To My Friends

I have some sad news.

My father has passed away.

He was a great guy.



I'll be back next week.

ENDA and the Motion to Recommit

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) passed the House of Representatives yesterday by a vote of 235-184. (Go take a look - local Representatives Mike Doyle and Jason Altmire voted for ENDA).

The "transgender provisions" discussed here recently by Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) were to be introduced as an amendment by Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-WI). But before the vote was taken, she withdrew the amendment. She explains why:

In her comments, she said that while she felt the amendment would have "strong support," she also believed it would fail. She ended her comments with this (transcript here):

With a commitment to my colleagues and all Americans committed to equality of opportunity, and ending discrimination, that I will do everything within my power to make this measure whole again.

Of course the Republicans tried to kill the bill. Not on its merits, of course, but with something called a "Motion to Recommit." Here's what happened:

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) led the recommit effort, saying it was necessary to "ensure this bill does not become the building block that some may want to use to destroy the institution of marriage." His motion sought to send the bill back to committee to add language saying nothing in the bill could be construed as redefining marriage for federal or state purposes beyond the definition of "one man and one woman."

That’s when Frank stepped up to the podium at the front of the House and asked Forbes if he would allow the House to proceed to a vote on the bill if Democrats agreed to accept his language by unanimous consent. Forbes balked.

Frank said Forbes’s refusal to accept the offer was a clear indication that Republicans were simply seeking to send the bill back to committee with the "unmistakable intent to put this off until we are due to adjourn."

My understanding is that the instructions attached to the motion included language saying that it would stay with the Education and Labor for nine days before returning to the House.

But the House is adjourning in five days until next session - effectively killing the bill.

The motion to recommit was put to a vote where it failed 198-222. But take a look at the roll for that vote. It's alphabetical, so the name's easy to spot.

Representative Jason Altmire (D-PA) voted in favor of the motion to recommit.

I gotta ask the question, why he vote for a motion that would kill a bill that he, minutes later, would vote for?

I dropped an e-mail to the Congressman's spokesperson for an explanation. I'll report back whatever I hear.

Creepy, Creepy!

Two things that caught my eye yesterday:

1) "Bronzer" from Shakesville:

A bitch just read this news bit about a Halloween party hosted by Julie Myers, who is head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It was a costume party…some sort of office thing…and there was a costume contest. One employee dressed up in prison garb…and sported a wig of dreadlocs…and a face made up with brown makeup.

Blink.

The original article in on cnn.com. Myers was actually one of the judges who praised the costume for "originality."

Hmmm, black face is now original? Perhaps it was deemed OK because they claim a bronzer was used to get that darker hue rather than the traditional burnt cork or shoe polish.

Myers even posed for a photo with the costume wearer but that picture was later "disappeared."

It should be noted that her appointment was met with much criticism even from the Right for her utter lack of experience.

Also, according to wikipedia: "Under her admistration the Immigration and customs enforcement officials admitted to administering Haldol and Cogentin to deportees without consent. Haldol and Cogentin are controlled substances that typically require a prescription from a doctor. The ACLU is filing a suit on the basis that this violates the bill of rights as well as federal laws and may constitute torture."

2) "The Falafel Squad" from firedoglake:

Like Hansel and Gretel hoping to follow their bread crumbs out of the forest, the FBI sifted through customer data collected by San Francisco-area grocery stores in 2005 and 2006, hoping that sales records of Middle Eastern food would lead to Iranian terrorists.

The idea was that a spike in, say, falafel sales, combined with other data, would
lead to Iranian secret agents in the south San Francisco-San Jose area.

The brainchild of top FBI counterterrorism officials Phil Mudd and Willie T. Hulon,
according to well-informed sources, the project didn’t last long. It was torpedoed by the head of the FBI’s criminal investigations division, Michael A. Mason, who argued that putting somebody on a terrorist list for what they ate was ridiculous — and possibly illegal.

I'm guessing that the list included not a few vegans of non Middle Eastern background (but they're probably Commies anyway).

