Arch Conservative Richard Mellon Scaife Blew Hundreds of Millions on his Tribune-Review in Grudge Match Against Post-Gazette

(We're talking three to four of these.)

Richard Mellon Scaife's children have been battling over a trust fund set up in 1935 for Scaife for his "welfare" by his mother, the remainder of which would have gone to them upon his death. That fund went from nine figures to zero. They are demanding an accounting of the trust fund which they believe should not have been used to prop up their father's conservative Pittsburgh Tribune-Review newspaper because of his "vehement dislike for the owners of the Post-Gazette."

Via the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Jennie Scaife’s attorneys wrote that the trustees “distributed over $300 million ... to Richard M. Scaife ... to use in funding Scaife’s newspaper and media operations — the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review — which by admission lost no less than $250 million as of 2007 alone and upon belief lost many millions more to date.”

A total of $700 million went to non-charitable and non-family recipients, including the Trib.

But don't cry too many tears for poor Jennie and David Scaife.

According to the article, they receive one million dollars a month each (yes, you read that right) from another trust set up by their grandmother. Apparently, this is not enough for them.

Yes, the rich are different. Cause if I had money like that...well...

The Trib's Misleading You. Again.

Today there's two ways that the Tribune-Review's editorial board's misleading you.

First by shifting, ever so slightly, the context of a new NYTimes/CBS Poll.  Here's how they characterize it:

A New York Times/CBS News poll suggests that President Barack Obama “is erasing” Mitt Romney’s “edge” regarding the economy. If the poll is accurate, it’s indicative of an electorate’s fatal ignorance. [emphasis added]

Note the verbs I emphasized.  The first requires no explanation but with the second, the implication is clear:  the process of "erasing" the "edge" is currently taking place.  The verb phrase actually comes from the headline of the Times piece, not the text - and so it was written by someone else.

Now let's look at the Times' original:

President Obama has taken away Mitt Romney’s longstanding advantage as the candidate voters say is most likely to restore the economy and create jobs, according to the latest poll by The New York Times and CBS News, which found a modest sense of optimism among Americans that White House policies are working.

Note the verb.  Whatever the poll shows, it's already happened. There's no "suggestion" of it. It's happened already. Past tense.

See the subtle?  Scaife's braintrust is softening the context, and thereby changing the meaning for you it's loyal readership.

But there's a deeper mislead here:That quoted phrase comes from a Monday headline on a Wall Street Journal commentary by five quite astute economists, including Carnegie Mellon University’s Allan Meltzer. Their recitation of the facts shows that the U.S. economy is on the edge of disaster because of this administration’s policies and those of the Federal Reserve.

“We risk passing an economic, fiscal and financial point of no return,” writes Professor Meltzer and four colleagues associated with Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, including former U.S. Treasury Secretary George Shultz.

Ok, let's pause right there.  Hoover Institution...Hoover Institution...where have we heard that name before?

That's right, it's the recipient of millions of dollars of Scaife Foundation money.

Again, funny how Richard Mellon Scaife's financial connections to the nation's conservative think tanks are never ever mentioned when his editorial board uses them as" informational" sources.

Disclosing that information would discredit the op-ed, so misleading you is what they do.

Blog For Equality Day

It's Blog For Equality Day!

Again.

I've done this a couple of times. I've done:

• The Snark (and go read this one - it's so funny I must've stolen it from a far far better writer)
• Follow up on The Snark with some analysis (this one isn't as funny but it's informative)

It seems the mean and ugly that failed in 2008 and 2010 has returned again in 2011. But meaner and uglier this time.

Whereas last year the ugly proposed was this addition to Pennsylvania Constitution:

Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth.

This year the ugly goes further. This is what Daryl Metcalf wants to add this time:

Marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

As the Tribune-Review's editorial board (yes, Scaife's Braintrust) recently pointed out:

[State Representative Daryl Metcalfe] wants to codify discrimination by amending the Pennsylvania Constitution to deny legal "marriage" to same-sex couples. And the proposed wording of his amendment goes a step further, appearing to not even recognize any other "legal union." But constitutions are not for denying rights; they're for enumerating them. This is poor form, the antithesis of liberty, and the effort should be rejected. (h/t to Bram on this)

If they get it, then it should be obvious to everyone - left, right, and center. Gay men and gay women, simply by virtue of the fact that they are citizens of a free democracy, are entitled to the same marriage rights as everyone else. To recontext Lincoln, whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.

It's only fair.

MAKE IT STOP!

