” When we read that, it sounded to us like Gandhi was saying that 88 percent of all oil and gas subsidies were accomplished through the tax code — not that 88 percent of all federal subsidies went to the oil and gas industry. To check that, we contacted Gandhi. She confirmed our suspicion and pointed us to her original source — a 2006 paper published by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, a state office. The paper includes a detailed table and says that “various taxes represented approximately 87.4 percent of federal government subsidies for oil and gas in 2006.” So it’s clear to us that Olbermann misstated that statistic. As for the government saving $45 billion a year if all oil and gas subsidies were cut: This one proved even easier to check. We located a different Center for American Progress paper by Gandhi, “Eliminating Tax Subsidies for Oil Companies,” published on May 13, 2010. In it, she outlines nine different types of subsidies (Olbermann was right about that number) and concludes that “the total government savings from eliminating these subsidies is projected to be $45 billion over 10 years.” That’s $45 billion over 10 years, not one year, as Olbermann had said. We aren’t qualified to judge the accuracy of the Center for American Progress’ statistics, which may well draw criticism from conservatives. But Olbermann clearly muffed it twice when he repeated them incorrectly to viewers — and by a substantial margin — giving viewers the impression that oil and gas subsidies are 10 times more expensive than they actually are. Because of this, we considered rating his comment Pants on Fire, but his errors seemed to us to be sloppy rather than devious. So we’ll give him a rating of False. PolitiFact may see this as “sloppy rather than devious,” but when a man gets three things wrong in one show, one certainly has to wonder. As NewsBusters previously reported , Olbermann on the same evening selectively edited and cherry picked from a Rush Limbaugh radio transcript to make the conservative talker appear racist. The “Countdown” host also on Tuesday claimed Abraham Lincoln only lost one election in his political career, an errant proclamation employed to discredit Nevada senatorial candidate Sharron Angle. PolitiFact just identified strike three. The question is how much more of this is MSNBC going to put up with. Right now, despite only getting about one million viewers an evening, Olbermann is this cable channel’s hottest property. But can a news network tolerate this level of incompetence while maintaining any sense of credibility, or is that beside the point for an organization that turns a blind eye to its newscasters admitting that they get tingles up their leg when a presidential candidate speaks? 

Read more here:
PolitiFact Catches Keith Olbermann In Another Significant Error

Gibbs Evades Question of Whether Obama Agrees With His Medicare Director That Health-Care System Must Redistribute Wealth

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has evaded answering the question of whether President Barack Obama agrees with Dr. Donald Berwick, his newly appointed administrator of Medicare and Medicaid, who has insisted that health-care systems must redistribute wealth. “Excellent health care is by definition redistributional,” Berwick said in a speech delivered on July 1, 2008. When asked directly at the July 7 White House press briefing whether Obama agreed with this, Gibbs would not answer the question. Instead, he parried it with jocular statements about the provenance of the quote.

Tavis Smiley: Just Because Gulf Residents Depend on Oil Drilling as Part of Their Economy ‘Doesn’t Make It Right’

