In Case You Missed it (v109)

I managed to get three posts out last week - here's your recap, in case you missed anything.

For your Sunday School, I hung out in the Fox News Sunday classroom where host Shannon Bream talked with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV). He talked about his desire to get permitting reform passed; getting that considered was the deal he made for his vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, a deal that strongly perturbed his Republican colleagues. 

Bream was armed with a lot of ammo on that.

... Well, certainly, you understand where Republicans don't think they should be the ones to come across the aisle to vote for a measure that primarily benefits you, which was done in exchange for your vote on a measure they didn't support -- not a single one of them vote for the Inflation Reduction Act.

And there's more - she quoted something in 'Politico' from Sen. John Cornyn, "Given what Senator Manchin did on the reconciliation bill, it's engendered a lot of bad blood. There's not a lot of sympathy on our side to provide Senator Manchin a reward." The point of that? Why should the Rs help him now?

Manchin pointed out that the Rs, with his support, have been fighting for - for years - to get this done. 

He gently reminded any Rs watching that they weren't successful last time around.

When they had everything, when they -- in 2016 to 2020, Shannon, they had Republican president, Republican House, Republican Senate, we couldn't -- we couldn't move it because I was the only Democrat. Now we're in a position where we have a majority Democrats and our Republican friends can take it across the line.

His closing remarks were also spot on; let me know what you think.

Picking up where Manchin left off, for your Extra Credit,  I wandered down the hall to the State of the Union classroom. Jake Tapper talked with two former Tennessee governors, one of each flavor. Phil Bredesen (D) and Bill Haslam (R), are co-hosting a podcast called You Might Be Right.

Tapper delved into the perceived difficulties of trying to have a bipartisan conversation on critical issues in a time of great partisan divide. Here was his first attempt, which Haslam mostly dodged. 

Tapper asked Haslam what he'd say to folks who say it's not possible to find common ground "with people who are literally trying to undermine democracy?"  Tapper was referring to the many Rs, including the top leaders in the House, who push the Big Lie and, "in the view of many critics, don't seem to have a real commitment to democracy."

He asked it again, suggesting "it's difficult to have an argument" about important topics like taxes, foreign policy, abortion and so on "if the other side won't even accept the results of a free and fair election." 

Bredesen took the question this time, pointing out that "if we get stuck on that" there won't be a lot of progress made.

What Bill and I are trying to do is to say, look, there are some issues there that are -- they're very difficult and people are in hard corners, but there's a lot of issues in this country having to do, I mean, with the debt and with the environment and so on, that there are real problems that need solutions. And trying to explore with the public at large, not necessarily with the Congress, but the public at large, as to what some of those common grounds might be, I think, is important.

He also pointed out the difference between two governors talking, and Congress.

I mean, we both were in the business world before politics. We both were mayors and then governors. I mean, those are all jobs where you actually have to do something Monday morning. If there's a problem out there, you're expected to do something to begin to -- begin to solve it. That's just a very different environment than you have in the Congress, for example, where there's very little problem-solving going on, but there's a lot of posturing going on and working to the base. So, I hope that the combination of experiences of the two of us bring something a little different to the discussions as well.

Compare this line of thinking to the utter pettiness of Sen. John Cornyn in the Sunday School recap...  maybe Cornyn and the rest of the folks in DC should tune in to the podcast. 

I did a few good week/bad week mentions for your TGIF post; here are a couple of them.

Speaking of the gaffe master, he might have exceeded our wildest imaginations at a White House hunger conference this week, when he called out for the late Rep. Jackie Walorski, who was killed in a car accident in August. Walorski was a co-chair of the Hunger Caucus, and was one of the folks who introduced the bill that led to the conference. And, of course, the pack of reporters, hungry as always for a sound-bite and air time, undertook "a series of tense exchanges" trying to get an answer as to why Biden, well, pulled a Biden. Is an answer necessary?

Supreme Court Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was formally sworn in this week, and will take her seat on the bench on Monday, at a time when 60% of us believe the Court is "out of touch" and 66% believe there should be term limits for Justices.  Those sentiments aren't indicative of KBJ, of course, but she's coming on the Court at a difficult time, with some tough cases on affirmative action and college admissions, LGBTQ rights, and election issues, among others.

That's a wrap on the week -- I'll be back later, hopefully with a fuller slate of posts and an empty drafts folder. 

Wish me luck. 

Sunday School 9/25/22: Extra Credit

Part of what Sen. Joe Manchin was trying to get across to Fox News Sunday host Shannon Bream in yesterday's Sunday School was that people - and the country - are more important than the politics of the day.  It's a message sure to fall on deaf ears, on both sides of the aisle and across the airways and the interwebs, but he's right.

