This weekend's Must Read comes from climateprogress.org, which in turn references top NASA climatologist James Hansen. And while I'm totally aware that climate change is a socialist myth propagated by leftist academics engaged in a conspiracy to bring you increasingly under the government's thumb (do I have that right?) at least according to studies funded by fossil fuel companies who really have nothing but your best interests in mind, honest let's see what Hansen has to say, anyway, just for fun (you can download the entire pdf of his paper here):
Finally, a comment on frequently asked questions of the sort: Was global warming the cause of the 2010 heat wave in Moscow, the 2003 heat wave in Europe, the all-time record high temperatures reached in many Asian nations in 2010, the incredible Pakistan flood in 2010? The standard scientist answer is âyou cannot blame a specific weather/climate event on global warming.â That answer, to the public, translates as ânoâ.
However, if the question were posed as âwould these events have occurred if atmospheric carbon dioxide had remained at its pre-industrial level of 280 ppm?â, an appropriate answer in that case is âalmost certainly not.â That answer, to the public, translates as âyesâ, i.e., humans probably bear a responsibility for the extreme event.
In either case, the scientist usually goes on to say something about probabilities and how those are changing because of global warming. But the extended discussion, to much of the public, is chatter. The initial answer is all important.
Although either answer can be defended as âcorrectâ, we suggest that leading with the standard caveat âyou cannot blameâ¦â is misleading and allows a misinterpretation about the danger of increasing extreme events. Extreme events, by definition, are on the tail of the probability distribution. Events in the tail of the distribution are the ones that change most in frequency of occurrence as the distribution shifts due to global warming.
For example, the âhundred year floodâ was once something that you had better be aware of, but it was not very likely soon and you could get reasonably priced insurance. But the probability distribution function does not need to shift very far for the 100-year event to be occurring several times a century, along with a good chance of at least one 500-year event.
Given the dominant effect of El Nino-La Nina on short-term temperature change and the usual lag of a few months between the Nino index and its effect on global temperature, it is unlikely that 2011 will reach a new global record temperature.
In contrast, it is likely that 2012 will reach a record high global temperature. The principal caveat is that the duration of the current La Nina could stretch an extra year, as some prior La Ninas have. Given the association of extreme weather and climate events with rising global temperature, the expectation of new record high temperatures in 2012 also suggests that the frequency and magnitude of extreme events could reach a high level in 2012. Extreme events include not only high temperatures, but also indirect effects of a warming atmosphere including the impact of higher temperature on extreme rainfall and droughts. The greater water vapor content of a warmer atmosphere allows larger rainfall anomalies and provides the fuel for stronger storms driven by latent heat.
Now, of course, Sean Hannity is the true expert on these things, not the NASA guy, and he knows James Hansen is full of shit, because it snowed last winter. At least, the entire GOP thinks so. And this is why we'll never get a sane climate policy.
It's nice outside today. Enjoy it, while you still can.
Philly Mag and writer Jason Fagone get big, big ups for running this absolute ball-buster of an investigative piece into Emanuel Freeman and his Germantown Settlement, which with a a combination of millions of tax dollars, unfettered greed and avarice, a loathsome city bureaucracy and Council members and officials who were all too happy to keep directing your tax dollars Freeman's way, even after his incompetence and alleged corruption was laid bare managed to put this Northwest community into a deep, deep hole.
He was, as one source put it, the âMugabe of Germantown,â and the city couldn't have cared less.
It's long, but seriously worth your attention. If heads don't roll over this here's looking at you, Councilwoman Miller then this city truly isn't ready for primetime.
Until very recently, through the social agency, Freeman provided services directly to 15,000 of the city's most vulnerable residents, and he has always bragged in his grant requests that when you add in his real estate ventures, he touches the lives of 195,000 peopleone in every seven residents of Philadelphia.