For the love of all that is good and holy, local news, please please please stop airing any more interviews with Big Ben Worthlessberger/footage of his victim speaking to police!

I know that Georgia's laws say that they must make the police interviews available, but that doesn't mean that you have to run them on every newscast or link to them on your front pages (I hear WPXI even interrupted programming for this as "breaking news" yesterday).

And, the interviews with Worthlessberger? If I hear him say one more time how he's come back to God, how he's been spending time at the wholesome family farm or how he has to "find Ben Roethlisberger" I will vomit.

And, it's not like I can avoid this shit by just not watching the local news because you're playing promos 24/7.

As I know that it's in your financial interests to run anything Steelers, can you please do me a favor? Can you tweet me when it's safe to watch local TV again? Until then, I'll be viewing elsewhere.

And speaking of FAIL, here's some major fail from the Trib:

.

Cyril Wecht Responds (Some of his best friends are Italians)

In last Sunday's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, my co-blogger David DeAngelo had an opinion piece in the Perspectives section. He wrote about the guido/goombah stereotypes of Italian-Americans. You can read it here.

In it, he mentioned Dr. Cyril Wecht's recent use of the word "goombah":

But Dr. Wecht did refer to FBI Agent Bradley Orsini (an Italian-American) as a goombah in a radio interview. He also said that Mr. Orsini was the "goombah" of political rival Stephen Zappala, the Allegheny County district attorney, who also is Italian-American.

One Italian-American man as the goombah of another? We're talking bigtime Mafia references here.

When I first read of this, I was profoundly disappointed that a man of such intelligence and learning as Dr. Wecht would use such a disgraced and ignorant slur. If Dr. Wecht would lower D.A. Zappala and Agent Orsini to the level of Mafia goons, what must he think of the rest of us with vowels at the ends of our names?

In today's P-G, Dr. Wecht responds to David's piece with his own Perspectives column, titled, "I didn't use 'goombah' as a slur: Few people have more connections to Italy or love for Italians"

Aside from his love for Italians (apparently more powerful than most Italians have for each other if you believe the headline), Wecht's argument is as follows:

1) His sample of Italian-Americans do not use/see "goombah" as a slur.

2) Wecht writes, 'The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines goombah as "a companion or associate, especially an older friend who acts as a patron, protector or adviser." This is my reference. I would ask Mr. DeAngelo, please tell me -- aside from your own personal definition -- what is your literary reference?'

3) David is apparently the only Italian-American to think that "goombah" can be used as a slur.

Cyril as an Italian-American myself (OK, an Italian-Ukrainian-Rusyn-German-Irish-American), I have certainly heard the word "goombah" used as a negative.

But, you don't have to take my word or David's word for it (or Stephen Zappala's). Just look at what was written in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on your usage of that word:

Carla Lucente, a professor of modern languages at Duquesne University, said she was surprised that Wecht used the word "goombah."

Lucente said the context makes the use of "goombah" offensive because it implies unethical behavior by Zappala and Orsini. She said the word is slang, not true Italian. Its origin refers to a godparent.

"I'm angry he used that," she said. "It is offensive, especially when we talk so much today about diversity."

But, I'm sure Wecht will say the Trib is against him or that Lucente is just one person -- despite being an actual professor of modern languages -- and that he, Dr. Cyril Wecht, has a "fair command of the English language."

However, dear Cyril, surely someone with such a well known propensity for flair with language would know that different dictionaries can produce different -- or more expanded -- results when giving the meaning of a word.

So, let's look at the definition of "goombah" by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Main Entry: goom·bah
Pronunciation: \ˈgüm-ˌbä\
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian dial. (Campania) cumbà, voc. form of cumbare respected older man, literally, godfather, from Medieval Latin compater — more at compeer
Date: 1968
1 : a close friend or associate —used especially among Italian-American men
2 : a member of a secret chiefly Italian-American crime organization : mafioso; broadly : gangster
3 : a macho Italian-American man

Oh my.

Would you call that a "literary reference"?

Now, as to your final contention that, "I am not hesitant or ashamed to say what I think about someone, especially individuals who have attacked and attempted to destroy me and my family. If I believed Messrs. Zappala and Orsini were Mafioso, I would have stated so. I used goombah to characterize exactly what I (and a respected dictionary) believe it to mean -- a warm friendship, some kind of personal relationship," I have to ask why exactly did you use the word "goombah"? Why didn't you just say "close, personal friend"?

