Feb 09 2010
Criticism by some senators of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to treat attempted airline bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as a prisoner to be handled according to American standards of justice is entirely unjustified.
When Mr. Abdulmutallab was arrested Dec. 25 he was questioned briefly and read the Miranda rights that cover anyone arrested on American soil. According to Mr. Holder, he made the decision to handle Mr. Abdumutallab in that fashion after consultation with the FBI. The Nigerian was clearly both an alleged criminal and a potential source of intelligence.
The charge by South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and others is that in dealing with Mr. Abdumutallab in that fashion -- as opposed to labeling him an enemy combatant, turning him over to the military and the CIA, and likely grilling him with irregular methods such as waterboarding (as might have been his fate during the Bush administration) -- the attorney general risked losing useful intelligence that could possibly have been extracted from the Nigerian.
Mr. Holder's response has been twofold. First, if a convincing case is to be made against Mr. Abdumutallab in U.S. civilian courts as is appropriate, U.S. constitutional procedures assuring due process of law needed to be followed, as they were. Secondly, it appears that the Nigerian has been influenced to provide considerable intelligence, not by torturing him but by the simple procedure of bringing some of his family members from Nigeria to the United States to encourage him to talk.
Some politicians' approach to the rule of law turns out to be without justification, as well as a threat to the principled functioning of American justice.
Feb 09 2010
What is the expression folks use for adversity? When it snows, it snows. Yes, and the snowstorm that buried Pittsburgh and much of the Mid-Atlantic over the weekend put down a heavy white blanket that for a while obliterated signs of everyday life.
This is one to remember. A storm as big as this hasn't been seen here since 1993, when the St. Patrick Day Parade Storm dumped 25.3 inches of snow. Indeed, this one -- should we call it the Super Bowl Weekend Storm? -- was surpassed by only three others since records started being kept in 1884.
The region was prepared for a big snowfall, but nothing this deep. When it all ended about noon Saturday, 21.1 inches had been recorded at Pittsburgh International Airport; more had fallen at higher elevations.
A storm of this magnitude is bound to cause great problems. Fallen tree limbs. Downed utility lines. Some 130,000 customers left without power. Icy roads. Accidents. The winter of our discontent was everywhere to be seen.
But, for as frustrated as some people have been, the only sensible attitude is understanding, not resentment. In a storm that requires declarations of emergency and help from the National Guard, it's inevitable that best-laid plans are going to go astray.
There will be time enough for post-mortems on what might have been done better (the clearing of city roads, for example), but for now those on the front lines of the crisis -- the crews that plow the snow, the utility workers who battle to restore power and the police, fire and paramedic units that respond to emergencies -- need the community's support.
None of us can afford to sit back and stay in a burrow. With more snow in the forecast, everyone has work to do, even if it's just checking on an elderly or ailing neighbor. As numerous as the challenges, acts of kindness have proliferated. Western Pennsylvanians have responded to the challenge with a characteristic mix of aid and toughness. What's that expression? When the going gets tough, the tough get shoveling.
Feb 09 2010
Ukraine's precarious place between Western Europe and the remaining sphere of influence of the old Soviet Union was illustrated by the results Sunday of its presidential election.
Former Prime Minister Viktor F. Yanukovich defeated former Orange Revolution leader Yulia V. Timoshenko by a decisive margin. The Orange Revolution of 2004 was considered to be a statement by Ukrainians that the country's days as a satellite of the former Soviet Union were over. Viktor A. Yushchenko defeated Mr. Yanukovich for president that year in an election that nearly signified a revolution. Mr. Yushchenko, the victim of a disfiguring, near-fatal attack, won in part because of support by Ms. Timoshenko.
Then came the hard part -- ruling Ukraine, a relatively poor country with a significant Russian-speaking minority. Ukraine at the point of the Orange Revolution had hopes of turning westward toward membership in NATO and the European Union and the resulting prosperity and security from Russia that had come with that status for neighbors Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and other former Warsaw Pact members.
Whether it was the country's close relationship with Russia, its internal divisions, corruption or Russian interference, Ukraine not only didn't look westward this time, with the election of Mr. Yanukovich it has now chosen a leader more closely attuned to Moscow's wishes than Ms. Timoshenko would likely have been.
Various interpretations abound on what his election may mean for Ukraine, the European balance of power and the United States. Mr. Yanukovich was advised in his campaign by former consultants to 2008 Republican presidential nominee Sen. John S. McCain. It is possible to say that a more balanced posture for Ukraine toward Russia is a stable one, more likely to tone down its external and internal conflicts, creating an atmosphere conducive to the economic development that Ukraine needs badly. As to the EU, it doesn't need or want Ukraine as a new member since the union is sufficiently burdened already with the financial woes of its poorer members.
For the United States, its basic relationship with Ukraine remains unchanged, influenced by Americans of Ukrainian origin. The United States does not need Ukraine as a further bone of contention between it and Russia. If Moscow wishes to see Mr. Yanukovich's win as a victory for it in the region, so be it. The Ukranians have spoken at the ballot box, for better or for worse.
Feb 08 2010
Former President George W. Bush made a point of saying he followed the advice of his generals. Just as conservatives favored the notion then, they should get behind it now.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is more important than any general by virtue of his position as the highest ranking uniformed officer in the nation, but what he is saying isn't so pleasing to conservative ears.
Last Tuesday Adm. Mullen came out strongly before the Senate Armed Services Committee against the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy -- the awkward, hypocritical compromise made during the Clinton administration that allowed gays and lesbians to serve with honor as long as they didn't declare their sexual orientation.
"No matter how I look at the issue," he said, "I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens." While he noted that he was speaking for himself, Adm. Mullen added: "For me ... it comes down to integrity -- theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."
As his comments echoed President Barack Obama's call for a change in his recent State of the Union address, it is easy to see this as a senior officer saluting his commander in chief and getting on with the job. But that seemed more the reaction of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who spoke of a lengthy Pentagon review of the policy with a view to ending it. By contrast, Adm. Mullen's sincerity was there for all to see.
None of this went down well with Republicans, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Just as the military is often said to be planning to fight the last war, the Republicans appear to want to go on fighting the last culture war -- which suggests that overturning the 1993 law that codified "don't ask, don't tell" won't be easy. Their view was set out in advance by Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, who asked: "In the middle of two wars and in the middle of this giant security threat, why would we want to get into this debate?"
Good question for which good answers are available: Because, to paraphrase Adm. Mullen, it comes down to integrity -- for gay people as individuals and the military as an institution. Because, by all reports, rank-and-file members of the military are not obsessed with this issue (they have bigger things to worry about). Because society has become more tolerant since 1993 with five states allowing gay marriage. Because a volunteer force in a time of war can't afford to turn away talented recruits due to prejudice.
Adm. Mullen may be speaking for himself, but conservatives would be wise to give his opinion deference, too. Serving one's country shouldn't depend on sexual preference. "Don't ask, don't tell" must go.
Feb 08 2010
January's employment figures announced Friday presented a mixed picture, but included a thin strip of light on the horizon.
The good news is the jobless rate dropped from 10 percent to 9.7 percent -- after a peak of 10.1 percent in October. Although it is difficult to analyze such changes, because the size and composition of the labor market is fluid and because the Department of Labor sometimes adjusts figures after the fact, a drop in the unemployment rate is encouraging for the economy. It also appears that the size of the labor market -- the number of Americans actively looking for work -- grew slightly in January, making the fall in the overall figure even more positive.
Not so encouraging is that the economy still dropped 20,000 more jobs in January, bringing the job loss total during the recession to an estimated 8.4 million. The pain comes in realizing that these losses mean families without income, more housing foreclosures and evictions, an end to health insurance coverage and children having to cope with the burden of knowing their parents are unemployed.
On a global scale, even scarier is the fact that, in spite of the economic stimulus of President Barack Obama and his clear concentration on jobs now, there is no indication that he -- or anyone in Congress, for that matter -- has found the key to creating jobs. Government spending in that area, during the time of President George W. Bush as well as in the Obama period, has had questionable impact.
The other painful aspect of Washington's response to unemployment is it inevitably involves spending more borrowed money. The only way that can come out right is if it creates higher employment and a healthier economy, which produces more tax revenue and reduces needs over the long haul. We can only hope. In the meantime, Americans can take pleasure in seeing the unemployment rate fall.