We truly have some scary folks in our government!

Look on the bright side...

...The Burghosphere will have tons of material for the next two years.

(Ravenstahl: 64% DeSantis: 35%)

Kucinich Introduces Impeachment of Cheney on House Floor

There are things happening outside of Pittsburgh. (Really!)

Read more here and here.

Too late! They wimped out.

Lukey at Daily Kos

The Pittsburgh mayoral race is mentioned briefly in this Daily Kos front page post.

Scroll down the comments section to get to the thread on Lil Mayor Ravenstahl.

You know those people?

You know those people -- say, a Britney Spears, a Paris Hilton -- those people who, maybe despite your best efforts, you end up having to hear about their latest stupid moves?

You know how you wish they would just go away?

You wish they wouldn't be allowed to creep into your head because you happened to pass a magazine stand, or someone in your office is talking about them, or worst of all, some news director thinks that their latest exploits actually constitute news.

Maybe a wee part of you enjoys their latest train wreck but ultimately you wish they'd just STFU and go away.

Wouldn't it be a beautiful thing to be able to vote them off the island? (Don't you wish you didn't even know what that phrase means?)

Now just think for a moment how truly lovely it would be to never have to hear about one more Luke Ravenstahl boneheaded move.

According to today's Post-Gazette:

The city's home rule charter states the winner of today's race will officially become mayor as soon as the county certifies the election, which Mr. Wolosik said should happen in 20 days -- possibly on the Monday after Thanksgiving.

Think about that.

We have the power to just make Lil Mayor Luke just go away.

No more turning on the TV or opening up the newspaper and reading about Lukey firing whistleblowers, or getting handcuffed, or forgetting where he spent the night in NYC, or stalking another celeb, or taking a $9,000 golf outing gift from UPMC, or missing meetings with minorities and women, or blaming women for his own inaction on police with domestic violence problems, or joyriding in a Homeland Security SUV, or letting kids play in lead contaminated parks, or hearing him lie about each and every one of these things over and over again.

It would be just like never hearing the name "Paris Hilton" again. Just like never seeing Britney's panty-less bottom one more time as she exits her tricked-out SUV. Just like never seeing a promo of some chick sobbing over the latest "Bachelor."

Not one more cringe-inducing crazy celeb moment (nor any more hysterical fan's defense of their hero's cringe-inducing episode).

Except of course, ultimately, Britney's and Paris' latest exploit don't really impact on your own life (other than to temporarily lower your IQ), whereas Lukey's latest cockup actually affects the lives of the residents of this city and region.

Right now -- today -- you have the power to vote Lukey off the island.

Just do it.

You broke my Photoshop!



.

Olbermann Last Night

MSNBC has the transcript.

ABC News had the initial reporting on this:

A senior Justice Department official, charged with reworking the administration's legal position on torture in 2004 became so concerned about the controversial interrogation technique of waterboarding that he decided to experience it firsthand, sources told ABC News.

Daniel Levin, then acting assistant attorney general, went to a military base near Washington and underwent the procedure to inform his analysis of different interrogation techniques.

After the experience, Levin told White House officials that even though he knew he wouldn't die, he found the experience terrifying and thought that it clearly simulated drowning.

Levin, who refused to comment for this story, concluded waterboarding could be illegal torture unless performed in a highly limited way and with close supervision. And, sources told ABC News, he believed the Bush Administration had failed to offer clear guidelines for its use.

And what happened to Levin after that?

The administration at the time was reeling from an August 2002 memo by Jay Bybee, then the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, which laid out possible justifications for torture. In June 2004, Levin's predecessor at the office, Jack Goldsmith, officially withdrew the Bybee memo, finding it deeply flawed.

When Levin took over from Goldsmith, he went to work on a memo that would effectively replace the Bybee memo as the administration's legal position on torture. It was during this time that he underwent waterboarding.

