Thank You, Rep. Mike Doyle!

I’m going to #StandWithJohnLewis. I won’t attend the Inauguration on Friday.

— Mike Doyle (@USRepMikeDoyle) January 17, 2017

(My Congressperson!)
(We're up to 50 not attending now with three from PA.)

Thank You Rep. Mike Doyle and the #NoBillNoBreak Sit-in House!

(Photo courtesy of Rep. Mike Doyle's Facebook page, pictured center.)

Who knew the Democrats in the US House of Representatives had this much cojones/huevos? 

When the Democrats in the Senate's filibuster ended in gun control votes that went down in flames, it seemed like the issue was over, maybe at least until the next horrific mass shooting occurs...say, next Tuesday or so. I mean, the House can't filibuster, right? Right! So the beautiful bastards are holding a sit-in instead!

Damn!

THANK YOU!

And thank you Rep. John Lewis for starting it and my own Rep. Mike Doyle for being down there (literally) on the floor.

#NoBillNoBreak 

Congressman Mike Doyle Knows His Internet Memes!

And puts them to great use -- good on him!

Can I burn down your house? No Just the 2nd floor? No Garage? No Let's talk about what I can burn down. No YOU AREN'T COMPROMISING!
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) October 2, 2013

UPDATE: And Congress just went into recess because of reports of shots fired near/around the Capitol--so much for a lighthearted post...

HEC And The OCE (LBJ took the IRT...)

Recently, I spotted this at talkingpointsmemo:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) could face a House Ethics Committee investigation into alleged campaign finance violations during her bid for the Republican presidential nomination last year, the Daily Beast reported Monday. The allegations are currently being investigated by the non-partisan Office of Congressional Ethics, which has about three months to decide whether to recommend cases for further investigation to the Ethics Committee.

And it got me to thinking.

Not about Representative Bachmann - no, I want to let the process finish before commenting on it.  I got to thinking about the process itself.  How does an ethics allegation work its way through the House of Representatives these days?  What's the process?

Representative Mike Doyle, who we've interviewed  before when he was on the House Ethics Committee in 2007, was kind enough to fill us in on some of the details of the process.

First, what's this Office of Congressional Ethics?  What is its relationship to the House Ethics Committee?

The OCE was created on March 11, 2008 by way of H. Res 895. Before that, Doyle said, only members could trigger any sort of investigation by the House Ethics Committee.  And for this, some watchdog groups in DC took issue with the process as it was.  So the OCE was created to make an initial investigation into any ethics violation allegations and, if there's enough evidence to warrant one, then recommend to the House Ethics Committee that it investigate.

The OCE is designed to be non-partisan.  Here's how it's described in HR 895:

The Office shall be governed by a board consisting of six individuals of whom three shall be nominated by the Speaker subject to the concurrence of the minority leader and three shall be nominated by the minority leader subject to the concurrence of the Speaker.

And:

The Speaker and the minority leader each shall appoint individuals of exceptional public standing who are specifically qualified to serve on the board by virtue of their education, training, or experience in one or more of the following fields: legislative, judicial, regulatory, professional ethics, business, legal, and academic.

And:

Selection and appointment of members of the board shall be without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of fitness to perform their duties.

And finally:

No individual shall be eligible for appointment to, or service on, the board who:

(I) is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995;
(II) has been so registered at any time during the year before the date of appointment;
(III) engages in, or is otherwise employed in, lobbying of the Congress;
(IV) is an agent of a foreign principal registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act;
(V) is a Member; or
(VI) is an officer or employee of the Federal Government.

The point of this last part is to show that no member of the OCE board is employed by the government or are members of Congress or is a lobbyist, etc.

So while an allegation is submitted to the OCE, Doyle said, they look into it and still not recommend any HEC action. (This is why I am not commenting on whatever's facing Michelle Bachman.  It could very easily turn out that the OCE makes NO recommendation to the HEC.)  Fair's fair.  Even for her.

If the OCE does recommend that the HEC open an investigation, the HEC has a limited amount of time to investigate.  And if the HEC decides not to investigate, they'd have to issue a report explaining why.

And the OCE could release its report on why it recommended an investigation in the first place.

On the one hand it seems a bit busy to me, but on the other it looks like a way to make sure important allegations of ethics violations aren't conveniently forgotten or ignored.

Reminder: G.O.T.V. Kick-off Rally Today!

