Home Charlottesville Dominion Energy-Sponsored Blog Goes Full Trump, Claims “Both Sides” Responsible for Charlottesville

Dominion Energy-Sponsored Blog Goes Full Trump, Claims “Both Sides” Responsible for Charlottesville


This crap would be bad enough on its own, but to have it coming out of a blog that’s proudly sponsored by Virginia’s monopoly utility, Dominion Energy – a company which, when it’s not busy trashing the state’s environment, is hard at work corrupting our legislature and other elected officials – really takes the cake. With that, check out high…er, lowlights from this Trumpian, “both sides,” false equivalency drivel (bolding added by me for emphasis) about the what went down in Charlottesville this past weekend. Wonder if Dominion Energy approves.

  • Here’s the truth: Both the far Right and far Left came to Charlottesville spoiling for a fight.”
  • “I have questions about those who came to confront the white nationalists. Were they locals, or were they part of the so-called Antifa movement from outside Virginia looking for confrontation?”
  • “Some readers of Bacon’s Rebellion seem to think that violence emanates exclusively from the right side of the political spectrum. Yet the man who shot the Republican congressmen in Alexandria was a Bernie Bro. The murderers of police in Dallas and New York were agitated by Black Lives Matter rhetoric. Radicals have used violence to shut down conservative speakers on multiple campuses. The sad reality is that both the far Left and far Right are prone to violence. Further, the interests of both groups are served by confrontations like the one that occurred in Charlottesville. Both sides seek to polarize public opinion, and both benefit when violence and raw emotion encourage people to seek refuge in tribal (racial, ethnic, religious or class) identities.”
  • “I’m not blind. What happened Saturday is part of a larger struggle between far Left and far Right. I expect the events in Charlottesville to further inflame both sides and to inspire even more violence. This time, the rightists committed the most heinous crime. Next time, it will be the leftists. People of moderation and good will serve no useful purpose by denying the reality that threatens to consume us all.”

By the way, we’ve covered this Dominion-Energy-sponsored blog previously, including its bashing of “illegals,” climate science denialism, propagation of crazy/debunked conspiracy theories, etc. And all this time, Dominion Energy hasn’t dropped its sponsorship. Which means, clearly, our pals at Dominion either: a) are not bothered enough by the content on their sponsored blog to pull their sponsorship; or b) agree with/endorse the content on their sponsored blog. Either way, it shouldn’t be acceptable to any of Dominion Energy’s Virginia customers, just as Dominion’s corrupting of our state’s government, its “capture” of our state’s regulatory bodies and its promotion of two environmentally disastrous fracked gas pipelines shouldn’t be acceptable to any of us either.

P.S. Perhaps most disgusting of all is putting a photo of Heather Heyer, a 100% peaceful citizen murdered by a violent, right-wing extremist terrorist, in a piece drawing a false equivalency between “both sides.” Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

  • Jabacon

    Posting a photo of Heather Hays was a mistake. Upon some criticism and reflection, I took it down and replaced it with a photo of Nazis/Klansmen in a melee with Antifa counter-protesters — far better illustrating the main thrust of my blog post. I stand by the rest of what I published.

    Interesting, Lowell, how you didn’t bother quoting my repeated denunciations of the white nationalists. Of course, that wouldn’t fit your narrative. One can lie by making false statements, and one can lie by quoting someone totally out of context. By the latter standard, you lie all the time. You’re incapable of conducting a reasoned conversation that entails actually understanding the argument that the other person is making.

    I’m curious, what do you find so offensive about the statement that “What happened Saturday is part of a larger struggle between far Left and far Right.’ Do you deny that such a struggle is taking place? Perhaps you should read this piece by Peter Beinart in The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/ “The Rise of the Violent Left: Antifa’s activists say they’re battling burgeoning authoritarianism on the American right. Are they fueling it instead?”

    Last time I checked, The Atlantic was not published by the Koch Brothers or the Ku Klux Klan.

