Change.org's Blog Network

Senate Begins Debate on Health Care: Eschews Stupak, Funds Abstinence

Jen Nedeau — 2009-11-21T10:20:00-08:00

Debate on the Senate version of the Health Care bill opened yesterday with a mixed bag for those concerned about reproductive health.

On the plus side, the Senate Bill avoids Stupak language, instead offering private insurance a separate means by which it can set aside monies that could be used in case of abortion that do not interfere with government spending.

RH Reality Check reports that this approach closely mirrors the Capps language originally included in the House and Senate Finance Committee bills, with an additional provision tacked on obligating the Health and Human Services Secretary to ensure that no federal funds are used for abortion. Additionally, the Secretary of HHS would ensure that in each State Exchange, where the uninsured will go to buy their insurance, at least one plan does provide coverage of abortions beyond those permitted by Hyde and at least one plan does not.

Kasie Hunt at Congress Daily reports that this is an important safeguard, which "will make sure that an insurance company always has enough strictly private money to cover any abortion services its enrollees claim."

Despite avoiding Stupak language and resolves a lot of the problems of "preexisting conditions," there's one major caveat to support for this version of the bill by supporters of reproductive health. As Newsweek reports, the Senate bill will restore a program called Title V, which, since the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, has allocated a yearly $50 million in grants to abstinence-only education programs -- something that will ultimately lead to more unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

In a final twist, new government guidelines on mammograms and pap smears released this week recommend that these life-saving exams should now be started later in a woman's life, at age 50 and 30 respectively. The new guidelines being proposed are setting up what Air America calls a "booby trap" in the Health Care debate by derailing discussion of the bill and steering them to these new recommendations.

Photo: Flickr, Center for American Progress

The Human Element of Case Management

Steven Samra — 2009-11-21T06:52:00-08:00

Part of street outreach is building trust, forming, and nurturing the bonds with those we meet while working. It's a delicate balance to walk for many of us, especially for those who have spent much of our lives homeless prior to working in this field. One has to be careful to detach oneself from the emotional impact human beings have upon each other, since some decisions aren't easy and may cause pain.

Those relationships can also occasionally put us into a very difficult position. I spent much of my day today watching a friend, outreach contact and success story die after I ordered him disconnected from life support.

Elringo De'Angelino, aka Velvet Thunder, was a local icon here in Nashville Tennessee. He'd spent the better part of the past 30 years on 2^nd Avenue, singing on the street to anyone and everyone who'd lend their ears for a moment to listen to the man's silky smooth, yet deep and throaty crooning. Just about anyone who's ever spent any time at all around the area known as "lower Broad" in this fair city will probably recognize who I'm talking about; they may not know the man's name but they almost certainly will remember him as the big man who sat in a chair, American Flag Cowboy boots and stylish hat always cocked at a rakish angle, singing and performing with his five gallon bucket at the ready for tips.

His landlord found him unresponsive and unconscious a couple of weeks ago when she did a welfare check at his apartment. Because he had no family, the hospital contacted me after learning I'd been his case manager. I hadn't seen him for much of this summer and curse myself for not stopping in and checking on him sooner.

I stood at his bedside this morning with a local police officer and another outreach specialist; each of us having our own histories with Velvet, each of us there for our own reasons, but all of us together with him because in working so closely with him to get him off the street. We'd each developed deep respect for, and friendships with, the man.

We gathered around him all morning as he lay unconscious, a tube in his lungs to assist his breathing. We laughed, cried, talked about the work we'd all done with him, the temper he occasionally flashed when someone stole his tips. We joked and sang a few bars of his "Big Butted Women" tune (watch the video here, song starts at 2:10) he loved to sing whenever a plus size female wandered by. We all told him it was time to go, his body was no longer able to keep his music alive and there was better music to be made across the cosmos.

We watched the man's breath ebb slowly out of his body; stood by as the heart monitor showed first a rapid heart rate, then a slowing, and finally, a flatline. Alarms sounded on the few machines still monitoring him; a nurse came in and quietly turned them off.

We each said our silent goodbyes. The officer said the Lord's Prayer. A man - another loving, fragile, yet tough as nails human being - I'd met living on the street didn't have to die alone, like so many people experiencing homelessness do every day.

Rest in peace Velvet. I hope the heavens are filled tonight with some of your finest efforts.

If you'd like to help provide Mr. De'Angelino with a proper funeral, please feel free to make a contribution of any size to the Elringo De'Angelino Memorial Fund at any Bank of America branch. Any monies left over after the service will be used to start a Homeless Burial Fund for those individuals who pass away on the street here in the Middle Tennessee area and have no family or families with little income. Thank you.

What Kind of a Person Eats Katie the Lamb?

Stephanie Ernst — 2009-11-21T06:35:00-08:00

When Chad Miller of Food Fight! Vegan Grocery in Portland, OR, shared this image last month, I immediately wanted to share it with you, but it wasn't yet available in its intended form -- as a t-shirt -- so I waited. Now that the shirt is here in all its glory, I'm glad to share. It's funny, sad, adorable, and somewhat coarse all at the same time. I love it.

And it's interesting how much difference one tiny word -- one article, "a" -- can make, isn't it? People don't talk about eating "a lamb." They don't envision that. They distance themselves and talk about eating "lamb." And "chicken" and "fish" and "turkey" -- as if these are all just substances, not the bodies of individual thinking and feeling beings. But what if each body in each grocery store, farmer's market, butcher's shop, or restaurant came with a name and a story -- maybe even a photo? How much do people really want to know whom -- not just where -- their so-called food comes from?