Watch the Steelers, have a bite and a brew, and pick up election day materials -- what could be better?

WHAT: EUGENE DEPASQUALE FOR PA AUDITOR GENERAL - STEELERS PARTY & RALLY
WHEN: Sunday, November 4th, 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM
WHERE: James Street Gastropub (former James Street Tavern), 422 Foreland Street, Northside

http://www.eugene4pa.com

Of Course The Trib's Politics NEVER Skews It's Reporting!

Never?  Well, hardly ever.

Take a look at this short blurb from today's Tribune-Review:

Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pennsylvania are receiving a $3.5 million federal grant to collaborate on transportation research for the U.S. Department of Transportation, school officials said.

The grant will establish CMU and Penn as a University Transportation Center, with its research focusing on identifying ways that technology can improve transportation safety and efficiency. Most of the work will be done on CMU's Oakland campus, school officials said.

U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills, said CMU, as one of the nation's leading computer science and engineering schools, was "an obvious choice for research on ways to use computers linked to sensors to improve transportation safety, identify infrastructure that needs repairs and reduce congestion."

Looks rather mundane, doesn't it?  No loose ends to the story, right?  Until you Google Doyle's remarks.  Once you do that, you'll see what the news division of the Tribune-Review did.

They left out (omitted, expurgated, skipped over, voided) Congressman Jason Altmire.

ANNOUNCEMENT!

Tomorrow, I'll be hosting a podcamp session with Congressman Mike Doyle.

There should be a way to watch it live online, but wouldn't you rather be there and see it in person??

PodCamp!

PodCamp's this weekend!

I'll be chatting with Congressman Mike Doyle on Sunday Morning at 10am (bring your own damn coffee!). We'll be discussing how social media has changed how Congress does its job.

Take a look at this:



Take a close look at :19. Right after the shot of Super Bob Mayo.

It's ME!

I really need to loose some weight.

Pod Camp Update!

Guess what?

I'll be speaking at PodCamp this year.

Actually, it'll be a discussion I'll be having with Congressman Mike Doyle on how social media (blogs, facebook, twitter, etc) have changed how members of Congress and Congress as a whole do their jobs. While it'll be a political discussion on a political entity, it won't be a partisan discussion of how:

• Those evil Republicans in Washington and their enablers in the media have ruined the country or how
• Those evil Democrats in Washington and their enablers in the media have ruined the country.

You wanna have those discussions (and I wouldn't blame you if you do), go have them someplace else. The Congressman and I will be discussing how changing technologies have shaped how members of Congress communicate.

Some other sessions of note:

• Ed Heath (of Cognitive Dissonance) will be discussing "how anonymous blogs and comments affect political discourse on the web." I won't be able to see this one because it's scheduled at exactly the same time as my session. (THANKS, Podcamp! LOL)
• Michelle Hammons (of The Burgh baby) will be discussing how to keep a blog going.
• Sue Kerr (of Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents) will be participating in a panel discussion on devoting social media for social causes.
• Eric Williams (of Funkydung) will be part of a panel discussion about blog trolls.

Check the PodCamp website for more info.

See you there!

Mike Doyle Talks To Chris Potter

In this week's City Paper (available everywhere that's anywhere) Chris Potter does what I did a week or so ago - he talks with Congressman Mike Doyle.

Of course, Chris writes it better - the rat bastard.

And they discuss our current political climate:

Most Americans were appalled by the months-long fiasco. And while cuts could have been worse -- programs like Medicare and Social Security are protected, for now -- the debt ceiling has never been used as political leverage before. With the tactic's success proven, future hostage-taking seems likely.

But if you ask Congressman Mike Doyle (D-Pittsburgh), the problem isn't that democracy doesn't work. It's that only one side is working at it.

"If I held a town-hall meeting," says Doyle, conservatives "would have no trouble turning out hundreds of people. They'd travel in from outside the district just to say, ‘Hi.'" By contrast, "There isn't a Republican in the area that has received that type of pressure. … If liberals don't like what the tea-party movement is doing to the country, they need to start showing up in droves. And then you'll see people starting to show the courage we wish they would have."

In droves.

Go read Potter, it'll do ya good.

Another Lesson - The Right Wing Attack Machine

Congressman Mike Doyle uses the "hostage/terrorist" metaphor and the right wing doesn't like it. The editorial board at the Tribune-Review gets the story wrong:

Lance: To U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills. No effort to "walk back" his inexcusable comparison of tea party members to "terrorists," uttered during a closed-door caucus meeting on Monday, can change the fact that he said what he meant and meant what he said -- or cover the gross ignorance of basic economics betrayed by tax-the-"rich" rhetoric he used in trying to contain the damage.

In reality, he wasn't talking about "tea party members" but the members of Congress who were (to extend the metaphor) using the economy as a hostage to get what they want politically.

Can I point out at this point that the very very conservative Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, approves of the tactic of political "hostage taking" for political gains? From the Washington Post:

“I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting,” [McConnell] said. “Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this — it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done.”

Not "shooting" the hostage, of course. Just threatening to. But as they say, it's ok if you're a Republican and Mitch McConnell is a republican so it's OK to threaten to take the economy hostage - as long the political payoff is favorable to the Republicans.

For Congressman Doyle, however, the metaphor (even though they got it wrong) is "inexcusable."

But this is all set-up. Take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Look at what the Trib does in its editorial and how it does it. The second half of the braintrust's criticism of the Congressman's outburst come from Allegheny Institute for Public Policy's Jake Haulk.

The same Allegheny Institute for Public Policy that gets about 87% of its grant money from foundations controlled by Tribune-Review owner Richard Mellon Scaife.

This is how the right wing attack machine works. The Scaife-owned paper needed a quote to attack a political adversary and it conveniently found it at a Scaife-funded right wing think tank.

And there's never ever any mention of the millions Scaife's poured into the Allegheny Institute.

Mike Doyle, Joe Biden, and Political Frustration

The fallout from the debt-ceiling vote continues to be felt.

From Politico, today:

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit, according to several sources in the room.

Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Some clarification from The Trib, later today:

If only he'd said "hostage-takers" instead of "terrorists."

U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills, said he wasn't comparing Tea Party members with terrorists when he used the word during a closed-door caucus meeting Monday, but was expressing frustration at President Obama's negotiating tactics, which he said gave in too quickly to GOP demands in the debt ceiling debate.

"Had I simply said hostage-taker, there wouldn't be this reaction. I certainly wasn't out to defame anybody," said Doyle, who couldn't recall the exact statement he made. "I wasn't talking about the Tea Party. I was talking about the tactic (of) telling us if we don't go along with this bad deal, they're going to blow the economy up."

Before we go any further, let's review some of the rhetoric the tea party has used in the not-so-recent past:

• Obama with a bone through his nose.
  
• Obama as Hitler.

Then there's Ann Coulter:

• Anti-war politicians are gutless traitors.
• Liberalism is treason.

So let's not spend too too much time wringing our hands in despair over how uncivil Congressman Doyle may have been. Unless, of course, they have real thin skin.

By the way, why isn't anyone complaining about how Senator Rand Paul called President Obama a hostage taker? He did:

“With the president holding the American economy hostage, I would prefer to think of myself as a Freedom Fighter,” Paul said in a statement.

Hey, don't terrorists take hostages? Will we be seeing Tea Party favorite Rand Paul apologizing any time soon for his inappropriate rhetoric?

Just asking.

But crude political metaphors aside, what was Doyle thinking? In a phone interview on Tuesday evening, he stressed out frustrated he was with the Obama administration. It was that frustration that bubbled over into the "terrorist" metaphor.

He was frustrated at how the Obama Administration's fumbling of these "negotiations" (I mean really, how do you "negotiate" with those who won't compromise?) has left the Democratic party in a bad situation. How can we do any infrastructure now? He asked. How can they work on any of the Administration's policies now? It wasn't a compromise, he said. It was a surrender.

He was frustrated at how the Tea Party is running the GOP. Speaker Boehner has no control over the caucus, he said. Who are we negotiating with? When the Speaker floated his own plan, his own caucus rejected it.

He was frustrated that the Democratic Party doesn't want to defend itself. There are too many timid Democrats. If we're not willing to defend ourselves, he said, we'll loose.

He was frustrated at the surrender. Me, too. Me, too.

It's time to slip on the battle armor, he said, and fight a little bit.

Hear, hear.

The House Vote - How The Locals Voted

First the vote::

After months of partisan impasse, the House on Monday approved a budget agreement intended to head off a potential government default, pushing Congress a big step closer to the conclusion of a bitter fight that has left both parties bruised and exhausted.

