Chad Herman of TWM commented about how Obama’s answer in the debate about Iranian nuclear weapons was so much less satisfying than Clinton’s. I think it was Washington Week in Review that picked up on this same answer, albeit from Mrs. Clinton. They noted, as did Mr. Hermann, that Mrs. Clinton’s answer indicated an expansion of US policy in the Middle East. They went on to say what a bad idea that would be. Mrs. Clinton was talking about intervening in conflicts between Iran and anyone else. Presumably that would also include conflicts between other players in the region, such as if Libya and Egypt have a dustup. The problem is that the Middle East has seen what happens when we get involved in the area. Under Bush we brought just enough firepower to further wreck Afghanistan and Iraq, but not enough resources to fix either country. Granted, we did bring enough resources to make corrupt officials fabulously wealthy, but we better skip over that.
On this particular point of distinction, I would say Obama gave a reasoned response about how he wouldn’t let Iran get nukes in the first place, but if they did he would deal with the situation at the time based on the circumstances. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, was talking about expanding the US’s role in the region at a time when our popularity is at an all time low. I don’t see how that could be good for us, at least not until we take steps to re-establish our credibility.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Barden and Obama
I had wrote that I would wait until Monday to post again, but stuff has happened I want to say things about. So first, for the third time, let me direct you to Nicholas Kristoff’s Thursday column and the comments.
I noticed that no one in the Burghospree picked up on Don Barden dropping his pledge of $3 million dollars assistance for the Hill. I guess that was because the story broke on a Friday afternoon and everything else happening around town is more interesting. I was surprised that the One Hill people were even moderately sympathetic to Barden. I’ve lost track of who all was supposed to commit money to the community, I just remember that it is not going to be the City or the County, and now, apparently, Don Barden.
I kind of like David Brooks. As a conservative, he seems more human than many. But Brooks is capable of being a partisan whenever he chooses. In his last few columns he has bee savaging Barack Obama, and did so again today on the “Meet the Press”. One of his complaints is that Obama made a promise to remove all the troops from Iraq in 16 months, in the debate. It fell to Michelle Norris, who was also on MTP, to point out that Hillary Clinton made the same promise in the debate, albeit in her own words. Brooks had praised Obama earlier in the year, and now acts disillusioned, as if he might ever have voted for or supported Obama.
I will say this, it seems to me that Obama is getting frustrated and tired in this campaign. He is acting human. But we always knew, or should have known, that Obama is human. He is intelligent, a good, occasionally great speaker and seem perfectly capable to be the President. But he slips sometimes. He slipped in using the words “bitter” and “cling to” in San Francisco. I personally think he was frustrated that he had not made more progress in Pennsylvania. He may have done it intentionally, to give the media a story about how his gaffe cost him the win in Pennsylvania, but he was only back 5%, or something. But that would be a silly calculation, and it seems easier just to be careful and try hard.
A troll on 2PoliticalJunkies gave an address for a couple of YouTube snippets. In those clips, you see Obama speaking, mentions Hillary Clinton, and then casually reached up and scratches his cheek. With his middle finger. We know this happened and the audience was the intended target because they give a Fox Sitcom type of whooooo. Like I said, Obama human and probably frustrated. And showing that he lives in Chicago.
I still intend to vote for him.
I noticed that no one in the Burghospree picked up on Don Barden dropping his pledge of $3 million dollars assistance for the Hill. I guess that was because the story broke on a Friday afternoon and everything else happening around town is more interesting. I was surprised that the One Hill people were even moderately sympathetic to Barden. I’ve lost track of who all was supposed to commit money to the community, I just remember that it is not going to be the City or the County, and now, apparently, Don Barden.
I kind of like David Brooks. As a conservative, he seems more human than many. But Brooks is capable of being a partisan whenever he chooses. In his last few columns he has bee savaging Barack Obama, and did so again today on the “Meet the Press”. One of his complaints is that Obama made a promise to remove all the troops from Iraq in 16 months, in the debate. It fell to Michelle Norris, who was also on MTP, to point out that Hillary Clinton made the same promise in the debate, albeit in her own words. Brooks had praised Obama earlier in the year, and now acts disillusioned, as if he might ever have voted for or supported Obama.
I will say this, it seems to me that Obama is getting frustrated and tired in this campaign. He is acting human. But we always knew, or should have known, that Obama is human. He is intelligent, a good, occasionally great speaker and seem perfectly capable to be the President. But he slips sometimes. He slipped in using the words “bitter” and “cling to” in San Francisco. I personally think he was frustrated that he had not made more progress in Pennsylvania. He may have done it intentionally, to give the media a story about how his gaffe cost him the win in Pennsylvania, but he was only back 5%, or something. But that would be a silly calculation, and it seems easier just to be careful and try hard.
A troll on 2PoliticalJunkies gave an address for a couple of YouTube snippets. In those clips, you see Obama speaking, mentions Hillary Clinton, and then casually reached up and scratches his cheek. With his middle finger. We know this happened and the audience was the intended target because they give a Fox Sitcom type of whooooo. Like I said, Obama human and probably frustrated. And showing that he lives in Chicago.
I still intend to vote for him.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Thinking about things ...
In my last post, I recommended Nicholas Kristof's Thursday column. I also recommend the comments, where people sort of, sometimes agreed with Mr Kristof, but almost always then said "except for me".
I'll have something more to say here on Monday.
I'll have something more to say here on Monday.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
two different issues...
I think this is a bad time for a local political scandal to break, right before the presidential primary. It’s come out that Pat Ford met with executives of another billboard company (Liberty Pacific Media, not Lamar) in 2006, and that their understanding was that he agreed to allow them to set up two new billboards, one downtown and one on the north side, both without the public hearing process, even though city code stated bill boards could not be put in those locations. They met on Mt Washington (where I never go anymore). Mayor Ravenstahl apparently put in an appearance at that meeting, although he now says he does not remember discussing bill boards, especially on the north side or downtown. Those two executives from Liberty Pacific donated $12,500 each to Mayor Ravenstahl’s reelection campaign a month later. The billboards went up, were sold to a different media company, and then came down. Granted, this would have likely come out soon, but I can’t help but think that Mr. Ford’s loud protest of having been framed on Monday likely sped the media’s investigation along (as I suggested might happen in my previous post). Now Our Mayor finds himself being dragged (further) into this mess.
On the national front, I have to take issue with something Hillary Clinton has said repeatedly, including again last night. She claims 35 years experience in politics. Now, consider an analogy. I don’t know what Dr Starzl’s wife does for a living (or if he is even married). But assume she is a doctor, but not a surgeon. She has lived with the man thirty some years (say), and listened to his tales of transplant surgery, met the operating room nurses, but has never performed a transplant. Would you want her doing your liver transplant?
Granted, Mrs. Clinton was an unusually active first lady, in Arkansas and in the White House. She did extensive work on children’s and women’s issues in both places. But I would trust her a lot more if she described herself in a more complicated way, maybe as the ultimate insider *and* outsider. She was there while the decisions were being made, she met a lot of everybody, national and international, but she didn’t make the decisions that pissed people off. She could say she is coming to the office as a newcomer who happens to know where the bathrooms are.
But Hillary has dumbed her message down, saying she has 35 years of experience. When ABC brought up the bitter and cling to remark in the debate last night, Hillary took the low road, describing her faith and her roots instead of trying even a feeble conciliatory remark, to say something like how we should move past that. That’s why I didn’t blame Barack a bit when he brought up the “bake cookies” remark she made in 1992 a little while later, while Hillary stood there, visibly angry, practically shaking.
They have both taken shots at each other, it is true. But Barack has pulled off making it seem like defensive moves on his part, because in polls, on the question of trustworthy-ness, he is ahead of her by twenty points.
Nicholas Kristof had a very interesting commentary in today’s NYTimes. I personally believe he is looking at cognitive dissonance in our choices of presidential candidates. It dovetails reasonably well with the book I was pitching during the Mayoral race in the fall, "The Political Brain" by Drew Westen.
On the national front, I have to take issue with something Hillary Clinton has said repeatedly, including again last night. She claims 35 years experience in politics. Now, consider an analogy. I don’t know what Dr Starzl’s wife does for a living (or if he is even married). But assume she is a doctor, but not a surgeon. She has lived with the man thirty some years (say), and listened to his tales of transplant surgery, met the operating room nurses, but has never performed a transplant. Would you want her doing your liver transplant?
Granted, Mrs. Clinton was an unusually active first lady, in Arkansas and in the White House. She did extensive work on children’s and women’s issues in both places. But I would trust her a lot more if she described herself in a more complicated way, maybe as the ultimate insider *and* outsider. She was there while the decisions were being made, she met a lot of everybody, national and international, but she didn’t make the decisions that pissed people off. She could say she is coming to the office as a newcomer who happens to know where the bathrooms are.
But Hillary has dumbed her message down, saying she has 35 years of experience. When ABC brought up the bitter and cling to remark in the debate last night, Hillary took the low road, describing her faith and her roots instead of trying even a feeble conciliatory remark, to say something like how we should move past that. That’s why I didn’t blame Barack a bit when he brought up the “bake cookies” remark she made in 1992 a little while later, while Hillary stood there, visibly angry, practically shaking.
They have both taken shots at each other, it is true. But Barack has pulled off making it seem like defensive moves on his part, because in polls, on the question of trustworthy-ness, he is ahead of her by twenty points.