Down the hall in the CNN State of the Union classroom, Jake Tapper had a conversation with two former governors of Tennessee: Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, and Bill Haslam, a Republican. They host a new podcast, You Might Be Right.

Tapper asked Haslam what he'd say to folks who say it's not possible to find common ground "with people who are literally trying to undermine democracy?"  Tapper was referring to the many Rs, including the top leaders in the House, who push the Big Lie and, "in the view of many critics, don't seem to have a real commitment to democracy."

Haslam dodged the meat of the question, the part about the lack of commitment to democracy, by saying that 

most Americans aren't out there watching -- wondering about this or engaging in an argument this way or another. They're living their lives. But they do want to understand it better. What we're trying to do is take difficult issues, show both sides of the problem, so that people can understand, the other side might have a point.

So, Tapper tried again, suggesting "it's difficult to have an argument" about important topics like taxes, foreign policy, abortion and so on "if the other side won't even accept the results of a free and fair election." 

Bredesen took the question this time, pointing out that "if we get stuck on that" there won't be a lot of progress made.

What Bill and I are trying to do is to say, look, there are some issues there that are -- they're very difficult and people are in hard corners, but there's a lot of issues in this country having to do, I mean, with the debt and with the environment and so on, that there are real problems that need solutions. And trying to explore with the public at large, not necessarily with the Congress, but the public at large, as to what some of those common grounds might be, I think, is important.

And, Bredesen said, when you look at both sides you get to better answers than you do if you "just stick to the catechism of one party or the other..."

Haslam was asked about white evangelicals and what role they play in "both the extremism in the Republican party today and also the potential solutions" he and Bredesen discuss. Tapper asked about this because Haslam's been vocal about "how far off-track the church has gone." Haslam said in his experience in office,

believers act just like everyone else when it comes to the political sphere, instead of being different and saying, one of the reasons that you serve in offices like Phil and I did is to actually solve a problem, to make a difference, to -- it's not about making a point. It's about making a difference. And I'm trying to encourage people of faith to say, how can you actually make a difference? Make a difference means actually trying to solve a problem, instead of just yelling at the other side about how horrible they are.

Bredesen added that their backgrounds help other folks understand the importance of actually solving problems and getting things done.

I mean, we both were in the business world before politics. We both were mayors and then governors. I mean, those are all jobs where you actually have to do something Monday morning. If there's a problem out there, you're expected to do something to begin to -- begin to solve it. That's just a very different environment than you have in the Congress, for example, where there's very little problem-solving going on, but there's a lot of posturing going on and working to the base. So, I hope that the combination of experiences of the two of us bring something a little different to the discussions as well.

Tapper asked Bredesen to talk about the root of the cultural canyon he sees between "the so-called cultural elite and folks who know somebody who drives a Ford F-150."  From Bredesen's perspective,

I think we're living in an America which is obviously divided, although my perception is, it's not as divided as you would think by listening to the Congress or listening -- listening to the media. If I walk into the grocery store and see people, probably, I'm sure, on both sides of a lot of these issues, I mean, they're largely the same -- the same people with the same desires in life and the same intentions as to what they do.

He thinks, more than anything, it's an urban-rural divide, one that "may be inevitable" given how the country has moved away from rural areas into cities. 

But I think it's possible to bring it back together again. We were very divided in the '30s, and World War II fixed it. I'm not suggesting that we want another war or something, but there will be some challenge that comes up to the country at some time that I think will help to pull us back together and find our common roots.

And Haslam noted, "we're pretty evenly divided as a country," noting the 50/50 Senate, a handful of votes separating the House, and the fact that we've not had a president elected by a double-digit margin in years.

But the problem is, we have become kind of segregated by our beliefs. And so we think everybody thinks the way we do, and we can't believe anybody would think differently. Part of what we're doing with this podcast... is modeling former Senator Howard Baker saying "always remember, the other person might be right." And that's what's lost in this -- in the discussions we're having today, is this idea of, the goal is to get to the right answer, not to get to my answer. And so we're trying to take hard topics, present people that have two very different perspectives, and then present some potential solutions.

I'm going to check out the podcast, to see how they approach the topics that wish our politicians would talk about, instead of focusing on getting the perfect soundbite. 

Checking back with Manchin, here's how he ended his chat with Bream.

And I sure do put the country first and America. It's all about America, not about Democrats or Republicans.

Tonight, Manchin pulled his permitting reform bill from the funding plan the Senate is considering. In a statement, he said

It is unfortunate that members of the United States Senate are allowing politics to put the energy security of our nation at risk. The last several months, we have seen firsthand the destruction that is possible as Vladimir Putin continues to weaponize energy. A failed vote on something as critical as comprehensive permitting reform only serves to embolden leaders like Putin who wish to see America fail. For that reason and my firmly held belief that we should never come to the brink of a government shutdown over politics, I have asked Majority Leader Schumer to remove the permitting language from the Continuing Resolution we will vote on this evening.