Despite the tension and uncertainty that has surrounded efforts to raise the debt ceiling, the vote of 269-161 was relatively strong in support of the plan, which would cut more than $2.1 trillion in government spending over 10 years while extending the borrowing authority of the Treasury Department. It would also create a powerful new joint congressional committee to recommend broad changes in spending -- and possibly in tax policy -- to reduce the deficit.

All but one member of the Pennsylvania delegation to The House voted for the bill - Congressman Doyle. In a press release he explained his vote:

I voted against S. 365 because I believe it will kill jobs and choke off economic growth while making life harder for the Americans who are struggling the most.

I believe the federal government’s skyrocketing national debt is a problem the United States must fix – and that it will require substantial sacrifice for us to do so – but I strongly oppose the approach taken in this bill, which I believe to be both counterproductive and unjust.

I recognize that we need to cut spending as part of the solution. That’s why I voted last week for Senator Reid’s plan to cut $2 trillion in spending over the next ten years. But the Republican cuts-only approach won’t stop the growth in the national debt, it won’t grow the economy, and it won’t create jobs.

In fact, spending cuts in the middle of an economic crisis slow the economy down and choke off job growth – as recent economic figures for the second quarter have shown.

Unless we grow the economy, spending cuts won’t get the deficit under control. That’s why I believe that Congress must enact a more comprehensive approach that includes tax reform along with spending cuts.

The other reason I opposed the debt limit bill was my belief that getting deficits and the debt under control should be accomplished with shared sacrifice, and not by dumping all of the burden on the most vulnerable members of our society. So, for example, this bill doesn’t ask profitable companies and the wealthiest Americans to share the sacrifice through higher taxes. On the other hand, it makes cuts in student loan programs and eliminates the firewall for defense after only two years. That’s not my idea of shared sacrifice.

I voted twice to raise the debt – once for a clean debt limit increase with no strings attached, and once for the Reid plan, which would have raised the debt limit and cut $2 trillion in spending. I am deeply pleased that, in the end, Congress didn’t allow our government to default on its obligations, but I couldn’t support a bill that I believe will do real, substantial damage to our economy, deny essential aid to struggling households, and slow or stop the creation of American jobs.

Congressman Jason Altmire, our other local Democrat in the House, voted in favor. His explanation:

Addressing this nation's fiscal responsibilities can't be done by listening only to the views of extremists of either political party. All along, I've called for a centrist approach to reduce spending and lay the groundwork for long-term deficit reduction. This package makes the responsible cuts in Washington's long history of over-spending without harming Social Security, veterans' benefits and military pay. Because this debt limit increase does not put us back in this situation six months from now, this bill provides a sense of certainty to our financial markets that have been unhappy with the process involved with fulfilling our credit obligations. The American people wanted compromise, a solution from the middle, and today Democrats and Republicans delivered that to them.

Mystery of The Missing Altmire Op-Ed SOLVED

This is gonna give you a chuckle. I promise.

This morning I wrote about this complaint found on the Op-Ed page of the Tribune-Review regarding a pair of opinion pieces written (one each) by Congressman Mike Doyle and Congressman Jason Altmire. Scaife's braintrust complained that the two were too similar. I wanted to (as I often do) check their work. Usually, when I check their work I find they've spun a few things - and I can only assume they do that hoping no one will check. But this time, I couldn't.

Why not?

As I wrote this morning, I could easily find Doyle's opinion piece (it's here), but I could not find Altmire's.

So I contacted his office today asked them about it. Where was the Congressman's opinion piece about the CFL lightbulbs? I couldn't find it anywhere, I told them. Is there anyway I could see a copy? I further asked.

They sent me the piece (see below) and told me that while they submitted it to The Trib and then The Trib rejected it for publication.

So before we get on with the piece itself, let's mull this over for a second. Altmire's opinion piece is submitted to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review for publication. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review rejects said opinion piece and then criticizes it in print sometime later. They're the only ones who have access to it and so they're the only ones who can assess whether it is, in fact, similar to the other opinion piece they claim it resembles. In short they're the only ones who could know whether they're telling the truth.

Until now, that is.

Remember, this is the braintrust's complaint about the two pieces:

The congressmen's offerings are so similar -- nearly word for word in spots -- that it has us highly suspicious that the two men regurgitated Democrat talking points for their op-ed submissions.

The two opinion pieces do cover similar ground - as well they should. They are talking about the same thing.

