For now, suffice it to say that based on the cross-section of supporters in attendance, this is no longer just the Knowledge Workers' candidate.You can read my blog post on the event at billpeduto.com here.
Government impermissibly interferes in private lives by telling Americans whom they can marry. The high court must weigh in on the side of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — not to mention the right to be let alone — by making marriage an institution in which all can participate fully. [Emphasis added.]You just won't believe it.
Americans who value individual liberty, limited government and the right to contract freely must hope that the U.S. Supreme Court, which has agreed to take up two gay-marriage cases, will rule that they can marry whomever they please.Hear Hear! To my friends on the braintrust, I offer my sincerest congratulations. You got this one absolutely right.
Presenting the better opportunity for — but no guarantee of — such a sweeping ruling is an appeal of lower courts‘ rulings that California‘s voter-approved Proposition 8 gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional. The other case, involving a widow whose $363,000 federal estate-tax bill would have been $0 had she married a man, not a woman, concerns the federal Defense of Marriage Act denying legally married gay couples benefits that straight spouses get.
Banning gay marriage — which polls suggest most Americans support and which is legal or soon will be in nine states — violates the Constitution‘s equal-protection and due-process clauses as egregiously as did slavery or interracial-marriage bans. So does penalizing gay spouses.
And with UCLA‘s Williams Institute saying just 4 percent of Americans, not Alfred Kinsey‘s 10 percent, are gay, claims about gay marriage — a minor societal factor overall — harming heterosexual marriage ring hollow.
Government impermissibly interferes in private lives by telling Americans whom they can marry. The high court must weigh in on the side of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — not to mention the right to be let alone — by making marriage an institution in which all can participate fully.
Wiz Khalifa is a graduate of Taylor Alderdice and an avid Pittsburgh promoter. His song "Black and Yellow" has become an anthem of Pittsburgh pride. He has been nominated for numerous awards, including at the American Music Awards and Grammy Awards.Here are some tweeted pics:
"Wiz Khalifa is proud of his Pittsburgh background and takes every opportunity to sing the praises of Pittsburgh around the world," said Councilman William Peduto.
Earlier this year, the film "Zero Dark Thirty", which purports to dramatize the hunt for and killing of Osama bin Laden, generated substantial political controversy. It was discovered that CIA and White House officials had met with its filmmakers and passed non-public information to them - at exactly the same time that DOJ officials were in federal court resisting transparency requests from media outlets and activist groups on the ground that it was all classified.The "waterboarding led to the raid on bin Laden" story showed up recently on Morning Joe.
With its release imminent, the film is now garnering a pile of top awards and virtually uniform rave reviews. What makes this so remarkable is that, by most accounts, the film glorifies torture by claiming - falsely - that waterboarding and other forms of coercive interrogation tactics were crucial, even indispensable in finding bin Laden.
The claim that waterboarding and other torture techniques were necessary in finding bin Laden was first made earlier this year by Jose Rodriguez, the CIA agent who illegally destroyed the agency's torture tapes, got protected from prosecution by the DOJ, and then profited off this behavior by writing a book. He made the same claim as "Zero Dark Thirty" regarding the role played by torture in finding bin Laden.From Senator Levin's and Senator Feinstein's statement:
That caused two Senators who are steadfast loyalists of the CIA - Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein and Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin - to issue statements definitively debunking this assertion. Even the CIA's then-Director, Leon Panetta, made clear that those techniques played no role in finding bin Laden. An FBI agent central to the bin Laden hunt said the same.
CIA did not first learn about the existence of the UBL courier from detainees subjected to coercive interrogation techniques. Nor did the agency discover the courier's identity from detainees subjected to coercive techniques. No detainee reported on the courier's full name or specific whereabouts, and no detainee identified the compound in which UBL was hidden. Instead, the CIA learned of the existence of the courier, his true name and location through means unrelated to the CIA detention and interrogation program.And if that's not good enough fer ya, here's what Panetta wrote in a letter to Senator John McCain:
Nearly 10 years of intensive intelligence work led the CIA to conclude that Bin Ladin was likely hiding at the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. there was no one “essential and indispensible” key piece of information that led us to this conclusion. Rather, the intelligence picture was developed via painstaking collection and analysis. Multiple streams of intelligence — including from detainees, but also from multiple other sources — led CIA analysts to conclude that Bin Ladin was at this compound. Some of the detainees who provided useful information about the facilitator/courier’s role had been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. Whether those techniques were the “only timely and effective way” to obtain such information is a matter of debate and cannot be established definitively. What is definitive is that that information was only a part of multiple streams of intelligence that led us to Bin Ladin.So it's not the case that torture was the necessary component in gathering the intelligence necessary to find bin Laden - so this "ends justify the means" story is false.
Let me further point out that we first learned about the facilitator/courier’s nom de guerre from a detainee not in CIA custody in 2002. It is also important to note that some detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques attempted to provide false or misleading information about the facilitator/courier. These attempts to falsify the facilitator/courier’s role were alerting.
In the end, no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier’s full true name or specific whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence means. [Emphasis from Washington Post reporting.]
VIP RECEPTION (7-8pm)
- Special Musical Performance by Noel Quintana's Latin Crew
- A Taste of Pittsburgh by some of the City's Best Restaurants (1947 Tavern, Avenue B, Bagel Factory and Bread Market, Big Burrito, Cafe Zinho, Crazy Mocha, Harris Grill, Legume, Local Bar + Kitchen, Penn Avenue Fish Company, Salt of the Earth, Spoon, Up Modern Kitchen)
- Specialty Imported Wine & Pairings from Allora
- Full Cocktail Bar Sponsored by 5801 Video Lounge and Cafe, and SPIN Bartini & Ultra Lounge
THE HOLIDAY PARTY (8-10PM)
- Special Musical Performance by The Old E All Stars
- Wine selections from Pittsburgh Winery
- Crafted Brews by East End Brewery
- Our Famous "Peduto Punch"
- Dancing with DJ Doug Marshall
Frustrated community leaders, activists and organizations like One Pittsburgh are joining thousands across the country in a collective “What gives?!?!?!” to elected officials like Senator Bob Casey who didn’t seem to get the memo back in November. On December 10, hundreds will gather to say it bigger and louder: We want jobs, not cuts, from our elected leaders.There will be several actions happening today including:
On December 10 we’ll make hundreds of phone calls while hundreds more participate in a Facebook flash mob, demanding that Casey stick to his word and fight for the middle class, One Pittsburgh will be flying a very large message over the city, a message that neither Sen Casey nor Sen. Toomey can miss, or misunderstand.Rally info via Facebook:
Speaking of Corbett, a few hours after visiting the Trib last Tuesday in Pittsburgh, he and first lady Susan Corbett lighted the Christmas tree on the front steps to the state Capitol in Harrisburg, resurrecting a tradition that was scrapped in the 1980s. It’s nice to see. And do note, the tree is not called a “Holiday tree” or a “Unity tree” or a “Winter Solstice tree” or “Just a Tree So We Don’t Offend Anyone.” It’s called a “Christmas tree.” Hear! Hear! [Bolding in original.]Now a little quasi-word association. Given the right wing media's goofy obsession with the so-called "War on Christmas" what do you think is the point here? What do they want you to think and not check the details on?
The state Capitol's Christmas tree, a 21-foot Concolor, was delivered to the Capitol Rotunda this morning in Harrisburg and set up by Department of General Services staff.Or this from 2008:
The tree, from the Crystal Spring Tree Farm in Lehighton, Carbon County, was donated by the Pennsylvania Christmas Tree Growers Association. It will be decorated with 600 energy efficient LED lights and decorated with more than 300 hand-crafted ornaments from senior centers across the state.
The tree will be lighted during a noontime ceremony on Dec. 8 and remain lit from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. through Jan. 7. [Emphasis added.]
The Capitol Rotunda glowed much brighter today as children of Pennsylvania National Guard members helped Governor Edward G. Rendell light a more energy-efficient Christmas tree.And so on. In fact, looks like there's been a "Christmas Tree" in the Capital Rotunda going all the way back to at least 1981.
[Emphasis added.]
The display of a Ten Commandments monument donated 55 years ago outside one of its schools is not an endorsement of religion by the Connellsville Area School District, an attorney argued Monday in court filings.The attorney for the Connellsville School District, John W. Smart, filed a Motion to Dismiss the case and a Brief in Support of the Motion - I am reading them now. I downloaded it from the PACER system available to anyone who registers for an account. There's a small downloading fee involved so I am unsure as to whether I can post the brief. If there are ANY ATTORNEYS out there who can offer up some guidance, please get in contact with me.
“Considering the ‘history and ubiquity’ of this Eagles’ Ten Commandments monument, and assessing how a reasonable person would view it, it is clear that the monument does not convey a message of endorsement of religion. (T)he monument contains both religious and secular symbols, including an all-seeing eye, a bald eagle and the American flag. Even if the religions aspects of the monument’s appearance and history indicate that it has some religious meaning, the district is not bound to display only symbols that are wholly secular, or to convey solely secular messages,” attorney John W. Smart wrote in a court filing requesting a dismissal of the lawsuit filed against the district.
Considering the “history and ubiquity” of this Eagles’ Ten Commandments monument, and assessing how a reasonable person would view it, it is clear that the monument does not convey a message of endorsement of religion..And on page 29 there's this:
The District has displayed the monument outside of the Connellsville Junior High School for at least fifty-five years. The location and presence for so many years, emphasizes the perception by most that the monument has an overall secular purpose. The monument conveys a historical and moral message, not a promotion of religious faith.I am not sure, however, how a monument that begins with the text:
Is anything but an endorsement of religion and a promotion of religious faith.the Ten Commandments
I AM the LORD thy God.
I Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
II Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.
III Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
This is a dishonest post. I didn't lie about anything. See: http://matthewvadum.blogspot.com/2012/12/a-mildly-dismaying-tale-of-lying.htmlIt's only fair to go see what he has to say. But before we do, let's review the definition of a "Lie of Omission." Roughly speaking there are two types of lies; lies by commission and lies by omission. A "lie of commission" easy: it's a statement that's untrue presented as true. A lie of omission is a bit trickier: it's a partially true statement presented as the complete truth.
To Gerard, it is not radical leftist agitation that leads to violence but capitalism itself. Economic “inequality,” he says, “leads to instability and violence.”He then goes on to agree with basically everything I wrote - that Gerard was quoting and agreeing with that Vatican Report and that he, Vadum, omitted it from his piece because he "didn't deem it necessary" when he wrote the article. Later on he writes:
I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out what the "lie" was.I can only point to the above discussion about lies of omission and then rhetorically ask how different Vadum's charge that Gerard was attacking capitalism would be if Vadum were to include the fact that Gerard was agreeing with a Vatican report when he did so?
If basic morality fails as a reason to reverse these trends, then the Pontifical Council suggested another. Such inequality leads to instability and violence.I know I'm only an amateur blogger and not a real live writer like yourself but that looks to me like a quotation and not a paraphrase. Perhaps you can explain how using an exact set of words in exactly the same context with exactly the same meaning constitutes something that isn't a quotation.
I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.Looks like he's walked this back but the double special secret message to the creationists he wants to impress is still present. Here's the video and Thinkprogress has a transcript:
There is no scientific debate on the age of the earth. I mean, it’s established pretty definitively, it’s at least 4.5 billion years old. I was referring to a theological debate, which is a pretty health debate. And the theological debate is … how do you reconcile with what science has definitively established with what you may think your faith teaches. Now for me, actually, when it comes to the age of the earth, there is no conflict. I believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And I think that scientific advances have given us insight into when he did it and how he did it, but I still believe God did it…. I just think in America we should have the freedom to teach our children whatever it is we believe. And that means teaching them science, they have to know the science, but also parents have the right to teach them the theology and to reconcile the two things. [Emphasis from ThinkProgress]It's good to know that Senator Rubio agrees with science and goes on record stating an age for the universe that corresponds to the evidence.
Rick Santorum has joined WorldNetDaily, a conspiracy theory blog best known for its indefatigable work advancing the birther movement, as an exclusive columnist.Here's a sample of headlines from WorldNetDaily taken off the intertoobs:
Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.And then there's this:
As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”
Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.And then finally:
There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.
After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.Can someone at KDKA please let Marty know about this?
In per capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5% from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars).
United Steelworkers union boss Leo Gerard, on MSNBC, warned that those who compromise are not “real Democrats.” And a while back, FrontPage Magazine reported that Mr. Gerard considers capitalism to be economic “inequality ... that leads to instability and violence.” This, from the same fella who once advocated street violence to promote Barack Obama’s socialist vision. Ahem. [Bold text in original.]Wow. Pretty damning, isn't it? This Gerard guy must be a nasty piece of work, huh?
The best compromise is that the Republicans ought to start to understand that they are the ones that have caused this mess by trying to hold up the president`s agenda for four years. Democrats don`t need to compromise. The president won on an economic agenda that included rebuilding the manufacturing base, fixing the infrastructure, letting the Bush tax expire not for the bottom 98 percent, but for the top 2 percent. And any Democrat that gets weak knees on that isn't a real Democrat. [Emphasis added.]See? It's not about compromise in general (which is what Scaife's braintrust wants you to think) it's about compromising on any the stuff the Dems won on in November. It's on what to compromise on, not that there should be compromise.
Registering [the poor] to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country -- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.Note that he's not talking about anyone other than poor citizens. Knowing the source, we can expect a certain amount of, uh, skewing to reality.
To Gerard, it is not radical leftist agitation that leads to violence but capitalism itself. Economic “inequality,” he says, “leads to instability and violence.”Knowing that that sentence was written by Matthew "burglary tools" Vadum, I think we can reasonably ask whether Gerard actually said that? And if so what was the context?
The result is that the richest 20 percent of households got more money in those 30 years than the entire bottom 80 percent. That is redistribution of wealth -- moving it from the poor and middle class to the richest.And then he quotes the Vatican report:
The CBO study cites several factors contributing to the rising inequality, including federal tax policy. The CBO says tax policy fed inequity as the incomes of the wealthiest rose astronomically and their federal tax burden shrank.
This pattern is consistent internationally. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development determined that from the mid-1980s to the mid-2000s income inequality increased in three-quarters of the 30 developed countries studied.
If basic morality fails as a reason to reverse these trends, then the Pontifical Council suggested another. Such inequality leads to instability and violence. [Emphasis added.]
If no solutions are found to the various forms of injustice, the negative effects that will follow on the social, political and economic level will be destined to create a climate of growing hostility and even violence, and ultimately undermine the very foundations of democratic institutions, even the ones considered most solid.Now take a step back to see what Vadum said. He chose to lie to his audience and omit the faith-based conclusions that Gerard was quoting and agreeing with. Scaife's braintrust at best failed and at worst lied to their audience by not checking the source of Vadum's assertion.
