A Jack Kelly Follow-Up (On Getting Jack's Column Removed)

The reactions to Jack Kelly's slavery column have been swift and powerful.

We've linked to the PBMF and VSB already.  There's even a couple of letters (here and here) at the P-G.

Then there's the petition at change.org:

This petition is a response to Jack Kelly’s offensive article, “Remnants of Slavery,” published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (September 13, 2015). In the article, Kelly makes numerous factually inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and inflammatory claims. The piece is of very poor quality as well as being offensive. Aside from the many highly dubious claims he makes throughout, we find the motivation for his writing the piece—essentially that African Americans should stop “blam[ing] all their problems on white racism”—unfit for publication. We expect more from Pittsburgh’s largest daily newspaper. To this end, we have two specific demands...

Which are:

1. That the article be removed from the Post-Gazette website.
2. That the editors of the Post-Gazette publish an apology.

I won't be signing this petition and I'll tell you why.

Simply put: The column was so loathsome that it has to stay posted.  It has to stay accessible to everyone and anyone exploring Jack Kelly's columns.  From now until the day the internet crumbles, Jack Kelly's column on slavery has to be easily found by anyone looking for it.  If it's removed then it's almost like it never existed - and that would be nothing more than doing Jack a favor.

And I speak as someone who actually succeeded (and I am pretty sure about this) in getting a Jack Kelly column removed from the P-G website.

Here's the story: It was 2009 and Jack wrote a profoundly incorrect column on a then recently resigned White House aide named Van Jones.  And it is perhaps simply a coincidence, considering the current discussion, that Van Jones looks like this:

Anyway, that Sunday Jack wrote that:

Mr. Jones was arrested during the rioting in Los Angeles in 1992 that followed the acquittal of the police officers who beat Rodney King. Mr. Jones spoke of that experience in a 2005 interview with a newspaper in the San Francisco Bay area:

"I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28, and then the verdicts came down on April 29," he told the East Bay Express. "By August, I was a communist."

And then that Sunday afternoon I wrote that, according to that same East Bay Express piece that Jack quoted, instead of being arrested in LA during the Rodney King riots, Mr Jones was arrested one week later in San Francisco.  He wasn't in LA protesting.  He wasn't in San Francisco protesting.  He was in San Francisco monitoring the protests (as an intern from the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area) when the police scooped everyone up - including Jones.

None of that made it into Jack's column on Van Jones and by that Wednesday, the column was gone.  I'm guessing my blog post had something to do with it.

But ponder this for a second:  Had I not written this blog post (the one you're reading right now) how would you have been able to find out about wrong Jack's Van Jones column was?  Would you have known that it even existed?  Certainly not by searching the P-G website.

As much as I was overjoyed thinking that I may have had a hand in forcing the P-G to delete Jack's earlier offensive column, now I think that some level of accountability was lost when they did it.

Jack wrote what he wrote.  He has to own it.  From now until the end of days he has to own it.  Burying it (offensive as it obviously is) only does Jack a favor he does not deserve.

If the P-G wants to apologize for the column, fine.  Perhaps they should.  Or perhaps at the very least they should publicly explain their decision to expose such a virus to the public.

If after reading this you're still of a mind to sign the petition, you should feel free.  I can respect that decision, too.  Maybe afterwards we can start a petition to force the P-G to properly fact-check Jack Kelly.

The Tribune-Review's Dishonesty Crosses The Atlantic

Take a look.

In this hit piece from earlier in the week about the new leader of the UK's Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn they wrote:

As Steven Erlanger writes in The New York Times, Corbyn is “a professed man of the ‘hard left' who believes that the Labour Party must return to its roots and fight inequality in all its forms.”

Think “social justice” writ large. And think naiveté writ larger: Three years ago, Corbyn advocated for Britain to abolish its armed forces.

And see how it's an indictment on lefty politics as well?  It's one nice little package for Scaife's braintrust.

Too bad it's built on yet another lie.

Take a look at what Corbyn actually said.  According to the Mirror in the UK, Corbyn was speaking at the 67th commemoration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  He started with this:

On October 20, hopefully hundreds of thousands of people will be marching through the streets of London, protesting against libraries being closed, hospitals being cut back, schools being cut back.

Young people being denied opportunities. High levels of unemployment. Cuts in social services. Increased charges for everything.

Higher taxation in order to pay off a debt.

Is it really conscionable or sensible or possible that in three years time in 2016 Parliament will compound the problem of already spending £3bn on preparation for the replacement of the submarines and Trident nuclear weapons system by replacement of the whole system which will cost this country £100bn.

Is it really sensible to spend £100bn of money we can't afford and haven't got while there are homeless people, while there are hungry children around the world, while there's a sanitation crisis, while there's a crisis of people fleeing from absolute poverty to try and gain a place of safety in some of the slightly richer countries in the world?

Pointing out, in effect, how expensive Britain's military is and the the money spent on it could be spent elsewhere - you know, like maybe helping people.

Given how much it costs to have a military and how it actually hurts the well being of the people its protecting, Corbyn finishes with:

Wouldn't it be wonderful if every politician around the world instead of taking pride in the size of their Armed Forces did what Costa Rica have done and abolished their Army, and took pride in the fact they don't have an Army.

So what he said was not a unilateral call for just Britain to disarm but for everyone to disarm - spoken at the anniversary of Hiroshima.

The Trib braintrust didn't tell you that, did they?

That, my children, is what's known as a lie of omission.

The Jack Kelly "US Slavery Was Bad, But..." Monument

Yet another great read on this here: http://verysmartbrothas.com/jack-kelly-of-the-pittsburgh-post-gazette-is-a-fucking-disgrace-and-probably-needs-to-get-fired/

Jack Kelly Sunday

In case you missed it, the Post-Gazette's Jack Kelly had a pungently vile column published in the P-G this past weekend.

If you were to scroll past the vile and down to the comments, there's more than a few protesters there.

But instead of my usual debunking of Jack's rhetoric, I want to give the floor, entirely and without any comment from me, to this statement by from the Pittsburgh Black Media Federation

Normally, the type of propaganda and twisted thinking evidenced in Jack Kelly’s column “Remnants of Slavery,” published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Sept. 13, should not be dignified with a response. However, its content is so egregiously ignorant, its premise so flawed, and the platform that lends it credence so public that it must be addressed for the sake of truth and accuracy.

Outrageous excerpts from the column are as follows:

• “The words ‘slavery’ and ‘benign’ ought never to appear in the same sentence, but slaves in the American South and the British Caribbean (usually) were treated less harshly than in most other places where slavery has been practiced — especially in ancient times.”

• “Slavery was horrible, but no black American living today has suffered from it. Most are better off than if their ancestors had remained in Africa.”

Historians, sociologists and psychologists across the globe agree that U.S. slavery was uniquely pernicious in its practice and long-term debilitating effects on slaves and their descendants, a disgraceful legacy that still has adverse impact today. Some of the racial disparities that persist in educational achievement, access to quality housing and livable wages, and other areas have been linked to the lasting effects of slavery.

The Pittsburgh Black Media Federation calls on all columnists, reporters and other media professionals to responsibly discuss salient issues.

Before sitting down at his computer to write, Mr. Kelly should consider the professional and ethical mandates of responsible journalism. In this case, learning the facts about U.S. slavery and institutional racism before articulating an opinion likely would have resulted in a more legitimate expression of opinion and provided an important public service to P-G readers.

