Worst move ever for PPS and City of Pittsburgh was revealed in this letter

Closing Schenley High School. Oh My God.

Proof that being a political activist in Pgh makes your teeth whiter!

The Collected Notes of Secret Agent Ska: Um Whao This week has been kind of insane.

I'm not certain if this is true only for Pittsburgh, or if it works the same in other areas too????

Save Schenley High School -- the new guy got an ear full

Mark Roosevelt's plans for Pittsburgh Public Schools suck.

The new guy showed up to a meeting and couldn't shut up. He talked and talked and talked -- right out of respect and into the footnotes of life in the city. They might need someone in the Virgin Islands.

More later.

I'm angry. (hint)

Patrick Dowd.... you had better resign from the Pgh Public Schools board today.
Don't let this flame your career before you get your first big full paycheck.

Heather -- where in the heck do you stand on this?

Sherry? Call me.

Get to the meeting at 3 pm on Saturday at the Cathedral of Learning.

The American Entrepreneur article on the election defeat of DeSantis

The American Entrepreneur - Newsletter Articles “Fact #2” – “Eighty-one percent of all vote-elegible city residents did NOT EVEN CAST A BALLOT.” Or, “Fact #3” – “The average time-spent-voting (that is, standing behind a machine, contemplating your vote) was about 25 seconds in the city and over three minutes in the suburbs. This is a very easy statistic to collect. After all, voting is no longer done “behind a curtain.” Today it’s all out in the open!

NH Could Turn GOP Race Upside Down -- GOPUSA

NH Could Turn GOP Race Upside Down -- GOPUSA: "Paul, a libertarian-leaning long-shot Texas congressman, could emerge as a serious contender in the ''Live Free or Die'' state. The state's recent history is rife with Republican primary voters giving non-establishment candidates a boost, and rocking the race."

Save Schenley High School -- meeting tonight and Saturday

The meeting tonight at 6 pm is more informational. It is being held at the high school in Oakland.

This meeting is on Saturday.

Save Schenley Meeting!
Get together to save our school.

Date: Saturday, November 10, 2007
Time: 3:00pm - 6:00pm
Location: University of Pittsburgh - Cathedral of Learning room 326

We are holding a meeting to get Schenley lovers together - current students, teachers, parents, and alums. We are going to discuss the issues at hand with closing the school, and alternatives to closing. We will work on creating an action plan to keep Schenley in Oakland - where it belongs!
We need to have a strong action plan, so that when November 27th rolls around, we will be prepared to face the Board of Education.

Come prepared to discuss the following:
- Reasons for closing & moving Schenley
- Why keep Schenley open?
- Alternatives to closing
- Asbestos removal
- Schenley's status as a Historical Landmark
- The Numbers: What contractors gave quotes on fixing Schenley? Was it competitive bidding? Did multiple contractors give quotes?

Please invite your friends, family members, teachers, fellow students, and fellow alums! We need all of the support we can get.

Let's show Pittsburgh what some Spartan Spirit can do.

Sportscasting Ethics About ESPN

STAA’s Sportscasting Watercooler Blog Archive I'm REALLY Trying to Say Nice Things About ESPN, But . . . The opening of the game featured a fictitious “Welcome to Pittsburgh” sign with a smaller sign beneath it reading “Mayor Luke Ravenstahl- 2007.

Does anyone have the tape or YouTube of this?

When Mike Tomlin took over the Steelers, how much time did he cry about prior seasons?

Mike Tomlin, the new Steelers coach, gets offered and takes the job in the off season. How long, do you think, he spent on the past performance of the team?

Mike Lamb -- you're crazy for asking for an audit, just as Tomlin would NOT have run to the NFL to ask for a review of instant replay on games from years past. The NFL isn't going to re-do the 2004 players draft either.

City's acting controller rejects call for audit

City's acting controller rejects call for audit Mr. Pokora, who lost to Mr. Lamb in the May Democratic primary, said he has invited his erstwhile rival to visit the office several times since then. Mr. Lamb, he said, hasn't taken him up on it.

What a joke.

Libertarians Win 17% of Their Races in Elections Across the U.S.

Positions include mayoral, city council and judgeship positions, among others

Quick Quotes:

Shane Cory, Executive Director, Libertarian Party

* "Last night's election once again proved that the Libertarian Party offers a viable third option that many Americans take advantage of when selecting the leaders of their government."

* "The saying goes that all politics are local, and that's exactly where the Libertarian Party has its greatest influence."

Andrew Davis, Media Coordinator, Libertarian Party

*"We want people to see that the Libertarian Party has been a viable third option in American politics for the last 35 years."

* "This is democracy at work. It doesn't get any clearer than a Libertarian getting elected to office."

Washington, D.C. – In an exciting conclusion to the 2007 off-year election, Libertarian Party candidates won an impressive 17 percent of all known races in the United States that included the Libertarian Party. Additionally, all Libertarian incumbents won re-election. The Libertarian National Committee counted 81 known races for the Nov. 6, 2007 elections and had 14 victories spread across seven states. "Last night's election once again proved that the Libertarian Party offers a viable third option that many Americans take advantage of when selecting the leaders of their government," says Libertarian Party Executive Director Shane Cory.

Libertarians were elected in Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina and Pennsylvania—54 percent of the states in which Libertarians ran. Libertarians in Michigan won four of the five known races in that state where Libertarians were involved—a stunning 80 percent rate of victory.

"The saying goes that all politics are local, and that's exactly where the Libertarian Party has its greatest influence," says Cory. "Decisions made by leaders at the local level are often the ones that have the most impact over people's lives, and the Libertarian Party wants to make sure that it's there when these decisions are made. The Libertarian Party's call for less government, lower taxes and more freedom doesn't change depending on what level of government it's made from. Liberty is liberty no matter what public office you hold."

While the Libertarian Party does not have any elected officials at the national level, the party does have Libertarians elected to local offices across the nation.

"The idea we want people to take from this election is about more than numbers and elected positions," says Andrew Davis, media coordinator for the Libertarian Party. "We want people to see that the Libertarian Party has been a viable third option in American politics for the last 35 years. The Libertarian Party exists as a real choice for voters who have long grown tired of picking from only Republicans and Democrats. This is democracy at work. It doesn't get any clearer than a Libertarian getting elected to office."

For elections of all the Libertarian Party's 81 races, please visit www.lp.org.

The Libertarian Party is America's third largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting www.lp.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

Quick Facts:

* Libertarians ran in 81 races in 13 different states.
* Libertarian candidates won in 14 (17%) of those races, in seven states (54%).
* Libertarians won four out of the five (80%) Michigan elections in which they participated.
* Libertarians were elected in: Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.
* Libertarian incumbents were all re-elected.

Gay Candidates Victorious Across the U.S.

Gay Candidates Victorious Across the U.S. WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Dozens of openly gay and lesbian candidates running in municipal and state legislative races across the country won their elections Tuesday, according to the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund. Of the record 71 candidates endorsed by the group in 2007, at least 31 won their races on Tuesday, while 10 were elected earlier this year. At least three more endorsed candidates received enough votes to advance to runoff elections.

Update with new link and photo:

The Bay Area Reporter Online | Political Notebook: Gays grab seats across U.S.: "Political Notebook: Gays grab seats across U.S."

Election day snapshots

From Mark Rauterkus

Results of GOPUSA's Grassroots Survey -- GOPUSA

Results of GOPUSA's Grassroots Survey -- GOPUSA
Question 3 -- How satisfied are you with the job the U.S. House is doing?
* Very satisfied -- 0%
* Somewhat satisfied -- 6%
* Somewhat unsatisfied -- 19%
* Very unsatisfied -- 75%

Humm. Might be a good time to mount a campaign for the US House.

I wonder if the Dems are as unsatisfied?

Post Gazette reporter writes another story that didn't get into print

Today I talked to Rich Lord, reporter for the Post-Gazette. I pointed out to him that the article he wrote about the city council and city controller race did NOT get put into the print edition of the P-G.

Go figure. He wrote an article last night. It didn't run, except on the web.

Two more points from the election

Some people don't seem to understand one simple fact:

You win elections by addition.

Campaigns that leverage subtraction do not win.

Furthermore, the 5 to 1 voter registration advantage for the Dems makes a mountain for any Republican to climb.

Meanwhile, what is the voter registration advantage for Dems over a Libertarian?

If DeSantis had to climb a mountain to win, then I would have needed to climb the Rocky Mountain Range to edge out my D-Party opponent.

A 50-to-1 ratio, not 5-to-1, fits the struggle in the L-to-D race. The results were 10-to-1.

Now let's talk about a 'landslide.'

Democrats cruise, of course. And first breath from Lamb is "AUDIT" from outside consultants

Of course the Ds won. But look at the telling statement from Michael Lamb. He wants an 'audit.' That is his pet word, as he said audit 412 times in our 30-minute debate. See the video at Rauterkus.blip.tv.

From today's P-G:

Democrats cruise in other Pittsburgh City Hall contests 'Tomorrow, I'm going to be sending a letter to the Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority and the [City] Council asking them if they'd consider funding an audit of the controller's office,' he said. An accounting firm should pore over the controller's performance, he said.

Michael Lamb is calling for the audit to be done by an outside vendor. Lamb is the elected controller. Lamb is the person who is to do the audit. But in Lamb's first breath, he trys to pass the work of audits to others.

Furthermore, Lamb wants an audit of the auditors. These auditors that Lamb wants to audit are meaningless. The controller's office isn't worth an audit from outside auditors. The controller's office is redundant in this period of Pittsburgh's public government. The controller's office has been marginalized because of decades of miss-management and one-party rule.

I have said that the controller's office is like the fourth fiddle in a string quartet. Sitting in the first and second chairs are the overlords. Then comes city council. Then, finally, comes the controller. The controller's financial watchdog status is in the toilet. Calling for audits of those who should be doing audits is not the way to battle back to make the controller's office meaningful again.

Pittsburgh needs accountability from elected officials who are willing to do the hard work themselves. Accountability does not come from passing the buck to others who are not elected.

Within Michael Lamb's telling statement, there is more. Lamb wants to spend government money on a new study. Lamb wants to hire some foundation, accounting firm, or outside consultants. Lamb wants to pay them, with taxpayer money. Of course it is going to cost us -- the taxpayers. And, of course the payment is going to go to 'pay to play' benefactors.

Do you think Lamb intends to be putting up a public bid process for the outside audit of the inside auditors (controller's office)? Do you think that this will be a "minority contract?" Lamb really wants to look at how the city lets its contracts -- yeah right.

But here is the worst part. Michael Lamb is begging to the OVERLORDS. He just got elected with fricking 89.xxx percent of the vote, and his first statement within minutes to the press amounts to a puckering of his lips to kiss ass to the OVERLORDS.

Get off your knees.

Do it yourself.

Grow an audit on your own.

Spend less, not more.

Lamb might want to clean house -- but -- he knows he can't do it himself. If Lamb knew that he couldn't do the job himself, perhaps he should not have run for the position.

Oh, but let's not forget. Lamb needed a new government paycheck because his is about to expire at the end of the year.

I got 'crushed' in the election yesterday. Well, it seems to me, that's par for the course. The citizens of Pittsburgh are getting crushed everyday by its city government.

Make no mistake. As Michael Lamb says that he'll be sending a letter to the ICA (Intergovernmental Cooperatiion Authority) begging them to fund an audit of the auditors -- we (the taxpayers) are screwed.

Lamb's first step out of the gate is expensive begging for additional navel gazing that has nothing to do with freedom, liberty nor keeping our kids competitive and local.

Told ya.

Who wants to call that 'good government' now?

I'm crushed. Plus, I'm correct.

And happily, I'm free to blab about the mindlessness of the one-party folly and domination that will insure that the region's downward spiral sustains itself.

I went be back, starting today. walking to city hall talking about various news elements. I'll be back at next week's council meeting. Tonight's county council meeting and Thursday's county budget meeting might go on without me.

Frist posted at 6:57 am.

Results of the elections, at first glance

MAYOR CITYWIDE
(VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN ) 1
LUKE RAVENSTAHL (DEM) . . . . . . 42,290 = 63.23%
MARK F DESANTIS (REP) . . . . . . 23,313 = 34.85%
TONY OLIVA (LIB) . . . . . . . . 500 = .75%
RYAN SCOTT (SOC) . . . . . . . . 534 = .80%
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 249 = .37%

This is really bad news. Tony got beat by Ryan. Ouch. Every vote counts!

CONTROLLER CITYWIDE
(VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN ) 1
MICHAEL E LAMB (DEM). . . . . . . 54,258 = 89.40%
MARK RAUTERKUS (LIB). . . . . . . 6,352 = 10.47%
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 83 = .14%

This is good news. I got well over 6,000 votes. Ten and a half-percent isn't what I was looking for -- but it is what I got in the polling that I did last week.
I spent $250. Let's do the math. I got votes for about $.04 each.

Even in 2001, when I ran city wide, I got votes for $.30 each.

There are 1,500 Libertarians in the county. It might be right to say that there are 600 or so Libertarians in the city. Each Libertarian generated 10 votes. I think that there are 100,000 registered Ds in the city. Does that mean each D generated half a vote for Lamb.

MEMBER OF COUNCIL DISTRICT 1
(VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN ) 1
DARLENE M HARRIS (DEM) . . . . . . 4,880 =74.37%
DAVID SCHUILENBURG (IND) . . . . . 1,672 =25.48%
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 10 =.15%

Way to go David. If he would have been able to have a few debates, that race would have been very, very close.

MEMBER OF COUNCIL DISTRICT 3
(VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN ) 1
BRUCE A KRAUS (DEM) . . . . . . . 4,463 = 86.13%
MARK RAUTERKUS (LIB). . . . . . . 675 = 13.03%
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 44 = .85%

Who are those 44 people doing write ins? What did they say? I did better in the city council race as far as percentage against the opponent by two+ percent.

The 675 in the council vote is about 1/10th of the 6,352 I got in the city. There are 9 council districts. Time will tell if I did better in some districts and worse in others.

MEMBER OF COUNCIL DISTRICT 5
(VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN ) 1
DOUGLAS SHIELDS (DEM) . . . . . . 8,067 = 99.20%
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 65 .80%

Today, Doug Shields, City Council President got 8,000 votes. I got about 7,000 votes. That is a good showing for Doug.

MEMBER OF COUNCIL DISTRICT 7
(VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN ) 1
PATRICK DOWD (DEM) . . . . . . . 7,410 = 98.89%
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 83 = 1.11%

MEMBER OF COUNCIL DISTRICT 9
(VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN ) 1
RICKY V BURGESS (DEM) . . . . . . 5,335 = 89.62%
DAVID C ADAMS (IND) . . . . . . . 604 = 10.15%
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 14 = .24%

Oh well.

A third party with no money (<$250) is about one quarter of what a 2nd party with $300,000 gets in terms of total votes.

More arm-chair quarterbacking tomorrow.

Told ya!

My polling efforts proved to be perfect. I knew Luke would get between 63 and 65%. I knew I had 10% of the vote for city controller.

There was no "margin of error." I didn't need a margin. There was no error.

I ran the best and most accurate poll in this election cycle, as a hobby.

I don't like the results nor the predicted outcome, but, I reported them, honestly.

South Side poll workers were well fed

I walked into a polling place in the last afternoon along with State Rep., Joe Preston. The poll workers there were H U N G R Y. They let him know about it. They were staying hungry too.

Just 90-seconds ago I had a call from the Market House. Things were different there thanks to the over-reaching, cake pushing.

I spent the afternoon and evening with David C. Adams, Independent candidate for city council in the 9th district. We had a good time buzzing most of those polling places together. I was with David Schuilenburg as the early results came in on the internet.

Dave Schuilenburg was at 25% or so and he didn't have a single debate. There was no debate for the city council district 3 race either. The possibility of having an election without a single debate is so Pittsburgh. That is unreal to me. The only thing nearly as bad is no opposition at all. But, no debates among candidates on the ballot has got to be worse.

Westwood rocks. The voting there was better than anything I saw all day. Had lunch over there.

The early visits were to the polling places in the South Side, the SS Slopes and Allentown. I never got to Oakland, but I figured Tony lived there.

This is a big city.

I had a good time on election day.

Honz Man should know, by now, how many times I was on the ballot. Twice Fred. One for each thumbs. Can you count that high?

Mean while, Marty Griffin, KDKA's other personality and mean-spirited investigative reporter that is oblivious to the obvious, was barking about the lack of opposition to various races. Jeepers, who is going to run against Onorato and get stabbed in the back hundreds of time by Marty Griffin on the airwaves????

Good night.

Early Returns covered my polling release from Friday. Only noticed today

Post-Gazette NOW - Local News - Early Returns: "In the absence of other polls ... Both Mr. Ravenstahl's and Mr. DeSantis' camps have kept their polling under wraps. No credible independent poll has been conducted. That has spawned no end of chatter about who has what data and why they're hiding it.

So into the breach steps Mr. Rauterkus, who is running for not just council, but also city controller.

Mr. Rauterkus, a swim coach and repeat candidate who is a beacon of openness in a stormy sea of campaign secrecy, said his automated phone poll gleaned 715 respondents.

He e-mailed us to let us know that 63 percent of respondents favored Mr. Ravenstahl, versus 21 percent for Mr. DeSantis, 3 percent for Libertarian Tony Oliva, and 1 percent for Socialist Ryan Scott. Combined, 'unsure' and 'not telling' polled 18 percent.

In his own controller's race, Mr. Rauterkus reported that he was trailing Democrat Michael Lamb 52 percent to 10 percent, but noted that the 38 percent who were undecided put him within striking distance, if he can win them all and then some.

Early Returns cautions that Mr. Rauterkus isn't a professional pollster, and didn't calculate a margin of error. That said, for his take on the numbers, go here and scroll down to his Friday posting.

Hey Rich Lord.... There is NO MARGIN OF ERROR. I got it on the nose. Right on the money.

I said Luke would get between 63 and 65%. That is just what he got.

I said that I was at 10%. That is just what I got.

I could NOT have been more exact.

On election day there are NO undecided. And, EVERYONE is in the "I'm NOT TELLING" mode with the secret ballot. In the polling, they had to tell me.

I may not be a professional pollster -- but -- as a hobby, I'm better than everything and anything you've got. And I'm better than everything and anything out there, period.