Memo To State Senator Kim Ward

Interesting what tumbles out of the interwebs, ain't it?

First, we start here, at the Trib Whispers column:

GIRLS JUST WANT TO HAVE FUN. Singer Cyndi Lauper apparently could use a civics lesson.

After learning that state Sen. Kim Ward, R-Hempfield, was in the audience for her Nov. 3 concert at Greensburg's Palace Theatre, Lauper pointed out that a senator was there and said that if ObamaCare is good enough for the public, it's good enough for legislators, then complained about the federal government shutdown.

Ward said the dig came right after Lauper sang “True Colors.”

Ward wasn't ruffled in the least, but noted that Lauper did not realize Ward is a state , not U.S., senator and had nothing to do with ObamaCare or the shutdown.

“It was cool to be recognized by a famous liberal who can really sing, even if she doesn't know the difference between state and federal government,” said Ward, adding that the concert was great.

I wasn't at that concert so I have no way of knowing whether any of this is true - but neither does the Trib, does it?  Take a look at that second paragraph.  DID Ms Lauper actually say that?  And if they did, then how do they know?

They write it up as if it's common knowledge.  However, it all comes from State Senator Ward's Facebook page:

This would have been a good time for State Senator Ward to correct Cyndi Lauper's Obamacare error - but Ward didn't.   She should know that this is simply untrue.  But she doesn't. When one commenter posits with the curiously convoluted:

Seems Cyndi is a confused little liberal. Exactly who's idea was it to exempt themselves from the abomination of obamacare?

Hempfield's State Senator responds with:

I'm pretty sure that the folks who mandated Obamacare on all of us are the ones who exempted themselves.

The only problem?

Congress is not exempt from the Obamacare:

For many years, Congress chose from a variety of insurance plans offered by the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, which serves more than 8 million federal and retired workers and their dependents.

That stops in January, when lawmakers and some staff will be required instead to pick from plans on the health care law’s new exchanges — now known as marketplaces.

That’s because Congress faces a specific Obamacare provision forcing lawmakers from their current plans into new marketplaces — something that doesn’t apply to other Americans. [Emphases added.]

It is most disappointing (if not downright embarrassing) for a Pennsylvania State Senator to get this one so wrong.

Question For The Post-Gazette and Jack Kelly

Now that this:

There was a large crack Sunday night in the wall of silence the “mainstream” media have erected around the events in Benghazi on the night of 9/​11/​2012.

CBS broadcast on its “60 Minutes” program a segment that featured an interview with one of the eyewitnesses to the attack on our consulate the Obama administration has been trying to hide from congressional investigators.

He is “Morgan Jones.”

(For those who might still not know, Morgan Jones is the pseudonym of one Dylan Davies.)

Well, it turns out that what Jack Kelly was talking about turns out not to be completely true:

LARA LOGAN: Good morning Norah, well. You know the most important thing to every person at 60 Minutes is the truth and today the truth is that we made a mistake, and that's very disappointing for any journalist. It's very disappointing for me. Nobody likes to admit that they made a mistake, but if you do, you have to stand up and take responsibility and you have to say that you were wrong, and in this case we were wrong. We made a mistake. And how did this happen?

Well, Dylan Davies worked for the State Department in Libya. He was the manager of the local guard force at the Benghazi special mission compound, and he described for us his actions that night, saying that he had entered the compound and he had a confrontation with one of the attackers, and he also said that he had seen the body of Ambassador Chris Stevens in a local hospital. And after our report aired, questions were raised about whether his account was real.

After an incident report surfaced that told a different story about what he'd done that night. And, you know, he denied that report. And he said that he told the FBI the same story that he had told us, but what we now know is that he told the FBI a different story to what he told us. And, you know, that was the moment for us when we realized that we no longer had confidence in our source, and that we were wrong to put him on air, and we apologize to our viewers.

CNN has more:

On Thursday a U.S. official told CNN that there were discrepancies between the contractor's accounts to the FBI and CBS, although the official did not specify them.

A second U.S. official told CNN the same thing Friday.

The New York Times, citing two senior government officials, reported Thursday that the contractor told the FBI he did not go the Benghazi compound on the night of the attack.

And so CBS has apologized said that they were wrong for using Morgan Jones/Dylan Davies as a source.

And so now I am wondering, considering the fact that CBS has effectively retracted the story, when will Jack Kelly?

ENDA In Da House!

First the news:

The Senate voted Thursday to approve the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, landmark civil rights legislation that would make it illegal to discriminate against LGBT individuals in the workplace.

The final vote was 64-32, with 10 Republicans joining Democrats. The Republican senators backing the legislation were cosponsors Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), along with Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).

You'll note that Pennsylvania's very own Pat Toomey voted for the bill.  We'll get back to him in a little bit.

But what is this ENDA bill?  You can read the Congressional Research Service summary here, if you like.  Or, Ed O'Keefe has a more prose-worthy explanation here. O'Keefe writes:

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would ban employers from firing, refusing to hire or discriminating against workers or job applicants based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Pointing out that:

Currently 21 states and the District of Columbia have laws prohibiting workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. Seventeen states and the District also bar discrimination based on sexual identity. Maryland passed a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in 2001; Virginia has no laws regarding sexual orientation or gender identity on the books.