    And what do you find so challenging about this statement: “This time, the rightists committed the most heinous crime. Next time, it will be the leftists.”

    As I recall, the guy who shot those Republican congressmen was a Bernie Bro. Do you seriously think the Left has no blood on its hands?

    • You don’t even know her name? It’s Heather HEYER, not “Heather Hays.” My god. Meanwhile, I still want to know if your sponsor, Dominion Energy, approves of your climate science denial, immigrant bashing, false equivalence between neo-Nazis and anti-Nazis, etc.

      • Jabacon

        You got me on Heather Heyer. That was a careless typo, made in haste, on my part.

        I love the way you proclaim to be an advocate of “science” in the global warming debate, in contrast to me a supposed “denier.” But have shown no indication of understanding what science is. The scientific method creates falsifiable hypotheses, then tests those hypotheses to see if they are valid, modifies the hypotheses to account for the data, and re-tests them in an iterative process. Climate models represent hypotheses regarding the relationship between various climatic variables and the effect they will have on future temperatures increases. It’s frustratingly slow to test climate hypotheses because it takes many years to accumulate useful results. But enough time has passed since the creation of the early climate models, and the results are clear — the overwhelming majority of models failed to predict the modest temperature increase of the past 20 years. Climate scientists are wrestling with this outcome and trying to find an explanation.

        While some scientists are modifying their hypothesis (predicting smaller temperature increases over the years ahead), some are sticking to the catastrophic-global-warming hypothesis and searching for explanations — the heat is hidden in the deep ocean, aerosols reflected the sunlight, whatever — that allows them to maintain predictions that temperatures will increase to an alarming degree.

        This mental process reminds me of the writing of a certain Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, an anthropologist who studied the Dinka and Nuer tribes of the southern Sudan in the 1930s, with a particular emphasis on their practice of magic. Shamans would tell their customers, do X, Y, and Z, and your sickness will be cured, your husband will stay faithful, your rival will be struck dead, whatever. If the desired outcome came to fruition, the shaman would take full credit. If the husband continued to stray, the shaman would concoct an explanation — oh, you should have used eye of newt, not eye of frog, or you should have said the incantation this way, not that way. By such rhetorical devices, the shaman maintained a belief among the people in the efficacy of his magic. Evans-Pritchard called these explanations “secondary elaborations.”

        As the most politically vocal Climate Change scientists confront the reality of data that don’t conform to the temperature predictions of their models, they are engaged in a vast exercise of secondary elaboration — they’re insisting upon the efficacy of their hypothesis (catastrophic global warming is coming) and creating explanations of why the predicted temperature increases are not yet visible.

        So, you can call me a climate “denier,” which is a form of an ad hominem attack, not an argument. And you can make your appeals to authority — 97% of all scientists believe in global warming, etc. — echoing the Catholic Church’s attacks on Copernicus and Galileo. But at the end of the day, your arguments mimic those of the Dinka-Nuer shaman. Your reasoning is pre-scientific and based on faith. Your dogma is catastrophic global warming, and the pseudo-scientific justification for your dogma evolves as needed.

        • This is not even worthy of a response, other than to say that I can see why you and Dominion Energy get along so well.

          • Jabacon

            Perhaps it’s not worthy of a response because you have no response.

          • No, this drivel is simply not worth wasting time on.

        • A_Siegel

          You are engaging in such significant verbal and intellectual twists and turns to avoid dealing with reality that you are making Chinese Olympic divers look like amateurs.

          (For anyone wishing the 101-level set of evaluations and refutations of climate science denial, see ‘Debunking Climate Science Denial by the numbers: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php)

          This sort of sad twisted (ill-)logic is a major contributing factor to weakening the nation’s (and Virginia’s) future viability. Whether from ideological blinders or a devotion to pay from fossil-fuel interests (that Dominion sponsorship?), you are actively engaged in distorting science and understanding science to undermine the nation’s and the Commonwealth’s ability to have a meaningful discussion where it should be occurring: what should we do to mitigate and adapt to climate change?