2 Political Junkies

Fact-Checking The Trib. Again.

2009-07-15T07:18:00.003-04:00

In an editorial today, the editorial board at the Pittsburgh Tribune Review writes:

Attorney General Eric Holder has renewed rattling his saber about investigating the Bush administration's torture policy. Whether that's a trial balloon, as even some Democrats suggest, is not clear. But in any event, it's actually Mr. Holder who should be the subject of an investigation.

In a stunning move, Holder's Justice Department decided not to pursue the most serious charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. They were accused of intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place on Nov. 4, 2008.

The editorial quotes from this piece in the Hill:

It shows two Black Panthers "standing 10 to 15 feet from the polling station. The two men are seen standing shoulder to shoulder, dressed in black military-style uniforms, black berets and combat boots," reminds reporter Molly K. Hooper, writing in The Hill newspaper.

And here's what it leaves out of Hooper's reporting. After pointing out that "key House Republicans are charging Holder with "playing politics" at the Justice Department (they're making that charge now?) Hooper writes:

A spokeswoman for Justice said facts did not back up the charges, and that career officials at Justice, not political appointees, decided to drop the charges.

“Following a thorough review, a career attorney in the Civil Rights Division determined that the facts and the law did not support pursuing the claims against three of the defendants,” spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said. “As a result, the Department dismissed those claims.”

Committee sources said they expected Justice to send a letter on Monday to Wolf and other members, and to brief Republicans on why the charges were dropped.

Holder let stand one of the four original charges though. The leader of the black nationalist group’s Philadelphia chapter, Minister King Samir Shabazz, is charged with brandishing a “deadly weapon,” a nightstick, outside of the polls.

As a result, he was punished with not being able to brandish a weapon within 100 ft. of a polling station in Philadelphia until after the 2012 elections. [emphasis added.]

I am sure that last part is going to send the wingnuts into fits of apoplexy. As a punishment it feels a bit light to me, but I'm not a lawyer.

By the way, there's some contemporaneous reporting about the "incident" over at Talkingpoingsmemo. Did you know that the police were called? Here's how Josh Marshall writes it. This was posted on election day at 3:04 pm:

[Obama campaign volunteer Jacqueline] Dischell confirms that there were in fact two black panthers guarding the polling place, a nursing home on Fairmont Avenue in north Philadelphia, earlier this morning.

But she says one was an officially designated poll watcher (it was not immediately clear which municipal office had designated him in that role), and the second was his friend. The second panther, who left two or three hours ago, was the one with the nightstick, she says.

Dischell says that earlier this morning a few men who identified themselves as being from the McCain campaign came and started taking pictures of the two panthers on their cell phones. She suggested that they seemed to be baiting the panthers, and that the designated watcher may have given one of them the finger in response to the picture taking.

The police came roughly an hour and a half later. She says she talked to the cops and told them there had been no incident. The police drove away without getting out of the car, she adds.

Some time later, a second, larger group of men whose affiliation couldn't be determined came with real cameras and started taking more pictures. Maybe 15 minutes later the cops returned. This time, they spoke to people on both sides, and told the panther not designated to watch the polls to leave, which he did without an argument.

Bottom line, the guy with the nightstick was asked to leave by the cops and he did. And if what Marshall is reporting is true, that was about 1pm on election day. But really, he probably shouldn't have had the nightstick.

Yea, that's just as serious as torture. Just as serious.

Of course the Trib doesn't bother to tell you this:

Fliers warning that people with outstanding warrants or unpaid parking tickets could be arrested if they show up at the polls on election day appeared recently in predominantly African-American neighborhoods of Philadelphia.

Since it doesn't involve Black Panthers (or their night sticks) I guess it doesn't warrant a mention by Dickie's gang.

Here's the video if you wanted to see it.

Five City Councilors Shirk Responsibilities and Rubber Stamp Mayor/Lamar

2009-07-14T23:12:00.005-04:00

(Click graphic to view larger image)
Looks like I picked a bad day to watch the live Sotomayor hearings instead of the live City Council meeting.

[sigh]

Today, the majority of the City Council of Pittsburgh decided to deny the public the right to hear from nominees to the Planning Commission, the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the Historic Review Commission and the Shade Tree Commission.

Today, the majority of the City Council of Pittsburgh decided to deny the nominees the right to appear before the public.

Today, the majority of the City Council of Pittsburgh decided to themselves forgo interviewing twelve nominees for these boards.

Today, the majority of the City Council of Pittsburgh decided that "the mayor appoints and we approve."

Today, the majority of the City Council of Pittsburgh decided that if nominees already have enough votes to pass, there simply is no need for any real discussion or review.

Today, the majority of the City Council of Pittsburgh decided that their function was to serve as a rubber stamp for Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and Lamar Advertising.

FOR SHAME

For those who haven't been paying attention: Lil Mayor Luke has lots of friends who give him lots of money -- Lamar Advertising being one of them. From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Amid a reshuffling of city boards and commissions this week, the Ravenstahl administration dismissed the author of a Zoning Board opinion that blocked a controversial electronic billboard proposed for the city's Grant Street Transportation Center with the support of the administration.

Alice Mitinger, a lawyer with expertise in zoning issues who had been appointed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment by the late Mayor Bob O'Connor, was informed by the administration this week that she would not be named to another term. Ms. Mitinger wrote an opinion supporting a 2008 ruling, which was upheld yesterday, that denied a permit for Lamar Advertising to erect an electronic billboard on the transportation center.

The administration also chose not to reappoint David Toal, another board member, who had recused himself from the Lamar case because his firm had represented it on unrelated issues. Mayor Luke Ravenstahl did reappoint the third member of the board, Wrenna Watson, who wrote a dissenting opinion in support of the Lamar application.

This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the Lamar controversy which included free billboards for ~~Lukey's election~~ the Ravenstahl Redd Up campaign, major conflicts of interest, threats to Councilors' jobs, civil lawsuits against Councilors from Lamar, etc.

So while Council had voted unanimously on June 29th to interview each of the 21 nominees on the list that the mayor had sent over on June 22nd and had already interviewed nine of them, lame duck Councilor Jim Motznik introduced an amendment to the already partially enacted 6/29 bill to stop the interview process and simply vote up/down on the remaining twelve candidates.

It was clear during the hours of discussion that the minority of Council felt that the main purpose of the amendment was to deny the asking of tough questions of Wrenna Watson who was up for reappointment to the Zoning Board.

Motznik's amendment by substitution to stop the interview process passed by 5 to 4.

Motznik's twelve bills to rubber stamp the approval of the twelve remaining nominees passed by 5 to 4.

Oh yeah. It became apparent during the meeting that the Rubber Stamp Five didn't even know enough about one of the nominees to be able to attempt to pronounce his last name.

[sigh]

**************************************************************************

Statement by Franco "Dok" Harris about the Mayor’s "Closed-Door Appointment Processes":

As other local and state governments, throughout this great country embrace fair and open processes as well as clarity in all government dealings, the current Mayoral administration stands out by championing an opaque, “back-room deal” system of government. The Mayor has consistently shown questionable judgment when the people of Pittsburgh are not looking; I encourage him to try to win back the public trust by reversing this dangerous course of action and filling the positions in a clear, open, and transparent manner. The residents of this city deserve to see how their government’s decisions impact their daily lives. As Mayor, I am committed to establishing good government processes and ensuring that every Pittsburgher has the opportunity to be involved in the leadership of our great city.

Can Someone Say Karma?

2009-07-14T23:08:00.002-04:00

From the AP (via Philly.com):

The Department of Justice has launched an inquiry into comments made by Pittsburgh's U.S. attorney when she announced she was dropping charges against a renowned pathologist, ending a contentious years-long legal battle.
Mary Beth Buchanan said at the time that she still believed pathologist Cyril Wecht had committed a crime. He had been accused of using his public office , Allegheny County medical examiner , to benefit his multimillion dollar private practice.
Dick Thornburgh , a former U.S. attorney general who was part of the pathologist's defense team , lodged a complaint with the department after the June 2 news conference, saying U.S. attorney Mary Beth Buchanan's comments were "completely improper, violate all notions of prosecutorial ethics and decency, and warrant remedial action by the Department of Justice."

But then we all knew that.

Sotomayor declares Roe V. Wade is "settled law" and affirms right to privacy

2009-07-14T11:08:00.001-04:00

She also said Planned Parenthood V. Casey is settled law.

.

So What WAS Cheney's Secret Program?

2009-07-14T07:07:00.003-04:00

It might not be al-Qaeda assassinations. Why not?

From TPMMuckraker:

Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief, told TPMmuckraker that because we've been in a state of war against al Qaeda since just after September 11, there would have been no need for a secret CIA program that received special legal authorization.
Since the war on terror began, said Cannistraro, the CIA has routinely conducted operations targeting top Qaeda leaders. "The CIA runs drones and targets al Qaeda safe houses all the time," said Cannistraro, explaining that there's no important difference between those kinds of attacks and "assassinations" with a gun or a knife.

Makes sense. But then there is this from the Guardian in the UK:

Dick Cheney, the former vice president, ordered a highly classified CIA operation hidden from Congress because it pushed the limits of legality by planning to assassinate al-Qaida operatives in friendly countries without the knowledge of their governments, according to former intelligence officials.

Former counter-terrorism officials who retain close links to the intelligence community say that the hidden operation involved plans by the CIA and the military to launch operations, similar to those by Israel's Mossad intelligence service, to hunt down and kill al-Qaida activists abroad without informing the governments concerned, even though some were regarded as friendly if unreliable.

So it's not necessarily assassinations, but secret assassinations in friendly countries. As TPM quotes, this is something Seymore Hersh wrote about something like this a while ago:

Under Rumsfeld's new approach, I was told, U.S. military operatives would be permitted to pose abroad as corrupt foreign businessmen seeking to buy contraband items that could be used in nuclear-weapons systems. In some cases, according to the Pentagon advisers, local citizens could be recruited and asked to join up with guerrillas or terrorists. This could potentially involve organizing and carrying out combat operations, or even terrorist activities. Some operations will likely take place in nations in which there is an American diplomatic mission, with an Ambassador and a C.I.A. station chief, the Pentagon consultant said. The Ambassador and the station chief would not necessarily have a need to know, under the Pentagon's current interpretation of its reporting requirement.

TPM goes on with this nasty bit:

But Cannistraro cautioned that that DOD program has nothing to do with the secret, unidentified CIA program which Cheney is said to have hid from Congress, and which CIA director Leon Panetta ended last month.
As for what the program did involve, Cannistraro suggested that it involved Americans as targets, and that it went beyond surveillance, but declined to elaborate. He added that, though Cheney may have directly ordered the CIA to keep Congress in the dark, the veep wasn't acting alone. "The approval was from the president," said Cannistraro.

This seems to be backed up by something Karen Tumulty reports in Time. She quotes her colleague Bobby Ghoush:

Speculation abounds about the nature of the secret program Dick Cheney asked the CIA to keep from the Congressional oversight committees. The most sensational reports suggest it was plan to find and kill top Al Qaeda leaders – like the covert Israeli campaign to take out the perpetrators of the Munich killings.

But two former ranking CIA officials have told TIME that there's another equally plausible possibility: The program could have required the Agency to spy on Americans. Domestic surveillance is outside the CIA's purview -– it's usually the FBI's job – and it's easy to see why Cheney would have wanted to keep it from Congress.

Both officials say they were never told what was in the program, and that they're only making calculated guesses. But their theory gibes with other reports, quoting ex-CIA officials, that say the program had to do with intelligence collection, not assassinations.

There's not enough information right now for this to be anything other than speculation but the fact that it made it this far says something.

Of course the wingnuts are still screaming about birth certificates.

That was quick! Orie will not run for US Senate.

2009-07-13T20:42:00.004-04:00

It seems like only yesterday -- OK, last Thursday -- when Jane Orie, the Pennsylvania Senate’s majority whip, said that she was thinking about a run for US Senate but she's already dropped out of consideration.

From PoliticsPA:

As this is my first time being in the budget negotiations, I must respect and fulfill my responsibilities to my constituents, the citizens of Pennsylvania and my caucus, who is standing solidly against new taxes. I must put any personal ambitions aside and focus on the crucial task at hand.

Her full statement here (.pdf file).
.

Sotomayor Hearings

2009-07-13T10:04:00.002-04:00

As the Senate hearing for Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination starts, here's a reminder of the vitriolic pre-spin she's received from the wingnuts:

.

A Follow Up

2009-07-13T06:32:00.002-04:00

There's more to this story about that new governmental report about Bush's surveillance activities. I started here and, as promised, here's more.

The New York Times reports:

While the Bush administration had defended its program of wiretapping without warrants as a vital tool that saved lives, a new government review released Friday said the program’s effectiveness in fighting terrorism was unclear.

And:

Most intelligence officials interviewed “had difficulty citing specific instances” when the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program contributed to successes against terrorists, the report said.

But weren't we told that it was necessary because it saved lives?? Yes we were:

The findings raise questions about assertions from Mr. Bush and his most senior advisers that the warrantless wiretapping program was essential in stopping terrorist attacks. In January 2006, for example, Mr. Bush said the surveillance program “helped prevent attacks and save American lives.” Former Vice President Dick Cheney has made the same point, most recently in his public defense of the administration’s campaign against terrorism.

So now we know that was ~~a load of crap~~ a lie, too.

More lies from the Bush administration. Wasn't it a great 8 years? I mean it's all justified by the "fact" that they "kept us safe" for 7 and a half of them.

Jack Kelly Sunday

2009-07-12T11:45:00.001-04:00

Wait for it, Jack Kelly fans, wait for it...

In this week's column, Jack Kelly defends Sarah Palin's decision to quit her job (abandon her gubernatorial post, desert her beloved Alaska...whatever) and he does this with a bit of word-play that stretches and twists her decision to quit into something it almost completely wasn't. Take a look:

What do Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius and Jon Huntsman have in common? All were governors who resigned this year to pursue other opportunities, and did so without a peep of criticism from journalists or their fellow pols for "quitting" on the peoples of Arizona, Kansas and Utah, respectively. [emphasis added]

He expands a paragraph later:

Ms. Napolitano, Ms. Sebelius and Mr. Huntsman weren't criticized for resigning to pursue other opportunities because the other opportunities they're pursuing are in government -- as secretary of homeland security, secretary of health and human services, and ambassador to China, respectively. [again, emphasis added]

Well, not exactly. Napolitano, Sebelius and Huntsman weren't actually leaving to pursue those "other opportunities," they were offered those "opportunities" - which were, of course, real-life pre-existing positions in the Obama administration. Had they not been offered those positions, they'd still be sitting in their respective Governor's mansions, presumably.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, quit without having a position to move into. Unless we believe her former future son-in-law, Levi Johnston, who says it was all about money. (For the record, the Palins have denied that allegation.)

That's still a big difference there, don't you think? Jack Kelly doesn't want you to think so. That's why he spun it the way he spun it.

He justifies his argument by relying on a recent National Review Online column by Angelo Codevilla. It's the one that starts with this:

Far be it from me to suggest that Sarah Palin should be or is likely to be our next president. She has not shown the excellence of cognition or of judgment that would recommend her ahead of other possible candidates, nor does her path to the presidency look easy.

One wonders how Jack Kelly got past the first paragraph. In any event, Codevilla sets up a different and rather arbitrary political polarity; A "Court" party vs a "Country" party. And Jack utilizes them to explain to us, his lowly readers, why Sarah Palin's just so yoobetcha excellent. Codevilla defines the members of the "Court" party as:

...made up of the well-connected, the people who feel represented by mainstream politicians who argue over how many trillions should be spent on reforming American society, who see themselves as potters of the great American clay.

The "Country" party are made up, he says, of those tired of being treated as clay.

And describes what the Court party accomplished:

America’s “Best And Brightest” — the media’s haughty personages, the college towns’ privileged residents, affimative action’s beneficiaries, the “mainstream” politicians who supported billions for bailouts and “stimuli,” the upscale folks who look down on the rest of us and upon themselves as saviors of the planet — these are the people who made Palin into a political force by making her a symbol of everything they are not. They did this despite her lack of brilliance when it came to communicating her ideas on the issues.

Isn't it neat how he slips "affirmative action beneficiaries" in to the list of "Best and Brightest"? How "affirmative action beneficiaries" are like the "upscale folks" who look down on the poor poor marginalized group Codevilla is defending? You know - the folks reading the National Review Online. Poor poor marginalized NRO readers unite! Sarah Palin is now free to save you!

By the way, Codevilla got a BA from Rutgers, an MA from Notre Dame, and a PhD from Claremont Graduate University.

Anyway, back to Jack, kind of. An important support of Jack's column can be found in the other conservative column he quotes. This one from Jim Prevor at the Weekly Standard. Here's what Jack writes:

"In that phrase, 'just being a private citizen,' Sen. Grassley encapsulates both why Sarah Palin is so phenomenally appealing to the Republican base and how divorced the national Republican apparatus is from the core values of party members," wrote Jim Prevor in the Weekly Standard. "This massive base thinks that by paying the taxes and doing the work, starting the businesses and rearing the children, caring for the parents and fighting the wars, they are doing the crucial stuff that sustains our country."

So we're heaped, laffably again, into a Republican base feeding on its own. The column is really, in part at least, about the Republican members of the "Court" party who aren't supporting Jack's favorite candidate, Sarah Barracuda.

Something's Happening...

2009-07-11T16:40:00.003-04:00

Amid the delicate waltz of policy and politics and the law, there's this from Newsweek:

[Attorney General Eric] Holder, 58, may be on the verge of asserting his independence in a profound way. Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter.

Whatever happens there was torture and torture is against the law and the law demands an investigation. Let's see if something comes of this.

More on Bush's Criminal Behavior

2009-07-11T12:44:00.004-04:00

From the AP via Talkingpoints memo:

The Bush administration authorized secret surveillance activities that still have not been made public, according to a new government report that questions the legal basis for the unprecedented anti-terrorism program.

And:

The report describes the program as unprecedented and raises questions about the legal grounding used for its creation. It also says the intelligence agencies' continued retention and use of the information collected under the program should be carefully monitored.

Many senior intelligence officials believe the program filled a gap in intelligence. Others, including FBI, CIA and National Counterterrorism Center analysts, said intelligence gathered by traditional means was often more specific and timely, according to the report. [emphasis added]

Here's the report, if you wanted to follow along.

The report brings up this enticing little tidbit:

The IG report said an unnamed White House official inserted a paragraph into the first threat assessment prepared by the CIA after the Sept. 11 attacks, which was used to justify the extraordinary intelligence measures.
The paragraph said that the "individuals and organizations involved in global terrorism possessed the capability and intention to undertake further terrorist attacks within the United States," according to the report. It also said that the president should authorize the NSA to conduct the surveillance activities.

Here's the text from the report (page 7-8):

The CIA initially prepared the threat assessment memoranda that were used to support the Presidential Authorization and periodic reauthorizations of the PSP. The memoranda documented intelligence assessments of the terrorist threats to the United States and to U.S. interests abroad from al-Qa'ida and affiliated terrorist organizations. These assessments were prepared approximately every 45 days to correspond with the President's Authorizations of the PSP.

The Director of Central Intelligence's (DCI) Chief of Staff was the initial focal point for preparing the threat assessment memoranda. According to the former DCI Chief of Staff, he directed CIA terrorism analysts to prepare objective appraisals of the current terrorist threat, focusing primarily on threats to the U.S. homeland, and to document those appraisals in a memorandum. Initially, the analysts who prepared the threat assessments were not read into the PSP and did not know how the threat assessments would be used. CIA's terrorism analysts drew upon all sources of intelligence in preparing these threat assessments.

After the terrorism analysts completed their portion of the memoranda, the DCI Chief of Staff added a paragraph at the end of the memoranda stating that the individuals and organizations involved in global terrorism (and discussed in the memoranda) possessed the capability and intention to" undertake further terrorist attacks within the United States. The DCI Chief of Staff recalled that the paragraph was provided to him initially by a senior White House official. The paragraph included the DCI's recommendation to the President that he authorize the NSA to conduct surveillance activities under the PSP.

Let me see if I can hash this out. The CIA threat assessments were used to support the Presidential Authorizations. But to the FIRST threat assessment, the White House added text stating that the terrorists possessed the capability to undertake further terrorist attacks in the US.

I have a question: If that text (or something like it) was already in the assessment, then why was it necessary to add? It follows that if it was added, then it must not have been in the original. And the text came from the White House.

And so the White House doctored-CIA authored threat assessment was then used to justify the White House's authorization to extend the surveillance.

More later...

PA State Senator Jane Orie Considers Challenging Pat Toomey in US Senate Primary

2009-07-09T13:13:00.006-04:00

PoliticsPA reports that sources have told them that PA Senate’s majority whip Jane Orie has been meeting with Republican leaders and the NRSC in Washington about a possible run for the US Senate.

According to PoliticsPA:

[M]any Republican leaders have continued to worry privately about Toomey’s electability statewide, fearing he is too conservative for a state that gave Barack Obama a 10-point victory over John McCain last year.

Ummm, huh? I never really thought of Orie as being anything less than strongly conservative.

This is a person, after all, who believes:

Abortions should always be illegal, while schools should teach abstinence-only sex education, while being against expanding state funding for pre-natal and infant care programs available in the state, including immunizations. (Love the fetus - Hate the child!)

No to same-sex marriage and that sexual orientation should not be added to the state's anti-discrimination laws. (Well, it is pretty obvious that no self-respecting gay stylist has ever been within a mile of that hair, that eyeliner or those nails.)

Minimum wage should not be increased, welfare aid should be greatly reduced, and does not favor increasing state funding for programs to re-train unemployed workers. (Bootstraps!)

Maintaining minimum environmental quality as mandated by current federal regulations is unnecessary. (Seriously, WTF?)

Implementing chain gangs, expanding the death penalty, prosecuting more juveniles as adults, and advocating the use of prison labor for private industry are all good things. (If this run doesn't work out for her, she might want to consider holding office in China...)

For a conservative, what's not to love?

Of course what sort of liberal blog would we be without reminding our readers of the last time we posted on Orie:

PA Sen. Jane Orie aide Alan David Berlin jailed for soliciting furry sex with teen boy

(Actual photo from her web site which she posed for after the furry thing. LOL)
.

Pittsburgh City Council Looks to Technology to Expand Democracy

2009-07-09T12:18:00.001-04:00

Pittsburgh City Councilman Bill Peduto will hold a press conference today at 1:00 PM in the City Council Conference Room prior to a special session of Council. The purpose of the session is to "look at the use of new media and technology in the advancement of democracy."

We're talking things like: local government iPhone applications, live-streaming of meetings, instantaneous feedback from constituents, and deliberative polling.

Also participating today will be:

Dr. Priya Narasimhan- CMU, creator of YinzCam technology
Paul Fireman – Vivo
Brad Winney - Panopto, Inc.
Jay Resio – MyGov365
.

Brian Kilmeade Is An Idiot

2009-07-09T06:49:00.003-04:00

Here's why.

As every story I've read hat tips Gawker, I'll have to assume they have the original story. Here's what they say:

To stave off dementia! Yes, today the befuddled screech owls on Fox & Friends were discussing a study that states that those that stay married fend off Alzheimer's and dementia better than lonely divorcees. Brian Kilmeade took issue with this.
He didn't trust the study because it was done in Finland and Sweden and the Finns and the Swedes stay "pure" by only marrying each other. Whereas in America, everyone marries everyone (so long as they're white and their partner is white. Oh, and straight!) So therefore the study doesn't mean anything.

Suddenly the clouds parted and a thin ray of sunshine shone down on the pesky corn nut that is Gretchen Carlson—descendant of some Nordic "species", for sure—and she ably, if simply, mocked crazy dumb Kilmeade for being crazy and dumb and possibly suffering from dementia.

Mediamatters has a transcript:

KILMEADE: Different. Leave it to the Finns and Swedes to some up with something. They literally --
CARLSON: Don't look at me, pal.

KILMEADE: Because that's a -- we are -- we're -- we're a -- we're -- we keep marrying other species and other ethnics and other --

CARLSON: Are you sure they're not suffering from some of the --

KILMEADE: I mean, the Swedes --

CARLSON: -- causes of dementia right now?

BRIGGS: What are you getting at?

KILMEADE: See, the problem is, the Swedes have pure genes.

BRIGGS: OK.

KILMEADE: Because they marry other Swedes. Because that's the rule. Finland -- Finns marry other Finns, so they have a pure society. In America, we marry everybody.

BRIGGS: OK.

KILMEADE: So, we'll marry Italians and Irish.

BRIGGS: So, this study does not apply?

KILMEADE: Does not apply to us.

BRIGGS: Huh. You are a scientist.

CARLSON: Amazing deduction, Kilmeade.

So America isn't a "pure society" according to Fox "News" personality Brian Kilmeade because "we marry everybody"? Wonkette has a different take:

Fox & Friends’ Brian Kilmeade made a terrible buffoon of himself on the television this morning! You know why the Olds get Dementia and Alzheimer’s, in America? This is why: “We are — we keep marrying other species and other ethnics and other … See, the problem is the Swedes have pure genes. Because they marry other Swedes …. Fins marry other Fins, so they have a pure society.” Meaning: Ronald Reagan was a mulatto.

So maybe he was just commenting on Alzheimers. In either case, what a frickin idiot.

Watch it yourself:

It's also pretty obvious that someone on the set also feels Kilmeade is an idiot - listen carefully and you'll hear someone whistling. What are they whistling? It's a famous tune from The Wizard of Oz. In case you can't recognise the tune, here are the lyrics. They're fitting, doncha think?

I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain [emphasis added]

So there's at least one person over there at Fox "News" who agrees. Brian Kilmeade is a frickin idiot.

UPDATE: Even without all the charming racism of Kilmeade's ignorance, it's surprising he'd have any problem with the study. According to the BBC:

Being single when you reach middle age could mean more than having the house to yourself - it could increase your risk of dementia.

Swedish research, presented at a US conference, found that marriage or having a partner halved the risk of developing dementia.
Scientists believe social interaction between couples may ward off illness.
The Alzheimer's Research Trust said the results were worrying, given the high divorce rates in the UK.

You'd think the "family values" crowd over at Fox "News" would be pushing this story. Stay married! If you're divorced, get remarried! You'll save yourself from Alzheimers!