In December 2004, Levin released the new memo. He said, "Torture is abhorrent" but he went on to say in a footnote that the memo was not declaring the administration's previous opinions illegal. The White House, with Alberto Gonzales as the White House counsel, insisted that this footnote be included in the memo.

But Levin never finished a second memo imposing tighter controls on the specific interrogation techniques. Sources said he was forced out of the Justice Department when Gonzales became attorney general.

This is where Keith Olbermann takes up the story.

Daniel Levin should have a statue in his honor in Washington right now.

Instead, he was forced out as acting assistant attorney general nearly three years ago because he had the guts to do what George Bush couldn't do in a million years: actually put himself at risk for the sake of his country, for the sake of what is right.

And they waterboarded him. And he wrote that even though he knew those doing it meant him no harm, and he knew they would rescue him at the instant of the slightest distress, and he knew he would not die — still, with all that reassurance, he could not stop the terror screaming from inside of him, could not quell the horror, could not convince that which is at the core of each of us, the entity who exists behind all the embellishments we strap to ourselves, like purpose and name and family and love, he could not convince his being that he wasn't drowning.

Waterboarding, he said, is torture. Legally, it is torture! Practically, it is torture! Ethically, it is torture! And he wrote it down.

Keith takes it a step further:

Ultimately, Mr. Bush, the real question isn't who approved the waterboarding of this fiend Khalid Sheik Mohammed and two others.

It is: Why were they waterboarded?

Study after study for generation after generation has confirmed that torture gets people to talk, torture gets people to plead, torture gets people to break, but torture does not get them to tell the truth.

Of course, Mr. Bush, this isn't a problem if you don't care if the terrorist plots they tell you about are the truth or just something to stop the tormentors from drowning them.

If, say, a president simply needed a constant supply of terrorist threats to keep a country scared.

If, say, he needed phony plots to play hero during, and to boast about interrupting, and to use to distract people from the threat he didn't interrupt.

If, say, he realized that even terrorized people still need good ghost stories before they will let a president pillage the Constitution,

Well, Mr. Bush, who better to dream them up for you than an actual terrorist?

He'll tell you everything he ever fantasized doing in his most horrific of daydreams, his equivalent of the day you "flew" onto the deck of the Lincoln to explain you'd won in Iraq.

Now if that's what this is all about, you tortured not because you're so stupid you think torture produces confession but you tortured because you're smart enough to know it produces really authentic-sounding fiction — well, then, you're going to need all the lawyers you can find … because that crime wouldn't just mean impeachment, would it?

That crime would mean George W. Bush is going to prison.

Keith Olbermann, American Patriot

Special Message from Dayvoe

GO VOTE!

Delano's take on tomorrow

In addition to his KDKA TV report, Jon Delano riffs on the mayoral race on his Delano's Den blog (expectations game, etc.).

For the record, I expect DeSantis to do well but not win.

[sigh]

Hey, Pittsburgh! Why don't you surprise me?
.

What are the chances? UPDATED WITH PICS!

What are the chances that I'd get a mailing from the "City of Pittsburgh Department of Environmental Works Bureau of Environmental Services" ostensibly about recycling the day before an election that for some reason has a picture of Lil Mayor Luke Ravenstahl on it plugging the "Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's Response Line"?

The answer is 100%

What does the 311 line have to do with garbage other than to provide an excuse to put Lukey's pic out there one more time the day before the election?

The answer is nothing.

UPDATE: Here's the pics:

A Lesson in Politics from Congressman Barney Frank

As we posted here, the Steel-City Stonewall Democrats and Congressman Mike Doyle hosted a meet-and-greet this past Saturday with Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA). I was free that afternoon, so I went. The place was crowded and I bumped into some of the usual suspects; Dan Onorato, Doug Shields, Valerie McDonald Roberts, and so on.

The meet-and-greet was, as I understand it, for Congressman Frank to gave a brief talk on the status of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that's working its way through Congress. It became apparent that some of the lessons learned could easily be moved beyond that particular Act.

As is the protocol in these sorts of meetings, the introductions telescoped upwards to the guest of honor - Bruce Kraus introduced Congressman Doyle who introduced Congressman Frank. Kraus described Doyle was a great friend to the LGBT community and Doyle described Frank as "part-political theorist, part pittbull," who was so intimidating as a debater that no member of the House, while discussing an issue, ever wanted to hear Congressman Frank's voice interrupting "Will the gentleman yield?"

The issue at hand was a provision to add transgender people to those who are protected by ENDA. He released a statement a few weeks ago on this, by the way. The Act, he said, will "loose by 100 votes" with with the transgender provision included. From his released statement:

The question facing us – the LGBT community and the tens of millions of others who are active supporters of our fight against prejudice – is whether we should pass up the chance to adopt a very good bill because it has one major gap.

On Saturday, he put it more simply:

We are in danger of losing a victory we could win.

The outlines of the story, though, could easily cover the nationwide frustrations over the Congress' inability to, say, stop the war in Iraq or begin impeachment. Frank offered a target - the person to be angry at - James Madison. As we all know, the Constitution, while providing for a full election of the House of Representatives every two years, only allows for an election every two years for 1/3 of the Senate. The other 2/3 of the Senate, Frank said, were elected in 2002 and 2004, when the Republicans were still riding high, assing that it takes two elections to control the Senate.

Frank said he wanted to avoid the self-fulfilling prophecy of voters, frustrated that the 2006 Congress hasn't done more, will just stay away from the polls in 2008. On the other hand, he described a frustrating setting where the left was threatening allied Democrats in the House for NOT supporting the transgender provisions all the while NOT lobbying those moderates who hadn't yet decided. He said that on the left side of the internet (and I think he meant the liberal blogs) there wasn't much discussion about the danger of including the provision in the act. The Democrats control The House, so why can't they just add it on? Frank corrected that false impression by pointing out that the Constituion allows for two legislative bodies; The House and The Senate, NOT The House, The Senate and The Internet.

Add to that the danger faced by the new members of Congress who'd defeated incumbent Republicans in districts carried by Bush 2004.

Push too hard, too fast and some Democrats could loose their seats - and Frank wants nothing more than a Democratic Congress - with a larger majority. And he said that if you don't want politics to enter into a dicsussion of an issue, then don't ask 535 politicians how to deal with it.

While wishing the transgender provisions could be included, he said he believed the Act would go ahead without them. Doyle announced that Congressman Jason Altmire would be voting with Doyle and Frank on ENDA.

There were a few questions along the lines of "What should the transgendered community do now that the act is moving forward without it?" Frank replied that the community should be lobbying moderates who are undecided and supporting (not hurting) those allies who support the community.

Luke as farce

According to Sue at Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents, Lil Mayor Luke Ravenstahl must be worried about the gay vote because:

It would seem that Luke's people realized what a huge gaffe he made last week by saying he does not favor civil unions. Thus, he has scheduled a meeting with representatives from the Steel City Stonewall Democrats at 2:30 PM Monday. To clarify.

Apparently, Luke has stated that he doesn't know what a civil union is.

The Mayor of Pittsburgh -- a Democrat under the age of 40 -- does not know what a civil union is.

That is so blissfully ridiculous that there's simply no need for further comment.

As I commented at her blog the day before:

by Maria in Pgh on Fri 02 Nov 2007 02:28 PM EDT Profile Permanent Link
I heard that Lukey stonewalled the Stonewall Dems -- promising to get back to them with answers to their questionnaire and never delivering.

Small wonder since his real answers on such a questionnaire would have "outed" him before he got whatever cash he could grab.

Someone else commented there that "Luke blew off the Steel City Stonewall Democrats reception Saturday afternoon in Shadyside with Barney Frank."

This reminds me ever so much of his position on contraceptives:

1)Try to remain as neutral and uncontroversial as possible in public.

2) But, whisper to the bubbas in private that he's doing the "right" Catholic thing.