ENDA is Federal legislation that would cover all the states (even Virginia).

So how does our friend Pat Toomey enter into this discussion?

He proposed an amendment whose stated purpose was to:

To strike the appropriate balance between protecting workers and protecting religious freedom.

But in reality it would have expanded the "religious" exemptions so broadly as to effectively weaken the whole legislation.  As Jonathan Tomari at Philly.com explains:

Under Toomey's plan, exemptions from the ban would cover organizations managed by a church or religious group, those formally affiliated with a particular religion, or those that teach a curriculum directed toward propagating a particular religion.

His amendment specifies that the exemption includes groups that don't primarily engage in religious work - for example, a school that teaches religion only a few hours a week, or a hospital affiliated with a religious group.

Any expansion of the "religious" exemption means, of course, more LGBT employees being shown the door.

The amendment was voted down 43-55.

In spite of that, as we stated above, Toomey voted for ENDA.  Good for you, Pat.

So how does it look in the House?

Not so good.  From Sam Stein at the Huffington Post:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) affirmed on Monday morning that he would oppose a law that would prohibit discrimination against gay and lesbian employees in the workplace, citing the possibility that it would put a financial burden on businesses.

"The Speaker believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in a statement.

Nearly complete BS, of course.  Factcheck.org explains why:

House Speaker John Boehner announced his opposition to a bill that would prohibit workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity with a statement from his spokesman saying the bill “will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs.” But the facts suggest there’s not as much to these claims as Boehner lets on.

Boehner’s office points to a Congressional Budget Office forecast that says the legislation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), would lead to a 5 percent bump in discrimination cases — which is about 5,000 new cases per year. But it does not say what percentage of them may be deemed “frivolous.”

A report released by the General Accounting Office in July found “relatively few employment discrimination complaints based on sexual orientation and gender identity” in states that have already enacted laws prohibiting such discrimination. A study by the Williams Institute at UCLA found workplace complaints based on sexual orientation were made at about the same rate as complaints based on race or gender.

As for Boehner’s claim that ENDA would “cost American jobs, especially small business jobs,” that may well be the outcome in some isolated cases, but the law specifically applies only to companies with 15 or more employees — which exempts nearly 90 percent of all small businesses (and nearly a third of those employed in businesses with under 500 employees).

But Boehner's got the House's Tea Party Caucus to deal with so "reality" as a concept to the Tea Party crowd is much more malleable than "reality" is in, well,  reality.

And again millions of Americans will have to suffer for it.

LANDSLIDE

From the County website, with all precincts counted:

Josh Wander (REP) - 5,012 votes (11.46%)
William Peduto (DEM) - 36,856 votes (84.30%)
Lester F. Ludwig (IND) - 1,514 votes (3.46%)
WRITE-IN - 340 votes ( .78%)

So, yea, when the P-G calls it a landslide, I can't think they're far off.

More from the P-G's James O'Toole and Moriah Balingit:

Tuesday night, the 49-year-old Democrat brushed aside token opposition to become Pittsburgh's chief executive, officially capturing the mayoral post he first sought nearly a decade ago. In January, the veteran councilman will move to the opposite end of the fifth-floor hallway of the City-County Building, to the grand corner office about to be vacated by his longtime rival, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl.

As expected, Mr. Peduto was able to declare victory against Republican Josh Wander and Les Ludwig, an independent, shortly after the polls closed.

The results also brought victories to city council candidates expected to be reliable allies of the new administration. Dan Gilman, Mr. Peduto's longtime aide, will succeed him in the East End District Mr. Peduto had represented since 2001. Councilwoman Natalia Rudiak won re-election to her South Hills district. In a special election to fill the seat recently vacated by Patrick Dowd, Deb Gross won in a crowded field abetted by a turnout operation quarterbacked by the Peduto campaign team.

 Then there's this from Mike Wereschagin and Bob Bauder of the Trib:

Peduto won 84 percent of the vote on Tuesday with 96.8 percent of precincts reporting, walloping two challengers who barely put up a fight. His 35,000 votes topped the 28,600 Mayor Luke Ravenstahl won in the last mayor's race, in 2009.

And:

“We are the next great American city. It's about building from within, rebuilding the neighborhoods that built this community,” Peduto said after appearing on stage twirling a push broom at the Greater Pittsburgh Coliseum in Homewood, the neighborhood where his grandmother settled nearly 100 years ago.

“The heart, the strength, the power of the entire region will come from within the city's borders,” said Peduto, a data-crunching, hockey-playing East End progressive from a traditional Italian-American family.

 Congratulations, Mr. Mayor-elect!

Get Out And Vote!

 

With Lil Mayor Luke so nonexistent he's practically a UPMC employee, our city craves a real leader: One with a clear vision, real ideas, a belief in community engagement, and who is bursting to get to work. This has led to the extraordinary circumstance of the conservative Tribune-Review and the middle-of-the-road Post-Gazette finally catching up to what progressives have long known: Bill Peduto is the best choice for Mayor of Pittsburgh. Now it's time that we get out and give him the mandate he deserves. We also need to make sure he has a City Council who will work together with him to make Pittsburgh the city we know it can be.

 

This half of 2pj endorses:

 

Bill Peduto for Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh

Natalia Rudiak for City Council, District 4

Deb Gross for City Council, District 7

Dan Gilman for City Council, District 8

Eleanor Bush for Common Pleas Court

Jack McVay Jr. for Superior Court

 

Marty B. O’Malley for Mayor of Forest Hills Borough

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



Crickets...All We Hear Is Crickets.

From NBCNews:

Clues on a possible motive for an armed assault at Los Angeles International Airport emerged Saturday, with reports that the suspect was carrying a “manifesto” associated with the antigovernment “patriot” movement and a note saying he intended to murder at least one Transportation Security Administration officer.

The Associated Press, quoting a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation, reported that suspect Paul Anthony Ciancia, 23, said in the note found in the duffel bag he carried into the airport on Friday that he wasn’t targeting a specific TSA employee.

Here's what the AP had to say, specifically, about the note:

The letter in his duffel bag refers to how Ciancia believed his constitutional rights were being violated by TSA searches and that he's a "pissed-off patriot" upset at former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

"Black, white, yellow, brown, I don't discriminate," the note read, according to a paraphrase by a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

The screed also mentioned "fiat currency" and "NWO," possible references to the New World Order, a conspiracy theory that foresees a totalitarian one-world government.

And some possible context from the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Ciancia’s language and references seemed to put him squarely in the conspiracy-minded world of the antigovernment “Patriot” movement. The New World Order refers to a longstanding conspiracy theory that today, in its most popular iteration, claims that global elites are plotting to form a socialistic “one-world government” that would crush American freedoms. Often, the root of the alleged conspiracy is traced to the 1913 creation of the Federal Reserve and the adoption of fiat currency — paper money that is not backed by gold, as it was once was in the U.S.

Now, let's play a game.

What if, say, instead of going by "Paul Ciancia" the shooter's name was "Mohammad ANYTHING."  Now imagine if in his duffel bag there was a Koran and a note protesting any number of US guv'ment actions (Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, drone strikes, you get the picture).

How soon would the rightwing media have pounced on this aspect of the story?  How soon would they be calling for enhanced scrutiny of the nation's Islamic communities?

Instead, because it looks at this point like just another well-armed anti-guv'ment "patriot" acting out on his right-wing conspiracy theories, we get something else entirely.

Fact-Checking A Fact-Checker - Colin McNickle Edition

In a rather scathing indictment of a Republican (and conservative, though obviously not conservative enough) member of Congress by a conservative columnist writing for the conservative paper in that Congressional district, the Trib's Colin McNickle writes this about Congressman Tim Murphy:

“We were promised a website where people could easily compare plans and costs,” said Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., on Thursday during a contentious hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on the many failures of the ObamaCare website.

“Five-hundred million dollars later” (it's actually something like $700 million and counting) “we find that the American people have been dumped with the ultimate Cash for Clunkers, except that they had to pay the cash and still got the clunker,” the Upper St. Clair legislator said.

It's a great line but one laced with hubris, irony, hypocrisy and whistling past the graveyard.

For you see — and many of you might have forgotten and Mr. Murphy obviously is hoping you have — Murphy voted for Cash for Clunkers, that odoriferous multibillion-dollar government intervention that would have been funny if it weren't such a perversion.

What McNickle also left out was Congressman Murphy's support of the strained rollout of Medicare Part D in 2006.  Here's what Murphy said THEN about that glitchy Bush-era guv'ment program:

It is of no value, as a matter of fact, it is a negative value and of questionable ethical value I think sometimes if people only spend their time criticizing the glitches that have been in the program, as with any program that occurs, whether it is a public or private program, criticizing it, standing on the outside and frightening seniors, frightening seniors into thinking that because there was complexities and difficulties, therefore they should not sign up. [Congressional Record, Page H1665]

But that's a minor point - the major fail of McNickle's fact-check is the cost of the Obamacare website.  He says it's something like "$700 million" and reality says otherwise.

From the Washingtonpost's Glenn Kessler.  His initial assessment is admittedly fuzzy:

So here’s where we stand.

A conservative figure would be $70 million. A more modest figure would be $125 million to $150 million. Or one could embrace the entire project, as outlined by GAO, and declare that it is at least $350 million.

But he added a few updates - one with an upper/lower limit:

The floor for spending on the Web site to date appears to be at least $170 million, with an upward potential of nearly $300 million.

Significantly lower than the "factual" numbers so innocently slipped by your eyes by the "fact-checking" Colin McNickle.

According to Mediamatters, there's only one place where such a large number as McNickle's is found (though they go up to a billion).  That would the the Scaife-owned Newsmax.

And, as we all know, Scaife owns the Tribune-Review.  Where Colin McNickle hangs his fact-checking hat.  How interesting.