Nicholas Kristof had a very interesting commentary in today’s NYTimes. I personally believe he is looking at cognitive dissonance in our choices of presidential candidates. It dovetails reasonably well with the book I was pitching during the Mayoral race in the fall, "The Political Brain" by Drew Westen.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
doth protest too much ...
Any lawyer will tell you, if you get pulled over by the cops or if they knock at your door, don’t say anything, in the case of a criminal investigation don’t answer questions or in the case of a traffic stop don’t argue with them. If you have to say anytihing in a criminal investigation, just ask to contact a lawyer. Pat Ford clearly has not absorbed this idea. He is persisting in trying to defend himself in the media. He is blaming the Housing Authority, specifically A Fulton Meachem for tryingto smear him, as well as claiming that bloggers threatened him (specifically Bram Reichbaum). Well, if a blogger lies about something, it is likely to come out eventually. The problem is, if Mr. Ford lies about something, and the media investigates, it is likely to come out now. It is reasonable for Mr. Ford to ask what conflict of interest he had as executive director of the URA and chairman of the board of the Housing Authority. It is *not* reasonable for Mr. Ford to assert that Mr. Meachem was trying to block an audit of the Housing Authority if no one else has heard of this attempted audit. According to the PG, the Vice Chair of the Authority said she had no knowledge of an attempted audit or any attempt to resist it. Also apparently Mr. Ford had previously agreed to leave the Housing Authority board, and then changed his mind. I myself have no idea of the timing here, whether it is related to Matt Hogue’s charges of inappropriate finances at the Authority.
On the other matter, the gifts of ties, cigars and a surround sound system, Mr. Ford claims that the surround sound gift retails for $215, below a $250 threshold for the state. Well, hell, you could get a $250 laptop, with printer and wi-fi, if you got in line at Best Buy, probably by midnight, for the sale on last year’s Black Friday. If Mr. Ford can demonstrate $215 is the price for his system, he should in fact be in the clear. But it is not the media he needs to convince (as least not yet), it is a State Ethics Board. Regardless of the value of the system, it ought to be declared, just to make sure Mr. Ford does not go over any yearly maximum, and in the interest of good government.
In a month a that saw the city-county merger plan and the Act 47 hearing, and will see the primary election, Mr. Fordhas to work hard to keep the spotlight on himself, and in doing so is begging reporters to dig into his personal life. If he lays low, lets the Ethics Board do his job, he could get away with the best possible result. But he seems detirmined to argue with the cops, to fix it.
On the other matter, the gifts of ties, cigars and a surround sound system, Mr. Ford claims that the surround sound gift retails for $215, below a $250 threshold for the state. Well, hell, you could get a $250 laptop, with printer and wi-fi, if you got in line at Best Buy, probably by midnight, for the sale on last year’s Black Friday. If Mr. Ford can demonstrate $215 is the price for his system, he should in fact be in the clear. But it is not the media he needs to convince (as least not yet), it is a State Ethics Board. Regardless of the value of the system, it ought to be declared, just to make sure Mr. Ford does not go over any yearly maximum, and in the interest of good government.
In a month a that saw the city-county merger plan and the Act 47 hearing, and will see the primary election, Mr. Fordhas to work hard to keep the spotlight on himself, and in doing so is begging reporters to dig into his personal life. If he lays low, lets the Ethics Board do his job, he could get away with the best possible result. But he seems detirmined to argue with the cops, to fix it.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Billboard scandal, go away ...
I thought the billboard issue was resolved. Sure, Ruth Ann Daily (who apparently doesn’t like any billboards) wants it taken down. Given the cost apparently already sunk into the project, I think Lamar would fight that as hard as they could. Otherwise, though, Friday saw a suspension of the Lamar law suit against the city council members, as well as Lamar agreeing to suspend construction and submit to public hearings. And I have no idea where the public will come down on this. On the one hand, the public does not seem to mind LED billboards in general. On the other hand, an LED billboard would clash with the old fashioned motif the city has created on Grant Street. On a third hand (?) New York’s Times Square has embraced lighted advertising for how long? My only stake in this issue is that the process needed to be followed, and now it is. Of course, that partially constructed billboard is a problem, in that if it does have to come down it will be a big punishment for Lamar. Frankly I am ok with that too, but I don’t think it will go that way.
Meanwhile, we hear from Char that Pat Ford wants to fight this thing, or at least complain about his treatment. I think he is making a mistake (probably the latest in many). Right now, the atmosphere in Pittsburgh is that small gifts are in fact ok. Surround sound systems may be problematic, but the whole neckties and cigars thing is probably fine. At least fine enough that he will escape indictment, although I suspect he will lose his job.
In this town, though, the corporations realize that we are far from Harrisburg, that Philly is likely to grab a lot of the attention, and that while the farmers in T part of the state don’t like us, they are inclined to leave us alone, as long as we don’t ask them for anything. So in that spirit the State Ethics Board is likely to give Pat Ford a token investigation and ultimately just a reprimand, to avoid having to look into Luke Ravenstahl, who has his own sets of gifts he has not documented. But if Pat Ford kicks up all sorts of trouble, all bets are off.
Actually, I would like to know how many Steelers, Pirates, Penguins or golf course tickets/admissions have been given to the Mayor and by whom, how many times someone else has picked up the tab for dinner and who they are, all sorts of things. But unless Pat Ford has inside information about mobsters from Youngstown hanging out with the Mayor, the State Ethics People will not likely broaden the investigation to include Ravenstahl. The most Ford could do is embarrass/irritate the Mayor, and make his suspension permanent, but without pay. So I guess I am saying that all the roads I see lead to Ford being gone.
Meanwhile, we hear from Char that Pat Ford wants to fight this thing, or at least complain about his treatment. I think he is making a mistake (probably the latest in many). Right now, the atmosphere in Pittsburgh is that small gifts are in fact ok. Surround sound systems may be problematic, but the whole neckties and cigars thing is probably fine. At least fine enough that he will escape indictment, although I suspect he will lose his job.
In this town, though, the corporations realize that we are far from Harrisburg, that Philly is likely to grab a lot of the attention, and that while the farmers in T part of the state don’t like us, they are inclined to leave us alone, as long as we don’t ask them for anything. So in that spirit the State Ethics Board is likely to give Pat Ford a token investigation and ultimately just a reprimand, to avoid having to look into Luke Ravenstahl, who has his own sets of gifts he has not documented. But if Pat Ford kicks up all sorts of trouble, all bets are off.
Actually, I would like to know how many Steelers, Pirates, Penguins or golf course tickets/admissions have been given to the Mayor and by whom, how many times someone else has picked up the tab for dinner and who they are, all sorts of things. But unless Pat Ford has inside information about mobsters from Youngstown hanging out with the Mayor, the State Ethics People will not likely broaden the investigation to include Ravenstahl. The most Ford could do is embarrass/irritate the Mayor, and make his suspension permanent, but without pay. So I guess I am saying that all the roads I see lead to Ford being gone.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Near the end of an interesting week...
Hey, spring is in the air, the Pens are in the playoffs, the Presidential candidates are in town off and on, and ... mumble mumble there is a city government scandal mumble.
What? I expect most of the public, even the voting public, has not heard about the LED billboard business. The people most likely to pay attention, besides democratic committee persons all over the city, are probably the people who had likely voted for Mark DeSantis. In other words, people neither Lamar nor the Mayor have to worry too much about. Still, the Mayor just got done endorsing City/County merger, so he doesn’t want his national image tarnished. If the State Ethics Board does a reasonable job, Pat Ford will probably be linked to a series of low level corrupt practises, not enough for any real charges but enough to have him removed from this city’s government. So the Mayor wants to be seen as getting out on the right side of this issue.
Meanwhile, I don’t go downtown, so I don’t see these things. I read that the billboard in question is almost finished. Lamar will be able to present the city with a fait accompli, a billboard that is ready to go, maybe today. That’s probably why they filed a lawsuit against the five city council persons that is almost totally without merit, to provide an excuse for them to ignore the zoning board’s order to suspend activity. I predict the city will refuse to provide electricity for the billboard for maybe a week, and then let them go ahead and advertise. What would be nice would be if the Mayor found an appropriate punishment for Lamar’s role in this. Providing some level of free advertising for the city’s human and social service non-profits would do nicely, but I have my doubts this Mayor would do that (free campaign advertising is more his speed).
Speaking of the Mayor, as I said, he is trying to get out to the right side of local issues, the side of championing the rule of law and the interests of the people. But if the Mayor hadn’t been interested in asserting his power, or in making the city more developer friendly, or in being a 27 year old, maybe none of this would have had to come up. Mayor Ravenstahl understands that modern politics is all about making connections and raising campaign funds. What he doesn’t seem to understand is that good politicians do those things so they can also spend some time helping people.
Will a judge in the court of common pleas throw out the Lamar suit today? I don't think the Lamar lawyers would care, except they want the five city council people to post bond, something Lamar can take home if they are forced to abandon the billboard.
What? I expect most of the public, even the voting public, has not heard about the LED billboard business. The people most likely to pay attention, besides democratic committee persons all over the city, are probably the people who had likely voted for Mark DeSantis. In other words, people neither Lamar nor the Mayor have to worry too much about. Still, the Mayor just got done endorsing City/County merger, so he doesn’t want his national image tarnished. If the State Ethics Board does a reasonable job, Pat Ford will probably be linked to a series of low level corrupt practises, not enough for any real charges but enough to have him removed from this city’s government. So the Mayor wants to be seen as getting out on the right side of this issue.