3) Then flail around and lie when outed.

What a nice, principled, young man!

Once again, it behooves us to mention that Ravenstahl -- who is always claiming that he stands for Democratic Party principles -- is extremely anti choice and anti gay, while his Republican challenger, Mark DeSantis is pro choice and pro gay.
.

Jack Kelly Sunday

In this week's column, Jack Kelly, the former "National Security" Correspondent for the P-G, ventures out into national politics. We all know Jack's political leanings (somewhat right of center, to say the least) and so it's not surprising that he's using this week's column to undermine Senator Hilary Clinton's presidential campaign.

The first sentence:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton apparently has hit a speed bump on the way to her coronation.

And it goes on from there. He starts with a number of appraisals of her performance at a recent debate (I didn't see the debate, but I guess she didn't do too well) and then goes into over drive with some Rassmussen poll numbers.

But it could spell big trouble in the general election. Pollster Scott Rasmussen reported a shocking result from a recent poll. In a head-to-head matchup with Libertarian fruitcake Ron Paul, Hillary drew just 48 percent of the vote.

This was not because Rep. Paul, who is polling in the low single digits among GOP voters, has had a sudden burst in popularity.

"When we polled among people who knew who Ron Paul is, she got 48 percent of the vote," Mr. Rasmussen said. "When we polled among people who didn't know who Ron Paul is, she got 48 percent of the vote."

Fruitcake? Did J-Kel just call Ron Paul a fruitcake? I trust that that smear won't go unanswered by the Friends of Ron Paul who occasionally surf through this blog (coughMark Rauterkuscough).

Looks like Commando Kelly got his research from this page at Rasmussen Reports. He's really working towards setting up a Clinton-Giuliani matchup. He has this to say about it.

In head-to-head matchups against more likely Republican nominees, Mrs. Clinton trails former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani slightly...

And a little later

The polls make it clear Rudy Giuliani is the Republican most likely to beat Mrs. Clinton.

And finally

A Paul candidacy excepted, the arithmetic of the 2008 election is clear. In a two-candidate race, the Republican wins, especially if the Republican is named Rudy Giuliani. In a multiple candidate race, Hillary Clinton wins.

But let's take a look at what Rasmussen actually says. This page has the info. Looks like our pal Jack didn't look deep enough at the data. The first paragraph, indeed, begins with:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows former Mayor Rudy Giuliani leading Senator Clinton 46% to 44% in an early look at a general election match-up.

But what's the margin of error? How does it match any trend in the poll data or is it a new trend? Jack doesn't bother with any of that, no sir. He's got his talking point that Clinton trails Giuliani slightly and runs with it all the way past November, 2008. Rasmussen, though, has slightly more to say on the subject:

Clinton and Giuliani have been in a very competitive match-up for most of the year, but Clinton had gained ground in three bi-weekly consecutive polls. By October 9, the Democratic frontrunner was leading the former mayor by seven percentage points. But, the current results suggest a return to the longer trend-line established for this race.

Individual polls can sometimes overstate volatility in a race, especially when the results carry a four percentage point margin of sampling error. One way of addressing this is to look at a rolling-average of three consecutive polls. Using this approach, Clinton and Giuliani have both been within two points of the 45% mark for eleven consecutive polls dating back to May 1, 2007. The candidates have been within two points of each other on seven of those eleven surveys. [emphasis added]

Ok, so it's a two point lead within a four percentage point margin of sampling error. Any wonder why Jack Kelly didn't mention that? Then there's this next paragraph from Rasmussen:

Still, while the candidates have hovered consistently around that 45% level of support, a modest trend in Clinton’s favor can easily be detected. During the first eight sets of three-poll averages, Giuliani was “ahead” in seven and tied with Clinton in the eighth. Clinton has held the advantage in the last three updates of the three poll rolling average. She currently leads 47% to 44%. [emphasis added]

So by averaging three consecutive polls together, not only is there a trend (albeit a "modest" one) in Clinton's favor, but she's actually leading by a slightly larger margin than in the individual poll Kelly is touting as support. Any wonder why Jack Kelly didn't bother to mention any of this?