Over the last several weeks there has been broad consensus on the urgent need to address our nation’s flawed permitting system. I stand ready to work with my colleagues to move forward on this critical legislation to meet the challenges of delivering affordable reliable energy Americans desperately need. We should never depend on other countries to supply the energy we need when we can produce it here at home. Accelerating the construction of energy infrastructure is critical to delivering that energy to the American people and our allies around the world. Inaction is not a strategy for energy independence and security.

Is it critical enough to actually do something? Only time will tell...

See you around campus - and be prepared to discuss issues as if "the other person may be right."

Sunday School 9/25/22

I decided to spend some time in the Fox News Sunday classroom, to check in on new host Shannon Bream, who was tapped to fill the seat held by Chris Wallace for nearly two decades. 

One of her guests was Sen. Joe Manchin (D-They're ALL My Friends); it was his 'yes' vote that led to the passage of the dangerously named Inflation Reduction Act way back in August. Here's Bream's into to her chat with Manchin. 

She introduced him by noting the bargain he struck with Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) that would "reform the tedious federal permitting process for new energy projects," something Schumer's trying to find a way to go in order to "avoid a potential government shutdown." And, she quoted a Wall Street Journal comment about Manchin having "had political leverage but the bill shows he traded his voted on the cheap." Did you, she asked?

Nope - he didn't, he said, and he's got a response being published today in the WSJ; he said it answers "every one of the things which they basically have evaluated wrongly." And, he said,

But this is a chance in a lifetime for us to have energy independence, Shannon. For us to have security in this nation, which we need, and making sure that we can take care of the American people with low energy prices, producing more oil, producing more gas. But we have to have permitting reform if you're going to deliver it. You have no way of infrastructure to deliver it. So, everyone knows that. My Republican friends know that.

Much of the conversation centered around Republicans who are mad at Manchin because he struck a deal and the IRA passed. It seems most of them thought that he would be a no, and the Rs could hit the Biden administration with a loss just a few months before the midterms. 

For example, Bream brought up an amendment to the IRA from his fellow WV Senator Shelley Moore Capito that Manchin voted against ("hers is a messaging bill"), and ("she's totally supportive of my approach basically as it incorporated many of the things she and 46 other Republican senators had endorsed").

Not only that, but "Well, certainly, you understand where Republicans don't think they should be the ones to come across the aisle to vote for a measure that primarily benefits you, which was done in exchange for your vote on a measure they didn't support -- not a single one of them vote for the Inflation Reduction Act." 

And there's more - she quoted something in 'Politico' from Sen. John Cornyn, "Given what Senator Manchin did on the reconciliation bill, it's engendered a lot of bad blood. There's not a lot of sympathy on our side to provide Senator Manchin a reward." The point of that? Why should the Rs help him now?

Manchin handled it all as well as can be expected, starting by saying "this is not about me." He spoke of the twelve years he's worked with the Rs on their top priority - permitting reform. 

We can't build anything in America. It takes five to 10 years. The developed world takes one to three years. And why should we so behind the developed world bringing products to market, to be able to have the infrastructure to move energy around? And we're asking people around the world to do things for us, we won't do for ourselves? My Republican friends know exactly where we are. This is not about the previous legislation. This is something, a high priority that we have for our country.

His point? It's bigger than partisan stuff or hurt feelings  - it's about time, and history. 

If we don't, Shannon, take advantage of this and come together as Americans, we're going to look back five or 10 years from now and wonder why we're not able to meet demands, why are we allowing Putin to kind of control, dictate our energy policies, and what we are trying to respond to and not able to do it in a timely fashion because we can't move the energy in America -- whether it's going to be new transmission lines for renewables or basically for fossils and oil and gas that moves the products we need today. That's what this is about. And we need to come together as Americans.

Bream brought up a letter from a group of senators asking Schumer to separate the permitting reform piece from the federal spending bill. The senators - including Booker, Warren, Duckworth, and That Guy from Vermont - are concerned Manchin's bill will make the climate worse, and that it "would actually disproportionately hurt low-income Americans and communities of color if it does get passed."

Manchin's not surprised that TGFV and the others are against his plan - they've never been for it, and "that's why we've never had it." Even with the folks behind the letter, Manchin said "overwhelmingly, Democrats in both the House and the Senate are supporting" the bill, and he hopes that's enough to swing the Rs

We have a golden opportunity and we have a majority, overwhelming majority of Democrats supporting it. And they're doing it because this is the right time and the right thing to do for our country. But, also, it's a time we basically can bring Democrats and Republicans together as we've done with the bipartisan infrastructure bill... with the CHIPS bill. And we continue to do things when we need to do something for our country. 