Meanwhile, I don’t go downtown, so I don’t see these things. I read that the billboard in question is almost finished. Lamar will be able to present the city with a fait accompli, a billboard that is ready to go, maybe today. That’s probably why they filed a lawsuit against the five city council persons that is almost totally without merit, to provide an excuse for them to ignore the zoning board’s order to suspend activity. I predict the city will refuse to provide electricity for the billboard for maybe a week, and then let them go ahead and advertise. What would be nice would be if the Mayor found an appropriate punishment for Lamar’s role in this. Providing some level of free advertising for the city’s human and social service non-profits would do nicely, but I have my doubts this Mayor would do that (free campaign advertising is more his speed).
Speaking of the Mayor, as I said, he is trying to get out to the right side of local issues, the side of championing the rule of law and the interests of the people. But if the Mayor hadn’t been interested in asserting his power, or in making the city more developer friendly, or in being a 27 year old, maybe none of this would have had to come up. Mayor Ravenstahl understands that modern politics is all about making connections and raising campaign funds. What he doesn’t seem to understand is that good politicians do those things so they can also spend some time helping people.
Will a judge in the court of common pleas throw out the Lamar suit today? I don't think the Lamar lawyers would care, except they want the five city council people to post bond, something Lamar can take home if they are forced to abandon the billboard.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Just another average, ordinary day in the 'burgh
Pittsburgh bloggers have started to spontaneously utter the phrase “This is extraordinary” in increasing numbers of posts and comments. Well, I have anyway. Lamar Advertising is currently refusing to halt construction on the downtown LED billboard, though I grant you that might change anytime. When asked about it at the Zoning Board of Adjustment hearing, Lamar’s attorney’s said the council members who appealed the permit would have to go to Common Pleas Court and post bond. Presumably this somewhat enigmatic response referred to Lamar’s lawsuit against the five City Council members.
Well, there is apparently a hearing tomorrow for this lawsuit. It is possible some things will be resolved then. I wouldn’t be surprised if the lawsuit wasn’t thrown out, although it is also possible that the four council persons who filed after Dr Dowd might have to withdraw their appeal from the ZBA. On the other hand, Lamar’s argument that private conversations between council persons constitutes a plot against Lamar is ludicrous on it’s face.
Some commenter’s on other blogs have argued City Council is wasting everyone’s time with petty and unimportant issues. It would be nice to see City Council discuss crime or how to improve the business climate in the city. But these issues, the billboard and take home cars, are important because they get to the heart of the Ravenstahl administration’s style of governing. We learn that we do not know how many take home cars there are because some city employees park them near by there homes in city lots, and are not on the list for take home cars. And of course we now know that Lamar got a foot in the door with billboards years ago, and Pat Ford guided their fortunes over the years. And that George Specter objected years ago and was ignored. By tackling these issues now, Council will have a firm precedent for how to address the bigger problems.
Well, there is apparently a hearing tomorrow for this lawsuit. It is possible some things will be resolved then. I wouldn’t be surprised if the lawsuit wasn’t thrown out, although it is also possible that the four council persons who filed after Dr Dowd might have to withdraw their appeal from the ZBA. On the other hand, Lamar’s argument that private conversations between council persons constitutes a plot against Lamar is ludicrous on it’s face.
Some commenter’s on other blogs have argued City Council is wasting everyone’s time with petty and unimportant issues. It would be nice to see City Council discuss crime or how to improve the business climate in the city. But these issues, the billboard and take home cars, are important because they get to the heart of the Ravenstahl administration’s style of governing. We learn that we do not know how many take home cars there are because some city employees park them near by there homes in city lots, and are not on the list for take home cars. And of course we now know that Lamar got a foot in the door with billboards years ago, and Pat Ford guided their fortunes over the years. And that George Specter objected years ago and was ignored. By tackling these issues now, Council will have a firm precedent for how to address the bigger problems.
Gifts? ...We don't need no gifts ... I don't have to show you any stinking gifts
It's probably just me, and there's no direct quote, but it seems to me that there is an air of wistfulness about our Mayor as he says he was aware of the gifts and Vlasach did not offer him any gifts.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
The week goes on ...
It’s interesting how much things have changed in the last couple of months. The Mayor’s, or perhaps his administration’s, indiscretions have moved from being stupid, frat boy class to closer to indictable political favoritism. The City Council has gone from one of its do-nothing phases to a more confrontational with the Mayor, activist phase. And everyone seems to be acknowledging that Act 47 should have always, or at least should now include a provision for debt relief and for the under funded pensions.
At last night’s Act 47 hearing, called for a few months ago, it is reported that all the players acknowledged the city’s long term problems, and no one made a more than qualified call for an end to oversight status. The Mayor has stopped asking for an end to oversight himself, instead leaving it up to the state (i.e. leaving them with the blame if the City goes right back into deficit). Apparently the Mayor did say that if the city does remain under Act 47 oversight, we need a new plan, one that tackles the debt and pensions. Doug Shields argued that the City has met the criteria to exit oversight status, but he acknowledged we would be right back where we were in 2003, with deficits approaching. He wants the legislature to allow the city to tax non-profits, and wants help with health care costs and the pensions. Others argued for a new Act 47 plan, one that seems to deal with our real situation.
Just because people in this region have faced reality doesn't mean the State Legislature or Governor are. It is possible that the recent call for City/County merger will play well in Harrisburg, despite (or maybe because of) the lack of details for the plan. Meanwhile, I think the Governor is busy trying to get a win for Hillary in the primary.
Meanwhile, a story has broken that Pat Ford turns out to be a close friend of a Lamar executive (h/t to the Comet). The Ravenstahl administration is looking more and more like “lil’ Bush”, which ironically was some commenters’ nickname for Mark DeSantis. The timing of the Trib’s release of this story, the day before the Zoning Board hearing on the billboard and the day after Lamar filed suit about that appeal, could not be more perfect. I can feel Richard Scaife's delight at the City’s anguish. I feel a little bad for Pat Ford, but he seems to have picked up a Dick Cheney-like disregard for procedure and accounting rules. At the very least, he probably needs to be a salesman for some private sector company, preferably as far as possible from public money.
I assume this means the appeal hearing before the Zoning Board will go well.
At last night’s Act 47 hearing, called for a few months ago, it is reported that all the players acknowledged the city’s long term problems, and no one made a more than qualified call for an end to oversight status. The Mayor has stopped asking for an end to oversight himself, instead leaving it up to the state (i.e. leaving them with the blame if the City goes right back into deficit). Apparently the Mayor did say that if the city does remain under Act 47 oversight, we need a new plan, one that tackles the debt and pensions. Doug Shields argued that the City has met the criteria to exit oversight status, but he acknowledged we would be right back where we were in 2003, with deficits approaching. He wants the legislature to allow the city to tax non-profits, and wants help with health care costs and the pensions. Others argued for a new Act 47 plan, one that seems to deal with our real situation.
Just because people in this region have faced reality doesn't mean the State Legislature or Governor are. It is possible that the recent call for City/County merger will play well in Harrisburg, despite (or maybe because of) the lack of details for the plan. Meanwhile, I think the Governor is busy trying to get a win for Hillary in the primary.
Meanwhile, a story has broken that Pat Ford turns out to be a close friend of a Lamar executive (h/t to the Comet). The Ravenstahl administration is looking more and more like “lil’ Bush”, which ironically was some commenters’ nickname for Mark DeSantis. The timing of the Trib’s release of this story, the day before the Zoning Board hearing on the billboard and the day after Lamar filed suit about that appeal, could not be more perfect. I can feel Richard Scaife's delight at the City’s anguish. I feel a little bad for Pat Ford, but he seems to have picked up a Dick Cheney-like disregard for procedure and accounting rules. At the very least, he probably needs to be a salesman for some private sector company, preferably as far as possible from public money.
I assume this means the appeal hearing before the Zoning Board will go well.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Our own everything including the kitchen sink, not Hillary's
So a lot happened last week. And a lot is going to happen this week. Last week George Specter issued his opinion on the electronic billboard. And what an interesting opinion it was. Mr. Specter opined that Ms Tymoczko (the Zoning Board of Adjustment director or administrator) acted appropriately in her decision to approve the permit the billboard, because of the 4 year practice of allowing vinyl billboards to be swapped with electronic ones. However, he split the difference, also opining that a variance would have been required for this electronic billboard by the Zoning Board (which had not happened). So he stated the practice should stop in the future.
How does that affect the appeal filed by Dr. Dowd, which was joined by several other council members? I think over all it strengthens it. All that has to be stated is that since the billboard is not up yet, the rules established by Mr. Specter’s opinion call be applied retroactively. We now know that Lamar received special treatment, which they really should not have reasonably expected, so they should be blocked, or at least forced to renegotiate. By the way, I am not a lawyer, so that is nothing more than my uninformed opinion.
