Archive: August, 2010
The city, as you might imagine, was none too thrilled by our piece on its requirement that even small-time bloggers (and freelance writers) pay $300 for a business privilege license and even more so after a bunch of far-right sites picked this thing up and sprinted away with it as some sort of "blogger tax" on free speech or whatever. The city's complaint, from spokeswoman Katie Martin, is presented below:
First, from the original story, Valerie writes:
"It would be one thing if Bess' website were, well, an actual business, or if the amount of money the city wanted didn't outpace her earnings six-fold. Sure, the city has its rules; and yes, cash-strapped cities can't very well ignore potential sources of income. But at the same time, there must be some room for discretion and common sense. "
"This is my bad. In the course of cutting the story to fit the page, I removed a line that had the answer: Basically, as I understand it, the city is sent letters to people who reported their earnings, no matter how meager, as income to the IRS, which the people mentioned in the story did."
The reason this individual (or any individual who) received a letter was because on her federal income taxes she claimed that these earnings not as a hobby but as a business. Therefore, for federal income taxes, an individual who claims these earnings as a business can receive deductions for their computer or web hosting as a business expense. However, these have implications for one's local taxes. That point is not stressed. These individuals claimed their blogs as businesses. There are consequences (such as receiving tax deductions as well as paying additional taxes) for making that claim.
Everyone needs to pay their taxes, and it is important for Philadelphia residents to understand when their hobbies become businesses. If you generate revenue ($1 or $1 billion) then you are a business and need to file (whether you take a loss or make a profit doesn't matter in determining if you file, just the fact that you had revenue). If whatever you are doing does not bring in any money, you are not in business.
Secondly, from the original story, Valerie writes:
"The city disagrees. Even though small-time bloggers aren't exactly raking in the dough, the city requires privilege licenses for any business engaged in any "activity for profit," says tax attorney Michael Mandale of Center City law firm Mandale Kaufmann. This applies "whether or not they earned a profit during the preceding year," he adds. So even if your blog collects a handful of hits a day, as long as there's the potential for it to be lucrative and, as Mandale points out, most hosting sites set aside space for bloggers to sell advertising the city thinks you should cut it a check. According to Andrea Mannino of the Philadelphia Department of Revenue, in fact, simply choosing the option to make money from ads regardless of how much or little money is actually generated qualifies a blog as a business. "
Your response on Monday wrote:
2.) The city does not tax all blogs; rather, just the ones make some money or, at least, have the potential to make some money. So, in that sense, it's not really an attack on speech, per se. "
The "potential to be lucrative" phrase is misleading. If I own a blog that has the potential to include ads, but I don't have any, I am not required to register for a business license or the business privilege tax. I believe a lot of the misunderstanding is because individuals blogging without ads on the sites believe they must pay a tax on it.
CP and I, personally regret any misunderstanding. That said, it strikes me that the city's problem isn't with the facts as presented, but rather, with issues of tone, and also what we chose to emphasize vs. what they wished we would have emphasized. And you'll note that in part two of Martin's complaint, we were referencing an, um, actual city employee.
We have no disagreement with the idea that everyone has to pay taxes. The point of the piece, and often overlooked in the surrounding hullabaloo, was to question the propriety of making people who earn practically no money have to pay a $300 fee just because they chose to report those earnings to the IRS.
Today's must-read comes from The Economist, which believes it owes Barack Obama an apology.
Once a symbol of American prosperity, GM collapsed into the government's arms last summer. Years of poor management and grabby unions had left it in wretched shape. Efforts to reform came too late. When the recession hit, demand for cars plummeted. GM was on the verge of running out of cash when Uncle Sam intervened, throwing the firm a lifeline of $50 billion in exchange for 61% of its shares.
Many people thought this bail-out (and a smaller one involving Chrysler, an even sicker firm) unwise. Governments have historically been lousy stewards of industry. Lovers of free markets (including The Economist) feared that Mr Obama might use GM as a political tool: perhaps favouring the unions who donate to Democrats or forcing the firm to build smaller, greener cars than consumers want to buy. The label âGovernment Motorsâ quickly stuck, evoking images of clunky committee-built cars that burned banknotes instead of petrolall run by what Sarah Palin might call the socialist-in-chief.
Yet the doomsayers were wrong.
That does not mean, however, that bail-outs are always or often justified. Straightforward bankruptcy is usually the most efficient way to allow floundering firms to restructure or fail. The state should step in only when a firm's collapse poses a systemic risk. Propping up the financial system in 2008 clearly qualified. Saving GM was a harder call, but, with the benefit of hindsight, the right one. The lesson for governments is that for a bail-out to work, it must be brutal and temporary. The lesson for American voters is that their president, for all his flaws, has no desire to own the commanding heights of industry. A gambler, yes. An interventionist, yes. A socialist, no.
Oh, and the Congressional Budget Office would like you to know, once again, that the stimulus saved us from the Great Depression Part 2. So, you know, shut up John Boehner.
CP's breaking news and analysis of the natural gas industry in Pennsylvania. Click here to join the "Frack Track" Google group and receive email updates.
This isn't quite breaking news â it's been covered by a few papers in western Pa. and I mentioned it briefly in a recent "Man Overboard" column â but it's gotten surprisingly little play in the media, considering the severity of the claims being made.
The Allegheny Defense Project, a grassroots group dedicated to preserving the environment, ecology, and wilderness of the Allegheny mountains, has charged the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection with illegally permitting water withdrawals.
Here's the breakdown: Hydraulic fracturing, the process used to extract natural gas from the Marcellus Shale formation underlying much of Pa., requires water â lots and lots of water. In eastern and central Pennsylvania (the Delaware and Susquehanna river basins, respectively), that water can be drawn from Pa streams and rivers only with the permission of that watershed's river basin commission.
But in the part of western Pa. which lies in the Ohio River Basin, there is no basin commission to permit water withdrawals. Instead, argues the ADP, those rivers and streams are governed by riparian rights: governed, in other words, by the property owners themselves.
The group charges that DEP has been illegally giving drilling companies permission to withdraw water â charges which they outlined in a letter to DEP Secretary John Hanger (download the full letter here).
According to Board Director Bill Belitskus, the DEP â more than a month later â has yet to respond.
From the Allegheny Defense Project press release:
âThe fact is, the DEP has absolutely no authority to permit water withdrawals in Pennsylvania,â said Cathy Pedler, ADP's forest watch coordinator. âOutside of the Delaware and Susquehanna River watersheds, water withdrawals are governed by riparian rights common law, which means only those who live adjacent to the water can make reasonable use of the water on their land. A gas company cannot take water that flows through property it does not own.â
Nevertheless, documents obtained by ADP reveal that the DEP is unlawfully authorizing water withdrawals from western Pennsylvania streams and rivers. On March 31, 2010 the DEP approved a Water Management Plan for Hanley & Bird, Inc. The Water Management Plan allows Hanley & Bird to withdraw 1.44 million gallons of water a day from the Redbank Creek in Jefferson County for five years.
So, our favorite frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter was on Fox News last night because, seriously, no one else gives a shit what he thinks to weigh in on this not-mosque at not-Ground Zero nontroversy we and everyone else have been following for a little while. And, as always seems to happen with Santorum, a guy delusional enough to think he might be president in a couple years, he opened his mouth and stupid popped out.
SANTORUM: My thinking was all along if he made the statements that he made, he probably had a lot more that are going to be found out. This man [Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the lead organizer of the planned Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan] is not a moderate Muslim. This is someone who believes the United States has blood on their hands, that the United States is responsible for this. He is a jihadist, he's just not a violent jihadist. That does not make him a moderate.
Thanks, Rick, for making that distinction. Of course, it's a little muddled, since jihad means "holy war" though it's most common use confers a religious struggle rather than actual military war but I'm pretty sure Rick meant it in the Al Qaida kind of way, in which case he means Rauf is a nonviolent warrior, which means, I suppose, that he has a differing view of American foreign policy, which is, I guess, bad. Anyway.
The fact of the matter is, it's pretty hard to argue with Rauf's point: Sure, Muslim radicals killed 3,000 of our people on 9/11 a horrific tragedy, it goes without saying and Muslim insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan killed thousands of our soldiers. Again, tragic and sad.
But. The Iraqi sanctions killed millions of Muslim civilians in the 1990s, including 500,000 children; the Iraq War led to thousands more civilian deaths. And that's not even mentioning the various dictators we've propped up over the years. Rauf is, by any factual definition, correct. Undeniably so.