Both point out similar facts:

• Old style incandescent light bulbs waste 90% of their energy generating heat
• George Bush signed the original law in 2007
• New style incandescent light bulbs have been designed that meet the 2007 standard
• And so there is no "ban" on incandescent light bulbs - just inefficient ones
• Thomas Edison invented the light bulb

Altmire's op-ed is posted below, by the way. Do something the Trib doesn't want you to do - read it for yourself. Check my work.

Can someone show me the "nearly word for word in spots" similarities the braintrust is complaining about? Where are they? Apart from the obvious and banal congruencies ("Thomas Edison", "incandescent light bulb" and so on) I couldn't find any "nearly word for word" matches. Can you?

Think of it this way, if the two pieces were, in fact, so close that they ended each other's sentences, doncha think The Trib would be pointing them out to you sentence by sentence, phrase by phrase? They didn't. They couldn't. They're spinning this. Badly.

Anyway, here's Altmire's opinion piece the Trib (the one The Trib rejected then criticized in public):

When Thomas Edison first successfully tested a carbonized thread light bulb in 1879, it was a technology so revolutionary that the light bulb became the very symbol of innovation. Today, 132 years later, the image of a light bulb is still routinely used as an illustration of American ingenuity and scientific breakthrough. The technology that Edison pioneered, the incandescent light bulb, remains by far the most popular source of light in American households.

It is therefore not surprising that reports of a ban of the incandescent light bulb have caused a political firestorm and a public outcry. There have even been reports of organized efforts to hoard the remaining supply of the incandescent bulbs before the ban takes effect at the end of this year.

The topic has become especially popular on the political circuit, with members of Congress and presidential candidates making the “light bulb ban” part of their standard stump speech.

Adding to the public outrage is the fact that, as a result of the reported ban, consumers would be required to purchase and use expensive compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), some of which contain mercury and emit a lesser quality of light than standard incandescent bulbs.

The story goes that the government has banned the inexpensive bulbs produced by American companies and enjoyed by consumers for more than a century, and will now force consumers to use much more expensive, less illuminating lights that pose a significant health hazard, the compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). No wonder politicians are climbing all over themselves to defend the incandescent light bulb.

There is only one problem – none of it is true. The incandescent light bulb is not banned, nor will it be next year or thereafter. Consumers will continue to be free to buy the light bulb of their choice. American companies will continue to manufacture and market incandescent bulbs available to every American.

So, why the misconception about the so-called “ban”?

In 2007, President George W. Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act. One of the provisions of this bipartisan legislation was to establish energy efficiency standards for light bulbs. This was done primarily to reduce the strain and prevent overloads on our nation’s electrical grid, and to make energy more efficient, dependable and cost-effective for consumers.

Under the 2007 law, some household light bulbs are required to be approximately 28 percent more energy efficient. For the most commonly-used light bulbs, the phase-in occurs over a three-year period beginning in 2012. For example, by next year, a 100 watt incandescent bulb must emit the same amount of light using only 72 watts. The law does not specify what type of technology manufacturers may employ to achieve these standards, nor does it require consumers to purchase any specific type of light bulb.

Incandescent bulbs produce light by heating filament inside gas. This is nearly identical to the technology that existed in the initial Edison-inspired bulbs first made commercially available in the 19th century. These bulbs remain popular, but they are incredibly inefficient as a source of light. In fact, ninety percent of the energy produced by a standard incandescent bulb goes toward heat – only ten percent produces light. Of course, few consumers buy a household light bulb to use as a source of heat, so it makes sense that we should look for ways to make the bulbs more energy efficient than the bulbs Edison pioneered 132 years ago.

Some light bulb manufacturers have chosen to supplement their incandescent bulbs with other technologies, such as the CFL or the increasingly popular and potentially revolutionary light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs. Both technologies continue to evolve and will undoubtedly play a major role in America’s energy future, as will other technologies yet to be discovered. But what about the incandescent bulb?

As a result of the 2007 law, several large and small American companies, some of which have put down roots in western Pennsylvania, have developed energy efficient incandescent light bulbs that meet the new standards. Some of the new incandescent bulbs are already on the market, and many others will be available in time for the 2012 transition. These new bulbs have the same look and emit the same type of light as traditional incandescent bulbs, but they last much longer, offer substantial energy savings for the consumer and greatly reduce the burden to our nation’s electrical grid. So not only is the incandescent light bulb not banned, it has been improved and is now better than ever. Most important, it will still be made by American workers, for American consumers, for years to come.

