Black Flight

by Chris Bodenner
The WSJ examines how U.S. cities such as Atlanta, DC, and San Francisco are reversing historic trends by becoming more white — both because white professionals are gentrifying blighted areas and because black middle-class families are moving to the suburbs.  In other words, white flight has given way to “African-American out-migration.”

In Washington, a historically black church is trying to attract white members to survive. Atlanta’s next mayoral race is expected to feature the first competitive white candidate since the 1980s. San Francisco has lost so many African-Americans that Mayor Gavin Newsom created an “African-American Out-Migration Task Force and Advisory Committee” to help retain black residents.

“The city is experiencing growth, yet we’re losing African-American families disproportionately,” Mr. Newsom says. When that happens, “we lose part of our soul.”

Ta-Nehisi Coates pounces:

Oh no, not our soul!  A black church actually trying to attract white members, a white guy actually running for office in Atlanta, and a big city mayor who has to fight to keep black people. Race war, indeed. Sometimes, there really is no way to win with media. Part of the reason cities like Atlanta are becoming white is because black folks (like myself) who grew up caged in cities want their taste of the stereotypical American dream and thus are leaving. But there never is any black agency–to be African-American is to be an automaton responding to either white racism or cultural pathology. No way you could actually have free will.

(Newsom is trying to keep blacks from leaving through affordable housing, and to lure them back with cultural institutions, such a jazz center.  Hanna Rosin examined how Memphis tacked in the opposite direction — using Section8 vouchers to bring poor African-Americans out to the suburbs — with disastrous results.)

Face Of The Day

Workerspencerplattgetty3
An employee at a steel factory pauses while making steel rods out of cargo ship scrap metal on July 20, 2008 in Dhaka, Bangladesh. While the price of scrap metals has risen globally recently, workers at scrap factories in Bangladesh make an average under fifty cents and hour. According to a recent World Bank study, Bangladesh is among at least 33 countries that are at risk of serious political unrest if food and fuel prices keep rising. Bangladesh is currently one of the world’s poorest countries, where nearly 40 percent of the 144 million population survive on less than a dollar a day. By Spencer Platt/Getty.

Christianist Watch

by Chris Bodenner
Evangelicals within the Iowa GOP have barred Sen. Grassley, the state’s highest-ranking Republican, from joining the delegation in St. Paul:

Political observers in Iowa saw the move against Mr. Grassley as retribution for his having tangled with evangelical pastors in his state. He initiated a Senate Finance Committee investigation of six televangelists for conspicuous personal spending.

"The Republican Party of Iowa is moving significantly to the right on social issues," the just-ousted Iowa [RNC] member Steve Roberts told The Washington Times. … "It’s pretty well controlled now by the Christian Alliance. If somebody came to me and wanted to be a delegate to the national party convention, I used to say, ‘Talk to the state party chairman or to Grassley.’ Now it’s very simple. You go to the Christian Alliance, and they determine who is a delegate, and you have to do exactly as they say."

Obama’s Revenge?, Ctd.

By Patrick Appel
A reader writes:

200 journalists apply for 50 40 seats on a campaign plane. Ryan Lizza, along with 149 159 other reporters, didn’t make the cut – and this is a story?

Point taken, but Joe Gandelman also has a point:

If this was mere happenstance, then it’s an example of poor and short-sighted staffing. If this was unintentional, it gives the appearance of payback and shows the kind of sloppy staff work that can sink campaigns — and that the Obama campaign has notably not shown in the past.

Religion As Poetry

By Patrick Appel
James Carse, who directed the Religious Studies Program at NYU for 30 years, has a new book out called  The Religious Case Against BeliefHere’s his definition of a belief system, which he differentiates from religion:

A belief system is meant to be a comprehensive network of ideas about what one thinks is absolutely real and true. Within that system, everything is adequately explained and perfectly reasonable. You know exactly how far to go with your beliefs and when to stop your thinking. A belief system is defined by an absolute authority. The authority can be a text or an institution or a person. So it’s very important to understand a belief system as independent of religion. After all, Marxism and Nazism were two of the most powerful belief systems ever.

