Deb Gross Certified as the Democratic Nominee for City Council District 7 Special Election

Via press release from the Gross campaign:

Deb Gross is the Democratic Nominee for City Council District 7

Deadline for parties and independent candidates is today

Pittsburgh, PA--With the deadline for candidates nominated by political parties and independent candidates to file to have their name included on the ballot to run for Pittsburgh City Council, District 7, Deb Gross has been certified as the Democratic nominee for this special election.  

The deadline comes one day after Judge Colville indicated that he would reject the request for an emergency special injunction by Tony Ceoffe to prevent the Democratic Party from nominating Deb Gross. A full hearing is scheduled for next week, but a preliminary injunction can be denied if—among other reasons—the judge believes that there is not substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case.  

Deb Gross was nominated by the Allegheny Democratic Committee by a vote of 47-43.  

“Today’s certification is a small victory for progressive politics in the race for City Council,” Deb Gross said. “Our neighbors are looking for someone to fill Patrick Dowd’s shoes who will focus on all of our neighborhoods—making sure that everyone shares in the benefits of our economic growth. The political games of the past do not help make sure that streets get paved, that police are on our streets, or that we are maintaining the character of our neighborhoods. I am looking forward to continuing a campaign that looks forward, not back, as the Democratic nominee.”

Her Facebook page is here.

"Who Am I To Judge?"

I wanted to depart, today, from my usual tracking teh rightwing crazie/fact-checking Scaife's braintrust blog posts to take a deeper look at what The Pope said:

For generations, homosexuality has largely been a taboo topic for the Vatican, ignored altogether or treated as “an intrinsic moral evil,” in the words of the previous pope.

In that context, brief remarks by Pope Francis suggesting that he would not judge priests for their sexual orientation, made aboard the papal airplane on the way back from his first foreign trip, to Brazil, resonated through the church. Never veering from church doctrine opposing homosexuality, Francis did strike a more compassionate tone than that of his predecessors, some of whom had largely avoided even saying the more colloquial “gay.”

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Francis told reporters, speaking in Italian but using the English word “gay.”

I don't want to belittle how big a change this is for The Vatican, especially considering the Times' next paragraph:

Francis’s words could not have been more different from those of Benedict XVI, who in 2005 wrote that homosexuality was “a strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil,” and an “objective disorder.” The church document said men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” should not become priests.

From "a strong tendency ordered toward intrinsic moral evil" to "who am I to judge" is a big step, no doubt about it but I wanted to look deeper into that rhetorical question as well as it's closely related "It's not my place to judge."

While it's entirely possible, I suppose, that when someone uses either phrase to some member in the LGBTQ community that person might mean it to say "there is nothing wrong with being gay (or "L" or "B" or "T" or "Q" and so on..." but if you take a look at the actual words, something else is being said entirely.

"Who am I to judge?" at the very least implies that there is a judgement to be made, doesn't it?  We rarely if ever hook that question onto something we approve of, only stuff we disapprove of.  For example, would anyone be caught saying "Just like me, Steve thinks the Beatles are better, much better, than the Stones.  But who am I to judge?"

See how that works?

Additionally, when someone says "It's not my place to judge" they're also implying that they know what the outcome of whatever that judgement is, whenever it'll be made by whomever would be making it, even if it's not them.  They're just not gonna say what they already know in their heart it already is.

In effect, however tolerant sounding the phrase might be (and again however Cardinal Dolan wishes to redefine it, it's still a huge leap forward for The Vatican), it still means:

I know that God will judge it negatively.

And so on.

Roll Back Those Lazy-Crazy-Hazy-Days Of Summer

It's the summer of 1963, err, 2013 in the Good Ol' U.S. of A and everything is A-okay!

Any 'War on Poverty' Is Thankfully Still Just A Dream
Poverty? What poverty? This is the greatest nation on the face of the Earth!

(80 Percent Of U.S. Adults Face Near-Poverty, Unemployment: Survey)

We Will Arrest Those Who Practice The Love
That Dare Not Speak Its Name
Really, what do they expect?

(Gays in Baton Rouge arrested under invalid sodomy law)

The Little Lady Knows Her Place (As She Should)
We're working hard to ensure that the only abortions will be back alley ones!
(As abortion limits sweep US, even 'purple' states join the crackdown)

Negroes Know Their Place Too
Because they know death lies only a whistle at a white woman (or a hoodie) away!

(George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty And Goes Free)

And For the Ones Who Are Still Too Uppity...
We'll make it as hard as legally possible to vote!

(North Carolina Passes the Country's Worst Voter Suppression Law)

Yes siree, Bob! We wish that summer would always be here!

