Turzai Vs Altmire??

From The Trib's "Whispers" column:

Turzai, R-Bradford Woods, the House minority whip, reportedly is considering challenging U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire, D-McCandless, for the 4th Congressional District seat next year.

The National Republican Congressional Committee has had discussions with Turzai about running against Altmire, the Washington, D.C., newspaper Roll Call reported.

Turzai, spotted at the NRCC annual dinner last month, thus far has declined to discuss the report.

So who's Mike Turzai?

He won State Senate Orie's House seat easily in 2001:

Republican Mike Turzai was the comfortable winner over Thomas Dancison in yesterday's special election to fill a vacant North Hills seat in the state House.

The victory, by the impressive if not unexpected margin of more than 3-to-1, was a political resurrection for the Bradford Woods lawyer, who was buried in a landslide in a well-funded attempt to oust former U.S. Rep. Ron Klink from his 4th District congressional seat in 1998.

Via Votesmart.org, he's been given an "ANTI" rating from Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania while the Commonwealth Foundation gives him a score of 89 and the NRA Political Victory Fund gave him an A.

This Just In...

Via e-mail:

The 14th Ward Independent Democratic Club has endorsed Pittsburgh City Councilman Patrick Dowd for Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh.

All three Democratic mayoral candidates—Dowd, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and Carmen Robinson—spoke to club members and answered questions at the club's annual endorsement meeting today at the Schenley Park Ice Skating Rink.

What's this "club" you ask? Here's some info:

The Club, which is not affiliated with the Democratic Committee of Allegheny County, is the oldest independent Democratic club in the country. Its endorsements are printed in a Voters Guide and mailed to likely Democratic voters in the ward. The endorsements are also posted at the club's website.

The rest of the endorsements (Corrected List):

Allegheny County Sheriff

Bill Mullen

City Council

District 8

William Peduto

School Board

District 1

Sharene Shealey

District 5

No Endorsement

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice

Jack Panella

Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge

Anne E. Lazarus

John Younge

Kevin Francis McCarthy

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge

Linda S. Judson

Barbaba Behrend Ernsberger

Court of Common Pleas Judge

Susan Evashavik Dilucente

Joe Williams

Alex Bicket

Hugh Fitzpatrick McGough

Just in...

UPDATE: An astute reader e-mailed me to let me know that the link I provided to the 14th Ward Independent Democratic Club was incorrect (it's correct now) and the list of endorsees was incorrect (that's been corrected too). In my defense, I took everything from the press release sent to me.

Jack Kelly Sunday

Amazing. A mea culpa (of sorts) in this week's column.

In a follow up to last week's column.

First let me clear up some relatively minor spin on Jack's part. In setting some chronological context to last week's events taking place off the coast of Somalia, Jack quotes this column by Gerald Warner at the Telegraph in the UK:

Mr. Warner was particularly scornful of the president's tepid response to North Korea's provocative launch of a Taepodong 2 rocket, which conceivably could deliver a nuclear warhead to targets in Alaska:

"America had Aegis destroyers tracking the missile and could have shot it down," Mr. Warner wrote. "But Uncle Sam had a sterner reprisal in store for lil ole Kim (Jong Il, North Korea's dictator). A multi-megaton strike of Obama hot air ... Watch out, France and Co., there is a new surrender monkey on the block."

Others, perturbed by the administration's announcement of proposed cuts in ballistic missile defense in the immediate aftermath of the North Korean provocation, expressed the same sentiment in gentler terms.

Actually Warner put it this way:

President Pantywaist is hopping mad and he has a strategy to cut Kim down to size: he is going to slice $1.4bn off America's missile defence programme, presumably on the calculation that Kim would feel it unsporting to hit a sitting duck, so that will spoil his fun.

Except that both Jack and Gerald have it wrong. From Secretary Gates' press conference discussing his budgetary recommendations:

Fourth, in the area of missile defense, we will restructure the program to focus on the rogue state and theater missile threat. We will not increase the number of current ground-based interceptors in Alaska, as had been planned, but we will continue to robustly fund continued research and development to improve the capability we already have to defend against long-range rogue missile threats, a threat North Korea's missile launch this past weekend reminds us is real.

So while the budget for overall missile defense is set to decrease by $1.4 billion, they're continuing the funding R&D to improve current capabilities defending against...which rogue state?

North Korea.

Huh. Well that's more or less the exact opposite of what Jack and Gerald wanted you to think isn't it?

Now on to the kinda sorta mea culpa. Jack writes:

As the crisis dragged on and the lifeboat containing the pirates and their hostage drew ever closer to the Somali shore, many -- myself among them -- feared the president's reluctance to use force would result in another humiliation for the United States, akin to that we suffered when Iranian Islamists seized our embassy in Tehran during the Carter administration. But the president had authorized the use of deadly force if the on-scene commander should determine that Capt. Phillips' life was in "imminent" danger. [emphasis added]

That's about as close as you're gonna get to Jack saying he got something wrong. But then he steps in it again:

After the fact, some Obama aides and his sycophants in the news media are pretending the president was more actively involved in the rescue than in fact he was. All Mr. Obama did was to assent to standard operating procedure that every American president save Jimmy Carter and perhaps Bill Clinton would have followed.

So how involved WAS the Obama White House (if not Obama himself) with the standoff? Here's the AP:

A timeline provided by the White House showed he issued the orders to use force at 8 p.m. Friday, and again at 9:20 a.m. Saturday, after new Navy forces moved on to the scene. In both cases, he was first briefed by the National Security Council for an update on the situation.

The timeline suggests that planning for the rescue mission intensified Saturday evening, as the National Security Council updated Obama on “planning for hostage contingencies” at 6:30 p.m. At 12:30 p.m. Sunday, Obama received an update on “action leading to the rescue of Captain Phillips.” He called Phillips about 4 p.m. Sunday.

And something from the "sycophants" at the Washington Post:

Throughout the past four days, White House officials played down Obama's role in the hostage drama. Until yesterday, he made no public statements about the pirates.

In fact, aides said yesterday, Obama had been briefed 17 times since he returned from his trip abroad, including several times from the White House Situation Room. And without giving too many details, senior White House officials made it clear that Obama had provided the authority for the rescue.

Then Jack goes and says something like this:

The praise should be given to the on-scene commander, Frank Castellano, skipper of the USS Bainbridge, who determined that the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger -- a determination which coincided with the first time the Navy SEAL snipers on the fantail had clear shots at all three pirates -- and authorized the use of deadly force. Praise, too, of course, to the SEALs who made those remarkable shots.

Though President Obama was the beneficiary, not the instigator, of Cmdr. Castellano's decisiveness, many conservatives are unwilling to give him any credit at all. This is unfair and untrue. Mr. Obama did not stand in the way of the use of deadly force, as Jimmy Carter might have. And Mr. Obama's behavior throughout was presidential. He was right not to make public statements about the crisis while negotiations were ongoing. And the statement he issued after the successful rescue gave proper credit to the Navy personnel who were responsible.

But what's this about "As Jimmy Carter might have"? Granted Operation Eagle Claw failed (miserably) and that failure tainted Carter's reputation, but didn't Carter order it?

So what's all this about how Carter "might have" stood in the way of the use of deadly force?

Torture. Waterboarding. Disgusting.

Emptywheel is reporting:

According to the May 30, 2005 Bradbury memo, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003 and Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002.

From page 37 of the memo:

The CIA used the waterboard "at least 83 times during August 2002" in the interrogation of Zubaydah. IG Report at 90, and 183 times during March 2003 in the interrogation of KSM, see id. at 91.

And sums it up:

The CIA wants you to believe waterboarding is effective. Yet somehow, it took them 183 applications of the waterboard in a one month period to get what they claimed was cooperation out of KSM.

That doesn't sound very effective to me.

It's been public knowledge for sometime that President Obama won't be prosecuting the CIA officials who did the waterboarding.

But as Richard Kim of The Nation points out:

However politically expedient, Obama's nearly carte blanche absolution of torture was morally wrong, and his justification of it, from a professor of constitutional law, is intellectually dishonest.

It's also, it seems, a violation of international law itself. From the BBC:

The UN special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, says the US is bound under the UN Convention against Torture to prosecute those who engage in it.

Nowak goes on:

The United States, like all other states that are part of the UN convention against torture, is committed to conducting criminal investigations of torture and to bringing all persons against whom there is sound evidence to court.

As Kim points out, Obama's explanation:

In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution.

Just doesn't hold stand up to scrutiny:

Obama's argument here is gravely disturbing. He asserts, in essence, that because the OLC says it is right, it is--that CIA agents should have absolute confidence in anything and everything approved by the OLC and/or ordered by the executive branch.

Even if it's against the law - including UN Convention against Torture, where Article 2 states:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. 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.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

(Signed by Ronald Reagan in 1988, ratified in the Senate, 1994 - so according to Article VI of the Constitution, it's the law.)

Kim goes on:

Of course, higher-ups who ordered and sanctioned torture should be prosecuted as well, including the authors of the OLC memos. But that does not mean that the actual interrogators should be let off the hook en masse. Whether or not CIA interrogators should have refused orders or should have known that such orders were legally or morally wrong is a matter to be determined in trial, a matter of justice. It is not a question that can be swept away by the claim that they were just doing their jobs, that they were just being obedient subjects.

From the New York Times editorial board:

After all, as far as Mr. Bush’s lawyers were concerned, it was not really torture unless it involved breaking bones, burning flesh or pulling teeth. That, Mr. Bybee kept noting, was what the Libyan secret police did to one prisoner. The standard for American behavior should be a lot higher than that of the Libyan secret police.

At least Mr. Obama is not following Mr. Bush’s example of showy trials for the small fry — like Lynndie England of Abu Ghraib notoriety. But he has an obligation to pursue what is clear evidence of a government policy sanctioning the torture and abuse of prisoners — in violation of international law and the Constitution.

Investigate and prosecute the war crimes, Mr President. It's the law.

And it's the right thing to do.

The President Today

The text.

More On Chuck McCullough

You remember Chuck McCullough, right?

One time member of the Allegheny County Council and beneficiary of God's electoral largess who was arrested and charged with financial mismanagement?