Would you have said "goombah" if you were referring to a relationship between two non Italians? Sorry, but I doubt it. The same way that I doubt that you would think that you could use the word "homie" to describe the relationship between two African-American men and get away without any criticism. Certainly "homie" is mostly used to indicate a close, personal friend, but it's also a word you hear on TV cop shows to describe -- lets play with words -- "urban" (CODE) youth as in "there were a bunch of homies on the corner."

Yes, the same word can have different meanings depending on the context and the person who speaks it. Words can be used as code and as dog whistles.

And, Dr. Wecht, a lot of us heard you whistling loud and clear.
.

BRESMA Updates - Latest News (Updated 1x)

UPDATE: Most recent news here (1/18/10, 6:30 AM ET).


10/17/10, 4:30 AM ET, from the sister-in-law of the McMutrie sisters:

10/16/10, 10:27 PM ET:
An AP report which was apparently also mentioned on CNN yesterday made it seem as though all 150 children from the Brebis de Saint Michel de L'Attalaye (BRESMA) orphanage in Port-au-Prince -- run by Pittsburgh (Ben Avon) sisters Jamie and Ali McMutrie -- had received clearance to leave Haiti and come to Pittsburgh.

That is false.

As the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review report, the truth is far more complicated.

There may be some movement on getting some children out of Haiti, but nothing seems to be truly settled as of now. The children and the McMutrie sisters are all still in Haiti and no one, at this point, knows exactly if and when they will get out and exactly where they will end up if evacuated. The complications in getting all the orphans out of Haiti are numerous because of the differing status of the children. Some are far along in the adoption process, but many more are not. Additionally, the adoptive parents are scattered throughout the US and the world.

A small bit of good news: according to Ali Pace, who is a sister-in-law of the McMutrie sisters, the orphanage received a small amount of water and supplies last night. They had run out of water entirely on Saturday.

Also, the donations of goods received at the drop-off point in the North Side of Pittsburgh yesterday was a great success and no more donations are being accepted as of now. You can still donate to the orphanage at: http://www.centeroflife.net/haiti.
.

PWSA: Erroneous water bills aren't the only problem

You may have caught the story repeated many times on the local TV news about 13,000 customers of Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Authority (PWSA) receiving bills with a couple of extra zeros added to the total.

The stories identified the problem resulting from a California based company using a European protocol (commas instead of decimals) which meant that a $45.00 bill would end up being a $4,500 bill.

What the TV news stories -- at least the ones I'm seeing on WTAE -- neglected to add was that the Cali company outsources PWSA's billing to Malaysia.

Huh?

Why the fuck does my water bill have to go half way round the world?

A tip of the hat to Chris Briem who tweeted the Malaysia connection which he found in the Trib's coverage.

Surely Burghers could have been found to do PWSA's billings who had never even heard of using commas instead of decimal points...

UPDATE: KDKA and WPXI broadcasts also leave out the Malaysian connection.
.

Sen. Ferlo: Trib Misrepresents Me Regarding G-20 and "Free Speech Zone"

Here's the headline and first two paragraphs of a story which appeared in today's Tribune-Review:

State Sen. Ferlo wants Point State Park designated free-speech zone for G-20

By Jeremy Boren, TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, July 24, 2009

Sen. Jim Ferlo wants the city's permission to turn Point State Park into a free-speech zone for activists the day before the Group of 20 economic summit begins Downtown.

Ferlo, D-Highland Park, said Thursday he wants a permit to use the park from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Sept. 23 to "provide a forum for a very large event where people would feel comfortable appearing."

The problem? (Besides, of course, the whole idea of "free speech zones.") Sen. Jim Ferlo never requested a permit for a "free speech zone" -- he did request a permit for an event to be held at Point State Park on September 23rd (the day before the G-20 Summit).

According to a letter that Ferlo sent to police Chief Nate Harper and Public Safety Director Michael Huss (.pdf here), the event would entail "speeches and cultural entertainment focusing on the arrival of the G-20 delegates and international media to our great City" and which would be "entirely peaceful, motivated by the spirit of democratic participation, and open to the public."

The Trib characterized Ferlo's request as trying to create a "free speech zone."

Anyone paying attention during the, oh, last eight years or so knows that a "free speech zone" typically refers to setting up a designated area for protestors and only allowing protest/political speech to take place in that designated area (usually far from the political event) as a means of censoring free speech.

Anyone actually reading Ferlo's letter to Harper and Huss can see that Ferlo is not trying to censor speech, but rather, he's trying to initiate a rally which would enhance those desiring a peaceful, safe space to comment on the upcoming G-20 summit.