He's the largest developer in Germantown, and is also the community's largest employer, which partly explains why politicians, both white and black, have always liked him: everyone from Governor and ex-mayor Ed Rendell, who used to call him âManny,â to Congressman Bob Brady, who scored him a $250,000 federal earmark in 2009, to Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller, whose daughter, Shakira, was paid $55.14 an hour by a Freeman-run nonprofit to âconsultâ with her mother, using walking-around money controlled by legislators and administered by Rendell's Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED). (Brady didn't respond to an interview request, and Miller said her daughter worked hard, and that to single her out for scrutiny was âunfair to the children of elected officials.â)
When you start to add up the grants, tax breaks and low-interest loans, you find that Freeman has raised at least $100 million for his enterprise since the mid-'80s. To an oil company, $100 million is a rounding error, but for a nonprofit working in a single part of a single city, it's unheard of. Crazy, though: When you visit Germantown, you can't see where any of this money went. When I walked through Germantown this spring, with two black women who used to work for Settlement and have since become its critics Anita Hamilton and Debra White-Roberts, of the Wister Neighborhood Council what we saw was blight: a run-down, graffiti-tagged strip mall called Freedom Square, built with $400,000 from the city, $600,000 from the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC), and $600,000 from the federal government; three abandoned, boarded-up stucco homes on East Penn Street; and a gaping foundation pit on Wakefield Street, full of trash bags. Settlement âdevelopedâ these properties. âThis is all we got,â White-Roberts told me. âWe're worse off than if the money hadn't come here in the first place, because we don't know where it went.â
Time and time again, Miller took Freeman at his word. She didn't challenge him. And almost no one was willing to challenge Miller. Not even in the summer of 2008, which is the pivot point in the Settlement saga the moment when it stops being a troubling historical yarn about race and real estate and becomes something way more raw.
In the summer of 2008, Elders Place I and II were baking. The hallways were hot. Some of the air conditioners were broken. Low-income old people lived there. On August 1st, HUD inspectors found rodent infestations, leaky roofs, and either âwarmâ or âextremely hotâ hallways at both Elders I and II, plus a broken fire alarm system at Elders II; two months later, they went back, and their report noted problems with mold, ancient pumps, illegal wiring, water leaks, a lack of hot water, a âvery hotâ hallway, and trash. HUD wrote Freeman, to alert him to these dangerous problems.
Meanwhile, the social-agency side of Settlement was falling apart, too. On August 25th, an inspector with the city's Department of Human Services began a spot check on Settlement's âServices to Children in their Own Homesâ program, which was designed to keep children in their own homes and prevent foster-care placement where possible. The city paid Settlement more than $460,000 on its SCOH contract alone in 2008. Here's what the city inspector, who recommended that the city shut the program down, wrote in the report:
This agency seems to be able only to provide minimal social services to the families. They are deficient in most of the required standards, many of which are safety-driven. There were months and months of contacts notes missing. The agency blamed this problem on workers who were no longer employed with the agency. It appeared to this evaluator that many of the problems were systemic; meaning that the agency had no real or concrete understanding of what was required of them.
ONE CITY AGENCY actually followed procedure and cut off Freeman's funding, despite his repeated requests. On November 17, 2008, the director of housing, Deborah McColloch, rejected a request from Freeman for $40,000, pointing out in a letter to him that his audits were still delinquent, and that Settlement and its housing company owed outstanding payroll taxes to the city, state and federal governments totaling approximately $800,000. âI am sorry I cannot approve your request,â McColloch wrote.
On December 9th, Freeman wrote to Don Schwarz, head of the city's Department of Public Health. Schwarz is a distinguished pediatrician, and a senior Nutter administration official. Freeman e-mailed Schwarz asking for help in getting an emergency payment of $133,855 from the Department of Human Services.
At this point, Schwarz's agency, DPH, hadn't received an audit from Settlement since 2005, a clear signal to give Freeman nothing more. Instead, 14 minutes later, Schwarz replied to Freeman, copying Donna Reed Miller, apologizing for any delay in funds: âI am sorry for this.â Later that day, Schwarz sent a longer reply to Freeman, promising three separate payments for various needs, totaling $119,500 that would be rushed into Settlement's hands. âI hope this helps,â Schwarz wrote Freeman. âWe will continue to push to get you paid.â
It's a good question, and one Jamelle Bouie explores admirably.
