Lamar Advertises for Lamar, Uses Image from City Website

Pittsburgh City Counselors Natalia Rudiak and Darlene Harris have cosponsored a proposal to create a 10% tax on billboard rentals which they say could raise a couple of million dollars a year towards purchasing new police cars. (Philadelphia and other PA towns have a similar tax.)

Here's Lamar's response:

(Via Facebook)

(Via http://twitpic.com/b52ep2)

In the Pittsburgh City Paper, Harris rightly notes that the Rudiak sign is "very misleading," since it implies that Rudiak is proposing to raise taxes on everyone, rather than on a select industry."

Rudiak comments:

Although one thing about the billboard did strike her as odd: Lamar, she says, apparently took the photo of her from the city's website. "But in the original photo, my dress was red."

Here's the image from the City of Pittsburgh website:

Here's a detail from Lamar's ad for Lamar:

How does Lamar get to use an image from the City of Pittsburgh website anyway in an ad that means to profit Lamar? They obviously did not pay for the image -- I'm assuming either the City or Rudiak did.

And, how the hell does this company from Louisiana constantly insert itself into the politics of this city???

Five City Councilors Shirk Responsibilities and Rubber Stamp Mayor/Lamar

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

[sigh]

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR SHAME

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[sigh]

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

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

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

.

Tales from the Burghosphere

Congratulations to Bram at The Pittsburgh Comet and The Burgh Report for bringing to light an obvious conflict of interest regarding (on leave) Urban Redevelopment Authority Executive Director Pat Ford and Lamar Advertising.

Video here.

Note: There is absolutely no truth to the rumor that the after the latest revelations that Lamar Advertising has decided to stop their civil lawsuit against Pittsburgh City Council members (FREE THE LAMAR FIVE!) and will put up inspirational/motivational billboards free of charge around The Burgh starting with this one:


.

Lamar loses appeal for electronic billboards

In Lamar Advantage GP Company, Appellant, v. Zoning Hearing Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, and City of Pittsburgh, Lamar lost their appeal.

HA!
.

A picture is worth a thousand words...so why use the worst one?

I know that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette endorsed Pittsburgh City Councilor Patrick Dowd for mayor, but I have to wonder again why they print such terribly unflattering photos of him?

I'm sure that this photograph...


accurately represents how Dowd looked for a split second or so (it's not like I think they rock the Photoshop like me -- or the NYT), but I'm certain that the photo was one out of many which were taken that they had to choose from.

So why pick the one that makes him look like he was screaming at the top of his lungs (or made me feel like I was a doctor holding a tongue depressor)?

If I was a voter who wasn't paying much attention to the mayoral race up until this point and I saw this picture it might sway me against Dowd or at the very least not make me want to find out more about him.

And, it's a shame because the issue is real:

The back-and-forth started with Mr. Dowd standing across the street from the Grant Street Transportation Center, with its unfinished Lamar Advertising electronic billboard. His campaign staff brought a cardboard check for $101,000 -- the approximate amount of post-resignation payments and benefits that former Urban Redevelopment Authority Executive Director Pat Ford is getting as part of an agreement that bars him and city officials from disparaging each other.

"That's hush money!" Mr. Dowd shouted, as his neck reddened and passers-by stopped to listen. "That's a sign of corruption. That's unacceptable in this city."

That arrangement stemmed from winter 2008 revelations that the city -- with guidance from Mr. Ford -- let Lamar have a permit and a no-bid contract to put a 19-by-58-foot sign on the center. When Mr. Ford confirmed that he'd received Christmas gifts from a Lamar executive, a State Ethics Commission review ensued, Mr. Ford accused the administration of a "culture of deception and corruption," and the two sides reached the settlement that Mr. Dowd brandished yesterday

This isn't the first time that the P-G has used what had to have been the least flattering picture taken to illustrate an article. Remember this one which made the very tall Dowd look like a dwarf?


Granted that Dowd was animated -- even passionate -- when speaking about the billboard issue, but judge for yourself if the first photograph above really represents the press conference he held:




(h/t to The Pittsburgh Comet for the video.)
.

Quid Pro Quo, Clarice.

For some reason, This story at The Burgh Report from the P-G:

A 1,200-square-foot electronic billboard will decorate the rising Grant Street Transportation Center as part of a deal between Pittsburgh officials and Lamar Advertising to trade old, paper signs for new, illuminated ones.

Because of its size and cost, the sign would normally need zoning
board and planning commission approval, but it is proceeding with neither.

reminds me of another story from the P-G:

He [Ravenstahl] promptly seized Mr. O'Connor's focus on "redding up" the city -- and the free billboard exposure, courtesy of Lamar Advertising, that came with it. Later came another series of billboards touting the city's 311 help line, also with the mayor's name and face prominently displayed.

Lamar currently has five such billboards citywide, which cost the company a total of $265 in materials and two hours of staff time, according to Stan Geier, the company's local vice president and general manager. "It is ad space that went unsold and is not displacing any paying advertisers," he wrote in an e-mail response to questions.

The signs are consistent with the company's practice of donating surplus space "as a public service to deserving organizations," he wrote.

. . . but I can't quite put my finger on why.
.

Final vote on the Lamar 4's legal bill today?

The final vote should be taken today "on the $10,706 bill from attorney Hugh McGough, hired by council President Doug Shields and members Ricky Burgess, Bruce Kraus and William Peduto to contest the now-revoked permit given to Lamar Advertising for a Downtown sign."

Since I missed all the fireworks last week, I'm very grateful that Char did an excellent job of covering it at The Burgh Report -- almost like you're there. [shudder]

(Did I mention that I couldn't be more pleased with the job that my own City Councilman, Bruce Kraus, is doing thus far? Guess I just did.)
.

Shining a Light

Pittsburgh City Councilman Bruce Kraus is set to introduce a resolution today asking Mayor Luke Ravenstahl to rescind the LED sign zoning approval granted to Lamar Advertising (in a no-bid agreement) for the Grant Street Transportation Center. As Kraus' press release noted:

The approval was granted without being brought before the Planning Commission, the Zoning Board, or City Council.

Kraus' resolution can be found here.

We noted the um, "special" relationship between Lil Mayor Luke and Lamar Advertising here.

There's been some great recent blogging on this at The Burgh Report and Pittsburgh Pist-Gazette (here, here & here).

In writing about the sign controversy at the Pittsburgh City Paper in an article with the subheading of "Shedding light on local government," Chris Potter stated:

Sure, a mayor can often take a commission's approval for granted. But only Ravenstahl would demonstrate the fact by bypassing the commission entirely. Only in the Ravenstahl administration would a planning commissioner actually leave a controversial meeting to, say, watch a college basketball game, returning to vote as debate was wrapping up.

Which segues nicely into yesterday's meeting between Pittsburgh City Council and Hill District leaders and their supporters on a community benefits agreement tied to the new Penguins arena (P-G article here, Pittsburgh Comet here).

According to the Post-Gazette, Council may get involved in the process:

By the time they finished, they had won the ear of Council President Doug Shields, who said it may be time for council to become more actively involved in talks involving the city, Allegheny County and the neighborhood.

"I think we're going to have to," he said after the public hearing. "We got lawsuits. We got, obviously, a stalemate between all the engaged parties."

To date, council has been out of the loop in the talks over a community benefits agreement, Mr. Shields said. He added council needs "to have a dialogue" with Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato and perhaps Gov. Ed Rendell to find out what the sticking points are in the talks.

"We have a role to play," Mr. Shields said.

"I stand with you to make sure [the Penguins] do the right thing," another councilman, William Peduto, said to the applause of supporters.

We're happy that Council wants to provide a check to the Ravenstahl's utter lack of transparency and his constant disregard for the average Pittsburgh citizen in favor of his big important buddies (and contributors).
.

The Trib. Again. And Again.

On today's ep-ed page at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Richard Mellon Scaife's braintrust proves, yet again, how easy it is to spin a story by omitting important facts.

First on the CFLs (and no, we're NOT talking about the Argonauts or the Roughriders), they write:

Better late than never? Yes -- but the newfound eagerness of Republicans vying for the House Energy and Commerce Committee's chairmanship to repeal the impending ban on incandescent light bulbs raises another question: What was Congress smoking when it banned them?

Interesting question, no?

Perhaps the braintrust should check out the legislation phasing out the CFLs. And perhaps check with the many Republican Senators who voted for it, including:

• Lamar Alexander of Tennessee
• Sam Brownback of Kansas
• Saxby Chamblis of Georgia
• John Cornyn of Texas
• Chuck Grassley of Iowa
• Mitch McConnell of Kentucky
• David Vitter of Louisiana

And so on. Perhaps they should check with some of the many many many Republican House members who voted for the bill, (and there are too many to list - sorry).

Or perhaps they should check with the Republican President who signed the bill into law in 2007.

Then there's this from the Thursday Wrap:

Another Western Pennsylvania community has buckled to the politically correct Nativity scene crowd. Canonsburg, fearing a lawsuit that taxpayers could not afford, has moved its creche, long displayed outside its borough building, to private property a few blocks away. The late Canonsburg native Perry Como surely is turning in his grave.

It's not "political correctness" my friends. It's unconstitutional. As spelled out in County of Allegheny vs. ACLU which was a Supreme Court case from way back in 1989. According the decision, the Establishment Clause:

[A]t the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or from "making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community."

Huh. I thought conservatives respected the Constitution. I thought they believed in what it said.

I guess it depends on what spin they're trying to make.

The Braintrust Keeps Trying To Debunk The IPCC...

...and they keep failing.

From today's Tribune-Review:

Cooler heads must deflect the latest blast of hot air from the discredited United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

And then:

The International Climate Science Coalition notes that 16 years without warming show U.N. climate models are wrong and weather's extremes remain within natural variations' range. Yet the U.N. climate change panel urges draconian anti-growth measures.

Yea, but we've already looked at that, haven't we?

Yea, like 5 days ago.

I guess we'll have to do it again.

The "16 years without warming" meme is what they call "selective evidence" and I'll let desmogblog explain.  But first, some of their artwork:

They're gonna be talking about that small area of the upward sweep marked by that big red arrow.  By the way, do you notice the upward sweep from just after 1900 to now?  So even if the line is, in fact, "leveling off" that still wouldn't discredit the upward sweep that represents the rising temperatures of the 20th century now, would it?

Anyway, back to desmogblog.  They explain that 1998 and 2005 were rather hot "el Nino" years and that:

After 1998 and 2005 global temperatures were not as hot, but still on the whole still much hotter than most years prior to 1998.

So the temperature is still clearly going up globally as can be seen by the long-term upward trend over time. But like any good conspiracy theory, if you look hard and long enough you will find “proof” of your theory — and the climate deniers seem to be clinging on to this latest proof pretty hard.

And again, this issue is already addressed in the IPCC summary report:

Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years in the Northern Hemisphere, where such assessment is possible (medium confidence). The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C2 over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist.

In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, the globally averaged surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (Figure SPM.1a). Due to this natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with only about 1% stored in the atmosphere. On a global scale, the ocean warming is largest near the surface, and the upper 75 m warmed by 0.11 [0.09 to 0.13] °C per decade over the period 1971 to 2010. It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010, and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971. [Italics in original]

They never learn, do they?

The Trib also makes this claim:

The U.N. panel again is providing “cover for costly new regulations and energy rationing” even though the EPA admits “electricity regulations will have no discernible impact on the global temperature,” U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, told The Hill newspaper.

Here's what the fool said in The Hill:

“Yet the EPA has admitted that electricity regulations will have no discernible impact on the global temperature,” he added. “America cannot afford to drive its economy over a cliff with the hopes that the rest of the world will make the same mistake.”

So far, I haven't been able to track down when the EPA actually admitted to anything of the sort (doesn't mean it's not out there, it just means I haven't found it yet).  But I suspect that the rhetorical ruse being played here is found in the phrase "global temperature."  Could the EPA have merely been pointing out that a great many other countries would also have to limit their carbon emissions that this global problem can't just be solved by the US limiting its own carbon emissions?  That a whole mess of other stuff has to happen as well?

That's what I suspect.  But until I see for sure, I'm withholding judgement.

In either case, the Trib Braintrust is still wrong about the science and they're doing it now so often that it has to be an embarrassment to any rational person working at that newspaper.

Yep, Warmer. Look WAAY Up North.

We'll start with a graph from the National Snow and Ice Data Center:

See the blue line?  That's this year.  The dotted green?  That's 5 years ago.

And from the journal Science (from the good folks at the American Association for the Advancement of Science) we can read a possible explanation:

A new enemy is undermining ice floating on the Arctic Ocean: heat from below.

Sensors that have plumbed the depths of Arctic seas since 2002 have found warm currents creeping up from the Atlantic Ocean and helping drive the dramatic retreat of sea ice there over the last decade. A new study shows this “Atlantification” of the Arctic Ocean as a new, powerful driver of melting, alongside losses due to rising air temperatures.

The journal Science, by the way, is peer-reviewed and one of the oldest and most prestigious science journals on the planet. It's also the journal that Representative Lamar Smith, chair of the House Committee on Science, called "not objective."

And Donald Trump thinks it's a Chinese hoax designed to undermine American productivity.

So I suppose it's the Chinese who're pumping all that warm water into the Arctic?

Waterboarding Updates

Did you know that 99% of us Americans would support waterboarding??

That's what Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) said yesterday. from thinkprogress, here's what Smith said to Attorney General Michael Mukasey yesterday:

In regard to interrogation techniques — and I know you’re going to be asked a lot of questions about that today — I just want to express the personal opinion that I hope the administration will not be defensive about using some admittedly harsh but nonlethal interrogation techniques, even techniques that might lead someone to believe they’re being drowned even if they’re not.

My guess is that 99 percent of the American people, if asked whether they would endorse such interrogation techniques to be conducted on a known terrorist with the expectation that information that might be derived from such interrogation would save the lives of thousands of Americans, that 99 percent of the American people would support such interrogation techniques.

Think progress adds a link to this CNN story about what the American people really think:

Asked whether they think waterboarding is a form of torture, more than two-thirds of respondents, or 69 percent, said yes; 29 percent said no.

Asked whether they think the U.S. government should be allowed to use the procedure to try to get information from suspected terrorists, 58 percent said no; 40 percent said yes.

Huh. So I guess Representative Smith's guess is, well, wrong.

On waterboarding, TPM Muckraker has more on yesterday's hearings with AG Mukasey. When asked by Representative John Conyers (D-MI) if he's going start a criminal investigation:

"No, I am not," was the direct answer.

His reasoning was a repeat of his answer to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) last week. The CIA waterboarded those detainees with the authorization of a Justice Department legal opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel. So the Justice Department "cannot possibly" investigate, he said, U.S. employees for an act they committed on the basis of Justice Department advice. Such an action, he explained, would send a message that interrogators could no longer safely rely on that advice going forward.

Mukasey also refused Conyers' request to see the OLC opinions that authorized waterboarding, because they discussed techniques of what remains a "classified program." Conyers protested that every member of the committee was cleared to see top secret material, but Mukasey was unmoved, though offered to continue "ongoing discussions" with the committee -- discussions of which Conyers seemed to be unaware.

This has led David Kurtz, over at talkingpointsmemo to post:

Cynics may argue that those aren't bombshells at all, that the Bush Administration would never investigate itself in these matters. Perhaps so. But this is a case where cynicism is itself dangerous.

We have now the Attorney General of the United States telling Congress that it's not against the law for the President to violate the law if his own Department of Justice says it's not.

It is as brazen a defense of the unitary executive as anything put forward by the Administration in the last seven years, and it comes from an attorney general who was supposed to be not just a more professional, but a more moderate, version of Alberto Gonzales (Thanks to Democrats like Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer for caving on the Mukasey nomination.).

President Bush has now laid down his most aggressive challenge to the very constitutional authority of Congress. It is a naked assertion of executive power. The founders would have called it tyrannical.

So would I.

Senator Pat Toomey, Americans United For Freedom, And One Particular Address In Alexandria

It's a Saturday morning and I'm still a week away from Premier League Football so I decided to rummage around in Senator Pat Toomey's campaign contributions to see what I could find.

Being a rank amateur in such things I found nothing but questions.

Let's begin.

According to this FEC page Senator Pat Toomey's largest single donor in the 2016 election cycle was an organization called "Americans United For Freedom" and they gave him a total of $151,357.55.

And according to this FEC page Senator Pat Toomey was the largest recipient of "Americans United for Freedom" campaign disbursements for that cycle.

And according to this FEC page, "Americans United For Freedom" raised $733,905 during that cycle (and that means, if my math is correct, that Toomey received a little more than 20% of the amount raised).

And finally, according to this FEC page, none of that money actually came from Pennsylvania.

I'd say that's an interesting relationship, wouldn't you? But then again, I'm just a rank amateur at such things.

Granted, he had way more than $150 grand to spend and way more than just one donor. But his largest single donor was that committee and the largest recipient of that committee's money was Pat Toomey. And let me say it again, none of that money came from Toomey's home state.

So who is "Americans United For Freedom" anyway?

According to this FEC page, the mailing address for "Americans United For Freedom" is:

228 S WASHINGTON ST
STE 115
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314

That's also the mailing address for Huckaby Davis Lisker, Inc. Which is where we find someone named Lisa Lisker.

She's the treasurer for "Americans United For Freedom" and here's a secret surprise for you - she also happens to be the treasurer for Toomey's leadership PAC, Citizens for Prosperity in America!

So when AUF gave all that money to Toomey's leadership PAC the paperwork didn't even have to leave one desk? Am I getting this right?

And what else can be found at that address?

Did you know as of January 2017, it was the mailing address for not one but two US Senators: John McCain and Lamar Alexander?

You can check for yourself this FEC page to see what other committees call this address home. There's lots and lots. And lots.

It must be a very important address. I don't know what any of this means except that it, perhaps, illustrates how tightly the ties that bind money and politics in our nation's capital.

The NRCC Is Being Probed...

...and not in the good way.

This story bubbles up from a recent comment.

From The Politico:

Top House Republicans were told in recent days that a former employee of their campaign committee may have forged an official audit during the contentious 2006 election cycle and that they should brace for the possibility that an unfolding investigation could uncover financial improprieties stretching back several years, according to GOP sources briefed on the members-only discussions.

Oh, pooh.

The NRCC internal investigation centers on Christopher J. Ward, a former NRCC treasurer who worked at the committee until mid-August of last year, according to those briefed on the matter. From that time until late December, Ward was an outside contractor for the NRCC, according to Federal Election Commission records.

RealClearPolitics has more:

The NRCC would not comment on the investigation, though the source, who is outside the committee, characterized the fraud as severe.

Severe pooh.

So who is this Christopher J. Ward?

According to this post over at the dailykos, he was listed as the treasurer for a number of GOP PACs including:

Prosperity Helps Inspire Liberty PAC
Affiliate:Phil English (R-Pa)
PROSPERITY HELPS INSPIRE LIBERTY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (PHILPAC)
Location: ALEXANDRIA VA, 22313
Industry: Leadership PACs; Republican leadership PAC
Treasurer: Christopher J. Ward FEC
Committee ID: C00375246

Phil English is the Representative to the Pennsylvania 3rd Congressional District.

Also turns out that Mr Ward had a connection to our friends, the Swiftboaters. From Raw Story:

While the Politico report noted that Ward had been serving the NRCC as a private contractor since last year, it failed to note that he was also at one time a partner with the Fairfax, Virginia-based Political Compliance Services, Inc., a firm that specializes in filing reports with the Federal Election Commission on behalf of political candidates and campaigns.

PCS, Inc., according to earlier reports, was retained by the Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth in the run-up to the 2004 presidential election.

Harper's has some more connections:

On January 27, Ward signed on as treasurer for the Senate Majority Committee, which is raising money for Senate Republicans at risk in this fall’s elections. Given the investigation of Ward for his role at the NRCC, the Committee might want to keep an eye on its treasury.

And which Senate republicans are running for Re-election? Here's a list. Not all of them are at risk, of course.

Jeff Sessions of Alabama
Saxby Chambliss of Georgia
Pat Roberts of Kansas
Mitch McConnell of Kentucky
Susan Collins of Maine
Norm Coleman of Minnesota
Thad Cochran of Mississippi
Roger Wicker of Mississippi
John Sununu of New Hampshire
Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina
Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma
Gordon Smith of Oregon
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
Lamar Alexander of Tennessee
John Cornyn of Texas
John Barrasso of Wyoming

Should be interesting to see:

1. Whether there was any fraud at all.
2. If there was, was Ward a part of it.
3. If he was, how deeply he was involved.
4. And depending on how deeply he was involved, how much that taints all the other Republicans around him.
5. Even if wasn't wasn't involved, if there was fraud what extent it touched members of God's Own Party.

Granted, that's lotsa ifs - but it should be fun to watch anyway!

Hello! Post-Gazette! Where are you?

I know that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette -- like many in the print media -- is somewhat busy trying to navigate rough waters, but no stories on Lil Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's announced challenger, Carmen L. Robinson? Not a single mention?

I also acknowledge that this is the first mention of Ms. Robinson at 2pj, but we do have an excuse: It's not our JOB to report the news.

If Ms. Robinson's entry into the fray is not news than why have all these print, television news and blogs reported on Robinson's intention to run:

Pittsburgh Tribune Review 12/5
Pittsburgh Tribune Review 12/6
WTAE 12/10
WPXI 12/10
Pittsburgh Hoagie 12/10
The Busman's Holiday 12/10
The Blog of Burgher Jon 12/16
Progress Pittsburgh 12/18
The Pittsburgh Women's Blogging Society 12/19
Pittsburgh Hoagie 12/19
The Pittsburgh Comet 12/19
And of course, the now defunct The Burgh Report

So I ask again: Where's the Post-Gazette on this story?

If you -- unlike the P-G -- are interested in Carmen Robinson, you can sign up for her mailing list at her preliminary website: http://www.carmenformayor.com or follow her on twitter @ http://twitter.com/Carmen4MayorPgh

An African American, Hill District resident, feminist woman running against Lil Mayor Luke surely must be some kind of trifecta in terms of belonging to groups that Lil Lukey has snubbed (now if only she had also litigated against Lamar Advertising).
.

Where Does KDKA's Fred Honsberger Get His Information?

I only ask because I heard him use a new argument in defending dubya's decision to fire 8 US Attorneys for political reasons. Oddly enough he did not use argument that because President Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys at the beginning of his first administration, CLINTON DID THE SAME THING.

Good for Fred for not going with that bogus argument.

The problem? Fred used an entirely NEW bogus argument. He said that Clinton did the same thing - he fired 23 US Attorneys all on the same day - midterm.

That was a new one. I did some research and what did I find?

It's so completely bogus it makes the first bogus argument look completely sane in comparison.

Take a look at this report from the Congressional Research Service. The CRS which describes itself as:

The Congressional Research Service is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.

The report itself is posted via OpenCRS.com.

Take a look at the data in the report:

This report provides data on U.S. attorneys who did not complete their full fouryear term after confirmation by the Senate and whose terms did not carry over a change in presidential administration.

Know what they found? Between 1981 and 2003, there were 54 US Attorneys who fit the above criteria.

Of those 54, 17 left to become Article III federal judges, one left to become a federal magistrate judge, six left to serve in other positions in the executive branch, four sought elective office, two left to serve in state government, one died, and 15 left to enter or return to private practice. Of the remaining eight U.S. attorneys who left before completing a four-year term without a change in presidential administration, two were apparently dismissed by the President, and three apparently resigned after news reports indicated they had engaged in questionable personal actions. No information was available on the three remaining U.S. attorneys who resigned.

So where are the 23 that Clinton fired "on the same day"?

At the end of the full report there's a detailed appendix with the data that supports the report's findings. During the Clinton years there were 8 USAttorneys who left their jobs.

• Vicki Lynn Miles-LaGrange left to be a Federal Judge on 11/94.
• Claude Harris Jr. died on 10/02/94.
• Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. left to be a Federal Judge in 08/96.
• Joseph Preston Strom, Jr. left for the private sector in 1996.
• Kendall Brindley Coffey resigned on 05/17/96.
• Larry Herbert Colleton resigned on 07/94.
• James Lamar Wiggins left to seek elective office in 1996.
• Kent Barron Alexander left for the private sector in 1997.

So where did Fred Honsberger get the data on the 23 US Attorneys that Clinton fired on the same day, midterm?

Or was he just making it up as he went along, hoping no one would check his "facts"?

It's About Frickin' Time

The Senate honored itself today:

By a vote of 65 to 31 this afternoon, the Senate voted to repeal the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Republican Senators Scott Brown, Richard Burr, Susan Collins, John Ensign, Mark Kirk, Lisa Murkowski, Olympia Snowe and George Voinovich joined Democrats in the final vote to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Burr and Ensign did not vote with the Democrats earlier in the day when the GOP filibuster was broken, but signed on for the final vote.

Now let's see who voted to continue the discrimination:

• Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
• John Barrasso (R-WY)
• Robert F. Bennett (R-UT)
• Christopher S. Bond (R-MO)
• Sam Brownback (R-KS)
• Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
• Tom Coburn (R-OK)
• Thad Cochran (R-MS)
• Bob Corker (R-TN)
• John Cornyn (R-TX)
• Michael D. Crapo (R-ID)
• Jim DeMint (R-SC)
• Michael B. Enzi (R-WY)
• Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
• Charles E. Grassley (R-IA)
• Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
• James M. Inhofe (R-OK)
• Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
• Mike Johanns (R-NE)
• Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
• George S. LeMieux (R-FL)
• Richard G. Lugar (R-IN)
• John McCain (R-AZ)
• Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
• Jim Risch (R-ID)
• Pat Roberts (R-KS)
• Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
• Richard C. Shelby (R-AL)
• John Thune (R-SD)
• David Vitter (R-LA)
• Roger Wicker (R-MS)

Wow. And not a D in the bunch. Who'd'a thought so many in the GOP could be so anti-gay?

Hahahahaha. I made a funny.

The Trib's Got Dubya's Back

The Trib's got an editorial out today that hits all the Republican talking points regarding AG Alberto Gonzales. Well two of them, actually.

As the day progresses and some non-Virginia Tech news slips into the national coverage, listen for these two points:

• But the bottom line remains that these federal prosecutors serve solely at the pleasure of the administration. (Paragraph 4, sentence 1 of the editorial)
  
• There's absolutely no evidence of any illegalities in the firings. (Paragraph 6, sentence 1 of the editorial)

Of course each is beside the point. Heck, that first point's been debunked on the pages of the Trib itself.

Yesterday.

"U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president," [Texas Republican Lamar]Smith responded in a written statement. "Every president has the right to be served by people who support their policies."

The debate over the firings has eclipsed that rhetoric, said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor. Now at issue is whether the firings were politically motivated, he said

And notice the weasel words in the Trib's other point: There's absolutely no evidence of any illegalities in the firings. Of course not. The way the US Attorneys were fired - someone picked up a phone and dialed a number and delivered the bad news - is again, not the point.

Let me reiterate. The issue is whether there was pressure put on some (if not all) US Attorneys to go easy on Republicans and go hard on Democrats (especially prior to the last election) and when they didn't, a little more than half-dozen were fired and replaced with "loyal Bushies."

The attempt to politicize the supposedly apolitical DoJ alone is enough for hearings, isn't it?

Then there are contradicting the sworn statements of AG Gonzales. I thought Republicans hated perjury. I mean they impeached a sitting President because of perjury. So if a guy contradicts himself in testifying more than once to Congress, as long as what he's lying about isn't illegal, the perjury's OK?

Then there's the e-mails stored on RNC servers in an obvious attempt to side step Congressional oversight. I thought Republicans were in favor of the rule of law.

Don't they read the Constitution over there?

The Tribune-Review Gets Climate Science Wrong. Again.

Let's start at the top of today's propaganda pile:

Federal researchers insist in a “bombshell” report that global warming hasn't paused since 1998. Despite contradictory scientific evidence, you'll just have to trust them.

Or you can read the paper yourself.

It's right here.  That's the paper that's upset the anti-science crowd who've wrongly claimed for years the existence of the post-'98 el Niño hiatus.  Since the science disagrees with their pre-paid notions of "no warming!", the science must be wrong, right?

Here's the abstract:

Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.

And this is why they did what they did:

Given recent improvements in the observed record and additional years of global data (including a record-warm 2014), we reexamine the observational evidence related to a “hiatus” in recent global surface warming.

They authors said that the method of collected data was always changing and gave three examples:

Changes of particular importance include (i) an increasing amount of ocean data from buoys, which are slightly different than data from ships; (ii) an increasing amount of ship data from engine intake thermometers, which are slightly different than data from bucket seawater temperatures; and (iii) a large increase in land-station data, which enables better analysis of key regions that may be warming faster or slower than the global average.

And so on.  It's all there in the paper. No pause.  No hiatus.  The data supports the idea that whatever was thought of as "the pause" was caused by "residual data biases" that needed to be corrected.  Once they were understood (that bouy data was slightly different from ship data, and so on) and corrected, BAM! the hiatus disappeared, like the shadow thrown by a passing cloud.

And that scared the Dickens out of the anti-science crowd, leading to this (via MSNBC):

Climate deniers, including those on the House Science Committee, were fond of the “pause” idea and were outraged that a public-sector scientist was involved in debunking it. So, Committee Chairman Lamar Smith went after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, demanding an explanation of how Karl’s journal piece came together.

This is what the braintrust is talking about.  The funny thing is what happened next in the above MSNBC piece.  They go to this piece at Vox:

[Ranking member Bernice Johnson explained] that Smith made three written requests for information about Karl’s study, all of which NOAA responded to in writing and in personal briefings. “Moreover,” she writes, “NOAA attempted to explain certain aspects of the methodology about which the Majority was apparently confused.” (Imagine how that meeting went.)

Among Smith’s repeated demands: access to the data and methods behind NOAA’s work on climate. Except, as NOAA and Democratic members of the committee kept trying to explain, those data and methods are posted on the internet. Anyone can access them. Yet Republicans kept demanding them.

What was the braintrust saying, again, about transparency?

Do they even have the slightest clue how silly they look right now?

Yea, probably not.

Do the rest of the staff (ie the real news reporters, editors and so on) realize how silly THEY look for having to work in the same building as the anti-science know nothings on their paper's editorial board?

Yea, probably.

Taking Credit For Teh Crazie

Joseph Farah, founder, editor and CEO of the most profoundly wingnutty World Net Daily, has taken credit for the recent resurgence in the profoundly wingnutty "Birth Certificate" conspiracy theory.

In his latest column, Farah is looking for money to continue a national billboard campaign - one where he asks the question "Where's the birth certificate?":

Ask yourself this question: What else, besides this campaign, could possibly have been responsible for the outburst of talk, discussion, debate, controversy, snide comments and media coverage of Barack Obama's eligibility issue in the last five weeks? I think it's clear that this very low-budget media campaign, stifled, as it were, by three of the largest communications companies controlling billboards, has made an enormous and surprising impact on the national debate.

Am I right or wrong about that?

There have been newspaper stories about the campaign. There have been cable TV newscasts about the campaign. There have been talk-radio shows discussing the eligibility issue that have never before broached the topic. The Internet is abuzz with debate.

This was pretty much a dead issue before I launched this billboard campaign. Now it's alive again.

And he's using the issue to, surprise surprise surprise, raise money:

And before I get back to the subject of Barack Obama's birthday, I want to try to set the record straight on a misunderstanding that, I believe, has severely hampered the campaign in recent days.

While it's true that CBS, Clear Channel and Lamar Advertising have all banned this campaign nationwide, that does not spell the end of this effort – far from it. There is no shortage of billboards to acquire for this campaign. There are literally hundreds of thousands available to us through other major providers and through independent companies eager to work with us.

But this misunderstanding that we've somehow been shut out of advertising has resulted in a precipitous drop in contributions toward the billboard campaign. While we have a few more billboards on their way, we've had to stop our aggressive pursuit of more because the money has all but dried up.

Aw, geez.

I know I haven't mentioned this in a while, but World Net Daily actually published this last August:

However, FactChecker.org says it obtained Obama's actual birth certificate and that the document was indeed real. The site discredited some of the claims of Internet bloggers, such as that the certificate as viewed in a scanned copy released by Obama's campaign lacked a raised seal. FactChecker.org also established that many of the alleged flaws in the document noted by bloggers were caused by the scanning of the document.

A separate WND investigation into Obama's birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there.

I forget if Farah has denounced his own website. Does anyone know?

Teh Crazie continues...