A few minutes later, in an odd bit of timing, the Nordenberg committee released its report on City County Merger, only five months late. I’ve only scanned the report, but there does not seem to be a whole lot of specifics. I notice that Yarone Zober and a deputy county manager, Kathleen McKenzie, were the vice chairs of the Nordenberg committee. That might explain the vagueness of the report and the timing of its release. Another interesting part to this issue is Our Mayor’s conversion to the religion of merger, as of the day of the release of the report. You really do wonder if the Mayor is getting instructions from Rendell or Onorato or both. First, hours before Ravenstahl endorsed Hillary Clinton, he was saying he didn’t even know if he was a super delegate. Now he says he started to take merger seriously only in the last couple of weeks. These were the same weeks where Council learned how to be assertive. I believe Our Mayor is looking forward to getting rid of City Council, and was letting them know that (my opinion). If true, it is a pretty short sighted view. I hope the Mayor makes up and starts to play nice with Council, though, starting tomorrow. Council is likely to stay in existence well past the 2009 election. I think they will vote for merger when the issue comes up, but if the progressive coalition holds together, they can let the Mayor know that they will decided vote by vote whether to continue supporting the merger. This is not something coming from outside, so Council will now have the option of being petty without endangering State money essential for the City’s survival.
Speaking of outside State money, the Act 47 hearing is coming up Tuesday, I believe. I guess my invitation or public notification got lost in the mail or went to an old address. Seriously, the only reason I know about this was from a tangential mention in a story about city firefighters wanting to get in some early negotiations on contracts. But I really wonder if the removal of Act 47 will be the Mayor’s reward for having endorsed Mrs. Clinton. My fantasy is that the State people will say we need a whole new five year plan, where we need to act like grown-ups, with a real capital budget, not some ephemeral chunk of the operating budget that is a faux surplus. They would also say we need to hit the non-profits harder for money, and apply it to the debt and under funded pensions. In turn, the State would match the additional revenues from the non-profits as admission that they had a role in our problems. We probably wouldn’t wipe out the debt in five years, but we might reduce it by a quarter.
That, as I say, is my fantasy. Reality will probably be the State cutting us loose from Act 47, with praise from Democrats and threats from Republicans. And my God have mercy on our souls, because Wall Street will not.
How does that affect the appeal filed by Dr. Dowd, which was joined by several other council members? I think over all it strengthens it. All that has to be stated is that since the billboard is not up yet, the rules established by Mr. Specter’s opinion call be applied retroactively. We now know that Lamar received special treatment, which they really should not have reasonably expected, so they should be blocked, or at least forced to renegotiate. By the way, I am not a lawyer, so that is nothing more than my uninformed opinion.
A few minutes later, in an odd bit of timing, the Nordenberg committee released its report on City County Merger, only five months late. I’ve only scanned the report, but there does not seem to be a whole lot of specifics. I notice that Yarone Zober and a deputy county manager, Kathleen McKenzie, were the vice chairs of the Nordenberg committee. That might explain the vagueness of the report and the timing of its release. Another interesting part to this issue is Our Mayor’s conversion to the religion of merger, as of the day of the release of the report. You really do wonder if the Mayor is getting instructions from Rendell or Onorato or both. First, hours before Ravenstahl endorsed Hillary Clinton, he was saying he didn’t even know if he was a super delegate. Now he says he started to take merger seriously only in the last couple of weeks. These were the same weeks where Council learned how to be assertive. I believe Our Mayor is looking forward to getting rid of City Council, and was letting them know that (my opinion). If true, it is a pretty short sighted view. I hope the Mayor makes up and starts to play nice with Council, though, starting tomorrow. Council is likely to stay in existence well past the 2009 election. I think they will vote for merger when the issue comes up, but if the progressive coalition holds together, they can let the Mayor know that they will decided vote by vote whether to continue supporting the merger. This is not something coming from outside, so Council will now have the option of being petty without endangering State money essential for the City’s survival.
Speaking of outside State money, the Act 47 hearing is coming up Tuesday, I believe. I guess my invitation or public notification got lost in the mail or went to an old address. Seriously, the only reason I know about this was from a tangential mention in a story about city firefighters wanting to get in some early negotiations on contracts. But I really wonder if the removal of Act 47 will be the Mayor’s reward for having endorsed Mrs. Clinton. My fantasy is that the State people will say we need a whole new five year plan, where we need to act like grown-ups, with a real capital budget, not some ephemeral chunk of the operating budget that is a faux surplus. They would also say we need to hit the non-profits harder for money, and apply it to the debt and under funded pensions. In turn, the State would match the additional revenues from the non-profits as admission that they had a role in our problems. We probably wouldn’t wipe out the debt in five years, but we might reduce it by a quarter.
That, as I say, is my fantasy. Reality will probably be the State cutting us loose from Act 47, with praise from Democrats and threats from Republicans. And my God have mercy on our souls, because Wall Street will not.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Chad, not the Alltel guy, not hanging.
I just noticed that my name comes right before Chad Hermann’s on the Tube City Almanac’s blog roll for Pittsburgh.
Bram at the Comet posted about Chad’s four volume analysis of Obama’s speech on race. Like Bram (I assume), I wanted to wait until Chad had finished before posting about it. But today was one of the days where I leave CMU a bit early to go to the Southside to prepare and/or review taxes. So I couldn’t post at 4:30.
I rather like Bram’s comparison of Chad to Ahab. Personally I feel like I read a work by Melville going through the four parts of Chad’s criticism of Obama. After all, Obama’s speech was pretty long to begin with, and to reprint it and criticize it, sentence by sentence and paragraph by paragraph....with repeated declarations that Obama is lying, or obfuscating or whatever, over and over. We get it, you don’t like the way the man talks.
Bram posits four overarching themes for Chad’s four volumes, including this one at number four: “The speech was not written as well as it could have been.”. But really I think there is one theme running through Chad litany of criticisms. Obama could not have listened to Reverend Wright for twenty years without being influenced by him, without having developed a hatred of the white man as deep as the Reverend’s. By which Chad is saying that the Civil Rights movement is over, should be declared dead. Any further progress needed by anyone is the responsibility of that person. Dress neatly, pay attention in school, read books, speak clearly and without colloquialism. In other words, behave like a white person. Take responsibility. It’s not that there is institutionalized racism, it’s that white people don’t hire African American’s who act black. So as long as you have children out of wedlock and don’t have a proper family structure, you are responsible for your own situation and should not ask white people for help (much less demand it).
But as I say, Chad seems to believe Obama is a fraud because he won’t take a side and either say Wright is absolutely wrong or say that Wright is in fact right. In other words, Chad is angry at Obama because Obama won’t end his own candidacy. Obama is the first African American to be the front runner in a presidential primary. To reach that position, Obama must have constituencies in both the African American and the white communities. And he can’t let either constituency stare at the other one too long, think too hard about how much that different skin tone next to you has a different life. But Chad seems to want Obama to either say to the black faces in the crowd to grow up and take responsibility or to say to the white faces that its their fault so many blacks are poor. Instead, Obama makes a speech that hints at both, but lets both sides off the hook too. Because that’s what you do in a presidential campaign, you talk, and you try to make it sound fresh and new (like it’s the first time an African American has been the front runner in a presidential primary).
Whatever Obama's personal beliefs on race are, he seems to want to project a balanced view, allowing for the views of both African-Americans and whites. I actually disagree with Obama that the United States has made great progress towards equal rights, I think a fair amount of segregation has simply transformed into ossified ghettos. But regardless, to accept Chad's position that Obamais a fraud, we have to agree that his mind is so weak as to be influenced by twenty years of Sundays with Reverend Wright. My feeling on that is that Obama has been African American all his life, he almost certainly developed some ideas before moving to Chicago (albeit in Hawaii, Indonesia, Los Angeles, New York and Cambridge). Just like many, many undergraduates have read Marx and Lenin and only a few have become radicals, so too Mr Obama could listen to the Reverend Wright (whom I believe is only occasionally as dramatic as Youtube would have us believe) and not be turned into foaming at the mouth bomb thrower.
Bram at the Comet posted about Chad’s four volume analysis of Obama’s speech on race. Like Bram (I assume), I wanted to wait until Chad had finished before posting about it. But today was one of the days where I leave CMU a bit early to go to the Southside to prepare and/or review taxes. So I couldn’t post at 4:30.
I rather like Bram’s comparison of Chad to Ahab. Personally I feel like I read a work by Melville going through the four parts of Chad’s criticism of Obama. After all, Obama’s speech was pretty long to begin with, and to reprint it and criticize it, sentence by sentence and paragraph by paragraph....with repeated declarations that Obama is lying, or obfuscating or whatever, over and over. We get it, you don’t like the way the man talks.
Bram posits four overarching themes for Chad’s four volumes, including this one at number four: “The speech was not written as well as it could have been.”. But really I think there is one theme running through Chad litany of criticisms. Obama could not have listened to Reverend Wright for twenty years without being influenced by him, without having developed a hatred of the white man as deep as the Reverend’s. By which Chad is saying that the Civil Rights movement is over, should be declared dead. Any further progress needed by anyone is the responsibility of that person. Dress neatly, pay attention in school, read books, speak clearly and without colloquialism. In other words, behave like a white person. Take responsibility. It’s not that there is institutionalized racism, it’s that white people don’t hire African American’s who act black. So as long as you have children out of wedlock and don’t have a proper family structure, you are responsible for your own situation and should not ask white people for help (much less demand it).
But as I say, Chad seems to believe Obama is a fraud because he won’t take a side and either say Wright is absolutely wrong or say that Wright is in fact right. In other words, Chad is angry at Obama because Obama won’t end his own candidacy. Obama is the first African American to be the front runner in a presidential primary. To reach that position, Obama must have constituencies in both the African American and the white communities. And he can’t let either constituency stare at the other one too long, think too hard about how much that different skin tone next to you has a different life. But Chad seems to want Obama to either say to the black faces in the crowd to grow up and take responsibility or to say to the white faces that its their fault so many blacks are poor. Instead, Obama makes a speech that hints at both, but lets both sides off the hook too. Because that’s what you do in a presidential campaign, you talk, and you try to make it sound fresh and new (like it’s the first time an African American has been the front runner in a presidential primary).
Whatever Obama's personal beliefs on race are, he seems to want to project a balanced view, allowing for the views of both African-Americans and whites. I actually disagree with Obama that the United States has made great progress towards equal rights, I think a fair amount of segregation has simply transformed into ossified ghettos. But regardless, to accept Chad's position that Obamais a fraud, we have to agree that his mind is so weak as to be influenced by twenty years of Sundays with Reverend Wright. My feeling on that is that Obama has been African American all his life, he almost certainly developed some ideas before moving to Chicago (albeit in Hawaii, Indonesia, Los Angeles, New York and Cambridge). Just like many, many undergraduates have read Marx and Lenin and only a few have become radicals, so too Mr Obama could listen to the Reverend Wright (whom I believe is only occasionally as dramatic as Youtube would have us believe) and not be turned into foaming at the mouth bomb thrower.
Friday, March 28, 2008
It ain't over .... till it's over ...
The younger step daughter is now asking me to convince her to vote for Obama. Maybe she has heard the pundit talk about how Hillary can't win. My wife is talking about it too. My wife (and maybe my step daughter) took the online quiz that is going round emails, that identifies which presidential candidate you most closely identify with. I did too. Both my wife and I turn out to identify more closely with Obama.
But I will tell you I am not convinced yet that Obama is the best candidate. I think he would make the better president, because of his speaking ability. That’s an important skill for a president who wants to convince people things are all right. It’s also an important skill if you want to set a nuanced agenda, if you want to start a dialogue about African American poverty that might end in legislation to help persuade factories to locate nearer to cities, and/or might help shore up inner city K-12 schools.
But I believe Hillary Clinton would want to follow through on those issues too, and would want to pursue universal healthcare and economic issues as well. In fact, on Washington Week her proposals for addressing the foreclosure crisis were described as more aggressive than Obama's, ie, more liberal. Obama, in this campaign, has held himself a bit above the fray. He has occasionally attacked Hillary directly, but mostly in debates where she has had an immediate opportunity to fire back. I don’t know if this is a natural role for him, I don’t know if he wouldn’t be more comfortable taking direct shots at her down and dirty (Chicago style?). I have read, on more than one occasion, that he is very ambitious. You have to say he has the talent to back that up, although he had some good luck in being a newcomer to national politics just when people wanted a sense of change, someone they could believe would be different because he hadn’t been around long. So I don’t know if things actually turn against Obama if his ambition won’t kick in and cause him to drop into mudslinging.
But what I think of is how Mark DeSantis decided to run a clean campaign and compete with Mayor Ravenstahl on the issues. I guess he did that, although I will take a shot and say that the most important issues had a way of disappearing from his website as new press releases came in, and you literally had to remember or have a cache of the article’s URL to retrieve it a week or two later (I won’t go into the inadequacy of Ravenstahl’s website, especially since it was adequate enough, he won). Still, you would have to say that DeSantis won in the neighborhoods where computer ownership and use is probably highest, in Squirrel Hill, Shadyside and Oakland, the university districts. So I guess DeSantis did compete on the issues, and won in the neighborhoods where the news isn’t just a sound bite. It wasn’t enough. If DeSantis had gotten mean, and continuously brought up the Mayor’s mini-scandals, which were no more and no less than the truth, maybe more working class Pittsburghers would have thought twice, if DeSantis had adequetely proven Ravenstahl a liar. Maybe Ravenstahl would have been giving the concession speech after the election.
That’s where I am worried Obama will be, either in a month or two or next November, conceding. Rising above is all very well. Giving a great speech on race is great. I don’t want Obama to be Dick Cheney, but sometimes you gotta be willing to throw an elbow, just to show it can happen. Is he willing?
But I will tell you I am not convinced yet that Obama is the best candidate. I think he would make the better president, because of his speaking ability. That’s an important skill for a president who wants to convince people things are all right. It’s also an important skill if you want to set a nuanced agenda, if you want to start a dialogue about African American poverty that might end in legislation to help persuade factories to locate nearer to cities, and/or might help shore up inner city K-12 schools.
But I believe Hillary Clinton would want to follow through on those issues too, and would want to pursue universal healthcare and economic issues as well. In fact, on Washington Week her proposals for addressing the foreclosure crisis were described as more aggressive than Obama's, ie, more liberal. Obama, in this campaign, has held himself a bit above the fray. He has occasionally attacked Hillary directly, but mostly in debates where she has had an immediate opportunity to fire back. I don’t know if this is a natural role for him, I don’t know if he wouldn’t be more comfortable taking direct shots at her down and dirty (Chicago style?). I have read, on more than one occasion, that he is very ambitious. You have to say he has the talent to back that up, although he had some good luck in being a newcomer to national politics just when people wanted a sense of change, someone they could believe would be different because he hadn’t been around long. So I don’t know if things actually turn against Obama if his ambition won’t kick in and cause him to drop into mudslinging.
But what I think of is how Mark DeSantis decided to run a clean campaign and compete with Mayor Ravenstahl on the issues. I guess he did that, although I will take a shot and say that the most important issues had a way of disappearing from his website as new press releases came in, and you literally had to remember or have a cache of the article’s URL to retrieve it a week or two later (I won’t go into the inadequacy of Ravenstahl’s website, especially since it was adequate enough, he won). Still, you would have to say that DeSantis won in the neighborhoods where computer ownership and use is probably highest, in Squirrel Hill, Shadyside and Oakland, the university districts. So I guess DeSantis did compete on the issues, and won in the neighborhoods where the news isn’t just a sound bite. It wasn’t enough. If DeSantis had gotten mean, and continuously brought up the Mayor’s mini-scandals, which were no more and no less than the truth, maybe more working class Pittsburghers would have thought twice, if DeSantis had adequetely proven Ravenstahl a liar. Maybe Ravenstahl would have been giving the concession speech after the election.
That’s where I am worried Obama will be, either in a month or two or next November, conceding. Rising above is all very well. Giving a great speech on race is great. I don’t want Obama to be Dick Cheney, but sometimes you gotta be willing to throw an elbow, just to show it can happen. Is he willing?
Thursday, March 27, 2008
A date fast approaching ...
So I have started to mention this April 8th hearing with the State’s Economic Development people, a hearing to see if the city can get out of Act 47 status. I have only seen mention of it in one or two places, and the only one I can remember is about the Firefighters trying to get contract negotiations going out ahead of it. I assume, but don’t know for sure, that Dennis Yablonsky will be at the April 8 hearing, like I assume that the Mayor and Council President will be there. Past that I know little, and can’t find mention of it on the State Economic Development website.
So what I hope would happen then and there is that the State’s people would note that the City has not addressed it’s debt and pension problems, and the Mayor’s own budget projections show us in deficit in a few years. The State would propose a new five year plan, with some State money for pensions and debts, and perhaps higher taxes in the city and also the county. Or one of the new Council persons would stand up and ask for that. Or something.
What I fear that what will happen is that, as a reward for the Mayor's pledging for Hillary Clinton, Dennis Yablonsky will find that the City has made sufficient progress and our Act 47 status should be rescinded. If so, we had better hope the next President is a Demoocrat, perhaps we had better hope it is Hillary Clinton. Maybe then the City will get some block grants, although who knows if it would be enough to keep up with the public safety union’s pillaging of the City’s coffers, not to mention the no bid sweetheart deals that will become the norm.
So what I hope would happen then and there is that the State’s people would note that the City has not addressed it’s debt and pension problems, and the Mayor’s own budget projections show us in deficit in a few years. The State would propose a new five year plan, with some State money for pensions and debts, and perhaps higher taxes in the city and also the county. Or one of the new Council persons would stand up and ask for that. Or something.
What I fear that what will happen is that, as a reward for the Mayor's pledging for Hillary Clinton, Dennis Yablonsky will find that the City has made sufficient progress and our Act 47 status should be rescinded. If so, we had better hope the next President is a Demoocrat, perhaps we had better hope it is Hillary Clinton. Maybe then the City will get some block grants, although who knows if it would be enough to keep up with the public safety union’s pillaging of the City’s coffers, not to mention the no bid sweetheart deals that will become the norm.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
I believe that's pronounced "quiche"
Well, just a quick post. So City Council and the Mayor have made public their disagreements, more or less. Council is looking at implementing elements of the Act 47 five year plan now, even as the clock is running out. The new Council persons – Burgess, Kraus and Dowd – might be trying to fulfill some of their campaign promises. Jim Motznik seemingly makes no secret of his plan to punish his fellow council members (and himself), with a resolution that alternately praises past and current Mayors for exceeding the parameters of the Act 47 plan and then expresses puzzlement that Council is referencing Act 47 in some current legislation (and goes on to reduce the funding for Council staff, and transfer it to public safety equipment).
My sympathies are with the newer members of Council. It is hard to fault attempts to reduce expenses in the city’s budget. That said, it is true, as some blog commenters have noted that the Council is now distracted by this issue, away from crime or potholes or other issues. I’m not sure what daily Council attention to crime would achieve, unless they have some ideas to share with the police on how to prevent or solve crimes (talk about micromanaging the city’s operations).