To that end and for future reference, we are glad to furnish experts from every ethnic group who can educate Mr. Kelly about the myths, fallacies and erroneous assumptions that undergirded his column. We also would be delighted to introduce him to journalism ethicists who can remind him why an opinion piece is not a license to revise history.

The Pittsburgh Black Media Federation strongly condemns the column as a blight on journalism. Shame on Mr. Kelly, and shame on the Post-Gazette for printing something unfit for a serious newspaper.

Absolute Morality?

I take it that today's the day that Kim Davis goes back to work in Kentucky.

In light of that and whatever "decision" she feels she needs to make, I want to play you something from Richard Dawkins regarding faith.  He's asked about faith and "absolute morality."  I've always loved his answer:


Let's hear it for secular moral philosophy and rational discussion.

And Now The Connellsville Community Responds

The Trib has a follow-up to yesterday's news that the unconstitutional Connellsville slab is going to be moved.

Including this:

The board this week said its decision to give the monument back to the Eagles was made to avoid future costly lawsuits to the already financially strapped school district.

“We surely don't have the money to fight against something like this,” said Connellsville Area School Director Kevin Lape.

And this:

Chris Stern, school district solicitor, said the board's decision to return the monument to the Eagles was made while the board had control of where the monument can go. He said another lawsuit could take that control away.

And some local reaction:

Gary Colatch and David Show who were active in the Thou Shall Not Move group were shocked by the board's decision.

“They gave in to a bully,” said Colatch of Connellsville. “That was the saddest part.”

Colatch said he would have understood the board's decision if there were supporters from the community to move the monument. He said he never saw anyone protesting the school board to move the monument or showing up at a school board meeting to urge that it be moved.

“I'm upset they did this without an open discussion or community involvement,” Colatch said. “They had the community's support.”

Maybe they felt that had they spoken up at a school board meeting, they'd be bullied. I don't know I wasn't there.

Doesn't matter because the presence of the slab is unconstitutional.  I said that years ago.  Had they listened to me (a boring, balding, blogger) they would have saved a pile of money in legal fees.

We're still waiting, New Kensington.  When will you be allowing religious freedom in YOUR town?

Freedom Wins In Connellsville! The Connellsville Slab Is LEAVING

From the Trib:

Connellsville Area School Board voted to return the Ten Commandments monument on the property of Connellsville Junior High School to the Connellsville Eagles.

The unanimous vote was held during Wednesday night's meeting and two weeks since a federal judge ruled that the district keeping the monument on school grounds is considered unconstitutional; however, Senior U.S. District Judge Terrence McVerry did not order that the monument be removed.

Connellsville Area School District Solicitor Chris Stern said the reason it wasn't removed was that the lawsuit was a moot point because the student whose family originally objected to the monument no longer attends the district.

The plaintiff, who was not named in the case, was awarded $1, but once that amount of money was awarded, Stern said the district is obligated to pay for attorney fees.

The judge's decision means the district is open for more lawsuits from students or parents.

“It doesn't protect us from more litigation,” said Jon Detwiler, board president.

Board member Kevin Lape said he, like others on the board, is in favor of keeping the monument, but the district cannot afford to spend more money on future litigation.

And now it has to leave.

Freedom won today - we must be free from government intrusion into matters of religious conscience.  Those who don't believe have just as much 1st Amendment protection as those who do.  And just as the government has no right to tell a Baptist that they MUST be Catholic (or vice verse), the government has no right to tell a non-believer that he or she must believe in a god.

This freedom protects all of us - believers and non-believers alike.

Most importantly and specifically, no school board (are you listening New Kensington??) has the right to post such an obviously religious message as the Decalogue on school property.

One slab down and one to go.  Are you listening, New Kensington?  When can we celebrate religious freedom in your town?

The Tribune-Review, The Warming Climate, And That "Death Panels" Lady

From today's Trib:

Among stops on Obama's jet-setting climate-change tour was Exit Glacier in Alaska, where the president blamed mankind's use of fossil fuels for the glacier's steady melting. But the glacier has been shrinking since 1815, long before mankind's industrialization, writes Betsy McCaughey for the New York Post. And according to the Alaska Climate Research Center, there's been almost no evidence of warming trends in Alaska since 1977, Ms. McCaughey reports — that is, aside from climate cluckers' incessant hot air.

Wasn't Betsy McCaughey the "expert" who warned us all about the Obamacare "death panels" and didn't Politifact give her a "Pants on fire" ruling (as in "Liar, Liar Pant's on...") for being so darn wrong?

The answer to the above is yes.

So of course, she's now an expert in climate science.

Here's what she said in the Post:

President Obama hiked to Exit Glacier in Alaska last week, with photographers in tow, to send the world a message: The glacier is melting.

Obama blames it on the increasing use of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas, which he wants to restrict not only in the United States but worldwide. The photo op was designed to build support for an international climate agreement he’s pushing hard to sell, so far with little success.

Trouble is, the president needs to get his facts straight. Exit Glacier has been shrinking for 200 years — since 1815 — long before widespread industrialization and automobiles. As the president ended his trip, he sounded the alarm again: “This state’s climate is changing before our eyes.”

However if you were to actually read the president's remarks (something I doubt the Trib editorial board bothered to do) you'd find this in the very first paragraph:

So you guys have been seeing these signs as we’ve walked that mark where the glacier used to be -- 1917, 1951. This glacier has lost about a mile and a half over the last couple hundred years. But the pace of the reductions of the glacier are accelerating rapidly each and every year. And this is as good of a signpost of what we're dealing with when it comes to climate change as just about anything.[Emphasis added.]

See that?  His facts are straight.  The only thing he didn't do was to give a start date (1815) but everything that the Death Panel lady said (the glacier "has been shrinking for 200 years") is exactly what the president said (the glacier "has lost about a mile and a half over the last couple hundred years.").  And yet to her and the braintrust this is somehow evidence against climate science.

Coincidentally, this story's got a Palin connection.  Take a look at this Politifact deconstruction of Alaska's half-governor's views on glaciers and the science:

[Palin's] claim that some glaciers are growing in Alaska is true, but this isn’t a reason to question human-caused climate change. Regional variations in precipitation patterns may cause some glaciers to grow, but most glaciers around the world are losing ice as the climate warms.

President Obama did indeed point out a receding glacier during his trip to Alaska from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2. He visited the Exit Glacier and called it “as good of a signpost as any when it comes to the impacts of climate change.” That glacier has retreated about 1.25 miles over 200 years, according to the National Park Service. Though a single receding glacier also does not provide any proof of climate change, the president talked about the wider trend. During his speech to the GLACIER conference in Anchorage, Obama said that a recent study found Alaska’s glaciers are losing 75 billion tons of ice every year. That’s accurate.

The study in question was published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in July. Researchers from the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, the U.S. Geological Survey and the University of Washington in Seattle measured the “mass balance” of 116 glaciers in Alaska — of 616 named and many thousands of unnamed glaciers, representing 41 percent of the total glacial area — and extrapolated the results to the rest of the state. They found that Alaska’s glaciers are losing 75 gigatons of ice every year.

And the part about no warming since 1977?  Here's a chart from the Alaska Climate Research Center:

Notice anything?

And the idea of using such a localized area (Alaska) to generalize on the global climate trends is cherry picking at it's best.

Betsy McCaughey is as wrong about climate science as she was about the death panels.

Salena Zito And The Trib Are Spinning PA's Senatorial Race. It's Embarrassing (For Them) and Sad (For Everyone Else)

I thought that, for all of it's conservative misinformation on its editorial page, the Trib at least promised to have it's news division delivering straight news.

But I guess when it comes to Republican political candidates and Salena Zito, that's not exactly true.

And the sad part is that this has happened before - almost exactly two years ago.

Then it was about Mitt Romney.  This time, it's subtle but no less disappointing.  Zito's reporting on the ongoing political debate between Senator Pat Toomey and one of his democratic challengers, Joe Sestak over the former's record on Veterans' issues.  Let's see how Zito shades the argument ever so slightly in the direction of the candidate who (surprise surprise surprise!) just happens to be the republican candidate.

Let's start here, with the commercial:

Last month, Concerned Veterans for America aired a $1.5 million digital and television ad campaign praising Toomey. The group considers him “a leader in the fight to hold VA bureaucrats accountable for failing Pennsylvania veterans,” CEO Pete Hegseth said when announcing the ads, which ran through Aug. 25.

“There should not be such a thing as at-risk veterans. Sen. Pat Toomey is committed to making sure every veteran is provided with the health care and benefits they deserve,” Navy veteran Barb Doyne of Malvern, Chester County, said in the ad.

The nonprofit CVA, based in Arlington, Va., and funded in part by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, on its website says veterans and their families “have the potential to constitute a powerful force if they make their voices heard in the policy process.”

Interesting thing to note how Zito describes the connections between the Koch brothers and the CVA.  She writes simply that the "non-profit" CVA is funded "in part" by the brothers.  Funny thing, CVA CEO Pete Hegseth is quoted as saying that the Koch network "virtually created" the CVA and The Washington Post characterizes CVA's level of  Koch funding this way:

The group was funded almost entirely by TC4 in 2012.

 Propublica lets us know what TC4 is:

Fundraising by the libertarian billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch supports a tangle of nonprofits, sometimes referred to as the Kochtopus, all aimed at advancing conservative causes. Two groups, the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce and TC4 Trust, handed out almost $264 million from mid-2011 to October 2012 to 30 other nonprofits.

So CVA was created by the Koch network and almost entirely funded by the Koch trust and yet Selena Zito hides it all behind an ambiguous "in part."

Gee, I wonder why.  And the CVA?  It may be non-profit but it's hardly non-partisan.  The Nation has more on Hegseth's speech:

Nevertheless, the Hegseth speech is an interesting window into how the Koch network operates: funding an ostensible advocacy group that is, in fact, a relentless political operation—and one that can, with the right situation to exploit, do everything from take out political attack ads to help craft legislation.

None of which is even hinted at in Zito's quietly appreciative prose.

But there's more to that ad, isn't there?  Yes, there is.  In her next paragraph Zito dutifully regifts the  quotation in the ad from Navy Veteran Barb Doyne.  Ever wonder who Barb Doyne is?

If you happen to take a look at the "Veteran's for Toomey" facebook page, you'll see that she's listed as a "Captain" of the Host Committee for a fundraiser for the Senator back in 2014.

Something else Salena Zito didn't tell you.

Then there's this.  Compare how Zito describes the CVA with what she does here:

VoteVets.org, which advocates to elect Democratic veterans to Congress, backed Sestak then and now. The Portland, Ore.-based group — which calls itself “the voice of America's 21st century patriots” — gets money from hedge fund manager and environmentalist Tom Steyer, as well as Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection and the United Steelworkers of America union, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

So many funding details!  Isn't it interesting how she found all these interesting the details on the side of the democrat but somehow, I guess, just couldn't find the time to do the exact same thing for the republican?

Oh, and she made a mistake (yea, we'll call it that) about Votevets.  Take a look at this from their own "candidates" page:

The mission of VoteVets.org Political Action Committee is to elect Veterans to public office; hold public officials accountable for their words and actions that impact America’s 21st century service members, Veterans, and their families; and fully support our men and women in uniform. Though progressive, VoteVets PAC has endorsed both Democrats and Republicans. [Emphasis added.]

I'd say that that's a big mistake, wouldn't you?

But finally there's this.  After going through Sestak's arguments against Toomey, she finds another voice to settle the matter:

Joe Eastman, 64, a retired Navy lieutenant colonel in Philadelphia, said he respects Sestak's service to the country but finds his allegations that Toomey abandoned veterans in Washington unacceptable.

“His accusations are completely unfounded,” said Eastman, who spends time helping homeless veterans. “Anytime I have a problem or identified a growing concern, Senator Toomey's office has responded immediately.”

Since that's the only way she describes Eastman - as a "retired Navy lieutenant colonel" - you'd think he was unaffiliated with either candidate, right?

Wrong.  Take a look at this page and what it says about Joe Eastman:

He has served on the boards of the Philadelphia Senior Center, Nationalities Service Center, the Philadelphia Homeless Veterans Coalition which is an advisory body to the Mayor’s Office of Supportive Housing. He presently serves on the board of directors of The Veterans Group, Thank-A-Vet, and is a member of U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey’s Military Academy Advisory Board advising the Senator on appointments to our nation’s service academies and serves as a veterans advisor to several Pennsylvania elected officials.

Don't you think that it would've been nice for that little bit of information to have been included in a "non-partisan" summing up the discussion?

I guess this is what we have to look forward to as the campaign unfolds and Selena Zito "reports" on it - more slanted coverage by the Tribune-Review news division.

Sad, embarrassing, and sad.

Jack Kelly Sunday

The Post-Gazette's Jack Kelly's still misleading (read: lying to) his readers.  Sometimes it's subtle.  Sometimes it's blatant.  And sometimes it takes some digging to find out the depth of his dishonesty.

I'll leave it to you, o gentle reader, to decide which one it is today.

Jack begins with a brief discussion of Republicans, RINOs, and why Congressional leaders McConnell and Boehner are actually "Whigs."

(So would you like to swing on a star
Carry moonbeams home in a jar
And be better off than you are
Or would you rather be a Whig?

A Whig's a politico who lived long ago
Replaced by Republicans, you know...)

[It's from a song - google it and get a little culture]


The Whigs made up one of the two dominant political parties pre-Civil war and the party dissolved over slavery.  Its anti-slave Whigs in the north (the "Conscience" Whigs) being absorbed by the new Republican Party and the pro-slavery Whigs (the "Cotton" Whigs) moving south to the older States-Rights flavored Democrats.

And here's where Jack makes his first big mistake/lie.  An earlier error is his description of "Free Speech, Free Press, Free Soil, Free Men, Fremont and Victory" as the platform of the Republican party in 1856 - actually, it was only its slogan.  The actual platform can be found here.

Why does the P-G let Jack Kelly get away with such obvious stupid (and easily checked) mistakes?

Anyway, onto the lie:

The party of slavery and segregation has done nothing to prevent, and much to facilitate, the murder of thousands of Americans by violent felons among illegal immigrants. Passage of “Kate Steinle’s Law” to cut off federal funds for so-called “sanctuary cities” and to make the Democrats who run them liable for wrongful death suits, is one of two great moral imperatives for 2015.

This is a two-fer.  Look at the first sentence.  By the "party of slavery and segregation" Jack Kelly means the Democratic party.  As Steven Benen of Washington Monthly noted five years ago:

This comes up from time to time, whenever Republicans are feeling particularly defensive about the civil rights issues. But in light of the party's confusion, it's probably time for a quick refresher.

The Democratic Party, in the first half of the 20th century, was home to competing constituencies -- southern whites with abhorrent views on race, and white progressives and African Americans in the north, who sought to advance the cause of civil rights. The party struggled, ultimately siding with an inclusive, liberal agenda.

As the party shifted, the Democratic mainstream embraced its new role. Republicans, meanwhile, also changed. In the wake of Democratic President Lyndon Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act, the Republican Party welcomed the white supremacists who no longer felt comfortable in the Democratic Party. Indeed, in 1964, Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater boasted of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act, and made it part of his platform. It was right around this time when figures like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond made the transition -- leaving the Democratic Party for the GOP.

Indeed, look at the political platform of those "Dixicrats" in 1948 (those would be those "southern whites with abhorrent views on race" that eventually went to the GOP in the mid-60s).  It actually contained this:

We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to earn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights.

So tell me again how the Democrats are the "party of slavery and segregation"?

Now onto Jack's next big lie - it's about immigration and crime.  Jack should have done his homework better (or some at all).  Take a look at this from the Libertarian Cato Institute:

Myth: More immigrants means more crime

Remember Trump’s now-infamous description of Mexican immigrants as “criminals” and “rapists”? The facts suggest something quite the contrary.

Indeed, the academic literature on this question is pretty clear: Immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native born citizens, and there is no credible evidence that they have any effect on overall crime rates.

According to research by the American Immigration Council based on data from the Census Bureau, 1.6% immigrant men from 18 to 39 are incarcerated compared with 3.3% of native born men in the same age bracket.

Other studies look at crime rates in cities and states that have different immigrant populations, finding that increases in the immigrant population coincide with big decreases in violent crime rates. Nevertheless, the myth of the immigrant-driven crime wave remains prevalent.

Why doesn't anyone at the P-G do this before publication?  How much more do we need to do?

Ok, one more, I guess.  The big one:

The other is to end federal subsidies for Planned Parenthood’s abortion mills. The nine gruesome, heartbreaking videos released so far by the Center for Medical Progress make plain the wine-swilling Mengeles who run the organization have committed multiple felonies.

As the man said, you're entitled to your own opinions but you're not entitled to your own facts.  From Thinkprogress:

Following the release of several inflammatory videos that suggest Planned Parenthood is improperly profiting from the sale of “aborted baby parts,” GOP lawmakers have been quick to condemn the national women’s health organization. However, their current strategies to attack Planned Parenthood are falling short.

Planned Parenthood officials say they’re simply helping their patients donate fetal tissue samples, which can help scientists develop new treatments for serious diseases. Anti-abortion activists, meanwhile, say the misleading videos released by the right-wing group Center for Medical Progress prove the organization is acting immorally.

In response, several state officials have launched investigations into their local Planned Parenthood affiliates, looking for proof that the group is breaking the law.

But so far, they’ve come up completely empty.

Officials in states including Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, and South Dakota have not been able to turn up any evidence that Planned Parenthood clinics are violating state laws and regulations regarding the collection of fetal tissue donations. Records obtained from other states, like Kansas, reveal that some Planned Parenthood clinics don’t even give their patients the option to donate this tissue.

“In every state where these investigations have concluded, officials have cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing,” Dawn Laguens, the executive vice president of Planned Parenthood, said in a statement released on Friday. “We’ve said all along that Planned Parenthood follows all laws and has very high medical standards, and that’s what every one of these investigations has found. This campaign by anti-abortion extremists is nothing less than a fraud.”

You're free, of course, to be skeptical of ThinkProgress, but take a look at their sources.

So, Jack.  Where are the felonies?  Where/when did they occur?  What's your evidence that they did?  How do you reconcile that to the actual facts produced above?

And most importantly:

WHY DIDN'T ANYONE AT THE P-G GET ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS BEFORE THE PUBLICATION OF JACK'S LATEST FETID STAIN OF RIGHT WING FECULENCE??

 As a follow-up:

WHY DO I HAVE TO KEEP ASKING THIS QUESTION?

Go on.  Have a good Sunday.

FOLLOW-UP MESSAGE TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN!

The coffee invitation is still stands.

I read that you'll be in Pittsburgh on Labor Day so I'm inviting you over for some coffee.

We can sit at my kitchen table and discuss foreign policy or politics or whatever.  I can even get some Primanti's if you want.

Let me know.  I know you're busy but how often do you get to chat with one of Pittsburgh's oldest political bloggers?

More importantly, how often would I get to chat with a sitting Vice President?

With great respect

Dayvoe
2 Political Junkies

Who's Authority? God's Authority.

For the record, MSNBC reported this a few days ago:

A Kentucky clerk is still refusing to issue marriage licenses due to her religious opposition to same-sex nuptials, even after the U.S. Supreme Court dealt the final blow to her argument.

On Tuesday morning, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis denied marriage licenses to at least two couples, telling them she was acting ”under God’s authority.” She then asked David Moore and David Ermold, a couple who has been rejected by her office four times, to leave.

“Would you do this to an interracial couple?” Moore asked.

“A man and a woman, no,” Davis said. “I just want you to know that we are not issuing marriage licenses today pending the appeal in the 6th Circuit.”

“The Supreme Court denied your stay,” Moore shot back.

“We are not issuing marriage licenses today,” Davis repeated.

“Under whose authority?” asked Ermold.

“Under God’s authority,” said Davis, before asking them to leave.

It's distressing that this argument is still around, given what Antonin Scalia wrote in 1990:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594 -595 (1940): "Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities (footnote omitted)." We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said, "are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." [Emphasis added.]

And yet, that is precisely what Kim Davis was trying to do.

Denali, McKinley, And Obama.

Today, I start with this column from the P-G's Tony Norman:

Last month, Mr. Obama announced that Alaska’s Mount McKinley, the highest mountain peak in North America, would officially revert to the name it had been known by for many centuries prior to 1917 — “Denali.” Mr. Obama wanted to honor the request of indigenous Americans who resented the name imposed on their mountain in honor of the assassinated 25th president of the United States decades before Alaska was a state.

This was simply a “bridge to nowhere” too far for those who pretended to care about — or who had actually even heard of — President William McKinley prior to his demotion from mountain namesake by the tyrannical Obama. Within a day or two of the announcement, a Facebook meme was born about the president’s real motive for the change: “‘Denali’ is the Kenyan word for ‘Black Power.’ Like and share to spread awareness,” the post read.

The fact that that's not a fact hasn't swayed the truly ignorant.   As Tony points out, the meme "has been “liked” and shared on social media tens of thousands of times."

Tony does reference something I want to expand:

Alaskans had already reverted to using the mountain’s original name in official records as far back as 1975.

And Republicans in Congress have been trying to change the name since 1999. Take a look:

SECTION. 1. RENAMING MT. MCKINLEY AS DENALI.

Mount McKinley, located in the State of Alaska at 63 degrees 04 minutes 12 seconds north, by 151 degrees 00 minutes 18 seconds west shall hereafter be named, referred to, and known for all purposes as Denali. All references in law and regulation, and all references on any map, to ``Mt. McKinley'' or ``Mount McKinley'' shall hereafter be treated as references to ``Denali''

This was introduced in the House of Representatives in May, 1999 by Representative Don Young (who's hardly a political friend of the president).

Feel free to use this the next time your Fox News spewing, batshit-crazy conservative cousin tries to say it's yet another "tyrannical power-grab" by President Obama.

The Tribune-Review Editorial Board Gets One Right (The 10 Commandments Monument in Connellsville)

Gotta give credit where credit is due.

Today, the braintrust's collective brain is working:

Whether a tree falling in a forest makes a sound if no one is around to hear it is a metaphysical conundrum. But a federal court ruling that says a Ten Commandments monument on school property in Fayette County violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, but doesn't order the monument's removal because the objecting family doesn't frequent the school anymore, is a constitutional non sequitur.

And at the end of the editorial:

Having ruled the monument unconstitutional, McVerry should have, as a matter of law, ordered the monument's removal. Case law provides ample basis for doing so. Instead, McVerry left the matter unnecessarily unsettled — with each side able to claim victory and district taxpayers exposed to further costly litigation if the monument remains.

Yes, costly litigation that Fayette County tax payers will have to pay for.  And they'll still loose.

As an aside, I DO have a solution to the braintrust's "metaphysical conundrum."  (Actually it's not metaphysical at all - but epistemological, but that's even further beside the point).

Here's my solution to the the question "if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, how do you know it made a sound?" - it depends on the definition of sound.

If you define "sound" as the vibration of some sort of medium (in this case air), then yes the falling tree made a sound.  If it's a tree, then it's in a place where there's air and gravity and so on and so by virtue of the act of falling (or even just moving) the air will be displaced, causing a sound.

If you define "sound" as a perception of that vibration, then no with no one there to perceive the air vibration then there's no "sound."

And there's nothing metaphysical about it.

But good for the Trib editorial board for calling for the removal of the Connellsville slab.

A Sad Ten Commandments Follow-Up

The Trib reported yesterday:

A Fayette County pastor who advocated against the removal of a Ten Commandments monument from a Connellsville Area School District property died unexpectedly Monday morning, just days after a federal judge rejected an atheist's group's request to have the tablet removed.

The Rev. Ewing Marietta, 49, of South Connellsville was pronounced dead at 4:20 a.m. Monday in Highlands Hospital in Connellsville, according to the coroner's office. An autopsy has been scheduled to determine the cause of death.

Um, Liz? Liz Zemba of the Trib?

Hi, yea.  This is Dayvoe over at 2PJ. Before I continue onto Rev Marietta's passing, I want to tell you that YOU'RE SPINNING THE STORY - AND THAT'S REPREHENSIBLE.

You wait two more paragraphs to tell the truth about the FFRF's lawsuit:

Senior U.S. District Judge Terrence F. McVerry on Friday found the 3,000-pound stone monument to be unconstitutional, but he did not order its removal. McVerry said ordering its removal would be “moot” because the family who in 2012 objected to it no longer attends the school. [Emphasis added.]

By omitting that bit from your opening, you're actually taking sides with the story - that McVerry's decision was less about the Constitutionality of the slab's placement than it was about its removal - a confusing decision that's the very reason why both sides claim victory.

You took sides and I was led to understand that that's a no-no in journalism circles.

Or am I wrong?  Can you guys do that now?

Anyway, I was very sad to hear of Rev Marietta's passing.  Obviously he and I differed on many many things, but death (any death) is always very sad, as it always leaves an unfillable emptiness in the lives of the deceased's loved ones.

Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Matthew 5:4)

My sincerest sympathies to his family and to everyone that knew and loved him.  I am very sorry for your loss.

A MESSAGE TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN!

Hey, Mr. Vice President!

The P-G is reporting:

Vice President Joe Biden plans to travel to Pittsburgh for the city’s annual Labor Day festivities next Monday.

So, you wanna come over for a cup of coffee?

I mean, how often do you get to sit down at a kitchen table for a chat with a writer for one of Pittsburgh's oldest and most-read political blogs?

And, more importantly, I often would I get to sit down at a kitchen table for a chat with a sitting Vice President of the United States of America?

We can talk about:

• Iran
• The Supreme Court
• Income inequality
• Climate change
• Any...uh...IMPORTANT DECISIONS you've made recently
• Or anything else on your mind.

So, what do you say?  Doesn't even have to be coffee.  I can get us some Primanti's, no problem.

Judge: Connellsville 10 Commandments Monument is UNCONSTITUTIONAL (And Yet It Can Stay??)

Yea, it IS weird.

From Ralph Iannotti at KDKA:

A federal judge on Friday ruled that a monument of the Ten Commandments outside the Connellsville Area Junior High School in Fayette County violates the U.S. Constitution.

However, at the same time, the judge did not order the monolith removed.

Now, both opponents and supporters of the monument are claiming at least partial victories.

And some unnamed writer at the P-G:

A judge today ruled that a monument to the Ten Commandments in place at a Fayette County school since the 1950s improperly violates the Constitution because it endorses religion. But U.S. District Judge Terrence McVerry said it can remain in place because the student whose family objected three years ago no longer goes to school there.

Judge McVerry?  Wasn't he the same guy who dismissed the very similar New Kensington case a short time ago?  That case was dismissed because McVerry decided the plaintiffs "lacked standing".

Here's the opinion of y'inz wanted to read it.

As far as I can tell (and let's all remember I am NOT an attorney, though I really enjoyed Housman's performance on "The Paper Chase" - even more than Pacino's in "...And Justice For All") McVerry established that the plaintiffs HAD standing to sue (whew!) and then discussed which recent Supreme Court case more closely described the Connellsville slab.

I discussed the issue here.

Since it was a stand-alone monument, it was less like the monument described in Van Orden and more like the situation described in McCreary.  Oh, I so informed you thusly.

For McVerry, the Connellsville slab fails on these grounds:

In sum, then, “the question is, would a passerby” with all of these attributes reasonably believe that by declining to remove the monument, the School District “was endorsing religion?” Although this is a close question, the Court concludes that the reasonable observer would arrive at such a conclusion. The content of the monument, its location on school grounds, the lack of secular displays in reasonable proximity to the monument, and the events leading up to the Board’s decision to retain the monument compels such a result.

Oh, I so informed you thusly.

Further:

The Ten Commandments have what our Court of Appeals has described as a “primar[ily] religious significance.” That conclusion is hard to avoid when viewing the monument here, inasmuch as it prominently proclaims, in letters slightly larger than those elsewhere on the monument , “I AM the LORD thy God .” It was thus incumbent on the School District to demonstrate that the religious nature of the monument was meant to be overshadowed by some secular or historical message. It has not done so, for the context of the monument does nothing to detract from the Commandments’ overwhelmingly religious message. Just the opposite: Displaying the Commandments alone in a prominent location outside the school only serves to highlight the religious aspects of the Commandments, sending “an unmistakable message that [the School District] supports and promotes” the religious message that is at the heart of the Commandments.

Oh, I so informed you thusly.

This leads me to the truly confusing part at the end:

When, however, our government , at whatever level, departs from mere acknowledgement of our religious history to endorsement of a particular religious message, as set forth in the Ten Commandments, it has gone too far. Be that as it may, the Court is constrained by the mootness doctrine from granting Plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief and ordering the removal of the monument at this time.

I get the first part.  The guv'ment "has gone too far" and endorsed "a particular religious message" (which makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL) with this slab but since the plaintiff no longer goes to school there it can nevertheless stay?

The Ten Commandments monument is UNCONSTITIONAL.  It needs to be removed.  Now.

Watch PA State Reps doing the Whip and Nae Nae

All Democrats--as if you had to ask. After all, they are advocating for funds for public school kids!

(And, if enough of you had voted right in my district, we could have had Erin Molchany up there with them.)

The Tribune-Review Published NEWS About Climate Science?? Inconcievable!

The Trib published this?? Take a look:

By mid-century, Pittsburgh might feel a lot more like the heat and humidity of summer in the nation's capital.

Average temperatures in Pennsylvania likely will rise 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 35 years, causing “profound” changes in the composition of the state's forests and more frequent and severe flooding and heat waves, according to Penn State University scientists studying potential impacts of climate change.

“There will be increased heat-related stresses, especially in cities,” said Dr. James Shortle, lead author of the report. He cautioned that “older people and lower-income populations will be especially susceptible.”

The 2015 Climate Impacts Assessment is the second update to a report published by the Department of Environmental Protection in 2009 at the direction of the state Legislature. The 200-page assessment contains chapters by different scientists examining aspects of climate science and the likely effects on Pennsylvania. Shortle said it should be viewed as an addition to, rather than a replacement of, earlier reports.

Does Donald Gililand, the reporter of this piece, even read his own newspaper's editorial page?

Apparently not.  As he does absolutely nothing to question, mock or discredit the accepted science of climate change.  It's just weird to read this at the Trib website.   Weird.

Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto even makes an (unmocked) appearance:

“Climate change is upon us,” said Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto, “with real impacts on not only weather but public safety, housing, business and other facets of city life.”

That's why Pittsburgh joined the 100 Resilient Cities network and named a “chief resilience officer” this summer, Peduto said. He joined the Local Climate Leaders Circle, which will “push for climate plans on the local level during the United Nations climate talks in Paris” in December, he said.

 Of course the loyal readers of the Trib (who DO read the op-ed page) make their voices known in the pieces comments:

This "news story" is littered with so many typical liberal talking points I thought I was on the PG's website for a second

Funny thing, for a few seconds, I had the same thought.

Anyway, here's what the DEP had to say (can't wait to see how the Trib braintrust) tries to deal with it:

Pennsylvanians should prepare for dangerously high summer temperatures and more severe storms, increased threat of certain diseases carried by insects, and drastic changes to agriculture and water quality, according to a new report on the impact of climate change from Penn State University. The report was authored by Dr. James Shortle with assistance from a multidisciplinary team of colleagues at Penn State.

The Pennsylvania Climate Change Act (PCCA) (Act 70), enacted by the General Assembly in 2008, directed Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to conduct a study of the potential impacts of global climate change on Pennsylvania over the next century. This report is the second update to the original report published in 2009.

“The scientific data is clear: climate change is happening, and there will be impacts to Pennsylvania,” said Dr. James Shortle, lead author of the report. “The effects of climate change will be felt across all parts of Pennsylvania – agriculture, human health, water quality, energy, even outdoor recreation will be affected.”

My guess is that they'll quote some non climate scientist from the Heartland Institute or some economist from the Heritage Foundation to smear Michael Mann with the stolen East Anglia emails to say the whole thing's a scam.

Meanwhile, it's getting warmer out there.

New Kensington Unconstitional Monument Follow-up

Hey remember this bit of stupidity?

A federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments monument in front of Valley Junior-Senior High School in New Kensington.

The ruling could bring an end to a three-year legal battle.

However, it does not address the underlying question of whether the monument is a prohibited government endorsement of religion or a permissible historical landmark.

The judged dismissed the case on a technicality - not on the merits of the case.

Well, the FFRF has reacted:

The Freedom From Religion Foundation and a parent of a student who challenged a Ten Commandments monument in front of a public school filed notice in court on August 25 that they will be appealing a judge's decision that they do not have standing. The religious display sits in front of Valley High School in the New Kensington-Arnold School District, which is northeast of Pittsburgh.

"This is the first step in correcting this wrong and ensuring that the public school will comply with the Constitution," said FFRF Co-President Dan Barker.

Comply with the Constitution.  Take the monument down.  The case now leads to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Someday, they'll get this right.

Go team?

Feeling slightly smug that since I don't give a rat's ass about football, I don't have to support rapists, wife beaters, virulent homophobes, child abuse concealers (on the college level), or dog torturers/killers. 

Of course I have no choice in supporting their damn stadiums.

Colin McNickle Needs A Better Source On Birthright Citizenship

Yes, he does - if he wants to redefine the 14th Amendment.

In a recent column, McNickle discusses the amendment and comes to this question:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (emphasis added), are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The high court, citing not only common law but the 14th Amendment, ruled 6-2 that citizenship was guaranteed to all persons born in the United States, regardless of their heritage.

So, case closed, right? The Supreme Court ruled birthright citizenship is the law of the land for all, right? The Donald Trump argument is populist pap and for naught, right? [Italics in Original.]

To which he answers:

Well, not exactly.

The Wong case involved the child of legal resident aliens. “The Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the question of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens,” wrote Lino A. Graglia, a University of Texas law professor, in a seminal 2010 white paper.

So this Lino A Graglia said that?  So who is he?

He's the guy who said (or rather wrote) this:

Finally, blacks are not in fact "underrepresented," but rather "overrepresented"--that is, their numbers are disproportionately high-in institutions of higher education once IQ scores are taken into account." In general, more than half of the students in the bottom ten percent of a school's IQ range will be black.

But let's get to back the 14th Amendment.  The House has already heard from Prof Graglia on this new fangled rewrite of that constitutional principle.  And this is what the Washington Post's Dana Millbank wrote about it - back in April:

Judiciary Committee Republicans brought in three experts to testify in support of this extraordinary maneuver (a lone Democratic witness was opposed), and they evidently had to search far and wide for people who would take this view, because they ended up with a bizarre witness: an octogenarian professor from the University of Texas named Lino Graglia.

This would be the Lino Graglia who caused a furor in 1997 when he said that Latinos and African Americans are “not academically competitive with whites” and come from a “culture that seems not to encourage achievement.” He also said at the time that “I don’t know that it’s good for whites to be with the lower classes.”

This is also the same Lino Graglia who said in a 2012 interview that black and Hispanic children are less “academically competent” than white children, and he attributed the academic gap to the “deleterious experience” of being reared by single mothers. When the interviewer, a black man, said he had a single mother, Graglia said that “my guess would be that you’re above usual smartness for whites, to say nothing of blacks.”

So does Colin McNickle really think Lino Graglia is somehow a mainstream legal thinker?

Goshers, I hope not.  If it were the case, that says a lot of uncomfortable things about Colin McNickle's thinking.

Meanwhile, Outside It's Still Getting Warmer

From NOAA's State of the Climate site:

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for July 2015 was the highest for July in the 136-year period of record, at 0.81°C (1.46°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F), surpassing the previous record set in 1998 by 0.08°C (0.14°F). As July is climatologically the warmest month of the year globally, this monthly global temperature of 16.61°C (61.86°F) was also the highest among all 1627 months in the record that began in January 1880. The July temperature is currently increasing at an average rate of 0.65°C (1.17°F) per century.

And:

The first seven months of 2015 comprised the warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, at 0.85°C (1.53°F) above the 20th century average, surpassing the previous record set in 2010 by 0.09°C (0.16°F). Five months this year, including the past three, have been record warm for their respective months. January was the second warmest January on record and April third warmest.

It's simply getting warmer out there.  So let's keep talking birthright citizenship, ok?

Planned Parenthood Follow-up!

Hey, remember how Planned Parenthood was doing all those nasty things?  It was just a few weeks ago when a set of videos was released showing some awful stuff.  You remember, right??

From the Huffingtonpost:

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America stressed Friday that multiple investigations into its state affiliates have fallen flat, as the reproductive health organization battles allegations that it has illegally profited from fetal tissue donations for research.

Conservatives were outraged, Congress is promising to investigate. However:

A number of states followed Congress' lead, declaring investigations of their own. But many of those probes -- in Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts and South Dakota -- have found area Planned Parenthood affiliates to be in full compliance with state laws and regulations.

“In every state where these investigations have concluded, officials have cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing," said Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, in a statement Friday. "We've said all along that Planned Parenthood follows all laws and has very high medical standards, and that's what every one of these investigations has found. This campaign by anti-abortion extremists is nothing less than a fraud, intended to deceive the public with patently false claims in order to pursue an extreme political agenda."

Was there ever any doubt about that?

John Oliver, Last Night

And you can go to the church's website here.

From Time:

John Oliver is officially a church. Upon finding out about mega-churches like those led by Kenneth Copeland and Robert Tilton, which earn millions of dollars every year but are exempt from paying taxes, Last Week Tonight host John Oliver did the only logical thing—he formed his own church. Specifically, he formed, Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption.

With a little help from Sister Wanda Jo Oliver, played by former Saturday Night Live star Rachel Dratch, Oliver’s church will collect copious donations while encouraging congregants to silently meditate on the nature of fraudulent churches.

To aid his followers in making their donations, Oliver delivered his ministrations right through the TV screen asking viewers with lupus to lay their hands on their television and pray with him—and then donate to his church.

Unfortunately for some of my readers, we learn from the donation page:

Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption will not be able to accept donations from Church supporters from the states of Mississippi, Nevada, Pennsylvania, or South Carolina.

Bummer.  On the other hand, that also has to mean that otherwise sincere people can't also donate to any other similar (though less obvious) religious scams.  Good for Pennsylvania!!

This Is Why It's Necessary To PROSECUTE THE TORTURE, Mr President

From the AP:

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush on Thursday declined to rule out resuming the use of torture under some circumstances by the U.S. government.

"I don't want to make a definitive, blanket kind of statement," Bush told an audience of Iowa Republicans, when asked whether he would keep in place or repeal President Barack Obama's executive order banning so-called enhanced interrogation techniques by the CIA.

Um that "definitive, blanket kind of statement" has already been made.  It's the law signed by Ronald Reagan. Article 1 reads in part:

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Back to the AP:

He suggested there may be occasions when brutal interrogations were called for to keep the country safe.

"That's why I'm not saying in every condition, under every possible scenario," Bush said.

And Article 2 of that law that Ronald Reagan signed reads in part:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

Yea, Jeb.  Kinda definitive, doncha think?

This is why the Obama Administration needed to prosecute the Bush torture - so that no later president could (as Jeb Bush is trying to do) keep the unlawful option open.

Torture is illegal. 

George Bush allowed the torture.

He should have been prosecuted for it.

This is why.

Why Does Betsy Mccaughey Have Any Credibility?

This past Sunday the Tribune-Review published this piece by Betsy Mccaughey.

It's a warning about how the President's Clean Power Plan will ruin us, just ruin us entirely.

Wasn't Betsy Mccaughey one of the loudest "Death Panel" screamers, warning us about how the Affordable Care Act was going to ruin us, just ruin us entirely starting with our ailing grandmothers?

Why, yes.  Yes she was.

From Mediamatters:

As Media Matters for America senior fellow Jamison Foser pointed out, what is most problematic about this individual is not simply her false and misleading claims, but that despite her consistent pattern of promoting falsehoods, the media continue to provide her with a platform -- and a veneer of legitimacy. Most notably, Rupert Murdoch-owned papers The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post have repeatedly provided her space on their op-ed pages, and Murdoch's Fox News Channel has repeatedly hosted her and advanced her claims. As The Atlantic's James Fallows has noted, she is an example of someone for whom there "seems to be almost no extremity of being proven wrong which disqualifies" her from being given a platform in the media. Indeed, the media's willingness to treat her as if she were a legitimate policy expert has continued even after she has backtracked on many of her claims after they were debunked.

So why should we treat her as if she had any sort of credibility?

In fact what's happened to all of the Obama doomdays our conservative friends have warned us about?  For an answer to that question, we turn our lonely eyes to Paul Krugman:

What did the men who would be president talk about during last week’s prime-time Republican debate? Well, there were 19 references to God, while the economy rated only 10 mentions. Republicans in Congress have voted dozens of times to repeal all or part of Obamacare, but the candidates named President Barack Obama’s signature policy nine times over the course of two hours. And energy, another erstwhile GOP favorite, came up only four times.

Strange, isn’t it? The shared premise of everyone on the Republican side is that the Obama years have been a time of policy disaster on every front. Yet the candidates on that stage had almost nothing to say about any of the supposed disaster areas.

And there was a good reason they seemed so tongue-tied: Out there in the real world, none of the disasters their party predicted have actually come to pass. Mr. Obama just keeps failing to fail. And that’s a big problem for the GOP — even bigger than Donald Trump.

And then he talks a bit about Mccaughey's "speciality", Health Care Reform:

Talk to right-wingers, and they will inevitably assert that it has been a disaster. But ask exactly what form this disaster has taken, and at best you get unverified anecdotes about rate hikes and declining quality.

Meanwhile, actual numbers show that the Affordable Care Act has sharply reduced the number of uninsured Americans — especially in blue states that have been willing to expand Medicaid — while costing substantially less than expected. The newly insured are, by and large, pleased with their coverage, and the law has clearly improved access to care.

And where are those death panels?  Ms Mccaughey, can you help a blogger out ?

Catherine Snow's NOT A Scientist AND She's Wrong About Climate Science

This morning The Tribune-Review published yet another bit of climate science denial.  The column, however, stands out for being both written by someone new to Scaife's pages and yet still filled with the same old climate misinformation usually found in the bottom of the braintrust's thunder mug.

It is interesting to note that the writer of this climate denial is named Catherine Snow.  Perhaps she'd accept the science if her name was Catherine Heatwave or Catherine Drought.

But I digress.

She begins:

These are challenging times for some faithful Catholics such as me. While I have utmost respect and love for our popular, approachable pontiff, I believe he has been sadly misinformed about climate change, as evidenced in his encyclical on the environment released in June.

Pope Francis is not a scientist. I do not blame him for the work's inaccuracies. Rather, I blame the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the office responsible for advising the pope on scientific issues.

Right there, she's wrong. According to the National Catholic Reporter, the Pope is something of a scientist (though without a Master's degree as some have stated).  While he didn't graduate from a University with a chemistry degree:

What he did do was graduate with a título in chemistry from the Escuela Técnica Industrial No. 12*, which is a state-run technical secondary school.

In the Argentine system, "the título (same word used for a secondary diploma or a university degree) was earned at about age 19 after an extended secondary program," Liebscher said. "Not everyone who goes to secondary school gets one of those diplomas, and the título really represents something beyond our high-school diploma, something akin a certificate from a community college in the U.S." [Italics in Original.]

Fortunately for the Pope, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is well-populated by actual scientists.  From the Academy's website:

Candidates for a seat in the Academy are chosen by the Academy on the basis of their eminent original scientific studies and of their acknowledged moral personality, without any ethnical or religious discrimination, and are appointed for life by sovereign act of the Holy Father.

So I'm thinking that they know a thing of two about science.  Certainly more than the admitted non-scientist Catherine Snow.

And the non-scientist Catherine Snow makes some decidedly wrong statements about climate science:

The computer models used by these climate scientists long have been predicting significant warming. But for the past 18 years, actual satellite data show no evidence of warming.

Two things wrong here; climate models and the supposed 18-year gap.  Let's start with the gap.