The Trib And The AEI

From today's Sunday Pops:

University of Michigan economics professor Mark J. Perry, writing for the American Enterprise Institute, says the share of middle-class families dropped from 61.8 percent in 1969 to 43.2 percent in 2009, a drop of 18.6 percentage points. And the share of lower-income families fell from 22 percent of all families in 1967 to 17.8 percent in 2009. So, where did they go? Mr. Perry says they joined the upper-income club, which increased from 16.2 percent of all families in 1967 to 39.1 percent in 2009. Thus, the contention that the middle class “has been in decline since the 1970s ... is incredibly and verifiably wrong,” he says. It's another stat for the “economic fairness” crowd.[Bolding in original.]

Pretty compelling stuff, doncha think?  Until you look at some of the details.

You'll note that nowhere in the Braintrust's paragraph is there a definition of the terms "middle-class" or "lower-income" or "upper-income."  Wonder why?

For that we need to take a look at where the braintrust gets it's info.  Notably Mark J Perry of the Scaife supported AEI.  Take a look at the chart he's constructed.

Notice anything?  He's defining "Upper-income" as anything above $75,000.  That's "the upper-income club" to the braintrust is talking about.

Second thing you'll notice is that this is Family income.  Not personal income.

Isn't it possible that between 1967 and 2009 there's been a change in family demographics?  I mean, wouldn't the move from single income to dual income shift the data just a tad?

Yea, I think that's possible.

Anything to cloud the issue of income inequality, I guess.  Especially from Scaife's braintrust and the Scaife supported AEI.

A Message To My Good Friends At The FFRF.

Remember this blogpost?

I wrote about a guy named Joe Sohmer who, despite being entrusted by the good people of Altoona to teach their teenagers science, nevertheless undermines the validity of radiocarbon dating and, of course, evolution in his science classes whole "hold(ing) the Bible as the source of truth."

He's quoted:

"I'm entitled to my beliefs as much as the evolutionist is."

On the one hand, this is completely true.  He is entitled to his beliefs as much as anyone else is.  On the other, that does not, however, make them to be anywhere near true.

Well, the article that triggered my blog post also seems to have piqued the interest of our good friends at the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Unfortunately, while their overall point (that the teaching of creationism as science is unconstitutional) is completely correct, what they're using to frame their argument is simply a mess - so much that it could undermine their overall (and, let me reiterate, correct) point.

Take a look at the start of the FFRF's press release:

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is responding to an alarming trend in Pennsylvania's science education, by sending a memo to every Pennsylvania public school district superintendent (nearly 500 of them) on July 25.

The memo follows the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's investigative journalism, recently uncovering that 20% of the state's public high school teachers teach creationism in their science classrooms.

And from the memo:

A recent story in the Pittsburgh-Post Gazette (sic) surveyed 106 science teachers regarding the teaching of evolution in Pennsylvania public schools. This article revealed shocking statistics about the state of science education in public schools. A third of the science teachers surveyed identified themselves as believers in creationism or intelligent design. Of that number, teachers who identify themselves as creationists -- nearly 20% of those surveyed-- "spend at least an hour of classroom time on creationism in a way suggesting it to be a valid scientific alternative" to evolution.

I gotta point out the BIG errors in that paragraph.  I hate to, but I just gotta.  In order to do that, I have to start at the P-G (and please note, FFRF, where the dash goes) article.  Looks like the FFRF's memo writers mixed two separate bits of information.  The first is from the P-G questionaire:

The Post-Gazette questionnaire this spring drew 106 responses from science teachers. It asked them to choose one or more answers to a question of what they believe in: evolution, creationism, intelligent design or not sure/other.

Ninety percent chose evolution; 19 percent said they believe in creationism, not defined in the questionnaire; 13 percent said they believe in intelligent design; and another 5 percent answered "not sure/other." Teachers were allowed to list more than one option, so the numbers don't total 100 percent.

But the quotation is from another survey altogether:

The Penn State survey said the teachers identifying themselves as creationists spend at least an hour of classroom time on creationism in a way suggesting it to be a valid scientific alternative. "Between 17 and 21 percent [of teachers in the survey] introduce creationism into the classroom," he said.

And the Penn State survey wasn't a Pennsylvania survey at all:

Mr. Berkman and Eric Plutzer, a Penn State professor of political science and sociology, based their book on a national survey of more than 900 science teachers, which found 13 percent advocating that Earth was 10,000 years old or younger, as opposed to Earth's scientifically determined age of 4.54 billion years. [Emphasis added.]

The "20%" comes from the P-G survey while the quotation comes from the Penn State survey.  And the two data points refer to two separate ideas.  The P-G was asking about the teachers' beliefs while the Penn State survey is about what the teachers do.  Two separate issues.  Two separate surveys.  Apples, oranges.

Now it's quite possible that the reality of the situation is in complete agreement with what the FFRF says it is - but it's just not possible to establish that from what they present as facts.  And that's the mess.

And then there's this part from the FFRF's memo:

A third of the science teachers surveyed identified themselves as believers in creationism or intelligent design.

This isn't clearly true either (it might be BUT it might not be, and that's the point). Take a look at how the P-G describes their survey:

The Post-Gazette questionnaire this spring drew 106 responses from science teachers. It asked them to choose one or more answers to a question of what they believe in: evolution, creationism, intelligent design or not sure/other.