He doesn’t believe in a divine reality but he also has problems with atheism. His critique of the new atheism is after the jump:

In the current, very popular attack on religion, the one thing that’s left out is the sense of religion that I’ve been talking about. Instead, it’s an attack on what’s essentially a belief system… There are several problems with their approach. It has an inadequate understanding of the nature of religion. These chaps are very distinguished thinkers and scientists, very smart people, but they are not historians or scholars of religion. Therefore, it’s too easy for them to pass off a quick notion of what religion is. That kind of critique also tends to set up a counter-belief system of its own. Daniel Dennett proposes his own, fairly comprehensive belief system based on evolution and psychology. From his point of view, it seems that everything can be explained. Harris and Dawkins are not quite that extreme. But that’s a danger with all of them. To be an atheist, you have to be very clear about what god you’re not believing in. Therefore, if you don’t have a deep and well-developed understanding of God and divine reality, you can misfire on atheism very easily… I wouldn’t call myself an atheist. To be an atheist is not to be stunned by the mystery of things or to walk around in wonder about the universe. That’s a mode of being that has nothing to do with belief. So I have very little in common with them. As a matter of fact, one reason I wrote the book is that a much more compelling critique of belief systems comes not from the scientific side but from the religious side. When you look at belief systems from a religious perspective, what’s exposed is how limited they are, how deeply authoritarian they are, how rationalistic and comprehensive they claim to be, but at the same time how little staying power they have with the human imagination.

The rest of the interview is here.

The Iraq Debate

By Patrick Appel
Matt writes:

Until these past couple of weeks it wasn’t even controversial to say that if the Iraqi government wants us to go, we should go. The debate was about whether we should go even if they want us to stay.

Here’s how Marc phrases the dilemma we are left with:

…the political class has determined that Barack Obama was right about the Iraq war and that John McCain was right about the Surge. Does one right trump another? Or, as the war re-polarizes along party lines, do they cancel each other out? And it’s clear that the Iraqi government wants U.S. troops out more quickly than John McCain does, whilst U.S. generals want to send troops home more slowly than Obama does. Who trumps who?

Obama’s Revenge?

By Patrick Appel
Ryan Lizza, who had a critical piece on Obama last week, was excluded from Obama’s international tour:

According to a Chicago pol interviewed by Lizza, [Obama] earned a reputation that “‘you’re not going to punk me, you’re not going to roll me over, you’re not going to jam me.’” That seems to be the message the Obama campaign was sending here. Or maybe, like Ari Fleischer once warned, they would just like people to watch what they say.

As Jeffrey Goldberg says, "This is not the change we’ve been waiting for."

Crude Numbers

By Patrick Appel
A reader writes:

In the "The Drilling Canard", Patrick Appel cites this quote from Howell Raines as part of an "explanation" as to why oil companies are to blame for $4+ gasoline: "The oil companies themselves choked supply by closing more than half of their 300 U.S. refineries in the past 25 years."

Sorry to contradict theology with facts, but U. S. refining capacity actually increased by 11% in the last 23 years. 

 

Stats from DOE Energy Information Administration show refining capacity in 2008 as 17,588 TBD (thousand barrels a day of crude distillation capacity) vs. 15,659 TBD in 1985 (earliest year for which data is on-line).

Yes, in the last 25 years, a lot of small, inefficient plants were shut down.

These shutdowns were more than offset by significant expansion of capacity at larger, more efficient refineries, which can process a much wider range of input (not just "light, sweet" credit). In addition, these larger plants have much more complex secondary refining capacity (e.g. catalytic crackers, reformers, desulfurization units) so that they actually squeeze out much more usable products from each barrel of crude, so that net production capacity has probably increased more than the above stats would indicate.  Also, the more complex refineries meet higher standards for product quality (e.g. lead-free, "clean" gasoline) and refinery environment and safety.

The U.S. petroleum industry ain’t perfect, but they’re not quite the villains that know-nothings like Raines would claim, based on made-up facts.

Last year Robert Rapier looked more closely at refinery capacity.

Try Again

By Patrick Appel

Daniel Finkelstein supports the NYT’s rejection a McCain’s Iraq op-ed:

Well, political pieces by elected officials or candidates can often be very boring – safe, unrevealing and tediously partisan. In general I required such pieces to jump over a pretty high importance barrier before I ran them. Obama’s piece vaulted that hurdle. It outlined his views, pretty much avoided point scoring, and dealt with the issue. McCain’s piece, on the other hand, knocked the hurdle over. It wasn’t about Iraq. It was about Obama.

Philip Klein doesn’t:

It’s true that different rules apply for editorial pages, which don’t pretend to be unbiased. But even an editorial page that is should have a basic sense of fairness, and certainly a vibrant page should want to welcome debate. According to Drudge, NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley, a former Clinton speechwriter, said: "The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans… It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq."

But Drudge printed the original McCain article, and comparing it to Obama’s column, I see no qualitative difference. Yes, the McCain column is a political document that doesn’t have many specifics, but the same can be said for Obama. To the extent that Obama does have some specifics — a 16-month timetable — that’s a result of the a policy disagreement. It isn’t evidence that somehow Obama article was more thorough or original.

Either way, this is now a big win for McCain. His article is now out as the lead item on Drudge, and it will get more attention that it would have had they printed it. It also should be a great fundraising tool for McCain among conservative donors.