There is a meeting of the State’s Economic Development people here on April 8th. It was called for by Council, to see if the city could exit distressed status. Personally I would like to see another five year plan, this one addressing the issues of the city’s under-funded pensions and the city’s long term debt, instead of an exit. Here’s hoping someone has the courage to stand up and say something.
My sympathies are with the newer members of Council. It is hard to fault attempts to reduce expenses in the city’s budget. That said, it is true, as some blog commenters have noted that the Council is now distracted by this issue, away from crime or potholes or other issues. I’m not sure what daily Council attention to crime would achieve, unless they have some ideas to share with the police on how to prevent or solve crimes (talk about micromanaging the city’s operations).
There is a meeting of the State’s Economic Development people here on April 8th. It was called for by Council, to see if the city could exit distressed status. Personally I would like to see another five year plan, this one addressing the issues of the city’s under-funded pensions and the city’s long term debt, instead of an exit. Here’s hoping someone has the courage to stand up and say something.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Not that Obama speech again?
My wife exclaimed this morning “not that Obama speech again? Can’t they let it go?”, as we watched the Sunday morning talk-fest. But as I watched “Meet the Press”, something that had been rattling around the back of my brain was pulled to the front. Peggy Noonan, in New York City, was talking about how Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s sermons, or at least the snippet’s shown on youtube and news programs, are far outside “the mainstream”. The rest of the panel included the editor of Newsweek Jon Meechem, NBC’s chief political correspondent Chuck Todd and the columnist Eugene Robinson.
Now, I don’t know Peggy Noonan’s background, but given the fact that she is now a reporter of sorts, doesn’t she know the terrible poverty that many, I believe most, Afican Americans live in today? Or that that poverty is a direct result of the centuries of racism in the county? We may be to the point where white suburbanites claim not to be racist, where business people actually want to hire African Americans because it would demonstrate their company’s commitment to diversification, where Universities also want to admit minority students for the same reason. But the poverty that has been created in the inner cities and in poor rural communities has become self sustaining. Poor parents can’t get jobs because they aren’t qualified and don’t have needed experience. So the neighborhoods they live in have a lousy tax base and the schools suffer. The kids don’t get educated and see their parents not working, and so do not believe they will get hired anywhere. And they are right, no one will hire minority kids fresh out of school who can’t read well. And the cycle perpetuates itself. It surprised me that Eugene Robinson (the token African American) didn’t point this out, but maybe he knew no one would hear him.
Not to say things haven’t gotten better, there are now African American millionaires and an African American middle class (although there was some of that even in the heyday of segregation). But, as the line goes, the poor still can’t buy a job. Somewhere I heard a number that 30% of African Americans agree with Rev Wright, and believe there is a white conspiracy to keep them down. Listening to Peggy Noonan, I don’t blame them.
Of course, as Mr. Obama says, for African Americans to point at whites and say, ‘You deserve 9/11 for all the bad things you have done’, that is not productive. It is no more productive for whites to tell African Americans that all their problems are their own fault. But that doesn’t mean I know anything more about it than that. Peggy Noonan did say one somewhat intelligent thing; that in making his speech Mr. Obama had moved into uncharted territory. Indeed, if we do try to start a dialogue base on Mr. Obama’s speech, we will be also be in uncharted territory.
I also saw Heather Arnet and the Rev Ricky Burgess on the KP/PG thing, with Ken Rice (with a deep, worried looking furrow on his brow) and Dennis Roddy. They were speaking as Clinton and Obama supporters respectively. Arnet was first out of the gate (so to speak), she talked for quite a while, about healthcare and how good Hillary is. Ricky Burgess tried to get a word in edgewise a few times, and when he finally did get a chance to speak he also went on for a while. His focus was a bit more abstract, about how Obama could be the leader who could unite the country. Although I don’t remember him mentioning race specifically, that was certainly the subtext.
As surrogates for their candidates, Arnet and Burgess bore an eerie verbal resemblance to them. Arnet was somewhat more practical and specific, and Burgess more theoretical and global. Disappointingly, though, I didn’t feel any issues were resolved. Burgess did bring up the Obama campaign argument that if Obama has the lead in pledged delegates, he should be declared the winner. Arnet countered that Hillary had won “must-win” states for democrats, and the super delegates should take that into account. Dennis Roddy pointed out that the contests so far have been (largely) limited to democratic voters. So Obama’s lead is in democratic voters, and Clinton has won contests in important states only in voting with other democrats. Since all these contests have so far involved only democrat party voters, they really say nothing about the electibility of the candidates at all. Again, I don’t know what should happen, but it is possible (if dangerous) that the only fair thing is to let this go to the convention with two candidates.
Now, I don’t know Peggy Noonan’s background, but given the fact that she is now a reporter of sorts, doesn’t she know the terrible poverty that many, I believe most, Afican Americans live in today? Or that that poverty is a direct result of the centuries of racism in the county? We may be to the point where white suburbanites claim not to be racist, where business people actually want to hire African Americans because it would demonstrate their company’s commitment to diversification, where Universities also want to admit minority students for the same reason. But the poverty that has been created in the inner cities and in poor rural communities has become self sustaining. Poor parents can’t get jobs because they aren’t qualified and don’t have needed experience. So the neighborhoods they live in have a lousy tax base and the schools suffer. The kids don’t get educated and see their parents not working, and so do not believe they will get hired anywhere. And they are right, no one will hire minority kids fresh out of school who can’t read well. And the cycle perpetuates itself. It surprised me that Eugene Robinson (the token African American) didn’t point this out, but maybe he knew no one would hear him.
Not to say things haven’t gotten better, there are now African American millionaires and an African American middle class (although there was some of that even in the heyday of segregation). But, as the line goes, the poor still can’t buy a job. Somewhere I heard a number that 30% of African Americans agree with Rev Wright, and believe there is a white conspiracy to keep them down. Listening to Peggy Noonan, I don’t blame them.
Of course, as Mr. Obama says, for African Americans to point at whites and say, ‘You deserve 9/11 for all the bad things you have done’, that is not productive. It is no more productive for whites to tell African Americans that all their problems are their own fault. But that doesn’t mean I know anything more about it than that. Peggy Noonan did say one somewhat intelligent thing; that in making his speech Mr. Obama had moved into uncharted territory. Indeed, if we do try to start a dialogue base on Mr. Obama’s speech, we will be also be in uncharted territory.
I also saw Heather Arnet and the Rev Ricky Burgess on the KP/PG thing, with Ken Rice (with a deep, worried looking furrow on his brow) and Dennis Roddy. They were speaking as Clinton and Obama supporters respectively. Arnet was first out of the gate (so to speak), she talked for quite a while, about healthcare and how good Hillary is. Ricky Burgess tried to get a word in edgewise a few times, and when he finally did get a chance to speak he also went on for a while. His focus was a bit more abstract, about how Obama could be the leader who could unite the country. Although I don’t remember him mentioning race specifically, that was certainly the subtext.
As surrogates for their candidates, Arnet and Burgess bore an eerie verbal resemblance to them. Arnet was somewhat more practical and specific, and Burgess more theoretical and global. Disappointingly, though, I didn’t feel any issues were resolved. Burgess did bring up the Obama campaign argument that if Obama has the lead in pledged delegates, he should be declared the winner. Arnet countered that Hillary had won “must-win” states for democrats, and the super delegates should take that into account. Dennis Roddy pointed out that the contests so far have been (largely) limited to democratic voters. So Obama’s lead is in democratic voters, and Clinton has won contests in important states only in voting with other democrats. Since all these contests have so far involved only democrat party voters, they really say nothing about the electibility of the candidates at all. Again, I don’t know what should happen, but it is possible (if dangerous) that the only fair thing is to let this go to the convention with two candidates.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Obama's Philadelphia speech
Barack Obama gave a speech today in Philadelphia, a specch about race relations, in an effort to address the problems that had been raised by the video clips of his pastor that have circled the internet and every news program. His speech did more than just confirm his condemnation of Rev Wright (although in fact he also embraced the anger of Reverend Wright), it also used that as a jumping off point to confront race directly. Obama says that he has heard things from Rev Wright that he (Obama) disagreed with, and I believe Obama would disagree that angry rhetoric would help a particular racial issue (as a tactical matter). But I also believe Obama would understand the rage, since he has surely encountered prejudice against himself while in school in the US. Even as he was elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, that very fact in and of itself indicates how blacks are viewed even in the most elite segments of society.
But Obama seems to want us to understand he does see the same world we do. He talked about how bad things are in black neighborhoods, how the under-funded and thus understaffed and under-equipped schools can not provide black kids with the education needed to compete, and thus they can not get jobs to provide for families (and both kids and adults may turn to crime). We, as a nation, have made strides, but clearly not enough. He even mentioned blacks own complicity in some of their problems, and the possible negative effects of welfare. But he also talked about how lower and middle class whites have suffered recently too, seeing their wage stagnate, their credit card and home equity debt go up, and just recently seeing their home values start to tumble in many places. He talked about how we are not confronting the issues of race, not even during tense times of clear differences like during the OJ trial or Katrina. We know there are problems but no one wants to talk about them for fear of saying the wrong thing. But Obama did talk some about them, positioning them as mutual problems, things we need to take responsibility for so that we can turn to other quality of life issues like education, health care and jobs.
So I thought it was a good speech and I urge everyone to read it. I might reprint it as a post. The other interesting thing is that this speech provided Obama with an opportunity to make a pitch to Pennsylvanians. He gave this speech now, in this state. He gave working class white males something to think about for the next four weeks. Hillary might find that some of her support here fades. The goofy way the democrats allocate delegates, proportionally, guarantees that neither candidate will have enough delegates by the convention to clinch the nomination, but it appears Obama will have more than Clinton. I sortta hope now that Clinton doesn’t get the nomination. She is beginning to remind me of John Kerry, and I am getting a bad feeling about that.
But Obama seems to want us to understand he does see the same world we do. He talked about how bad things are in black neighborhoods, how the under-funded and thus understaffed and under-equipped schools can not provide black kids with the education needed to compete, and thus they can not get jobs to provide for families (and both kids and adults may turn to crime). We, as a nation, have made strides, but clearly not enough. He even mentioned blacks own complicity in some of their problems, and the possible negative effects of welfare. But he also talked about how lower and middle class whites have suffered recently too, seeing their wage stagnate, their credit card and home equity debt go up, and just recently seeing their home values start to tumble in many places. He talked about how we are not confronting the issues of race, not even during tense times of clear differences like during the OJ trial or Katrina. We know there are problems but no one wants to talk about them for fear of saying the wrong thing. But Obama did talk some about them, positioning them as mutual problems, things we need to take responsibility for so that we can turn to other quality of life issues like education, health care and jobs.
So I thought it was a good speech and I urge everyone to read it. I might reprint it as a post. The other interesting thing is that this speech provided Obama with an opportunity to make a pitch to Pennsylvanians. He gave this speech now, in this state. He gave working class white males something to think about for the next four weeks. Hillary might find that some of her support here fades. The goofy way the democrats allocate delegates, proportionally, guarantees that neither candidate will have enough delegates by the convention to clinch the nomination, but it appears Obama will have more than Clinton. I sortta hope now that Clinton doesn’t get the nomination. She is beginning to remind me of John Kerry, and I am getting a bad feeling about that.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Adult supervision?
I have only been really following local politics since last January, the start of the primary season. I got that Dowd flyer and then a visit from Dowd and I started reading blogs that focus on local politics yada yada yada. But I am aware that past City Councils and past Mayors have had conflicts, perhaps even epic conflicts. We’ve had character Mayors and character Councilpersons, and Tom Murphy well and truly overstayed his welcome, after having been the darling of the progressives initially. All of which is to say that I won’t say what the current Council is doing is amazing and unlike anything we have ever seen before! But it is different from last year, and kinda important. Right now City Council seems to be trying to teach the Ravenstahl administration how to fight like adults.
Anyone reading this blog knows about the Mayor’s misadventures in the last year or so (unless you’re here to crib on your pysch homework). I won’t go into detail about last year, but I will say that since the election the issues have changed in tone. The Pittsburgh Promise was probably not the Mayor’s choice in timing, but the way the sign has been handled, the Penguins community benefit agreement that isn’t and now the dust up over take home cars … all on the Mayor or his staff.
Commenters at the Burgh Report are complaining that fussing about the sign is a distraction from the city’s real problems. There’s a point there, but the thing is that if the decision making process is ignored in this case, where else will it be ignored when slight variations from the exact wording of city code can be found? Real money is made in development, in building and advertising. Trade unions and the developers have a big stake in this. Pittsburgh could become a very development friendly town, as long as you donate to the right campaign. Pat Ford and Our Mayor could become the “go-to” guys, spending time in sky-boxes and expensive restaurants galore. They could come to dominate the PG’s “Seen” section.
And if City Council loses this fight, if it comes to pass that development can be green lighted with just a signature or two instead of those pesky hearings and public comments, the people of this city will … what? Rise up in revolt? Sue the city? Run developers out of town on a rail? Naw, people won’t care. There be some whining from the People’s Republic of Squirrel Hill, and the Popular Front of Shadyside (not to mention the Grand Duchy of Highland Park), but that’s all. In fact, the micro-attention of the local press on the Presidential race has already sucked the public interest out of the local fight.
I’ve already commented a bit on the sign issues, but my own attention was caught by City Council's meeting on take home cars. Ricky Burgess is spearheading that effort, and has already compromised in his efforts to limit the number of take home cars. It was decided that the public safety departments could keep their take home cars, and Burgess was only looking at Parks and Recreation, Building Inspection and Public Works. Two points caught my attention in the coverage of the meeting. First, George Specter, who (as far as I know) still has not rendered an opinion on the LED sign or more particularly the city’s process in approving it, had immediate if vague opinions on Council ability to control the number of take home cars. Quote: “But Solicitor George Specter said it is his "very strong opinion that this bill violates the separation of powers doctrine between council and the mayor." He called it "an unlawful imposition on the mayor's executive powers."” The PG also reported “Mr. Specter said council's right to legislate policy doesn't mean it can manage departments. "It's kind of like obscenity -- where you call it like you see it -- when you cross the line into micromanagement of operations," he said.”
I don’t know if Specter said anything more specific, the PG may have just used the sound bites, but if he didn’t, then Specter has picked up a trick from Pat Ford. He can’t specify when Council has stepped over the line, he only knows it has. So Council better rein itself in, and not try to tell the Ravenstahl administration how to spend money on anything. A good tactic, since it leaves Council wondering if the city lawyer will defend them on anything, or whether the city lawyer will turn around and file suit against them.
The other thing that caught my attention was the report that Kevin Quigley’s take home car was reported as having just under twenty thousand miles put on it in the last year. Maybe the PG made a mistake, maybe that is Quigley’s work and home vehicle, but if not … Quigley must be using this Chevy Avalanche to take very expensive family road trip vacations in, maybe to Florida or at least some Atlantic coast beach. A few times. Scott Kunka (City Finance Director) said that eliminating the take home cars would worsen the city officials’ response times in emergencies (since personal vehicles move slower than city vehicles?), but I can’t see how your response time is improved if you are out of town. It was Kunka, by the way, who used the “Pirate of the Caribbean” defense for city. Agreeing the Act 47 five plan had itself mandated a reduction of the take home fleet down to 29 (from the 83 in 2003 and also still), Kunka called the Act 47 plan “"a global, sort-of, road map."” . Bruce Kraus noted it is a law.
Other bloggers and myself have noted Ravenstahl’s similarity to the current President, for example when Ravenstahl would lie to the press, get caught, then refuse to apologize for it. Well, now we can add Ravestahl’s attempt to create a Unitary Mayor, someone who can ignore process and act as he pleases. At least Bush has the excuse that there might be constitutional reasoning and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for his behavior. Mayor Ravenstahl should be belt tightening since the city is in Act 47 status. Instead he is pushing back against any legally required restrictions on his administration’s behavior. And everyone is distracted by the primary.
Anyone reading this blog knows about the Mayor’s misadventures in the last year or so (unless you’re here to crib on your pysch homework). I won’t go into detail about last year, but I will say that since the election the issues have changed in tone. The Pittsburgh Promise was probably not the Mayor’s choice in timing, but the way the sign has been handled, the Penguins community benefit agreement that isn’t and now the dust up over take home cars … all on the Mayor or his staff.
Commenters at the Burgh Report are complaining that fussing about the sign is a distraction from the city’s real problems. There’s a point there, but the thing is that if the decision making process is ignored in this case, where else will it be ignored when slight variations from the exact wording of city code can be found? Real money is made in development, in building and advertising. Trade unions and the developers have a big stake in this. Pittsburgh could become a very development friendly town, as long as you donate to the right campaign. Pat Ford and Our Mayor could become the “go-to” guys, spending time in sky-boxes and expensive restaurants galore. They could come to dominate the PG’s “Seen” section.
And if City Council loses this fight, if it comes to pass that development can be green lighted with just a signature or two instead of those pesky hearings and public comments, the people of this city will … what? Rise up in revolt? Sue the city? Run developers out of town on a rail? Naw, people won’t care. There be some whining from the People’s Republic of Squirrel Hill, and the Popular Front of Shadyside (not to mention the Grand Duchy of Highland Park), but that’s all. In fact, the micro-attention of the local press on the Presidential race has already sucked the public interest out of the local fight.
I’ve already commented a bit on the sign issues, but my own attention was caught by City Council's meeting on take home cars. Ricky Burgess is spearheading that effort, and has already compromised in his efforts to limit the number of take home cars. It was decided that the public safety departments could keep their take home cars, and Burgess was only looking at Parks and Recreation, Building Inspection and Public Works. Two points caught my attention in the coverage of the meeting. First, George Specter, who (as far as I know) still has not rendered an opinion on the LED sign or more particularly the city’s process in approving it, had immediate if vague opinions on Council ability to control the number of take home cars. Quote: “But Solicitor George Specter said it is his "very strong opinion that this bill violates the separation of powers doctrine between council and the mayor." He called it "an unlawful imposition on the mayor's executive powers."” The PG also reported “Mr. Specter said council's right to legislate policy doesn't mean it can manage departments. "It's kind of like obscenity -- where you call it like you see it -- when you cross the line into micromanagement of operations," he said.”
I don’t know if Specter said anything more specific, the PG may have just used the sound bites, but if he didn’t, then Specter has picked up a trick from Pat Ford. He can’t specify when Council has stepped over the line, he only knows it has. So Council better rein itself in, and not try to tell the Ravenstahl administration how to spend money on anything. A good tactic, since it leaves Council wondering if the city lawyer will defend them on anything, or whether the city lawyer will turn around and file suit against them.
The other thing that caught my attention was the report that Kevin Quigley’s take home car was reported as having just under twenty thousand miles put on it in the last year. Maybe the PG made a mistake, maybe that is Quigley’s work and home vehicle, but if not … Quigley must be using this Chevy Avalanche to take very expensive family road trip vacations in, maybe to Florida or at least some Atlantic coast beach. A few times. Scott Kunka (City Finance Director) said that eliminating the take home cars would worsen the city officials’ response times in emergencies (since personal vehicles move slower than city vehicles?), but I can’t see how your response time is improved if you are out of town. It was Kunka, by the way, who used the “Pirate of the Caribbean” defense for city. Agreeing the Act 47 five plan had itself mandated a reduction of the take home fleet down to 29 (from the 83 in 2003 and also still), Kunka called the Act 47 plan “"a global, sort-of, road map."” . Bruce Kraus noted it is a law.
Other bloggers and myself have noted Ravenstahl’s similarity to the current President, for example when Ravenstahl would lie to the press, get caught, then refuse to apologize for it. Well, now we can add Ravestahl’s attempt to create a Unitary Mayor, someone who can ignore process and act as he pleases. At least Bush has the excuse that there might be constitutional reasoning and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for his behavior. Mayor Ravenstahl should be belt tightening since the city is in Act 47 status. Instead he is pushing back against any legally required restrictions on his administration’s behavior. And everyone is distracted by the primary.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Please don't let me be misunderstood
Patrick Dowd revealed his strategy today for addressing the maneuver made by the Parking and Zoning Board Authorities to allow an LED sign to be placed on the Grant Street Transportation Center. Dr. Dowd has filed an appeal with the Zoning Board, triggering a hearing on April 10th.
This strategy has several interesting facets. First, there is a question of whether the non-binding resolution in Council a couple of weeks ago could have actually done anything. How much authority does the Mayor have over the Authorities? They have their own boards, they are quasi state related, it may be that this would be the time the Mayor would discover the limits to his own authority. Second, this move has triggered a hearing, so the questions about the Authorities’ process will be brought before the very people who have created and participate in that process. Third, the Authorities (first, at least) will have to consider the legality of the issue, the very thing requested from George Specter. Specter certainly still has an opportunity to render an opinion, but he may also find himself defending that opinion before a board or even a court. Fourth is that if the issue does ultimately end up in Commonwealth Court, the Court has the capacity to compel the Authorities to perform some action, such as to reopen the process.
On the down side, I think it is a shame that this issue has to be taken outside of council. The Mayor is not the only elected representative of the people, and I think it might be important for Council to say something about this situation, even if it is just a non-binding resolution expressing dismay that the process was bypassed. There’s danger too for Dr. Dowd, who has staked out a position; a position arguing that the city needs to follow its own rules. I hope that the Mayor will realize he let Pat Ford go too far I this case, but I fear that someone will whisper in the ear of the snow plow driver to ignore Dr. Dowd’s street.
The city needs a parliamentarian, someone who can express an opinion on the rules of the game. Mr. Specter, the city's lawyer, currently finds himself in a difficult position, where if he renders opinions that the city has done the wrong thing, he will have trouble then defending the city in court, if it comes to that. Mr. Specter needs to concentrate on finding defenses for the actions of city officials, and someone else, possibly in Mr. Specter’s office or outside, needs to be responsible for suggesting the truth of the matter. Otherwise I can only suggest that the state ethics board set up a permanent outpost on Grant Street, because we are going to need it.
This strategy has several interesting facets. First, there is a question of whether the non-binding resolution in Council a couple of weeks ago could have actually done anything. How much authority does the Mayor have over the Authorities? They have their own boards, they are quasi state related, it may be that this would be the time the Mayor would discover the limits to his own authority. Second, this move has triggered a hearing, so the questions about the Authorities’ process will be brought before the very people who have created and participate in that process. Third, the Authorities (first, at least) will have to consider the legality of the issue, the very thing requested from George Specter. Specter certainly still has an opportunity to render an opinion, but he may also find himself defending that opinion before a board or even a court. Fourth is that if the issue does ultimately end up in Commonwealth Court, the Court has the capacity to compel the Authorities to perform some action, such as to reopen the process.
On the down side, I think it is a shame that this issue has to be taken outside of council. The Mayor is not the only elected representative of the people, and I think it might be important for Council to say something about this situation, even if it is just a non-binding resolution expressing dismay that the process was bypassed. There’s danger too for Dr. Dowd, who has staked out a position; a position arguing that the city needs to follow its own rules. I hope that the Mayor will realize he let Pat Ford go too far I this case, but I fear that someone will whisper in the ear of the snow plow driver to ignore Dr. Dowd’s street.
The city needs a parliamentarian, someone who can express an opinion on the rules of the game. Mr. Specter, the city's lawyer, currently finds himself in a difficult position, where if he renders opinions that the city has done the wrong thing, he will have trouble then defending the city in court, if it comes to that. Mr. Specter needs to concentrate on finding defenses for the actions of city officials, and someone else, possibly in Mr. Specter’s office or outside, needs to be responsible for suggesting the truth of the matter. Otherwise I can only suggest that the state ethics board set up a permanent outpost on Grant Street, because we are going to need it.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Couldn't happen here ... could it?
Chris Briem posted about the potential bankruptcy of Vallejo, Ca and how it relates to a possible Pittsburgh bankruptcy. Like Chris, I myself wonder if the state would step in and prevent the city from declaring bankruptcy. And the question of how bond debt versus the pension obligations would be viewed is also quite interesting.
What also interests me is how Our Mayor does not admit that the city is vulnerable. He admits the city has financial issues, but talks about them as if they are a thing of the past. The city has no capital budget, instead having a $99 million savings account from which to spend for everything discretionary for the indefinite future. The Mayor states that he will not borrow for the next five years, to avoid taking on any new debt. Yet the Mayor see no problems worth discussing in this situation, much as the President see no problems, just something “interesting”, in the idea of $4 a gallon gasoline.
My memory is that while the Mayor has not talked extensively on this, he has stated that he is in favor of exiting Act 47 status. There is a hearing coming up on the city’s status in about a month, and I expect the Mayor will talk more about it then. I believe we are in the last year of the Act 47 five year plan.
The city’s current financial situation is stable but dangerous. If all the city had to do was make the minimum payments on debt indefinitely, we might be all right. But apparently there are health insurance concerns down the road, and probably a balloon (large) payment on debt. And the credit market is drying up, making borrowing to refinance or even just meet large payments much more difficult. And that is without talking about the issue of the under-funded pension.
If the city did go into bankruptcy, whatever federal administrator would examine what the city tried to do to avoid it. (S)He will see that the city tried to exit Act 47 status, which would eliminate a number of taxing powers granted to the city through Act 47. (S)He may see a firefighters contract negotiated early, ostensibly to help the city leave Act 47 status. The firefighters say they will not take advantage if the city returns to normal status, but I find that really hard to believe
For that matter, federal bankruptcy people would see a Mayor who has repeatedly made questionable ethical decisions and appears willing to spend fairly freely to appear to be responsive to the people (on paving software, new salt trucks and a Ford Explorer for himself, for example). The only time recently the Mayor has mention belt-tightening was in response to the question of whether the Housing Authority is overspending on itself. The Mayor does not give the impression of someone looking for ways for the city to save money, except perhaps in the sweetheart deals being made with campaign contributors (to quote Bill Murray “Well that’s what I heard, anyway”).
What also interests me is how Our Mayor does not admit that the city is vulnerable. He admits the city has financial issues, but talks about them as if they are a thing of the past. The city has no capital budget, instead having a $99 million savings account from which to spend for everything discretionary for the indefinite future. The Mayor states that he will not borrow for the next five years, to avoid taking on any new debt. Yet the Mayor see no problems worth discussing in this situation, much as the President see no problems, just something “interesting”, in the idea of $4 a gallon gasoline.
My memory is that while the Mayor has not talked extensively on this, he has stated that he is in favor of exiting Act 47 status. There is a hearing coming up on the city’s status in about a month, and I expect the Mayor will talk more about it then. I believe we are in the last year of the Act 47 five year plan.
The city’s current financial situation is stable but dangerous. If all the city had to do was make the minimum payments on debt indefinitely, we might be all right. But apparently there are health insurance concerns down the road, and probably a balloon (large) payment on debt. And the credit market is drying up, making borrowing to refinance or even just meet large payments much more difficult. And that is without talking about the issue of the under-funded pension.
If the city did go into bankruptcy, whatever federal administrator would examine what the city tried to do to avoid it. (S)He will see that the city tried to exit Act 47 status, which would eliminate a number of taxing powers granted to the city through Act 47. (S)He may see a firefighters contract negotiated early, ostensibly to help the city leave Act 47 status. The firefighters say they will not take advantage if the city returns to normal status, but I find that really hard to believe
For that matter, federal bankruptcy people would see a Mayor who has repeatedly made questionable ethical decisions and appears willing to spend fairly freely to appear to be responsive to the people (on paving software, new salt trucks and a Ford Explorer for himself, for example). The only time recently the Mayor has mention belt-tightening was in response to the question of whether the Housing Authority is overspending on itself. The Mayor does not give the impression of someone looking for ways for the city to save money, except perhaps in the sweetheart deals being made with campaign contributors (to quote Bill Murray “Well that’s what I heard, anyway”).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