Ninety percent chose evolution; 19 percent said they believe in creationism, not defined in the questionnaire; 13 percent said they believe in intelligent design; and another 5 percent answered "not sure/other." Teachers were allowed to list more than one option, so the numbers don't total 100 percent. [Emphasis added.]

But note that since teachers could choose more than one option, you only get "a third" (or something very close to it) if none of the 13% who believe in intelligent design also designated themselves as creationists.  If they completely overlap, then the number's just 19% and the real number could be anywhere in between.

And need I point out that these look like they were surveys and not scientific polls?  How many surveys were sent out?  Relying on self-selected questionnaire returns to establish solid data is, well, questionable.  At best.

FFRF: I am one of your biggest fans.  I confidently and optimistically expect success in your lawsuits calling for the removal of the unconstitutional Ten Commandment monuments from two Pittsburgh area public schools.  But if you're going to issue press releases and memos to School Superintendents you have to do better than this.  You have to write something clearer than this.

You want respect from a School Superintendent?  Get all your facts straight, present your entire position clearly and don't don't DON'T misspell the name of one of your sources (as I alluded to above, it's the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, not the Pittsburgh-Post Gazette).

Other than that, you're completely correct - teaching creationism (or Intelligent Design) as science in a public school is unconstitutional.  Just do your homework better next time.

SHOWTIME! (A non-political announcement)

If you're not doing anything this weekend, why not take in a show?

Tickets are on sale for the Center Theatre Players’ production of the Tony Award-winning musical comedy “The Drowsy Chaperone,” which will be presented at 7:30 p.m. Thursday, Friday and Saturday, July 25, 26 and 27, in the auditorium of the Penn State Beaver Student Union Building. Tickets are $15 for all ages.

This year’s show, directed by Sandy Reigel, is part of the Brodhead Cultural Center’s 37th annual summer series and is partially underwritten by a gift from Harper & Hodge. A winner of five Tony Awards in 2006, “The Drowsy Chaperone” opens when a diehard musical-theater fan plays his favorite cast album on his turntable. The musical literally bursts to life in his living room, telling the rambunctious tale of a brazen Broadway starlet trying to find, and keep, her true love. Music and lyrics are by Lisa Lambert and Greg Morrison; the book is by Bob Martin and Don McKellar.

I'll be there all three nights - I'm in the pit (Can I use the word "pit" writing about a Penn State thing?  I guess I can.), playing second trumpet.

If you're a friend of the blog and if you go to the show, stop by and say hi.

#PghBlog4Justice - Trayvon Martin's Murder & George Zimmerman's Acquittal: It's About Race & Politics

I'm not a racist, but... 

The President is making this about race...  

The media is stirring up trouble and making this about race...  

It can't be about race because Zimmerman isn't white...  

What about black-on-black crime...  

You dress like a thug, people are going to treat you like a thug...  

They always get away...

Yes, it's about race. It was about race when this country was built on the backs of slaves. It was about race when there was a one-drop rule. It was about race when there were Jim Crow laws. It was about race when the first African American president had to show his birth certificate to prove he is a real American. It was about race when Acorn was attacked and destroyed. It's about race when states pass laws to try to suppress voting. It's about race when the NRA doesn't say that Trayvon Martin would be alive today if only he had a gun (like they do in every other newsworthy case where an unarmed victim is killed). And, it's about race when, "Only in America can a dead black boy go on trial for his own murder" (SyreetaMcFadden).

Trayvon Martin is dead because George Zimmerman saw black skin and assumed the worse. It all springs from that same ugly well of racism.

And George Zimmerman is not in jail today largely because of politics. First, because the NRA's answer to gun violence is "more guns." And, second, because Florida has a "Stand Your Ground" law which can make prosecution absurdly difficult when someone claims self-defense -- especially when their victim is not alive to give their side.

And, Stand Your Ground was most certainly used in this case. It's one of the reasons that the police didn't initially charge Zimmerman (even though he did not evoke it by name). It was written into the jury instructions. And, it was a reason given by one of the jurors for Zimmerman's acquittal. Not surprisingly, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) adopted Stand Your Ground as a model for other states in early just months after the NRA pushed it through Florida's legislature.

Race and Politics is why the man with the gun is alive and free and the teen with the Skittles is dead and buried.

Thankfully, many Pittsburghers -- of all races -- recognize this intersection of race and politics. There were two protests the day after the verdict (Thank you Commander Rashall Brackney for your cool head). The group, Pittsburgh for Trayvon, had a rally turned into a sit-in, turned into a sleep-in, turned into a visit to the missing mayor's home. They have issued a list of demands to city officials. You can see it here. And, on Saturday there was a rally Downtown.

I'll leave you with an amazing poem by Paradise Gray which was performed at some of the above events. It somehow manages to hit every damn mark: