« July 2, 2006 - July 8, 2006 | Main | July 16, 2006 - July 22, 2006 »

July 14, 2006

Winning By Losing

I meant to link to these a few days ago, but forgot. Anyway, both Amanda Marcotte and Scott Lemieux shoot down the view that "the New York Court of Appeals' upholding of New York's discriminatory marriage law was really a victory for the side that lost."

The End of Emergency Care As We Know It?

Billmon has an excellent (if extremely dire) post about Israel, Lebanon, and Gaza up on his site, but I'd also encourage people to read this one speculating on the coming health care crisis. Basically, the health care industry is doing very poorly on the financial front these days. That's partly because, thanks to the rising cost of health care, people are avoiding getting treatment altogether, and partly because the rising ranks of the uninsured are usually forced to seek emergency care at hospitals as a last resort when they get sick—and then can't pay for it. Those two trends spell bad news for the industry.

Eventually, of course, health care corporations are going to start lobbying Congress to do something about this. And since "doing something" probably won't entail actually fixing health care in this country, it might mean that Congress will come under pressure to repeal those laws that require hospitals to take in anyone seeking emergency care, even if the patient can't pay for it. Perhaps we'll return back to the good old days when poor patients were left to die in parking lots. Who knows, but it's a situation very much worth keeping an eye on.

NATO to get a new commander--guess who?

He is Gen. Bantz Craddock. If that name sounds a wee bit familiar, it should. Craddock is the chief of U.S. Southern Command and the person who oversees the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Craddock will replace Gen. James Jones.

In March of 2005, Craddock, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee, stated:

This command has continued to support the War on Terrorism through detainee operations at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where approximately 550 enemy combatants in the Global War on Terrorism are in custody. A significant number of these enemy combatants are highly trained, dangerous members of al-Qaida, its related terrorist networks, and the former Taliban regime.

We now know, of course, that the "significant" number of al Qaida fighters is somewhere around 8%, 16% fought for the Taliban, and the vast majority of the prisoners at Guantanamo have not been accused of committing any hostile acts toward the U.S. or its allies.

Craddock also told the committee:

In performing our intelligence mission, we continue to emphasize the U.S. government's commitment to treating detainees humanely, and to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.

Among the many questionable--and outright inhumane--practices approved by Craddock at Guantanamo was the force-feeding of prisoners who were on a hunger strike. Craddock said the result of force-feeding was that refusing food "wasn't convenient." According to reports, however, detainees vomited, bled and--in at least one case--one was thrown to the floor.

Financial Monitoring At Best an Open Secret

Is there any limit to the cunning of our enemies? There are troubling signs that terrorists might have been aware the U.S. government was monitoring their financial activities even before the New York Times treasonously gave the game away. They could, for example, have found a way to to learn of testimony at a House subcommittee hearing five months after 9/11 attacks, where plans were openly discussed to give the feds "a highly secure, real-time electronic capability to request and receive data from financial institutions about suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations."(Washington Post) Jokes aside:

The testimony was one of several examples where government and industry officials have publicly described how counterterrorism agencies access financial records to track terrorists and shut down their funding, leading some lawmakers and counterterrorism specialists to doubt assertions that the most recent revelations have significantly helped al-Qaeda or other terrorists by disclosing valuable new information.

Just a little context for the loud calls that Bill Keller be publicly executed and the news media (further) domesticated...

America's Chapter 11

Batten down the hatches, mates; it’s almost over. According to a new report an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the U.S. government is bankrupt—or, at least, it will be soon. Battered by a growing budget deficit spurred by tax cuts we can’t afford and an unsustainable commitments to welfare and pension pay-outs, the authors say, the country is nearing insolvency.

So what to do? An article in The Telegraph recounts the report’s “terrifying” suggestions: “One solution is an immediate and permanent doubling of personal and corporate income taxes. Another is an immediate and permanent two-thirds cut in Social Security and Medicare benefits.” Right… well, for those of you willing to go down with the ship, just stick tight and keep paying your share of the damage. I’ll call you from Tehran.

