Looked like readers here (see poll at right) pegged oil prices as of today just about right.
They closed yesterday at just over $58/bbl for West Texas Intermediate.
That said, we've got three clouds on the horizon for the next few months that could affect oil prices' future.
They are:
1. Greece's possible departure from the Eurozone;
2. Puerto Rico's debt crisis, which almost certainly will lead to it seeking Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (It's already being advised by a lawyer that helped the city of Detroit with that);
3. The ramped-up intransigence of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei on nuclear talks with the West + Russia and China.
One interesting "tell" is that Brent is slumping even more than WTI, so that, despite the storage capacity issues at Cushing, Oklahoma, elsewhere, the Brent/WTI gap has narrowed a fair amount in the last week or so.
Meanwhile, today is the official end date for Iranian talks, but they're expected to continue.
But, to what end? Is Khamenei banking that Russia and China, at least, will soon tire of maintaining stringent sanctions? If that's the case, just like with a successful conclusion, more Iranian oil hits the market and prices fall. However, Iranian intransigence would add a bit of destabilization.
So, what next?
I predict crude will likely stay in a $55-65 band (WTI) for the next quarter. I'll have a poll up soon. Oh, and be skeptical of people who keep saying oil prices are going to explode. They're not. Here in the US, the supply-hoarding issue will keep somewhat of a lid on things. In Europe, Greece issues will put a definite lid on Brent. And, more proof oil bulls are wrong? Many analysts think US gas prices have already hit their summer peak.
June 30, 2015
The #SJW world and #InsideOut spoiled
_poster.jpg/220px-Inside_Out_(2015_film)_poster.jpg) |
| Inside Out PR release poster, via Wikipedia |
Why?
Because the "Sadness" character is ... "fat."
Well, she is heavier than the others, but ... watch as I prepare to rip Joni Edelman to shreds.
First, this must also mean that "Anger" is an attack on short people. In addition, since the Anger emotion for the character "Riley" is played by a guy, I guess Pixar was also saying that women's anger is unfeminine or something. Got it.
And, "Fear" looks awfully anorexic. Must be an attack on them there.
Plus, Anger is red, Sadness is blue. I guess there's a political message for today's America hidden somewhere?
And, of course, which even Edelman is compelled to mention, Sadness is different in other ways. She has what Edelman calls an "emo" haircut. She wears glasses. Guess that's a huge bias.
She wears a turtleneck, for doorknob's sake! And, yes, Edelman actually latches on this, as though it's proof of nerd bias or something.
No, really:
Joy doesn't wear glasses. She probably had Lasik. Because she is probably also rich. Rich, white (well, white-ish) people are also joyous. And she gets to wear a cute little dress, which she probably bought at Nordstrom, while Sad is shrouded in what is probably an itchy-ass thrifted wool sweater. Maybe that's why she's named Sad.Oh, they're all "white-ish."
What? Edelman's not bitching that none of Riley's emotions look like a stereotypical minority? (Rather, I think a legit bitch is that neither Riley nor her parents sound even close to native Minnesotan.)
Beyond that, Anger is about the same build as Sadness.
Finally, Edelman, aren't you promoting body-negativity yourself by fixating on Sadness' weight and other things and presuming that Pixar is sending a message? Hmm, maybe we need to create an Implicit Bias Project test for weight and see if you have a high degree of unconscious body negativity yourself.
Of course, when you say this near the start of the review:
I can't write with any real authority about Inside Out, because I haven't see the movie, but I'm pretty much 100% positive that seeing the movie isn't required to make this judgment.
Ahh, so we’re judging a book by a cover you invented and
then straitjacketed on to it. Got it.
(Oh, and while I just read this by Edelman, I'm sure she is far from alone in social justice warrior land.)
(Oh, and while I just read this by Edelman, I'm sure she is far from alone in social justice warrior land.)
On the surface, the New Yorker, in an opinion that sounds like Richard Brody is Woody Allen at a primal scream therapy session from the 1970s, sounds better.
But, in reality, his idea of introducing half a dozen additional emotions, along with, say, "existential angst," would kill "Inside Out" dead as a kids' movie. And, it might kill it dead as an adult movie for three-quarters of the adults who are seeing it for themselves. Beyond that, you would have had a 3-hour movie or more if Pixar had tried to go inside the brain of multiple people for the whole movie. (It DID, though, Brody, look briefly at least at Mom and Dad.)
On the other hand, I largely agree with his idea that it could have used more complexity. But, I would have made Riley 13 or 14 in that case, to put her in the post-puberty world. If we're going to re-engineer a movie plot, let's do it right.
I would have "shoehorned" one more emotion into the mix: Guilt. It's semi-core. (Jealousy and the others Brody mentions are generally not considered "core" emotions.)
He is right that Pixar movies can be insipid. But, if one wants an adult movie about complex adult emotions, a number already exists. "The Brothers Karamazov," on screen, comes immediately to mind.
Besides, there are some more subtle angles. This reviewer notes, as did I and surely many others, that Joy is a control freak and that the other four "Cores" also have personalities.
June 29, 2015
TX Progressives talk gay marriage, climate change, Obamacare
The Texas Progressive Alliance is still celebrating love's victory — and pondering Texas AG Ken Paxton's combination on that of political pandering with lack of backbone — as well as pondering what SCOTUS will do when it again rehears the Fisher vs. University of Texas affirmative action case, as it brings you this week's roundup.
Off the Kuff discusses the next steps for equality advocates.
Lightseeker at Texas Kaos shares personal stories about the heartbreaking impact of overt racism. And though he has come to hate prejudice and racism with a white hot passion, Lightseeker said the time has finally arrived for sharing the truth, change and healing. Time for Truth, Change and Healing is NOW.
Lost in the earth-shaking Supreme Court developments last week was a report from a former Harris County deputy sheriff that Adrian Garcia did not tell the truth when he said he did not know about the mentally ill jail inmate in a littered, feces-filled cell over a year ago. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs says it's a headache for the Houston mayoral contender, but shouldn't damage his prospects... unless things take a turn for the worse.
Socratic Gadfly notes that new polling from Yale shows that people concerned about global warming are NOT a minority, even in a red state like Texas, even to the point of supporting a carbon tax, and suggests there are political activism and outreach lessons to be learned.
From WCNews at Eye on Williamson. No surprise in SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare, ACA, aka, Obamacare Subsidies Upheld By SCOTUS.
Neil at All People Have Value said that the 14th Amendment--cited this week by the Supreme Court to allow gay marriage--is the product of blood and sacrifice. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.
Texas Leftist is still trying to recover from this weekend's monumental Houston Pride celebration. Fair warning... What "turns up" must eventually come down.
====================
And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.
Scott Braddock adds up the success rate for getting bills passed for legislators who opposed Speaker Joe Straus.
Texas Watch responds to Rick Perry's claims about his record on health care.
BEYONDBones explains why we should eat bugs. No, really.
Juanita Jean updates us on the activities of one of Dan Patricks's citizen advisors.
The Lunch Tray says we all have a Sid Miller problem now.
The Texas Election Law Blog highlights a respected federal judge's change of heart on voter ID.
Better Texas Blog evaluates the legislative session.
Paradise in Hell bids an un-fond farewell to the ideals of the Confederacy.
Lone Star Ma addresses some of the crazy objections that have been made to the SCOTUS same-sex marriage decision.
(Blog publisher's note: I would be willing to try bugs if, per the blog post, they were made into flour or something — and presumably didn't have a Whole Foods-level pricetag on them.)
Off the Kuff discusses the next steps for equality advocates.
Lightseeker at Texas Kaos shares personal stories about the heartbreaking impact of overt racism. And though he has come to hate prejudice and racism with a white hot passion, Lightseeker said the time has finally arrived for sharing the truth, change and healing. Time for Truth, Change and Healing is NOW.
Lost in the earth-shaking Supreme Court developments last week was a report from a former Harris County deputy sheriff that Adrian Garcia did not tell the truth when he said he did not know about the mentally ill jail inmate in a littered, feces-filled cell over a year ago. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs says it's a headache for the Houston mayoral contender, but shouldn't damage his prospects... unless things take a turn for the worse.
Socratic Gadfly notes that new polling from Yale shows that people concerned about global warming are NOT a minority, even in a red state like Texas, even to the point of supporting a carbon tax, and suggests there are political activism and outreach lessons to be learned.
From WCNews at Eye on Williamson. No surprise in SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare, ACA, aka, Obamacare Subsidies Upheld By SCOTUS.
Neil at All People Have Value said that the 14th Amendment--cited this week by the Supreme Court to allow gay marriage--is the product of blood and sacrifice. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.
Texas Leftist is still trying to recover from this weekend's monumental Houston Pride celebration. Fair warning... What "turns up" must eventually come down.
====================
And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.
Scott Braddock adds up the success rate for getting bills passed for legislators who opposed Speaker Joe Straus.
Texas Watch responds to Rick Perry's claims about his record on health care.
BEYONDBones explains why we should eat bugs. No, really.
Juanita Jean updates us on the activities of one of Dan Patricks's citizen advisors.
The Lunch Tray says we all have a Sid Miller problem now.
The Texas Election Law Blog highlights a respected federal judge's change of heart on voter ID.
Better Texas Blog evaluates the legislative session.
Paradise in Hell bids an un-fond farewell to the ideals of the Confederacy.
Lone Star Ma addresses some of the crazy objections that have been made to the SCOTUS same-sex marriage decision.
(Blog publisher's note: I would be willing to try bugs if, per the blog post, they were made into flour or something — and presumably didn't have a Whole Foods-level pricetag on them.)
#SCOTUS to again rehear Fisher v UT — Dolezal angle?
The Supreme Court remanded the Fisher case, about the University of Texas' affirmative action policies, to appellate court level last year, while giving that court the instruction to apply the standard of "strict scrutiny" to her case. And, chock full of conservatives and all, the Fifth Circuit did just that and still upheld UT's policy. And, once again, the plaintiff, backed by professional far-right legal groups, appealed, and has gotten cert granted again.
SCOTUS is apparently only rehearing her case because her same wingnut-backed lawyer, Edward Blum, along with an Orwellian-named group, Students for Fair Admissions, has similar cases involving Harvard and University of North Carolina. That said, the Nine could have denied cert to all three.
The only other possible reason I can think of, off the top of my head, and no, I'm not joking, is Rachel Dolezal. Her "passing," and some of her stated reasons why, may have gotten four justices to want another rehear. And, no, I'm not kidding. I can see how her comments could be anti-affirmative action ammunition, especially that she had linked her self-identification as African-American not to affirmative action in general, but affirmative action in academia.
That said, giving the Fifth Circuit's second ruling upholding UT, I agree with this op-ed that Fisher should have moved on. But this case is clearly not about Fisher any more — it's about legal-theory wingnuttia.
==
To wrap up this year's Supreme Court term:
Liberals had a definite loss on environmentalism, as SCOTUS overturned the DC Circuit and said EPA went beyond Clean Air Act standards on mercury regulations. It's unclear how the EPA will proceed, since it already offered its estimates of benefit monetary value versus costs, though not doing a formal CBA.
• Lethal injection got the OK to continue with another drug replacing a barbiturate originally in the mix; Sonia Sotomayor authored a hot take dissent.
• ALL clean government supporters got a win with Arizona's redistricting commission being OKed.
SCOTUS is apparently only rehearing her case because her same wingnut-backed lawyer, Edward Blum, along with an Orwellian-named group, Students for Fair Admissions, has similar cases involving Harvard and University of North Carolina. That said, the Nine could have denied cert to all three.
The only other possible reason I can think of, off the top of my head, and no, I'm not joking, is Rachel Dolezal. Her "passing," and some of her stated reasons why, may have gotten four justices to want another rehear. And, no, I'm not kidding. I can see how her comments could be anti-affirmative action ammunition, especially that she had linked her self-identification as African-American not to affirmative action in general, but affirmative action in academia.
