New summer '08 hot spot: The North Pole
Today's open thread
New summer '08 hot spot: The North Pole
Forget Cape May -- the North Pole is looking like a nice spot for a sunset cruise these days:
For the first time in modern history, the North Pole may be iceless this summer. Scientists say it's an even bet that sea ice in the region will completely disappear in the next few months, perhaps as soon as August.
So you can understand the great sense of urgency that world leaders are applying to climate change:
RUSUTSU, Japan — Pledging to “move toward a low-carbon society,” leaders of the world’s richest nations on Tuesday endorsed the idea of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050, but refused to set a short-term target for reducing the gases that scientists agree are warming the planet.
Uh:
Environmentalists, though, were harshly critical. Phil Clapp, an expert in climate change at the Pew Environmental Group who is here monitoring the talks, said the leaders had significantly weakened language they adopted last year at Heiligendamm.
“The emissions reduction goal is extremely weak,” Mr. Clapp said, because it aims to reduce emissions from current levels rather than 1990 levels, as the leaders proposed last year. He added, “The science shows that we have to reduce 80 to 90 percent from current levels to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.”
What would Ronald Reagan do?
It's the open thread, people. Who is the greater threat to mankind -- Obama, McCain, or Eaton? Discuss, and I'll see you tomorrow.
Comments (78)
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
The Pew Environmental Group may say the reduction goal is weak, but it is a start in the right direction.— Captain Awesome- BFD! It's not Obama, McCain or Eaton - It's you! And the millions of illogical, self-loathing, touchy-feely, well-intentioned, do-gooder socialist dolts like you who were proclaiming the coming ice-age twenty five years ago. If you people really want to save the planet you should go back to school and get a degree in some objective field like math, science or engineering and sharpen your spongy journalist faculties.— JC_in_WC
- Man up ET.— SteveMG
- Both McCain and Obama plan to reduce our carbon emissions. There are serious differences, though. Obama touts government funded Ethanol to run cars (which is less clean than fossil fuels) while McCain touts the longterm solution of a better battery for an electric car (with a generous government reward for the creator). Obama and McCain have a similar energy plan outside of that, except McCain recognizes the practical and carbon free use of nuclear could all but solve the problem on its own. Obama says he is not a proponent of nuclear energy. He should be. It is by far the best solution.— bon
- Is it just a coincidence that the area of the Arctic Ocean in which the ice is melting is directly above massive undersea volcanoes which were just discovered? Also, since CO2 levels are global, why is the Antarctic ice sheet growing?— legatus
- Lets see, 50 states plus Obama's 7 makes 57. Add Will's North Pole and we are now at 58. And lets just round up to 60 for purposes of trivial things like re-adjusting the flag and census taking. My sources at 400 North Broad St tell me that Will has finally made it to chapter two in his book.— shoeshineboy
What would Reagan do? Ronald Reagan would see that the "green" movement is just a disguise for a neo-Marxist, anti-American, anti-capitalist political philosophy, and he would kick it in the ass.— jmc- Comment removed.
- Will --- Any notes on this subject are incomplete without a quote from the nitwit from Oklahoma, Sen. Imhofe.— yobill626
- Comment removed.
- Eaton is still being judged on last year's disaster. Through June, wasn't he leading the team in Quality Starts? The Bullpen really needed him to post 6-7 innings, but he had bupkis. Unfortunately, he's being paid like a #3 starter, but is no better than a #4.— yobill626
- ET don't you know that cold temperatures as well as hot temperatures and normal temperatures are all signs of global warming? In fact all temperatures are signs of global warming.— jwad56
- I have no problem with increases in nuclear, but it's hardly an end all be all. It won't have an impact on transportation fuels, and it will have little impact abroad as developing nations continue to require more fuel sources and either don't (or shouldn't) have the technology for nuclear energy. So we need other sources. I don't like ethanol either. It increases inflation and polution. Is it better than dependence on the ME for transportation fuels? At this point I'd say no, but that may change.— etotheb
- etotheb: While that is true, there is simply no immediate solution to transportation fuels. The end result (we hope) will be plug in cars, but that is a long way off. Until then we have to do what we can to increase the domestic supply of fuels to keep our economy afloat without creating world-wide food shortages and further hurting the environment. (Those plug in cars will do nothing for the environment, however, if we are still using coal and natural gas for the majority of our energy output. Another reason we need more nuclear power, and soon.) ----- Other country's energy problems are a different matter. Many of them do not want our help anyway, but those that do I am sure we will be willing to share the technology with which they can be trusted (clean coal, etc.)— bon
- Comment removed.
- I love how the weather has become a political issue— doorspj24
- "while McCain touts the longterm solution of a better battery for an electric car (with a generous government reward for the creator)" --- Wow, some free market, huh? (To be fair, I think Obama's plan is junk, too. Ethanol is a loser). BTW, Obama supports expanded nuclear. He just doesn't publicize it (a mistake, imo). Dunno where you got the idea he's against it (it apparently stems from taking a quote out of context.. the GOP is using it in an ad now). One of Obama's biggest donors is Exelon.— Politburo
- Politburo: Here is a video of Obama saying "nuclear energy is not optimal" and that he is "not a nuclear energy proponent." It shows the whole answer from beginning to end. There is no contextual problem. http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/01/barack-obama-on-nuclear-energy.html ----- 300$ million in added incentive for a new generation of car batteries is a very small amount of spending compared to what Obama is advocating for ethanol. A small amount of money to the federal government is a lot of money to a small group of brilliant engineers, though. It is a decent idea to spur individuals to innovate. :)— bon
- You guys seen who's getting frisky? THe Iraqi security council is demanding that the US establish a timeline for withdraw. You should be thrilled. The Iraqis are going to tell us we won so we can go home. I guess they are pretty good at taking instructions from their Iranian masters.— SteveMG
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Xi Jah that must be taken out of context too because there never could have ever been any fluctuation of global temperatures before now or humans would be extinct.— jwad56
- Just wait until they have to find places to store the nuclear waste in less developed countries.— SteveMG
- Thing is, battery companies and engineers already have a huge incentive to do this work. Rewards are good for things that people wouldn't make money on otherwise. On Obama, those statements do not mean that he is against nuclear (I cannot view the video). He just doesn't act like it's as a perfect solution (hence "not optimal"). Part of this is pandering because certain people on the left are knee-jerk against nuclear, and part of it is pragmatism because there are issues with nuclear that do have to be solved (mainly waste containment). Typical politics.. I'm hoping that he states his position on nuclear more forcefully throughout the general election. "U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Friday [June 20] nuclear power was "not a panacea" for U.S. energy woes but it is worth investigating its further development."— Politburo
- Thing is, battery companies and engineers already have a huge incentive to do this work. Rewards are good for things that people wouldn't make money on otherwise. On Obama, those statements do not mean that he is against nuclear (I cannot view the video). He just doesn't act like it's as a perfect solution (hence "not optimal"). Part of this is pandering because certain people on the left are knee-jerk against nuclear, and part of it is pragmatism because there are issues with nuclear that do have to be solved (mainly waste containment). Typical politics.. I'm hoping that he states his position on nuclear more forcefully throughout the general election. "U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Friday [June 20] nuclear power was "not a panacea" for U.S. energy woes but it is worth investigating its further development."— Politburo
- Will, the first statement is not even true. Does anyone in the press even check any facts or contrasting data anymore. Are you in the press, or just a blowhard? You want credibility, lose the agenda. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice/— kat99
- Comment removed.
- Steve and ET: You are using very old and tired scare tactics, here. Nuclear creates a small amount of compact waste. Coal and natural gas create a great amount of waste that is flung into the air. Obama and other Democratic politicians may like to employ these fear tactics, but it is dishonest and harmful to the United States. Nuclear power is safe, and any plants we build today will be even safer than the ones we already have. Yucca mountain is a safe method for disposing of the waste, but if you like we can find an alternative. Divert a few billion from NASA's insane budget and launch the waste into space if you like. I don't care. In the end we need nuclear power to keep our economy strong.— bon
- Steve and ET: You are using very old and tired scare tactics, here. Nuclear creates a small amount of compact waste. Coal and natural gas create a great amount of waste that is flung into the air. Obama and other Democratic politicians may like to employ these fear tactics, but it is dishonest and harmful to the United States. Nuclear power is safe, and any plants we build today will be even safer than the ones we already have. Yucca mountain is a safe method for disposing of the waste, but if you like we can find an alternative. Divert a few billion from NASA's insane budget and launch the waste into space if you like. I don't care. In the end we need nuclear power to keep our economy strong.— bon
Hey Will. The sun doesn't set at the North Pole this time of year.- What do you think, we'll store all the world's waste at Yucca? I've already been through the nonsense that nuclear generated electricity will be too cheap to meter. So it'll be different this time eh? Why don't you get your neighbors to volunteer for their township to be the site for a new nuclear power plant and see how that flies. I certainly am second to few in my disdain for the no nukes crowd, but there are roadblocks to increasing the use of nuclear energy. You saw what initiating the use of ethanol did to the price of food, wait til you see what building dozens of nuclear power plants does to the cost of heavy equipment, wire and other construction materials, not to mention the cost of scaling up nuclear material processing plants to fuel the reactors. You guys have the most skeptical noses for everybody's ideas except your own. You can't just snap your fingers and say "Eureka! It's so simple. We'll just build more nuclear power plants!"— SteveMG
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Politburo: I have no doubt that there are people hard at work on the problem of better batteries for electric cars. A little bit of an additional incentive for its creation from the federal government is not a bad thing, though. Keep in ming that this is the opposite of Obama's approach, which throws far greater amounts of government money at people for the work they do, instead of the results they get. ----- Playing to the base's fears about nuclear energy is something a lot more problematic than benign pandering. When a presidential candidate declares nuclear unsafe, even though there has not been a problem for decades, they give credibility to a myth. It prevents us from enacting meaningful energy reform and it is, frankly, pretty shameful. (It is not unlike the way Tom Tancredo and his ilk use immigration to scare people.)— bon
- "Fear and lies"? You know darn well that NIMBY is a force of nature that can stop development in its tracks. Look how hard it is to build a couple of lousy casinos in Philadelphia. Could you imagine if they were nuclear power plants? Looks like you're the one chewing on hope when you think nuclear power is going to be some sort of panacea and make all your problems go away. Supply is only half of the problem. Demand is the other half. I guess you're not a big picture kind of guy, but of course you've proved that long ago.— SteveMG
- ET: I am sure, someday, we will find a better way to boil water. For now, though, our options are coal, natural gas or nuclear. One is clearly better than the other two. In 30 years, if the technology exists to boil water without emissions or nuclear waste I will be the first to get behind it. Until then, though, we have to get power from somewhere. ----- SteveMG: Nuclear power is an established, efficient and environmentally friendly method of energy production. Nothing else like it exists right now. I am not sure how to respond to your concern about the cost of heavy machinery and building materials. Chicago, as we speak, is building 3-4 brand new sky scrapers. I have not noticed hugh economc problems. The construction of an additional 50 or so large structures, over 20 or 30 years, will not be any kind of shock to the system. (Diverting a large portion of the world's food crop to fuel, on the other hand, is a bad idea on its face.)— bon
- Oh, and yes, I would be fine with a nuclear power plant near me and my family. They are safe, Obama's attempts to scare people notwithstanding.— bon
- Comment removed.
- bon, don't fall for batboy's game of twisting my point. My point is not that you can't build nuclear power plants, it is just that nuclear power just won't be all it's cracked up to be. You'll still be talking about decades to get new plants on the grid. Just being facetious (because somebody will think I'm serious) we should get the nuclear subs and cruisers and carriers and connect them to the grid.— SteveMG
- Comment removed.