From my reading of his request, Ferlo is trying to provide AN ALTERNATIVE for those who have no desire to take to the streets but still wish to mark the summit -- a huge difference from the way that the Trib characterized his request.

I mean for Pete's sake, Ferlo cc'd Vic Walczak of the ACLU on his permit request! Does anyone really think that he would have done this if he was trying to curtail speech in any way?

[sigh]

Here's Ferlo's response to the Trib article:

Jeremy,

Respectfully, I have been in public life for over 25 years and while I have taken exception to various editorials and news reporting I have never written and asked for a correction or retraction. The headline and your own reporting of an interview with me following the release of my letter to local public safety officials amounts to the pusillanimous neglect of accuracy and truth! I never , either in written word or our phone conversation, used the phrase or suggested a so-called "free-speech zone". A so-called "free speech zone" violates our right of free speech and assembly---anywhere! It would amount to me telling you and the Trib and Mr. Scaife that you could only sell or pass out the Trib at certain public intersections. My request and administrative processing of a permit for Pt. State Park is for obvious permitting procedures and exclusive use of an area. All the other events that I described to you generally provided a picture of the various actions that individuals and organizations, locally, nationally and from around the globe, will exercise leading up to and during the G-20 summit here in Pittsburgh. No one needs a permit or be told by police or government officials that free speech is limited to "certain designated areas". This is morally, politically and Constitutionally un-acceptable and I will go to jail should it be necessary to fight and secure this principle. All of the United States - anywhere - is guaranteed free speech and that's a pretty big "zone"!

Sincerely,

Senator Jim Ferlo

Ferlo's office is requesting that you all use your free speech to "take a moment to write a letter to the Trib editor regarding you opinion on this matter."
.

Steelers Six-pack!

South Side After Steelers Super Bowl Win (via Julie Gong)




Bruce Bangs Camera


Obligatory Couch Burning

.

From Our Friends At The Trib

Interesting (and selective) use of the Wall Street Journal today from our friends on the editorial board over there at DickieCougarMellonScaife's little paper that could.

First the editorial. It's yer basic "The Democrats want to tax the ecomony to death" or something. The only real economic facts are here:

Those earning more than $108,904 paid 71 percent of all incomes taxes. The top 50 percent of earners paid 97.1 percent. Those with incomes below the median income paid 2.9 percent of all income taxes -- a record low.

And they took them from this editorial. Take a look:

The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom, but that's also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half.

Today, however, there was another piece in the Wall Street Journal. One I am sure the guardians of all things conservative at the Trib would probably just chalk up to "whining."

Let's begin:

In a new sign of increasing inequality in the U.S., the richest 1% of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nation's adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929, according to Internal Revenue Service data.

And:

Meanwhile, the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in at least 18 years. The group's share of the tax burden has risen, though not as quickly as its share of income.

And:

As the wealthiest Americans' share of income has risen, so has their share of the income-tax burden. The group paid 39.9% of all income taxes in 2006, compared with 27.6% in 1988. In the most recently reported five years, however, the share of income reported by the very wealthy has risen faster than the group's share of income taxes.

Whiner.

Just Noticed Something...

Anyone else catch this?

BLOGGERS' GLASS IS HALF FULL. Several anti-Ravenstahl bloggers were searching desperately for a silver lining in the dark clouds of the mayor's victory.
Offered the folks over at The Burgh Report: "DeSantis has put up the best numbers for a GOP mayoral candidate in Pittsburgh since 1965. Or phrased in the other direction, Luke Ravenstahl's performance was the worst by a Democrat in a Pittsburgh mayoral general election in 42 years."

The frequent Ravenstahl critics -- and big Trib fans -- over at 2 Political Junkies wrote, "Look on the bright side ... (local bloggers) will have tons of material for the next two years." [emphasis added]

Ravenstahl couldn't have enjoyed the negative postings about him in recent months, but we're guessing he got a few chuckles reading the blogs Wednesday. What's that old saying about he who laughs last?

Never really thought of myself (or the blog) as being a fan of The Trib. But if they see it that way, who am I to disagree? Anyway PLEEZE don't tell my friends (all three of them) at the P-G about this. They'll throw me out of the lefty-bloggers association.

The Trib Editorial Board - Another Smear?

I am wondering if this is a pattern. Recently I pointed out how the Trib's editorial board was extending the life of a smear long since debunked.

Today, it looks like they're doing it again. Take a look. In an editorial about how underarmed the Air Force is, they include this paragraph:

The armed forces were degraded during the Clinton administration after the end of the Cold War. Subsequently, Congress and President Bush have not provided sufficient procurement funds.