Throughout our history, Americans have always risen to the challenges of the ever-changing global marketplace. Recently, American auto makers innovated and adapted to new fuel efficiency standards by producing fuel efficient cars that appeal to American consumers, resulting in General Motors surpassing Toyota this year as the world’s largest automaker.

Similarly, the quick transition to meet the new energy efficiency standards for light bulbs is yet another example of American ingenuity and innovation at its best. Without a doubt, others around the world are also researching and producing advanced light bulbs to compete with our American-made products. Just as Thomas Edison put America at the forefront of the development and manufacture of lighting technology in 1879, the American innovators of today continue to lead the way in the research and development of exciting new lighting technologies, like LEDs, as well as improving upon the popular technologies of the past, like the still-available incandescent light bulb.

Not Sure What To Make Of This

From Sunday's Trib:

PENNED BY POLTERGEISTS? Democrat U.S. Reps. Mike Doyle of Forest Hills and Jason Altmire of McCandless should consider consulting a specialist in paranormal activity.

Their offices appear to have been invaded by ghost writers.

Both supposedly penned recent opinion pieces defending the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The controversial law effectively bans Thomas Edison's incandescent light bulb as we've known it in favor of supposedly more efficient but also more expensive and hazardous alternatives, namely the compact fluorescent light bulb.

The congressmen's offerings are so similar -- nearly word for word in spots -- that it has us highly suspicious that the two men regurgitated Democrat talking points for their op-ed submissions. We just thought we'd shed some light on the matter.

The only problem?

I can't find Congressman Altmire's op-ed defending Energy Independence and Security Act. I've googled:

• Atmire "Light bulb"
• Altmire "Energy Independence and Security Act"
• Altmire CFL

And couldn't find anything. Nothing. Nada. The null set. That doesn't mean it's not out there, of course. Just that I couldn't find it. It's a mystery. Usually the trails to the sources the braintrust uses are quite easy to follow; Heritage Foundation, AEI, Washington Times and so on. But none of my usual tricks worked this time. And I can't imagine even the Trib making something like this up.

If you can find it, please drop me an email with the link. I want to see how similar they are. Or if you can explain what the Tribune-Review is doing here, editorializing on something no one else can see, drop me an email on that, too.

That being said, we'll talk about CFLs, Thomas Edison, and Mike Doyle's easily found opinion piece for a bit. Here's the trib:

Both supposedly penned recent opinion pieces defending the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The controversial law effectively bans Thomas Edison's incandescent light bulb as we've known it in favor of supposedly more efficient but also more expensive and hazardous alternatives, namely the compact fluorescent light bulb.

They make three points here:

• The CFL bulb's efficiency is questioned
• The CFL bulb is more expensive
• The CFL bulb is more hazardous

The Michigan DEQ has a page up describing the savings achieved by switching from an incandescent to a CFL. Over the course of the life of the CFL bulb the savings are substantial. That takes care of bullets one and two. What about the third? How hazardous is the CFL bulb?

Luckily, there's been work on that, too. From a page called Three CFL Myths Busted:

Myth: Compact fluorescent bulbs are a major safety hazard because they contain mercury.

Fact: Yes, it's true that CFLs contain tiny amounts of mercury, and if a bulb breaks you will be exposed to the neurotoxin. But, just how dangerous is a broken bulb? Researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory set out to answer that question. They compared how much exposure you'd get from breathing in the amount of mercury released from a broken CFL bulb to how much mercury you'd take in from eating Albacore tuna.

If you do a common sense job of cleaning up (open the windows, clean up, and remove the debris), then your mercury exposure would be the equivalent of taking a tiny nibble of tuna, according to Francis Rubinstein, a staff scientist at Berkeley Lab. What if you did the worst job possible, say closed all the doors and smashed the bulb with a hammer? It's still no big deal, says Rubinstein, who points out that it would be the equivalent of eating one can of tuna.

Hmm - at worst it's the mercury equivalent of eating one can of tuna? Only ONE CAN? AND it saves money?

We already know The Trib's not really interested in facts that conflict with their politics, but I would have thought that the Trib would be in favor of saving money.

I guess not.

Again, if you have any info as to the whereabouts of the Altmire editorial please drop me an email. I'd love to see it.

