Jack Kelly Sunday

It's Sunday and so the P-G's Jack Kelly spins. And is caught in a HUGE mistake.

I am not sure where he's going with this week's column, however. I think it's something about how the media's PC and are unwilling to call a terrorist a terrorist or something like that.

Let's start with the big time mistake. It's been a while since Jack's made a doozy this big and maybe the crack team of Jack fact-checkers over there at the Blvd of the Allies just blinked and missed it. Truth is, they should have checked and they should have called Jack on it. Let's start:

MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer is bummed the man who put a car bomb in Times Square isn't a right winger.

"There was part of me that was hoping that this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country because there are a lot of people who want to use this terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or who come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way," she said on a radio show Tuesday.

Apparently, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg also was bummed to learn the bomber was Faisal Shahzad, 30, a naturalized citizen of Pakistani extraction who is a registered Democrat in Connecticut.

It's in that last sentence. Media Matters has a postmortem on this particular lie. They say it's from the rightwing blog "Rightpundits" and they report that RightPundits has already backtracked on it. But let's start, as they say, at the beginning. At this post at freerepublic.com (time stamped at May 4 12:51 GMT or 8:51 AM Pittsburgh time), we read:

An Islamic terrorist named Faisal Shahzad is the Time Square bomber according to media reports. He is Muslim of Pakistani heritage with dual citizenship in the United States, a registered Democrat in the state of Connecticut who may be an Obama donor.

With a link back to Rightpundits.

If you go to Rightpundits now (Sunday morning at 9:55am) you'll see:

An Islamic terrorist named Faisal Shahzad is the Time Square bomber according to media reports. He is Muslim of Pakistani heritage with dual citizenship in the United States, recently naturalized as a U.S. citizen under the Obama administration’s lenient open door policy. We have been unable to confirm earlier reports of his voter registration status as a Democrat. [emphasis added.]

As the time stamp on the Mediamatters reporting is May 5 at 11:25 AM, we know that sometime in that twenty-one hour time period 4 days ago, Rightpundits backtracked on the story.

And yet Jack is presenting this as a fact this morning. Unless he is in the habit of writing his Sunday column 4 days in advance, Jack Kelly should have known that an important source of this story could not confirm it within a day of its first appearance and that lack of confirmation is still "live."

This may not be as bad as Jack's Van Jones column that got pulled/yanked/erased from the P-G website (but only at the P-G - not the Toledo Blade - and only after this blog deconstructed it) but it's still wrong as wrong can be.

Note to my good friends at the P-G: THIS REQUIRES A CORRECTION/RETRACTION.

ON MONDAY.

But let's look closer at what Theresa Brewer said. When we do we'll see how Jack very subtly misquotes her. First off if you were to listen to what she had to say, you'd hear that she wasn't "bummed" about about the identity of the Time Square (near) bomber. The word she used was "frustrated." Why? What would frustrate her? If the bomber turned out to be Muslim then that might mean more of a backlash against Muslim-Americans. She was not bummed because he was Muslim. Very subtle spin there. But a spin, nonetheless.

Then we get to Mayor Bloomberg.

Jack writes:

On Monday, Mr. Bloomberg told Katie Couric of CBS he thought the bomber was "homegrown, maybe a mentally deranged person or someone with a political agenda who doesn't like the health care bill or something."

Here's how CBS reports it:

Law enforcement officials don't know who left the Nissan Pathfinder behind, but at this point the Mayor believes the suspect acted alone.

"If I had to guess, twenty five cents, this would be exactly that," Bloomberg said. "Homegrown maybe a mentally deranged person or someone with a political agenda that doesn't like the health care bill or something. It could be anything."

As a rhetorical device he was offering an opposite counter-example to foreign terrorism (which would be domestic terrorism.) But in the end he said it "could be anything."

But Jack says the Mayor thought the bomber was a "homegrown." Which is, as it clearly doesn't represent reality, not true.

But the fun doesn't stop. Jack again:

When he learned the truth, Mayor Bloomberg did not apologize for his smear of people who don't like Obamacare. Instead, he smeared the people of New York City.

"We are not going to tolerate any backlash against Middle Easterners or Muslims in New York City," he said.

And, of course, the Mayor's "smear" turns out to be nothing of the sort. This is what the Mayor said:

We will not be intimidated by those who hate the freedoms that make the city and this country so great. The fact that so many people are out and about in Times Square today or just came from really shows that, and I want to make clear that we will not tolerate any bias or backlash against Pakistani or Muslim New Yorkers.

All of us live in this city, and among any group, there's always a few bad apples, but the people that live in the city are proud of the fact that this is the city that gives everybody from every place in the world an opportunity no matter what religion they practice, no matter where they or their parents came from. It's the city where you can practice your religion and say what you want to say and be in charge of your own destiny and we're going to keep it that way.

People from every corner of the world come and live here in the same buildings and the same neighborhoods and that's what makes this the greatest city on earth. We will continue to doing everything we possibly can to protect New Yorkers from terrorist attacks. We have, as you know, built the most comprehensive and sophisticated counter terrorism operation of any local police force in the world.

See the smear? Yea, neither did I. Jack did, though.

And this is just the first few paragraphs. I'd like to continue, but it's Mother's Day and the lovely wife and I have some lovely plans.

Ok - just one more. Jack writes:

[Homeland Security Secretary Janet] Napolitano has virtually banned the use of the word "terror" in her department. But calling an act of terror a "man-caused disaster" doesn't make it go away. It's hard to stop a terrorist if you deny his existence.

Which is , of course, why, when you go to the Homeland Security website, you'll see this page, titled "Responsibilities" and at the top of the list there's:

Guarding Against Terrorism

Yea, she's denying that terrorism exists.

Right.

Yep. THAT Debunks Climate Science!

True to form, the Tribune-Review's editorial board pounces on anything (ANYTHING!) that it can spin to "debunk" the science that shows that the planet's temperature is rising.

Usually they get it wrong and today is no different:

Another wrinkle has surfaced in the United Nations' climate-change "science," disputing the assertion that rising sea levels will leave 17 percent of Bangladesh treading water by 2050.

The 2007 climate report to the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fails to account for the role sediment plays in mitigating rising sea levels. In this case, millions of tons of sediment carried along by Himalayan rivers into Bangladesh, reports the Agence France-Presse (AFP) news agency.

That sediment has shaped the coast of Bangladesh for "thousands of years," according to the Center for Environmental and Geographic Information Services in Dhaka.

Even if sea levels rise to the maximum level predicted by the IPCC, the nation's coastline would remain intact, according to the center's findings.

Ok. Let's take a look at that AFP article.

Scientists in Bangladesh posed a fresh challenge to the UN's top climate change panel Thursday, saying its doomsday forecasts for the country in the body's landmark 2007 report were overblown.

And then...

Previous "studies on the effects of climate change in Bangladesh, including those quoted by the IPCC, did not consider the role of sediment in the growth and adjustment process of the country?s coast and rivers to the sea level rise," he told AFP.

Even if sea levels rise a maximum one metre in line with the IPCC's 2007 predictions, the new study indicates most of Bangladesh's coastline will remain intact, said Sarker.

"Based on the findings of the study, it appears that most of Bangladesh's coastline, notably the Meghna estuary, which is one of the largest in the world, would rise at the same pace as the sea level growth," he said.

So this is not about the overall science, just about whether the coastline of Bangladesh would be affected as much as the IPCC panel said it would.

The report itself (and you can see a set of PDF files that accompany it here) does not question climate change at all.

And yet to Scaife's braintrust it represents a "challenge to global-warming theology."

Do they even recognize that they're talking about themselves when they end the editorial with:

In the creed of climate change, facts have little bearing on adherents' faith.

I don't think so, either.

Sestak Tied With Specter In New Poll

A new poll by Muhlenberg College/Morning Call has Joe Sestak tied with Arlen Specter at 43% in the Democratic primary for US Senate.

Incumbent Specter started out with huge lead but Sestak has been rapidly rising in the polls. Party-switcher Specter had the backing of President Obama and the Party bosses and now some are freaking out.

Pennsylvania Dem chairman T.J. Rooney has called a Sestak win "cataclysmic," but I still agree with Pittsburgh City Paper's Chris Potter long ago (well, long in terms of politics) prediction:

So I gotta think that Sestak could hold his own against Toomey, Specter, or anyone else. He's already had lots of practice: Sestak noted that regularly mixes it up on FOX News and other such forums.

But that, of course, only raises the real problem he faces this year: Republicans like Monica Douglas know how dangerous Sestak can be. Democrats, though, don't watch FOX.

Sestak will be in town today, by the way:

WHAT:
Congressman Joe Sestak and Pittsburgh Residents Shine a Light on Specter’s 30 Years of Failed Promises, Strategizes for Next 30 Years

WHEN:
Friday, May 7 at 12:30PM

WHERE:
Hill House Association, Conference Rm A
1835 Centre Ave
Pittsburgh, PA 15219

RSVP on Facebook or to Info@JoeSestak.com

More On Daryl Metcalfe's FAIR Friends

The OPJ's on the story of State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry and his immigration legislation.

I do want to point to something she linked to yesterday. It's about FAIR and their "legal wing" the "Immigration Law Reform Institute."

As a faithful sifter of the Tribune-Review op-ed page I was not surprised to see that Metcalfe's legislation and it's connection to FAIR has warranted a mention by Richard Mellon Scaife's braintrust:

State taxpayers of all political persuasions no doubt would like to stop spending what the Federation for American Immigration Reform pegs at $728 million annually to educate, incarcerate and provide medical care for an estimated 144,000 illegals.

We've written about FAIR before but given that it's legal wing worked hand in hand with Metcalfe to write this legislation another look is probably necessary.

By my count, Richard Mellon Scaife funneled close to a million dollars to FAIR between 2006 and 2008. That that information remains unmentioned in his paper's coverage of Metcalfe's nativist legislation is bad enough. But I want to focus on the charge the SPLC raised that FAIR is a hate group and FAIR's response to it.

Back to McCall's:

"If I told you that the Southern Poverty Law Center was a hate group, would you print that?" [FAIR's President Dan] Stein asked, not entirely rhetorically. "I'm proud of the broad, bipartisan support that our group has. I don't believe or take seriously a lot of what the Southern Poverty Law Center has to say."

Of the SPLC, he continued, "They smear everyone on this side of the issue. I'm happy to sit down with [SPLC founder] Morris Dees. I'm happy to talk with people who disagree with us."

When we asked about the specific allegation about ties to white supremacists, Stein did not directly answer.

And it's telling what sort of response this got from the SPLC:

"It is remarkable how the man never addresses the criticism, only the critic," [SPLC's Mark] Potok said. "He can't deal with the truth."

Which is really all you need to know about FAIR's white supremacists.

When You're Right, You're Right

Yesterday, an astute reader pointed me to this P-G article:

Angered by recent allegations of off-duty misconduct by city police, Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl on Wednesday said that public safety employees should "clean up their act," noting that his administration's efforts to discipline employees are often stymied by state law.

"The increasing trend of firefighters and police officers being involved in unacceptable incidents is really becoming frustrating," the mayor said, when asked about the Monday arrest of police Detective Bradley Walker following a reported road rage incident on Saturday.

And I was shocked beyond belief to see that I agreed with something found on the pages of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Namely, this:

An observation: Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl admonished the city's public safety employees to clean up their acts. That, after a series of less-than-flattering off-duty incidents involving police employees and firefighters. Kudos to Hizzhoner for going public. But given Mr. Ravenstahl's record of questionable, eyebrow-raising off-duty behavior, here's our own admonition: Take your own advice, Skippy.

When you're right, you're right. Even Richard Mellon Scaife's otherwise laughable braintrust.

The Company Metcalfe Keeps (Updated 1x)

UPDATE: Capitol Ideas has more on Daryl's buddies:

Dan Stein, the president of a group called the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), whose legal wing, the Immigration Law Reform Institute, played a significant role in crafting the original Arizona "Papers, Please," bill before it was amended to include the "primary offense" language offered by Metcalfe.

Metcalfe readily acknowledged this morning that IRLI, as it's known,worked "hand-in-hand" with him to craft his bill.

Stein, however, took exception when we asked to respond to allegations made in 2007 by the Southern Poverty Law Center that FAIR is a hate group whose "key staff members have ties to white supremacist groups."

____________________________________________

On Tuesday, PA Rep. (and Lt. Governor candidate) Daryl "I Don't Speak Mexican"* Metcalfe (R-Butler) and PA Rep. Harry Readshaw (D-Carrick and my own South Side) promoted House Bill 2479 which patterns itself after Arizona's controversial legislation and '...which would direct a police officer "to attempt to verify the immigration status of suspected illegal aliens"' and includes the ridiculous provision allowing anyone to sue police (and any official or agency) for enforcing "Federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by Federal law" (Hello, Pittsburgh!)

According to a PA2010, Metcalfe’s legislative office put out a press release which stated:

Offering support for House Bill 2479 during today’s press conference included Kathleen Appell, Citizens for Immigration Control in Pennsylvania; Mariann Davies Esq., You Don’t Speak for Me; Jeff Lewis, national director, Federal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Coalition (FIRE); and Ned Pfeifer, president, Eagle Forum.

Upon reading that yesterday morning, I decided to take a look at these groups and here's what I found at FIRE Coalition's website:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and other Members of Congress ignore the Constitution on a daily basis, and knowingly give support and comfort to special interest groups, foreign governments and the illegal alien insurgents they encourage to invade the United States, and betray everything their oath of office represents. Ask your governor, your federal and state judges why these traitors aren’t swinging from a rope? [Emphasis added]

Jeff Lewis
Founder, PatriotWatchdog
National Director, FIRE Coalition

Swinging from a rope!?

As it so happened, I had on Pittsburgh Now with Chris Moore while I was exploring FIRE's website. Moore had Metcalfe on as a guest (via phone). So I telephoned the live call-in show and got on the air.

My call went something like this:

ME: Hello, Rep. Metcalfe. According to a press release sent to the media, you're associated with a group called the Fire Coalition. I'm reading this from their website: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and other Members of Congress ignore the Constitution on a daily basis...[I truncated the quote because they don't give you much time on these shows when you call in] Ask your governor, your federal and state judges why these traitors aren’t swinging from a rope?"

Why are you associated with such a group and do you agree that Reid and Pelosi should be swinging from a rope?

METCALFE: I'm not sure what you're reading. I'm not sure of the validity of what you're reading.

ME: [Trying to talk over him] It's right on their website.

METCALFE: I've been involved for many years with these programs. I'm not sure of the validity of what you're reading.

I was cut off the call. But here's my next question for you, Rep. Metcalfe:

Why the hell aren't you sure about the validity of what I read? It took me all of 10 minutes to find it on their website! And, you say you've been associated with this group for years?

See, I do know what these groups are all about. So when I googled their name and found their website (http://firecoalition.com/), I went to their blog ("The Official FIRE Coalition Blog" linked in the upper left corner on their website) and simply searched for terms like "Obama" "traitor" and "treason" and got directed to the ugly screed written by Jeff Lewis who actually appeared at your little shindig. (You can get to it directly here or from their blog here.)

So again, I ask you, Rep. Metcalfe: Why are you associated with such a group and do you agree that Reid and Pelosi should be swinging from a rope?

And, to Rep. Readshaw -- my rep and a Democrat -- I ask you the same damn thing and I'll add: Shame on you!


Rep. Daryl Metcalfe

* (h/t to Pittsburgh City Paper via Post-Gazette's Early Returns)

Joe Hoeffel GOTV Rally in Pittsburgh

Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010
Time: 5:00pm - 7:00pm
Location: Schenley Park Skating Rink, Banquet Hall

More info on Facebook here.

Sestak Hits Specter Hard With New Ad

Via PA2010:

It’s the campaign ad everyone knew was coming—and it was only a matter of time.

The latest TV spot by Democrat Joe Sestak’s Senate campaign highlights former President George W. Bush’s support for Senator Arlen Specter during the 2004 campaign, as well Specter’s support for vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin in 2008. It also twice plays a clip of Specter saying that “my change in party will enable me to be reelected.”

I'm actually seeing it right now on MSNBC as I'm blogging. LOL. You can watch it too:


UPDATE: And, just this moment I received in an email from the Sestak campaign which states:

"This election is about who we can count on to represent our values on the day after the election and for the next six years. Many Democrats are skeptical of why Arlen Specter switched parties after enthusiastically touting the endorsement of President Bush. But there is no way Senator Specter can make his motives more clear than he does in his own words."

The email goes on to remind, among other things, that:

'...just 12 days before switching parties:'

"I am a Republican and I am going to run on the Republican ticket in the Republican primary."
http://blogs.mcall.com/penn_ave/2009/04/arlen-specter-unfiltered.html

'He even said he still thought John McCain and Sarah Palin "were the better choice" -- more than three months after switching parties' [Hardball, MSNBC, 08/04/09]: http://therealspecter2010.com/goingrogue

National Day of Prayer Readings

Today, I am told, is the National Day of Prayer and that:

Pittsburgh's National Day of Prayer events are going on as planned today, despite rumors that such services were canceled after a federal judge in Wisconsin ruled the government-sanctioned observances unconstitutional.

"The judge said this would not affect any events until all appeals were exhausted," said Ray Almgren, an organizer of the major local observance in Mellon Square, Downtown. It starts at 11:30 a.m.

The National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional? Yep. We wrote about this in April.

From U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb's opinion:

It bears emphasizing that a conclusion that the establishment clause prohibits the government from endorsing a religious exercise is not a judgment on the value of prayer or the millions of Americans who believe in its power. No one can doubt the important role that prayer plays in the spiritual life of a believer. In the best of times, people may pray as a way of expressing joy and thanks; during times of grief, many find that prayer provides comfort. Others may pray to give praise, seek forgiveness, ask for guidance or find the truth. “And perhaps it is not too much to say that since the beginning of th[e] history [of humans] many people have devoutly believed that ‘More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of.'” Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 433 (1962). However, recognizing the importance of prayer to many people does not mean that the government may enact a statute in support of it, any more than the government may encourage citizens to fast during the month of Ramadan, attend a synagogue, purify themselves in a sweat lodge or practice rune magic. In fact, it is because the nature of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful effect on a community that the government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual’s decision whether and when to pray. [Emphasis added.]

And if that doesn't sway you that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitional, perhaps this will:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If a person or groups of people want to pray for the Nation, the Constitution bans the state from interfering (and that's as it should be) BUT there's no room in the Constitution for the state to tell us that we should be praying.

Pax vobiscum.

Jason Altmire News

News of our favorite conservative Democrat, Congressman Jason Altmire, gurgled up (like an acid reflux) into the news today - attached to a story about our favorite conservative former Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman.

From the Plum Line:

By now you've heard that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is proposing a new law that could potentially strip Americans of their citizenship if they're involved with foreign terrorist organizations.

Two things you should know about this: First, it isn't just some paranoid liberal nightmare. It's actually moving forward. Lieberman is going to hold a presser tomorrow to introduce the bill, I'm told, along with Rep. Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania. [emphasis added.]

Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley writes of Lieberman's bill:

The law reportedly would allow the State Department to treat citizenship like an administrative matter — deciding whether you have associated with terrorist organizations. Agency procedures are widely condemned for their lack of due process protections and the heavy deference given to agency decision-making. We have seen abuses of this system in the designation of organizations under a similar process.

And:

While the burden would be on the State Department and you would have access to court review, the agency process could make it difficult to contest such findings — particularly with the use of secret evidence (and barring the use of evidence by the defendant on national security grounds).

Stripping citizens of their citizenship could also create stateless persons — a problem in international law. Moreover, this process could occur at the same time that a person is fighting criminal charges — adding to the practical and financial burden.

That's what Jason Altmire's reportedly has signed onto.

Yay.

Vatican investigates nuns for "feminism" (Bros before hoes)

Official Vatican View of Women
Via KUOW (h/t to Pandagon):

Three Catholic women's communities in Washington state are being investigated by the Vatican. They were chosen for review as part of an extensive investigation into American nuns. The Vatican says it's following up on complaints of feminism and activism.

The Archdiocese of Seattle says the Adrian Dominicans in Woodway, the Renton Sisters of Providence and the Tacoma Dominicans are on the list. Sister Joyce Cox is the Archbishop's Delegate for Religious. She says it's not clear what this latest development — or the entire investigation — means.

Apparently, the impetus for the deeper investigation was a review of responses to the Vatican's 20–page questionnaire sent out to all women's orders -- and only to women's orders -- meant to determine the extent of the communities' obedience to the Church.

Some of the dastardly activites the women engaged in include running a women's transition house, working to end human trafficking (hmmm, I guess I could see how this would conflict with other Church activities)...and thinking.

A local example of punishment meted out for using the brains God gave them can be found in Greensburg PA:

Bishop Lawrence Brandt of the Catholic Diocese of Greensburg has declared that religious sisters from communities whose leaders endorsed the final version of the national health care reform bill can no longer promote their recruitment events in his parishes or in the diocesan newspaper.

Note that the nuns did not endorse abortion. They only used their brains to determine -- along with most -- that the HCR bill did not promote or pay for abortions and, being on the front line of providing health care, deemed the bill a good thing. Also note that the recruitment being referred to is trying to recruit more young women to take up religious orders.

Of course any religion can make up any rules they like. They can practice any discrimination they like. But when they've been actively engaged in conspiring to cover up the criminal abuse and rape of children for decades (and when they actively insert themselves into politics) they should not expect folks to not notice the rank hypocrisy of the rapid pace of investigating the sisters' thought crimes vs. the glacial pace of doing something to end actual crimes by the fathers.


Bitchez ruin it for everyone!

Joe Hoeffel to start airing TV ads tomorrow

The Hoeffel ad is called "Flip-flops" and according to the press release, "Joe Hoeffel's first TV ad highlights the differences between Joe and other candidates for governor of Pennsylvania."

See for yourself:


Text (via philly.com):

"Flip-flops are fine - for the beach. But as governor people need to know where you stand. Dan Onorato was anti-choice for years - until one day he wasn't. Tony Williams used to support public schools - now it's private schools. I have always supported a woman's right to choose and our public schools. And I have developed a detailed, comprehensive plan to help small businesses create new jobs. You want flip-flops - go to the beach. But if you want a governor who proudly stands up for our progressive values, then I'm your man."

Bestest Poll Ever?

Via The Washington Post:

The day after officials unveiled a redesign of the $100 bill, new polling suggests most Americans don't want to see changes made to the $50 note.

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) last month proposed putting Ronald Reagan on the $50 bill instead of former president Ulysses S. Grant, arguing that the "last great president" of the 20th century deserved the honor.

But 79 percent of Americans oppose the idea, according to a Marist Poll released Thursday. Only 12 percent support McHenry's idea while 9 percent are unsure.

(h/t to Daily Kos)

Craig Smith, Again.

Sigh. This is getting to be a pattern.

On February 20, Tribune-Review writer Craig Smith interviewed Dick Armey of Freedomworks, recipient of more than a million dollars of Scaife foundation money.

On April 10, Tribune-Review writer Craig Smith interviewed Michelle Bernard of the Independent Women's Forum, recipient of more than a million dollars of Scaife foundation money.

On April 17, Tribune-Review writer Craig Smith interviewed James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation, recipient of millions and millions of dollars ($23 million in fact) of Scaife foundation money.

Today, he interviews Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies another recipient of millions of dollars of Scaife money.

I mean really, does Craig get a residual for every interview he does with a representative of some Scaife-funded think-tank? At least it's not in alphabetical order, that would be obvious.

We touched on the CIS in mid-April but it's probably a good idea to take another look. Here's some raw data from that blog post:

How much money has Scaife funneled to CIS? I am glad you asked.

• In 2008, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $150,000 to the CIS.
• In 2007, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $150,000 to the CIS.
• In 2006, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $150,000 to the CIS.

Mediamatters reports an additional $1.5 million or so of Scaife foundation money sent to the CIS over the years.

Pretty safe to assume that whenever Mr Smith interviews people for Scaife's paper, he doesn't look much farther than foundations/think tanks who've benefited from Scaife foundation money.

The circle jerk continues.

Arlen Specter TV Ad

Check it out!


OK, it's an oldie, but a goodie (if you're Joe Sestak).

Jack Kelly Sunday

In this week's column, Jack Kelly offers us the opportunity to see how defense contractors seek to sway public opinion.

Do you remember that old grade-school game called Telephone? That's the game where you get a whole line of people whispering in each other's ears. The Wikipedia (granted not the best source for news but I am only using it to describe a school-yard game, so I think I am safe, epistemologically) defines the game like this:

[T]he first player whispers a phrase or sentence to the next player. Each player successively whispers what that player believes he or she heard to the next. The last player announces the statement to the entire group. Errors typically accumulate in the retellings, so the statement announced by the last player differs significantly, and often amusingly, from the one uttered by the first. The game is often played by children as a party game or in the playground. It is often invoked as a metaphor for cumulative error, especially the inaccuracies as rumours or gossip spread, or, more generally, for the unreliability of human recollection.

Let's take a look at how Jack spins on some spin. He begins:

Ever since early in the Korean War (1950-53), the United States has enjoyed a massive air superiority over every enemy we've fought.

Those days may be coming to an end.

"The Air Force won't be able to do all its assigned tasks as comprehensively as it once did, and will be aiming for simple sufficiency in areas where it's been accustomed to dominance," Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, said in a recent interview.

Daniel Goure of the Lexington Institute, a defense think tank, said, "This is akin to the head of the French air force saying in the late 1930s that he was willing to cede air superiority to the Luftwaffe."

Recent interview? Where? In the piece Jack quotes, Daniel Goure gives us the necessary:

In a recent interview with Air Force Magazine, the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Norton Schwartz made the following startling statement: “To handle multiplying missions without more people, the Air Force won’t be able to do all its assigned tasks as comprehensively as it once did, and will be aiming instead for simple sufficiency in areas where it’s been accustomed to dominance.” This is akin to the head of the French Air Force saying in the late 1930s that he was willing to cede air superiority to the Luftwaffe. [emphasis added]

But when we see the piece in Air Force Magazine, we see where the telephone game begins:

To handle multiplying missions without more people, the Air Force won’t be able to do all its assigned tasks as comprehensively as it once did, and will be aiming instead for simple sufficiency in areas where it’s been accustomed to dominance.

That was the assessment from Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, in an interview shortly after the Fiscal 2011 defense budget was unveiled. The Air Force, Schwartz said, will remain fixed at 332,000 people, but with increasing demands on its manpower in remotely piloted aircraft, irregular warfare, and other emerging missions, it won’t have the money to pursue full-up capabilities as it always has. [emphasis added.]

Couple things going on here. First you notice that the General did NOT say what Goure said he said - and so Jack got the quotation wrong, too. The paragraph from which Goure quotes the General just says that that's his assessment. There's no direct quotation stated (because if it was a direct quotation there'd be, you know "quotation marks"). Small matter, but if you're a Ph.D (as Goure is) you'd know what's a quote and what's an assessment.

In any event, the paragraph quoted was about the number of people in the Air Force not about how much money is being spent on weapons systems.

As this is something in Goure's piece but not in Jack's we have to assume that Jack knew what he was taking out - and why.

Can you say "deceptively selective"? Sure, I knew you could.

But let's get to the meat of the piece: the F-35 and the F-22.

Jack's piece, you'd think that cutting back on the F-22 program is a new idea, borne possibly (and this is my snark of the day) out of one of the many strategery lunches between the President and unrepentant Weatherunderground Bomber Bill Ayers. Or maybe it was one of the many strategery dinners with unrepentant communist Van Jones. Who can keep the wingnut conspiracy theories straight these days??

Anyway, the history of cutting back on the F-22 is a long one. Note this paragraph from a "Backgrounder" report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (the CSBA):

The Air Force itself probably deserves the lion’s share of the responsibility for the Raptor’s cost and schedule difficulties. However both the Office of the Secretary of Defense(OSD) and Congress made significant contributions to cost growth and schedule slippage,starting with (then) defense secretary Dick Cheney’s decisions in April 1990 to delay F-22 production two years to FY 1996 and cut the peak production rate from seventy-two to forty-eight planes per year. It is also worth remembering that the F-22 had the misfortune of entering full-scale engineering development in 1991, the same year as the first Persian Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm) and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The program, therefore, was confronted almost immediately with tectonic changes in the international security environment. Finally, the US Navy, which originally planned to buy over six hundred carrier versions of the ATF, eventually dropped out of the program, reducing the total buy by 45 percent.

Wow. Way back then, huh? So Dick Cheney cut the production w-a-a-a-a-y back in 1990?

You'd never know it from Jack's piece.

And that's the point.

One last thing you'd never know from Jack's piece: this is from the Alabama Press-Register:

The episode also turned a floodlight on [Lexington Institute's Loren] Thompson, long a go-to guy for reporters in search of comment on specific military programs. Among Washington pundits, the affable former academic has carved out a niche as a reputed back-channel for power-brokers who want to pass along their own views and positions.

"I would say he's a conduit for very high-level people," said Nick Schwellenbach, national security investigator for the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington, D.C. watchdog group.

What is often not revealed in news reports, Schwellenbach added, is that almost all funding for Thompson's employer, the non-profit Lexington Institute, comes from the same defense contractors who frequently have a stake in the programs that he writes about. Overall, Schwellenbach said, "he represents a very pro-industry viewpoint. I don't think you'll ever see him calling for less spending or cutting programs."

Who've guessed that the Lexington Institute, where Jack's original quotation came from, was funded by the same Defense insdustry that would loose billions with the end of the F-22 program?

Subtle and Simple: The Trib Today.

There are a couple of things to say about one of this morning's editorials at Richard Mellon Scaife's Tribune Review.

The first is simple, the second subtle. I'll start with the simple.

Here's the editorial:

If the Obama administration underwent a backbone transplant, it might have something to say about China's barbaric practice of harvesting executed religious dissidents' organs for worldwide sale.

Human rights activists say the White House has "no clear policy" regarding the main victims of China's butchery -- imprisoned members of Falun Gong, the quasi-Buddhist group, more than 70 million strong, that China forbids as a "dangerous cult."

And, The Washington Times reports, China's now taking organs from dissident Christians, Muslim Uighurs and Tibetan Buddhists, too.

Let's take care of the obvious: China denies the allegations (no surprise there) and I am not supporting the People's Republic of China at all (who could?). But let's dig a little and see what the Washington Times had to say about the press conference:

China's hidden policy of executing prisoners of the forbidden quasi-Buddhist group Falun Gong and harvesting their organs for worldwide sale has been expanded to include Tibetans, "house church" Christians and Muslim Uighurs, human rights activists said Monday.

In a news conference on Capitol Hill, several speakers, including attorney David Matas of B'nai Brith Canada and Ethan Gutmann of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, said their investigations have unearthed a grisly trade in which an estimated 9,000 members of Falun Gong have been executed for their corneas, lungs, livers, kidneys and skins.

They likened the practice to the Nazi treatment of Jewish prisoners in World War II concentration camps, which included using them for sadistic medical experiments and taking the gold fillings from the teeth of corpses.

The newest wrinkle, they said, is that organs from other religious prisoners — specifically dissidents from China's Christian, Muslim and Tibetan Buddhist communities — are also being harvested to satisfy an insatiable global demand.

Now we're approaching the simple. The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies? You know where this leads, right??

• In 2008 the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies received $250,000 in grant money from the Richard Mellon Scaife controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation.
• In 2007 the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies received $250,000 in grant money from the Richard Mellon Scaife controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation.
• In 2006 the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies received $200,000 in grant money from the Richard Mellon Scaife controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation.
• In 2005 the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies received $275,000 in grant money from the Richard Mellon Scaife controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation.
• In 2004 the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies received $125,000 in grant money from the Richard Mellon Scaife controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation.

That's $1.2 million since in 5 years. And no mention of that in the editorial?

That's the simple.

Now on to the subtle.

The braintrust makes the charge about the inactivity of the Obama Administration regarding these allegations. Fair enough, given the charge's severity. If there isn't a denunciation off the charges, there should be.

But it's also not a new charge, and that's the subtle. From the Times:

Although the practice of harvesting organs from prisoners has been documented as early as 1992 by Chinese dissident Harry Wu's Laogai Research Foundation, it was not until 2006 that the Epoch Times, a Falun Gong publication, accused the Chinese government of using its adherents for the practice.

In 2005, Chinese Vice Minister of Health Huang Jiefu acknowledged that 95 percent of all transplanted organs come from executions, said Mr. Matas, whose 2009 book "Bloody Harvest," co-written with David Kilgour of Ottawa, a former member of the Canadian Parliament, details the practice.

Bloody Harvest dates back at least to early July of 2006. But the story of Chinese organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners bubbled over a few months earlier. From the New York Times:

President Bush and President Hu Jintao of China, meeting for the first time at the White House today, pledged closer cooperation on fighting nuclear proliferation and addressing their massive trade imbalance. But they broke little new ground on a host of disputes that have strained the relationship between the countries in recent years.

The meeting, which required more than a year of intensive diplomacy to arrange and was postponed by Hurricane Katrina, did more to emphasize the long list of tensions between the world's richest country and its fastest-rising rival than it did to offer fresh solutions. The two presidents did not announce any new agreements after their 90-minute meeting in the Oval Office.

A carefully choreographed welcome ceremony for Mr. Hu on the South Lawn was interrupted by an activist of the Falun Gong religious sect who managed to join the event as a reporter for the organization's United States-based newspaper, Epoch Times.

The protester screamed about China's persecution of Falun Gong practitioners and partially drowned out Mr. Hu during his opening remarks before security officers managed to remove her from a press podium, leaving Mr. Bush, standing side-by-side with Mr. Hu, visibly angered.

And:

The day got off to a rocky start when the heckler interrupted Mr. Hu, shouting at him from a platform where news photographers were covering the event.

The Asian woman shouted in Chinese, but also broke into English, yelling "Stop the torture and killings!" and shouting the name of the Falun Gong, a religious and exercise sect that is outlawed in China. "Falun Dafa is good," she yelled.

Mr. Hu looked at first confused and then hesitated before continuing to speak.

"You're O.K., " Mr. Bush said to him in a low voice, prodding him on.

And finally:

Chinese authorities consider the Falun Gong a major threat to national security and have outlawed the group. Members of the sect are regularly interned in camps without being tried.

Supporters of the movement also protested Mr. Hu's visit in Washington state on Tuesday, using sound trucks to blast messages into his hotel that accused China's internal security forces of torture, organ harvesting and other atrocities.

So we can safely assume that the Trib had a similar editorial 4 years ago when the Chinese President was being reassured about that heckler, right? How about how when Bush apologized for the heckler's outburst?

"President Hu, your days are numbered. President Bush, make him stop persecuting Falun Gong," the woman yelled. U.S. officials later identified her as Wang Wenyi, 47, a reporter with The Epoch Times, an English-language publication strongly supportive of the meditation movement that is banned in China.

"This was unfortunate, and I'm sorry this happened," Bush told Hu, according to Dennis Wilder, a senior official with the National Security Council.

You know the answer to that one, don't you?

So what's changed? Why does the braintrust criticize this White House for being silent but not the previous White House? Could it be because there's a Democrat sitting in the Oval Office?

Yea, I guess so.

ONE MORE THING: The Trib notes:

The U.S. House supported Falun Gong and decried China's organ harvests in a March 16 resolution.

House Resolution 605 passed 412-1.

So who was that one dissenting vote?

Ron Paul (R-Tx).

Rejected Bush Book Covers

Rejected as having "not enough gravitas":







Deemed too "dark":

Yesterday...

Yesterday was Duke Ellington's birthday.

Coincidentally, yesterday these folks also had birthdays:

• Jerry Seinfeld (1954)
• Kate Mulgrew (1955)
• Daniel Day-Lewis (1957)
• Michelle Pfeiffer (1958)
• Eve Plumb (1958)
• The guy who played Furio Giunta on The Sopranos (Frederico Castelluccio, 1964)

I confess I can't get my head around the fact that Catwoman and Jan Brady were born on the same day.

But mostly it was Duke Ellington's birthday.

Happy Friday!

Friday Morning Música Post

Good morning, Pittsburgh! I'm sending México Americano by Los Lobos out to the folks from this comment thread.


(And, anyone who hasn't read The Angry Drunk Bureaucrat's take on Arizona's new immigration law should.)