Feb 08 2010
Alberto Giacometti's 6-foot bronze sculpture has been walking tall at the Carnegie Museum of Art since 1961. "Walking Man I," the first of a numbered edition of six, plus four artist proofs, is a popular attraction and one of the most famous sculptures of the 20th century.
Another "Walking Man" from the series sold for $104.3 million last week at Sotheby's auction house in London. Suddenly, the Pittsburgh version finds itself in a whole new tax bracket. While the astounding figure the anonymous bidder paid for Giacometti's signature sculpture has gotten headlines around the world, its market value to deep-pocketed collectors reflects only a tiny fraction of its value.
For the decades "Walking Man I" has been a part of Pittsburgh's cultural landscape, it has charmed, amused, frightened, puzzled, fascinated and mesmerized generations of visitors to the Carnegie Museum of Art.
No wonder the work by Giacometti, who died in 1966, has graced the covers of philosophy and art history textbooks for half a century. It didn't take long for its emaciated form to become a universal shorthand for alienation in the 20th century. There is mystery, dignity and a profound sadness in its isolated form as it strides through the gallery space like an existential warrior out for a walk.
Though identical to its $104 million double, it isn't known how the market price of Pittsburgh's "Walking Man I" will be affected by the London sale. What is clear is that Pittsburgh knew it was in possession of a treasure long before this bidder put a hefty price tag on it.
Feb 07 2010
In a perfect world, Braddock's hospital would stay open and be operated by the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, just as it has been since 1996. But it is not that kind of world, and last Sunday the hospital closed.
Two days later, Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato unveiled a promising plan to demolish the building and replace it with a new $24 million structure containing the doctors' offices of Braddock Family Health Center, 90 housing units for the elderly and a training center for Community College of Allegheny County. It may not be a hospital, but it's a way to keep vitality on that block of Braddock Avenue.
The proposal gets better. UPMC would tear down the former hospital at a cost of as much as $5 million. It would provide $3 million for redevelopment of the site, which would be matched by $3 million from the state. That $6 million could lure a private developer that would be responsible for the rest of the construction cost and would later own the building, which would go on the property tax rolls.
Another benefit is UPMC would make payments to the borough of $90,000 a year for five years in lieu of the wage taxes that hospital workers had paid. Since Braddock got $34,000 a year in taxes from UPMC workers who lived there, the health system's payments would be the equivalent of 13 years of such revenue.
Mayor John Fetterman, an ardent advocate to save the hospital, realizes that there is no interest by another health organization to take over the facility. He's ready to turn the page and make the next best use of this site, which could very well be the plan announced by Mr. Onorato.
But Braddock Council is blind to the proposal's benefits; on Wednesday it unanimously rejected the idea. Council wants the county to reopen talks with it and other local groups to start a national search for a health care provider that would take over the Mon Valley hospital. Good luck with that.
Council's self-delusion reminds us of those in the 1980s who thought the steel mills would come back. They didn't and, sadly, neither is this hospital. We agreed with Braddock early on that that is unfortunate and it is not what the community should have.
In an imperfect world, however, this offer makes the best of a bad situation, and Braddock will be the loser if it walks away.
Feb 07 2010
"Courtesy overdraft protection" offered by banks is a misnomer, but financial institutions could hardly be expected to give the service a more accurate name. Nobody would sign on for "gouging overdraft protection."
The so-called protection allows customers to unknowingly overdraw their accounts and then be hit with fees that bear no relationship to the amount of the credit extended. According to the Consumer Federation of America, the typical debit card overdraft made by a customer is $20, but the typical penalty fee charged by big banks is $35 -- a figure that goes up exponentially the longer it is not paid. The nonprofit consumer advocacy group reports that fees run from $25 to $109 for a single, $10, 10-day overdraft.
Fortunately, the Federal Reserve has issued new regulations that will go into effect this summer, requiring banks to get written permission from customers before enrolling them in the programs. But that's just a start in tackling astronomical bank fees that cost consumers an estimated $24 billion a year. That's with a B.
Bills pending in Congress go further. First, they would require warnings at automated teller machines that let customers know they're about to overdraw their accounts. In addition, overdraft fees would have to be proportional to the cost of covering the overdraft, and banks would be forced to take payments out of customers' accounts in the order in which they are received rather than drawing down the largest sums first.
That's all reasonable. Today's practices are not.
Feb 07 2010
AS EVERYONE but a groundhog may know, today is Super Bowl Sunday and the Steelers aren't in it. What a difference a year makes! Last year, the region had a strong incentive to watch the game and subsequently celebrate, but this year the biggest attraction for local fans may be the ads. No. 43 Troy Polamalu is back in a Super Bowl ad, this time cast as a Punxsutawney Phil fill-in, on a Mini-Me scale, which at least should please PETA. The ad is a promotion for "NFL Full Contact," a TV show that promises a behind-the-scenes view of pro football (they have groundhogs behind the scenes?). Not to spoil things, but Punxsutawney Polamalu does see his shadow, which may predict six more weeks of football without any good reason to discuss the Steelers.
PITTSBURGH wasn't always such a football town, but it was long known as a shot and a beer town, which makes the Historic Review Commission's unanimous decision last week to approve landmark status for the Iron City Brewing Co. in Lawrenceville all the more fitting. Since last year, Iron City beer has been brewed in Latrobe, but the company's owners supported the Lawrenceville Stakeholders' historic-status nomination. Some of the buildings on the site are originals from the 1860s (a building of recent vintage has already been approved for demolition). The hope is to develop the complex for retail and residential use. The matter now moves to the planning commission and a public hearing Feb. 16.
FORMER HOUSE speaker and Democratic leader Bill DeWeese, who has represented Greene and Fayette counties for 34 years, should find a quiet burrow, have a beer and consider a future outside politics. Instead, Mr. DeWeese, famous for his expansive vocabulary, couldn't summon up the word "retirement" last week as he announced his plans. Despite being recently charged by the state attorney general with six criminal counts alleging the use of public money to fund politically related work, Mr. DeWeese said he will seek another two-year term. Mr. DeWeese, who denies the charges, is, ostensibly, doing it for his constituents, who still have "so much at stake." But it is always better to quit while you are ahead. If it's vindication he really seeks, the voters' opinion on his continuing fitness to serve is irrelevant. Vindication here can come only from a jury.
Feb 06 2010
It won't be cheap to install cameras and audio recording devices on the city of Pittsburgh's 300 police vehicles, but it would be money well spent.
The latest suggestion for cameras mounted on police cars came from Councilman Ricky Burgess after the Jan. 12 incident in which high school student Jordan Miles claims three officers beat him for walking while black. For their part, police assert that the altercation began because he ignored their orders to stop in the first place.
It's not clear how much a camera or audio recorder might have captured if they had been in place on the car used by the undercover officers, but results from the Allegheny County district attorney's experience and from a study by the International Association of Chiefs of Police provide a long list of reasons why the cameras are a good idea.
District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. said only 1 percent of drunken driving cases that are videotaped end up going to trial, which saves his office so much time and manpower that he's willing to put his money where his mouth is. He said if Mr. Burgess can secure $40,000 for cameras, he'll match that sum.
The chiefs association survey found that the biggest beneficiaries of the cameras were the officers themselves, which should assuage concerns police may have about having their work recorded. The group, beginning in 2002, surveyed officers, administrators and citizens in 20 state police jurisdictions and said "the single greatest value of the in-car camera is the positive impact that it has on officer safety."
Police reported that when confrontations were developing, they de-escalated once individuals were told a camera was in operation. In addition, police used the tapes to review their own behavior, to help in preparing their reports and even to help locate weapons or other evidence that had been discarded by suspects.
As to instances in which complaints were filed alleging improper action by police, the survey found that at least half the cases were dropped when the person filing the allegations learned there was a tape. A full 96 percent of the time, officers were exonerated when incidents had been recorded.
The public can find reassurance, too, since troopers acknowledged that they are predisposed to perform better if they know they're being recorded.
A camera can act as an unbiased third party, a silent witness to right and wrong. That's good for both officers and citizens.
More Posts
Next page »