PodCamp 6

The time and place have been set for PodCamp Pittsburgh this year:

This year’s PodCamp will be the weekend of September 17 & 18. We will have our kick-off Friday night mixer at Alpha Lab on September 16, with the PodCamp keynote address opening the following morning.

And, while we’re making that announcement, we would also like to formally announce this year’s venue. We have finalized arrangements with Point Park University to host this year’s event. We are very excited about the opportunity to work with Point Park this year, and look forward to another successful PodCamp event.

I'll be there. My contribution to the event will be a discussion with Congressman Mike Doyle on the impact social media (blogs, twitter, facebook) has had on how the Congress does its job.

It should be a informative session.

Be there!

"Speak Up for Jobs!" Congressional Listening Tour Comes to Pittsburgh

(Click graphic to enlarge. Click here for .PDF)
WHAT: Join Congressman Mike Doyle (Pennsylvania), Congressman John Conyers (Michigan) and Congressman Raul Grijalva (Arizona) as they come to our city to hear your concerns about jobs and the economy.

WHEN: Monday, July 18th, Community Rally & Picnic @ 5:00 PM, Congressional Listening Tour @ 6:30 PM

WHERE: Kinglsey Association, 6435 Frankstown Avenue, Pittsburgh PA 15206 (map)

WHY: Our communities need JOBS! But, Congress is giving tax breaks to millionaires and oil companies. Join us and tell Congress to invest in citizens before corporations!

RSVP: Here
.

What We Have He-uh Is A Failure To Communicate...

Or rather a huge communication failure.

Here's the story. Earlier today this was posted at my friend Jennifer's blog:

Spurred on by something that showed up in my Facebook stream, I called my Congressman, Rep. Mike Doyle to ask about his stance on HR-3 and HR-358. The nice young man who answered the phone told me that Rep. Doyle has yet to take a position on these bills….

Really?

You can read the rest of her blog post to see that she was pissed. And considering the bills, it's easy to see why. It was also cross-posted at the Pittsburgh Women's Blogging Society.

First HR 3 - The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. From the CRS Summary:

No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act - Prohibits the expenditure of funds authorized or appropriated by federal law or funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law (federal funds) for any abortion.

Prohibits federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.)

Disallows any tax benefits for amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or for a health benefits plan that includes coverage of abortion, including any medical deduction for such amounts or any credit for such an employer-sponsored plan.

And so on. It's pretty restrictive. It's also the bill that includes an interesting redefinition of sorts. From Section 309, the act's monetary limitations are not in place:

if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or if a minor, an act of incest;

So the sex needs to be forced (but not, say, drugged or merely threatened) for it to be rape. Also a pregnancy produced when, say, a 14 year old girl is "seduced" by a 29 year old man who isn't a relative are safe.

Then there's HR 358 The Protect Life Act which copies the "forcible rape" language of HR 3.

Easy to see why someone who values a woman's right to choose would be seriously annoyed at a Congressman who doesn't yet have a position on such odious legislation.

The only problem? According to the comment Congressman Doyle left at the blog, he has taken a position on the legislation:

Like you, I am strongly opposed to both H.R. 358 and H.R. 3. As you know, these two pieces of dangerous legislation would impose unprecedented restrictions on health care providers and insurers.

Specifically, H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, which was introduced by Congressman Joe Pitts (R-PA), would change our tax laws so that people who purchase their insurance in their state health care exchange (as established by the Affordable Care Act) will not be able to be used to purchase a plan with abortion coverage, even if they write a separate check to cover the abortion coverage included in their health insurance. No plans that provide abortion coverage can have a participant that takes a federal tax credit. People who receive credits will only be permitted to purchase abortion coverage as a rider. This would essentially mean that no longer would any health insurance plans include abortion coverage.

In addition, H.R. 358 includes a provision that allows hospitals to refuse abortion care even when a woman’s life is in danger. It does this by expanding current laws on conscience protections to allow hospitals to refuse abortion in care in all circumstances – even if a woman is hemorrhaging/has preeclampsia/will die if an emergency abortion is not performed – as a matter of conscience. The hospital not only doesn’t have to provide the life-stabilizing care, they don’t have to refer the woman elsewhere, or help with transportation. The scope of these restrictions is unprecedented.

Lovely legislation, huh?

It was an errant intern who blew it on this one - a huge snafu to be sure.

I am sure Jennifer will have more to say about it on Friday.

Low Power FM (A Follow-Up)

Remember this?

Early January, the president signed into law some locally sponsored legislation.