Jack Kelly does, however, write the arithmetic is "clear" that Giuliani beats Clinton in 2008.

But this is but one poll. What do the other polls have to say? From the PollingReport.com we can read that the poll numbers are far from what Jack Kelly said.

Newsweek from 10/31-11/0107, to the question: Suppose you had to choose between [Senator Clinton], the Democrat, and [Mayor Giuliani], the Republican. Who would you be more likely to vote for?" If other/unsure: "As of today do you lean more toward [Senator Clinton], the Democrat, or [Mayor Giuliani], the Republican? (MoE 4%)

45% said Giuliani, 49% said Clinton

Quinnipiac from 10/23-29/07 to the question: If the 2008 election for president were being held today, and the candidates were [Senator Clinton] the Democrat and [Mayor Giuliani] the Republican, for whom would you vote? (MoE 2.4%)

45% said Giuliani, 43% said Clinton

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg from 10/19-22/07 to the question: If the November 2008 general election for president were being held today and the choices were [Senator Clinton], the Democrat, and [Mayor Giuliani], the Republican, for whom would you vote: [Senator Clinton] or [Mayor Giuliani], or would you vote for a candidate from some other party? (MoE 4%)

41% said Giuliani, 47% said Clinton

Do I need to continue? Ok one more, this one from Fox.

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics from 10/9-10/07 to the question: Thinking ahead to the next presidential election, if the 2008 general election were held today for whom would you vote if the candidates were [names rotated]? (MoE 4%)

43 % said Giuliani, 47% said Clinton

The point here is not further any supposed "coronation" of Senator Clinton, but to point out, yet again, how our friend at the P-G, Jack Kelly, misstates manipulates and distorts in order to further his own political agenda.

Yet again.

Speaking of efficiencies . . .

You've heard about the US diplomats who are protesting being sent to Iraq, right?

Well, it appers that Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) has come up with a solution:

Congressman Hunter intends to also suggest that State Department personnel who refuse deployment to Baghdad be replaced with wounded veterans at Walter Reed and Bethesda hospitals.

[snip]

"They are veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters and you can be sure that when called on for difficult assignments, they won't convene a town meeting to protest. Especially for those whose mobility has been impaired by wounds, State Department positions, not only in Baghdad but around the world, will provide excellent jobs as well as availing our nation of their enormous talent."

Nothing like dragging wounded, immobile soldiers out of their hospital beds and throwing them back into a war zone. And, who knows, their body casts might offer better protection than some of the shoddier body armor.

At this time, we are still trying to nail down the rumor that Hunter also has suggested that the US should avail itself of vets in Arlington National Cemetery because "the bodies of dead veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters would make excellent barricades when stacked upon each other around the Green Zone."

No one supports the troops like Republicans!
.

Maximum Efficiencies!

It would seem that that those overly judgmental of the Luke Ravenstahl Administration in the MSM (both print and TV) and Burghosphere have once again found something new to find fault with:

High lead levels detected at Highland Park's Farmhouse Playground

[snip]

The city of Pittsburgh, notified that the problem likely stemmed from a lead-contaminated area next to a Highland Park playground, scraped off old paint chips and put up fresh paint. But four months after the city found out about the lead, it has yet to remove contaminated soil, or post a warning to families who use the tot lot and playground 20 feet from the dirt.

We here at 2 Political Junkies believe that our mayor should be celebrated for his pruductivity:

The city plans to implement a lead containment plan crafted by an engineering firm by the end of the month, according to mayoral spokeswoman Alecia Sirk. The work was delayed so the area wouldn't be tied up during the busy summer season. [Emphasis added]

"There was no sense in going out there and tossing around dirt while there were kids around," she said.

We've always believed: in for a penny, in for a pound.

