I'd missed the past couple of these grassroots extravaganzas, which volunteers stage in big old underused spaces in Lawrenceville. It's only gotten bigger: Last year, something like 10,000 people came to see more than 1,000 artworks, and the turnout must have been similar this year.

Of course, this year the big night, Saturday night, it rained cats and dogs. But it was still pretty packed when I swung by just before midnight. Great party -- I especially loved the hula-hoop pit right next to the indoor stage, where the gyrating people (kids, mostly, but not entirely) were a perfect complement to the garage-rock quartet pounding it out.

The art was the usual, um, democratic mix of fine work -- including stuff by local name artists who've had gallery shows and everything -- and, quite literally, some of the worst art you've probably ever seen. But that's the point, eh?

Still, the most striking visual of my visit was simply the approach to the venue: the old Pittsburgh Brewing Company, a.k.a. Iron City, brewery.

On foot, turning off the Liberty Ave. sidewalk, you plunged down a dimly lit asphalt access road where at least one rusted-out downspout was loudly gushing water while visitors headed downhill, huddled under umbrellas or hunched in the rain. Nicely postindustrial. At the hill's bottom, it opened up into a bigger area, where they'd lined up the porta-potties and a couple bands were playing outside. On the way out, it was even better, with everyone a silhouette in the back-lighting as you approached Liberty. It felt like you were in on a secret with a few thousand temporary friends. 

In a post earlier this week, I raised some questions about two cases involving accusations of police misconduct: the (since dismissed) charges of domestic abuse against Pittsburgh police Sergeant Eugene Hlavac, and the investigation into the conduct of officers involved in the Jordan Miles case.

I noted that while Mayor Luke Ravenstahl acted speedily in the Hlavac matter -- firing him weeks after the allegations were made -- an investigation into the Miles incident has been going on for more than three months.

Others have noted the disparity as well. On April 19, city councilor Patrick Dowd sent a letter to the mayor, asking about the hold-up in the Miles case. Ravenstahl had previously promised a quick investigation of the Miles incident, with an internal police investigation to be completed by the end of February. 

In response to that letter, city solicitior Daniel Regan informed Dowd and the rest of council that the city investigation is essentially in limbo: 

[T]he investigation being performed by the Office of Municipal Investigations (OMI) is not complete and remains open. Since the investigation began there have been developments that have caused OMI to keep the investigation open. One such development has been the initiation of a federal investigation. The federal investigation may reveal additional or new evidence that would only benefit the OMI investigation ...

The subsequent developments call for the City to be extremely prudent ... It is important that the City act in [a] manner that respects the integrity of the federal investigation ... Haste will not properly serve the interests of any of the parties involved.

The letter goes on to note that when an OMI investigation is concluded, the city's contract with police requires that a decision about discipline be made within 120 days. It's possible, Regan's letter points out, that a federal investigation would turn up additional information that might change the nature of the discipline sought -- for better or worse. Thus, "Principles of fairness -- to the officers, Mr. Miles, the City and the public -- require that the investigation remain open." 

Sounds reasonable enough: I pointed out the sensitivity of these issues in my earlier post. Even so, a couple things bear noting about these assertions.

First, city officials previously insisted that the city's internal investigation did not depend on any external review:

A federal grand jury is hearing the case and an FBI probe continues, both separate from the city's investigation ... [FBI] Agents have said theirs is independent of other investigations, and city officials have said the OMI review does not depend on the outcome of any other pending investigation.

And really, it's a bit disturbing to think the city's investigation would depend on what the FBI is up to.

When there are charges of misconduct made against police officers, after all, we're supposed to trust that the city's internal-review procedures can investigate fairly and thoroughly. Granted, the feds have a lot more resources. But to say, as Regan does, that the feds "may reveal additional or new evidence" is a lot like saying, "Hey, our guys might be missing something really important."

Meanwhile, Eugene Hlavac is no doubt going to be very interested  in Regan's assertoin that "Haste will not properly serve the interests of any of the parties involved." 

Again: Hlavac was canned less than a month after the allegations against him surfaced. And he was cleared in a criminal court about three months after that. We have no idea when the federal investigation of these officers will be complete, but it doesn't seem likely to move any faster than the criminal case against Hlavac did. And hey -- isn't it possible that a criminal proceeding against Hlavac could reveal information missed by the city's internal investigators? 

Sure looks that way. I'm not carrying water for Hlavac -- he's reportedly treated our citizens review board with contempt during a hearing on other allegations. But he too deserves justice. And in a statement explaining his decision to fire Hlavac, Ravenstahl made the case sound open-and-shut. But obviously that isn't how the judge saw it. 

For that matter, it wasn't how Jeanne Clark, head of the local National Organization for Women chapter and a frequent critic of Ravenstahl, saw it either. Clark was at the preliminary hearing for Hlavac, and even then, she says, "The DA's case seemed very weak to me." The eyewitness testimony -- which judge Thomas Flaherty cited as a reason for dismisisng the charges -- was considerably less damning than Ravenstahl's letter suggested.

What next? "I do think we're likely to see Hlavac back on the force," Clark says. "Under the law, the administration is very weak in these arbitration proceedings." And a not-guilty verdict knocks the pins out from under the stated reasons Ravensathl gave for Hlavac's termination. 

Of course, it's possible that, if this matter goes to arbitration, the city may provide other grounds for termination. Hlavac has faced discipline before, after all. But if such grounds exist, Ravenstahl has said nothing about them, and no one I've spoken to could point me toward them either. 

In any case, Clark says that with respect to Hlavac, "There's no role for us anymore." While women's groups still support Hlavac's accuser, whether he returns to the force or not is "not something that's within my ability to do anything about."

On the bright side, Clark says, "No matter what happens with him, I think this has changed the culture here." The city is near to passing a domestic-violence policy that affects all city employees, she points out, and "People are now seeing domestic violence as a crime of power -- not one of passion or love."

I just wish I felt like there was a happy ending in store for the Miles situation. I've been pretty critical of Ravenstahl on this stuff, and I think the decision to promote Hlavac in 2007 was ... ill-advised. But at this point, there's no easy way out of this. Moving too quickly risks bad outcomes, but so does not moving quickly enough. The only thing you're sure of is that no matter what you do, someone is going to be furious.  

Right now, we've got a community demanding answers -- with no sense of when they will be forthcoming. And we've got city police officers who are in limbo, living under a cloud -- with no sense of when that uncertainty will be over either.

What could be worse than such uncertainty over the outcome? Maybe the outcome itself. 

My alma mater, Allegheny College (beatissima!), has just uncorked this poll about how Americans feel about civility in politics.

Guess what? They're for it:

A large majority -- 95 percent -- of Americans believe civility in politics is important for a healthy democracy

says the report, compiled by the school's Center for Political Participation. And also

Americans want compromise on a range of policy issues. For example, some two-thirds of Americans support a compromise on immigration reform.

Well, hell! Sounds like a new era of consensus-building is at hand, doesn't it? Let us beat our pollsters into plowshares, and await the arrival of a New Jerusalem. 

Except for one thing: 

An overwhelming number of conservatives who intend to vote in the 2010 primary elections expect their elected officials to stand firm, rather than compromise on tough policy questions.

There's even a handy graph, which looks like this:

As you can see, voters who identify themselves as "conservative" or "very conservative" value politicians who "stand firm" much more than politicians who are willing to compromise. No other group comes close to this preference for not giving an inch. 

Now this is just one poll. But that result explains a lot, doesn't it? 

What's interesting to me is that conservatives appear to be even less willing to compromise than those who describe themselves as "progressive" or "liberal."

I've always kind of thought that folks on the hard left and folks on the hard right had one thing in common: a willingness to march into oblivion in the service of their values. (I've seen 'em both do it more times than I can remember, after all.) But when it comes to pure mulishness, this poll suggests, even radical lefties don't match the hard-core believers on the right.

We saw this in the healthcare debate. The reform proposals with Barack Obama taking a single-payer option off the table, as the lefties grumbled. Then they grumbled some more as Democrats also gave up on the "public option," and ended up with a reform that borrowed wholesale from earlier Republican healthcare reform proposals.

None of this did anything to lure GOP support, of course. But that's hardly surprising, says the poll. As a rule, the right-wingers polled don't really believe in compromising their values. Left-wingers, meanwhile, are more likely to believe that compromise is a value.

You can see where they'd end up feeling some disappointment. 

On a legislative basis, you'd have to say the Republicans "lost," because the bill passed despite their opposition. But emotionally speaking, liberal Democrats may be the real losers -- they got a bill they didn't live up to their values -- and what's more, GOP intransigence denied them the chance to fulfill the value of compromise. 

You may recall that news reports of every vote in favor of the reform included a caveat: The bill passed "without any bipartisan support." Note that judging from the poll, this concern is water off a duck's back when a president is conservative. Conservatives don't give a shit whether their president has bipartisan support or not.

And of course, the irony is that they're the ones most likely to get bipartians support . Because their Democratic opponents believe in compromise.

And as we saw during the healthcare debate, liberal Dems may be the only people who can compromise with themselves ... and still come out on the losing end.

So if you've ever felt like there's some sort of asymetric warfare going on in politics ... if you've ever felt like Republicans don't play by the same set of rules, here's an answer for why that is so. Valuing "compromise," after all, means your happiness depends on what the other party does. And the problem here is the other party doesn't give a rats ass. 

Of course, the parties do have some things in common. Democrats get lots of money from corporate contributors, just like Republicans do ... so naturally Democratic efforts at reform will always be more half-hearted than some lefties will want. In fact, sometimes touting the virtue of "compromise" is just a way to cover up for being chickenshit, for lacking the courage to take on a full-fledged reform. 

But in any case, pursuing the goal of compromise -- for whatever reason -- doesn't really inspire the troops. Consider this graph

which dovetails with plenty of other data suggesting Republican voters are more energized than Democrats. "Compromising" sounds noble. But not only does it lack the visceral appeal of winning it all ... it also lacks the visceral appeal of sticking it to the other guy. 

Which is maybe why Barack Obama is winning many of his battles ... but it feels like we're losing the war.

On one of guitarist Adrian Belew's more recent visits to Pittsburgh, City Paper contributor Chris Parker interviewed Belew and wrote a career-spanning profile on him. Belew's work -- both on his own in numerous guises and with the likes of David Bowie, Talking Heads and King Crimson -- has long blended pop and experimental elements. "But more and more I give up on pop music because it seems like a losing battle and there's just no place anymore for interesting pop music," Belew told Parker.

Belew plays an early show at Club Café this Friday, in a one-man electric show described as "painting with guitar." He kind of explains what this means on his blog -- I'm still a bit mystified -- but if anyone's latest venture deserves a vote of confidence, it's this innovative, good-natured guitar whiz. For more details and tickets, visit the Club Café Web site.

OK, it's way too soon to say I told you so, but ...

Pittsburgh police sergeant Eugene Hlavac -- who was terminated by Mayor Luke Ravenstahl after being accused of hitting the mother of his child -- was found not guilty yesterday.

Hlavac, you'll remember, had been promoted to sergeant by Ravenstahl back in 2007, notwithstanding a pair of domestic calls to his apartment in the months before. He was one of three officers Ravenstahl promoted despite alleged domestic problems in their past. But when Hlavac was charged with domestic violence this past December, Ravenstahl responded by terminating him the following month. In a statement, the mayor explained that

Investigators interviewed witnesses and heard Mr. Hlavac’s account of the story. Mr. Hlavac was also given the opportunity to explain the incident to Public Safety Director Michael Huss. In this case, the evidence revealed by the internal investigation speaks for itself.

Well, apparently the evidence didn't speak quite so loudly during Hlavac's criminal trial. Judge Thomas Flaherty (the former city controller) determined that eyewitness testimony cast real doubt on what happened between Hlavac and the mother of his child.

Despite that outcome, Mayor Ravenstahl has said he will try to prevent Hlavac from getting his job back. He notes that the standard for dismissing an employee is much lower than the standard of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" that applies in a courtroom.

The thing of it is, as I noted a few months back... the city doesn't have such a great track record on this stuff. Recall the case of Paul Abel, a Pittsburgh police officer who'd been accused of pistol-whipping and accidentally shooting a South Side man after Abel had been celebrating his birthday. 

Both Abel and Hlavac were terminated by Ravenstahl before their criminal charges were heard in court. Both Abel and Hlavac were cleared by judges. (Jeffrey A. Manning ruled that Abel had gotten into the altercation with the victim in an effort to maintain public order, and "It is not the obligation of this court to police the police department.")

And Abel has already been reinstated by an arbitrator -- over the objections of police chief Nate Harper, who lamented, "How can we maintain the trust of the public when we can't terminate someone when excessive force is used?"

So what's to make us think this outcome will be any different? Not much, as far as I can see. If anything, the allegations against Hlavac seem shakier than the accusations against Abel, due to the conflicting eyewitness testimony. And as I wrote a few months ago, Hlavac

has been accused of a crime, that's all. Firing him on the basis of an as-yet unproven accusation is arguably unfair -- and it may end up biting the city in the ass. If Hlavac is cleared, a la Abel, he'll probably get reinstated by an arbitrator too. 

At the time, I thought Ravenstahl should just put Hlavac on desk duty, pending a final determination of the case. You know, the way the city did with the three officers accused of beating Homewood teenager Jordan Miles. 

In fact, there's an interesting contrast here. Miles, you may recall, was involved in a late-night altercation with Pittsburgh detectives in January. A judge later tossed out the charges against Miles, who police claimed was acting suspiciously. The officers involved, meanwhile, have been on desk duty ever since, awaiting an internal review of their actions. Ravenstahl has previously pledged that the review would be concluded by the end of February. But it's now nearly two months later, and still no report has been issued. 

Hlavac, by contrast, was canned in January -- just weeks after the charges against him were filed. I don't exactly begrudge the city moving slowly on the Jordan Miles Three -- it's about time we saw some deliberation from our officials. And besides, there's apparently a federal investigation into this matter, and the possibility of a civil-rights lawsuit as well. (Though the city has said its internal investigations don't hinge on any outside review.) 

But here's what I'd argue if I was Hlavac's attorney. I'd argue that Luke Ravenstahl caved to pressure from women's groups -- pressure he brought on himself by promoting officers accused of domestic violence in the first place. (OK, maybe if I'm Hlavac's attorney I don't bring that second part up.) I'd argue that my client was thrown under the bus, just so the Ravenstahl administration could deflect criticism.

And if I was Hlavac's attorney, I'd probably feel pretty optimistic about my chances. 

"Your neighborhood piano teacher was never this fabulous. Raised in Squirrel Hill, Margie Balter made her way to Hollywood, and over the past decade, her work has been featured in many a blockbuster -- not that you can see it. Which is kind of the point: Balter helps actors look like they know how to play the piano on film, coaching numerous stars including Holly Hunter (in The Piano) and Scarlett Johansson (in The Man Who Wasn't There)."

I wrote the blurb above in August 2007, when Balter visited Pittsburgh to promote her solo piano album, Music From My Heart, and it works well enough now, too. (Balter still uses it in her online press kit, although it apparently didn't survive City Paper's transition to a new Web archive.) More recently, she's coached Greg Kinnear (The Last Song), and one of her compositions turns up in the new Date Night film starring Tina Fey and Steve Carell.

Now, on Fri., April 23, Balter is back in town at the University of Pittsburgh, her alma mater, for a conversation, Q&A and signing. The talk, entitled "Pitt in Hollywood Presents a Conversation with 'Piano Teacher to the Stars' Margie Balter," is 3 p.m. in the Cathedral of Learning G24. The event is free and open to the public -- check it out, and maybe learn a thing or two about pursuing your artistic goals, both behind the scenes and in them.

An interesting coda to my post yesterday about Dan Onorato's position on abortion rights. According to today's Morning Call of Allentown, gubernatorial candidate Jack Wagner has said he, too,  would oppose changing the state's abortion law -- a position similar to the one Onorato has stated:

He may oppose abortion, but Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jack Wagner says he'd support a woman's right to choose if the U.S. Supreme Court ever overturned Roe v. Wade and left it up to the states to set their own abortion laws.

In an online live-chat with readers, Wagner said the following:

I am a pro-life Democrat and support the current state law. I oppose the use of public funds to provide, refer, or promote abortion. I support public funding and access to family planning and contraceptive services that do not include abortion. Because I strongly believe that the right to life must also mean the right to a decent life for both mother and child, I have always placed a priority on strengthening health care, education, social services, and other important programs. I will continue to focus on these issues if elected Governor. I will also continue to be a strong proponent of adoption.

As noted here yesterday, Wagner was among the gubernatorial candidates invited to address a pro-life gathering in York, PA. The gathering only extended invitations to candidates it believed were pro-life. It now seems they were unclear about Onorato's position, and perhaps Wagner's will come as a surprise to them too.

I'm guessing they won't be alone: I've seen Wagner address the issue alongside Onorato, and if the two candidates agreed on this issue, Wagner did little to make that clear. (He did say, however, that he didn't favor criminalizing abortion.)

But maybe "pro-life" is no longer a viable basis for distinguishing a candidate.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's a totally defensible position to say, as Wagner does, that "I am a pro-life Democrat and support the current state law" -- even though the law allows for choice. In fact, if there have to be pro-life Democrats, this would be my favorite kind.

In fact, some aspects of the position Wagner stated in the online chat seems particularly admirable. (Though this whole "tax dollars shouldn't be spent on abortion services!" thing really gives me hives.) He's pro-life, it seems, in that he wants Pennsylvania to give a woman every incentive for delivering a child. Every incentive, that is, except compelling her to cross state lines if she chooses to abort.

But you can understand why the poor folks in York might be getting confused.

Wagner's position appears to be, "My own personal convictions are pro-life, but I would oppose changing the law to require other people to accept those convictions." But of course, that's really the same as saying, "I believe in other people making these choices for themselves." And that is really the same as saying, "I am pro-choice." 

Given that, one wonders whether it makes any difference what Wagner's personal convictions are. He doesn't have ovaries, after all. And really, it's not as if this is the first time phrases like "pro-life" have seemed problematic. Part of the reason the abortion debate is so wearisome, in fact, is that we use such simplistic terms to argue such a complicated issue. Onorato and Wagner's position might seem a bit slippery, but hell -- if it shows how empty the language has become, that's maybe not such a bad thing.

But again, I wonder how many conservative voters know that all these distinctions are being made ... that "pro-life" as they use it means something different from  "pro-life" as their candidates use it. And I wonder too how they'll react if they realize the truth. 

My guess? It'll work long enough to help secure votes through the primary. And in November, those voters are going Republican anyway.

Andrew Kelemen, who was featured in the April 7 CP as an artist in the Film Kitchen series, is among five finalists in a national contest to make a promotional short for the series finale ABC's Lost.

Kelemen, 24, of Squirrel Hill, has worked as an editor at WQED-TV and KDKA TV. (Here's my Film Kitchen preview spotlighting him and another local artist: www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A77561).

His entry was among about 10,000 submitted by Lost fans. Winners will be determined by online voting. You can check out the entries, including Kelemen's, and vote at http://abc.go.com/shows/lost/fan-promo-contest-vote. Voting continues through Friday.

Kelemen, a native of Buffalo, N.Y., is a graduate of Pitt's film-studies program and holds a film-production certificate from Pittsburgh Filmmakers. He's relatively rare among young filmmakers in that his ambition is to make not feature films, but good commercials -- commercials that don't scream, "I'm a commercial!"

His demo reel, which showed at Film Kitchen, showcases an intriguing, soft-sell style that stands out against the frenetic pace of much contemporary commercial filmmaking, not just advertising. One piece, which the Carnegie Library used as an online promo, depicted people experiencing the books they were reading as sort of waking dreams (without feeling even slightly surreal).

Prior contest successes for Keleman included a commercial for Dove that placed second. It aired on national TV during the 2008 Academy Awards broadcast.

There's been an interesting little drama unfolding in Dan Onorato's gubernatorial campaign. And it may well hold the key to his hopes for victory in next month's primary.

On Sunday, April 18, Onorato appeared with other candidates (or their representatives) at the endorsement meeting of the 14th Ward Independent Democrat Club. During that gathering, Onorato stated -- as he has before -- that when it comes to abortion, he supports Pennsylvania's law as currently written. 

Pennsylvania's abortion law is highly restrictive, of course. But it does permit abortion -- as every state must do, thanks to Roe v. Wade. So by implication, that would make Onorato pro-choice, right? 

Tell it to the good people of York, PA.

The day after the 14th Ward meeting, this story appeared in the York Daily Record. The story reported that a York-based pro-life group called ACTION -- Americans for Christian Traditions in our Nation -- plans to hold a forum for gubernatorial candidates this coming weekend.

There are six candidates in the race -- four Democrats and two Republicans -- but the story reported that Democrats Joe Hoeffel and Anthony Hardy Williams 

were not invited to the event, [ACTION president Ron] Cohen said, because they are not anti-abortion. Although ACTION is bipartisan, he said the group endorses only candidates who are anti-abortion. 

Auditor General Jack Wagner is anti-choice [UPDATE: It turns out that, after this blog post came out, Wagner too qualified his position on abortion rights] as are Republican contenders Sam Rohrer and Tom Corbett. So they all got invites. And what about Onorato? Well, here's where it gets interesting. The version of the story currently online says the following:

The news release [sent out by ACTION] said Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato would send a representative, but spokesman Brian Herman said there were never any such plans ...

Herman said Onorato would support abortion rights as governor.

"He supports the existing law as it is Pennsylvania and he will veto any attempt to change it," Herman said.

Funny thing is, when this story first ran on Monday, it said Onorato WAS sending a representative. And Brian Herman wasn't quoted at all. Here's an earlier, Google-cached version, which I'm repeating the relevant portion of in case it disappears: 

Onorato's representative will give an introduction but won't participate in the questions, said Ron Cohen, ACTION president.

The story was updated, it seems, at 6:06 p.m. yesterday evening. But by then, the Hoeffel campaign had seized on the earlier report. 

"That Dan Onorato was invited and is actually sending a representative of his campaign to this breakfast, confirms that he’s pro-life," Hoeffel said.

What happened here? I've got a call in to the reporter who did the story, and will post his reply. But it seems pretty obvious that after the story came out -- and after the Hoeffel campaign jumped on it -- Team Onorato went into damage control, and the story was updated to reflect the campaign's position. 

A position which, by the way, ACTION organizers still seem unaware of.

A post on the organization's Facebook page reported only that "[W]e have had 2 of the Democratic candidates now informing us they will not be able to attend. The latest is Jack Wagner will send a representative, Dan Onorato will not be participating at all." 

As of this writing, the Facebook page makes no mention of Onorato's stated pro-choice position -- for the apparent reason that the group was unaware of it.

Asked what happened to Onorato's participation in the event, ACTION Treasurer Angie Kline told me, somewhat drily, "When you figure that out, let us know."

Initially, Kline told me she thought Onorato probably dropped out simply because he got a better offer somewhere else. "Our organization is just 150 people," she said. But when I told her that the Daily Record was now reporting that Onorato supports the current law and would oppose any changes, she said, "We were under a different supposition."

And really, can you blame them? As Hoeffel's camp noted,in earlier elections Onorato had received the backing of LifePAC, a pro-life group. His 2007 re-election bid was also backed by People Concerned for the Unborn Child (see page 3).

Of course, this kerfluffle could be just an innocent misunderstanding -- crossed wires between a campaign, a community group, and a local newspaper. Such things happen.

But the whole incident reflects one of the most interesting facets of this campaign: At least when it comes to social issues, Onorato has manged to be all things to all people. On Sunday, he's a pro-choice progressive; the next day, he's touted as being pro-life. And despite a clarification issued hours later, I'd bet that most of ACTION's 150 members still think he agrees with them. 

And abortion isn't the only such issue he seems to be neutralizing. When the Steel City Stonewall Democrats endorsed a gubernatorial candidate, the pro-LGBT organization actually split down the middle between Onorato and Hoeffel. Clearly, Onorato's efforts to tout his "progressive policies such as ... Allegheny County’s non-discrimination ordinance" have borne fruit. Even though he was a latecomer to the initiative, which started with county council. 

As someone who watched Onorato on Pittsburgh City Council -- where he was consistently among the least progressives voices -- I'm impressed by how he's been rebranded. But then hardly anyone remembers those days, as a recent post by Sue Kerr reflects.

Kerr had previously argued that Onorato had exaggerated his role in passing the county's non-discrimination ordinance, while passing up opportunities to take the initiative on other LGBT causes. But even Kerr -- who pays closer attention to this stuff than anyone I know -- didn't realize how unsympathetic Onorato had been early in his career.

"I was a chump and I can admit it," Kerr posted, with admirable bluntness. 

Well, OK. I wouldn't be a liberal if I didn't think people could change. (Or -- in the case of politicians -- they can at least recognize when times are changing, and respond accordingly.) And whatever his motives may be, I prefer Dan Onorato the gubernatorial candidate to Dan Onorato the city councilor.

The thing is, I think he's still getting credit for being both those guys. 

UPDATE: Another take on this story comes via Alex Roarty, an excellent correspondent from the Web site PoliticsPA (which I really need to start reading more often). Roarty's piece, among other things, raises the possibility that the confusion here might have begun with the Wagner camp. 

Earlier today, we reported on Arlen Specter's new TV ads attacking Sestak's military record and history of missed votes in Congress. At an Equal Pay Day rally Tuesday at Mellon Square Park at noon today, Sestak said that he expected the negativity.

"Arlen Specter is a disappointment," Sestak said. "After 30 years in the Senate, the only thing he can bring forward is negative advertisements. That's why Pennsylvanians want change.

"I appreciate that Arlen Secter is of a generation where campaign ads mean negativity," Sestak added. "But how about running an ad talking about the issues or coming out and telling us what you plan to do for the people of this state? That's what my ads have and will focus on. We have to keep it about the issues."

Specter's ad claims that Sestak, a three-star admiral in the U.S. Navy, was removed from a command post for creating a "poor command climate" -- an allegation made by an unnamed source in a Navy Times report. But Sestak says that's not the case. He was removed, he says, because he was an outspoken critic of the size of the Naval fleet.

Between 2001 and 2005, Sestak studied and drew up plans of how the Navy could better fight terrorism with a smaller fleet. Admiral Vern Clark told the Philadelphia Inquirer in April that it was he who assigned Sestak the task. And by taking it on, Clark said, Sestak put himself in the crosshairs of those who wanted to grow the fleet even larger.

"He did what I asked him to do; I wanted straight talk, and this put him in the crosshairs," Clark told the paper. "[H]e challenged people who did not want to be challenged. The guy is courageous, a patriot's patriot."

Says Sestak: "We had to stand up and try to change the Navy for the better. But the new head of Naval Operations" -- Mike Mullen, who is now the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff -- "came in and he didn't agree. The thing is now; the Navy is reducing the size of the fleet. You have to stand up to the establishment when you know something is not right. So now, Arlen Specter is taking these things and he's twisting them into these negative ads."

As for missing votes, Sestak says he did miss about 123 votes, and that it's a fair question for voters to ask. But he says his attendance for Congressional votes sits at 95 percent.

"I had to make a decision in July whether to get in this race even after the Democratic establishment said not to," says Sestak. "I visited 67 counties in an intense three-week perod, and I did miss some votes. I also had a situation last summer with my father on his deathbed over a four-month period and I did what any son would do: I visited him as much as I could in the hospital.

"So yes, I did miss some votes, but I'm very proud of my 95 percent voting record, and we keep our offices open seven days a week. Because of that, we are able to handle four times the number of constituency cases than the average legislator. We work real hard and people know that."