Again all it shows is that Brian Kilmeade is a frickin idiot.

Public Option Now! Health Care Rallies in Pittsburgh

2009-07-08T06:38:00.004-04:00

UPDATE: For the Casey rally (via press release):

Local elected official, City Councilman Bill Peduto, will speak briefly at the rally, as will students, business owners and individuals involved in the healthcare industry.

At the end of the rally, the group will deliver petitions from MoveOn members statewide in support of a strong public health insurance option. The petition text—a quote from President Obama -- reads:
“I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.”

MoveOn.org is urging all to contact their US Senators to support a Public Option for health care.

There will be two rallies tomorrow; one targeting Sen. Bob Casey and the other Sen. Arlen Specter.

Public Option Now! Health Care Rally
Sen. Arlen Specter's District Office
Regional Enterprise Tower, 425 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1450
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Thursday, July 09th, 10:00 AM
RSVP here.

Public Option Now! Health Care Rally
Sen. Robert Casey's District Office
Regional Enterprise Tower, 425 Sixth Avenue, Suite 2490
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Thursday, July 09th, 12:00 PM
RSVP here.
.

It's Official. SENATOR Al Franken

2009-07-07T22:50:00.005-04:00

It's about time.

By my count that's 58 Democrats and 2 Independents - both of whom say they'll caucus with the Democrats. I am confident about Saunders of Vt but Lieberman of Ct is an ass.

On the other hand, that leaves only 40 (count 'em 40) Republicans in the Senate.

Poor GOP. Poor poor GOP.

Palin and the Media

2009-07-07T13:21:00.001-04:00

Just a reminder that while soon-to-be-ex Gov. Sarah "Quitter" Palin is now threatening to sue anyone in the media -- including bloggers -- who dare to criticize her, she hasn't always had much empathy towards those who were on the receiving end of hits from the MSM.

Palin calling Hillary Clinton a whiner:

.

Lynn Cullen: Back Again!

2009-07-07T12:15:00.003-04:00

We get near daily hits from folks searching for info on where they can listen to Lynn Cullen.

Well, she's back -- not on the airwaves -- but live streaming audio courtesy of the Pittsburgh City Paper.

It will be a one hour, weekday show at 10:00 AM starting on August 18th. The shows will be archived and downloadable.

From the CP press release:

In partnership with Pittsburgh City Paper, local broadcasting legend Lynn Cullen will re-launch her talk show later this summer. And this time, she won’t be restricted by signal strength, broadcast schedules, or even the FCC.

[snip]

“I’ll be interviewing newsmakers and troublemakers. I’ll be providing an antidote to the incessant whining of radio’s doomsayers and fearmongers,” Cullen says. “I’m glad to be free of the constraints of commercial radio — and this beats screaming into a megaphone on Forbes and Murray.”

City Paper’s online audience has grown by 25 percent in the past year, thanks in part to a recent redesign and additional features. “Our Web site has experience exceptional growth over the past year,” publisher Michael Frischling says. “We believe Lynn’s show will be a key element in continuing this dynamic trend.”

“We’re excited to be able to restore Lynn to her audience — and to her rightful place at the cutting edge of local media,” says Chris Potter, City Paper editor. “Now, thanks to the magic of the Internet, she’ll be able to aggravate right-wingers all over the world, at any time of day or night.”

More than $1.4 million a day

2009-07-07T06:50:00.002-04:00

What is: How much is the health-care industry spending “in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues” on health care legislation?
.

"Real Americans"

2009-07-07T06:00:00.001-04:00

On yesterday's Morning Joe Brewed by Starbucks, Mika Brzezinski explained how soon-to-be-former Gov. Sarah Palin connected with "real Americans."

[P]eople were coming to those rallies because they agreed with her. Look at the polls out there. Look where people stand on life. Look where real Americans think and you will find that in the, you know -- God, I hate to say it -- but in the cites where there's a little more liberal elite populations you're not going to find what is representative of America.

First Mika, urban America is not just real America, it is the vast majority of America as far as where Americans actually live (from the 2000 Census):

U.S. Population Living in Urban vs. Rural Areas
Population living in Urban Areas: 79.219%
Population living in Rural Areas: 20.781

Urbanized Areas over 200,000 population = 58.274%

Second Mika, that Gallup poll that made the news back in May which supposedly showed more people are now anti abortion than pro choice had respondents identifying as Republicans by 32% and as Democrats by 32%. However nationwide, less than a quarter of the population actually identifiy themselves as Republicans while 35% identify as Democrats (this means the Gallup poll was crap as it was unrepresentative of the population).

(from FiveThirtyEight)
Third Mika, obviously enough "real" Americans did not connect with Palin's views:

Adjusted to reflect population:

So naner, naner, naner!
.

The Trib vs The P-G

2009-07-06T20:17:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, Richard Mellon Scaife's editorial board at the Pittsburgh Tribune Review got whipped themselves into a lather over something Dennis Roddy wrote at the P-G.

But curiously, they didn't mention Roddy by name. Nor did they ever actually get around to say that anything Roddy wrote was, you know, wrong.

AND they left out a big big BIG part of the story - and a hat tip to "Referee" over at the voyforum for pointing it out.

First Roddy:

A committee organized to welcome the world to Pittsburgh for the September G-20 economic summit has received a donation from a foundation that has, in the past, given millions of dollars to anti-immigration organizations including two listed as hate groups.

The Colcom Foundation, founded by Cordelia Scaife May, a now-deceased heir to the Mellon fortune, has been one of the major contributors to a web of groups founded by John Tanton, a Petoskey, Mich., ophthalmologist who has long been at the forefront of efforts to restrict immigration into the United States.

During Ms. May's lifetime, the foundation also underwrote the work of Samuel Francis, a self-described "white nationalist" who edited a newsletter for the Council of Conservative Citizens, a group that has advocated racial separation. Mr. Francis also was a regular speaker at conferences sponsored by American Renaissance, an annual gathering of academics who theorize on racially based differences in intelligence, contending that black people have lower intelligence than whites and Asians.

And so on. And now the Trib. After calling the piece "reprehensible" they explain themselves:

The Group of 20 economics summit is coming to Pittsburgh in late September. Although many of the costs associated with this event will be covered by the federal government — much of the necessarily large security apparatus topping the list — a city in state receivership requires private-sector aid to help it put on its best face.
Many private organizations, freely fulfilling what they feel is their civic duty, have stepped up to the plate. Among them is the Colcom Foundation, founded by Cordelia Scaife May, the late sister of this newspaper's owner.

Yet, hell-bent on letting no good deed go unpunished (if not to shamelessly smear the name of a dead woman), the Post-Gazette has published a screed in which it went out of its way to try to discredit Colcom's support of the community's G-20 preparations.

Before looking at the next paragraph, let's all remember that it was Dennis Roddy who did all that delicious reporting on Richard Mellon Scaife's divorce. Keeping that in mind, here's the Trib's next paragraph:

The apparent motivation for this smear is Colcom's past philanthropy to causes with which P-G co-publisher and editor-in-chief John Robinson Block personally disagrees.

Of course it's just not possible for Scaife, who once a long long long time ago lashed out at a reporter when she asked about his rightwing political donations by calling her a "communist cunt," to be annoyed at Dennis Roddy for writing about his divorce. Nope, not possible.

And what of this Sam Francis person? Over at the voyforum, a poster using the pseudonym "referee" sheds some light on Mr Francis. USUALLY I wouldn't give much credence to someone posting under a pseudonym (even though I used to blog under a pseudonym myself), but when the info in that post actually checks out...

The poster pointed out that Sam Francis' column used to be published by The Tribune Review. Turns out that's true. His column got dropped when he wrote a column about the Nicolette Sheridan/Tyrell Owens Monday Night Football ad.

Curious what the Trib leaves out, isn't it?

Jack Kelly Sunday

2009-07-05T09:22:00.005-04:00

In this week's column, Jack spews more of the right wing talking points on global climate change - making the usual non sequiturs to "prove" as a hoax something the world's scientific community actually supports. And they say the conservative movement is out of ideas.

I don't know if he's on a schedule or anything, but it turns out that Jack Kelly wrote another Climate Change article in the first week of July 2006. This one. In case you don't recall (and there's little or no reason why you should) that was the column where Fact-Free Jack missed the date of an important report - by 5 years. It was enough of an error to prompt a correction in the pages of the P-G.

Let's get back to this week's column. Goshers, this is gonna be fun! Jack begins:

An unusually cold winter (it snowed in Saudi Arabia and Iraq; temperatures fell to minus 80 degrees in Siberia) was followed by an unusually cool spring (it snowed in North Dakota in June for the first time in 60 years).

This may be why only 42 percent of respondents in a Rasmussen poll published June 18 think human activity is causing global warming, and many of those who do don't see it as a serious problem. (In a Gallup poll in March, warming ranked last among eight environmental concerns.)

"Global temperatures have declined -- extending the current downtrend to 11 years with a particularly rapid decline in 2007-2008," said a draft report written in March by an expert at the Environmental Protection Agency.

The scientific/logical error in Jack's first paragraph is an example of using localized data to disprove generalized data. So what if it snowed in Saudi Arabia? In fact, had Jack done a little digging (I know, I know, we're talking about Jack Kelly here - just go with me on this) he would have bumped into this from the BBC. It's about the weather in Saudi Arabia:

In the interior, and in the higher mountains in the northwest of Saudi Arabia, winter temperatures occasionally fall low enough for frost and snow to occur. Winter nights in the desert are distinctly chilly. [emphasis added]

So not a big surprise if it snows SOMEPLACE in Saudi Arabia at some point in the winter.

And how about Iraq? Again our friends at the BBC give up the data:

Winters are very mild in the south, but become cooler towards the north. Frost and snow occasionally occur at low levels in the north and snowfall may be heavy in Kurdistan.

Heavy? But isn't Kurdistan actually in Iraq? And they yet they sometimes get heavy snow?

And what of the temperatures in Siberia? Take a look at this table from the BBC. It shows the temperature data from a city in Siberia. It shows average highs and lows and record highs and lows. It lists the average low in January as 53 degrees below zero. Now that might be a rather large leap from 53 to 80 until you take into consideration it's -53 Celsius. -53 degrees Celsius is about -63 degrees Fahrenheit. That's only 17 degrees above Jack's "unusually cold" number. Indeed, the record low is -67 degrees Celsius. Converted to Fahrenheit, that's about -88 degrees Fahrenheit.

Tell me again how this is unusual?

Jack, did you think no one would check? No one OUTSIDE THE P-G, of course. (Why is that? I need to ask. Again.)

Let's move on with that Rasmussen poll. I have no doubt that Rasmussen found what they found, but since when is science decided by public poll numbers? I mean if that's the case then what are we to make of the Gallup poll done in late 2004 that said:

Forty-five percent of Americans agree that God created man in his present form about 10,000 years ago. (This time frame was included in the question when it was originally framed in 1982 because it roughly approximates the timeline used by biblical literalists who study the genealogy as laid out in the first books of the Old Testament.)

According to Gallup that number hasn't shifted much in the previous 22 years. Solidly held belief of a large chunk of the population - well then it must be true! Even if there's no other reason to believe it.

The lesson here is that polls can be very instructive in judging, for instance, how much support a given candidate has in a given election cycle (how deep that support is, or how it shifts and so on). But they are more or less useless in judging whether a scientific idea is correct or incorrect (ie is supported by the data).

This brings me to the next paragraph. Note how Jack labels the author of the study - "an expert at the Environmental Protection Agency." You'd think that if he's an "expert" there, he'd be an environmental scientist or something, right?

Guess again, kimo sabe. He's not a scientist. Check out his guv'ment webpage.

Let's be clear. Carlin is an expert - he's got a PhD in economics from MIT - just not an expert in climate science. But my old musicology teacher was an expert in late Renaissance bicinia - that in itself doesn't make him an expert in bebop counterpoint.

Fox "News" even points out Carlin's expertise:

An EPA official told FOXNews.com on Monday that Carlin, who is an economist -- not a scientist -- included "no original research" in his report. The official said that Carlin "has not been muzzled in the agency at all," but stressed that his report was entirely "unsolicited."
"It was something that he did on his own," the official said. "Though he was not qualified, his manager indulged him and allowed him on agency time to draft up ... a set of comments." [emphasis added.]

But that, in itself, wouldn't preclude Carlin from being wrong. But what does a real climate scientist say about Carlin's report? Here's Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate.com:

One can see a number of basic flaws here; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the common but erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to solar or other forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution.
But it gets worse, what solid peer reviewed science do they cite for support? A heavily-criticised blog posting showing that there are bi-decadal periods in climate data and that this proves it was the sun wot done it. The work of an award-winning astrologer (one Theodor Landscheidt, who also thought that the rise of Hitler and Stalin were due to cosmic cycles), a classic Courtillot paper we’ve discussed before, the aforementioned FoS web page, another web page run by Doug Hoyt, a paper by Garth Paltridge reporting on artifacts in the NCEP reanalysis of water vapour that are in contradiction to every other reanalysis, direct observations and satellite data, a complete reprint of another un-peer reviewed paper by William Gray, a nonsense paper by Miskolczi etc. etc. I’m not quite sure how this is supposed to compete with the four rounds of international scientific and governmental review of the IPCC or the rounds of review of the CCSP reports….

They don’t even notice the contradictions in their own cites. For instance, they show a figure that demonstrates that galactic cosmic ray and solar trends are non-existent from 1957 on, and yet cheerfully quote Scafetta and West who claim that almost all of the recent trend is solar driven! They claim that climate sensitivity is very small while failing to realise that this implies that solar variability can’t have any effect either. They claim that GCM simulations produced trends over the twentieth century of 1.6 to 3.74ºC – which is simply (and bizarrely) wrong (though with all due respect, that one seems to come directly from Mr. Gregory). Even more curious, Carlin appears to be a big fan of geo-engineering, but how this squares with his apparent belief that we know nothing about what drives climate, is puzzling. A sine qua non of geo-engineering is that we need models to be able to predict what is likely to happen, and if you think they are all wrong, how could you have any faith that you could effectively manage a geo-engineering approach?

Finally, they end up with the oddest claim in the submission: That because human welfare has increased over the twentieth century at a time when CO2 was increasing, this somehow implies that no amount of CO2 increases can ever cause a danger to human society. This is just boneheadly stupid.

So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at. Seriously, if that’s the best they can do, the EPA’s ruling is on pretty safe ground.

Gavin Schmidt, by the way, is a real climate scientist. Here's his bio:

Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and is interested in modeling past, present and future climate. He works on developing and improving coupled climate models and, in particular, is interested in how their results can be compared to paleoclimatic proxy data. He also works on assessing the climate response to multiple forcings, such as solar irradiance, atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, and greenhouse gases.
He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He serves on the CLIVAR/PAGES Intersection and the Earth System Modeling Framework Advisory Panels and is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Climate. He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences. He has over 50 peer-reviewed publications.

So I think he knows what he's talking about. Carlin's not a scientist and he wasn't writing up any original science and what he did write is scientifically untenable.

Tell me again why the EPA should be compelled to incorporate it into an official position?

You gotta do better than this, Jack. If I can dissemble the "science" you cite so easily sitting at my kitchen table on a Sunday morning, then it can't be of much value. And if the foundation of your column is so easily dissolved, what of the rest of it?

Happy Independence Day!

2009-07-04T08:40:00.001-04:00

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Real Reason for Sarah Palin Resignation

2009-07-04T00:23:00.005-04:00

This photo just surfaced:

(Or maybe something else . . .)
.

What Will Jack Kelly Say?

2009-07-03T17:50:00.004-04:00

Sarah Palin Resigns

Given that our good friend Jack is a huge Palin booster from way back, we wonder how long it'll take for him to blame her resignation on:

The Obama administration
The liberal media
Our permissive culture
ACORN
Liberals in general
All of the above.

Only time will tell.