I am guessing the non-scientists Catherine Snow missed this article in the journal Science. From the editor's summary:

Previous analyses of global temperature trends during the first decade of the 21st century seemed to indicate that warming had stalled. This allowed critics of the idea of global warming to claim that concern about climate change was misplaced. Karl et al. now show that temperatures did not plateau as thought and that the supposed warming “hiatus” is just an artifact of earlier analyses. Warming has continued at a pace similar to that of the last half of the 20th century, and the slowdown was just an illusion.

Snow then goes on:

Science is not based on a consensus. It is based on empirical evidence. If a scientific theory does not match the evidence, then the theory must be abandoned or reconstructed. In other words, the models are wrong and provide no rational basis for any climate policy.

Yea, like this empirical data:

And this explanation from NOAA about why we should have confidence in the computer models.  First the math used is based on established physical laws (conservation of mass, energy and momentum and so on).  Secondly the models have been shown to be accurate with current observations and finally (and this, I'd think, is the most important):

A third source of confidence comes from the ability of mod - els to reproduce features of past climates and climate changes. Models have been used to simulate ancient climates, such as the warm mid-Holocene of 6,000 years ago or the last glacial maximum of 21,000 years ago. They can reproduce many features (allowing for uncertainties in reconstructing past climates) such as the magnitude and broad-scale pattern of oceanic cooling during the last ice age. Models can also simulate many observed aspects of climate change over the instrumental record. One example is that the global temperature trend over the past century (shown in Figure 1) can be modelled with high skill when both human and natural factors that influence climate are included. Models also reproduce other observed changes, such as the faster increase in nighttime than in daytime temperatures, the larger degree of warming in the Arctic and the small, short-term global cooling (and subsequent recovery) which has followed major volcanic eruptions, such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. Model global temperature projections made over the last two decades have also been in overall agreement with subsequent observations over that period.

This is what's known as hindcasting.  They test the model by loading it with all the data they have, say, leading up to 1950.  Then they ask the model to "predict" what will happen between 1950 and 2000.  If the "prediction" lines up with what is actually known (you know - that pesky empirical evidence) about the climate in those decades, then the model is reliable.

Like this:

The explanation from NOAA

Global mean near-surface temperatures over the 20th century from observations (black) and as obtained from 58 simulations produced by 14 different climate models driven by both natural and human-caused factors that influence climate (yellow). The mean of all these runs is also shown (thick red line). Temperature anomalies are shown relative to the 1901 to 1950 mean. Vertical grey lines indicate the timing of major volcanic eruptions. (Figure adapted from Chapter 9, Figure 9.5. Refer to corresponding caption for further details.

Catherine, see how they all tend to go in the same direction at roughly the same time?

The models work and relying on them is the rational position.

The irrational position is to deny all that science.  It's all there, you just have to read it.

The Tribune-Review Editorial Board Flubs - Hilariously

And no, it's not some anti-science fallacy regarding the polar bears or arctic ice or some non-existent pause in the globe's overall warming.

It's simple research.

Take a look at this, from this morning:

Holland's “progressive” government is abandoning its failed experiment with multiculturalism. Integration and acceptance of Dutch values for immigrants will be the law of the land. A cover letter accompanying legislation introduced last month says integration now is necessary because “no one feels at home anymore ... .” So, will American “progressives” take note? [Bolding in Original.]

You'd think that this was happening now, right?  I mean all of the verb tenses are in the present, right?  They even say the cover letter was "introduced last month."  That means July of 2015, right?

Perhaps the braintrust should have done its homework better.  They get their info from this recent (as in two days ago) piece from The American Thinker.  That piece, by Thomas Lifson points to this piece at  the Gatestone Institute website:

The Dutch government says it will abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism that has encouraged Muslim immigrants to create a parallel society within the Netherlands.

A new integration bill (covering letter and 15-page action plan), which Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to parliament on June 16, reads: "The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model and plans to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people. In the new integration system, the values of the Dutch society play a central role. With this change, the government steps away from the model of a multicultural society."

The letter continues: "A more obligatory integration is justified because the government also demands that from its own citizens. It is necessary because otherwise the society gradually grows apart and eventually no one feels at home anymore in the Netherlands. The integration will not be tailored to different groups."

Look at the date of the piece - June 23, 2011.  That was 4 years ago.  Heck Piet Hein Donner isn't even Interior Minister anymore as he left that post in December 2011.  So cover letter introduced "last month" was in fact last month 4 years ago.

This must be so embarrassing for my friends on The Braintrust - some balding blogger sitting at his kitchen table finding such a huge blunder in about 5 minutes.

I'd feel bad for them if I wasn't giggling hysterically over my spoon-sized shredded wheat.

PodCamp Announcement

I'll be giving a talk at this year's PodCamp on August 15th.

It'll be in Room B and it'll be at 1pm.

It's a Saturday afternoon and it's FREE.

I'll be talking about writing.

The details are here (just scroll down to where it says "On Writing Well"):

Writing – Is it simply nouns and adjectives, verb and adverbs, determiners and pronouns arranged in some sort of “proper” grammatical order? Well, yes it is and no it really isn’t. In writing well, there’s also rhythm and meter, tempo, texture and sound to wrestle with. What separates you as a writer from the writer sitting next to you? What separates interesting writing from boring writing? In a word it’s style – particularly YOUR style. This session is designed to give you some tools to be a better writer and to grow your own style as a writer.

Hope to see you there.

Nice Try, Guys. But Joe Bastardi STILL Isn't A Climate Scientist

From today's Trib:

The former long-range forecasting guru for AccuWeather these days is chief forecaster for WeatherBELL Analytics. And he employs an oldie but a goodie in a perversely accurate assessment of the rationales — if they even rise to that — being employed to push for cutting carbon dioxide “pollution” from U.S. power plants by 32 percent over the next 15 years.

“You are traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind,” Mr. Bastardi wrote Monday in The Patriot Post, quoting the opening to “The Twilight Zone,” the science-fiction TV show of the late 1950s and early 1960s.

Given the true progress the world has made because of fossil fuels — “many more people alive today living longer and enjoying a higher gross domestic product” — Bastardi wonders if the anti-fossil-fuels crowd actually is “anti-progress” if not “anti-statistic,” and all for negligible environmental benefit.

The thing you have to remember when reading whatever Bastardi writes, is that he's not a climate scientist.

Here some actual scientists discuss some of Bastardi's "findings" and find them, well lacking:

Indeed, Bastardi's arguments are wrong because they're gross oversimplifications of more complicated issues. However, they probably sound good to people who, like Bastardi, lack an understanding of the physical sciences. Unfortunately, this describes a significant percentage of the American public, including the audience of Fox News who were subjected to these absurd arguments from an amateur posing as an expert. The misinformation of these millions of people is the real tragedy of this story.

Go read the science. Don't trust the anti-science as it's simply wrong.

Jon Stewart On Fox News And Their 8 Years Of "Bush Fingerbanging"

Last Night

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

The right wing hypocrisy over at Fox News has rarely been more clearly described.

By the way, late in the clip Stewart mentions "50 Fox News lies in 6 seconds."  Guess what?

Politifact fact-check them all.

And guess what?  Exactly none of those 50 lies were actually true.

From The White House

BREAKING: On Monday, @POTUS will release his #CleanPowerPlan—the biggest step we've ever taken to #ActOnClimate. https://t.co/BU1PF0wjUK

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) August 2, 2015

Looking forward to tomorrow, then.