From a press release today:

On Saturday, March 5, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. U.S. Representatives Mike Doyle (PA-14) will receive an award from Free Press and the Prometheus Radio Project for his leadership in enacting the Local Community Radio Act, followed by a reception.

Then, from 2:30 to 4:00 p.m., Free Press and the Prometheus Radio Project will hold a workshop to let community groups and other interested parties know what they would have to do to apply for a low-power FM radio station license.

This is happening at the National Association of Letter Carriers, Local 84 841 California Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15212

Health Care Reform Vote: A Tale Of Three Representatives

The P-G today writes about how our three local members of the House of Representatives voted on the Repealing Giving Our Jobs a Lethal Injection of Socialism That Is Poisoning Our Economy And Our Freedom Health Care Law Act.

The results are not suprising. Republican Tim Murphy voted for, Democrats Doyle and Altmire against. The P-G's opening:

The vote itself is a legislative dead end, but U.S. House Republicans on Wednesday began what they hope is a road to reshaping the new health care overhaul law with a vote to repeal it.

By a 245-189 margin, the new GOP-controlled House kept a central promise of the fall campaign, though the Democratic-controlled Senate has said it will not consider repeal and President Barack Obama has vowed to veto it.

The symbolism was nonetheless important to Republicans in setting the tone as their pledged health care work gets under way.

"Putting up the vote this way we're going to, in other words, take a roll call of members of Congress and say: 'Do you agree that there's more wrong with this bill than right?' " said Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Upper St. Clair. "Then we're going to lay that out as our marker on the field and start from there."

A large chunk of the article was devoted to Altmire. Here's why:

Mr. Altmire presented a curious case as one of several Democrats who voted against the health care overhaul law last year, then refused to back an outright repeal. Mr. Altmire, who has a background in health care as a former lobbyist for UPMC, said he still sees serious problems with the law -- but a political exercise like this isn't the way to solve them.

Conservative groups such as American Crossroads -- which spent tens of millions backing Republicans in the November elections -- have attacked Mr. Altmire and other Democratic "no" votes on the initial bill for the apparent inconsistency in not backing a repeal.

If you head over to his congressional website, Altmire explains:

I voted against the 2010 health care reform bill because I believe it is a flawed, partisan proposal that will, on the whole, do more harm than good. The law has numerous provisions that will result in higher costs for families and businesses, and it does little to correct the inefficiencies and control the costs in our current health care system. It also lacks serious quality improvement provisions that would make our health care system work better for everyone.

A paragraph later:

However, I will not waste the time and resources of the American taxpayers by engaging in a purely partisan exercise that has no chance of becoming law. Additionally, I will not diminish the health care coverage of millions of Americans by voting to repeal the positive provisions of this law that have already taken effect, including closing the Medicare prescription drug donut hole; guaranteeing health insurance coverage for children with pre-existing conditions; banning lifetime insurance caps and rescissions; and offering free preventative care for seniors. Make no mistake, a vote for complete repeal is a vote to raise out-of-pocket costs for every Medicare beneficiary and take away private health care coverage for Americans with chronic health conditions.

So in general, Altmire agrees with Murphy, that the bill does more harm than good, though he won't vote to diminish coverage, reopen the donut hole, etc.

Here's some of the type of heat Altmire is getting. From the National Review Online:

Alex Cortes, chairman of DefundIt.org, has been leading an effort by conservative groups urging these Democrats to support repeal. He released the following statement today, praising Boren and Ross:

If only their colleagues had their same intellectual consistency and recognize the common-sense reality that if you are truly against something, then you will take the actions necessary to get rid of it. Thankfully there are still several hours left before the vote and I suggest some persuasive tea time may be in order.

Cortes told National Review Online that any Democrat who opposed the original bill and didn’t vote to repeal it would be engaging in “the heart of dishonesty” and warned that every politician who opposed repeal did so at their own peril because “the American people are on our side.”

Not surprisingly, the NRO's last line is not entirely accurate. A CNN/Opinion Research Poll from late December found that while 50% of those polled opposed the Health Care Reform bill, they were not all opposed for the same reason. Oddly enough, of those opposed 13% said it was "not liberal enough." 43% were in favor of the bill.

With a bit of arithmetic, we can conclude that only 37% oppose the bill because it goes to far, while 56% (a nice majority, by the way) think it's OK or it doesn't go far enough.

Something for Congressman Altmire to think about.