They Did It Again

From today's Tribune-Review:

As director of policy research for the nonprofit Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives, Nathan A. Benefield has researched and written on issues ranging from taxes and government spending to health care policy and economic development. He frequently has testified before Pennsylvania House and Senate committees on issues such as the state budget, transportation funding, privatization and education.

The topic today is the film tax credit.

Of course, there's no mention of the financial support given to the Commonwealth Foundation by the owner of the paper that's interviewing him, Richard Mellon Scaife.

In case you missed any of our coverage, here's some numbers:

• In 2009, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $130,000 to the CFPP.
• In 2008, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $140,000 to the CFPP.
• In 2007, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $140,000 to the CFPP.
• In 2006, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $130,000 to the CFPP.
• In 2005, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $130,000 to the CFPP.
• In 2004, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $120,000 to the CFPP.

That's about $700,000 in 6 years.

According to mediamatters, Scaife's foundations have given more cash to the CFPP than any other foundation. About $2 million.

And yet no mention of all that money, all that support in the interview.

Someone has to say it - the circle jerk continues.

Low Power FM (A Follow-Up)

Remember this?

Early January, the president signed into law some locally sponsored legislation.

From a press release today:

On Saturday, March 5, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. U.S. Representatives Mike Doyle (PA-14) will receive an award from Free Press and the Prometheus Radio Project for his leadership in enacting the Local Community Radio Act, followed by a reception.

Then, from 2:30 to 4:00 p.m., Free Press and the Prometheus Radio Project will hold a workshop to let community groups and other interested parties know what they would have to do to apply for a low-power FM radio station license.

This is happening at the National Association of Letter Carriers, Local 84 841 California Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15212

Palin V Reality

As we all know by now, the Supreme Court of the United States voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church's right to free speech. From the AP:

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a grieving father's pain over mocking protests at his Marine son's funeral must yield to First Amendment protections for free speech. All but one justice sided with a fundamentalist church that has stirred outrage with raucous demonstrations contending God is punishing the military for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

The 8-1 decision in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., was the latest in a line of court rulings that, as Chief Justice John Roberts said in his opinion for the court, protects "even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."

The decision ended a lawsuit by Albert Snyder, who sued church members for the emotional pain they caused by showing up at his son Matthew's funeral. As they have at hundreds of other funerals, the Westboro members held signs with provocative messages, including "Thank God for dead soldiers," `'You're Going to Hell," `'God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," and one that combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto, Se

Wonderful Christians, those Westboro Baptists. And let me just say that by "Westboro Baptists" I mean only those members of Fred Phelps' congregation and those who agree with him. I am sure there's a place called "Westboro" somewhere in the country and I am sure there are Baptists there. I am just as sure that those coincidental "Westboro Baptists" would, if given the chance, join the rest of civilized society and agree that Fred Phelps' congregation is just awful.

That doesn't mean they don't get First Amendment Protection.

On this the editorial boards of the BOTH the P-G and The Trib agree. First the P-G:

After the U.S. Supreme Court took the case, the concern was that this might also be a funeral for the First Amendment. As we said at the time, tolerance of free speech is easy, but it's not easy speech that needs constitutional protection. Would the justices summon the wisdom of Solomon?

They did. In an 8-1 decision Wednesday, the court ruled the First Amendment right to free speech trumps the pain such speech can cause. That conservatives and liberals on the bench came together -- only Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented -- said that the Constitution was not to be taken down a slippery slope to where emotional distress might silence all speech.

And the Trib:

No matter how despicable, demeaning, vile and ignorant one thinks was the picketing by Westboro Baptist Church members at the funeral of a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq, the Founding precept that the U.S. Supreme Court employed on Wednesday in Westboro's defense is the same one that allows us -- and most of you, we presume -- to lambaste Westboro without fear of legal reprisal.

In an 8-1 ruling, the high court affirmed that Westboro's First Amendment right to speech "cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt."

They add a few paragraphs later:

It is critical to note, however, that the court's ruling is narrowly tailored to the facts of only this case. To wit, the protest was on public land, was generally away from the funeral and did not physically interfere with the service. Similar protests by this or any group that do anything less should not presume such automatic First Amendment protection. [emphasis added]

At least one part of that was missed by at least one high profile conservative - namely Sarah Palin. She tweeted:

Common sense & decency absent as wacko "church" allowed hate msgs spewed@ soldiers' funerals but we can't invoke God's name in public square

Um, Sarah? Isn't that precisely what the Supreme Court said they had a right to do? That as wacko as the Westboro Baptist Church is (and indeed they are) they have the right to hold up their wacko signs as the Quitter-Governor so ably tweeted "in public square."

Tell me again why we attention to her?

You can read the Supreme Court ruling here.

More On Toomey's "Pay China (And The Banks) First" Bill

Remember that bill?

We updated you on it here. Before we go any further, we should reiterate who would get "paid first" with Toomey's bill. In my blog post, I quoted TPM and they wrote:

According to economist Dean Baker, who heads the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the debt is fairly spread out, but a disproportionate chunk is held by large financial institutions -- the same institutions that triggered the financial crisis. That crisis, and the economic downturn it created, cost the Treasury a tremendous amount of revenue, and accelerated the country's march toward its debt limit. Now, many of those same financial institutions want to be at the front of the line if the country nears default.

That's who Toomey wants to pay off first.

The bill's been tabled. For more, here's Dan Malloy of the P-G:

The Toomey bill -- brought to the floor as an amendment to a patent reform bill and co-sponsored by Louisiana Republican David Vitter -- would have required the government to service the debt first if the cap is reached. Toomey argued this would take the threat of a default off the table, thus giving him and his cohorts more room to negotiate budget concessions (probably the real reason the bill went down).

Toomey mixed it up with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke about his proposal in hearings, but the Obama administration kept up its line that failing to raise the debt ceiling would bring on the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse or something like that. Congressional Democrats also had a snappy nickname for the bill: Pay China First (pay no mind to the fact that most of the debt is domestically held).

That last link goes back to the Christian Science Monitor piece mentioned by TPM. But let's put some nuance into Malloy's "most is domestically held." From the CSM:

At the end of 2010, about 53 percent of US debt held by the public was held domestically, according to a recent study from the Congressional Budget Office.

Within this slice, the largest category is individuals – Treasury notes are good solid additions to any portfolio. US individuals hold 12 percent of the country’s debt. Next under the domestic category comes the Federal Reserve, which holds 9 percent of US debt, then pension and retirement funds, mutual funds, and state and local governments.

Foreigners hold about 47 percent of US public debt. And yes, the largest foreign holder here is China – but only by a hair. Chinese investors are owed 9.8 percent of US debt. Next comes Japan, at 9.6 percent, and the United Kingdom, at 5.1 percent.

53-47 ain't that much of a spread. So yes most is domestically held (and of that a large chunk is held by some of the same financial institutions that triggered the downturn in the first place) but almost the same amount isn't. And about 10% of the National Debt is owed to the Chinese.

That's who Toomey wanted to pay off first. Good thing he failed at getting his bill passed. Let's hope he continues to fail similarly.

The message from the GOP is that money protects money and the rest of us will just have to learn to sacrifice.

Politico takes a look at Joe Sestak

Politico takes a look at Joe Sestak's political future in an article today. During their interview, Sestak said, “I don’t know what I’ll do next. I do know that whatever it is, it will be part of public service.”

Read the entire article here.
.

In Case You Missed It

From ThinkProgress:

House Republicans voted in lockstep this afternoon to protect corporate welfare for Big Oil, even as they call for draconian cuts to programs that everyday Americans depend on each day. As the House of Representatives moved toward approving a stopgap resolution to avert a government shutdown for another two weeks, Democrats offered a motion to recommit that would have stripped the five largest oil companies of taxpayer subsidies, saving tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds. The motion failed on a vote of 176-249, with all Republicans voting against (approximately a dozen Democrats joined the GOP).

From Thomas.gov, here's the description of what happened:

3/1/2011 3:34pm:
DEBATE - The House proceeded with ten minutes of debate on the Keating motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the Committee on Appropriations to report the bill back to the House forthwith with an amendment which inserts a section prohibiting the use of funds to be used for tax benefit or relief for any major integrated oil company.

And that's what was voted down. The amendment was to prohibit tax benefits for Big Oil. The Oil Companies, by the way, are doing just fine. Take a look at ExxonMobil. From Climateprogress:

The hearing also focused on the billions of dollars in subsidies granted to profitable oil companies each year. Despite $19 billion in profits in 2009, ExxonMobil escaped the U.S. tax man entirely, finishing the year without paying a single red cent in American corporate income taxes. Unrest in the Middle East is pushing profits for big oil even higher as prices climb up to the $100 per barrel threshold. Subsidies for such a profitable industry make little sense. As Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) lamented, “subsidizing oil companies to drill for oil is like subsidizing a bird to fly or a fish to swim.” Markey also lambasted the oil industry’s claims about its job creation He highlighted that during the past five years, the top five American oil companies fired 10,200 American workers but walked away with $485 billion in profits. [Italics in original]

The link back to Thinkprogress quotes this piece from Forbes.com that originally said:

No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.

Though ThinkProgress updates:

Forbes has updated its article to include a statement from Exxon: "Though Exxon's financial statement's don't show any net income tax liability owed to Uncle Sam, a company spokesman insists that once its final tax bill is figured, Exxon will owe a 'substantial 2009 tax liability.' How substantial? 'That's not something we're required to disclose, nor do we.'" [emphasis added]

Trust us, they're saying. We pay tons of taxes but we just won't tell you how much. Trust us.

Anyway, back to the roll. Among those 13 Democrats crossed the aisle and voted with the GOP (in thinkprogress' words) "to protect corporate welfare for Big Oil" there was a very familiar name.

Congressman Jason Altmire, Democrat from Pennsylvania's 4th Congressional District.

And Again, They Omit And Spin

The editorial board of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (who else?) today:

Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, under attack in recent weeks for promoting -- GASP! -- liberty (and also criticized for -- EGADS! -- giving more stock to listening from the bench than speaking), spoke his mind over the weekend.

Good for him.

The supposed "rap" against Mr. Justice Thomas is that he and his wife, Ginni, somehow are engaged in nefarious "conflicts" through their promotion of our fundamental liberties before conservatives and benefactors who help spread the same message.

It's nothing more than the kind of McCarthyite tactics that the left -- and too many in the media -- usually accuse the right of engaging in.

And during a Saturday night speech before The Federalist Society's annual symposium for conservative law students in Charlottesville, Va., Thomas spoke in no uncertain terms of what is at stake -- America itself.

As always it's not exactly the case (GASP!) The stuff the braintrust leaves out (EGADS!) tells enough of a different story that the spin is readily apparent. From The Hill:

Recent reports about Supreme Court justices participating in partisan events have raised concerns that this behavior may undermine public perception of the Court’s impartiality and the legitimacy of its decisions. In fact, the situation is so acute that 107 judicial ethicists from 76 law schools around the country signed a letter to Congress calling for reform of the Court’s ethics rules.

Perhaps the most notorious example of justices willfully entering into politicized activity was the reported attendance by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas at an electoral strategy conference for big donors and politicians hosted by the billionaire Koch Brothers. This wasn’t just an opportunity to speak or socialize at a gathering on conservative philosophies. A central purpose of the conference was the solicitation of millions of dollars from wealthy donors in order to influence elections and advance a political agenda.

Even worse, not only did the justices allow their names to be used to add prestige to a transparently political event, they almost certainly hobnobbed with individuals and corporations with interests (if not actual cases) before the Court in a setting created specifically to magnify the influence of those attending. Although no one suggests justices cannot or should not attend meetings sponsored by ideologically friendly groups, the overtly political nature of the Koch gathering crossed the ethical line. The same would be true if a liberal justice was featured at a meeting of donors planning President Obama’s reelection campaign.

So it's not just about "promoting liberty" is it? It's about the maintaining at least the semblance of impartiality of the supposedly impartial court. And about Virginia Thomas, Justice Thomas' wife - did you know there's a Scaife connection to all this?

Surprise, surprise. From the LATimes:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife's income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years, the watchdog group Common Cause said Friday.

Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation's IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled "none" where "spousal noninvestment income" would be disclosed.

A Supreme Court spokesperson could not be reached for comment late Friday. But Virginia Thomas' employment by the Heritage Foundation was well known at the time.

Virginia Thomas also has been active in the group Liberty Central, an organization she founded to restore the "founding principles" of limited government and individual liberty.

In his 2009 disclosure, Justice Thomas also reported spousal income as "none." Common Cause contends that Liberty Central paid Virginia Thomas an unknown salary that year.

Federal judges are bound by law to disclose the source of spousal income, according to Stephen Gillers, a professor at NYU School of Law. Thomas' omission — which could be interpreted as a violation of that law — could lead to some form of penalty, Gillers said.

"It wasn't a miscalculation; he simply omitted his wife's source of income for six years, which is a rather dramatic omission," Gillers said. "It could not have been an oversight."

Common Cause notes that:

We reported the situation to the U.S. Judicial Conference, the agency that collects judicial disclosure forms, and within hours Justice Thomas filed amended forms noting his wife’s employment. His omissions, stretching over 20 years, were inadvertent, the justice explained.

The Ethics Act carries both civil and criminal penalties for anyone who “knowingly and willfully falsifies” or fails to file a disclosure report. The maximum penalty is a $50,000 fine and one year in prison.

So now we're talking Thomas' failure to disclose his wife's income (something he's required by federal law to do). It's no longer about her "promoting fundamental liberties" is it? It's about money. Lots of it.

Coming from The Heritage Foundation.

Do I need to tell you that Richard Mellon Scaife, the owner and publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, gives (EGADS!) gobs and gobs of money to the Heritage Foundation? And that he's on its (GASP!) Board of Trustees?

NOW what does the editorial look like?

Time’s Run Out: It’s Sudden Death for adultBasic

If you're downtown today:

Time’s Run Out: It’s Sudden Death for adultBasic

42,000 of our neighbors in PA are set to lose their health insurance on Monday, February 28th. PHAN is hosting a vigil outside the Governor's Mansion in Harrisburg at 5:30pm and is organizing a NOON RALLY in Market Square in Downtown Pittsburgh to fight back.

Please join us to send the message to Gov. Corbett that we won’t stand by while he sides with big insurance companies over hardworking PA families. Help us show the Governor that the people of PA are not ok with cutting lifesaving health insurance programs—especially when the funding exists to save them!

Just like in Wisconsin, this is not about the budget—it’s about politicians putting the agendas of wealthy special interests over the needs and priorities of their constituents. The new radical political majorities in Harrisburg and across the country must be put on notice: we will NOT give up the fight for fairness and dignity for working people and for health care justice for all.

Stand with us on Monday—we want to get at least 100 folks there, so please send this to everyone you know!