Israel Ready to Negotiate?

Behind the scenes, are Israeli ministers trying to find a negotiated solution to the situation in Lebanon? Via Garance Franke-Ruta, it sure sounds that way from this story:

There are already Israeli government ministers discussing the need for some sort of prisoner exchange, despite Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's declared steadfast opposition to such a move. Peretz, The Jerusalem Post has learned, believes Israel should be willing to release prisoners in what he has called a "gesture" to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, if Shalit, Goldwasser and Regev are released. …

"A military operation will not solve the Hizbullah problem," a high-ranking Northern Command officer said. "The international community needs to get involved and place pressure on the Lebanese government to disarm Hizbullah. That is the only way out."

That's encouraging to hear.

Latinos: Immigration Debate is Increasing Discrimination

A new survey out from the Pew Hispanic center gauges the effect on Latinos of the immigration debate. More than half say it has increased discrimination, and three-quarters that it will push many more Latinos to vote in the November mid-terms. Almost two-thirds think the pro-immigrant marches mark the beginning of a significant new social movement.

The survey shows that Latinos "to some extent" blame the GOP for "negative consequences" of the immigration debate, but that doesn't automatically translate to support for Democrats, who register "no significant gains" among Hispanic registered voters, and who by some measures have lost support. "If anything," says Pew, "the survey shows that a growing number of Latinos are dissatisfied with both of the major parties." (Survey here.)

Time for Diplomacy in Lebanon

Haaretz is calling for a ceasefire in Lebanon: "If the aim is really to drive the Hezbollah forces from the [Israel-Lebanon] border, it is possible that an agreement on this issue can already be reached by the relevant parties." Indeed.

Meanwhile, Michael Young in the New York Times makes the point raised here yesterday—Israel can certainly go to the international community and get support for the disarmament of Hezbollah, using Security Council resolution 1559 as a "cudgel." Would Hezbollah obey? Possibly. Anthony Shadid reports that the group may have lost much standing in Lebanon after its latest antics, which have, among other things, provoked a response that has ruined the country's tourist season, one of its few major sources of income. (As a bonus link, check out the Los Angeles Times on whether Syria and Iran instigated this crisis by using Hezbollah as a proxy—basically, it's not at all clear.)

So there's all the makings of a possible diplomatic resolution to this crisis. It at least needs to be tried. But the Bush administration is doing nothing. No leadership. No signs that it wants to try to hold Israel back. Nothing. Why? Because region-wide war in the Middle East and outright chaos is the goal? It's certainly beginning to look like that.

What Foreign Policy Successes?

The Wall Street Journal has a piece today ($$$) headlined "Mideast Violence Darkens Bush's Policy Successes." It opens thus: "The surge in Mideast violence means conditions are deteriorating in the very places -- Israel, Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Afghanistan -- that President Bush had been able to point to as bright spots for his policies."

Well, this is puzzling. As best I can tell, the Bush administration has not had any discernible policy in relation to Israel and the Palestinian territories, beyond willful neglect and an indulgence of pretty much any policy Israel has wanted to pursue. (And the election of a Hamas government counts as a bright spot?) The best known politician in Lebanon was blown up, which led to massive anti-Syria protests and then even more massive pro-Syria protests courtesy of Hizbollah, the strongest political force in the country, whose power seems undiminished. Syrian troops withdrew, yes, but that wasn't the Bush administration's doing. Afghanistan...is in an advanced stage of total meltdown. If these are foreign policy successes, what would failure look like!? Don't answer that.

Why Not Electrocute Immigrants?

Now here’s an idea: Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has actually designed his own version of an electrified fence to run along the U.S.-Mexico border. He quickly assembled the thing during a presentation on the House floor Tuesday, explaining as he finished:

“Now you could also deconstruct it the same way. You could take it back down. If somehow they got their economy working and got their laws working in Mexico we could pull this back out just as easy as we could put it in. We could open it up again or we could open it up and let livestock run through there, whatever we choose.
I also say we need to do a few other things on top of that wall, and one of them being to put a little bit of wire on top here to provide a disincentive for people to climb over the top or put a ladder there. We could also electrify this wire with the kind of current that would not kill somebody, but it would simply be a discouragement for them to be fooling around with it. We do that with livestock all the time.”

Got that, ladies and gentlemen? ”We do that with livestock all the time.” This is the man, as Wonkette notes, who once famously observed that “D.C, is more dangerous than Iraq.” And with people like him running around, we can see why.

Specter's Folly

Two PR coups in one week. Not bad for a lame duck president. First came news of the Pentagon’s sudden love affair with the Geneva Conventions, swallowed whole by the press. By Friday morning the press had turned to praising the good sportsmanship of Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter on the surveillance issue, i.e. caving in lock, stock and barrel to the White House.

Specter had advertised his new wiretapping legislation as a bill that would force the National Security Agency to go before the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court so the program’s legality and constitutionality can be assessed. But Specter’s “victory” is nothing more than an elaborate ruse that will actually increase the president’s ability to listen in on Americans at his own discretion, should Congress approve it. In fact, the hearing is not even in the bill’s text. It is simply something Bush “agreed” to pending the approval of the bill in Congress. Furthermore, he may revoke that agreement at any time.

The illegal wiretapping program is already being reviewed in many courts around the country and bringing the case before FISA would “short-circuit” those cases, said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, a Washington, D.C., civil liberties group. “Those courts should rule on the legality of the program.” She feels the administration is deliberately trying to stop the cases already in progress and faults Congress for not obtaining the essential information necessary to adequately review the president’s claims of executive privilege. “The bill is not a compromise between the White House and Congress,” Martin told Mother Jones Friday morning. “It would be a surrender to the president’s claims that, one, he can wiretap without a warrant, and two, that he can break the law.”

More comments from some of the experts:

“Specter's bill repeals each and every restriction on the President's ability to eavesdrop, all but forecloses judicial challenges, and endorses the very theory of unlimited executive power which Hamdan just days ago rejected (and in the process, rendered the administration's FISA-prohibited eavesdropping on Americans a clear violation of the criminal law),” writes Glenn Greenwald, an attorney and first amendment expert. “With this bill, Specter—the self-proclaimed defender of Congressional power—did more to bolster the administration's radical executive power theories than anything the administration could have dreamed of doing on their own, especially in the wake of Hamdan (permit me here to apologize for all of those times I tepidly defended Specter by characterizing as unduly pessimistic and cynical predictions that he could cave completely; the humiliations he is willing, even eager, to publicly endure are without limits).’’

“Barely two weeks after Hamdan, which appeared to be the most important separation of powers decision in our generation,” writes Jack Balkin, the Yale Law School lawyer who specializes in constitutional law and director of Information Society Project, “the Executive is about to get back everything it lost in that decision, and more.”

Encapsulated in this bill are several measures that essentially reinforce Bush’s warrentless surveillance and/or give him more ways to do it. The bill:

gives the administration greater flexibility in making emergency applications to the FISA court; it extends the grace period (the time period where the president can order a wiretap before applying for a warrant) from 3 days to a week.

would allow for roving wiretaps instead of taps that pick up a specific phone line or email address

says monitoring a call between two overseas locations that is transmitted through the U.S. would NOT need FISA approval

does not require the government to get a warrant for each individual case; basically, under “the constitutional authority of the executive" it would allow the administration to tap into anyone’s phone or computer without judicial approval

says that if the NSA program is taken before the FISA court, even if it is found unconstitutional, the court will consider an explanation about how the program is "reasonably designed to ensure that the communications intercepted involve a terrorist agent of a terrorist or someone reasonably believed to have communications associated with a terrorist." (i.e. the very argument the White House has previously been using to justify its actions)

“Other than that,” Martin remarked, “it’s a great bill.”

July 13, 2006

We'll tell you what you said, but don't tell anyone, OK?

So Jose Padilla is getting to see "government secrets" to help prepare his defense, an "unusual" move for which security will be "extraordinarily tight": The guy who was, with such exquisitely convenient timing, accused of plotting a dirty bomb attack, and is now getting ready for trial on terrorism charges, will have to go with his defense lawyers to the inner sanctum of a courthouse, with a U.S. marshal standing in the doorway at all times. And those explosive, double super secrets? "32 Defense Department documents that summarize statements Padilla made during his years in military custody" as well as "57 videotapes of interrogations he underwent during that same period." Forgive us if we're missing something here...

Plame Sues Cheney, Rove, and Libby

Photo: AP

AP reports:

The CIA officer whose identity was leaked to reporters sued Vice President Dick Cheney, his former top aide and presidential adviser Karl Rove on Thursday, accusing them and other White House officials of conspiring to destroy her career.
In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Valerie Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador, accused Cheney, Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of revealing Plame's CIA identity in seeking revenge against Wilson for criticizing the Bush administration's motives in Iraq.

Here's the complaint.

ACLU files suit on behalf of New York corrections officers

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit today against the New York City Department of Correction on behalf of two female officers who claim they faced both discrimination and retaliation when they reported sexual and physical assaults by male officers.

"There are supposed to be procedures that protect officers who have been assaulted, but they have proven hollow, and I've been punished for speaking out," says one of the plantiffs, Danielle Simmonds. Simmonds was sexually assaulted by a male officer while she was on duty late at night. She says she followed departmental procedure and reported the assault, but that there was no response and she was given no protection. Her colleague, Sonya Henderson, was beaten severely by her then-partner, who was also her co-worker. He was arrested, but the DOC took no disciplinary action against him, despite his repeated violations of a court order of protection. The officer in charge of investigating the charge against Simmonds' perpetrator has never contacted her and has never returned her calls, though the incident occurred over a year ago.

Both women maintain that they have been treated with "hostility and suspicion" by their supervisors and have been the objects of multiple disciplinary actions.

Gaza Resolution Vetoed

The United States vetoed a UN resolution today that would have condemned Israel’s military offensive in Gaza. Haaretz, the Israeli daily, reported that it was the first time a UN Security Council was vetoed in nearly two years. The last veto, not surprisingly, was also cast by the U.S. to thwart a resolution condemning Israel’s excessive use of force against Palestinians in Gaza. According to The Jewish Virtual Library, the US has vetoed 40 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel since 1972.

Why Invade Lebanon Now?

Not surprisingly, The New Republic is busting out the pom-poms and cheering on Israel's latest incursion into Lebanon. Here are two telling quotes:

The attacks [by Hamas and Hezbollah] were unprovoked, except by the attackers' view of the world. Israel has rightly chosen to regard these provocations very seriously, and so far it has earned the sympathy of decent observers everywhere. ...

Hezbollah has always been Hamas's teacher in the great madrassa of anti-Israeli terrorism. Now the teacher has taken a cue from the student and taken its own Israeli hostages. Israel must now remind its adversaries that it was deadly in earnest when, decades ago, it proclaimed that it would tolerate no such aggression along its northern border.

The first part, sloppy ad hominems aside (i.e., suggesting that anyone who disagrees shares "the attackers' view of the world"), basically makes a fair point as far as Lebanon is concerned: Hezbollah did launch an unprovoked attack and was wrong to do so. Israel may well have the "right" to respond (although thus far its actual response has been massively disproportionate and completely unjust). But just because they have the right doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do.

As many people remember, "decades ago" when Israel "proclaimed that it would tolerate no such aggression along its northern border," as TNR put it, the end result was an occupation of southern Lebanon that didn't really solve much of anything. And it's hard to imagine that going in immediately, bombing a bunch of Lebanese civilians and disabling the Beirut airport, and potentially turning Lebanon into a failed state is going to solve much of anything this time around, either.

That's especially true given the other options that were available here. The UN has long demanded that Hezbollah disarm and it's quite possible that a greater amount of diplomatic pressure could've potentially been brought to bear on Lebanon by the international community before full-scale war "needed" to be launched. Meanwhile, it appears that the Bush administration's preferred solution to this crisis is to ramp up tensions with Iran. That should end well, no doubt.

The Hidden War on Women in Iraq

Photo: AP

The rape and murder of an Iraqi girl by American soldiers is a focus of media attention right now, but the larger issue of what's happened to the majority of Iraqi women in war-ravaged, occupied Iraq goes largely unexamined. Via Tomdispatch, Ruth Rosen takes up a crucial but overlooked question: What has the U.S. "liberation" of Iraq meant for that country's women?

Like women everywhere, Iraqi women have always been vulnerable to rape. But since the American invasion of their country, the reported incidence of sexual terrorism has accelerated markedly. -- and this despite the fact that few Iraqi women are willing to report rapes either to Iraqi officials or to occupation forces, fearing to bring dishonor upon their families. In rural areas, female rape victims may also be vulnerable to "honor killings" in which male relatives murder them in order to restore the family's honor. "For women in Iraq," Amnesty International concluded in a 2005 report, "the stigma frequently attached to the victims instead of the perpetrators of sexual crimes makes reporting such abuses especially daunting."
This specific rape of one Iraqi girl, however, is now becoming symbolic of the way the Bush administration has violated Iraq's honor; Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has already launched an inquest into the crime. In an administration that normally doesn't know the meaning of an apology, the American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad and the top American commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr. both publicly apologized. In a fierce condemnation, the Muslim Scholars Association in Iraq denounced the crime: "This act, committed by the occupying soldiers, from raping the girl to mutilating her body and killing her family, should make all humanity feel ashamed."
Shame, yes, but that is hardly sufficient. After all, rape is now considered a war crime by the International Criminal Court. ...
No one accuses American soldiers of running through the streets of Iraq, raping women as an instrument of war against the insurgents (though such acts are what caused three Bosnian soldiers, for the first time in history, to be indicted in 2001 for the war crime of rape).

Still, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has had the effect of humiliating, endangering, and repressing Iraqi women in ways that have not been widely publicized in the mainstream media: As detainees in prisons run by Americans, they have been sexually abused and raped; as civilians, they have been kidnapped, raped, and then sometimes sold for prostitution; and as women -- and, in particular, as among the more liberated women in the Arab world -- they have increasingly disappeared from public life, many becoming shut-ins in their own homes.

Read the full article at MotherJones.com.

P.S. David Enders wrote last year from Baghdad for MJ.com on women and sharia in Iraq.

Will Specter Rein In the White House?

I'm not sure what to make of Arlen Specter's latest proposed bill that would authorize the FISA court to review the constitutionality of the Bush administration's domestic spying program. It seems like a step to bring oversight to the program, and to determine whether it's legal or not, but why couldn't this have been done with from the beginning? And what if the FISA court finds that the administration has been acting illegally all this time? At any rate, as with most "policy shifts" from the White House these days, this strikes me as quite suspicious, so I'll hold off rejoicing until we learn more.

Ralph Reed's Rank Hypocrisy: Nothing New

Ralph Reed's bid for Lieutenant Governor of Georgia is looking even iffier today after the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas sued him and Jack Abramoff, among others, for millions of dollars of losses incurred from a casino the tribe says was fraudulently closed in 2001. (NYT)

We reported on this a couple of years ago. Basically, Abramoff, Reed and three others appear to have cooked up a fake religiously themed moral crusade to mobilize the forces of righteousness to block the legalization of gambling in Indian casinos in Texas--their real motive being to protect a competing casino in Louisiana.

Peter Stone's piece on Reed for Mother Jones in late 2004 showed that this was no one-off for Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition and an insufferable moralizer, who often used his credentials with the religious right to further his clients' business agendas--even when the latter were at odds with Christian values.

Since its founding in 1997, his consulting firm, Century Strategies, has racked up millions in fees from companies including Enron, Microsoft, Verizon, and other Fortune 100 companies, according to sources familiar with its client list. ...
Reed's political ties have allowed him to carve out a special niche among political influence merchants. "Ralph has cornered the market in corporate strategic communications and grassroots using his social conservative base combined with his personal communications skills and his influence in the Bush reelection campaign," says lobbyist Scott Reed (no relation), who managed Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign. "This is a unique role for a GOP operative that has huge value for corporate America."
Among Reed's clients is Channel One, a company that provides television equipment to schools in exchange for airing 10 minutes of news and 2 minutes of commercials daily. Prominent conservatives have blasted the company for exposing children to junk-food ads and explicit movie promos. In response, Channel One turned to Reed, who in 2002 helped the company deflect a proposed Texas Board of Education resolution that would have urged schools to jettison Channel One. Reed, who points out that Channel One also runs ads promoting abstinence and anti-alcohol messages, phoned several board members and dissuaded them from voting for the resolution, much to the dismay of conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly, a longtime critic of Channel One. "I'm surprised that any conservative would work for it," Schlafly said. "They're all advertising things that I wouldn't want my children to buy."

Oh, and Reed also helped a powerful coalition of business groups lobby Congress to normalize trade relations with China, which has supplanted the Soviet Union in the Christian conservative universe as a Godless, human rights-abusing evil (would-be) empire.

Read the full article here.

Dems and Hillary

Ah-ha! A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll has finally revealed how Democrats feel about Hillary Clinton. And the answer is—wait for it… wait for it…their feelings are mixed! Most of them think she displays solid leadership and strong family values, and that she's pretty friendly as well. But only 37 percent say they would definitely vote for her at this stage. And those are Democrats; forget independents or, for that matter, Republicans who would gladly empty their bank accounts to help their party defeat her.

The best assessments of the pros and cons of a Hillary candidacy are two Washington Monthly pieces from a few months back, one of which says she's totally electable, the other quite the opposite.

America's Role in the Gaza Invasion

Think what you may of him, but Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh put his finger on a great deal of truth in his Washington Post op-ed a few days ago.

The current Gaza invasion is only the latest effort to destroy the results of fair and free elections held early this year. It is the explosive follow-up to a five-month campaign of economic and diplomatic warfare directed by the United States and Israel. The stated intention of that strategy was to force the average Palestinian to 'reconsider' her vote when faced with deepening hardship; its failure was predictable, and the new overt military aggression and collective punishment are its logical fulfillment. The 'kidnapped' Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit is only a pretext for a job scheduled months ago.

His assessment of the United States' hand in this is particularly revealing. Despite being the self-declared standard bearer of Middle East democracy, the Bush administration has stood by and watched the outcome of Palestinians' clean and fair elections essentially be annulled by force. In an article today for the Century Foundation, Michael Shtender-Auerbach argues that this complicity goes part and parcel with Bush's disengagement from the Middle East peace process. "Let us not mistake American disengagement for neutrality: all of the signs point to a U.S. administration that appears to be in full support of the Israeli agenda to topple Hamas," he writes pointedly.

Bush's response to Israel's retaliatory attacks on Lebanon—warning that ''Whatever Israel does… it should not weaken the Saniora government in Lebanon''—further highlights the double standard. Whatever happens in the present crisis in Gaza, this seems like a great way to make sure it shakes out as badly as possible in terms of our credibility and influence in the region.

Sen. Ted Stevens: "The Internet is a Series of Tubes"

Sen. Ted Stevens as quoted on The Daily Show: "The Internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes." So there you have it. From the Chairman of the Commerce Committee.

Al Qaeda vs. The Trees of Mystery

As we've often been reminded, we're fighting the terrorists abroad so we don't have to fight them in the streets of Indianapolis. But should that horrific day ever come, let Al Qaeda be warned that we shall fight in the petting zoo; we shall fight on the beach at the end of the street; we shall fight in Jay's Sporting Goods and in the mall at Sears; we shall fight in the Frontier Fun Park; we shall never surrender. Terrorists could target those places and 77,000 more, at least according to the Department of Homeland Security's database of "crtical infrastructure and key resources." As reported yesterday, the list is chock full of what the DHS's Inspector General politely calls "curious" and "out of place" entries, such as the aforementioned suburban battlegrounds. It seems that when DHS asked the states to indentify potential targets, boosterism combined with antiterrror zeal (and just perhaps the prospect of some sweet homeland security pork) to erase the distinctions between nuclear power plants and strip malls. But then, maybe terrorists don't make such distinctions. If you hate America, maybe hating The Trees of Mystery is just part of the package.

Here's the complete list of less-than-critical assets identified by the DHS IG report [PDF]:

Old MacDonald’s petting zoo
Mall at Sears
Bean Fest
Nix’s Check Cashing
Amer. Society of Young Musicians
Trees of Mystery
Car Dealerships
Kennel Club and Poker Room
Historical Bok Sanctuary
4 Cs Fuel and Lube
DPW Landfill
Kangaroo Conservation Center
Assyrian American Association
Right to Life Committee
Association for the Jewish Blind
Insect Zoo
Bourbon Festival
Theological Seminary
Jay’s Sporting Goods
Nestle Purina Pet food Plant
Auto Shop
Veterinary Clinic
Groundhog Zoo
Sweetwater Flea Market
High Stakes Bingo
Petting Zoo
Community College
Restaurant
Frontier Fun Park
Travel Stop
Mule Day Parade
Beach at End of Street
Amish Country Popcorn
Pepper and Herb Company
Psychiatry Behavioral Center
Order of Elks National Memorial
Ice Cream Parlor
Bakery & Cookie Shop
Inn
Donut Shop
Sears Auto Center
Wine and Coffee Co.
Sports Club
Casket Company
Bass Pro Shop
Muzzle Shoot Enterprise
Several Wal-Marts
Property Owners Associations
Apple and Pork Festival
Rolls Royce Plant
Pepsi Bottlers
Yacht Repair Business
Anti-Cruelty Society
Tackle Shop
Elevator Company
Center for Veterinary Medicine
American Legion
UPS Store
Heritage Groups
Parcel Shop
YMCA Center
Brewery
Mail Boxes Etc.
Night clubs

July 12, 2006

Ill Wind

Should people be entitled not to see windmills on the horizon? Just when you thought it was just the Kennedys & Co. vs. turbines off the Cape, here goes Long Island Power getting locals all worked up with a proposal to put 40 big whirlygigs in the Atlantic. And it's not hard to get bent out of shape about people who get bent out of shape about how horrible this looks. A more complicated, and perhaps more interesting conversation might have to do with why it is that wind, in particular, is catching on so fast with the energy industry--because, of course, it plugs right into the existing energy economy, based on big plants and big power lines and big money. But just maybe we should have that conversation even as we put up every wind mill we can get our hands on. If the feng shui doesn't work, we can always take them down once we've got this climate thing sorted out...

Join a Conversation With Mother Jones Radio Host Angie Coiro

Angie Coiro, the peerless host of Mother Jones Radio, is being interviewed online for the next two weeks at The Well. If you're unfamiliar with our radio show, it's a smart, lively, hour-long romp through the culture and politics of our time that airs on Air America and affiliates each Sunday. And Angie, who spent 15 years in public radio--picking up multiple awards along the way, including one for the best public radio interview in the country in 2003--is quite simply one of the smartest, most talented, likable radio hosts in the business. Go join the conversation with Angie at the Well.

And don't forget to check out Mother Jones Radio.

More Fun With Kim: The Glorious Failure Who Just Can't Lose

More Kim comedy, this time of the acerbic variety. Mark Fiore's new cartoon, hot off the Internets, shows that for a guy who's constantly faili