He echoed the same line of thinking when Bream asked him if, as Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said, he didn't have all his ducks in a row when he went along with Schumer on the IRA. The Rs have had a ton of input on his bill, because he's been working on it with them for over a decade. 

... they have tremendous amount of input in this. But the process has come down to party line vote which is unfortunate, but it is what we're dealing with in a toxic political atmosphere. But I can assure you, everybody, we try to take everyone's input on this and my Republican friends' input is in this piece of legislation. So, I'm just hoping that and I'm very optimistic that we have the opportunity, they realize this opportunity and they'll never pass again in our lifetime.

He gently reminded any Rs watching that they weren't successful last time around.

When they had everything, when they -- in 2016 to 2020, Shannon, they had Republican president, Republican House, Republican Senate, we couldn't -- we couldn't move it because I was the only Democrat. Now we're in a position where we have a majority Democrats and our Republican friends can take it across the line.

After sharing some gloom and doom from Carl Icahn, who, Bream said, compares U.S. inflation to the fall of the Roman Empire, she asked Manchin "what regrets do you have at this point in voting for the Inflation Reduction Act...?"

He doesn't appear to have any regrets. He said the bill "puts more energy back into the markets" - and cleaner energy, too. Similarly, when you allow Medicare to reduce the price of drugs, that's helping inflation, and he said 300,000 of his constituents rely on Medicare.

The bottom line, for the folks who say the IRA will have little impact on inflation, in his view? They might not see a reduction in inflation right now, but they'll definitely see it.

because this does nothing but gives us a chance to reduce inflation... I have worked very hard to make sure we had an opportunity to be energy-independent and secure and fight Putin's war. 

And, in closing, he said "And I sure do put the country first and America. It's all about America, not about Democrats or Republicans," to which Bream replied, "That's what Americans are hoping for."  

Yes, it is. 

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed It (v85)

Another week is in the books; here's a recap of last week's post, in case you missed anything.

Among the folks making the Sunday School rounds was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Where the Dead Things Are); he chatted with Dana Perino on Fox News Sunday. They talked about Ukraine, and things on the home front, and about the upcoming midterm election. 

He suggested that the Biden administration "just can't seem to get their act together on the economy," but that's only part of why "the American people are so down on the president."

The economy, the precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan, the domestic energy issue we've already been discussing, crime, problems in public education, this administration has really got its hands full and I think they're headed toward a pretty good beating in the fall election.

And if the Rs retake the majorities in the House and Senate, all those issues will be part of the agenda, as will increasing military spending; Biden's current request "doesn't even keep up with inflation." And, McConnell said, "We've got a war going on in Ukraine." 

Some of those things he mentioned were discussed in other classrooms as well.

For your Sunday School Extra Credit, I sat in on a couple of the panel discussions, including the one on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, with Jon Karl hosting. The endorsements being handed out by the Former Guy garnered some attention, including the recent glowing recommendation of Dr. Oz for Senate in PA. Trump said that being on television is "kind of like a poll" and Oz was on for a long time, so people must like him. Rick Klein (ABC News) and Laura Barron-Lopez (Politico) chimed in on that.

After the laughter subsided, they got down to the nitty gritty: the fact that it seems Trump is endorsing "candidates that don't appear to be on track to win," including Oz. Klein says it's "totally fascinating" that Trump's putting himself on the line, and that, "in a bunch of cases, it could blow up in his face." A notable example? Trump's efforts to get rid of Georgia's governor and secretary of state.

So, this is a big moment, I think, for Donald Trump. I think the conventional wisdom about him is this kingmaker, as the biggest force in the Republican Party. It's going to be tested when you have actual Republican primary voters in a range of states, starting next month.

Barron-Lopez said none of this means he has lost his grip on the party, 

because we see Republicans, time and time again, repeating, whether it's the big lie, or repeating, you know, other claims and attempts to try to change election laws in -- in states, in order to make it so Republicans have a better edge in future elections. So that's continuing. That isn't going anywhere.

And that's pretty much the way it goes with the Former Guy, right? They need him, and they feed him, all the while not really knowing how things are going to end up.

I was Wondering on Wednesday about elections, and election security, and goofballs - and that was just this one entry.

Lauren Boebert, who represents a couple of people somewhere, I guess, wondered out loud about the recent election in France.

The socialist nation of France held elections today.

In that election there was no mail-in voting, early voting, or use of voting machines.

There was a mandatory proof of ID to vote.

Why can’t we get that basic election security here?

I wonder if she's figured out yet that we can't do here what they do there, because (a) we're not a socialist nation, (b) we don't have one set of election rules that everyone must follow, (c) we don't have automatic voter registration, and (d) she doesn't want us to be or have any of those things? 