WHAT: Solidarity Action to Stand Up for the 42,000 Working People at Risk of Losing Their Health Coverage Today
WHERE: Market Square, Downtown Pittsburgh
WHEN: Monday, Feb. 28th, 12:00pm

PS. If you or anyone you know is on adultBasic, please ask them to get in touch with me. We’ll be continuing to fight for a program like adultBasic (if it does end Monday as expected) and will definitely want to help folks get connected to any other resources and options available in the meantime. egill@pahealthaccess.org

and this:

"If you haven’t seen it yet, a lot of them have been posting messages to the Governor on his Facebook page, and on our Save adultBasic Facebook group page."

Congressman Altmire In The News

From yesterday's Trib:

GOP'S ANTI-ALTMIRE EFFORT UNDER WAY. Jason Altmire received a reminder on Wednesday that Republicans already have their sights set on his congressional seat in next year's election.

The National Republican Congressional Committee launched a "robocall" campaign targeting Altmire and other Democrat U.S. representatives considered vulnerable in 2012 by the GOP.

The robocalls criticize the Dems for voting against a GOP-backed bill to fund the federal government for the rest of the year.

The calls reference the Democrats' support of the stimulus package two years ago, saying the congressional members who voted for big spending then are opposing big cuts now.

Altmire, of McCandless, isn't Pennsylvania's only U.S. House member in the GOP's cross hairs. Mark Critz of Johnstown was criticized for voting against the funding bill in radio ads airing in his district that were funded by the conservative organization Crossroads GPS.

Please note the subtle rifle imagery. Republicans have their "sights set" on Altmire and he's not the only one in the "GOP's cross hairs."

Ah, the new civility! It's at the P-G, too!

Of course the P-G has a little bit more to the story:

If you live in the Fourth Congressional District, that might be the National Republican Campaign Committee on the line. The group is targeting 10 Democratic incumbents, including Rep. Jason Altmire, D-McCandless, who voted for the stimulus bill two years ago with robocalls to remind their constituents of the vote and spit some venom about the bill itself -- which, depending on which economist you ask, either saved us from a second Great Depression or was a giant, sauce-laden slab of wasteful pork. The call also points out that Altmire voted against House Republicans' slash-and-burn government funding bill that passed early Saturday.

The P-G has the text of the robocall, by the way:

Hi, I'm calling from the National Republican Congressional Committee, 320 First Street SE, Washington, DC 20003, 202.479.7000 with an important political message. This call is a recording. Two years ago this month, your Congressman Jason Altmire helped pass Obama's stimulus. He promised it would create jobs and improve the economy, but instead Pennsylvania's unemployment rate has gone up almost 20 percent. You thought Altmire would've learned his lesson after his big-spending stimulus failed, but last week he voted against a budget bill that actually cut spending, choosing to spend more money we don't have. Call Jason Altmire at 202.225.2565 and tell him he doesn't get it... You want jobs, not more debt to pay. Paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. 202.479.7000

Meanwhile, Altmire is bragging on his non-liberal credentials at his website:

An independent study of Congressional voting records released today by National Journal – a non-partisan publication – found that U.S. Congressman Jason Altmire’s (PA-04) voting record in 2010 places him 15 slots to the right of center in the U.S. House of Representatives for the second year in a row. Congressman Altmire’s voting record in 2010 was more conservative than 54.2 percent of House Members’ voting records. Congressman Altmire is also currently the only member of the House who has never missed a vote in Congress over the past four years.

National Journal evaluated 93 different key votes in the areas of economic, social and foreign policy to formulate its ratings. A chart showing National Journal’s 2010 vote ratings for centrists in Congress is available here. For more information on Congressman Altmire’s voting record, click here.

I dunno. I am thinking that if he's being targeted from the right, he might not want to alienate too too much whatever friends he might have on the left by touting his non-liberal street cred.

But what do I know?

And Now A Message From Richard Mellon Scaife

This is so important I am keeping my commentary to a minimum.

In a piece from Today's Tribune-Review titled Don't Defund Planned Parenthood, Richard Mellon Scaife writes:

My grandmother was a friend and a supporter of Margaret Sanger, one of America's earliest, most effective advocates of birth control.

I met Sanger several times before her death in 1966 and was impressed by her intellect and her commitment to many issues, not the least of which was enabling every woman to be "the absolute mistress of her own body," as she put it.

I didn't agree with everything the formidable Mrs. Sanger espoused. Yet I respected her dedication to making health-care and birth-control services available to all Americans, especially to those with low incomes, no insurance and no other recourse to medical services.

And I admired her fearless, relentless readiness to stand up for what she believed, despite decades of angry, mean-spirited, often hypocritical attacks on her ideas and her character.

So I am aggravated by the continuing attacks on Sanger and her primary legacy, the Planned Parenthood network that still serves so many Americans today.

Now the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives -- urged on by conservatives opposed to abortion -- has voted to defund Planned Parenthood.

On this issue, Republicans and conservatives are dead wrong.

Remember, this is Richard Mellon Scaife writing, owner of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, financial backer of the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy and so on. His conservative bona fides are secure. He continues:

Abortions are a minor aspect of Planned Parenthood's mission to provide reproductive health care, education and other services to Americans, regardless of income.

More than 90 percent of its work focuses on preventing unintended pregnancies that almost inevitably lead to unwanted, neglected and abused children.

In Pittsburgh and across America, Planned Parenthood offices help people to make better decisions about whether to have children. They help to arrange adoptions for women or couples unable to raise a child but unwilling to end a pregnancy.

Most of their clients are poor Americans who cannot afford birth-control measures that cost as much as $1,500 a month.

Of the 10,000 to 12,000 people who use local Planned Parenthood services, about 20 percent are teenagers, half are ages 20 to 30 and the rest over 30.

Of course, no one wants teenagers to get pregnant. Yet far too many do -- and they need reliable, honest advice about what to do next. For many of them, Planned Parenthood is the only reliable source of that advice. For many others, Planned Parenthood is the only safe, reliable source of counseling to avoid getting pregnant in the first place.

If not for Margaret Sanger's vision and bravery, many poor Americans would have no place to turn for birth-control measures and counseling or for other health care services.

To take that away makes no sense.

I criticize Scaife's paper and his editorial board quote often and I plan to go on criticizing it for as long as it needs to be corrected. But in this case when the man's right, he's right.

Defunding Planned Parenthood makes no sense.

For The Climategate Files

Way back in late November 2009, Republican Senator James Inhofe announced on (of course) Fox "News" that he was calling for an investigation into the so-called Climategate emails.

Take a look (the announcement is about 3 minutes in):


And in late May of 2010, he sent a letter to the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce requesting an investigation. He also requested an investigation into Dr. Jane Lubchenco. You remember Lubchenco, right? She was quoted recently by the editorial board of the Tribune-Review. Inhofe was apparently unhappy about her testimony to Congress when she said:

The [CRU] emails really do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus and the independent scientific analyses ofthousands of scientists around the world that tell us that the earth is warming and that the warming is largely a result of human activities. "

Which is the truth, apparently, but apparently annoyed Inhofe nonetheless.

So what happened with the investigation? You guessed it. From The Hill:

A Commerce Department inspector general investigation into the “Climategate” controversy finds that government scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration did not manipulate climate change data.

It’s the latest investigation to clear scientists of manipulating climate data after thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit were leaked in 2009.

“Climategate” has become something of a rallying call for climate skeptics, who have pointed to the e-mails to suggest there is a conspiracy among the world’s scientists. But a slew of investigations into the e-mails have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing.

Something we probably won't be seeing anytime soon on the Trib's Op-Ed page. The same Op-Ed page that only last November published:

If the work of blame-mankind climate "scientists" were unimpeachable, they wouldn't be gearing up for a charm offensive.

Seven hundred global-warming doomsayers have agreed to defend their dubious "science" publicly under the auspices of the American Geophysical Union. And 39 Chicken Littles have signed up for a separate "climate rapid response team" organized by a professor at Minnesota's St. Thomas University for deployment to radio and TV talk shows.

Both efforts smack of increasing desperation fueled by the blame-mankind crowd's credibility crumbling beneath the weight of the scandalous Climategate e-mails, which show data manipulation, and greater public recognition of their leftist big-government agenda. That's why skeptics of global-warming orthodoxy make up half of the new GOP members just elected to Congress.

But I digress.

Here's the report Inhofe requested. And the jackpot:

In our review of the CRU emails, we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the GHCN-M dataset or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures. In addition, we found no evidence to suggest that NOAA was non-compliant with the IQA or the Shelby Amendment.

And let me write that again: No evidence NOAA inappropriately manipulated the data.

Will Senator Inhofe be making an announcement to that effect on Fox "News"? Will Scaife's braintrust?

We won't be holding our breath.

Happy Birthday, George!

Huge Turnout for “Fighting For the American Dream” Rally

Looks like a huge turnout for the “Fighting For the American Dream” Rally. Here are some photos and texts from David who was on his lunch break:


"Delano interviewing"


"huge crowd"


"So many people they have speakers outside"

"Shields, Kraus, Dowd are here"

"Tons of people there. Delano said they were expecting 700"
.

Rallies and Protests and Press Conferences, Oh My!

Looks like folks are awakening to the assault on, well, everyone (who isn't super rich)! Women, children, union members, the middle class, the working class and the working poor, public transit riders -- unless you're Donald Trump -- the Republicans have some plan to screw you.

We're not "special interests" when we are the majority!

Please attend any of these that you can:

THURSDAY, 2/24/11
Impacts of Proposed U.S. Budget Cuts on Pittsburgh Jobs & Families Press Conference (This is for the media)
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
WHERE: WGF Office, Landmarks Building, 100 W. Station Square Drive, Suite 315
WHAT: Via press release [edited]: "Women and Girls Foundation hosts. Southwest PA organizations, their local workers and service recipients, would be directly impacted by the drastic cuts included in H.R. 1 which slashes billions of dollars of funding resulting in the elimination of millions of jobs and services for working families in our region. Federal programs impacted range from early childhood education and college financial aid to nutritional assistance for infants, veterans housing, public broadcasting, and reproductive healthcare. It eliminates federal funding for Planned Parenthood and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and it defunds the implementation of health care reform and EPA pollution enforcement. It now moves to the Senate for vote later this month. Representatives from the following organizations will speak: Pittsburgh Association for the Education of Young Children, Fair Housing Partnership, Just Harvest, WQED Multimedia, Women’s Center & Shelter, PennFuture, Planned Parenthood, Adagio Health, The Arc of Greater Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh Community Services, Action United, ACLU Pittsburgh, SEIU, Women’s Law Project, New Voices Pittsburgh, National Council of Jewish Women, National Organization for Women, Pennsylvania Health Access Network, and Health Care for America Now. (Members of the media are asked to RSVP if you plan to attend.)"

MoveOn / Democracy for Pittsburgh: Invest in America!
TIME: 11:30 AM;11:45 AM
WHERE: Gather @ Aldo Coffee Shop, 675 Washington Road, Pittsburgh (Mt. Lebanon), PA 15228; Proceed to Office of Rep. Murphy, which is at 504 Washington Road, Pittsburgh (Mt. Lebanon), Pa 15228
WHAT: "We are going to go to Rep. Murphy and let him know that cutting billions from funding health care, education, and science will do nothing to turn our economy around, but it will hurt the other 98% of us that are barely getting through the worst recession since the Great Depression. We will go to the office of Rep. Murphy with our Invest in America message, and share our personal stories of why we need support for our broken economy and communities." Please RSVP for the event by clicking on the link below: http://pol.moveon.org/event/invest2011/112639

“Fighting For the American Dream” Rally
Stand in Solidarity with the Wisconsin Workers
TIME: Noon (lunch provided)
WHERE: USW International HQ, Downtown Pittsburgh, 5 Gateway Center, 60 Boulevard of the Allies, Pittsburgh PA
WHAT: "Our brothers and sisters in Wisconsin and other states are in a fight for the very survival of their jobs and their union. This is our moment to stand and show solidarity with them and let their Governor and the extremist organizations financing these attacks know: WE STAND TOGETHER! "


FRIDAY, 2/25/11
People's Rally For Public Transportation
TIME: 8:30 - 11:30 AM
WHERE: Mellon Square Park, 6th & Smithfiled, Downtown Pittsburgh PA
WHAT: Protest the drastic cutbacks in public transit.


SATURDAY, 2/26/11
Rally to Save the American Dream, Harrisburg, PA
TIME: 12:00pm - 3:00pm
WHERE: Capitol Steps, 3rd St., Harrisburg, PA 17101
WHAT: "Americans who believe in the right to organize are standing up on Saturday. It's time to stop the dismantling of organizations opposed to the right wing agenda."
RSVP: http://www.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=112822&is_manage=1

DOMA = Unconstitutional

From AP/The Huffington Post:

In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.

Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships - precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's)Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."

But we all know this by now.

What's been the reaction to all this Administration fairness?

House Speaker John Boehner (from Politico):

Since the anemic economy will probably dominate the national agenda for the foreseeable future, advocates contend there was little political risk for the president in meeting a long-standing demand of the gay community and declaring the 15-year-old law — which bans federal recognition of same-sex marriages — unconstitutional. It was telling that House Speaker John Boehner, one of the most powerful Republicans in Washington, criticized the decision as a distraction, but didn’t attack its substance.

“While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the President will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation,” Boehner said.

TPM calls this the Tell of the Day:

Buried in a packed news day, I think one of the telling responses to the president's DOMA decision was that from Speaker John Boehner. Asked for comment, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel released a statement that could only barely manage to criticize the president's decision.

On the other hand, the crazies are out in full force.

Representative Michele Bachmann:

Michele Bachmann is fundraising off President Obama's decision to no longer defend the constitutionality of a law banning federal recognition of same-sex unions.

Just hours after the president's reversal on a Defense of Marriage Act provision, Bachmann, who is considering a White House run next year, blasted an e-mail to supporters. "I'm sending you this urgent message because if we don't join together and take action today, it could be a crushing blow to the traditional marriage movement," she writes.

Bachmann urges them to sign her "Support Traditional Marriage" petition, setting a goal of collecting 50,000 names in 48 hours. And then she asks supporters to "consider making a generous donation of $25, $50, $100, $250 or more" so she can circulate the petition to other activists around the country.

"This is just the beginning in our fight to repeal Barack Obama in 2012," she writes. "Had Barack Obama been on the ballot in 2010, he would have gone down in a fiery defeat. Yet he continues to push his far-left, socialist agenda on the American people. And today, he has declared war on marriage. As conservatives, we must push for a new type of 'change' in our country and fight for our shared values."

And former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum:

In a statement released tonight, Santorum said President Obama's decision on DOMA is "is yet another example of our president's effort to erode the very traditions that have made our country the greatest nation on earth."

Obama's "refusal to defend a law that was overwhelmingly supported on both sides of the aisle and signed into law by a president of his own party is an affront to the will of the people," Santorum said.

Of course "will of the people" is not a factor in the constitutionality of a law. But I am not a lawyer, you know.

I'm also not an anti-gay bigot.

Scenes from today's Pro Planned Parenthood Rally/March in Pittsburgh

Scenes from today's Pro Planned Parenthood Rally (courtesy of David):








(Umm, lady, your taxes don't fund abortions.).

Stand With Planned Parenthood -- Rally Today

“Save Women’s Lives: Save Federal Funding for Women’s Health Care”

TODAY Wednesday, February 23

12:00 Noon

Meet at 933 Liberty Ave

If you can, please wear pink and bring your signs in support of Planned Parenthood’s family planning and basic health care services.

RSVP to Stephanie: Stephanie.L.Shaw@gmail.com OR 412-434-8957 ext. 116 OR RSVP on Facebook here.

Via Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania:

There has never been a more urgent time to support Planned Parenthood of Western PA and the thousands of patients we serve every year.

As you may know, last week the U.S. House of Representatives passed a historic measure to end Title X funding for preventative reproductive health care and entirely bar Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funding for any purpose whatsoever and we need your help in Western PA!

Next week, the U.S. Senate will be voting on these very issues. There could not be a more critical time to let Senator Casey know that these attacks against Planned Parenthood and reproductive health care make it harder – if not impossible – for our patients, and his constituents, to receive the care they need and deserve: annual exams, breast exams, birth control, STI treatment, and life-saving cancer screenings.

JOIN US as hundreds of PPWP advocates, volunteers, patients, and staff walk from our downtown health center to Sen. Casey’s office to let him know that we stand behind him and that we are counting on him to support Planned Parenthood.

The Trib's Editorial Board FINALLY Quotes NOAA

But now in the way that you think.

First here's what Scaife's Braintrust posted today:

A Valentine's Day solar flare -- the largest since Dec. 5, 2006, and part of an expected upswing in the 11-year cycle of solar activity -- is cause for legitimate concern. But don't shoot Bruce Willis into space or bet the farm on solar-flare shields just yet.

Solar flares' charged particles crash into Earth's atmosphere 20 to 30 hours later. Resulting electromagnetic disruption affects radio, satellites, power grids and high-tech marvels such as GPS -- on which humanity depends far more today than during the last solar upswing about a decade ago.

Some scientists now warn of a potential $2 trillion "solar 'Katrina.'" The head of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration told the Financial Times: "Predict and prepare should be the watchwords."

The strongest flare ever recorded wiped out much of Earth's then-new telegraph network in 1859, yet occurred during a "weak" cycle. So the threat can't be dismissed, despite NASA dubbing the Feb. 14 flare "rather weak." Whatever steps can be taken to minimize that threat should be taken.

Still, whatever countermeasures mankind can employ surely are puny compared to the forces that solar flares unleash. Yes, the sun does bear watching. But we must be prepared to understand that the limits of our defenses can be sobering.

Now, let's unweave. The quotation in the third paragraph leads to this article in the Financial Times. And this quotation:

“Predict and prepare should be the watchwords,” agreed Jane Lubchenco, head of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

And now we have a name. So who's Jane Lubchenco? From her NOAA webpage:

Dr. Lubchenco has studied marine ecosystems around the world and championed the importance of science and its relevance to policy making and human well-being. A former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the International Council for Science and the Ecological Society of America, she served 10 years on the National Science Board (Board of Directors for the National Science Foundation). From 1999-2009 she led PISCO, a large 4-university, interdisciplinary team of scientists investigating the large marine ecosystem along the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California. She has a special interest in Arctic ecosystems, with recent work in Svalbard, Greenland and the Alaskan arctic.

Dr. Lubchenco has provided scientific input to multiple U.S. Administrations and Congress on climate, fisheries, marine ecosystems, and biodiversity. Dr. Lubchenco served on the first National Academy of Sciences study on ‘Policy Implications of Global Warming’, providing advice to the George H.W. Bush administration and Congress. In 1997 she briefed President Clinton and Vice President Gore and Members of Congress on climate change.

Her scientific contributions are widely recognized. Eight of her publications are “Science Citation Classics”; she is one of the ‘most highly cited’ ecologists in the world. Dr. Lubchenco is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, and four international academies of science: the Royal Society, the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World, Europe, and Chile. She has received numerous awards including a MacArthur (‘genius’) Fellowship, twelve honorary degrees, the 2002 Heinz Award in the Environment, the 2005 AAAS Award for Public Understanding of Science and Technology and the 2008 Zayed International Prize for the Environment.

So I guess she's an expert. Genius Award, too. Frickin impressive.

Now that Lubchenco is deemed worthy to quote but, oddly not worthy enough to be named on the Trib's editorial page (I won't go so far as to wonder whether it's because she's a she), will we be seeing any reference to any other quotation from her?

Like these?

Being a proud UConn grad it pains me to reference anything with the name Yale in it, but considering where I am going with this, this is a good place to start:

Yale Environment 360: My first question is about the climate impacts report that you all came out with very recently. What is the message that you were hoping people would take from that?

Jane Lubchenco: I think the take-away message is that the evidence is in: Climate change is real, it’s causing changes in our own backyard, many of those changes are increasingly challenging to society, and therefore there is urgency in moving ahead with reducing heat-trapping pollution as soon as possible.

Or this quotation:

Jane Lubchenco: Climate change is happening now. It’s not a theory. It’s a set of observed facts. It’s affecting many of the things that people care about

Marine ecologist Jane Lubchenco is head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA. Dr. Lubchenco told EarthSky that global climate change from fossil fuel burning is impacting Earth’s oceans today.

Jane Lubchenco: Climate change is already affecting oceans. It’s making them warmer. It’s making sea levels rise. And it’s making them more acidic. All of those change both the beauty and the bounty of oceans.

Or this one:

“For the first time, and in a single compelling comparison, the analysis brings together multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “The records come from many institutions worldwide. They use data collected from diverse sources, including satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys. These independently produced lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion: our planet is warming,”

And the report she mentions? It's this one.

Where NOAA says Climate change is UNDENIABLE.

Will the Trib ever get to that?

Pittsburgh City Council to proclaim respect for public workers today

Via the AFLCIO:

IN THE FACE OF ANTI-PUBLIC WORKER LEGISLATIVE FIGHTS IN WISCONSIN AND OHIO, PITTSBURGH CITY COUNCIL TAKES A STAND

Council members and Pittsburgh public workers to hold preview of proclamation honoring public workers before Council vote

Pittsburgh, Penn. – On Tuesday, February 22, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Councilmember Natalia Rudiak will preview a proclamation co-sponsored by all nine City Councilmembers expressing support and respect for public workers prior to the Pittsburgh City Council’s regular weekly meeting where it will be on the agenda. Council Member Rudiak and other Councilmembers will be joined by a variety of public workers including firefighters, bus drivers, snow plow drivers, school crossing guards and others for the preview.

The proclamation comes at a time when public workers are under attack in state legislatures across the county, targeted by right-wing and corporate political committees funded by nearly unlimited and undisclosed corporate cash, seeking to roll back collective bargaining rights and half-a-century of labor reforms.

“The right-wing assault on public workers grossly misrepresents facts and tries to lay blame for budget deficits and pension problems at the feet of dedicated public servants who come to work everyday and do their jobs delivering the services that keep us safer, healthier and contribute to the vital functions of government that serve the public good”, said Jack Shea, President of the Allegheny County Labor Council.

“On Tuesday, we will stand in solidarity, not just with the public workers in Pittsburgh, but with all public workers in America, especially our brothers and sisters under attack this week in Wisconsin and Ohio,” Shea added.

What: Preview of Respect our Public Workers Proclamation

Who: Councilmember Natalia Rudiak and colleagues, public workers from a variety of departments and trades, Jack Shea, President of the Allegheny County Labor Council.

Where: 5th Floor, City-County Building, outside of City Council Chambers

When: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 at 9:30 AM

Horses: Yes; Women: No

Via Blog for Choice:

Politico and RH Reality Check are reporting that anti-choice Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana has introduced an amendment to a spending bill that would promote contraception--for wild horses.

But, they strip all federal funding for Planned Parenthood (mind you, this would be funding for contraceptives, cancer screenings, basic health care, etc. and not abortions) and want to stop all funds for all family planning for low-income Americans (Title X).

That would be:

Horses 1, Women 0

At least you know where you stand, ladies (barefoot and pregnant).

Via Digby, during the course of the debate on defunding Planned Parenthood:

Rep. Jackie Speier listened to debate on the House floor on Thursday evening as a Republican Rep. Chris Smith read a long, detailed description of an abortion and a "mangled image of a dead, tiny baby." Finally, Speier stood up and told her colleagues she had undergone an abortion in the early 1990s following a complication nearly four months into her pregnancy.

"As the night wore on, the vitriol and grotesque commentary got worse and worse," Speier, a second-term Democrat from California, told HuffPost. "I sat there thinking, none of these men on the other side have even come close to experiencing this, and yet they can pontificate about what it's like. It just overwhelmed me."

[snip]

"This was a wanted pregnancy, it was the second miscarriage I had had," she told HuffPost. "What they express doesn't come close to the experience that a woman goes through when she is losing a baby or when a pregnancy is terminated. It's a painful, gut-wrenching loss."

[snip]

Representative Speier shouldn't have to bare her personal life to the whole country. But she did because cynical, paternalistic Congressmen like Smith and Mike Pence thinks she is a child, a cruel child, who like all women cannot be trusted to make her own decisions. They have no clue about these experiences and no respect for the agency and autonomy of those who have to deal with them. (The women who support these patriarchal nincompoops are just as disrespectful.) It is a rare woman who has an abortion without understanding the seriousness of it and no one but she can rightly make the decision.

If you haven't already, watch Rep. Speier speak here:


Of course, here in PA, women are used to being treated as children (stupid and cruel children at that) as there is a mandatory lecture and waiting period for all women who seek an abortion in this state.
.