Apparently, Tavis Smiley of PBS knows what’s best for Gulf residents, even if it would mean widespread unemployment. Smiley hosted a Wednesday night interview with Rep. Henry Waxman (D) on his show, where the liberal Californian admitted that while alternative energy sources need to be explored and developed, America still needs to drill for oil, albeit safely. But Smiley wondered aloud how American can move beyond politics and transcend its oil-dependent energy policy. He thought Obama’s Oval Office speech was one that “most people, left and right, seem not to like.” “How do you move beyond the politics to make that happen?” Smiley then asked Waxman, even though, as he himself claimed, most of the country was not enamored with Obama’s words. Smiley also brought up the Gulf residents’ clamors to keep oil drilling alive there. “I say this respectfully, because I understand how their economy works down there,” he said, before asking why Gulf residents are hesitant to “move beyond oil drilling.” “This oil’s in Florida now, as you know, this oil’s in Texas now, it’s all over the place in the Gulf. And yet the people in that region don’t want to stop oil drilling,” the PBS host pointed out to allege hypocrisy on the part of Gulf residents who also attack BP. “Well, they’re dependent on oil as part of their economy,” Waxman explained. “But dependence doesn’t make it right, though,” Smiley preached from his Los Angeles soapbox. “Well it makes it understandable,” Waxman offered. At the end of the discussion, Waxman slammed the Republicans for blaming Obama for the federal response to the Gulf disaster. Smiley added in his two cents. “I think it’s laughable, beyond laughable, that many persons on the right demonize government all day long until they want government to do what they want government to do.” The transcript of the segment, which aired on July 8 at 12:38 a.m. EDT, is as follows: REP. HENRY WAXMAN: But we need to move away from oil. And that’s why I strongly support the idea of broader legislative solution that will have us use alternatives to oil, to reduce the carbon emissions from other sources, especially coal and some of the utilities, to hasten the development of automobiles that are either electric or hybrid, so that’s not strictly using oil. Those are the things we need to do, it’s not going to happen overnight. But we’re not getting started, because of a lot of opposition, primarily because of the oil companies. TAVIS SMILEY: Respectfully, though, screw the oil companies. If this disaster with BP doesn’t allow the American people to see this is what can happen, this is what happens, this is happening because of our dependence on oil, screw the oil companies. I don’t want to hear that. I’m asking, respectfully, when it is and how it is that the American people and that our leaders in government circumvent the oil companies and say this is what we’re going to do for the sake of the American people? REP. WAXMAN: Well the President has been very clear. For the sake of the American people, our economy, our national security, to create more jobs, we need a comprehensive energy climate change bill that will move us away from these contributors of carbon emissions, and oil and coal are the major sources of these carbon emissions. You asked, though, the question directly – should we all feel blameworthy for what happened? And I don’t quite accept that. We are dependent on this transportation source for our motor vehicles. That’s – I can’t blame people for vehicles that use oil. I blame government and leaders for not moving us away from that and developing a different strategy. Now that we have leadership from President Obama, it is so difficult. Now the House passed a bill. We’re waiting for the Senate. And maybe they will get their act together and pass legislation. But if we don’t do it, as years go by, things don’t change overnight. It’s going to take a period of transition. And we need to drill for oil. I think it’s a mistake to say that there’s something wrong with drilling for oil. We’ve got to drill for oil. But if we’re going to have drilling for oil, we’ve got to make sure it’s done safely to protect the environment as best we can from this drilling itself. TAVIS SMILEY: How do you explain to the American people how it is that the folks in the Gulf – now I say this respectfully, because I understand how their economy works down there – but how do you, to your point now that you think we do need to drill for oil, just to do it safely, how do we explain to the American people who are watching this disaster in the Gulf who don’t understand how something this devastating could be impacting – this oil’s in Florida now, as you know, this oil’s in Texas now, it’s all over the place in the Gulf. And yet, the people in that region don’t want to stop oil drilling. I mean, it’s like on the one hand they’re demonizing – I shouldn’t say demonizing – they’re going after BP, I want to underscore again, as they should. They’re going after BP. But at the same time, I don’t hear voices, a chorus of voices saying we’ve got to move beyond oil drilling. REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Well, they’re dependent on oil as part of their economy. TAVIS SMILEY: But dependence doesn’t make it right, though. REP. WAXMAN: Well, it makes it understandable. SMILEY: Okay. REP. WAXMAN: And they’re not against oil drilling. And I’m not against oil drilling per se, although I think the moratorium makes a lot of sense until we can make sure it’s done safely. We have oil drilled, and we’re not going to stop drilling for oil, this is an important resource that we need to use, and we need to move away from. But we need it now. And I’d rather develop more American oil, than have to be importing more, although we’re never going to be self-sufficient. The statistics, which I think are pretty dramatic – we have three percent of the world’s oil resources in this country, and we consume 25 percent. Well there’s no way in the world we’re going to be independent of importing oil, unless we get away from using oil. SMILEY: So how do you move beyond then, finally here, how do you move beyond the politics, to your point earlier, President Obama is trying to do that, in the speech that most people, left and right, seem not to like, at least in that speech – he tried to raise the issue of different energy sources, a different direction for our energy program in this country, and the minute that he did that, as you well know being on the Hill, he got accused of playing politics and trying to insert a political agenda into a controversy. So how do you move beyond the politics to make that happen? REP. WAXMAN: I just want to point out something that is obvious, I think that most people that have – there’s nothing he can do that he’s not criticized about. You would think in a disaster like this, the country would be united and try to help do whatever we need to do to clean it up and to respond to it. Rather than BP, blame BP, we have Republicans say “Oh, it’s Obama’s fault!” Well what did he do? Now the government has a lot of responsibility, because we have a government agency that’s supposed to supervise the safety of this drilling. And that agency has failed miserably, and in fact there were even scandals associated with the Mineral Resources Development Agency. And the President is trying to change that, and restructure it, and make sure he’s got better people in there. But they blame President – even the governor of Louisiana who is a very active Republican, congressman, very active Republican, says “Oh, they’ve got to build a certain, certain rock pile of some sort,” and the scientists tell us that’s a mistake. But he’s saying the federal government is not doing what we need to do. Well, I think so much of that has become politicized, and it shouldn’t be. Everything is not political, and it’s – everything’s not partisan, but if you listen to the complaints, every time President Obama makes a move, somebody wants to blame something on him, even though he had nothing to do with it. SMILEY: Well, we do agree on that point. I think it’s laughable, beyond laughable, that many persons on the right demonize government all day long until they want government to do what they want government to do. But I digress.

Originally posted here:
Tavis Smiley: Just Because Gulf Residents Depend on Oil Drilling as Part of Their Economy ‘Doesn’t Make It Right’

Time: ‘Is Bobby Jindal Making Sense?’

While the media have apparently given up — if they ever seriously attempted — on holding the Obama administration to account for its handling of the Gulf oil spill cleanup, Republican governors in the Gulf are a different story, particularly Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, a potential 2012 presidential hopeful. In a short post at Time.com entitled “Battlefield General: Is Bobby Jindal Making Sense?” , writer Alex Altman cast doubt on Jindal’s handling of the oil spill cleanup while suggesting the conservative governor is hypocritical for his complaints about Obama’s handling of the disaster at the federal level: The notion that Washington should lead is not the only puzzling position taken by Jindal, a small-government conservative. An advocate of offshore oil exploration, he points to environmental devastation as a consequence of the government’s “lack of urgency” but opposes a moratorium on deepwater drilling. More important, in the throes of a crisis, a governor admired for his grasp of policy has sometimes sacrificed caution for speed. For weeks, Jindal blistered the government for dithering over his signature initiative, a plan to build sand berms to safeguard the state’s marshland. The proposal was finally okayed despite objections raised by scientists who questioned the $360 million project’s efficacy. When the Interior Department later halted the sand dredging to protect the existing barrier-island system, Jindal fumed at the “red tape and bureaucracy.” On July 6, the governor railed at the Army Corps of Engineers for denying a local parish’s request to protect coastal waters by constructing rock dikes. (A Corps commander said the measure might do more harm than good.) Of course it’s perfectly legitimate for journalists to raise questions about how Gulf state governors have handled their share of the BP oil spill cleanup, but Altman’s piece assumes the federal government’s response is virtually flawless and Jindal’s disagreements with its strategy and tactics are suspect. What’s more, Altman’s swipe at Jindal’s conservatism distorts the true conservative position that Jindal is staking out. Jindals complaints have largely been that the Obama administration’s regulatory micromanagement has gummed up cleanup efforts. It’s not so much that Jindal wants the federal government to solve the problem as he wants the feds to quit hampering private industry and local governments from solving the problem due to mindless red tape. Time is not alone in setting its sights on bashing Jindal. Last month, Newsweek’s Sharon Begley took a much more stringent tone in her criticism of Louisiana’s Republican governor: Scientists are such spoilsports, always insisting on gathering data on the likely effects of a strategy before implementing it. Politicians are more inclined to just go for it, especially when they’re desperate. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is desperate: millions of gallons of BP’s crude are launching an amphibious assault on his beaches and wetlands. So let’s do the math: desperation + a pol’s “do something” mentality = a loony decision to build 14-foot sand berms to protect the state’s coastline—a decision that bodes ill for the many others the state will face as BP’s oil gushes at least until August. Before this, Jindal was known to scientists as the governor who in 2008 signed a law allowing the state’s public schools to teach creationism (excuse me! “intelligent design”) in their classrooms. The difficulty he has distinguishing science from faith reared its ugly head again when he cast about for a way to hold back BP’s oil. Emissaries from Jindal’s office have made regular pilgrimages to the Netherlands to consult with engineers about protecting the state’s coasts from the next Katrina. Van Oord, a marine engineering and dredging company that is constructing the artificial Palm Islands for Dubai, proposed building what amounts to artificial sandbars. “If you ask a Dutch company that builds artificial islands in Dubai how to protect marshlands and barrier islands,” says coastal geologist Rob Young of Western Carolina University, “of course they’ll say, ‘Let’s make an offshore island!—and shall we put a palm tree on it for you?’ When a politician is faced with an economic or social mess, the “just try something” mentality can be justified. Policies on these fronts cannot be accurately predicted for the simple reason that human behavior is involved. No amount of science can reliably forecast the effects of, say, financial or health-care reform, so a reasonable case can be made for “do something.” Not so when we’re talking about the laws of physics and chemistry rather than human behavior. In these cases, ignoring the science makes politicians seem like petulant children.