I was grumpy on Thursday when I did this Sidebar on how we allow folks - the talking heads, for sure, but they're not the only ones - to just toss stuff out there, unchallenged, and how easy it is to find information to refute what they say. A case in point was the panel discussion on Fox News Sunday, where Brit Hume opined that the Biden administration needed to "throw open the regulatory barriers" and that would allow oil companies to increase production here in the US.

If we did that, he said, we could supply countries in Western Europe with energy to make up for what they're not going to be getting anymore from Russia. And that would "cut off the flow of Western funds into Vladimir Putin's war chest." Perino said Hume's answer "makes sense to me. We'll see if it makes sense to them going forward." 

Of course, it makes sense to Perino and Hume: if we're cutting regulations, everything will be fine, right? Well, no; what Hume's selling, the oil industry isn't buying.

Here's where it gets interesting; there's this great reporting from Freightwaves.com, which covered CERAWeek (emphasis added).

Even as Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm was using the platform of a major energy industry conference to call on the nation’s oil producers to ramp up production, what was being said during other sessions made clear that was not likely to happen. 

And there was a lot more from CERAWeek, which "has been described by the Financial times as the 'Davos of energy,' and by Politico as the "industry's Super Bowl," among other accolades - so it's not a bunch of people like me making stuff up - it's experts who disagree with what the pundits are throwing out there. And boy, I wish it would stop.

I did a total 'good week' TGIF - it seemed like something we could all use. Here's one example.

Moving on, we've got a nine-year-old fashion designer. Kaia Aragon, a third-grader, designs and sews her own clothes, after being taught to sew by her mom when she was five. You can see her designs via a link in the article; she shares them on her mom's TikTok page. 

Now, as a person who had to finish her junior high sewing project during the summer break, in order to avoid taking an incomplete, I can't even comprehend how Kaia does what she does. My project? A denim skirt, in case you were wondering. Which I'm pretty sure I never wore, but at least I finished the darn thing. In August. Ugh.

That's all I had for last week. I'll see you tomorrow for a recap of the Sunday School classrooms. 

If you're celebrating Easter, Passover, or Ramadan, I wish you the blessings of your holiday. 

If you're celebrating spring, or colored eggs, bunnies, and chocolate, or family time, or simply enjoying a quiet Sunday, I extend blessings to you as well.

Sidebar: Sunday School 4/10/22

One of the things that drives me nuts is how no one challenges the talking heads when they toss stuff unsupported nonsense out into the universe. A perfect case in point? The discussion on Fox News Sunday on "how national security and energy policy go hand-in-hand."

Dana Perino asked Britt Hume if he thought "President Biden will get to a place where he will figure out a way to buck the progressives and move forward to allow us to drill more here at home?"  Here's how his response started (I added the emphasis).

Well, I think he and his party are pretty much enthralled to the Green Movement and his energy policies to date have reflected that, and they have obviously -- are restraining the potential of American energy production, which would be at this point I think it's fair to say -- ... that we need more of everything. 

"More of everything" is the 'all of the above' policy. It acknowledges the need to increase our use of renewables, as well as our continued reliance on fossil fuels including coal, natural gas, and oil - "certainly for now and for the near future," Hume said on Sunday. Here's more of his response.

And I don't think the president is ready to go there, they will blame the oil companies for not producing enough and so on. We've heard that many times before, and they blame the oil companies for higher gas prices and all the rest of it. But the best way to get gas prices down is to throw open the regulatory barriers and let the United States energy industry go, which it certainly can...

If we did that, he said, we could supply countries in Western Europe with energy to make up for what they're not going to be getting anymore from Russia. And that would "cut off the flow of Western funds into Vladimir Putin's war chest." Perino said Hume's answer "makes sense to me. We'll see if it makes sense to them going forward." 

Of course, it makes sense to Perino and Hume: if we're cutting regulations, everything will be fine, right? Well, no; what Hume's selling, the oil industry isn't buying.

Last month there was a gathering in Houston called CERAWeek. I stumbled on it, looking for info on this issue. According to its website,  

For forty years, CERAWeek has been providing an integrated framework for understanding what’s ahead for global energy markets, geopolitics, and technology. Participants include senior executives, government officials, thought leaders, academics, technology innovators and financial leaders.​ 

Among the speakers last month? Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, who did as Hume suggested: she asked for increased production: 

We are on war footing and we have to respond. We have to increase short-term supply...The message right now, and I hope investors are listening, is that we can’t have one element holding back when you see what is happening every night. At this moment, we all have to give.

Here's where it gets interesting; there's this great reporting from Freightwaves.com, which covered CERAWeek (emphasis added).

Even as Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm was using the platform of a major energy industry conference to call on the nation’s oil producers to ramp up production, what was being said during other sessions made clear that was not likely to happen. 

