Well, This Was Not Unexpected, I Suppose

Considering how most of the right wing press has been critical of Nelson Mandela for some time, it's hardly surprising to read this in the Tribune-Review:

Mr. Mandela, 95, died on Thursday. And the tributes quickly poured in for the man who did so much to end blanket racial segregation and who helped to set the standard for free and just democratic black rule on an African continent so dominated by henchmen and thugs.

But few care to recall — and virtually no editorials mentioned — that for most of his life, Mandela was not only a Marxist who revered Lenin and Stalin but also was a terrorist. He abandoned efforts for peaceful change in favor of guerrilla tactics and sabotage. And that's what led to his trial, conviction and life prison sentence in the 1960s.

Not to mention a little help from the CIA:

The Central Intelligence Agency played an important role in the arrest in 1962 of Nelson Mandela, the African National Congress leader who was jailed for nearly 28 years before his release four months ago, a news report says.

The intelligence service, using an agent inside the African National Congress, provided South African security officials with precise information about Mr. Mandela's activities that enabled the police to arrest him, said the account by the Cox News Service.

The report, scheduled for publication on Sunday, quoted an unidentified retired official who said that a senior C.I.A. officer told him shortly after Mr. Mandela's arrest: ''We have turned Mandela over to the South African Security branch. We gave them every detail, what he would be wearing, the time of day, just where he would be.'"

And what was this "terrorist" fighting?  What was going on in South Africa in the early 60s that might possibly, you know, annoy anyone interested in freedom and liberty?

How's this?  The Sharpville Massacre where hundreds of black South Africans were massacred by the South African police.

The outcry after the massacre led to legislation banning the ANC and legislation protecting the government from any liability to arise from the massacre.

Among countless other offenses, that's the regime Mandela was fighting in the early 60s.  And that's the regime the American right was protecting.  Now go back and read the Trib's take on the "terrorist" Mandela.  What do you think now?

R.I.P. Nelson Mandela

Fact Checking A Randy Bish Embarrassment

It's been a while since I fact-checked Trib Editorial Cartoonist, Randy Bish but I knew I had to when I saw this cartoon today at the Trib:

I realize it's just an editorial, blah-blah-blah, but that shouldn't mean he can get away with the dishonesty.

The conservative story line can be traced back to this editorial in the Washington Times:

Another day and another of President Obama’s campaign boasts bites the dust. While out on the hustings last year, Mr. Obama pummeled Mitt Romney for writing a 2008 op-ed column in The New York Times titled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.”

The Republican nominee sensibly argued that bankruptcy would force the city to go through a drastic — and necessary — restructuring of its finances. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, boasted, “We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. We bet on American workers … and that bet is paying off.” Until Tuesday.

The Washington Times doesn't link to Romney's op-ed (why not? you'll see in a second) so I will.  Here it is.  And here's Mitt's opening:

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself.

See that? Mitt Romney wasn't talking about the city of Detroit, he was using a rhetorical device called metonymy  to discuss the automobile industry.

If there's any doubt about what President Obama was talking about take a look at what he actually said (and you should have done this, Randy.  You'd've saved yourself some embarrassment):

Every year around this time, American car companies start rolling out their newest, shiniest models, hoping to entice you into buying one. It’s Detroit’s chance to show you what they’ve been working on – the latest and greatest. And this year is no exception. They’ve got some pretty good-looking cars coming out.

But something is different this time around – and it starts with the auto companies themselves.

Just a few years ago, the auto industry wasn’t just struggling – it was flatlining. GM and Chrysler were on the verge of collapse. Suppliers and distributors were at risk of going under. More than a million jobs across the country were on the line – and not just auto jobs, but the jobs of teachers, small business owners, and everyone in communities that depend on this great American industry.

But we refused to throw in the towel and do nothing. We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt.

See that?  Detroit, the auto industry not Detroit, the city.

The Washington Times lied to its audience by conflating the two and Randy Bish is extending the lie by quoting it.

You're better than this, Randy.  You really are.

The Trib's Now Reusing Old Pseudo-Science

Take a look at this from today:

It was in 2007 that the BBC was warning how the Arctic would be ice free by this past summer, Thomas Lifson reminds in the American Thinker. But a funny thing happened on the way to the end of the world as we know it: The Daily Mail in England reports Arctic ice has increased by 29 percent in the last year. As Mr. Lifson reminds, “Global warming is the most expensive and widespread con job in the history of the world.” Or, put another way, the greatest social re-engineering con ever perpetrated. [Emphasis added.]

When I read that, it looked familiar to me.  Something about the Arctic ice increasing (when all the real science is pointing in the exact opposite direction) raised a tickle of a memory.

Then I googled the Daily Mail article.  It's this one from September and it was touched on in this Trib op-ed at that time.

When I blogged on it the first time (really guys?  You're gonna make me do this twice?) I pointed out:

What they're doing is called "regression toward the mean." Basically what that means is that since the previous summer (of 2012) was so bad, anything not so bad can be seen as "recovering" while in reality it's really just moving back to the average (which is already bad and getting worse).

In this case, the ice in September is 29% bigger than last September - but that was a very bad year.  The overall trend is still (still!) moving towards less and less ice due to warmer and warmer temperatures.

Here's the chart I used in September to illustrate:

The blue line is this year, the dotted line is last year and the average is the grey line above the blue.

Old story.  And the Trib editorial board is still misleading you, the reading public.

A Question To My Friends At KDKA Radio

I listen to KDKA radio at work and I've heard numerous times throughout the day a KDKA promo that continues to list a number of problems experienced at the rollout of Healthcare.gov - including this soundbite from Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan:

They're trying to change a tire on a car going 70 miles an hour down the expressway.

Ok, so here's my question.

Given this:

After advising consumers to steer clear of Healthcare.gov in October, Consumer Reports health care expert Nancy Metcalf told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd Tuesday morning that the federal health care exchange website was improved enough following the Obama administration’s frantic month of repairs that users could confidently use it.

Consumer Reports had earlier told its readers not to even bother with the website through the first month, a provisional verdict it later said had been misrepresented.

“Now we’re saying, ‘it’s time,’” Metcalf said, in particular praising the new window-shopping function, in which users can peruse health plans without registering with the site. The requirement to make an account before viewing options was considered one of the main causes for the site’s initial traffic bottleneck. “It’s terrific, I’ve tried it, it was working yesterday through the busiest times,” Metcalf said. [Emphases added.]

Will you be rewriting the spot or will you continue to mislead your audience now that Consumer Reports is praising the website?

Coalition of Reason Complaint Update.

The story's hit the P-G oped page:

The Port Authority has declined comment on the case, but the plaintiff said the transit system’s attorney indicated the agency doesn’t allow “non-commercial” advertising. The United Coalition, however, said the Port Authority runs assorted noncommercial ads, some from religious groups.

With this decision, the transit system appears to be siding with church-goers and against nontheists, whereas its stance should be neutral, as long as the message is not distasteful.

The Port Authority is not only rejecting legitimate ad revenue but also risking losses in court, as it did when it had to pay more than $345,000 following the rejection of a 2006 political ad from the Pittsburgh League of Young Voters. In heaven’s name, the agency needs a more realistic ad policy.

We already talked about the League of Young Voters case here.

An astute reader sent in a copy of the complaint and from it we can see that it looks like they're arguing not about religious freedom but something else:

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against Defendant for refusing to contract with Plaintiff to lease advertising space to Plaintiff on the Authority’s buses due to the viewpoint expressed in the proposed advertisements in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In an email rejecting the ads, the Port Authority cited it's Advertising Policy.  A copy of it is included as part of the complaint.  It reads:

It shall be the policy of Port Authority of Allegheny County to accept commercial advertising for posting in and on Port Authority vehicles and other property owned or controlled by Port Authority , of its sole choosing , with the objective of maximizing revenue while maintaining standards of decency and good taste without infringing on First Amendment rights of Prospective Advertisers. Accordingly , Port Authority will not accept advertisements that are obscene , unlawful, misleading , libelous, or fraudulent. Further, Port Authority will not accept advertisements that are non-commercial; that appeal to prurient interests, that are or may be offensive to riders; that glamorize or otherwise promote violence , sexual conduct, alcohol, or tobacco use; that a re political in nature or contain political messages; or that are reasonably deter mined not to be in good taste. This policy is intended to be an objective and enforceable standard for advertising that is consistently applied. I t is also Port Authority ’s declared intent not to allow any of its Transit Vehicles or Property to become a public for um for dissemination, debate or discussion of public issues.

It should be noted that this is the advertising policy in place at the time of the negotiations to get the ads on the buses.  Of course, they've since been changed.  In 2012 "in light of recent litigation and other considerations" this policy was amended so that ads that:

...promote the existence or non-existence of a supreme deity, deities, being or beings; that address or promote a specific religion, religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs; that directly quote or cite to scriptures, religious texts or texts involving religious beliefs, or lack of religious beliefs; or are otherwise religious in nature.

are not acceptable.

It should be noted that this policy was adopted after the CoR's ads were rejected but before the CoR's complaint was filed.

Ladies and gentlemen in my humble non-attorney opinion (as I am not in anyway an attorney - thank Jebus) this is what's known as moving the goal posts.

And now it's up to a judge to decide whether it's appropriate.

Jack Kelly Sunday

In his column this week in the Post-Gazette, our good friend Jack Kelly makes this charge:

Ms. Sebelius is fortunate she works in government, where there is no accountability.

Criticism of Secretary Sebelius aside, this is a remarkable thing to say coming as it does from a columnist who has, repeatedly and over a long number of years, distorted, mangled and otherwise deformed the truth for the P-G's readers.

For example only almost exactly a month ago Jack published this column on Lara Logan's now discredited 60 Minutes story on Benghazi.

By the 8th of November, CBS retracted the story with an apology from Lara Logan.

On the 26th of November the Washington Post reported that Ms Logan and her producer will be taking a leave of absence:

...in the wake of an internal review that found numerous flaws in their reporting of a story about the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya.

And yet there's no comment from Jack Kelly on this at all.  Does he still agree with his column now that it's main source has been debunked?  And if so, why?  And if he does not agree with his column, then were is his apology?  Or at least his explanation as to how he got it wrong?

Then there was Kelly's distortions regarding Hurricane Katrina, so easily debunked by Mediamatters - while he did issue a correction of sorts, as I wrote later, "even his corrections could have used some corrections."

Then there was the column on Van Jones.

Which was yanked a few days later from the P-G website.

That was the column (and you can still see it here at the Toledo Blade) where Jack makes some rather stunningly simple mistakes about the recently resigned Van Jones.

Jack said Jones was arrested during the LA riots when he wasn't. He was arrested a week later in San Francisco (he was released a few hours later with all charges dropped). Jack said Jones was arrested in Seattle in 1999 during a WTO protest. No record of that happening anywhere outside of Glenn Beck's fevered imagination.

Well Kelly fans, as if this moment, the column's GONE.

It's still gone.. Yanked because it was riddled with errors and falsehoods.

Where is Jack Kelly's accountability?

What The Port Authority Doesn't Want You To See

In case you haven't been following it, here's the story from the AP:

A group that seeks to encourage people who don’t believe in God has sued Pittsburgh’s mass transit agency for refusing to run its ads on the side of buses.

A spokesman for the Port Authority of Allegheny County declined to comment on the federal lawsuit filed Tuesday by the Washington, D.C.-based United Coalition of Reason.

According to the lawsuit, the transit agency refused to post ads that read, “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone” and included a website address of a local group the coalition supports.

The group said the transit agency’s refusal cited a broad policy banning “noncommercial” ads even though the authority has run other ads sponsored by religious and advocacy groups.

The transit agency lost a similar lawsuit after it refused a 2006 political ad by the Pittsburgh League of Young Voters. The American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of the group and after losing in U.S. District Court and in the 3rd U.S. District Court of Appeals, the port authority eventually paid nearly $1,900 in damages plus more than $344,000 for the voting group’s legal fees.

The United Coalition of Reason contends its rights to free expression are similarly being violated. The lawsuit seeks to force the port authority to accept the ads and pay the group’s legal fees.

Here's the ACLU page of info for that League of Young Voters if you want to do some research.

From the decision of the appeal:

Unlike many of its sister states, Pennsylvania allows felons to vote immediately upon release from prison. In an effort to correct widespread belief to the contrary, a coalition of public-interest organizations set out to run an advertisement informing ex-prisoners that they have the right to vote and encouraging them to exercise it. The coalition asked the Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania to place the ad in its buses. The Port Authority denied the request, pointing to its written advertising policy, which prohibits noncommercial ads. The coalition sued, alleging a violation of the First Amendment. The case proceeded to a bench trial, where the coalition proved that despite its written advertising policy, the Port Authority had accepted many noncommercial ads in recent years, several of which bore a striking resemblance to the coalition's ad. Based mainly on this "comparator" evidence, the District Court found that the rejection of the coalition's ad amounted to viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. We will affirm.

From the UnitedCoR's press release we can read:

The Complaint seeks injunctive relief but at this point no motions have been filed. In the Complaint, UnitedCoR alleges that the Port Authority violated UnitedCoR's free speech rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. UnitedCoR asserts that the First Amendment prohibits the Port Authority, as a governmental entity, from using its disfavor of the nontheistic message of UnitedCoR's ads as a reason for refusing to run them on its buses. Such acts, the Complaint states, amount to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination against UnitedCoR's speech.

At this point, I haven't been able to get hold of a copy of The Complaint (if anyone has access to one, please feel free to email it in).

The ads would have directed bus riders to this page:

The Pittsburgh Coalition of Reason is a coalition of groups in greater Pittsburgh based on the principles of secularism, freethought, skepticism, and humanism. Our mission is:

1. to build a supportive community for non-believers;
2. to create positive change in the world by providing secular resources and opportunities for people to live out their Humanist values; and
3. to raise public awareness that there are people everywhere who are good without God or religion.

At our gatherings you’ll find people who embrace and promote objectivity, reason, education, and critical thinking. Though many of us do not endorse supernatural beliefs, we absolutely do uphold the compassionate human values that people from all walks of life embrace. We are thoughtful and moral people who care deeply about our families, our communities, our country, and the world.

So basically, if you're already a non-believer in the Pittsburgh area, you're not alone.  And here are some groups that you might want to look at.  (Full disclosure: Last year, I gave a talk before the Center for Inquiry-Pittsburgh.  I didn't get paid or anything but I did get a nice dinner out of it.)

I can't really see how dangerous that message is, frankly.  But I'm not an attorney and I haven't seen the complaint yet so I'll just reiterate the message the Port Authority rejected:

Don't Believe in God?  You're Not Alone.  PittsburghCoR.org