There's more of the story in today's P-G.

I am not sure exactly what charges McCullough is facing (I'm not a lawyer - though when I was a lad, I served a term washing windows at an attorney's firm - but that didn't work out. Go figure.) but I think we might be able to add a few to the list.

I'll let Malloy of the P-G explain:

Italo V. Mackin, president and CEO of Mackin Engineering, testified that when Ms. McCullough handled the finances and accounting for the company, she wrote more than $1 million worth of checks to herself, primarily to pay bills for her American Express card that were as high as $94,000 for a month. Mr. Mackin said he did not authorize the payments.

Mr. Mackin said he fired Ms. McCullough on a Friday in July 2006 once he learned she had been making unauthorized payments to herself. The following Monday, he said, Charles McCullough and an attorney were in his office. They met privately with Mackin vice president Jerome Schwertz.

After the private meeting, Mr. Mackin said, Mr. McCullough told him that Mr. Schwertz was having an affair with Ms. McCullough and he had authorized the payments. "She will not be paying the money back," Mr. McCullough said, according to Mr. Mackin.

Then the parties drew up a confidentiality agreement that neither side would press criminal charges or sue. Mr. Mackin said he did so to protect his family and prevent the affair from becoming public. Mr. Schwertz is married to Mr. Mackin's daughter.

I wonder if McCullough ever had one of those WWJD wrist bands. And if he did I wonder if he ever was able to conclude from the Beatitudes that Jesus thought it OK to draw up a confidentiality agreement to cover the sins of adultery and theft.

I mean, McCullough did say that God had a hand in his election. Does he also think that God had a hand in his extortion?

Fred Honsberger Gets It Wrong...

And asks the wrong questions.

Fred's facebook announcement regarding today's radio show:

Is putting a bug in a room with a terrorist torture? The president thinks so. He's released the CIA "torture memos"...has this hurt the country?

From the get-go, Fred's got it wrong. Here's what he's talking about. In one of those torture memos (and we're happy Fred recognizes that we're talking torture here - at least I hope he recognizes that it was torture), specifically this memo written August 1, 2002. The memo was written as a response to a request by John Rizzo, then Acting General Counsel of the CIA. Rizzo evidently inquired whether a number of interrogation techniques would violate Section 2340A of title 18 of the US Code. Ninth on the list we find:

(9) insects placed in a confinement box

In a confinement box, Fred. Not "in a room." Here's what the memo says about "cramped confinement:

Cramped confinement involves the placement of the individual in a confined space, the dimensions of which restrict the individual's movement. The confined space is usually dark.

The duration of confinement varies based upon the size of the container. For the larger confined space, the individual can stand up or sit down; the smaller space is large enough for the subject to sit down. Confinement in the larger space can last up to eighteen hours; for the smaller space, confinement last for no more than two hours.

So Fred's imagery is misleading at best and if he knew what the memo actually said,he's just being plain dishonest.

But while we're at it, let's take a closer look at title 18 - specifically the definition of torture found there. It starts:

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control

It then goes on to further define "severe mental pain or suffering" as prolonged mental harm caused by (in this instance):

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

Now let's go take a look at the memo. We see what the CIA wanted to do (page 3):

You would like to place Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box with an insect. You have informed us that he appears to have a fear of insects. In particular, you would like to tell Zubaydah that you intend to place a stinging insect into the box with him. You would, however, place a harmless insect in the box.

And Bybee's advice (page 14):

In addition to using the confinement boxes alone, you also would like to introduce an insect into on of the boxes with Zubaydah. As we understand it, you plan to inform Zubaydah that you are going to place a stinging insect into the box, but you will actually place a harmless insect in the box, such as a caterpillar. If you do so, to ensure that you are outside the predicate act requirement, you must inform him that the insects will not have a sting that would produce death or severe pain. If, however, you were to place the insect in the box without informing him that you are doing so, then, in order to commit a predicate act, you should not affirmatively lead him to believe any insect is present which has a sting that could produce severe pain or suffering or even cause his death [redacted material] so long as you take either of the approaches we have described, the insects’ placement in the box would not constitute a threat of severe physical pain or suffering to a reasonable person in this position. An individual placed in a box, even an individual with a fear of insects, would not reasonably feel threatened with severe physical pain or suffering if a caterpillar was placed in the box.

So putting a man (one with an irrational fear of insects) in a confinement box with a harmless insect, as long as you don't lead him to believe:

1) that an insect is present (presumably hoping he'll discover it himself) or
2) that the insect will cause "severe physical pain" or death

isn't torture, so sayeth the Bush Administration.

However if the fear is irrational, you wouldn't need to inform him of the "danger" of the insect. He'll already believe it. The end result is the same. And they knew that. What's the whole point.

All of this, of course, is besides the point - as weighed against Fred's rhetorical question:

has this hurt the country?

The damage there has already been done. Torture has already been shown to have occurred.

The Red Cross said so:

The allegations of ill-treatment of the detainees indicate that, in many cases, the ill-treatment to which they were subjected while held in the CIA program, either singly or in combination, constituted torture. In addition, many other elements of the ill-treatment, either singly or in combination, constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

By attempting to divert attention to "a bug in a room" Fred is doing a disservice to his audience and the truth.