The increasing U.S. industries’ strategy of restrained output and investment was on display last week at two separate panels at CERAWeek. It’s a game plan that has implications not only for the price of oil in the short and medium terms, but also for the transportation industries that serve it.

And it wasn't just one person saying production wouldn't be ramped up - it was several people.

• Scott Sheffield, CEO of Pioneer Natural Resources, one of the largest producers in the shale fields of the U.S., said "We’re not going to chase growth like we all did.” His comments came during a panel discussion on 'balancing growth and investor returns in the North American shale market.' The plan? Keep growth rates at 5%.

Unfortunately, government estimates are for slightly over 7% growth, to help replace the four million barrels of Russian oil a day that's no longer available.

• On the same panel? Tim Leach, an EVP at ConocoPhillips, who said that “accelerating investment in an inflationary environment is never a good idea,” and he added, a “long-term view is 'what creates value for our shareholders'.” 

• On a different panel, Chad Michael, president of an energy-sector investment bank, said that among investors, there's "an expectation of returning significant amounts of cash flow." And he said "the business model is mid-single-digit growth, because that is what investors want."

He said, they can't do much more because of labor and supply chain issues, something Granholm acknowledged in her remarks, too. The article did note that Biden's goal of moving away from fossil fuels has an impact on investing, but everyone knows the industry is not going anywhere anytime soon.

• Raoul LeBlanc, a VP at S&P global, suggested that in the face of calls for more production, the industry needs to ask "just how reasonable is it to step on the accelerator?' The current impact won't last forever." 

Why didn't anyone mention a prohibitive regulatory environment? Here's more on that, again from the Freightwaves.com reporters.

HOUSTON — A key State Department official used an appearance at energy industry event CERAWeek to take on what he said were “myths” about the Biden administration’s energy policy... 

The official was Amos Hochstein, Senior Advisor for Global Energy Security at the State Department. 

Hochstein disputed the view that the administration “is somehow holding back or is responsible for the industry not being able to produce a rising amount of oil.”

Production is up since Biden took office, but in recent weeks it's been holding steady; during that time, pressure on everyone to stop using Russian oil, and on the industry to replace it, increased.

When Hochstein has spoken with oil industry officials, he said he has asked them if the Biden administration had taken steps that are restricting production. “The bizarre thing is they told me it is not true,” Hochstein said. “The industry said there is no bottleneck for added production.” 

Rather, he said, issues outside the federal government's control, including labor shortages and problems with the supply of fracking sand, are hurting production. 

What's that all about? According to a report from Reuters (emphasis added)  

Sand supplies are so tight that it is slowing the pace of work for some oil drillers, and higher costs for sand are eating into the bottom line for others....

Hmm...what on earth is going on here? Well, sand that cost in the low teens at the beginning of the pandemic, and rose to $20-$25 per ton, and now they're at $50-$70 a ton - something industry consultants called "unheard of in the industry's modern history." 

And what's hampering the sand market? Labor and delivery - as in, they're short-handed getting the sand out of the ground, and there are shortages in the trucking industry, too. Which, if you think about it, is pretty much the issue across the board, right? 

So, back to Hume and Perino, and the rest of the talking heads, no matter what side of the oil rig they sit on. I get that they're paid to offer opinions, and that most of them are anti-Biden (for a whole host of reasons). But at some point, someone with a microphone is going to have to stop talking about the politics of everything, and start talking about reality. 

Everyone knows gas prices are high, but most people don't know why; they'll listen to Hume and think that it's a regulatory issue. Or, they'll listen to someone else say it's price-gouging, or extreme profit-taking at the corporate level. And they'll all be at least partly wrong - some more wrong than others. Getting these folks to take time out of their endless discussions on the political implications of this stuff to talk about the real problems and real solutions we need seems a bridge too far.

If the politicians won't be honest with us, and the talking heads won't, and the 'news' people won't, we're going to keep taking one step forward and two steps back. 

Is that really what we want? And if the answer to that is yes, what the hell is wrong with us?

OrangeVerse LX: The World According to Me

When you're a twice-impeached former president searching for relevance, you can always find willing accomplices in the media. There's your Most Favored Networks, of course and there's the always-willing ears working for other media outlets. 

You know, like the Washington Post, which published a recap of an interview just this week. 

And there's people like me, who transform those boring interviews into something much more, I don't know, literarily significant. Poetry, that is. Purely orange poetic gold, or something.

Here's the latest, from the WaPo interview, starting with his take on the attack on the Capitol.

Too Blind to See

I thought it was a shame, 

and I kept asking 

why isn’t she doing 

something about it? 

Why isn’t Nancy Pelosi 

doing something about it? 

And the mayor of DC also. 

The mayor of DC and Nancy Pelosi

 are in charge. 

I hated seeing it. 

I hated seeing it. 