If you know you have a park that's poisoning kids with lead, why not make sure that the poison reaches the maximum amount of kiddies? And, why not expose them during the summer months when they are at the park for the longest possible amount of hours on the driest possible days allowing for greatest amount of lead dust absorption?

We call that efficiency!

We also think that this demonstrates the forward thinking of the Ravenstahl Administration which is obviously following the best practices of countries such as China when it comes to the fine art of lead distribution to minors.

We congratulate the Mayor on getting the lead out (to kids) and refusing to bow down to old fashioned, conventional notions of what constitutes child safety.

Isn't that what having a young, forward moving mayor is all about?
.

You Think Pittsburgh's Got Troubles?

Take a look at the mayoral race where I grew up.

I grew up in North Haven, CT - a town of about 25,000 residents just north of New Haven, Ct. And to be specific, it's not a race for "Mayor" but for "First Selectman." It's a rather arcane system that no one outside of town hall really understands.

In any case the incumbent is a man named Kevin Kopetz, a Republican. He's being challenged by a Democrat named Janet McCarty. The last Democrat to hold the First Selectman's chair was 36 years ago.

The New Haven Register describes things this way:

North Haven doesn't need just a new first selectman, Town Hall needs a thorough house cleaning. After 36 years of Republican rule, town government has become a closed affair where party leaders held town jobs, the charter's bid requirements were systematically ignored and corruption allegedly flourished.

Last week's arrest of the suspended finance director, Vincent Palmeri, emphasizes the depth of the municipal rot. He had first been charged in April with covering up theft of town money by Joseph Ierardi, the town's recreation and community services director and former Republican town chairman.

Ierardi and his wife, Patricia, who was assistant community services director, are charged with filing bogus overtime, fake expenses and pocketing charitable contributions to the town.

Palmeri's second arrest was for buying himself three pistols with town money during the 1990s.

I'm not kidding. Here's more:

Kopetz went along with Joseph Ierardi's handing out work without seeking bids, a costly practice that extended throughout town government. The school bus contract was not put out to bid in 20 years. When bids were finally sought for the town's insurance, North Haven saved $1.4 million on its premium.

Until this year, a state law was circumvented that requires town meeting approval of budget transfers of more than $20,000. In the fiscal year that ended in 2006, there were 37 budget transfers of $19,999.

So you think we got it bad here in Pittsburgh? With just a once-handcuffed (though not arrested) Tiger Woods stalker named Luke Ravenstahl partying at a Toby Keith concert in a DHS security vehicle?

Y'inz guys got nottin' on North Haven!

The Case for David Tessitor

Here's the deal on voting for Allegheny County Council At-Large members:


There are two At-Large seats but each political party can only nominate one candidate and voters only get one vote. It was intended to make sure each party gets one of the seats.

So who are the candidates?

1) Democrat John DeFazio: He's currently on Council and given the large majority of Democrats, he'll win a seat even if only half the Dems vote for him. It's in the bag.

2) Republican Charles McCullough: He's the Upper St. Clair attorney at the center of a criminal investigation over management of an elderly widow's trust fund (he gave her $$$ to various Republican pols without her knowledge). He was let go from Downtown firm Eckert Seamans and dropped out of the race for a Republican at-large seat on Council. But it was too late to take his name off the ballot and he won and decided he wouldn't drop out saying, "Obviously, it was by the hand of God and also by the voters of the county (that I won)." After the primary, the Republican Party asked him to step aside, but he refused. At the July 3rd County Council meeting, he sought to introduce legislation as though he were already elected. (Can you say delusional? I knew you could!

3) David Tessitor (Reform Party): His platform includes Better Transit, Community Revitalization and Rapid Rail to the Airport. http://elect-tessitor.com/

If all the Dems come out for DeFazio, they automatically end up electing McCullough. What's needed is for a chunk of you Dems out there, and Independents and even some Republicans (who are embarrassed by McCullough) to vote for Tessitor.