OK, so they slam (if that's the right word) the current administration in the second sentence. But is the first sentence actually, you know, accurate?

Not according to Lawrence Korb, undersecretary for Defense in the Reagan Administration. He wrote this in 2003:

The Clinton administration actually spent more money on defense than had the outgoing administration of the first President Bush. The smaller outlays during the first Bush administration were developed and approved by Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell, who were then serving as secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff respectively.

Clinton's last secretary of defense, William Cohen, turned over to Rumsfeld a defense budget that was higher in real terms than what James Schlesinger had bequeathed to Rumsfeld when he took over the Pentagon for the first time in 1975 at the height of the Cold War.

Korb then goes on to list all the improvements bought and paid for by the Clinton Administration; Smart weapons, the Tomahawk cruise missile and Patriot missile systems were all improved during the Clinton administration.

I'm sure the picture is far more complicated than I can imagine. But on the other hand, it's always fun to find a subtle smear on the Tribune-Review's editorial page.

Brand Ravenstahl TM Revisited

FYI My PC is dying; I can’t access my email; can’t run IE; can’t run Photoshop; and can barely get sites to run in Netscape so I may just be writing this for myself.



Back when I wrote this post, it was obvious to me that the Luke Ravenstahl Campaign had seriously screwed up by branding their campaign website with the same image that is used to brand the City’s Redd Up Campaign (and all things garbage collections-related).

Other blogs such as The Burgh Report and The People’s Republic of Pittsburgh picked up on the story and found many City-owned images being used on the Ravenstahl Campaign site. The Post-Gazette’s Early Returns column and the Tribune-Review got in on the action questioning the Mayor’s office and the Ravenstahl Campaign on the issue. The answer they got was that the campaign had asked folks to send in their favorite photos of Luke and that any pictures which may have been from the city’s web site (taken by City employees on City time) were taken down. But what still remains on every page of the campaign site is the near iconic photo of Ravenstahl with his hands on his hips that has become ubiquitous on official City mailings and BILLBOARDS.

How can that be?

Neither the P-G or the Trib goes into details on why that photo remains (the Admiral has a nice post on that here).

The Ravenstahl Camp chose to answer any question by carefully and narrowly framing it thusly:

"The fundamental issue was, were any of our pictures sourced from the city Web site," said Ravenstahl campaign manager Damon Andrews.

That doesn’t really address the hands-on-hips picture. Cute, huh?

And, how did the Ravenstahl Administration tackle the issue? The only clue may be this comment by Ravenstahl spokesman Dick Skrinjar:

Skrinjar said some of the pictures were taken by professional photographers and donated to Ravenstahl.

Hmmm…”Donated” to Ravenstahl and not the City?

I’m a little confused here.

Is Skrinjar claiming that a photograph was commissioned by the City to be taken by a professional photographer and the City doesn’t own the photograph?

If the City doesn’t own it, what are the terms of usage for the photograph?

Did the City get it on a one usage basis, say, for the billboards and then has to pay more each time it’s used when Luke wants to remind folks he’s running the City uses it on a mailer or garbage pickup schedule? That would be costly and stupid.

Or did the City get unlimited usage but the photographer can also donate it to whomever he/she wants to? That would be stupid as the photographer, say, could put out T-shirts and coffee mugs with the image on it, but with a slogan like “Pittsburgh sucks.” Or someone could come along, say the City of Cleveland, and offer the photographer lots of money for the photograph and they could use that image for all sorts of dastardly uses. That would be embarrassing and stupid.

Or, was it never bought by the City/donated to the City, but it was donated personally to Ravenstahl and he merely allows the City to use it for official business. What kind of Mayor (interim or otherwise) would make a deal as stupid and bad for the City as that?

Hey, maybe the City owns it, but the photographer, being a nice guy/gal, gave a souvenir 8 x 10 glossy to Ravenstahl and that has translated in Luke’s mind to a “donation” to him of the picture that he could use for whatever he likes. That sure sounds stupid or I’m looking for another word here, but all I can come up with is “retarded.”

So again, I got to ask:

Who owns this image?

What are the terms of its usage?

Can it be donated to just anyone?

How can it be that it can appear both on official City documents and billboards AND on the Ravenstahl Campaign site?

I’m just one, still ill, largely house-bound woman with a dying PC and a blog that I can barely access who has no real clout. I’m not a reporter for a large daily newspaper of a large American city.

All I know is that someone needs to nail some real answers down and they haven’t yet.

Any takers?