That said, giving the Fifth Circuit's second ruling upholding UT, I agree with this op-ed that Fisher should have moved on. But this case is clearly not about Fisher any more — it's about legal-theory wingnuttia.
==
To wrap up this year's Supreme Court term:
Liberals had a definite loss on environmentalism, as SCOTUS overturned the DC Circuit and said EPA went beyond Clean Air Act standards on mercury regulations. It's unclear how the EPA will proceed, since it already offered its estimates of benefit monetary value versus costs, though not doing a formal CBA.
• Lethal injection got the OK to continue with another drug replacing a barbiturate originally in the mix; Sonia Sotomayor authored a hot take dissent.
• ALL clean government supporters got a win with Arizona's redistricting commission being OKed.
Ken Paxton, AG Chicken Little, trying to have his cake and eat it on #gaymarriage
The Texas AG, also known in these quarters as Edward Jones for past and possibly future financial-legal difficulties, is a political panderer of the first class. Because his pandering tends in one direction only, if he's a chameleon on plaid, it's red (state) plaid only.
But, the Supreme Court's Friday gay marriage ruling is of a new level indeed.
Paxton blathers about religious liberty of county clerks to not issue marriage licenses, and then says, in essence:
"If you get sued, don't call me. Look under 'Lawyers' in the Yellow Pages."
You see, he, I presume quite carefully, phrased his input on the issue as a nonbinding legal opinion. In other words, it's the personal legalese thought of a man masquerading as Texas' attorney general.
Here's the key grafs:
But, the Supreme Court's Friday gay marriage ruling is of a new level indeed.
Paxton blathers about religious liberty of county clerks to not issue marriage licenses, and then says, in essence:
"If you get sued, don't call me. Look under 'Lawyers' in the Yellow Pages."
You see, he, I presume quite carefully, phrased his input on the issue as a nonbinding legal opinion. In other words, it's the personal legalese thought of a man masquerading as Texas' attorney general.
Here's the key grafs:
In a nonbinding legal opinion, Paxton said religious freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment “may allow accommodation of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses.”
The clerks who balk at licensing gay marriage “may well face litigation and/or a fine,” Paxton warned.
“Importantly, the strength of any particular religious accommodation claim depends on the particular facts of each case,” he concluded.
“But,” he added in a press release, “numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious beliefs, in many cases on a pro-bono basis, and I will do everything I can from this office to be a public voice for those standing in defense of their rights.”
Yeah, potential "true believer" county clerks, like Juli Luke in Denton County? Paxton's got your back. Way back. All the way back in Austin. It's clear that if somebody sues you, you're on your own. That said, the state now has new license forms online.
At the same time:
1. Luke has now said she'll follow the law; and maybe she was just an ultra-worried clerk, not a "true believer.
2. Paxton has said that it would conceivably be an undue burden if everybody in a county clerk's office refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple but still did so to opposite-sex couples.
At the same time:
1. Luke has now said she'll follow the law; and maybe she was just an ultra-worried clerk, not a "true believer.
2. Paxton has said that it would conceivably be an undue burden if everybody in a county clerk's office refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple but still did so to opposite-sex couples.
I call Paxton "Chicken Little." But, you can change that second word to something besides "Little."
Or, call him a "weasel" instead of "Chicken Little."
Just a few counties in the state are official "no" counties; and half of them are small enough that it would be a budget-buster if/when they get sued, if they try to fight it. And, speaking of, Paxton's rightfully getting flamed by equality advocates, non-bigots, and people who actually understand the Constitution of the United States and/or how the Supreme Court grinds judicial sausage.
Or, call him a "weasel" instead of "Chicken Little."
Just a few counties in the state are official "no" counties; and half of them are small enough that it would be a budget-buster if/when they get sued, if they try to fight it. And, speaking of, Paxton's rightfully getting flamed by equality advocates, non-bigots, and people who actually understand the Constitution of the United States and/or how the Supreme Court grinds judicial sausage.
June 28, 2015
A weekly wrap on the #ConfederateFlag
At the start of the week, I noted how "amazing" it was that South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, junior Sen. (and black Republican) Tim Scott, and senior Sen. and presidential candidate Lindsay Graham, aka Huckleberry J. Butchmeup, all magically agreed that the Confederate flag at the South Carolina Capitol in Columbia needed to come down.
I still suspect Huckleberry called in chits as part of his presidential ambitions.
I next noted how at least one Southern white "better" was saying for public consumption what others of his ilk were surely thinking in private. This claim, that purported South Carolina racist terrorist Dylann Roof's invocation of the Confederate flag should be dismissed because he's "white trash" might gain ground in days and weeks ahead.
I then tackled the Confederate (battle) flag as a symbol of racism, among many, that at one time included the U.S. flag and the Constitution. I then explained how both some Southern denialists and some well-meaning liberals are wrong in claiming the St. Andrews' Cross is ONLY the Confederate battle flag, noting that for the second half of the Civil War, it was part of THE CONFEDERATE FLAG, having already started this explainer, including distinguishing between the denotative and connotative meanings of the "Southern Cross" in that second link.
I then went on, with a prompt from author Tony Horwitz, to tackle the Confederate flag as precisely what that white "better" was trying to dodge — the keystone symbol of Southern and Confederate heritage and the "Lost Cause."
That leads to the first of two news stories from yesterday.
NASCAR is arguably one of the top symbols of the New South's version of Southern heritage, as well as the postbellum Old South. Well, its president, Brian France, wants to remove the flag from any NASCAR affiliation.
Second, activist Bree Newsome made news yesterday by going on Capitol grounds and pulling down that flag of contention.
I have no problems with monkey-wrenching activism, even when it breaks the law.
I do have a problem with her seeming hardcore religious motivation. As a secularist, I tweeted to both her and a Twitter feed for an alleged group of followers that the same god and scriptures she was citing also upheld, and, er, gave "positive protection" to slavery in the Old Testament and said it was OK in the New. (Jesus himself, just as he didn't say one word one way or the other about abortion or gay sex, didn't say one word one way or the other about slavery or racism.)
I still suspect Huckleberry called in chits as part of his presidential ambitions.
 |
| Actually, connotatively, it kind of is the CSA flag. Officially, it became the canton of the actual CSA flag that replaced the Stars and Bars in 1863, so, IMO, this meme attempt isn't totally right either. Connotatively again, it then became seen as "the flag" of the Confederacy because of the racists behind the rise of the Second Klan in the 1920s. Plus, again connotatively, this meme attempt is itself often used as an attempt to stifle larger questions about "Southern culture," etc. with an "ignoramus" label. |
I then tackled the Confederate (battle) flag as a symbol of racism, among many, that at one time included the U.S. flag and the Constitution. I then explained how both some Southern denialists and some well-meaning liberals are wrong in claiming the St. Andrews' Cross is ONLY the Confederate battle flag, noting that for the second half of the Civil War, it was part of THE CONFEDERATE FLAG, having already started this explainer, including distinguishing between the denotative and connotative meanings of the "Southern Cross" in that second link.
I then went on, with a prompt from author Tony Horwitz, to tackle the Confederate flag as precisely what that white "better" was trying to dodge — the keystone symbol of Southern and Confederate heritage and the "Lost Cause."
That leads to the first of two news stories from yesterday.
NASCAR is arguably one of the top symbols of the New South's version of Southern heritage, as well as the postbellum Old South. Well, its president, Brian France, wants to remove the flag from any NASCAR affiliation.
Second, activist Bree Newsome made news yesterday by going on Capitol grounds and pulling down that flag of contention.
I have no problems with monkey-wrenching activism, even when it breaks the law.
I do have a problem with her seeming hardcore religious motivation. As a secularist, I tweeted to both her and a Twitter feed for an alleged group of followers that the same god and scriptures she was citing also upheld, and, er, gave "positive protection" to slavery in the Old Testament and said it was OK in the New. (Jesus himself, just as he didn't say one word one way or the other about abortion or gay sex, didn't say one word one way or the other about slavery or racism.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)