Blogroll Update

These blogs have been added to 2pj's local political blogroll:

after the bridge (Because Sherry now blogs about politics as much as she blogs about poetry and because as someone put it "Sherry is at the epicenter of the 'Burghosphere")
http://www.afterthebridge.blogspot.com/

Pgh is a City
http://pghisacity.blogspot.com/

Pop City
http://www.popcitymedia.com/

The Huddler
http://thehuddler.blogspot.com/

The Radical Middle (Chad Hermann's P-G gig)
http://community.post-gazette.com/blogs/radicalmiddle/default.aspx

thoughts on government...and other stuff (Another Schultz blog)
http://techandpolitics.blogspot.com/

View from the Burghchair
http://burghchair.blogspot.com/

.

Mad Hatters at the Tea Party

Alice felt dreadfully puzzled. The Hatter's remark seemed to have no sort of meaning in it, and yet it was certainly English. `I don't quite understand you,' she said, as politely as she could.

`At any rate I'll never go there again!' said Alice as she picked her way through the wood. `It's the stupidest tea-party I ever was at in all my life!'

"Tea Parties" were held yesterday across the nation and Pittsburgh was no exception (despite the fact that there already was a Tea Party here just last Saturday). The Other Political Junkie has posted on this phenomenon but I thought now was a good time for a review.

The Message

Ostensibly these Tea Parties are protests against taxation and big government spending. Their basis is the Boston Tea Party of 1773 which was of course a protest against taxation without representation. The participants in these Tea Parties are protesting taxation with representation. It's just the wrong representation I guess as there were no nationwide Tea Parties while Bush squandered Clinton's $236 billion surplus in his first year in office and then managed to leave a $482 billion deficit in his wake and a broken economy.

Then there's the irony of people protesting taxes who just got a tax cut -- how many of these folks do you really think make $250,000+ a year? And, how angry do they get when faced with reality?

The Tea Parties are also being presented as bipartisan events ("was neutral in any perceived attack on a particular party or politician"). Perhaps that's why Robert Baehr (Founder/Coordinator of PennsylvaniaTeaParty.com ) felt it necessary to recently take down the Obama morphing into The Terminator graphic (complete with terminator theme music) from his web site. Fortunately, I captured a screen shot of it only two days ago:


Bipartisan, my ass!

The Players

While I'm sure there were many genuine grassroots-type anti-tax activists in attendance, there is no doubt that "the principle organizers of the local events are actually the lobbyist-run think tanks Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works. The two groups are heavily staffed and well funded, and are providing all the logistical and public relations work necessary for planning coast-to-coast protests."

On top of that, you have FOX News which both heavily promoted the events and participated in them:





The Subtext

So no one really likes to pay taxes and most folks dislike "big" government and have some reservation about the bailouts (though the Left would define "big" with such actions as, say, spying on the citizenry and denying women autonomy over their own bodies and the Right with things like taxation and gun control) so what's the problem?

As Atrios put it today:

All fun aside, there's obviously nothing wrong with the right attempting to engage in protest politics. The problem is that it was never clear what they were protesting. So far Obama has cut taxes for most of the population and... well, that's it. The protests of "The Left" have long been mocked for lacking message discipline. That criticism has often been fair. The difference is that our side's protests generally have a single point ("don't do this stupid fucking war in Iraq") which gets hijacked by a bunch of other causes when the speakers hit the stage. But the teabaggers... honestly, I still have no idea what it was about. I mean, I know it was about tribal allegiance against Barack Mumia Saddam Obama III. But it wasn't actually about anything else.

I have to say that I agree with him on the Obama Derangement Syndrome part. Here are some signs from yesterday's protests:


Here's a video of delusional wingnuts from a Cleveland Tea Party a couple of months ago:



And, then there's this bit from the Saturday Pittsburgh Tea Party where Alan Keyes compared the Obama team to Al-Qaeda:

We have had foreign enemies who have sought to terrorize us with attacks, and we have domestic enemies who seek to terrorize us with economic collapse.

And works its way to a vision in which we are being led

happily into the slaughter pens where we shall go from being proud citiziens of the United States, fearing no one but our God, to being the subjects of a government where we must fear its every shadow.

But maybe Philly being far from Pittsburgh, Atrios is too far from seeing the broader picture: the Tea Parties aren't just about hatred and fear of Obama, they are about that deep, dark, ugly strain of America who hates government itself, fears anyone who is not like them, find conspiracies around every corner and see themselves as victims (but who only play at being martyers with their little tea bags vs. colonists who actually put their lives and liberty on the line).

As Chris Potter put it at his Slag Heap blog:

Let's recall that one week to the day before Keyes gave his little pep-talk, three Pittsburgh police officers were gunned down -- apparently by a guy who thought the government was going to take away his guns. It is in this context, in this city, that Keyes chose to praise his audience as a group in which "every individual is an army empowered by their faith in God."