And I said, it's

got to be taken care of, 

and I assumed they were

taking care of it.

Others were supposed to take care of his mess - and a bigly mess it was.

January 2017 Was Big, But...

The crowd was far bigger 

than I even thought. I believe it was the

 largest crowd I’ve ever spoken to. 

I don’t know what that means

but you see very few pictures.

They don’t want to show pictures, 

the fake news doesn’t want 

to show pictures.

But this was a 

tremendous 

crowd.

About that gap in the White House call logs, when the gals were  in charge?

Phone Calls? Who Cares?

From the standpoint of 

telephone calls, I don’t 

remember getting very 

many. Why would I care 

about  who called me? 

If congressmen were 

calling me, what 

difference did it make? 

There was nothing 

secretive about it. 

There was no secret.

Let's move on to foreign policy stuff...

People, People Thinking NATO

A lot of people 

are a little bit surprised,

I think they’re 

very impressed with Ukraine, 

but they’re not impressed

 with what NATO is doing, 

because a lot of people

 think NATO 

could be doing more.

Volodymyr, My Dear

I liked Zelenskyy 

from the beginning for 

one reason. When we

had the impeachment 

hoax, based on a perfect 

phone call, he totally backed 

me up, and I didn’t ask 

him to do that. They asked him, 

and he said, he absolutely did 

nothing wrong. He said there 

was no quid pro quo. 

He didn’t even know what 

his people were talking about. 

He thought they were crazy...

 So I gained great respect for him there.

And there was the part about the stolen election.

 

I'm the Diamond; Put Me Back

But I believe when you

 see massive election fraud, 

I can’t imagine that somebody 

who won the election based on fraud,

 that something doesn’t happen? 

How has it not happened? 

If you are a bank robber, 

or you’re a jewelry store robber,

 and you go into Tiffany’s and

 you steal their diamonds

 and get caught, 

you have to

give the 

diamonds 

back.

In what I think is a first for a former American president, Trump has expanded his reach to endorsing foreign candidates, including Hungary's Viktor Orban.

All Hail the King

After I endorsed him

he went up like

a rocket ship.

These other leaders

they want endorsements.

I'm the king of endorsements. 
It's more than just this country

It's other countries.

You'll see. 

Finally, what does he see when he looks in his crystal golf ball?

No Doubt

If I ran, 

I can’t imagine 

they’d want to run. 

Some out of loyalty would have 

had a hard time running. 

I think that most of 

those people, 

and almost every 

name you mentioned, 

is there because of me. 

In some cases, 

because I backed 

them and endorsed them. 

You know Ron was at 3 percent, 

and the day I endorsed him, 

he won the race.

As soon as I endorsed 

him, the race was over.

I have a good relationship 

with Ron, I have a good relationship 

with all the names you mentioned. 

Would they run against me? 

I doubt they would run 

against me. I doubt it.

I don't want to comment

on running, but I

think a lot of people

are going to be very

happy with my decision.

Because it's a little boring now.

Nobody likes 'boring,' do they?

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v40)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times

How'd you do with Days One and Two of my Sonofa Gov's State of the State? And are you ready for more? 

Day Three focused on the greening of New York, what Gov. Andrew Cuomo called a "new economic engine that is future-oriented, that is essential to our survival, and that has the potential to benefit generations to come." But, he said,

As is true in so many major issues of our time, the challenge is to close the societal and governmental gap between aspirations and accomplishment, between rhetoric and reality, between saying and doing. Offering hope of a tomorrow that never comes is one of the main causes of our social unrest and distrust in government. We are just not making enough actual progress. Why? Because change is hard.

Have no fear, though: "As the world economy resets, and as change is a necessity, there is an opportunity to raise our efforts to the next level - and New York should seize this moment." And, we can seize the rhetorical moment, too: Cuomo noted that "candles cannot power the future." We're going to stick a fork in fossil fuels, or something, via a four-pronged approach: 

• identifying and building enough green projects to generate the clean energy needed to "reliably support" all our needs; 
• ending our reliance on other countries, by building our own green tech and equipment, and developing "a steady flow of projects to start up and sustain those new businesses;"  
• building up our transmission capacity to connect the dots between where energy is generated, and where it's consumed; and
• elevating our training and education programs, and building out our R&D capacity.

He announced a $26B public/private partnership to develop around 100 renewable projects across the state. 68 projects (52 solar, 13 on-shore wind, and three off-shore wind) are already underway, and he announced 24 more during his presentation. Cuomo expects 11,000 jobs in "upstate NY alone." (Upstate is defined here, in case you aren't sure exactly where to find it.) 

Among the new projects? Two new wind farms, invisible from the shore, off Long Island; turning a Capital-district brownfield into a state-of-the-art wind turbine tower facility, and adding a fifth offshore wind turbine hub to serve the entire east coast.

More big news? He announced a competitive bidding process for a new green transmission grid, starting with three projects all leading to NYC. Other projects across the state are designed to "break open congestion" and will start this year. And, we're going to have state-of-the-art battery storage capability, with construction already underway on a new facility in Franklin County

On the last tine of the fork, there's a new $20M Offshore Wind Training Institute, as well as training for heat pumps and geothermal heating technology, which will help us replace existing systems in some 130,000 buildings. All projects have must meet MWBE goals, and pay prevailing wage, so that workers and business owners of color are not left out.

He said the whole green program will create 12,400 megawatts of green power, enough for six million homes; directly create 50,000 jobs; and generate $29 billion in private investment. 

The message? "Go big, or go home," and he's got no intention of us sitting on the sidelines as others move forward. 

Email of the Week (v20)

I know, I know -- it's been a while since I've done a post in our Email of the Week series.  Now that there's only Papa Joe still in the running, and of course the majority of the emails are simply (or complicatedly) requests for money, I thought I'd take a look.  

And then, at the Rose Garden political rally the other day, the "these newfangled lightbulbs make me look orange" guy suggested that Joe Biden would eliminate windows from buildings if he gets elected. Take a look.

Mandate net-zero carbon emissions for homes, offices, and all new buildings by 2030.  That basically means no windows, no nothing.  It’s very hard to do.  I tell people when they want to go into some of these buildings, “How are your eyes?  Because they won’t be good in five years.  And I hope you don’t mind cold office space in the winter and warm office space in the summer, because your air conditioning is not the same as the good old days.”

Now, I'm pretty sure without even having to read the Biden/Democratic plan on clean energy that windows will still be allowed. But I looked, just in case you needed any reassurance, and yep - there it is: 

For families, Biden’s plan will include direct cash rebates and low-cost financing to upgrade and electrify home appliances, install more efficient windows, and cut residential energy bills. Biden will also significantly expand weatherization efforts, reaching over 2 million homes within 4 years, including slashing the disproportionately high energy burden for low-income rural households and rural communities of color. 

Anyway - as I was going through my emails from the Biden campaign, I found this one that immediately moved to the top of the heap, given its relevance to Trump's comments, and so it's the winner of the coveted email of the week award.

I said it last week, and I’ll say it again: in the face of today’s economic crisis, it won’t be enough to build back to the way things were before COVID-19. We have to build back better.

That’s why today I’m announcing my plan to create millions of infrastructure and clean energy jobs to build a resilient and sustainable infrastructure now -- and deliver an equitable clean energy future.

My new plan will create high-paying jobs that provide a choice to join a union. These will be jobs that improve air quality for our children, increase the comfort of our homes, and make our businesses more competitive. We’ll make sure the communities who have suffered the most from pollution are first to benefit. And throughout every aspect of my plan, I’ll prioritize addressing historic environmental injustice. I’ll explain more in a moment, but first I have to ask:

Sue, as we take steps to create millions of infrastructure and clean energy jobs, one thing I know is I’ll need input from folks like you to make my plan a reality. Will you take a quick survey and commit to meaningful action today?

TAKE THE SURVEY

Here’s how we’ll make historic investments -- in just my first term -- to create millions of good, union jobs, build a modern and sustainable infrastructure, and set us on an accelerated and irreversible course to meet the ambitious climate progress that science demands:

· Building and upgrading a cleaner, safer modern infrastructure. We’ll build and improve smart roads, water systems, municipal transit networks, schools, airports, rail, ferries, and universal broadband access for all Americans, whether they live in rural or urban areas of America.

· Positioning the American Auto Industry to Win the 21st Century. Eleven years ago, Barack and I helped save the auto industry. Trump has overseen a manufacturing recession and has allowed China to race ahead in the competition to lead the auto industry of the future. I’ll reverse this trend, make the United States a global electric vehicle leader, and create 1 million new jobs in and relating to the American auto industry.

· Constructing homes and public housing units and upgrading buildings to be more energy efficient. These retrofits won’t just create jobs, they will make the places we live and work healthier and reduce electricity bills for families and businesses. I’ll ensure these homes are energy efficient from the start -- saving the families who live there $500 per year. And, these retrofits will create at least 1 million construction, engineering, and manufacturing jobs.

· Move ambitiously to generate clean, American-made electricity to achieve a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035. This will enable us to meet the existential threat of climate change while creating millions of jobs with a choice to join a union.

We can get all this done, Sue. And we can do it fast. But we can only do it together.

I need your help to send a clear message that we reject Donald Trump’s failed leadership and that we’re ready to lead the world in clean job creation.

Will you take a quick supporter survey and help me get the word out? I need you to help me by taking meaningful action today:

TAKE THE SURVEY

Thank you,
Joe Biden