In fact, someone please try to explain to me how this isn't a factually accurate statement. Oh, never mind: Never let inconvenient realities get in the way of cheap political points, eh Rick?
Also, right-wingers have plainly taking to making shit up about this guy and slandering him as a terrorist, even though, as Media Matters and others have ably illustrated, Glenn Beck and the Bush administration were all too happy to embrace him just a few years ago. Yes, Rick, he is a moderate. You moron. In fact, he's the vice chair of the Interfaith Center of New York. One of his primary funders, as The Daily Show hilariously pointed out last night, is Fox News' second-biggest financier. Oh yeah, and Rupert Murdoch published his freaking book.
About that book:
Actually, let's just watch TDS, because it lays bare the hypocrisy of the frothing right-wing mouthpieces better than anything I've seen to date.
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|The Parent Company Trap|
|Casino-related child abandonment: the Simpsons saw it coming (S05E10, 1993)|
As casino gambling in Pennsylvania amps up, so too, apparently, do instances of parents leaving children unattended - sometimes for hours - in casino parking lots while they gamble.
It's happened â that is, the parents have been caught â at least five times in the last two months at Parx casino alone. In one case, a man left a 15-month baby in a running car.
Most recently, Sharon Belek, 35:
... was charged Thursday with child endangerment for leaving her 8- and 15-year old daughters in the parking lot on Aug. 1 while she played the slot machines - for six hours.
The teenage daughter - stuck with a nonworking cell phone - flagged down a passerby at about 12:30 a.m. and borrowed a phone to call her father.
Enter the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, which announced at a meeting this month its displeasure with the instances of child abandonment.
The Board might have used this as an opportunity to reexamine how much of casino activity is, in fact, what most of us would consider problem or compulsive gambling (a prominent study suggests as much as two-thirds).
But that would be, well, un-Board-like. The PGCB, after all, has the dual mission of regulating gambling on the one hand and ensuring its profitibility and success on the other.
Instead, the Board focused on parking lot security â which is well and good â but not, Parx claims, its responsibility.
Parx is apparently only responsible according to state law for security inside its facility. And so the casino pointed its finger, in turn, at local police, who, in turn, said they cannot patrol Parx' 7,000-car lot.
Commented Bensalem public safety chief Fred Harran:
"We've had calls through the years with kids left in shopping center, but what's making this hot is that we've had five in just a two-month period," said Fred Harran, public safety director in Bensalem. "The gambling addiction, the glitter of it all, people go into gamble and forget the kids. I just don't get it."
It's a revealing statement, and one of the first times we've seen public officials come out and say that casinos are attracting (perhaps creating?) addicts.
While the Gaming Board and casinos try to figure out how to make this ugly little problemo disappear, maybe the rest of us ought to start asking if the problem isn't so much what's happening in casino parking lots as inside slot parlors.
So, this little story intern Valerie Rubinsky wrote about the city hitting up small-time bloggers for a $300 business privilege license has sort of exploded on the Interwebs, from the New York Daily News to Yahoo to Michelle Malkin to freaking nutball conspiracy site Infowars (!) to Fox 29 which did a piece on it without, you know, mentioning where their brilliant story idea came from. (What's that word for ripping off a story without attribution again?)
And since this story has now blown up, I wanted to clarify a couple of things that, based on the voluminous comments, might not have come through as clearly as we hoped:
1.) The price of a business license is not $300 a year; that's the cost of a lifetime license. You can get an annual license for $50 a year.
2.) The city does not tax all blogs; rather, just the ones make some money or, at least, have the potential to make some money. So, in that sense, it's not really an attack on speech, per se.
3.) I've seen in the comments a question as to how the city found these little bloggers. This is my bad. In the course of cutting the story to fit the page, I removed a line that had the answer: Basically, as I understand it, the city is sent letters to people who reported their earnings, no matter how meager, as income to the IRS, which the people mentioned in the story did. It works the same way for freelance writers: If another paper somewhere publishes a piece that I wrote, and that paper files a 1099, the city because I live within its limits will send me a letter demanding that I pay for a BPL because I am officially a business, or whatever. This is on top of my federal, state and city income taxes, of course.
Anyway, hope that helps. Now back to your regularly scheduled government bashing.
Passing this along without much comment: An interview with Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project, which, thanks to DNA, just exonerated Prisoner No. 258.
How do most wrongful convictions come about?
The primary cause is mistaken identification. Actually, I wouldn't call it mistaken identification; I'd call it misidentification, because you often find that there was some sort of misconduct by the police. In a lot of cases, the victim initially wasn't so sure. And then the police say, "Oh, no, you got the right guy. In fact, we think he's done two others that we just couldn't get him for." Or: "Yup, that's who we thought it was all along, great call."
It's disturbing that misidentifications still play such a large role in wrongful convictions, given that we've known about the fallibility of eyewitness testimony for over a century.
In terms of empirical studies, that's right. And 30 or 40 years ago, the Supreme Court acknowledged that eyewitness identification is problematic and can lead to wrongful convictions. The trouble is, it instructed lower courts to determine the validity of eyewitness testimony based on a lot of factors that are irrelevant, like the certainty of the witness. But the certainty you express [in court] a year and half later has nothing to do with how certain you felt two days after the event when you picked the photograph out of the array or picked the guy out of the lineup. You become more certain over time; that's just the way the mind works. With the passage of time, your story becomes your reality. You get wedded to your own version.
And the police participate in this. They show the victim the same picture again and again to prepare her for the trial. So at a certain point you're no longer remembering the event; you're just remembering this picture that you keep seeing.
Other than misidentifications, what other factors play a role in wrongful convictions?
The second most common cause is the misuse of forensic science other than DNA. In most of our cases, DNA [identification] didn't exist at the time of the conviction, so prosecutors relied on other types of forensic science. It could be serology, which was the old A/B/O blood typing. It could be bite marks. It could be fingerprints. It could be other forensic disciplines: tire marks, shoe print comparisons, fiber comparisons. None of these is bulletproofsome of them aren't even credibleso we see a lot of wrongful convictions stemming from those.
And there are several other very common causes as well. You have police and prosecutor misconduct. You have incompetent defense attorneys. You have jailhouse snitches, who as you can imagine are not the most reliable sources. And you have false confessions. Twenty-five percent of wrongful convictions involve false confessions. Most people can't imagine why anyone would ever confess to a crime they didn't commit, unless they were beaten into it. But these people weren't beaten. They wouldn't even meet the legal definition of coercion. It's just that the [interrogation] methods that are effective for getting confessions from guilty persons are so powerful that they net innocent people as wellparticularly innocent people who are juveniles or have some kind of intellectual impairment or mental health problem.
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.)
|Courtesy of Eric Ascalon|
|BEFORE (left) and AFTER (right)|
Earlier this week, the Clog told you about how artist David Ascalon, in a recently filed lawsuit, says that a piece of public art he created a Holocaust memorial in Harrisburg was "drastically altered" to the point of "bastardization" and "mutilation," all without his permission:
Ascalon claims that Grindle switched out the serpent's Cor-ten material for stainless steel, which doesn't sound like that big of a deal, until you consider that stainless steel was supposed to represent the Jews' tenacity, not the er â¦ Nazis'.
âThe modification of the sculpture has changed it so that now the same shiny stainless steel that represents the enduring Jewish people is also used to depict the Nazi regime and atrocities of the Holocaust,â reads the lawsuit. âThis alteration is abhorrent.â
At the time, none of the three defendants had responded to our calls. But the Jewish Federation of Greater Harrisburg called yesterday to tell their side of the story.
Harvey Freedenberg, the Federation's attorney, says that in the mid-aughts (the memorial was finished in 1996) it "became apparent that the spiral section of the work was deteriorating. Mr. Ascalon was called in and I don't think he disagreed. â¦ Where disagreement arose was over who was going to be responsible for restoring the work. All I can say is that it did not reach a satisfactory conclusion. So the Federation decided to move ahead with what was necessary construction."
When asked why the Federation didn't restore the spiral section with Cor-ten steel that purposefully rusty, ugly material meant to represent the âoppression, decay and miseryâ under the Nazi regime, as Ascalon intended and used stainless steel instead, Freedenberg is elusive.
"I can't comment on that because I was not privy to those discussions," he says. "The Federation decided on a restoration it felt was appropriate."
We'll update as we learn more.
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