I'm willing to bet that's how many lone gunmen see themselves. Especially the ones who would admire this line from Keyes' speech:

[N]ever as long as we have breath [will we] surrender the instruments with which we can defend [our] liberty against the depradations of a government no longer committed to it.

Make no mistake: I'm not suggesting that Keyes is encouraging people to go shoot cops. (His political program, such as it is, seems to involve "throwing the bums out" -- voting against every incumbent in 2010.) Nor would he be responsible if one of his audience later goes out and does just that. But Keyes talked quite a bit about how "liberty" wasn't all about doing whatever you wanted -- at least not when it applied to things like gay marriage. Maybe a word about the moral obligations of gun ownership would have been in order?

If you're in a city still grieving from a terrible shooting, you might want to think the se things through. If only to show you actually give a damn about the city you happened to parachute into that morning with your rantings. This is almost like Charlton Heston showing up in Littleton, Colorado to do the NRA "not from my cold, dead hands" shtick after the Columbine shootings.

What does it say when you don't have to go to skinhead web sites to hear these rants, when you can hear them at rallies across the country or pimped on FOX News or just listen to the batshit crazy rants of an elected official like Rep. Michele Bachmann who wants people to be "armed and dangerous," who rants about Obama's reducation camps for kids, calls for the major newspapers of the country to investigate other members of Congress to "find out if they are pro-America or anti-America" and feels like she's a "foreign correspondent on enemy lines" when in the nation's Capitol or Rep. Spencer Bachus, an Alabama Republican, told a Birmingham paper that there were 17 socialists in Congress?

Undoubtedly, someone can easily Google up a picture of Bush portrayed as Hitler from some Left rally, but there is a difference between the Left and the Right. For one, when the Left claimed that Bush cherry-picked intelligence or spied on citizens or tortured prisoners, they were proven right. More importantly, when they asked for redress, they called for impeachment or war crime trials -- legal remedies. The right is throwing red meat with talk of revolution and some coming storm and the need to keep their AK's.

If there's any doubt just how far they've gone, one only needs to see their mouthpieces willingly self-identify with extremists and terrorists all the way down to local radio personality Fred Honsberger who according to his Facebook message claims that our government thinks that you might be a home grown terrorist if: "you're a returning war vet, you ascribe to "radical" Christian views, you're against abortion, you have a Ron Paul bumper sticker on your car."

The Joke

But before we settle into a deep depression over the ugliness and lies of the Tea Parties, let's remember that wingnuts seem to have never heard of teh google and did not know that teabagging refers to a specific sexual act. So when you see things like this:






Remember that it means this:


And, laugh your ass off at them (but remember to breath through your nose):


.

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment.

Thursday Night, April 16.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Text.

Prosecute the war crimes. Investigate and prosecute. The war crimes.

At A Florida Tea Party Yesterday

When faced with the facts, the crowd boos.

Loudly.

Your Chance!

From Bob The Busman:

Next Monday night from 7 to 8 PM, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, Councilman Patrick Dowd, and attorney Carmen Robinson meet in their first debate. I'll be on the panel of reporters asking questions of the three candidates in Pittsburgh's Democratic primary for mayor.

I want to hear what issues you think the candidates should address. You can e-mail me directly at bobmayo4 at gmail.com. I know many readers and bloggers here in the Burghosphere -- Pittsburgh's blogosphere -- follow Pittsburgh politics and government with a passion. Now's your chance to help shape the debate -- tell me what topics we should take on. You can even send along links or background, if you'd like.

WTAE-TV's also inviting viewers to submit your own questions via video or e-mail.

Pittsburgh City Tax Filing Deadline Delay Proposal Made by Peduto & Shields

So it's April 16th and you hopefully already filed all your taxes, but if you tried to file online for Pittsburgh city taxes you probably met with a glitch.

According to Pittsburgh's own Glimmer Twins:

Due to recent technical problems, the PGH 40 online filing system on the Department of Finance’s website has been down regularly for at least the last 12 days. Numerous residents have reached out to City Council for help during this time.

“The City instructed residents that online filing of the PGH 40 tax return would be an option this year, but challenges with technology have not made this possible,” Peduto said. “It is only fair that we give residents an extension on this filing.”

Councilmen Peduto and Shields will introduce legislation at City Council’s Tuesday meeting to officially extend the deadline for this year.

Procrastinators (and those without access to paper & pen) rejoice!
.

EVENTS!

April 16, 2009

Susan Banahasky for Magistrate Benefit
Host: Banahasky for District Magistrate
Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009
Time: 5:30pm - 7:30pm
Location: Coca Cafe
Street: 3811 Butler Street
City/Town: Pittsburgh, PA 15201

Description:
Lawrenceville, Polish Hill & Bloomfield for Banahasky. Please join us in support of Susan Banahasky Candidate for District Magistrate. Suggested Contribution: $25, $50, $100. Please join us for drinks and appetizers @ Coca Café. Please RSVP to Aaron Sukenik at aaron@susanformagistrate.com or (412) 452-8823. Checks Made Payable to: Friends for Susan Banahasky. This is Susan's only fundraising event. If you can't make it, please contribute @ http://susanformagistrate.com/donate