- Comne on, bon people have been scared of nuclear power long before Obama came around. What makes you think NIMBY is just going to go away. Get criminals off the street, build more prisons, but NIMBY. Make money for the city from casinos, build some in town, but NIMBY. Need more oil refining capacity, just build more refineries, but NIMBY. Increase nuclear power production, build more plants, but NIMBY. Batboy, you're really in over your head if you want to get specific, because I have been. And what's worse, you don't even seem to realize any need for trying to control consumption. We needed to raise fuel economy standards decades ago, back when you were mocking the idea that gas guzzlers were causing us any problems. I said that we were paying more for oil than the price per barrel because our dependency was going to set us up for sever long term consequences, including sponsoring governments that would help our enemies, or were our enemies outright. If we had to pay for fuel what it was actually costing us, we would be more efficient, and that means taxes on energy. There are no short term solutions, including drilling, nuclear power, or even the production of more efficient cars. I'm not even talking about controlling demand planetwide, that is your illusion. Increasing our efficiency make us more competitive. It would make products produced here more economical. Don't you see any implications to this or are you so blinded by the words tax and efficiency that it you already have the talking point cued up?— SteveMG
- Steve: This has become a very popular liberal talking point on energy, and I frankly do not get it. Any solution to the energy problem in the US will take a long time. That is all the more reason to start fixing the problem now. The private sector is ready, willing and able to build all the reactors we could ever need. The federal government (read: Democrats) just needs to get out of the way. ----- ET: We are not close to running out of uranium, coal or oil. That is not the problem. We should be weaning ourselves off of coal, though, because we have a viable alternative in nuclear, and coal is harmful. We simply do not have a viable alternative to oil right now. We cannot let our economy grind to a halt for decades while we find one. Hopefully in a couple of decades we will have another option, but the United States must keep itself afloat until then. With domestic drilling we can help ourselves do that.— bon
- Steve: That is not much of a defense. It is certainly a very old political tactic to feed into the public's fears, but it is not what I want in a president. While Obama goes from town to town telling people foreigners are stealing their jobs and nuclear power makes their children unsafe, McCain is trying to educate them and explain to them why trade is good and nuclear power a viable solution to our energy problems. A leader tries to convince others to leave their prejudice and fears behind. A leader does not feed fear and prejudice to get votes. ----- The private sector is working every day to make us a more efficient nation. They will continue to do so. The private sector also wants to build nuclear reactors and drill domestically, though. If the federal government would get out of the way we could have a balanced energy plan and a comprehensive solution. So long as Obama and Democrats only advocate one and not the other, their energy policy will be grossly inadequate.— bon
- bon, why do I have to keep repeating that I am not opposed to nuclear power? You should try reading my posts sometime. The private sector is ready and willing to invest in reactors but few are willing to invest in efficiency. Efficiency will pay its dividends before the new reactors come online and if we had been promoting efficiency when we needed it, this crisis wouldn't be so severe. So you think I should believe in your solutions now when you were so wrong for so long? Face it there are obvious current symptoms of having ignored to inevitable energy crisis, including the implosion of American automakers and the growth of foreign ones. As energy becomes a greater factor in costs, our competitiveness will get even worse. By the way, whenever somebody wants the government to get out of the way, bad things happen. Many people blame the extreme cost of oil on speculators who benefitted when government got out of the way (the Enron loophole). Many believe the mortgage crisis is the result of government getting out of the way, S&L's, anyone? To repeat for the umpteenth time, I'm an advocate of nuclear energy, but I happen to appreciate its limits.— SteveMG
It's puzzling why we should obsess over nuclear power when we could do just as well developing wind, solar, and geothermal energy resources, all without the risk that a human error or act of terrorism would result in a massive catastrophe. Why would nuclear power be preferable, bon?- Comment removed.
- Geez, bon it's hard to believe you're that gullible to think that it's the big bad government that's standing in the way of progress. There isn't much standing in the way of drilling now, other than the fact that there really doesn't seem to be as much oil as you'd like to believe. There are thousands of sites that are already available for drilling. I personally think that what oil we have in the ground in ANWR and our coast will be worth more later than now. After the trillions in debt we are going to unload on our kids, the least we can do is save them some kind of asset. As I said before, when we needed to invest in increasing efficiency, we didn't, but according to you, we will magically increase our efficiency now by increasing the supply. Huh? The vital, strategic interest we have in fostering efficiency outweighs the economic interest. The only reason they are even close at the point is the extreme price of oil, which is only going to get worse long before the nuclear reactors come on line.— SteveMG
- Steve: The federal government is keeping the private sector from dilling or creating civilian nuclear reactors. There is a federal ban on additional drilling and the federal government has not approved a new civilian nuclear power plant in decades. These are simply the facts. (Again, any energy solution will take time. This liberal talking point that it will take too long, so let's continue to obstruct solutions makes no sense. The fact that it will take a long time should spur us to act sooner, not later.) ----- I do not know where you are getting the idea that no one is investing in efficiency. There are already billions being spent on R & D to increase efficiency. The public wants efficiency and the market is working overtime to give it to them. The government should have nothing to do with that. All the federal government will do by investing massive amounts of federal dollars is skew the market and end up artificially propping up boondoggles like ethanol. Aside from offering small rewards for certain innovations, the federal government should stay out of it.— bon
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "The federal government is keeping the private sector from dilling or creating civilian nuclear reactors." . . . . . Jeez, bon, for a while there I thought you knew what you were talking about. The only thing that's kept new nuclear plants from being developed is cost, cost, cost. In fact, the federal government has been trying to encourage new plants by offering incentives and technical assistance (DOE's Nuclear Power 2010 Project). I'm sorry to see that you simply parrot faux conservative mythology as if it were fact.
- Comment removed.
- Great. Plug-in cars. Like they're the answer. What do we plug them into? The power grid. Coal-burning power plants, nuclear power plants. The juice has to come from somewhere. Here's a novel idea. Why don't we lovely folks in metropolitan areas start living closer together and walking -- yes, walking -- where we need to go? Or maybe taking PATCO/SEPTA/name your mass transit of choice. I don't want to hear from you Faux News people that I don't practice what I preach. I can walk to a post office, a library, a grocery store, a convenience store, and PATCO. And three pizza parlors, thank goodness.— anne johnson
No nuclear power, no drilling in Anwar, no drilling offshore, no coal, etc. And "liberals" continue to consider themselves to be "progressives" The new left-wing motto come Autumn: Shut up and buy a sweater.— ocjones- batkinson, you say it will take 20-40 years before Obama's plans come true? How long do you think it will take if we started drilling tomorrow? At least 10 years. BTW, did you know, or ignore the fact that oil companies have had leases to drill on government lands here for years and have not stuck one shovel into the ground? Why is that? Because they know that as long as they do nothing the price of oil rises and they make a boatload of money. They haven't built new refineries, not because of enviromentalists, but because it make less profit. You mean to tell us that an oil-friendly administration whith six years of a Republican congress wouldn't have gotten new refineries started? What pipe are you and bon smoking? The oil companies have us literally over a barrel with our pants down. Taxing windfall profits would be the right thing, but, as usual, they would stick it to us by just raising the prices. Way to go, you patriotic, US-loving oil companies, putting insane profits over the people who have to buy your products. I don't want to hear about free-market. These are monopolies. Don't think so? Then why doesn't Exxon, for example, charge less than Sunoco? You can shop for better prices for just about everything else, but not oil. Why?— mike l
- There was a report last week that the melting ice is caused by active volcanoes. OOPS! Maybe it's NOT man. http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2008/06/30/Volcanoes_may_be_active_under_Arctic_ice/UPI-74101214847375/— Col. Nathan R. Jessep
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
