Another E-mail from CMU President Cohon: She-Pope Matter Resolved

An astute reader emailed this to me:

To the Carnegie Mellon Community:

Last week, I wrote to you about the university’s process for dealing with the incidents of student nudity during the College of Fine Arts’ Anti-Gravity Downhill Derby on Carnival Weekend. I promised to write to you once the internal process had been completed. In this message I describe how the matter has been resolved and the rationale for the outcome. Let me begin by quoting the university’s freedom of expression policy which can be found in its entirety at http://www.cmu.edu/policies/documents/FreeSpeech.html:

“Carnegie Mellon University values the freedoms of speech, thought, expression and assembly - in themselves and as part of our core educational and intellectual mission. The university must be a place where all ideas may be expressed freely and where no alternative is withheld from consideration. The only limits on these freedoms are those dictated by law and those necessary to protect the rights of other members of the university community and to ensure the normal functioning of the university.” Our policy makes it clear that Carnegie Mellon is committed to the rights of its students to express controversial views, while recognizing some key restrictions on that expression--including those dictated by law. This policy was revised six years ago in a widely consultative process with input from all parts of campus including faculty, students, staff, the administrative leadership and the Board of Trustees.

We relied on this policy to frame our decision making in this matter. In this situation, the issue is public nudity by two students, one woman and one man, at an open event which members of the public historically have attended, without warning to or protection of anyone who might unwittingly be witness to that exposure. This is a violation of Pennsylvania law. Carnegie Mellon’s Campus Police, who are commissioned by the state to enforce the law, have filed misdemeanor charges for indecent exposure against the two students. Final disposition of these charges will occur through the Allegheny County justice system, not through university channels. There will be no separate disciplinary action pursued through the university’s internal process. [Emphases added.


The students took part in a campus art event and, in the case of the student who portrayed herself as the Pope, made an artistic statement which proved to be controversial. While I recognize that many found the students’ activities deeply offensive, the university upholds their right to create works of art and express their ideas. But, public nudity is a violation of the law and subject to appropriate action.[Emphasis added.]


I understand that this resolution may not be supported by those who believe that there can be no limits on the freedom of artistic expression. Others who were particularly offended by the incident may be distressed that more severe action is not being taken.

There are competing values at issue here: Carnegie Mellon aims to be a place where ideas can be expressed and debated openly, but also where people of all backgrounds, faiths, and beliefs feel welcomed and supported. Unavoidably, the expression of some views will offend some people; that is the price of this freedom. However, if in the expression of these views, people in our community come to feel that the campus is intolerant, then the other of our cherished values is challenged. In such a situation, the institution may find it necessary to reassure those offended of its commitment to tolerance and inclusion. In doing so, I do not believe that the institution is compromising freedom of expression. Similarly, it is reasonable to expect individuals to consider the impact on others in expressing their views and how they choose to express them. This is responsibility, not censorship, and something that our students, especially, shou! ld (sic) learn while they are members of our community.  [Emphasis added.]


It is our practice in controversial situations such as this one to provide opportunities for discussion, where all sides have a chance to express their views. This has already begun on the campus. Members of our community are asking themselves the difficult questions about what happened here, and embracing their responsibility to create a context in which events like these can continue to be held in a manner which is consistent with the full range of our values. These values include, certainly, freedom of expression, but also the cultivation of an inclusive, mutually respectful environment, and respect for the law. Being aware of and acting on those values is my responsibility as your President, and, in this circumstance, the School of Art, the College of Fine Arts, and the Office of Student Affairs.

Our students, and the faculty who advise them, must have a clear understanding of the complexity of these issues. Our investigation of this incident revealed that our freedom of expression policy is not as well understood today as it was when it was adopted six years ago—especially by students, faculty, and staff who have come to the university since then. We will do a better job of making all members of our community aware of their rights to free speech and their responsibilities to the community.

I hope that, in that spirit, this incident will inspire thoughtful discussions at Carnegie Mellon and beyond, and affirm our beliefs in the freedom and the responsibility that are essential to the life of the university.

Jared L. Cohon

President [ALL EMPHASES ADDED.]

As I wrote before:

So other than the naked from public nudity part, nothing she did violated CMU's stated policy on free expression.

And as President Cohon wrote: the issue was the public nudity.

Could Not Have Put It Better Myself

Jon Stewart:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

Highlights:

At 2:00 in, Jon Stewart says:

You may be wondering why for Benghazi, Congress has held nine full hearings - including one closed hearing.  Why Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen issued a full accountability report chastising the State Department for their systemic failures and why Benghazi has generally emerged as a rallying cry for the President's opponents when during the Bush Administration there were fifty-four attacks on diplomatic targets that killed thirteen Americans, yet garnered only three hearings on embassy security total and zero outrage on Fox.

At 3:26 in Representative Peter King describes how big a scandal Benghazi is says:

If you add Watergate and IranContra together and multiply it times maybe 10 or so, you're gonna get in the zone of what Benghazi is.

To which Jon Stewart replied:

Holy sh*t! [taking notes] Watergate plus IranContra times...[note taking ends]  So you're saying that the incident, whereby the order of the President of the United States, people broke into the Democratic headquarters to bug it to gain strategic advantage in a presidential election then cover that up by trying to use the power of the presidency to squash the Justice Department and then added that to the Reagan Administrations secret deal to illegally sell arms to Iran in exchange for hostages and money that could then be funneled to Central American right wing death squads, end parentheses, times ten.

Yeppers, that's what they're saying.

However, by the time we get to 1:10 in to the second section of this video:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

The wingnut media is balancing this on "If that indeed was the case..."

Following a long line of "If..." statements from Fox pundits, at 2:00 in, Stewart reacts with:

YES!  If dingleberries were diamonds, I could open a Kay Jewelers in my pants!"

Thus illustrating the emptiness of their whole argument.

He ends the segment with this at 3:50:

If what you're saying is true (and it's an important question). If what you're saying is true: if the President let Amercians die for political reasons then by god, bring us the evidence and we will grab the pitchforks and torches along with you.  But remember, that game goes both ways.  Let me try:  In 2011, the State Department requested funding for worldwide security protection and upgrade.  Money that could have perhaps gone to protect Benghazi.  The Republicans, like Darrell Issa who's heading up this committee, voted to cut that funding.  Maybe because of political reasons in an election year to make the President look weak.  Thus sacrificing Americans for political gains.  Did that happen?

One last quote taken out of context to prove this point:

If that's the case, John, then that's outrageous.

And it is.

LGBTQ In The News

My friend Sue over at Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents is running:

An occasional series where we pose some questions to local LGBTQ folks (and Allies) to learn more about their personal experiences with LGBTQ culture.

And she was nice enough to think that I'd make a good addition to the series.  I have to say that it's very nice to be included in such an illustrious list of people.  Others political type folks thusly profiled:

• Matt Merriman-Preston
• Natalia Rudniak
• Dan Gilman
• Doug Shields
• Tonya Payne
• Sherry Pasquarello
• Bill Peduto
• Bram Reichbaum
• Jeanne Clark

And that's just the names I recognize!

With the self-serving stuff out of the way, let's move on to this short-ish piece in the P-G:

A bipartisan group of state House and Senate lawmakers introduced measures Tuesday to ban discrimination statewide in employment, housing and public accommodations for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Pennsylvanians.

The P-G blurb doesn't say much about the legislation (bill numbers? sponsors? nuttin') but this piece from the Tribune-Democrat has a bit more info:

Forty percent of Pennsylvania’s state legislators, including two local senators, sponsored anti-discrimination bills introduced in Harrisburg on Tuesday.

Sens. John Wozniak, D-Westmont, and Richard Kasunic, D-Dunbar, co-sponsored Senate Bill 300, introduced by Sens. Pat Browne and Larry Farnese.

None of the area’s seven representatives co-sponsored House Bill 300, as put forth by Reps. Dan Frankel and Chris Ross.

Now, we're getting somewhere.  Although as of this writing - and this is probably due to the fact that these bills were only introduced yesterday - there was nothing at the Pennsylvania Legislature website for SB300 or HB300 for this legislative session (I'll update this blog post if/when they go "live.").

John Micek at Pennlive his more:

In the press conference, Rep. Dan Frankel, lead sponsor of HB 300, said, ”More and more people inside the Capitol – from both parties — agree with the vast majority of people outside the building on this. Being gay or transgender has nothing to do with your ability to do a good job or to be a good neighbor or tenant. This is just commonsense legislation. Many people think it’s the law already, and it should be.”

And at his legislative webpage, Rep. Frankel has this Sponsorship Memorandum where learn that it's a reintroduction of HB300 from the 2011-2012 legislative session

From Senator Pat Brown's legislative webpage, we find this Sponsorship Memorandum, where we learn that his bill is a reintroduction of SB1050 from the 2011-2012 legislative session.

Back to Micek for the inevitable:

In the House, the bill sponsored by Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Allegheny, is destined for the State Government Committee.

That matters because the panel is chaired by state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, an outspoken social conservative who once opposed a push by Philadelphia officials to market the city to gay tourists because he didn’t believe tax dollars should be used to “promote immoral behaviors.”

In a phone interview Tuesday, Metcalfe scoffed at Frankel’s bill, charging his House colleague was “out of touch with reality.” Metcalfe said some Republicans on his panel had advised him to bring the bill to a vote just so it could be defeated.

Only if "out of touch with reality" means that when asked this question:

The state legislature is considering several proposals related to gay marriage and civil unions. Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendmen t that would allow same sex couples to get legally married?

53% of Pennsylvanians polled in this recent Franklin and Marshall poll answered with either "Strongly favor" (37%) or "Somewhat favor" (16%).  Note to the possibly arithmatically challenged Daryl Metcalfe: 37 + 16 = 53 and 53% is a majority.

Remember, Metcalfe's the guy who declared that there's "significant voter fraud plaguing Pennsylvania's elections" even though there isn't any.

So facing facts probably isn't one of his strong points.

Oh, Yea...More On Benghazi Cover-up Truthers!!

From the Tribune-Review's editorial page today:

A much clearer picture of the Sept. 11, 2012, debacle at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, including our ambassador to Libya — and the Obama administration's dishonest, self-serving misrepresentation of that organized terrorist act — comes Wednesday.

I want to skip a paragraph and start with the braintrust's the first of three bullet points on what to expect from the hearings:

Details about watering down initial talking points to remove mentions of al-Qaida and terrorism in favor of the spurious “spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim U.S. video” line. The Weekly Standard's Stephen F. Hayes writes that emails sent during that process make it “clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public.”

Ah, the incredible Stephen F. Hayes.  He was the guy who argued in 2003 (against all evidence) that:

[T]here can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans.

Something that just wasn't true:

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.

So yea, let's continue to treat Stephen F. Hayes as a credible pundit.

The Braintrust does, anyway.

But let's take a look at how Hayes' article actually undermines what the Braintrust says Hayes says.  Remember he said that it was the administration that was "rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public" specifically removing mentions of al-Qaeda in favor of the "it was a protest against the video" story.

So if we compare the first and last draft, we might get some where.  This is what Hayes writes about where the first draft came from:

After a briefing on Capitol Hill by CIA director David Petraeus, Democrat Dutch Ruppersburger, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, asked the intelligence community for unclassified guidance on what members of Congress could say in their public comments on the attacks. The CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis prepared the first draft of a response to the congressman, which was distributed internally for comment at 11:15 a.m. on Friday, September 14.

And this is what Hayes says is the first draft:

We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.

And the last:

The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

The part that should pique your interest is the part (in both versions) about the "protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo."  What were those protests about?

Guess:

Ultraconservative Islamist protesters climbed the walls of the United States Embassy in Cairo on Tuesday and took down the American flag, replacing it with a black flag with an Islamic inscription to protest a movie attacking Islam’s prophet, Muhammad.

Um...so the idea that the Benghazi attacks were in response to the Cairo protests (which themselves were triggered by the anti-Islam film) were in the talking points from the beginning?  And those talking points came from the CIA?

So how could the administration be rewriting them?

Ten Commandments Update

I usually don't respond to letters to the editor found in newspapers.  I figure that everyone's entitled to their own opinion (even if I think it's wrong).

However if a public figure writes a letter to the editor about an issue, and especially if I've written about that public figure and/or that issue then I feel free to comment.

Where am I going with this?  Here.

The Rev. Ewing Marietta, Senior Pastor of the Liberty Baptist Church in Union, PA has written a letter to the editor regarding the Ten Commandments monument in Connellsville.  (Should even I bother with an Exodus16:1-36 reference?  Perhaps not.)

In it Pastor Marietta makes a few misrepresentations of the facts.  Most incorrect is this one:

The Constitution has not changed, but now we are not allowed to display the Ten Commandments outside a public building.

While I am not in favor of a such religious display (for example a stand-alone monument depicting the Ten Commandments) "outside of a public building" that's not exactly the issue here.

The issue is that the monument is on public school grounds - and that's unconstitutional.

As I've written before, there is some Supreme Court precedent regarding the Ten Commandments "outside of a public building" but as Justice Breyer points out in his discussion of Van Orden V Perry:

This case, moreover, is distinguishable from instances where the Court has found Ten Commandments displays impermissible. The display is not on the grounds of a public school, where, given the impressionability of the young, government must exercise particular care in separating church and state.

So when the good pastor writes that "The fight is still on to save Connellsville's 10 Commandments monument. We can and must win this case." He's wrong on all counts as the fight is already over.  Public displays of the Ten Commandments are impermissible.

But I want to look at what Pastor Marietta writes next:

Should this monument even be an argument right now? We need moral absolutes more than ever.

Really? Moral absolutism is what we need right now?

Take a look at this:


In the video, Richard Dawkins is asked this question:

My question is for professor Dawkins. Considering that atheism can not possibly have any sense of absolute morality, would it not then be an irrational leap of faith, which atheists themselves so harshly condemn, for an atheist to decide between right and wrong?

And he answers:

Absolute morality - the absolute morality that a religious person might profess would include what? Stoning people for adultery? Death for apostasy?  Punishment for breaking the Sabbath? These are all things which are religiously based absolute moralities. I don't think I want an absolute morality. I think I want a morality that is thought-out, reasoned, argued, discussed and based upon, I'd almost say intelligent design. Can we not design our society, which has the sort of morality, the sort of society that we want to live in?  If you actually look at the moralities that are accepted among modern people, among 21st century people, we don't believe in slavery anymore. We believe in equality of women. We believe in being gentle. We believe in being kind to animals. These are all things which are entirely recent. They have very little basis in Biblical or Quranic scripture. They are things that have developed over historical time through a consensus of reasoning, of sober discussion, argument, legal theory, political and moral philosophy. These do not come from religion. To the extent that you can find the good bits in religious scriptures, you have to cherry pick. You search your way though the Bible or the Quran and you find the occasional verse that is an acceptable profession of morality and you say, "Look at that! That's religion!" and you leave out all the horrible bits and you say, "Oh, we don't believe that anymore. We've grown out of that." Well, of course we've grown out it. We've grown out of it because of secular moral philosophy and rational discussion."

But are those punishments really the case?  Let's take them one by one

• Stoning people for adultery?  Deuteronomy 22:22 says:

  If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

• Death for apostasy? Deuteronomy 13:6-9 says:

  6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people.

• Punishment for breaking the Sabbath? Exodus 35:2 says:

  For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death.

Is this what the good pastor means when he talks about how "we need moral absolutes" now?  It must be - the texts are from The Bible and they are clear as can be.

God, I hope not.

The Trib Misleads On Climate. Again.

Scaife's braintrust on the Tribune-Review editorial board can usually be relied upon to repeat one or more climate denier myths.

Today, it's the "but it's cold outside now so how can it be warming globally?" myth.

Take a look:

Former Vice President Al Gore says today's generation “will be held accountable” for not doing enough to address global warming. “Our children and grandchildren ... if they exist in a world that has been devastated by these consequences that have been predicted and are beginning to unfold — they would be well justified in asking of us: ‘What in the hell were you thinking?'” Gee, isn't that the question all of us should be asking the climate cluckers, considering scientists have just announced that we are in the midst of our coldest spring in 38 years?[Bolding in original]

I have to admit I am not at all sure where the braintrust gets the "coldest spring in 38 years" meme.

Perhaps it's this blog post from climate denier Steven Goddard.  It's titled:

Second Coldest Start To Spring In US History

There's a chart and everything:


Take a look as I want you to notice a few things.  First the dot in the lower right hand corner is, I take it, some sort of number representing the April/March temp.  Goddard (and by extension Scaife's braintrust) use that to show how the Earth isn't warming because it's the second lowest on the chart.

But look waay up in the upper right hand corner.  Looks to me like that was last year's Apri/March number.  Looks to me like it's the second (or maybe third) highest on the chart.

How much you wanna bet that last year Goddard et al were completely silent about that dot?

Next, let's take a look at the data presented.  According to the title of the chart, it's US data and not Global data - so right there Goddard's selected data from only about 7% of the planet's total land mass (and that's only about 2% of the planet's total surface area - it's including all the water).

Compare that to the global data publicly available at NOAA:

• The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for March 2013 tied with 2006 as the 10th warmest on record, at 0.58°C (1.04°F) above the 20th century average of 12.3°C (54.1°F). 
• The global land surface temperature was 1.06°C (1.91°F) above the 20th century average of 5.0°C (40.8°F), the 11th warmest March on record. For the ocean, the March global sea surface temperature was 0.41°C (0.74°F) above the 20th century average of 15.9°C (60.7°F), making it the ninth warmest March on record. 
• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–March period (year-to-date) was 0.58°C (1.04°F) above the 20th century average of 12.3°C (54.1°F), the eighth warmest such period on record.