I understand the logic of incarcerating the elderly a murder committed 40 years ago is still a murder but it's hard to see the enterprise as anything other than absurd. Crime is a game for the young; the vast majority of crimes are committed by men in their late teens and 20s. Criminal behavior drops sharply drops after age 30 and enters a permanent tailspin after late middle age. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report for 2009, fewer than 1 percent of all crimes are attributable to those 60 and older. Assuming you could weed out the most dangerous inmates from those who are basically harmless, it makes the most sense to just release prisoners once they reach 65; at that point, they are well past the peak years for criminal behavior. If that's too radical, you could mandate the possibility of parole for any inmate serving a life sentence, or one that would leave them imprisoned past the age of 60.
On the one hand, empirically, Bouie has an undeniably legit point if the sole purpose of life incarceration is to protect society from violent offenders, rather than to punish misdeeds. All the same, in an era of prison overcrowding, might it make sense to release the elderly and infirm to free up resources and space to deal with younger, more violent people? It's a reasonable proposition. On the other hand, many of these elderly prisoners are behind bars for a good reason, and if we are to oppose capital punishment, which I do, on the grounds that, well, it is a backward, medieval, ineffective and expensive system of extracting justice and that's ignoring the ever-present possibility that we'll kill innocents society must have recourse to punish the worst among us, those who through their actions have given up the right to live freely among us.
Feel free to weigh in in the comments.
|H/t Matt Stroud, via FFFFound!|
In reference to the above graph, Roberts writes:
For the most part the American public's feelings on climate change are shallow, sloshing around with the economic and political tides. When people are feeling safer and more prosperous, climate scientists will magically become more persuasive.
As for the professional skeptics and culture warriors, there's little point hashing out the same arguments with them again and again. I have long since abandoned it. Many people do it well and G*d bless them but I've had my fill of sunspots and medieval warming periods and Pacific Decadal Oscillations. Ideological trench warfare is wearisome and there are many other issues in dire need of attention, principally how we're going to respond to climate change. That's a conversation that engages people outside the armed camps.
However! It does seem to me that the right's climate denialism hasn't been properly linked to the larger phenomenon of epistemic closure on the right. When Jim Manzi, everyone's favorite sensible conservative, criticized fellow conservative Mark Levin for peddling intellectually shoddy skeptic arguments in his bestselling book Liberty and Tyranny, Levin went nuts, joined by a half-dozen other NRO writers. How could they not? The very same skeptic talking points in Levin's book appear in thousands of blogs and comment sections across the interwebs. If they are intellectually bankrupt, a whole lot of people are going to look stupid.
But here is what I think is the most important point.
Climate denialism is part of something much broader and scarier on the right. The core idea is most clearly expressed by Rush Limbaugh: âWe really live, folks, in two worlds. There are two worlds. We live in two universes. One universe is a lie. One universe is an entire lie. Everything run, dominated, and controlled by the left here and around the world is a lie. The other universe is where we are, and that's where reality reigns supreme and we deal with it. And seldom do these two universes ever overlap. ... The Four Corners of Deceit: Government, academia, science, and media. Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit. That's how they promulgate themselves; it is how they prosper.â
The right's project over the last 30 years has been to dismantle the post-war liberal consensus by undermining trust in society's leading institutions. Experts are made elites; their presumption of expertise becomes self-damning. They think they're better than you. They talk down to you. They don't respect people like us, real Americans.
The decline in trust in institutions has generated fear and uncertainty, to which people generally respond by placing their trust in protective authorities. And some subset of people respond with tribalism, nationalism, and xenophobia. The right stokes and exploits modern anxiety relentlessly, but that's not all they do. They also offer a space to huddle in safety among the like-minded. The conservative movement in America has created a self-contained, hermetically sealed epistemological reality -- a closed-loop system of cable news, talk radio, and email forwards -- designed not just as a source of alternative facts but as an identity. That's why when you question climate skepticism you catch hell. You're messing with who people are.
Consider what the Limbaugh/Morano crowd is saying about climate: not only that that the world's scientists and scientific institutions are systematically wrong, but that they are purposefully perpetrating a deception. Virtually all the world's governments, scientific academies, and media are either in on it or duped by it. The only ones who have pierced the veil and seen the truth are American movement conservatives, the ones who found death panels in the healthcare bill. (Emphasis mine.)
This notion that your âcommon senseâ is as important as the âexpertsâ and their âdataâ has been imbedded in movement conservatism from its outset, but it goes back further than that. It's at the root of fundamentalist strains of religion, as well, and has reared its head whenever science came into conflict with religion. During the Scopes Monkey Trial, for instance, William Jennings Bryan, who died soon after arguing the case for the state of Tennessee, insisted that evolution was wrong because one's common sense and Biblical literalism should be taken more seriously than human-generated scientific knowledge. (In one famed moment toward the trial's end, defense attorney and civil libertarian Clarence Darrow snapped , âWe have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States.â)
It strikes me that, in a sense, we're re-litigating the Scopes trial with all this hullaballoo about climate change. There is an overwhelming, and undeniable scientific consensus about the reality of man-made climate change, denied by only a handful of outsiders and a cadre of industry-paid shills. And yet, somehow, the right's counter-argument, that all of these scientists are either idiots or somehow engaged in a socialist plot or whatever has gained traction; the right has, with considerable and alarming success, argued that its members' âcommon senseâ should trump the overwhelming scientific consensus.
PS: In other news, the Flat Earth Society actually has a website. Wow.
The best lack all conviction/ while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
You see this in the vociferous demonstrations against that Islamic community center in lower Manhattan; in the inchoate and often incoherent rage of the Tea Party groups and Glenn Beck acolytes; in the denunciations of âsocialismâ and dire warnings of some fascist government takeover during last year's health care reform debate the right, and particularly, its fringe, reactionary, conspiracist and stunningly vacuous, uninformed and anti-intellectual base, has been whipped up into a frenzy these last 18 months and is poised to make big gains in November. The 112th Congress, if the polls bear out and this current crop of Republican extremists takes control Rand Paul, Joe Miller, John Boehner, Jim DeMint, Darrell Issa, and, yes, Pat Toomey, among too many others to name we're almost certain to see two years dominated by hyperventilating ideologues, government shutdowns and the sort of endless bullshit "investigations" into nonexistent improprieties that marked the Gingrich "revolution" of the 1990s. Probably worse, because unlike that class of Republicans, these fools have no absolutely no appetite for actual governance, nor any type of discernable agenda beyond cutting taxes for billionaires and bulldozing the small, but important, progress we've made on health care. (On that note, check this out: Were Republicans still in charge, we'd have higher deficits and unemployment than we do now.)
The problem is, while the worst of us the Glenn Becks and Sarah Palins and so forth are frothing over with âpassionate intensity,â as Yeats would say, âThe best lack all conviction.â And that brings us to today's Must Read, from Slate's Jacob Weisberg:
Barack Obama's redecoration of the Oval Office includes a nice personal touch: a carpet ringed with favorite quotations from Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, both Presidents Roosevelt, and Martin Luther King Jr. The King quote, in particular, has become a kind of emblem for him: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." For all the carping about his every move, the only big problem with the Obama Presidency is the gap between what's written on his rug, and what's buried under itthe distance between the President's veneration of moral leadership past and his failure, so far, to exhibit much of it himself.
Obama has had numerous occasions to assert leadership on values issues this summer: Arizona's crude anti-immigrant law, the battle over Prop 8 and gay marriage, and the backlash against what Fox News persists in calling the "Ground Zero mosque." These battles raise fundamental questions of national identity, liberty, and individual rights. When Lindsey Graham argues for rewriting the Constitution to eliminate the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, or Newt Gingrich proposes a Saudi standard for the free exercise of religion, they're taking positions at odds with America's basic ideals. But Obama's instinctive caution has steered him away from casting these questions as moral or civil rights issues. On none of them has he shown anything resembling courage.
The whole piece is worth a read, but one particular passage struck me:
With the Proposition 8 fight, Obama has fallen short in a different way, by his reluctance to join an emerging social consensus. Obama had previously criticized California's Proposition 8, the ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage, as "divisive." But his official positionwhich no one believes he actually holdsis that he is against legalizing gay marriage. Americans are changing their views on this issue with inspiring rapidity. Judge Vaughn Walker's moving opinion provided an occasion for Obama to move to embrace the extension of equal rights to gay people. Instead, he slunk mumbling in the other direction. How dismal that America's first black president will be remembered as shirking the last great civil rights struggle (emphasis added).
The best lack conviction. As I noted last year (at my previous employ), prominent Democrats too often take the right positions when they don't matter. In power, they're cowed by the worst's âpassionate intensity.â And though it shouldn't really matter, there is a political aspect to this: Passionate intensity gets voters to the polls, especially in midterm elections (see âthe enthusiasm gapâ). The president's unwillingness to channel his inner MLK or Truman or LBJ who passed through the Civil Rights Act famously knowing that it would cost Democrats the South for generations, and it did and do the goddamned right thing because it's the goddamned right thing will be part of the reason the Dems will take a lashing in November.
Eugene Robinson can read my mind.
In the punditry business, it's considered bad form to question the essential wisdom of the American people. But at this point, it's impossible to ignore the obvious: The American people are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats.
The nation demands the impossible: quick, painless solutions to long-term, structural problems. While they're running for office, politicians of both parties encourage this kind of magical thinking. When they get into office, they're forced to try to explain that things aren't quite so simple -- that restructuring our economy, renewing the nation's increasingly rickety infrastructure, reforming an unsustainable system of entitlements, redefining America's position in the world and all the other massive challenges that face the country are going to require years of effort. But the American people don't want to hear any of this. They want somebody to make it all better. Now.
President Obama can point to any number of occasions on which he has told Americans that getting our nation back on track is a long-range project. But his campaign stump speech ended with the exhortation, "Let's go change the world" -- not, "Let's go change the world slowly and incrementally, waiting years before we see the fruits of our labor."
And one thing he really hasn't done is frame the hard work that lies ahead as a national crusade that will require a degree of sacrifice from every one of us. It's obvious, for example, that the solution to our economic woes is not just to reinflate the housing bubble. New foundations have to be laid for a 21st-century economy, starting with weaning the nation off of its dependence on fossil fuels, which means there will have to be an increase in the price of oil. I don't want to pay more to fill my gas tank, but I know that it would be good for the nation if I did.
The richest Americans need to pay higher taxes -- not because they're bad people who deserve to be punished but because they earn a much bigger share of the nation's income, and hold a bigger share of its overall wealth. If they don't pay more, there won't be enough revenue to maintain, much less improve, the kind of infrastructure that fosters economic growth. Think of what the interstate highway system has meant to this country. Now imagine trying to build it today.
Clearly, as the ever-resurgent the teabag-waving radical right demonstrates, the Culture War has not gone away, although, it has most certainly changed over the years. In part, I would imagine, that's because the writing is on the wall progressives are winning, and will continue to win, especially in issues like gay rights, where the recent Prop 8 decision brought little more than a pathetic wimper from a once-mighty Christianists while the rest of us moved on with our lives and the activists very much need to rebrand. From Politico:
At a moment that finds the right energized and seemingly ascendant, the battles over morality-based cultural issues such as gay rights, abortion and illegal drugs that did so much to drive the conservative movement and dominated the political conversation for more than 30 years have abated, giving way not just to broad economic anxiety but to a new set of emotionally charged issues.
For while Obama has avoided single-issue fights on issues such as gays in the military and federal funding of abortions angering parts of his base, in the process he has, in the minds of conservatives, pushed a comprehensive agenda, and that is far more threatening.
These people have, to my thinking, lost their freaking minds and any semblance of a grasp of historical context: Obama has, if anything, been far too accommodating, far too centrist, far too willing to water down and walk back important parts of his agenda the stimulus, health care, climate change, gays in the military, etc. He is, in many ways, more of a Rockefeller Republican than a McGovern Democrat.
But that's all a matter of perspective, I suppose.
To the extent that this new culture war resembles the old one, it is in the reversal of roles--it is the right that is now largely defined by an identity politics which perceives persecution, and possible extinction, for a culturally constructed usually white, conservative, "real American." This isn't just about Obama or his agenda, which borrows heavily from earlier conservative ideas, it's also a response to anxiety over economic insecurity and fear of ideological annihilation through demographic change. Hence the burgeoning Islamophobia and calls to repeal birthright citizenship.
I think a large part of what appealed to liberals about Obama was his ability to acknowledge discrete strands of American culture as equally legitimate. His fundamental task in the 2008 election, with the wind at his back, was to persuade the American people that he was one of them-- his failure to do so would be the only thing to bring defeat. Obama didn't start that argument, but for the first time in a long time, he helped the left win it--and the right has been in a state of rage ever since.
But if Obama's election was a referendum on what it means to be an American, then the right's response can be seen as a large scale attempt to challenge the legitimacy of the results. This can be seen as an element of almost every genre of right wing criticism, from the birther fringe to the far more common accusations of "European-style socialism." Sadly, Obama didn't end the culture war, his election just ushered in a new one. To the right, Obama's election wasn't a call for truce, it was a deliberate escalation.
I come back to this time and time again, because I think it is a very seminal piece of modern political science, but if you really want to understand the dynamics at play, read Authoritarianism & Polarization in American Politics by Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler. All of these issues be they abortion, gay rights, race relations, defense spending, immigration, the hullabaloo over the deficit, the emergent Tea Partiers, and so on are fruit of the same tree: authoritarianism* and the preservation of the existing social order, or rather, the fear that the social order is changing and leaving them behind.
*To clarify: The word "authoritarianism" is not in this sense a pejorative, though it is commonly associated with totalitarianism and fascism. Indeed, without some reverence for authority and social order, society would likely be chaotic. Think of authoritarianism more as a scale rather than a yes/no proposition. Conservatives, at least modern conservatives and especially social/religious conservatives, tend to have significantly higher than their liberal counterparts. Interestingly, inner-city African Americans are basically off the charts when it comes to authoritarianism, which complicates social science research into this subject, because they tend to vote for liberal, Democratic candidates, thanks largely to the perception of conservative racism at least, according to the available data.)
Today's must read comes from The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
A substantial and growing number of Americans say that Barack Obama is a Muslim, while the proportion saying he is a Christian has declined. More than a year and a half into his presidency, a plurality of the public says they do not know what religion Obama follows. A new national survey by the Pew Research Center finds that nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) now say Obama is a Muslim, up from 11% in March 2009. Only about one-third of adults (34%) say Obama is a Christian, down sharply from 48% in 2009. Fully 43% say they do not know what Obama's religion is.
It's not exactly groundbreaking to suggest that the average American voter isn't, well, all that attuned to politics. Noted political scientists Philip Converse, UPenn's Michael X. Delli Carpini, Scott Keeter (who now apparently works for Pew, Richard R. Lau, David P. Redlawsk, Scott L. Althaus, Edward G. Carmines and James Stimson, to name just a few have tackled the issues of how much voters know, and to what degree their opinions are manipulated by "elites", a term that in this usage refers to politicians and drivers of public opinion, who tend to be considerably more plugged in.
(Here, I linked to some of the pieces when I found them online for free.)
Converse's seminal 1964 piece, "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics," paints a pretty bleak picture for informed democracy. Converse breaks the public down into five fields of interest, and posits that the more engaged one is, the more logically consistent one's beliefs are. The lower on his scale you go, the more manipulatable you are. Unfortunately, Converse argues, most people fall toward the bottom. Based on 1950s survey data, the top-two groups only made up about 10 percent of the population. Those with absolutely no idea about anything make up nearly a quarter of the population.Of course, his research is now 46 years old, and maybe the Information Age has changed that (I haven't been reading the polisci journals like I did in grad school, but nothing I've seen suggests a massive change).
The question then becomes, what difference does it make? Lau and Redlawsk say not a lot: no matter how much info they have, voters will vote their interest 70 percent of the time. Althaus, in a controversial piece, argues that the more informed a voter is, the more likely he or she is to be progressive on social issues.
With that as background, let's get back to the Pew poll: The toplines are getting the attention many people, especially Republicans, think (erroneously, of course) that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Here's the more interesting part, to me:
Clearly, belief that Obama is a Muslim correlates with a disapproval of his policies. There are two ways to read that: One, is Ben Smith's view:"I'd speculate, telling a pollster that Obama is a Muslim is just another way of expressing disapproval." People who don't like Obama say he's Muslim, but their opinion of him wouldn't change if they got the answer right. The other is that more informed and engaged voters are more likely to approve of Obama's policies. If I had to guess, and it would only be a guess, I'd think it a combination of both.
All the same, you won't go broke underestimating the sophistication of the American voter.
- Ask A Man-About-Town
- Award Tour
- Bad Idea Factory
- Below the Curve
- Brian Hickey
- Budget Fuss
- City Council
- City Hall
- CP Abroad
- CP in the Community
- Criminal Justice System
- Day Tripper
- Death and Taxes
- Delaware River
- Dubious Distinction
- End of Days
- Film Fest
- Financial Meltdown
- Free Library
- Gay Stuff
- Get Lit
- Hall Monitor
- Health Care
- Hello, Kitty
- Ice Cubes
- In Memoriam
- Marcellus Shale
- MUST READ
- Mysterious Mysteries
- Non Sequitur
- PA politics 2010
- Parking Wars
- Parks and Recreation
- People Send Us This Stuff
- Philadelphia Police
- Philadelphia Union
- Philly From Scratch
- philly madness
- President Obama
- Print Edition
- Readers Write
- Real Estate
- Rock Bottom
- Screwing Philly
- So Lush
- Sporting Life
- Sports Complex
- State Politicians
- State Politics
- Street Art
- Stuff We Like
- Taxi Drivers
- Tech Fetish
- The Budget Crisis
- The City Paper
- The CLOG
- The Human Condition
- The Mayor
- The Phightin Phils
- The World
- Things that make you go hm
- Tinfoil Hats Off
- Under the Table
- Under the Tables
- Urban Development
- Urban Planning
- urban wildlife
- Video Poker
- We Call Shenanigans
- Web Junk
- Weekend Omnibus
- White House
- What We've Found
- Women's Issues
- Flyered Up!
- How 'Bout That Weather?
- it's always sunny in philadelphia
- get out
- 10-track mind
- Bruce Being Bruce
- Gigantic Surprises
- Hello Canary
- Hello Puppy
- get lost
- Inside The Fishbowl
- Library Closings
- Local Support
- Night Moves
- Skeeze Police
- State Politicians Screwing Philly
- That's a cool stencil!
- Things We See
- This Week
- This Week in Oates
- University City
- What we don't heart
- what we heart
- Feeling Guilty
- Broke in Philly
- Dear Paper Doll
- Do A Good Thing
- Film Fest Schism
- G20-20 Vision
- Great American Heroes
- Pearl Jam Week
- Stars of the Photostream
- Lower Merion Webcam-Gate
- The Cycle
- Equality Forum
- Bureaucrat of the Week