April 17th, 2009

Carmen Robinson Appearance
Date: Friday, April 17, 2009
Time: 5:00pm - 8:00pm
Location: Sisters Beauty Supply
Street: 100 5th Ave
City/Town: Downtown Pittsburgh, PA

Description:
Carmen Robinson for Mayor. Public Appearance. http://carmenformayor.com/


April 19, 2009

McGough4Judge "30 Day Rally to Win" with Lenora Nemetz & Billy Price
Host: Hugh McGough
Date: Sunday, April 19, 2009
Time: 3:00pm - 5:00pm
Location: Pgh Center for the Arts (Shadyside)
Street: 5th & Shady Aves
City/Town: Pittsburgh, PA

Description:
The McGough for Judge Committee Invites You To A "30 Day Rally to Win" @ Pittsburgh Center for the Arts in Shadyside. Special Musical Appearances by Lenora Nemetz & Billy Price. RSVP: Campaign@mcgough4judge.com or 412-441-7677. In this last month, we need to hit the streets, get on the phones and help Hugh spread his message of integrity, ability, experience and excellence to the voters of Allegheny County. But before we put on our running shoes, we want to gather together, celebrate and show our support for Hugh. There will be refreshments, incredible music, and of course, the best candidate for Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, Hugh Fitzpatrick McGough. http://www.mcgough4judge.com/


April 20, 2009

Steel-City Stonewall Democrats Mayoral Debate Party
Host: Steel-City Stonewall Democrats
Date: Monday, April 20, 2009
Time: 6:30pm - 8:00pm
Location: There Video Lounge
Street: 931 Liberty Ave.
City/Town: Pittsburgh, PA

Description:
The April 15th KDKA Mayoral Debate has been canceled. So, we will be moving the Debate Party to the 20th of April when the local ABC affiliate WTAE has scheduled a debate to be aired between 7 PM & 8 PM. All 3 candidates (City Councilman Patrick Dowd, Mayor Ravenstahl, & Carmen Robinson) will be participating in the debate. Free food & pizza. RSVP: lance@steel-city.org or 412-728-5262.


April 21, 2009

P2 Happy Hour: Endorsement Excitement!
Host: P2pac
Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Time: 6:00pm - 8:00pm
Location: 900 Cafe & Lounge
Street: 900 Western Avenue
City/Town: Pittsburgh, PA

Description:
Please join P2pac as it unveils its first group of endorsed candidates ever! The evening at 900 Cafe & Lounge will include P2tini's, good conversation, and the annoucement of who the P2pac has chosen to endorse for the May 19th primary election. Come and bring your friends for some politics and cocktails on the Northside. A $10 contribution is suggested; all funds raised at this event will go directly to support endorsed candidates. 900 Cafe & Lounge is a non-smoking establishment. It is accessible by the following buses: 16A, 16D, and 500. Phone: 412-586-7794


April 27, 2009

A Taste of Thailand: Fundraiser for Patrick Dowd
A delicious way to bring leadership now to Pittsburgh
Host: Patrick Dowd for Mayor of Pittsburgh
Date: Monday, April 27, 2009
Time: 6:30pm - 8:30pm
Location: Silk Elephant
Street: 1710 Murray Ave
City/Town: Pittsburgh, PA

Description:
Join us as we support Patrick Dowd and enjoy Thai Music & Dancing, Thai Cooking Demonstration and Thai Food (Tapas, Noodles and Salad Stations). Tickets: Adults $35, Students $20, Children (3-14 years old) $10. Please reserve tickets at:
https://co.clickandpledge.com/sp/d1/default.aspx?wid=25673 Instructions:
Enter your total ticket amount in Step 1 in the "Other" Box. In Step 3, complete contact information and enter "SILK" as event code. Please contact Anne McCafferty at 412-760-5337 with any questions.


May 2, 2009

An Evening with Braddock Mayor John Fetterman and Patrick Dowd
Host: John Fetterman, Chris Schultz, and the rest of the Host Committee
Date: Saturday, May 2, 2009
Time: 8:00pm - 10:00pm
Location: Braddock’s Elks Lodge 883
Street: 420 Library Street
City/Town: Braddock, PA

Description:
John Fetterman, Mayor of Braddock, invites you to a party to benefit the Patrick Dowd for Pittsburgh campaign. Join the current mayor of Braddock and future mayor of Pittsburgh for a fun night of music by Zombo, food and more. Suggested donation is $20 per person. Checks are payable to Citizens for Patrick Dowd. You can also donate online at http://dowdformayor.com/ Please include code “fetterman” on the check or on-line donation event code field. Host Committee: Regina Anderson, Randy Francisco, Robert Hampshire, Jodi Hirsh, Kevin Gannon, Dutch MacDonald, Betsy Magley, Christian Manders, Nathan Martin, Lindsay Patross, Eve Picker, Kathy Risko, Chris Schultz, Justin Strong, Hon. Chelsa Wagner, Abby Wilson. Email: eve@nowall.com


Other Candidates who can use your $ & shoe leather:

Georgia Blotzer, Pittsburgh City Council District 2
http://www.georgiaforcouncil.com/

Natalia Rudiak, Pittsburgh City Council District 4
http://nataliarudiak.com/
.

