Williams Energy, Spirits of Undead Native Americans Reach Agreement on Pipeline Route

LANCASTER, Pa.- In a move hailed as a breakthrough for the energy industry in Pennsylvania, Williams Energy has reached an agreement with the spirits of undead Native Americans whose burial grounds are in the path of the proposed Atlantic Sunrise natural gas pipeline.

“Williams Energy has always believed that gas development must be balanced with the needs and concerns of local communities,” said Williams Energy spokesman Curly McLain, standing beside the ethereal form of thirteenth-century Susquehannock chief Makes-Much-Wampum.  “We are pleased that we have been able to address the concerns of the ghosts of Martic Township’s Native American community in a constructive manner.”

Sources close to the negotiation say the main breakthrough came when Makes-Much-Wampum, communicating via Ouija board, agreed to provide Williams Energy with a list of Indian burial sites whose fallen warriors have already crossed the Bridge of the She-Bear to the Happy Hunting Grounds, and therefore would be unaffected by pipeline construction disturbing their final resting place.  Williams Energy then agreed to clear the final route of the pipeline with the Council of Elder Braves via seance and provide monthly offerings of corn to the Susquehanna, Pequea, and Conestoga River Maidens on a rotating basis.  In exchange, the souls of the local Indians agreed not to drive the pipeline engineers to near-suicidal madness, demand the blood of the firstborn of any Williams Energy executives, or give the Williams back-office staff any really nasty paper cuts.

While the energy industry was quick to tout the agreement as a model of business-community relations, not all pipeline opponents were impressed.  “It’s a shame to see these well-respected community leaders sell out so quickly,” said Melissa Chatterbox, chairwoman of Martic S.P.I.R.I.T. (Stop Putting Industrial Routes In our Township).  “Don’t they have any respect for nature?”

Kylie Jenner's Chemtrail FAQ

(Cross-posted at Ricochet)

Via BuzzFeed, the illustrious Miss Jenner recently posted this to Twitter:

Answer key:

1. Why did I see 75 planes spraying white stuff in the sky on my 15 minute drive into work? Because the hydrocarbons in jet fuel are made of hydrogen and carbon (hence the term “hydrocarbons”) and burning is the rapid combination of flammable materials with oxygen in the air (which is why fires go out when cut off from oxygen). Combining hydrogen with oxygen produces H2O, also known as water. When excess water vapor is unloaded in the atmosphere, it tends to condense, a phenomenon known as “clouds”.

2. Who pays for this and why is it happening? You pay for it, whenever you buy an airline ticket, and as for why it’s happening, see question 1.

3. Is something being exterminated here? No.

4. Is that something me? No.

5. Does this have anything to do with why Honey Bee’s [sic] are Dying [sic] really fast? Considering the current outbreak of Colony Collapse Disorder started in 2006, and air travel had been common for decades before then, almost certainly not.

6. Why are some days normal with no planes spraying and others look like this? Because sometimes the humidity in the upper atmosphere is so low that the water vapor from airplanes immediately evaporates, and sometimes it’s high enough that the water vapor stays condensed for a while. For the same reason, some mornings it’s foggy outside your house and some mornings it’s clear.

7. Whos [sic] is responcible [sic]? You are, if you’ve ever traveled by air.

8. What effect will this have on our health and our childrens [sic] future? None whatsoever. Unlike anti-vaccination theories, you can believe, and even act on, this nonsense without it harming your children. Your lawn and your dignity might suffer, though.

9. WHO THE F*** THOUGHT THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA? The Wright Brothers.

10. Am I the only one who sees this? No, there are plenty of people who latch onto causes like this because they need to feel more important and unique.

The Fall of the House of Shuster?

(cross-posted at Ricochet)

Here in Pennsylvania, we figured our state legislature had gerrymandered us out of having any interesting Congressional races until 2020. In particular, you’d expect Rep. Bill Shuster of the ninth district to be safe. He’s a Republican in the state’s most Republican district. He’s chairman of the Transportation committee, following in the footsteps of his father, who has half the highways in the area (including an Interstate highway that violates the usual numbering scheme) named after him. 

Into each Congressional career, though, some scandal must fall. Since last summer, Rep. Shuster has been dating Shelley Rubino, a lobbyist for the airlines’ trade association. He insists he is going above and beyond House ethics rules in the matter, and there’s no evidence the relationship started before Rep. Shuster’s divorce last year. Still, it looks bad. 

Rep. Shuster was never as safe as his committee chairmanship and name would suggest. He’s a relative moderate in a conservative district, and came into his office under unusual circumstances (his father resigned in 2001, setting up a special election, instead of retiring at the end of his term). He barely survived a primary challenge in 2004, and only got 53% of the vote against two candidates in the 2014 primary. He may be about to face his strongest opponent yet in Tom Smith, a coal company executive. Smith has name recognition (he was the nominee to challenge Sen. Bob Casey in 2012 and carried all but one of the counties in the district), the wealth to self-fund a campaign, and serves on the board of directors of the Commonwealth Foundation, one of Pennsylvania’s leading conservative think tanks. 

The biggest problem for Smith is that he doesn’t live in the district- he lives in Armstrong County, just west of the district’s northwest corner. It’s unlikely either that Shuster will decline to run for re-election next year, or that he’ll avoid a challenger even if Smith doesn’t run. In what ought to be a safe district for any Republican incumbent, we might be seeing the marquee race of next year’s primary season emerge. 

I Almost Qualify for the Newest Victim Group

(Cross-posted at Ricochet.)

As anyone who knows my fashion sense would know, I’m straight. As anyone who has seen me dance would know, I’m white. As anyone who has attempted to get me to respond to hints would know, I’m a guy. This makes me obsolete, without any place in the currently fashionable identity politics. 

Riding to my rescue comes James St. James, a writer for Everyday Feminism (h/t National Review). You’d think he’d focus on how society discriminates against people with repetitive names, which tragically drove Sirhan Sirhan to a life of crime and threatens the political career of Chris Christie. (I nominate Phillip Phillips as their celebrity spokesman.) No, instead, it focuses on getting extroverts to check the privilege they supposedly have over introverts. 

Finally, my membership card in the Coalition of the Oppressed was punched. You see, growing up, I had to raise my hand occasionally at the family dinner table to get a word in between my chattery father and sister. I’ve had to reassure my girlfriend several times that she doesn’t need to worry when I don’t say much. If I had written the Golden Rule, it would go something like, “Bother other people not, as you would not wish to be bothered.”

Just when I was about to organize a march on Washington to demand reparations for Richard Nixon’s impeachment trial, I read St. James’s criteria again. He says you’re in need of a privilege check if, among other things, you:

- would rather risk making small talk with your roommate’s guests than go hungry if you need to cross the house to make a sandwich;

- don’t take ridiculously long to shop because you’re too frightened of the store employees to ask one of the employees where something is; or 

- keep bumping into people because you walk close to walls and buildings.

I realized I don’t meet either of those criteria. I’m not the most outgoing guy, but I’m willing to put up with a little small talk to get food or prevent a shopping trip from taking all evening (Hey, I did say I’m a guy). I’m not even sure running the risk of bumping into people is truly the mark of an introvert, because if you bump into somebody, you have to apologize to him- and sometimes even make eye contact. (Eww.) Reading the article, though, it’s apparent that I’m a traitor to my people. An Intro-Tom. I’m holed up in Uncle Tom’s Cabin reading a book while everyone else is outside chatting (Come to think of it, having a secret that you just can’t tell is pretty introverted).

So, it’s back to the drawing board. Look, I know the Left is always on the hunt for new victim groups, but I don’t want to scrutinize every personality quirk for some new reason to need Hillary Clinton to save me next November. 

After all, I’m kind of an introvert. 

Dispatch from Next Year's Convention

(Cross-posted at Ricochet)

I have no intention of explaining how the correspondence which I now offer to the public fell into my hands. 

PHILADELPHIA, July 25, 2016- 

JD: There seems to be quite of a bit of excitement heading into the convention this week. 

DNC Spokesman: As we did eight years ago, Democrats are poised to break the glass ceiling yet again. We are on the cusp of a moment many of us thought we’d never see in our lifetimes- but just like eight years ago when President Obama took office, history will be made next January when John Edwards becomes our first openly gay President. 

JD: Yes, let’s talk about that. I think it’s safe to say that last spring, when Hillary Clinton was the frontrunner, few would have predicted this turn of events. 

DNC spokesman: We will always appreciate Hillary Clinton’s service to this country as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State. 

JD: But certainly you have a comment on her emails which were released last November?

DNC spokesman: The primary voters made their decision, and we are committed to making Senator Edwards the next President of the United States.

JD: You don’t even have a reaction about the fact that those emails revealed that Sen. Bernie Sanders was spying for the Russians, forcing him to defect to Moscow shortly after winning the New Hampshire primary?

DNC spokesman: I’m not here to talk about the past.

JD: Well, the special election for Sanders’s Senate seat has become heated. Do you have any comment?

DNC spokesman: Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield are two of Vermont’s most respected businessmen, and I think the fact that they’re both so well-qualified is part of the reason this is a difficult decision for voters. I’m confident whoever emerges from the primary will do great things as the next United States Senator from the great state of Vermont. 

JD: Fair enough. Recent polling shows that John Edwards will have an uphill climb against the Republican Rubio-Fiorina ticket. Senator Rubio is ahead in both his own state of Florida and Senator Edwards’s home state of North Carolina, and polls show dead heats in such Democratic-leaning states as Michigan and New Mexico. Do you think the scandals associated with Senator Edwards are having an effect on public opinion?

DNC spokesman: It’s unfortunate that the stress of living in the closet in our cis-tacular, hetero-riffic society led Senator Edwards to do some film producers- er, things he now regrets. But, you know, he’s out and proud now, and we’re focusing on the future and how Senator Edwards will build on the achievements of President Obama to lead our country into a new era.

JD: I’m pleased to be joined by a spokesman from the Republican National Committee. After two straight victories for President Obama, what does Marco Rubio have that might appeal to Obama voters?

RNC spokesman: Vowels.

JD: Good point. I note there have been some complications in the race to succeed Rubio in the Senate. Care to comment?

RNC spox: While we appreciate Colonel West’s passion for conservative principles and service to his country, and we understand that foreign policy is an emotional issue, particularly after the recent Russian invasion of Lithuania and nuclear test by Poland, biting your opponent’s head off in a debate is a complete violation of the decorum we expect from a United States Senator, and we were forced to ask him to step aside. Our thoughts and prayers are with Congressman Grayson’s family.

JD: Another key Senate race is right here in Pennsylvania. How do you plan to hold onto Pat Toomey’s seat? 

RNC spokesman: We’ve anticipated a closely-fought race for some time. Admiral Sestak is a strong candidate with a distinguished military record. However, we are confident that, after the voters of Pennsylvania have considered Senator Toomey’s positions on the issues that matter most and his record, they will reward him with a second term.

JD: And the Democratic view?

DNC spokesman: Nobody was more shocked than I was to learn of the tragic loss of Admiral Sestak. This is a loss not just for our party, but for all the people of Pennsylvania, and a reminder that pedestrian safety is an issue that affects all of us. 

JD: I have no idea what you’re talking about.

DNC spokesman: Wait, today’s Wednesday, right?

JD: No, it’s Monday.

DNC spokesman: Never mind.

In Which My Procrastination Meets Women's History Month

(So the other day I got to thinking about how snakebit some of my state's female politicians have been, and it occurred to me that might be a good idea for a blog post.  I waited until the last day of the month because I'm a hopeless procrastinator and because I don't really pay much attention to [insert group here] History Months, but mostly because I'm a hopeless procrastinator.) 

After the elections last November of U.S. Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W. Va.) and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Gov. Gina Raimondo (D-R. I.), Pennsylvania is one of only eight states that has never had a female governor or U.S. senator (the others are Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee, and Virginia*) .

Before accusing Pennsylvania’s voters of sexism, we should look at the careers of some of the women who seemed poised to break the state’s electoral glass ceiling.  In particular, five women were elected to Congress or statewide row office in the past twenty years and frequently mentioned as potentially Pennsylvania’s first female senator or governor, but came up short.  Two got caught up in abortion politics, two were caught by male opponents with better organization and preparation, and one is currently embroiled in scandal.  

Barbara Hafer was elected Allegheny County Commissioner in the 1980s, then Auditor General in 1988, the only Republican since 1960 to hold that position.  In 1990, when Gov. Bob Casey Sr. was up for re-election, she became Republican party leaders’ choice to oppose him.  However, Hafer is pro-choice on abortion, which led Peg Luksik, a pro-life activist from Johnstown, to enter race six weeks before the primary; Luksik received 46% of the vote.  In the general election, Gov. Casey assembled a coalition of usually Democratic voters and staunch abortion opponents to win by a 2-1 margin, including 73% of the vote in Lancaster County, usually a Republican stronghold.  

Hafer bounced back during the 1990s, winning another term as Auditor General in 1992 and two terms as state Treasurer in 1996 and 2000.  In 2002, when Gov. Mark Schweiker declined to seek a full term, she launched another campaign for governor.  This time the Republican establishment favored then-Attorney General Mike Fisher, leading Hafer to switch to the Democrats.  She didn’t have any more luck in her new party, being passed over for the Senate nomination in 2006 and the 12th Congressional district in 2010.  

Catherine Baker Knoll: Like Hafer, Knoll was a Pittsburgh-area politician elected to statewide row office (Treasurer, in her case) in 1988.  Unlike Hafer, Knoll was a pro-life Democrat in an increasingly pro-choice party.  The closest she got to being elected governor** was in 1994, when she contemplated running, initially deferred to then-Lt. Gov. Mark Singel, then got back in the race after the state committee declined to make an endorsement (there was some tension between Gov. Casey and Singel, who is pro-choice), ending up with a third-place finish in the primary.  Knoll’s feud with Barbara Hafer began in 1996, when her daughter, Mina Baker Knoll, ran against Hafer for Treasure, and culminated in 2000, when Hafer narrowly defeated Knoll for the job.  Knoll had a bit of comeback in 2002, when she emerged from a crowded field to win the Lieutenant Governor nomination.  While she balanced out her running mate, socially liberal former Philadelphia mayor Ed Rendell, her frequent gaffes (such as referring to Rendell as “Edward G. Robinson” and handing out her business cards at a Marine’s funeral) prevented her from rising higher.  Sadly, she was unable to serve out her second term, dying of cancer in 2008.

Melissa Hart, a state senator from Allegheny County who was elected to Congress in 2000, replacing Democrat Ron Klink.  During her time in Congress, she was often mentioned as a future candidate for statewide office.  Alternatively, she might have risen into House leadership; she got picked for the Ways and Means committee and played a key role in the rise of John Boehner.  However, she was caught in the 2006 Democratic wave and lost her seat to Jason Altmire, a health care executive who was not polling close to Hart until the last month of the election.  She ran against Altmire in a rematch in 2008, but lost by an even larger margin despite Barack Obama’s unpopularity in western Pennsylvania, and was passed over for her old senate seat in 2012 when Jane Orie had to resign over a corruption scandal.

Fun fact: Hart's page at the Fount of All Knowledge contains the sentence: "She also claimed that she was the person behind renaming Pittsburgh's highway system of I-279S/US-22/30W/PA-60N into a new name of I-376W which cost Pennsylvania taxpayers 14.8 million in taxpayer dollars just to change the signs on that route."  Somebody wasn't happy about that bit of spending...

Allyson Schwartz was elected to the state senate in 1990, came in second in the Democratic U.S. Senate primary in 2000, and was elected in the 13th Congressional District just as it was completing its transition from a safe Republican district to a safe Democratic one.  As the 2014 election approached and then-Gov. Tom Corbett’s approval rating remained in the cellar, Schwartz announced her candidacy for governor and led in the early polls.  She was poised to become Pennsylvania’s first female governor until Tom Wolf’s bank account and ability to introduce himself to voters became decisive.  Wolf led in every poll beginning in February and won the primary in a rout, getting 57% of the vote in a four-candidate field and carrying every county in the state.  

Kathleen Kane burst onto the political scene when she won the 2012 election for Attorney General, her first attempt at running for office.  She outpolled President Obama, Senator Casey, and the rest of the Democratic ticket, and became the first woman and first Democrat in state history to be elected Attorney General (which has been an elected position since 1980).  She denied an interest in running against Gov. Tom Corbett in 2014, which only triggered speculation she would run against Sen. Pat Toomey in 2016.  

With the possible exception of Gov. Corbett, no Pennsylvania politician had a worse 2014 than Kane.  First, she angered much of Philadelphia’s legal community, including the Committee of Seventy and D.A. Seth Williams, by abruptly ending a corruption probe into several local politicians in the city.  Then, some leaks from her office triggered a grand jury investigation, which recommended perjury and obstruction of justice charges against her in January 2015.  On the personal side, she suffered a concussion in a car accident in October 2014 and filed for divorce in December.  Late in the year, she announced she was running for re-election as Attorney General, not for the Senate or any other office.  Of course, it’s possible that Kane could be exonerated and win a second term, but unless she wants to primary Gov. Wolf or Sen. Casey, she’ll likely have to wait until 2022 if she is still interested in higher office.

Pennsylvania has had several women rise high in politics, but so far none have reached the highest levels.  The careers of these five women show how fickle fate can be, and it’s not hard to imagine how some of Pennsylvania’s prominent male politicians might have ended up on a list like this (for example, if Allyson Schwartz or then-Treasurer Rob McCord had been better prepared for Tom Wolf’s advertising onslaught, or if Pat Toomey had run in a less Republican year than 2010).  Sooner or later, some woman will find the right circumstances and take office as Pennsylvania’s first female governor or senator.

*In Ohio, Utah, and Georgia, women succeeded to the governorship or were appointed to a vacant U.S. Senate seat, but did not win full terms on their own.

**The closest Catherine Baker Knoll got to actually being governor was when Ed Rendell would drive down the Turnpike at 100 miles per hour.

Where Wolf Won

In the 2014 election, Gov. Tom Wolf improved on 2010 Democratic candidate Dan Onorato's statewide vote total by 9.42 percentage points, from 45.07% in 2010 to 54.49% in 2014.  While Wolf improved on Onorato's percentage in every county in Pennsylvania, the increase was not evenly distributed across the state:

Increase in the Democratic Percentage of the Vote by County, 2010-14

The number on each county is the number of percentage points the Democratic vote increased by from 2010 from 2014.  For example, Dan Onorato got 28.9% of the vote in Lancaster County and Tom Wolf got 40.9%, so a 12.0 is displayed.  Red counties had a smaller-than-average swing toward Wolf; blue counties had a larger-than-average one.  All election data in this post comes from www.uselectionatlas.org.  Since I didn't have enough space to label the counties with their names, you can find that here.

Where Wolf increased less than average: The rural northeastern corner of the state (with the odd exception of Wayne County) and the outlying population centers of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Erie stand out as areas where Gov. Wolf didn't improve as much as he did statewide.  The far northeast is the epicenter of fracking in Pennsylvania, so it might be the one area where former Gov. Tom Corbett's association with the gas industry helped him.  Say what you want about fracking, but it doesn't seem to be terribly unpopular in the areas where it's actually taking place.

(Fun fact: Blogger still autocorrects "fracking" to "tracking".)

As for Philly and Pittsburgh, it's possible that Philadelphia (the second-lowest increase in the state for Wolf) was a "dead cat bounce" for Corbett, who didn't have that many voters in Philly to lose in the first place.  (He went from 17.1% there in 2010 to 12% in 2014.)  The fact that Wolf defeated three Philly-based candidates in the primary may have hurt him in the Southeast, and the fact that 2010 was between two Allegheny County candidates, while Tom Corbett was the only candidate from the area in 2014, may have stemmed Corbett's losses in Pittsburgh.

Where Wolf increased more than average: The central part of the state, ranging from Fayette and Venango counties in the west to Lackawanna County (i.e., Scranton and its immediate neighbors) in the northeast.  The biggest swings toward Wolf were in Forest County in the northwest (which has the state's second-smallest population and a large state prison, so it might be an outlier), Huntingdon County (immediately south of State College), and a belt stretching from Union and Snyder counties to Schuylkill County.  The anthracite coal region, with the notable exception of Luzerne County, swung hard to Wolf.

The 409*-pound elephant in the room is Gov. Corbett's role in the firing of Joe Paterno.  To make a long story short, there is a perception among some Penn State fans, fairly or otherwise, that Corbett (the attorney general from 2005 to 2011) dragged his feet on the Jerry Sandusky investigation until after he was elected governor, then made Paterno a scapegoat.  That would certainly explain Corbett's unpopularity in Centre and surrounding counties, but that wasn't the only, or even the worst, area of decline for Corbett.  

Another explanation might be the different dynamics of 2014 from 2010.  The 2010 gubernatorial election was between two non-incumbents for an open seat at the high tide of anti-Obamacare sentiment, so the conservative voters of central Pennsylvania were motivated to vote against Democrats.  In 2014, anti-Obamacare sentiment had faded (as did memories of former Gov. Ed Rendell, never too popular in rural areas), and Gov. Corbett had his own record and controversies to defend.  The GOP did its best to portray Wolf, state Secretary of Revenue in 2007 and 2008, as Ed Rendell's tax collector, but it's difficult to portray a Jeep-driving businessman from York County (note Wolf's improvements in York and surrounding counties) as an extreme liberal.  

*See what I did there?