By helping David Tessitor win, you can make sure Chuck McCullough does not serve on County Council!
(And, you get a good progressive in the deal.)
Learn more about David at: http://elect-tessitor.com

The real reason we'll be in Iraq for another 50 years

"Over time, we will have to shift the burden of the military fight from our forces directly to regional forces, and we will have to play an indirect role, but we shouldn't assume for even a minute that in the next 25 to 50 years the American military might be able to come home, relax and take it easy, because the strategic situation in the region doesn't seem to show that as being possible."
- Retired Army Gen. John Abizaid, October 31, 2007

"And I like to put it this way: As they stand up, we'll stand down."
- President George W. Bush, March 22, 2006

Recent Iraqi army training video:

I guess it's a good thing we're only waiting for them to "stand up." If we were waiting for them to achieve a level of proficiency in calisthenics that you or I mastered in the first grade, we'd be there another 100 years.

(h/t to Atrios for the video)
.

Some Debate Coverage

The usual suspects (the P-G and the Trib) were in the crowd last night for the QED debate.

The lede in the P-G:

The two major candidates for mayor -- facing each other for the seventh time in 24 days -- last night proved that familiarity doesn't necessarily breed contempt as they engaged in a debate that was not nearly as churlish as some previous encounters.

During the hour-long televised debate, sponsored by WQED-TV, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and challenger Mark DeSantis answered a dozen questions and traded short rebuttals that invariably stuck to the scripts they've rolled out on previous occasions.

Part of the reason for the high-mindedness might have been that the questions, posed by moderator Stacy Smith and panelists Michael Bartley, Tonia Caruso and Chris Moore, focused on how the candidates would save money, help young people find jobs and improve race relations in the city. It was the first forum during which the matter of Mr. Ravenstahl's ethics was never raised.

I noticed that when the thing was over. No mention of the SUV or the "tinkered" KDKA poll. Just policy and a few attacks from young Luke.

The Trib's much shorter piece on the debate focused on DeSantis' campaign contributions and how he'd be staffing the Mayor's office if he was elected:

In their seventh and final debate, Democratic Mayor Luke Ravenstahl repeated his attack on Republican challenger Mark DeSantis for having made campaign contributions to GOP politicians, including President Bush, while DeSantis charged Ravenstahl is using the issue as "a distraction."

During the hour-long debate broadcast live Thursday night on WQED-TV, DeSantis listed local Democrats he's also supported with campaign donations and said a DeSantis administration likely would be staffed with "a preponderance of Democrats."

In the discussion about the residency requirements of city employees (DeSantis wants to do away with the requirement that city employees live within city limits, Ravenstahl doesn't), Ravenstahl showed some weasel words. He criticised DeSantis for both supporting Community Based Policing and yet not supporting a residency requirement for the police. DeSantis, though, pointed out that right now there isn't a requirement for a police officer to live in the community where he works.

Subtle point that wasn't emphasized in the debate enough.

CapitalMan (of Darn News) was also there, tapping away furiously at a laptop right behind me.

His assessment of the players:

Everyone knows Mark DeSantis is more intelligent, responsible, and honest than Luke Ravenstahl. But Luke’s a bare-knuckled politician. He’s willing to be gruff, amiable, and angered when it suits him.

And I just wanted to reiterate a few things for the more left leaning among us:

• Ravenstahl is against both Gay Marriage and "Civil Unions"
• DeSantis favors Gay Marriage
• DeSantis also described himself last night as "pro-choice"

I'm just saying - it's interesting that on a few issues, the Republican is far more liberal than the Democrat in this race.

UPDATE CORRECTION: In an e-mail from my friend Sue, who writes at Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents. She informed me that I made a mistake in writing that Mark DeSantis favors gay marriage. I checked with the campaign and, yes indeedeeo, I goofed. They told me DeSantis favors "civil unions" but not "gay marriage." A mistake, though an understandable one as considering that according to the video, the question was about "gay unions." I should have been more careful with my wording.

By the way, Sue endorses DeSantis