Call for Balance on Gov. Rendell’s Oversight Committee

If you've been reading the Pittsburgh Women's Blogging Society (here and here), you know that PA Gov. Ed Rendell recently created an Oversight Commission to monitor stimulus spending. There are 14 members and of those 14 there's only one woman member and one minority member.

In about a half hour, there will be press conference at the United Steelworkers building hosted by State Rep. Chelsa Wagner to insist that the committee be geographically, racially, and gender balanced. Others scheduled to speak on this issue include State Rep. Jake Wheatley, 19th District; Heather Arnet, Women and Girls Foundation; and Doris Carson Williams, African-American Chamber of Commerce.

According to Wagner, “Allegheny County easily has the second largest population in the state, but has zero representatives on the Oversight Commission.”

Hey! Even if you're one of our trolls who doesn't care about racial or gender makeup, you might be peeved that your piece of the state is not being represented.

Please contact Rendell and let him know that you're not happy with the composition of this board:

Governor Rendell's Office
225 Main Capitol Building
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
Phone: (717) 787-2500
Fax: (717) 772-8284
http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Governor/govmail.html
.

Playing The Trib's Game

On Climate Change.

The anti-scientific "no global warming" crowd tends to argue their point this way: They produce some sort of "dissent" to undermine any notion of scientific consensus. That way they can turn around and say that since the "consensus" is absent, the conclusions must also be wrong.

But does that work in the opposite direction?

Let's see.

In today's Tribune review, the good folks on DickieCougarMellonScaife's editorial board wrote this:

Speaking of cluckers, global warming alarmists might have a difficult time explaining the conclusions of noted Harvard astrophysicist Willie Soon. The researcher tells The Harvard Crimson that most observed climate data can be explained by fluctuations in solar radiation. That is, sunspot activity, not carbon dioxide, is responsible for the Earth's cyclical warming and cooling. What's Chicken Little to do?

But what of this astrophysicist? And what of his explanations? Any scientific consensus on the validity of his data?

Um, no.

The most recent (remember that phrase) article in the Harvard Crimson says:

Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory, who offered the hypothesis in an interview with TG Daily, an online news source.

This isn't the first time the Harvard Crimson has published a story about Professor Soon. Take a look at this:

A study by two Harvard researchers quietly published last January in a small research journal has set off a political storm that has led to debate on the senate floor and internal wrangling at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The study, co-authored by two scientists at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, concluded that the 20th century has been neither the warmest century of the past millennium nor the one with the most extreme weather.

Disbelievers in global warming—the widely-accepted scientific theory that the earth has grown incrementally hotter over the past century, in large part due to pollution—have used the study to bolster their case.

The date of this article?

September 12, 2003

Nearly 6 years ago. This story is not new.

And what of Soon's background? The Crimson's got something on that, too:

But a large number of scientists have criticized the study’s methods and pointed to ties between the oil industry and the study’s authors, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.

Approximately 5 percent of the study’s funding—about $53,000 in all—came from the American Petroleum Institute, the gas and oil industry’s main trade organization.

Both Soon and Baliunas are paid consultants for the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington non-profit organization that opposes limits on carbon dioxide emissions.

That's not promising. They're tied to the American Petroleum Institute and the George C. Marshall institute? Huh. Who'da guessed? But what about the scientific consensus on Soon's study?

Four editors have resigned from Climate Research, the small journal that initially published the study. According to The New York Times, even the publisher of the journal, Otto Kinne, has criticized the study.

“I have not stood behind the paper by Soon and Baliunas,” Kinne said, according to the Times. “Indeed: the reviewers failed to detect methodological flaws.”

2003 - six years ago. This is not a new story.

Maybe NOW...Investigate?

From the New York Times:

The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews.

Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional.

Though it seems there is some scrutiny:

The legal and operational problems surrounding the N.S.A.’s surveillance activities have come under scrutiny from the Obama administration, Congressional intelligence committees and a secret national security court, said the intelligence officials, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because N.S.A. activities are classified. Classified government briefings have been held in recent weeks in response to a brewing controversy that some officials worry could damage the credibility of legitimate intelligence-gathering efforts.

Here's the kicker to the story:

While the N.S.A.’s operations in recent months have come under examination, new details are also emerging about earlier domestic-surveillance activities, including the agency’s attempt to wiretap a member of Congress, without court approval, on an overseas trip, current and former intelligence officials said. [emphasis added]

There's more to this:

The agency believed that the congressman, whose identity could not be determined, was in contact — as part of a Congressional delegation to the Middle East in 2005 or 2006 — with an extremist who had possible terrorist ties and was already under surveillance, the official said. The agency then sought to eavesdrop on the congressman’s conversations, the official said.

The official said the plan was ultimately blocked because of concerns from some intelligence officials about using the N.S.A., without court oversight, to spy on a member of Congress.

Kevin Drum at Mother Jones says of this:

Jesus. If a member of Congress isn't a "United States person" protected from warrantless surveillance by every version of FISA that's ever been on the books, who is? Shouldn't this have set off alarm bells at every possible level at NSA, rather than merely being "ultimately blocked" because "some" officials had "concerns" about it?

