After all the hugging and smooching of big corporations on Gristmill today, I thought I'd try to recapture our righteous insurgent credibility by linking to some primo corporation bashing, in the form of GreenLife's just-released list of America's Ten Worst Greenwashers. But after reading it, I'm afraid I just can't sign on. I may have to go back to being a Running Dog Whore for The Man. I felt a sense of disquiet as I read through the list, and the reason why is captured perfectly in the "notes on methodology": As its title implies, this report does not account …

Check out Mother Jones' two-page spread on the upsizing of the American Dream (text here or in two PDFs). Here's how it starts: Since 1950, the average new house has increased by 1,247 sq. ft. Meanwhile, the average household has shrunk by 1 person. The National Association of Home Builders' "showcase home" for 2005 is 5,950 sq. ft. That's 15% bigger than last year's model. The Unabomber's legal defense team cited the size of his shack -- 10' x 12' -- to buttress his insanity plea. Read the whole thing. (Via Alan)

After three years of silence following a 2002 lawsuit over its claims on labor practices, Nike has returned to social reporting in a big way, releasing a corporate responsibility report that is, from all indications, a genuine leap forward in corporate transparency. As well as providing detail on its supply chain practices, the report covers areas such as workforce diversity, the environment, community programs and socially responsible investment. An independent review committee of individuals from trade unions, non-governmental organizations, academia and the business community was brought together to strengthen the credibility of the information in the report. Among the more …

The House Energy and Commerce Committee shot down an effort to raise CAFE standards yesterday. Mike Millikin has the grimy details. Speaking of that committee, do read today's WA Post profile of its new chair, Joe Barton, a man deeply and unapologetically in the pocket of big industry lobbyists.

Says John McCain: For argument's sake, let's say ... that the science that we are relying on is wrong -- yet we enact legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What harm will that action cause? Clean air and a more competitive industrial base. Says it all. (Via Daily Scoop)

Magpie draws our attention to the relevant passage in this story by Marla Cone on the mounting evidence that Bisphenol A -- a chemical ubiquitous in plastics and food packaging -- may be harmful to humans at very low doses, which, wouldn't you know, virtually every human gets. In their study, vom Saal and Hughes suggest an explanation for conflicting results of studies: 100 percent of the 11 funded by chemical companies found no risk, while 90 percent of the 104 government-funded, nonindustry studies reported harmful effects. Shocking. (Via Kevin Drum)

Is the Cape Cod Times editorial board in the pocket of big anti-wind groups?! Are they skewing and suppressing news coverage in service of their rabid anti-wind bias!? !!!??? Yes, these are matters of minimal national import, but they do provide some fun drama. Jack Coleman says he left the Times after getting sick of the increasing slant of its news coverage against Cape Wind, the big wind project planned for Nantucket Sound. Apparently the editors are allied with the ruthless Alliance to Save Nantucket Sound. The hoo-ha even reached the Boston Globe. I can't say I've been tracking the …

Grist has been nominated for a Webby award in the "magazine" category. Webbys are the Internet Oscars. You know it's true, cause their site says so! Seriously, though, it's a cool thing, and to be nominated alongside Consumer Reports and Alternet, well, it's downright heady. So please, all you Gristers: head over and vote for Grist. (Yes, you have to register to vote. And yes, it's a pain. But you love us that much, right?)

The Onion is, as always, hilarious. There are serious issues in the vicinity, however. If you care to read about them, check out this Mark Schmitt post.

This comment from reader mmuller23 on the by-now-notorious CHEERS study raises an important point that is worth elevating here. On the Senate Dems' efforts to stall Johnson's nomination, he/she says: Somehow it has more the feel of an easy media stunt than the rational approach to policy making we (liberals) like to take pride in. My initial reaction to this is: Argh. To flesh that out a bit: Yes, it's probably true that the CHEERS research would not have harmed any kids that were not already going to be harmed -- the study was to consist of filming practices that …