The steepening drop in gasoline prices in recent weeks — spurred by soaring domestic energy production and Saudi discounts for crude oil at a time of faltering global demand — is set to provide the United States economy with a multibillion-dollar boost through the holiday season and beyond.

The windfall, experts say, comes at a critical moment, with the American economy on the upswing but facing headwinds from other quarters, including weaker exports because of slow growth overseas. Gas prices recently dropped below $3 a gallon for the first time since 2010, while crude oil prices have fallen by more than $25 a barrel since midsummer, settling on Thursday just above $74.

“If oil prices stay between $75 and $95 a barrel, we would see the kind of stimulus package that the Federal Reserve or Congress could never do,” said Douglas R. Oberhelman, the chief executive of Caterpillar, the multinational maker of heavy construction equipment.

The NYT article doesn’t talk about any raging debate over fracking’s safety. The newspaper has repeatedly acknowledged that the Obama administration considers fracking to be safe if properly regulated and has never given serious ink to the apocalyptic claims of fracking haters.

Which brings us to the Los Angeles Times. On Friday, the newspaper continued its absolutely bizarre tradition of raising safety concerns about fracking without noting that the greenest administration of all time thinks it’s safe. It comes in a story about L.A. City Council members agitating for a citywide fracking ban and finding resistance from city staffers who are skeptical that would be legal:

Councilmen Mike Bonin and Paul Koretz, who championed the ban, said in a letter Wednesday that they were “extremely disappointed” that the planning department had not drafted the rules as it was asked to do nearly nine months ago.

“Your report outlines interesting recommendations and important considerations,” Bonin and Koretz wrote to the deputy director of planning, Alan Bell.

“The council, however, asked for a draft ordinance establishing a fracking moratorium for its consideration, not a report without an ordinance attached,” the councilmen wrote. …

The Los Angeles City Council voted in February to start drafting rules that would prohibit hydraulic fracturing — commonly known as fracking — and other kinds of “well stimulation” techniques until adequate environmental safeguards are adopted by state and federal governments.

Does the LAT note that the federal government strongly believes it has “adequate environmental safeguards” in place? Nah. It has a pathetic tradition to continue. This is from CalWatchdog in May 2013:

Say what you will about The New York Times, but at least it’s not in denial about fracking the way The Los Angeles Times is.

Friday’s LAT coverage of new U.S. Interior Department rules for fracking on 756 million acres of public and Indian lands depicted the rules as being strongly objectionable to both enviros and the energy exploration industry.

The NYT coverage made the industry whining seem more pro forma and offered this essential point that the LAT couldn’t bring itself to point out:

“The 171-page proposal is the first significant regulation issued under the new interior secretary, Sally Jewell. Ms. Jewell worked in the oil industry in the late 1970s and proudly said that she fracked a few wells in Oklahoma.

“Ms. Jewell said in a conference call for reporters that the administration would continue to lease large tracts of public and Indian lands for oil and gas development and that it was critical that rules keep pace with technology.

“Anticipating criticism from environmental advocates, she said: ‘I know there are those who say fracking is dangerous and should be curtailed, full stop. That ignores the reality that it has been done for decades and has the potential for developing significant domestic resources and strengthening our economy and will be done for decades to come.’”

NYT quotes Obama Cabinet member; LAT quotes flack

The L.A. Times’ account put in the “fracking is safe and has been around forever” context by quoting an oil industry trade association spokesperson. The NYT quoted THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR!

Quite a gigantic difference. But than the LAT’s Neela Banerjee and Wes Venteicher and their editors can’t have Times’ readers knowing the Obama administration likes fracking, can they? It doesn’t fit the West L.A.-Marin County-NRDC narrative.

Pretty incredible how blatant the LAT bias is here. Can’t discomfit readers with a jarring truth.

Details on the bill’s demise from the LAT:

“A proposal to affix health warning labels to sugary drinks, including sodas and sports drinks, failed to win sufficient support in a key Assembly panel Tuesday.

“The measure would have required sugary drinks sold in California to be labeled with a warning that sugar contributes to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay. …

“The bill’s supporters, including the California Medical Assn. and an array of public health groups, argued that labels would help consumers make healthier choices. …

“The bill got seven ‘aye’ votes — all from Democrats — but short of the 10 votes it needed to pass.”

‘Wisely declined to pursue’

What follows are excerpts from an online op-ed earlier Tuesday by stategist/consigliere/spokesman Steve Maviglio. It’s a tart warning to his fellow Democrats about the bill, which readers should filter through the fact that Maviglio is on the payroll of the American Beverage Association (as he acknowledges):

“… as the sponsors of the bill admitted in POLITICO a few weeks ago, the legislation will have no impacts on health of any Californians. It’s part of a ‘movement’ by professional anti-soda crusaders to beat back the soda industry, plain and simple. ….

“Health advocates have made an excellent effort of educating the public in recent years about the ill effects of too much sugar., and its connection to soda. … But a warning label that does nothing but send a message? There’s no proof anywhere that it has an effect; as mentioned earlier, even its proponents, in a delicious display of candor, say that it doesn’t.

“Which is why this bill feeds straight into the message of Legislative critics when they say this legislation is another example of the ‘Nanny State’ bills that Legislative Democrats formerly  embraced but have recently wisely declined to pursue. …

“Assemmbly Democrats should think twice about moving this bill to the Governor’s desk, and instead return to the discipline they’ve exhibited in killing legislation that does nothing but grab headlines.”

Now I’m hardly saying Maviglio’s warning had any effect, much less a decisive effect. As the LAT noted, the bill is still alive for reconsideration. And I’m sure donations may have persuaded Dem lawmakers to ignore their Nanny State impulses. And of course … he’s on the payroll of the American Beverage Association.

Big Mother debate: Passion is on libertarian side

But even with all these caveats, it is still fun to see a prominent type in California’s liberal firmament make a point that libertarians and conservatives have made for years: The Nanny State mentality isn’t broadly popular.

And there’s another point that Maviglio didn’t make but probably agrees with: The people who back Nanny State policies are mostly mildly supportive. Those who oppose them include far more folks who genuinely hate these laws, seeing them as both infantilizing adults and as being contemptuous of basic liberty.

How many on the left feel this passionately about stuff like Mayor Bloomberg’s attempt to limit the size of sodas in fast-food restaurants?

Exactly.

I have heard that some journos think my criticism is unfair and/or that I am a loopy ideologue. My response: However I feel (or however you feel) about fracking, isn’t it an obligation for California newspapers to relate how the, yunno, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT feels about its safety?

Of course it is.

This weekend, I revved up Nexis to see it the media blackout continues. I searched for stories that mentioned “California” and “fracking” from June 14, 2013, to June 14, 2014:

Times, Bee and Chronicle fracking coverage

I found 132 stories in the Los Angeles Times.

How many mentioned the Obama administration considered fracking safe?

One — a June 21, 2013 op-ed by Rock Zierman, CEO of the California Independent Petroleum Assn.

I found 124 stories in the Sacramento Bee.

How many mentioned the Obama administration considered fracking safe?

One — a March 30, 2014, op-ed by Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association.

The Bee ran a piece from McClatchy’s D.C. bureau in late November 2013 that didn’t even raise the question of fracking’s safety; it just pointed out how widely used it was and how it was transforming the economy of several states.

So I guess that one counts, giving the Bee two stories that give the Obama perspective on fracking safety.

I found 61 stories in the San Francisco Chronicle.

How many mentioned the Obama administration considered fracking safe?

Two, by staff reporter David R. Baker. Another Baker piece describes Obama as a fracking supporter.

So that gives the Chronicle three.

So there were 317 stories mentioning “California” and “fracking” for the past year, and only six mentioned that the Obama administration considers if safe — and two of those were op-eds from oil trade association executives and one was a wire story.

So only Baker’s three stories amount to staff-produced journalism on California and fracking from the state’s three most influential newspapers that noted the profoundly important fact that the greenest administration in U.S. history sides with those who say fracking is safe.

Draw your own conclusions. Sure looks like groupthink to me.

Green, please-the-Sierra-Club groupthink.

1) Don’t trust a state that gathers secrets on everyone.

2) Really don’t trust a state that has remote killing powers and gathers secrets on everyone.

3) And really, really don’t trust a state that thinks killing people without due process is OK if the national security machine says so.

Some of the movie-biz trade coverage seems faintly surprised that “Captain America” was still a gigantic worldwide blockbuster after its first 10 days:

“Captain America which stays at the Top of the box office world and continues to rack up dollars; it’s total cume domestically will be about $158M after its second weekend. The Winter Soldier, which had A CinemaScores across the board, dropped less than the first Captain America did in 2011, which was 61%. And, because of its equally strong presence in international markets (about $60M more from this past weekend), Captain America: The Winter Soldier now stands tall with a $476.1M worldwide cume with one more territory to open – Japan. It’s 163% ahead of the first Cap which made, all in, $370.5M worldwide.”

That’s from Deadline Hollywood. Its author shouldn’t have been surprised. In the movie, the U.S. is depicted as being borderline-fascistic because of Total Information Awareness-style info-gathering and a much-more sophisticated version of the present U.S. programs which kill perceived enemies with pilotless drones.

Worldwide popularity reflects anti-Americanism

That depiction tracks semi-precisely with the low opinion of America held by much of the world over the past decade, at least after the Obama honeymoon ended overseas. (Will it ever end here?)

The Bush 43-Obama zeitgeist is in trouble if pop culture sides with “Captain America” the movie and the superhero. Pop culture is very much like the domestic version of “soft power” — as the Obama team showed when it actually got tons of traction for its insane argument that Romney’s 2012 comment about “binders full of women” was somehow a sexist “Mein Kampf.”

Don’t trust the government is a powerful argument to many of the people who pay close attention to how the world works. If it becomes a message that pop culture explains and amplifies to those who pay less attention, hallelujah.

And it seems unlikely that “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” is an outlier in the ever-growing Marvel cinematic empire. “The Avengers” certainly brought up the don’t-trust-the-government theme.

More more more!

Can governments kill their citizens without a trial?

A final note: When Sen. Rand Paul demanded a year ago that Attorney General Eric Holder say American citizens couldn’t be killed unilaterally by government drones, it was widely derided as a stunt. A few more movies like “Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” and that question will become a staple of press conferences involving presidential candidates for the rest of time.

Good.

This was put on clear view this week when executives with the OK Cupid dating site warned users of the Mozilla Firefox browser who came to their site that they were using the product of a company run by an alleged homophobe. The Mountain View-based Mozilla Foundation responded by pushing out CEO Brendan Eich, who donated $1,000 in 2008 to the campaign for Proposition 8. That’s the California ballot measure banning same-sex marriage that was narrowly approved but has since been nullified by federal courts.

James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal has more details and some very pertinent Golden State context:

“There has been no claim that Eich, an executive of Mozilla Corp. since its founding in 2005, discriminated against gay employees. …

“Eich’s support for Proposition 8 became public knowledge because of a California law requiring disclosure of personal information — name, address, occupation and employer’s name — of anybody who gives $100 or more to a campaign for or against a ballot initiative. The secretary of state’s office is required to post this information online [and does so on] an easily searchable database.

“Which brings us back to Citizens United. It is known as a 5-4 decision, and most of it was, but one part of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion–upholding a provision requiring disclosure of political contributions–was for an 8-1 majority, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting alone.”

‘We have plans for you and your friends’

“Thomas’s argument rested heavily on the facts of the Proposition 8 campaign, and it’s worth quoting at length …:

‘Some opponents of Proposition 8 compiled this information and created Web sites with maps showing the locations of homes or businesses of Proposition 8 supporters. Many supporters (or their customers) suffered property damage, or threats of physical violence or death, as a result. They cited these incidents in a complaint they filed after the 2008 election, seeking to invalidate California’s mandatory disclosure laws. Supporters recounted being told: “Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter,” or, “we have plans for you and your friends.” Proposition 8 opponents also allegedly harassed the measure’s supporters by defacing or damaging their property. Two religious organizations supporting Proposition 8 reportedly received through the mail envelopes containing a white powdery substance.

‘Those accounts are consistent with media reports describing Proposition 8-related retaliation. The director of the nonprofit California Musical Theater gave $1,000 to support the initiative; he was forced to resign after artists complained to his employer. The director of the Los Angeles Film Festival was forced to resign after giving $1,500 because opponents threatened to boycott and picket the next festival. And a woman who had managed her popular, family-owned restaurant for 26 years was forced to resign after she gave $100, because “throngs of [angry] protesters” repeatedly arrived at the restaurant and “shout[ed] ‘shame on you’ at customers.” The police even had to “arriv[e] in riot gear one night to quell the angry mob” at the restaurant. Ibid. Some supporters of Proposition 8 engaged in similar tactics; one real estate businessman in San Diego who had donated to a group opposing Proposition 8 “received a letter from the Prop. 8 Executive Committee threatening to publish his company’s name if he didn’t also donate to the ‘Yes on 8’ campaign.”

‘The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights. Before the 2008 Presidential election, a “newly formed nonprofit group . . . plann[ed] to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions.” Its leader, “who described his effort as ‘going for the jugular,’ ” detailed the group’s plan to send a “warning letter . . . alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.”

‘These instances of retaliation sufficiently demonstrate why this Court should invalidate mandatory disclosure and reporting requirements.’

Orwell thought it would be government — not interest groups

My references to thoughtcrime and group-hate (or two-minute hate) come, of course, from “1984.” But unlike in the Orwell novel, the government isn’t behind these campaigns. Instead, it’s privatized.

Here’s hoping that California doesn’t again start a trend copied around the world. I voted against Prop. 8 in 2008, and Prop. 22 in 2000, for that matter. I am not a social conservative and find the Jon Fleischmann argument that social conservatives are less likely to be RINOs on economic conservatism hard to buy. During the latter days of House Speaker Newt Gingrich and the early years of Bush 43, social conservative GOP House members acted like LBJ circa 1965. Yeah, surrrrre, they were pure. If libertarians and libertarian lites could wield power without having to occasionally go along with social conservative policies, I think that would be a day to celebrate.

But I don’t want to live in a society where behavioral vigilantes hurt people and think they hold the moral high ground as they take wrecking balls to the lives of those with different views.

Good for Andrew Sullivan, the most high-profile pundit who happens to be gay in the English-language media, for making this argument as well.

“[Eich] did not understand that in order to be a CEO of a company, you have to renounce your heresy! There is only one permissible opinion at Mozilla, and all dissidents must be purged! Yep, that’s left-liberal tolerance in a nut-shell. No, he wasn’t a victim of government censorship or intimidation. He was a victim of the free market in which people can choose to express their opinions by boycotts, free speech and the like. He still has his full First Amendment rights. But what we’re talking about is the obvious and ugly intolerance of parts of the gay movement, who have reacted to years of being subjected to social obloquy by returning the favor. …

“It is also unbelievably stupid for the gay rights movement. You want to squander the real gains we have made by argument and engagement by becoming just as intolerant of others’ views as the Christianists? You’ve just found a great way to do this. It’s a bad, self-inflicted blow. And all of us will come to regret it.”