Global warming is causing changes that have not occurred for millions of years in the past, but your right-wing commenters are always looking for some other explanation. Here is another one for them to explain. The forests around the north pole are moving closer to the pole. Stunted trees are growing taller with the warmer climate and trees are moving into the tundra. Now when there is just tundra, the ice and snow that falls reflects heat from the sun back into space. If there are conifers (which are the evergreens of boreal forests), the snow falls to the ground but the green trees are above the ground and designed so that snow falls from them. The result is that heat from the sun is absorbed and re-radiated as infrared radiation that carbon dioxide keeps in the atmosphere. Thus, the expanding forests contribute to warming near the north pole and the destruction of the sea ice at the pole. (Of course, the expanding forest also locks up carbon dioxide in wood, but that affects the whole world not just the area around the north pole.) It is thought that the arctic temperatures will average as much as 9 degrees F higher, even though worldwide warming will be less.- "With age comes wisdom though. ..." ---}}} LOL! Obviously, you're an exception that proves that rule.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "when we're wasting billions of taxpayer dollars paying scientists with agendas who ignore them....." --- }}}} Classic display of batboy's ignorance. Apparently he actually believes that even one of his "explanations" hasn't been analyzed by climate scientists. Apparently he believes that "rignt wing commenators" have studied all the variables scientifically drawn conclusions based on research. See, Glen Beck has come up with possibilities that not one climate scientist who thinks it likely that human activity is contributing to global warming has ever considered. Funny, though, very few peer-reviewed papers ever published by skeptics of anthropogenic global warming. Oh, that's right. Conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory. The vast majority of climate scientists are either liars or incompetent.— Talking point sleuth
- Abu-Jamal seeks new trial in Phila. officer's slaying Philadelphia Inquirer, by Emilie Lounsberry ................................... Pennsylvania death-row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal has asked a federal appeals court to reconsider the decision that denied him a new trial in the 1981 slaying of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. In late March, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit left intact Abu-Jamal's conviction but said a new jury should decide whether he deserved death or should be sentenced to life behind bars.///////////////////////////////// Hang in there mumia.. Obama will make you a ambassador to FOP— takisha
- WHAT WAS THAT THAT THE MSM AND MEDIA HO'S TELL US ABOUT MCVAIN SCARE TACTICS?? MSM USES IT EVERY FRIGGIN DAY WITH GLOBAL WARMING BULLSH%$^— mookie
- Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever Rasmussen Reports, by Staff The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category. WHY ISN'T THIS ON PAGE ONE?— mookie
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "This is rich coming from a hysterical rumpswab who swallows credentialed scientist Dr. Algore's nonsense whole...." Typically, you summarize my viewpoint with no basis in fact. I've got news for ya', battyboy, your Hannity fantasy of liberals is wrong. Actually, I've heard that some of Gore's movie wasn't very sound scientifically (didn't see it myself). But that you'd compare Gore to the consensus opinion of climate scientists is only further proof of your understanding of the issue. Its' on a par with your believing (as you stated) that "right wing commentators" have explanations that hold up to scientific scrutiny. In other words, your understanding of the issue is non-existent.— Talking point sleuth
- Want to see a end to NIMBY issues? Build nuke plant for ONLY that area and suppies ONLY to the homes in that area. No intra state hook ups..— mookie
- Just going to love this 'pay for trash p/u issue' watch as the peeps throw trash in the streets or parks. I guess you don't pay enough taxes Filthadelphia. lol— mookie
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- No, batkins, there never was a time that the consensus of scientists was that the world was flat. Pythagoras in the sixth century BC was the first to suggest that Earth is a sphere out in space. By the time of Aristotle, Aristotle could list a half dozen or more reasons that demonstrated that Earth was a sphere. A hundred or so years later Eratosthenes was the first to (correctly) determine the radius of the sphere. Even in the middle ages, educated persons and scientists (such as they had) knew that Earth was a sphere, although an incorrect radius from a different scientist was often used. Today we are comparing a consensus of scientists around the world with the ideas of a group of people who fail even to understand our Constitution, much less science. I suppose you are a Creationist, too.
- """on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow interviewed Georgetown law professor Jonathan Turley""" RUG MUNCHER MEETS PARTISIAN HACK FOR LEFT .. THIS IS NEWS??? MSNBC THE OBMAMATHON CHANNEL— mookie
1
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: