Among the seemingly endless and relentless litany of fuckery our bodily politic is infected with in the current time, one of the most egregious is the constant and blatant lying emanating from Administration officials. One case (of dozens, just this week) in point comes to us from Secretary of Transportation and perpetual reality show performer Sean Duffy.
While being interviewed by FOX News, Duffy claimed that "we're in a good place" with respect to fuel prices, and that Americans should take road trips this summer.
With gas at $4.55 a gallon, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy says "we're in a good place" for fuel prices, and urges Americans to drive this summer, saying "we encourage all Americans to take a road trip"
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) May 7, 2026 at 10:49 AM
[image or embed]
For the record, USAA reports that the current average price per gallon for regular unleaded is $4.558. A year ago, the average was $3.154. That's an increase of 44.5%. If you have a 20-gallon gas tank, you're paying $28.08 more per trip to the gas station. I paid $65 to fill up the 13-gallon tank in my goddamn MINI last week.
Duffy's obvious nonsense reminded me of a song by one of William & Mary's own. Scott Miller and the Commonwealth released "8 Miles a Gallon" in 2006 as part of the terrific "Citation" album. Among the lyrics: Invent a big engine/Make it run on bullshit/Put it on the highway/Buddy, it'll never quit.
There's certainly no shortage of that bullshit flowing freely in the Nation's Capital these days.
Posts
someone thought better of something. 'bout time.
ReplyDeletethis admin is so vindictive I deleted my comment. and I hate that I did that. ugh
ReplyDeletesquirrel white to the bears as an undrafted free agent. am i a bears fan now?
ReplyDeletePerfect Friday post. Sorry to miss the comment drama.
ReplyDeleteyou can text it to me, teej!
ReplyDeleterootsy, you familiar with scott miller's work? son of the shenandoah and all that.
ReplyDeleteTeej threatened to take a guestie in the White House?
ReplyDeleteSo after 500 million political ads in Virginia surrounding the redistricting vote and eventually a decision, it’s struck down on a technicality. Everyone involved can please go have intercourse with themselves in the rear.
ReplyDeleteI am familiar with Scott Miller. Opened for him once 10-15 years ago.
ReplyDeleteFOGTB Herb sent me a link awhile back of one of his shows that his sister recorded from an FM radio stream. I think he was still at W&M at the time.
Normally I would snark that what many call "a technicality" lawyers call "the law." But this legal technicality is quite rich in the grand scheme of things, too much so for me to snark upon. The redistricting proposal came out about a month after early voting began so four Republicans on the Virginia Supreme Court decided "the Commonwealth submitted a proposed constitutional amendment to Virginia voters in an unprecedented manner that violated the intervening-election requirement ... of the Constitution of Virginia. This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void." But Louisiana is moving full steam ahead on redistricting, even though primary votes were already cast, thanks to SCOTUS's Callais decision. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
ReplyDeleteI should say, thanks to SCOTUS's Callais decision AND their decision to implement it immediately instead of following their normal 32-day grace period for implementation.
ReplyDeleteHey z, is there a 'letter of the law' as opposed to 'spirit of the law' distinction to be made regarding Va decision? You pointed out 'richness' of ruling but are there other or perhaps more subtle or nuanced points that I don't grasp?
ReplyDeleteOBX Dave! The issue in Virginia involves a peculiarity of the commonwealth's constitution which I have never read and have absolutely zero expertise, so it's entirely possible that the Virginia Supreme Court got it right. Virginia requires TWO votes to amend its constitution: "The General Assembly must twice vote in favor of a proposed amendment at two separate legislative sessions with an intervening election of the House of Delegates." The crux of the matter appears to be "In this case, voting in the general election for the House of Delegates began on September 19, 2025, and ended on Election Day, November 4, 2025. The General Assembly voted for the first time to propose the constitutional amendment [for the new redistricting] to the electorate on October 31, 2025. By that date, over 1.3 million votes had been cast in the general election, which was approximately 40% of the total vote for that election cycle." This means that people cast votes for their delegates without knowing the delegates’ positions on the proposed amendment. “Under this thesis, early Virginia voters unknowingly forfeited their constitutionally protected opportunity to vote for or against delegates who favor or disfavor amending the Constitution by not anticipating a legislative vote on a constitutional amendment four days before the last day of voting.” The opinion devolves into a review of the definition of “election” and the four Republicans decided to vitiate the new redistricting. To be fair, the early voting period does seem to be part of the “election.” I just wish the result didn’t break down across party lines. As I’ve said before about SCOTUS, what the Constitution means turns on what five out of nine elderly people in DC (or in this case, four out of seven middle-aged people in Richmond) say it means.
ReplyDeleteMy “too rich” part is that SCOTUS kinda took the opposite approach to rapidly implement Louisiana’s redistricting. As Justice Jackson wrote in Callais, there is “the so-called Purcell principle, which we invoked only five months ago to chide a federal district court for ‘improperly insert[ing] itself into an active primary campaign.’ Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens, 607 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (per curiam) (slip op., at 2).”
These are two different outcomes from two different courts interpreting two different constitutions so we shouldn’t necessarily be surprised by different outcomes. But it’s discomforting to see these outcomes fall along partisan lines, and for one of them to rely on essentially the opposite rationale applied five months ago.
bobby cox didn't want to live in a world without ted turner.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who grew up watching baseball on WGN and TBS, I raise a glass to Ted and Bobby. Watched a ton of games live from Fulton County Stadium.
ReplyDeletei lived in alabama from age 8 to 14. watched a shitload of braves games on tbs. one of my favorite memories of my dad was from early in the 1979 season. ken forsch was pitching for the astros against the braves. he hadn't allowed a hit when it was time for me to go to bed. i begged my dad to let me stay up until the braves got a hit. dad did the right thing. the braves did not get a hit. glorious.
ReplyDeleteThat result always makes me happy
ReplyDelete