View original post here:
Time: ‘Is Bobby Jindal Making Sense?’

Underreported: The Irony of BP’s ‘Beyond Petroleum’ PR Crusade

One narrative the liberal media has strenuously failed to develop is the incredible irony of BP presenting itself as the greenest oil company, the “Beyond Petroleum” folks who recognized they were boiling the planet with oil. In Friday’s Wall Street Journal , Mark Mills reviewed a new book, Oil, by Tom Bower:   But the most interesting figure in Mr. Bower’s narrative is not Mr. Putin but BP’s Lord Browne, who understood cultural politics better than his peers. In the 1990s, BP launched what was arguably the oil industry’s most successful public-relations campaign, for all the good it is doing the company now. The campaign transformed BP into a shining example of a progressive company—one supposedly “Beyond Petroleum.” It is clear from Mr. Bower’s account that, while BP remained first and foremost an oil company, Lord Browne drank his own Kool-Aid, basking in encomia from the media and green mavens. He gave lectures at Stanford, appeared on “Charlie Rose,” cozied up to Greenpeace and promised to spend $1 billion on solar technology. The Beyond Petroleum campaign, conceived by PR masters Ogilvy & Mather, was originally intended as an internal strategy, aimed at making the company appear more green-sensitive. But it so excited Lord Browne that he delivered a May 1997 speech proclaiming BP the first “green” oil major. The company produced a 200-page “Reputation Manual” with facts about BP’s greenness, formed a political-style “war room” in Houston, and launched a multiyear media blitz. Mr. Bower claims that the rebranding cost BP $200 million. The cost is now measurable in irony, as the Gulf of Mexico grows ever more slick and BP ever more hated. But the campaign was hokum from the start. At this point in history it is almost impossible to find a place “beyond” petroleum. It’s not just the scale of the task but its nature. Energy-dense liquids are valuable, and oil is uniquely valuable in its combination of density, ease of storage and transport, and, believe it or not, safety. Every alternative is worse on all metrics, including cost, even at twice today’s oil price. If liquid hydrocarbons didn’t exist, we would have to invent them

See the original post:
Underreported: The Irony of BP’s ‘Beyond Petroleum’ PR Crusade