Using a localized weather event (even if the "locality" is the US) as counter evidence for the whole is willfully confusing weather and climate. From NASA:

Weather is basically the way the atmosphere is behaving, mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities. The difference between weather and climate is that weather consists of the short-term (minutes to months) changes in the atmosphere. Most people think of weather in terms of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, brightness, visibility, wind, and atmospheric pressure, as in high and low pressure.

In most places, weather can change from minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day, and season-to-season. Climate, however, is the average of weather over time and space. An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.

Not matter how many times they do it, Scaife's braintrust will always be wrong when they argue this point in this manner.

Shorter Post-Gazette Mayoral Endorsement

Ravenstahl's a putz and Peduto rightfully opposed him, but that proves he can't work well with Ravenstahl's minions on Council so you shouldn't vote for him. Wagner contemplated maybe running against Ravenstahl in the fall but wouldn't jump into the primary until Ravenstahl dropped out which proves how brave Wagner is and how unconnected to the Ravenstahl crowd he is so you should vote for him. Also, Wagner works well with Republicans so he will work well with Council which is all Democrats. Policies? We don't need no stinkin' polices. The End.

Caption Contest!

Lukey, hard at work.

[Photo taken from this P-G piece.]

CMU Apologizes - But For The Wrong Thing

Let's start here, with the Tribune-Review:

Lance: To CMU. Its College of Fine Arts allowed a woman to march in its spring carnival parade naked from the waist down. Her pubic hair was shaved in the shape of a cross. Her top attire was described as “a papal parody.” Many, naturally, took offense. We're all for free expression. But by any standard, this was tasteless.[Bolding in original.]

Not much here to fact-check except to point out the conflicting message from the braintrust. They're saying that:

• We're all for free expression, but
• ...this was tasteless and so
• CMU deserves a LANCE for "allowing" the young woman to march thusly dressed and thusly shaved.

See the conflict? If you are, in deed, "all for free expression" then even if the presentation is "tasteless" no lance is deserved.

Which is why the apology from CMU President Jared Cohon fails.  An astute reader sent me a copy of the text.  Here it is:

To the Carnegie Mellon Community:

I am writing to you about the incident that occurred during Spring Carnival, in which a student appeared in a parade partially nude and portraying herself as the Pope. This act was highly offensive and, as we have said, the university has been investigating the matter and following our procedures to determine if disciplinary action is warranted.

I had not intended to communicate with you again until our review process was complete, but in light of comments I have heard from people on and off campus, I have decided that an update is in order. In particular, some people seem to equate limited communication with no action, believing that the university is doing nothing, and somehow hoping that the issue will just go away. This is not the case, and those who know me and my administration should reject such ideas out of hand.

We have procedures for a reason: to protect both the university's interests and those accused of violating our community standards or policies. We will take the time necessary to discharge our responsibility to treat those involved fairly.

While our process is still in motion and I cannot comment on or speculate about the resolution of the matter, I can apologize to those who took particular offense. I regret that this occurred, and I apologize to all who were offended by this, for religious or other reasons, and especially to those who witnessed this behavior.

Jared L. Cohon
President
Carnegie Mellon University

A few things to note - more than half is devoted to communicating the idea that CMU is still in the process of looking at the incident and reassuring the public that "limited communication" does not equal "no action."

It's the apology that seems somehow incomplete.  While acknowledging that he found the naked she-pope with the crucifix pubes to have been offensive (apologizing to anyone else who found her actions offensive), he utterly fails to defend or even acknowledge CMU's own policy on free expression.  Here it is:

Carnegie Mellon University values the freedoms of speech, thought, expression and assembly - in themselves and as part of our core educational and intellectual mission. If individuals are to cherish freedom, they must experience it. The very concept of freedom assumes that people usually choose wisely from a range of available ideas and that the range and implications of ideas cannot be fully understood unless we hold vital our rights to know, to express, and to choose. The university must be a place where all ideas may be expressed freely and where no alternative is withheld from consideration. The only limits on these freedoms are those dictated by law and those necessary to protect the rights of other members of the University community and to ensure the normal functioning of the University.

In the following section labeled "Rights" we see what limits the policy describes.  Here's what people are allowed to do:

• Anyone may distribute printed material
• Offer petitions for signature
• Make speeches
• Hold protests or demonstrations outside university buildings.

However, there are some limits:

• All such activities must be peaceful, avoiding acts or credible threats of violence and preserving the normal operation of the university
• No event shall infringe upon the rights or privileges of anyone not in sympathy with it
• No one will be permitted to harm others, damage or deface property, block access to university buildings or disrupt classes

So other than the naked from public nudity part, nothing she did violated CMU's stated policy on free expression.

So what was the apology for?

For offending a church?  For offending members of that church?  For offending the people holding some sincerely held beliefs regarding any other church, its deity or its doctrine?

Sorry, that just not good enough to warrant any (ANY) sort of sanctions against nudis femina cum decalvetur pubes however tasteless her actions might have been.

Democracy is messy.  Free speech is messy.  If you want to "cherish freedom" then you have to accept that sometimes some people are going to say some things that are offensive.  That's one of the costs of a truly free society.

As Vic Walczek is quoted at the Trib:

“One of the things that are troubling about this is the calls for punishment because she offended the leader of a religious group,” Walczak said. “Free speech means nobody is above criticism, from the president to the pope.”

Liberum oratio in saecula 

Amen

More On Luke's Swiftboating...

There's a portion of Luke's latest swiftboat ad that I wanted to address. It's the part where the narrator says that:

Peduto voted against the living wage

The issue is big enough that there was a press conference this morning to address the swiftboating issue.

Potter, as usual, deftly covered the story:

So here's the fact-check. Peduto did vote to shelve living wage in 2002 -- a vote that everyone knew would put the bill on ice for an indefinite period. But since then, Peduto has also taken steps to boost the wages of low-income workers -- over the objections of the mayor now attacking his record. You can see why [SEIU's Sam] Williamson and others are outraged, and why they feel the ad creates a false impression. But Ravenstahl's ad may not exactly "rewrite history," as Williamson claimed, so much a offer a highly selective reading of it. And such readings are part of every election.

But Peduto's rival, Jack Wagner, ought to avoid chortling too loudly. Because by the same token, one can imagine an ad denouncing Wagner for, say, his own 1980s-era opposition to a city-council measure banning anti-gay discrimination. In later years, Wagner supported similar legislation on the state level. But if selective history is good for the goose ... [Italics in original.]

Potter writes about how Peduto's supporters "feel the ad creates a false impression" and so spent a great deal of time at the press conference pointing out (as Peduto himself does on his webpage devoted to debunking the swiftboat ad) the efforts that Peduto has done more recently to help
working families:

Williamson and other speakers were largely concerned with the impression created by one sentence of the ad: "Peduto voted against a living wage, hurting low-income workers citywide." To dispute that characterization, they cited a 2009 fight over an ordinance establishing a prevailing wage. Under that measure, if grocery stores, hotels, and office buildings want public subsidies for their projects, they must pay workers the prevailing wage for workers doing similar work elsewhere. (The idea is to ensure that city money isn't used to undercut the wages of the existing workforce.) But Mayor Luke Ravenstahl opposed the measure -- to the point of chaining the doors of office closed to keep wage supporters at bay. Peduto, by contrast, "welcomed us with open arms," said Tony Helfer, the head of UFCW 23, at today's event. And despite a whole series of fifth-floor shenanigans designed to thwart the bill -- including an 11th-hour bid by Ravenstahl to sandbag the measure, it eventually became law.

The next sentence is more or less guaranteed to bring about a chuckle or two:

It is, of course, ironic as hell for Ravenstahl -- who did everything he could to stop prevailing wage -- to be calling out Peduto for not doing enough to support workers.

Who said swiftboating was ever honest?  I mean, look at what the original swiftboating was trying to do: make the decorated war hero (then Senator Kerry) look like a coward in order for the guy who sat out the Vietnam war (then President Bush) to look like a hero.

So this swiftboating irony for Ravenstahl is no big deal - it's par for the course, if you wanna make a golf metaphor.  And we all know Luke's always teed up for a good golf metaphor!

But why would the City Council want to connect the two (delay the living wage in the city until there was a living wage in the county)?  According to Sonya Toler, Peduto's communications director, "Connecting the two was an effort to prevent employers from relocating to the county in order to avoid paying higher wages."

So what looks like one thing might, in fact, be something else.  Not that that would matter to Luke's friends on the Committee for a Better Pittsburgh and the swiftboat PR firm they're working with.

A Quick Silly

Some silly Obama-Derangement from our friends on the Tribune-Review editorial board today:

Vanity Fair has posted photos of President Obama with his feet up on his Oval Office desk. But it's not just any desk. This desk was a gift from Britain's Queen Victoria to President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880. Known as the Resolute desk, it was built from the timbers of an Arctic exploration ship of the same name. Nothing like disrespecting history.

The braintrust has yet again taken offense at something Obama has done (or not done, or is planning to do even though there's no evidence that he is).  They're offended by this:


That's the first picture from the Vanity Fair photo spread on Obama, the "Lean-Back President."

With all of the real stuff they could have written about, this is what they do write about - outrage (OUTRAGE!) that President Obama would disrespect history by putting his feet on the Resolute Desk.

Funny, they didn't seem to have a problem with this photo:


Or this one:


Heck this bit of Obama-Derangement isn't even new - Snopes covered it more than 3 years ago.

The braintrust embarrasses itself (and the rest of the Tribune-Review).

Again.

BREAKING: Exclusive Interview with Committee for a Better Pittsburgh

Mayor Luke's Swiftboating Friends

Let's start here, with Bob Mayo of WTAE:

Campaign finance reports filed with Allegheny County's Elections Division and the Pennsylvania Department of state indicate that the group behind an attack ad in the Pittsburgh mayor's race has past ties to Mayor Ravenstahl's now shut down reelection campaign.

The TV spot begins with an announcer saying "Bill Peduto wants to be Mayor of Pittsburgh, but Peduto only seems to care about his own district". The attack ad charges that Peduto was against helping Homewood seniors, Hill District development, and a living wage -- claims he denies. Peduto says "it's an outside group lurking in the shadows that's trying to determine who the next Mayor of Pittsburgh is". Peduto is one of four people competing in the spring primary to run as the Democratic mayoral candidate in the fall.

The Repubican-aligned agency hired to make the ad also created the 'Swiftboat' ads against Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry -- a third-party attack ad that hurt Jerry's run for president. The anti-Peduto ad's fine print says it's paid for by a "Committee for a Better Pittsburgh".

You can read the Peduto Campaign's response to the Swiftboat ad here.

But that's not the part of the story I want to look at.  Mayo mentions how "The Repubican-aligned agency hired to make the ad also created the 'Swiftboat' ads" but doesn't mention the name.

From this document posted at the P-G, we learn the name: SRCP Media.  So Luke's "Committee for a Better Pittsburgh" hired SRCP for the Peduto ad.

So how did they do on the Kerry Swiftboat stuff?

As of this morning this ad is still posted at SRCP's "Presidential work" page.  I guess they're still proud of it.  I guess they still think it's good work.

It isn't.  Factcheck.org took a look at the ad and found it wanting.  Here is their summary of the ad:

A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts. But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records.

One of the accusers says he was on another boat "a few yards" away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry's account. In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal, Rassmann (a Republican himself) wrote that the ad was "launched by people without decency" who are "lying" and "should hang their heads in shame."

And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident.

Factcheck takes spends a lot of time on the (now debunked) account of then-Captain George Elliot:

Several of those who appear in the ad have signed brief affidavits, and we have posted some of them in the "supporting documents" section to the right for our visitors to evaluate for themselves.

One of those affidavits, signed by George Elliott, quickly became controversial. Elliott is the retired Navy captain who had recommended Kerry for his highest decoration for valor, the Silver Star, which was awarded for events of Feb. 28, 1969, when Kerry beached his boat in the face of an enemy ambush and then pursued and killed an enemy soldier on the shore.

Elliott, who had been Kerry's commanding officer, was quoted by the Boston Globe Aug 6 as saying he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing the affidavit against Kerry, in which Elliott suggested Kerry hadn't told him the truth about how he killed the enemy soldier. Later Elliott signed a second affidavit saying he still stands by the words in the TV ad. But Elliott also made what he called an "immaterial clarification" - saying he has no first-hand information that Kerry was less than forthright about what he did to win the Silver Star.

What Elliott said in the ad is that Kerry "has not been honest about what happened in Viet Nam." In his original affidavit Elliott said Kerry had not been "forthright" in Vietnam. The only example he offered of Kerry not being "honest" or "forthright" was this: "For example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.

Factcheck points out a BIG problem with that last part:

The official citations show Kerry was not awarded the Silver Star "for simply pursuing and dispatching" the Viet Cong. In fact, the killing is not even mentioned in two of the three versions of the official citation (see "supporting documents" at right.) The citations - based on what Elliott wrote up at the time - dwell mostly on Kerry's decision to attack rather than flee from two ambushes, including one in which he led a landing party.

In the end, Senator John McCain summed up the ad still being used to polish SRCP's conservative street cred:

I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.

Why am I spending so much time on this one ad?

Because I want everyone to remember that Luke Ravenstahl's "Committee for a Better Pittsburgh" purchased an ad smearing Bill Peduto from the same folks who produced the dishonest and dishonorable ad that smeared then-Senator and now-Secretary of State John Kerry.

You think they suddenly found religion and became honest and honorable?

Yea, I don't either.

CMU Parade

Andy Sheehan has more about that Anti-Gravity parade at CMU.

His TV coverage included some photos I hadn't seen at that CMU flickr account (by the way, that acount's now gone) - so if anyone knows where he got them, please email me.

Now...About That CMU Parade (UPDATED)

I guess we have to start with Andy Sheehan at KDKA:

Students at Carnegie Mellon say it’s freedom of expression, but the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh calls it inappropriate and disrespectful.

At an annual art school parade, a female student dressed up as the pope, and was naked from the waist down while she passed out condoms.

Even more, witnesses say the woman had shaved her pubic hair in the shape of a cross.

Ok, ok.  Let me jump right in to the first paragraph and say that YES, it's freedom of expression and because it was a public event during the day (more on that in a bit) one could say it's also inappropriate.  But the part about dressing like The Pope and handing out condoms?  Completely disrespectful - though completely deserving.

An astute reader sent in some more info on the event - it was the Anti-Gravity Downhill Derby.  The event's facebook page has a flickr account for last years event - and event they describe with a witty:

last year got a little out of hand... we expect nothing less this time around.

Well, they got their wish - hahahahaha!

Did you know that there's a flickr account for this year's event?

Well now you do - go see quickly.  No idea how long the pics will stay up.

I checked out the pictures and I couldn't find anything closely resembling "a female student dressed up as the pope, and was naked from the waist down while she passed out condoms."  However I did find this:


Not sure if this is a "safe-sex" or an "size (length OR girth) really doesn't matter" message so we'll just move on to the faux-Botticelli found here:


While I appreciate the point of deconstructing a Renaissance image of beauty I have to point out that her hands are all wrong:


But what do I know?

The only image I could find that could come close to what Andy Sheehan wrote about is this one:


While there are no condoms to be seen, the imagery (a woman dressed in papal garments kneels before a man who holds a banana and is dressed as an altar boy) points to something else completely - something completely valid in protesting and or satirizing and or mocking, regardless of what the good Bishop has to say about the matter.

Which brings me to my point.  The CMU students are completely within their rights in mock what they choose to mock.  Freedom of expression, especially on a college campus and especially in art is necessary to the proper functioning of a free society.  Anything short of that limits freedom.

On the other hand to those students doing the mocking: don't be surprised if your otherwise well intentioned mockery is taken as offensive.  This was during the day at a family event, remember.  Not everyone is as hip as you and not everyone will be happy with your decision to ridicule those who deserve to be ridiculed - but doing the ridiculing in front of their children (who might not understand the issue) on a sunny Thursday afternoon.

Other than that, way to go.

UPDATE:  Access to the flickr account has been yanked.

Ya THINK??

From the Chicago Tribune:

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor hasn't given much thought to which was the most important case she helped decide during her 25 years on the bench. But she has no doubt which was the most controversial.

It was Bush v. Gore, which ended the Florida recount and decided the 2000 presidential election.

Looking back, O'Connor said, she isn't sure the high court should have taken the case.

"It took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue," O'Connor said during a talk Friday with the Tribune editorial board. "Maybe the court should have said, 'We're not going to take it, goodbye.'"

The case, she said, "stirred up the public" and "gave the court a less-than-perfect reputation."

A less-than-perfect reputation?  Take a look at this from Vincent Bugliosi:

In the December 12 ruling by the US Supreme Court handing the election to George Bush, the Court committed the unpardonable sin of being a knowing surrogate for the Republican Party instead of being an impartial arbiter of the law. If you doubt this, try to imagine Al Gore's and George Bush's roles being reversed and ask yourself if you can conceive of Justice Antonin Scalia and his four conservative brethren issuing an emergency order on December 9 stopping the counting of ballots (at a time when Gore's lead had shrunk to 154 votes) on the grounds that if it continued, Gore could suffer "irreparable harm," and then subsequently, on December 12, bequeathing the election to Gore on equal protection grounds. If you can, then I suppose you can also imagine seeing a man jumping away from his own shadow, Frenchmen no longer drinking wine.

And a few lines further:

Accordingly, the Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court's order that the undervotes be counted, effectively delivering the presidency to Bush.

So does this mean that had the court said "We're not gonna take it" that Murika between 2001 and 2009 would have turned out differently?

Impossible to say, of course.  But think of all the Bush-era stuff that would have been less-possible during an Al Gore Administration:

• Torture
• Wiretapping
• Rendition
• Waving hello to Stevie Wonder (who's blind)

Oh, yea:

• 4500 Dead American servicemen and women
• 100,000 civilian dead in Iraq

Nice to know that Justice O'Connor's finally coming around - 12+ years too late.

Oh, Good Lord!

From today's P-G we find this distressing assessment of our nation's educational system.

After framing the issue with a story of a young Duquesne student who received what she believed was an inadequate secondary school science education, David Templeton writes:

Her experience represents the ill-kept secret about public school biology classrooms nationwide -- that evolution often isn't taught robustly, if at all. Faith-based belief in creationism and intelligent design continues to be discussed and even openly taught in public school classrooms, despite state curriculum standards.

What follows is foul, odious and repulsive:

"Sometimes students honestly look me in the eye and ask what do I think? I tell them that I personally hold the Bible as the source of truth," said Joe Sohmer, who teaches chemistry at the Altoona Area High School. The topic arises, he said, when he teaches radiocarbon dating, with that method often concluding archeological finds to be older than 10,000 years, which he says is the Bible-based age of Earth. "I tell them that I don't think [radiocarbon dating] is as valid as the textbook says it is, noting other scientific problems with the dating method.

We've dealt with radiocarbon dating before.  Here's what I wrote back then:

[Radiocarbon dating is] a method of dating the age of once living tissue based on the rate of decay for an isotope of carbon (namely carbon-14). Isotopes, by the way, are atoms of the same element (hydrogen, uranium, and so on) that differ in their atomic weights because they have a different number of neutrons in their respective nuclei. Carbon-13 has, for instance, 7 neutrons and 6 protons in its nucleus while carbon-14 has 8 neutrons and 6 protons in its nucleus (7+6=13 and 8+6=14, get it?).

Science tells us that carbon-14 is very unstable and decays into an isotope of nitrogen at a known rate. It's formed constantly in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays interact with some of the nitrogen up there and filters down into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide where it enters the food chain (from CO2 to photosynthesis to animals). When something is alive the amount of carbon-14 in its system more or less matches the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. But once that thing dies, no more carbon-14 is added and the carbon-14 that remains begins its decay into nitrogen.

In a nutshell, by knowing the rate at which carbon-14 decays and knowing how much is left in the once living tissue, scientists can pretty accurately estimate when that thing died.

By the way for his work in first developing the science of radiocarbon dating, Willard Libby was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1960.

Wow, a Nobel Prize.  That must mean that a lot of very smart people looked over the process for a long time and found it very solid and very important.  So given that, I think it's completely possible that some high school chemistry teacher from Altoona, Pennsylvania has enough sound science to overturn their 53 year old error.

But there's more from Mr Sohmer:

"Kids ask all kinds of personal questions and that's one I don't shy away from," he said. "It doesn't in any way disrupt the educational process. I'm entitled to my beliefs as much as the evolutionist is."

Which does nothing but remind me of something Isaac Asimov wrote in 1980:

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

We should remember that just because ignorance is Bible-based, doesn't mean it isn't ignorance.  In order to reject (as Joe Sohmer does) the science of radiocarbon dating one has to also reject such large tracts of physics (for example the science of radioactive decay) that there's little left of the science.  No matter how much he wants to believe it, the evidence overwhelmingly supports radiocarbon dating.  It's right, he's wrong and he's mistreating his students by leading them to doubt it.  That the Altoona school district is, in Mr. Sohmer's words, "comfortable with his [teaching] methods" is an indictment of their own tolerance of Bible-based anti-intellectualism.

Templeton points out the danger of that:

The U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts have ruled time and again that teaching creationism in public schools violates the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, which often is referred to as separation of church and state: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Those cases include Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in York County, which involved the district's decision to include intelligent design in the curriculum as an alternative theory to evolution. The 2005 federal court ruling said intelligent design -- the argument that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause -- and creationism were one and the same religious principle that couldn't be taught in public schools.

The school district's legal fees topped $1 million.

Regardless of the court decisions, creationism continues to find an audience in public schools, limiting students' education in one of biology's fundamental principles.

If you're curious to read it, please check out Kitmiller v Dover here.  Judge Jones conclusion starts this way:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

Templeton's piece is a good read. The only problem I have is found in this sentence:

Similar debate is occurring over the Big Bang theory, climate change and other controversial ideas of science.

And with it, unfortunately, he's giving rhetorical cover to the anti-intellectual anti-science folks everywhere.  The Big Bang and climate change are "controversial" only because those whose think their ignorance is just as good as someone else's knowledge have been shouting it from their pulpits sacred and secular for years.

With any honest assessment of the evidence, such "controversies" evaporate all too quickly.

Teaching anything but science in a public school science class is not only unconstitutional but it's damaging to our childten and the society in general.  I'll give Bill Nye the last word:

The Old Coalition Vs. The New Coalition

The Old Coalition

I'm not saying there's no differences between current Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and Democratic primary candidate Jack Wagner. Wager served very honorably in Vietnam while Ravenstahl wasn't even born until years after that war ended. But, they do have an awful lot in common.

They share many of the same big donors.

They both share support from many of the same pols.

Neither is exactly against fracking.

They both have come late to the party in terms of LGBT rights (coincidentally right after polls show a change in public attitude).

They both have even more muddy views on women's reproductive rights -- Wagner didn't even show up for Planned Parenthood of Western PA's "Candidate's Forum on Women in Western Pennsylvania" (which was about more than just women's vagina's).

Ravenstahl was unexpectedly propelled into the office and his vision didn't ever seem to get more detailed than to "move forward" (though he never seemed to meet a big developer he didn't like or a city asset he didn't want to sell). Wagner's details on issues and policies can at best be described as light and breezy, especially when compared to someone putting out 100 policy papers. And again, Wagner shares the same supporters as Ravenstahl...

And, while Wagner is now trying to say he is the change we need from the current administration, he chose not to run until the current mayor dropped out of the race (meanwhile, doing back flips trying to paint Bill Peduto as both someone who will butt heads and someone who is part of what needs to be changed).

So there you have it, folks. This race is primarily Wagnerstahl Vs. Peduto.

The Old Coalition Vs. The New Coalition.

It's up to you to choose.


*** Obligatory Disclaimer: As everyone should know by now, I've been working part-time for People For Peduto since 2010.

Follow Up On Yesterday

Yesterday, I saw Bill Peduto's "New Coalition for a New Pittsburgh" and now it's time to see what sort of media response the event triggered.

From WESA, we get the basics:

With less than a month before the primary election, Bill Peduto shored up support Thursday for his bid to become Pittsburgh’s next mayor.

Peduto was joined by representatives from 22 unions and organizations, as well as 15 elected officials on the steps of the Pittsburgh City-County Building.

And the message came from County Executive Rich Fitzgerald:

“The number one thing is we really need a mayor who can work with everybody, and Bill Peduto has shown he can do that,” Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald said.

James O'Toole of the P-G adds some to the story:

Hoping to stoke a perception of momentum about his mayoral campaign, city Councilman Bill Peduto appeared with dozens of officeholders and union officials Thursday outside the City-County Building, Downtown.

The rally of figures who had endorsed him earlier was emceed by county Executive Rich Fitzgerald, who declared that, "We need a mayor who can work with everybody" and pointed to the surrounding array of city, county and state officials as evidence that Mr. Peduto was that person.

Though he gets corrected in the comments:

"The rally of figures who had endorsed him earlier..." that is simply inaccurate. about a dozen new endorsements were announced today including senate democratic leader jay costa, rep dan frankel, county councilman bill robinson, county council president chuck martoni, and school board president sharene shealey. were none of those leaders of state and county government and the school board worth mentioning?

And:

"The rally of figures who had endorsed him earlier..." Somehow the fact that both the minority leader Jay Costa and Caucas chair Dan Frankel endorsing Bill doesn't seem noteworthy? Half of Wagner's campaign is him saying what great friends he has in Harrisburg yet here we see most of the state reps and senators backing Peduto. These are some of the most notable endorsements in the race. I'm not one to start bashing the media but come on P-G it takes three seconds to do this research.

Must've been an oversight. Anyway, O'Toole got the message of the day:

The tableaux of supporters from various layers of government and civic life was designed to support Mr. Peduto's contention that he had forged a new coalition to move the city forward. Speaking afterwards, Mr. Peduto acknowledged the strength of the Wagner challenge.

"I think momentum shifts in any campaign," he said. "We know that -- Jack getting into the race late -- obviously there's going to be an immediate shift to him, but once people start focusing on who represents the future, who is part of the past, who has a coalition that's built around the future of the city of Pittsburgh and who is being supported by those who supported the past administration, I think when people start focusing in on this race, momentum will shift again."

There's that phrase again: "new coalition".

And here's our good friend Jon Delano of KDKA:

It was a strong showing of support for Pittsburgh mayoral candidate Bill Peduto from elected officials, labor unions, and community leaders — what Peduto calls a new coalition for a new Pittsburgh.

“I just want to savor this moment,” said Peduto as he turned to face his supporters, ” because this is a coalition of all of us working together — different battles which each of us had where we have been allies over years and years of supporting each other.”

“And I get to stand to be here today as a new team comes together, a new coalition for a new Pittsburgh,” he added.

There it is!!  Delano heard it too!

A New Coalition For A New Pittsburgh

Just got back from the City-County building where City Councilman and Mayoral Candidate had something of an endorsement show of force early this afternoon.  Take a look:


That's County Executive Rich Fitzgerald introducing everyone.  From the press release:

Today on the portico of the City County Building representatives from the nearly 40 unions, organizations, and elected officials, and individuals will gather at 1 p.m. to affirm their endorsement of Bill Peduto for Mayor.

There were representatives from the School Board, City Council, County Council, The General Assembly (both The House and The Senate) as well as members from Pittsburgh's Faith community and Labor Unions.  I even saw a sign from the Gertrude Stein Political Club and a few National Organization for Women signs.

What stood out for me was that each person speaking had basically the same message: that Bill Peduto is the candidate who's worked with broad coalitions (at various local and statewide political or community levels) in the past and he's the one who can form new coalitions in the future.

In addressing the crowd, Peduto spoke of a "new coalition for a new Pittsburgh" and if you're curious what this "new coalition" looks like, here's the current list of endorsements.

First the political:

State Senator Jay Costa, Senate Democratic Leader
State Senator Wayne Fontana, Caucus Administrator
State Representative Dan Frankel, Caucus Chair
State Representative Ed Gainey
State Representative Erin Molchany
State Representative Paul Costa
County Executive Rich Fitzgerald
County Council President Chuck Martoni
County Councilman Bill Robinson
City Councilman Bruce Kraus
City Councilman Patrick Dowd
City Councilwoman Natalia Rudiak
School Board President Sharene Shealey
School Board Member Mark Brentley
Former Allegheny County Recorder of Deeds Valerie McDonald Roberts

And then the unions:

American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees 84 (AFSCME)
Fraternal Association of Professional Paramedics Local 1
International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees Local 3 (IATSE)
International Brother of Teamsters/Graphic Comm. International Union Local 24 (IBT/GCIU)
Ironworkers Local 3
Laborers District Council of Western PA
Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers Local 400 (PFT)
Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ (SEIU)
Sheet Metal Workers Local 12
Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (SOAR)
United Food & Commercial Worker Local 23 (UFCW)
United Steelworkers (USW)

And finally:

Ceasefire PA
Clean Water Action
Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania
Equality PA
Gertrude Stein Political Club of Greater Pittsburgh
PA National Organization of Women (PA NOW)
Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania
Progress Pittsburgh PAC
Sierra Club Allegheny Group
Steel City Stonewall Democrats
Faith leader John C. Welch

If this endorsement list is any indication, that's what Peduto's New Coalition for a New Pittsburgh looks like.

Post Script:  Let me point out that while the OPJ is on Peduto's "Cyber Staff", I am not.  I have no affiliation with either of the candidates and as I am neither a Democrat or a City of Pittsburgh resident, I won't be voting in the primary.