SILVER LINING UPDATE: Looking on the bright side, maybe this will finally motivate Congress to take NSA surveillance more seriously. Having one of their own members come within a hair's breadth of being an NSA target ought to concentrate their minds wonderfully, if anything will.

Some more details from the Times:

Officials would not discuss details of the overcollection problem because it involves classified intelligence-gathering techniques. But the issue appears focused in part on technical problems in the N.S.A.’s ability at times to distinguish between communications inside the United States and those overseas as it uses its access to American telecommunications companies’ fiber-optic lines and its own spy satellites to intercept millions of calls and e-mail messages.

One official said that led the agency to inadvertently “target” groups of Americans and collect their domestic communications without proper court authority. Officials are still trying to determine how many violations may have occurred.

The overcollection problems appear to have been uncovered as part of a twice-annual certification that the Justice Department and the director of national intelligence are required to give to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on the protocols that the N.S.A. is using in wiretapping. That review, officials said, began in the waning days of the Bush administration and was continued by the Obama administration. It led intelligence officials to realize that the N.S.A. was improperly capturing information involving significant amounts of American traffic.

And:

Separate from the new inquiries, the Justice Department has for more than two years been investigating aspects of the N.S.A.’s wiretapping program.

As part of that investigation, a senior F.B.I. agent recently came forward with what the inspector general’s office described as accusations of “significant misconduct” in the surveillance program, people with knowledge of the investigation said. Those accusations are said to involve whether the N.S.A. made Americans targets in eavesdropping operations based on insufficient evidence tying them to terrorism.

Your tax dollars at work.

A Brief Pintek Note

From Mike Pintek's facebook:

American Legion Commander protests Obama Administration classifying Vets as potential Terror Threats

Presumably the discussion revolves around the DHS report I blogged on this morning.

Turns out that Fox "News" reported that the report was requested by the Bush administration.

Mediamatters.org takes apart Joe Scarborough on a similar charge:

Joe Scarborough distorted a DHS intelligence assessment to allege the Obama administration is warning that returning war veterans "are to be feared." In fact, the assessment, citing a Bush administration report, warned of a possible resurgence among extremist groups that "will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans."

They explain further:

In fact, the document, issued to law enforcement officials, warned of a possible resurgence among extremist groups that "will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat." The assessment further stated: "The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today." DHS cited a 2008 FBI report -- authored during the Bush administration -- as evidence that "some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups."

So tell me again how the Obama administration is classifying vets as terror threats?

The Trib Editorial Board Spins. Again.

This time it's on the DHS Report on the rise of Right-Wing extremism. Not surprisingly, they call it "sick and unacceptable."

You can read (for yourself - no need to depend on DickieCougarMellonScaife's editorial board) the report here.

The Trib's tsouris:

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security in an April 7 memo to police and sheriff departments across the nation warned of an increase in "right-wing extremist activity." Included among its generic rogue's list of "extremists" -- groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority, reports The Washington Times.

Yes, you read that correctly. Your federal government considers the concept of federalism -- the palladium of republican government -- to be "extremist."

Let's take a look at that Washington Times article, shall we? The part latched onto by the board is this passage:

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

Oy vey! All this kvetching about a footnote? Let's go to the 9 page report and see it (bottom of page 2, if you're following at home):

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

See what the Trib's editorial board did? Starting from a footnote (and I still chuckle that they're fixated on a footnote in a 9 page report) regarding the underlying ideologies of "rightwing extremism", they conflate those ideologies with the extremism itself and claim that DHS is saying that any one who's a "federalist" is an "extremist."

The board doesn't seem to realize that an extremist group is still extremist regardless of underlying ideology. Does the fact that a great many Americans call themselves "pro-life" change the fact that Eric Rudolph was a domestic terrorist?

Hardly.

Some of the other stuff left out of the Trib's editorial:

DHS/I&A assesses that a number of economic and political factors are driving a resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization activity. Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years. In addition, the historical election of an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization.

— (U) A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled “one world government.”

Yea, I thought so.

Meh keyn brechen, doncha know.

On Today's Tea Parties

ThinkProgress has the rundown.

Lest you think it's a bottom-up (ie "grass roots") effort, the whole thing is being coordinated by a group called "Freedomworks." And the group has already claimed in a statement released to Fox "News" yesterday a central role in coordination:

We'd like to say we are one of the main driving forces, but we are not THE driving force behind the protests. We're mainly helping activists get in touch with each other.

ThinkProgress has more than enough evidence to show the whole "tea party" movement is astro-turf (ie fake grass):

Today, FreedomWork’s Adam Brandon responded to the criticism that its efforts to organize these anti-Obama protests are ‘astroturf,’ saying that the organization’s work in coordinating and planning the events would be akin to “MoveOn’s model.” However, MoveOn is not run by corporate lobbyists and is funded by actual grassroots activists. On the other hand, the leader of FreedomWorks, Dick Armey, who is ranked as one of DC’s top “hired guns,” is a corporate lobbyist with a history of directing FreedomWorks to support the goals of his lobbying clients.

No matter what the individuals involved may be thinking, that's what's going on today.