"What does the chef recommend -- Katie the lamb or Sandy the chicken? They both look delicious."

"Well, Sandy was a 'heritage' hen from a small operation, so her body is reportedly quite tasty -- and you know, her throat was slit by someone she trusted, so as you chew and savor her flesh, you can envision that moment and be assured a piece of her is a quite humane option. I hear she fought, and catching her and holding her down to get the job done took some effort -- she resisted her destiny at first, naive girl -- but she received the gift of seeing the face of someone she trusted as the knife cut and her wings flapped and the blood drained out, so it all turned out well for her in the end.

"As for Katie, she's another fine choice. Adorable, that one. When they unloaded her and the other lambs at the slaughterhouse, she stumbled around just like a clumsy, frightened toddler. And oh, how she and that mother of hers cried when they took her away! Should have heard it. Sweet moments, really. But anyway, the gentleman at the table there next to you ordered a hefty portion of her left leg earlier tonight, and he reports that indeed her baby flesh is quite tender and enjoyable -- and she's even local! Born and killed just ten miles outside the city.

"But wait -- I didn't even tell you about the special! Forgive me. And I see you brought your young children with you this evening, so this is perfect -- it is truly a wonderful family dish. We call it 'Mother and Son,' and we feature a different pair each time we offer the special. Tonight's offering is Samantha and Justin. Justin's delicate flesh -- we've stopped using the word 'veal' here as a courtesy to you, our patrons; we know today's conscientious eaters really want to connect with the animals they're eating -- is just mouth-watering, and it comes topped with a lovely melted mozzarella cheese made from his mother Samantha's milk.

"This dish is such a team effort -- a piece of the mother and a piece of the son both on one plate, reunited! -- so we really are grateful to the two. We wouldn't have had the milk to make this rich cheese without killing Justin just after his birth, and without this delightful cheese, there wouldn't even be a market for Justin's truly tasty pieces. Samantha did bellow out a storm when newborn Justin was dragged away, and he called out for her periodically right until the bloody end, but we're quite certain that deep down, they knew this was all for a higher, noble purpose. And we like to think of this menu item as finally giving Justin a taste of his mother's milk, of what he died so commendably for. I do personally recommend Justin -- this is the third year we've served one of Samantha's babies, and each one before has been scrumptious. "

"Oh, I do hope you'll each try someone different. Sandy, Katie, Samantha, Justin -- they're all just to die for."

Should We Make People's Carbon Footprints Public?

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-11-21T06:00:00-08:00

It's a fact that public condemnation will discourage people from doing certain things. Once all your friends stop smoking and you're seen as a troglodyte for lighting up, it gets that much harder to breezily carry on puffing. It's hard to quit, all right, but somehow a lot of smokers managed it, right?

This is the same principle a new article in the New Scientist called "How reputation could save the Earth" suggests we apply to our environmental problem. Let's shame people into embracing greener habits, write David Rand and Martin Nowak, by publicizing their carbon footprints.

"Cars could be forced to display large stickers indicating average distance traveled, with inefficient cars labeled similarly to cigarettes," they write. The cars' bumper stickers, they suggest, could say something like "Environmentalist's warning: this car is highly inefficient. Its emissions contribute to climate change and cause lung cancer and other diseases." Another of their brilliant ideas? Energy companies could publicize people's energy usage in searchable databases, so we could all condemn each other for being too gluttonous about our heat and lighting.

While they have the sense to admit that "laws of this kind raise possible privacy issues," the fascist tinge of their solution to our environmental crisis leaves the reader with one solid insight: this is why they don't let mathematical biologists make policy. One of the authors is a postdoctoral fellow in the subject at Harvard and the other is a professor of mathematics and biology, also at Harvard.

Not only would the society they envision be hell to live in, it might not even work. If they had done their homework they would have seen that a new report from the CDC reveals that all that social pressure hasn't driven smoking rates down more than 0.5 percent in the last five years.

Photo courtesy of Simone Ramella via flickr

Want to Beef Up Your Local Chops? Try Meat-Sharing

Katherine Gustafson — 2009-11-21T06:00:00-08:00

Does the locally raised, grass-fed meat you find at the farmers market trump your budget? The cost of sustainable meat is high, which is good since it means we might view it as a little more precious and occasional than many Americans do. But is there some way to directly support local farmers and get meat a little cheaper?

Why not try meat-sharing? The concept isn't new — it's basically a community-supported agriculture program for meat — but its popularity is picking up steam as interest in local food soars. The Oakland Local introduces readers to the Bay Area Meat CSA, which advertises itself with the straightforward tagline "buy good, healthy meat directly from local ranchers."

Mark Markovich, a satisfied customer who had bought 70 pounds of meat with some friends from Morris Grassfed Beef, ticked off a list of benefits: keeping money local, helping ranchers support themselves, reducing your carbon footprint. "You’re helping support the entire ecosystem," he told Oakland Local. "People talk about eating within a 100-mile radius of their homes. We can do that here. From field to fork, I know exactly what is going on with the food I’m eating.”

The Website Local Harvest lists CSAs by zip code, including many that provide meat.

Photo courtesy of tvol via flickr

Huge Increase of Chinese Students Enrolling in US Colleges, Helping Reducing Deficit

Mike Smith — 2009-11-21T05:54:00-08:00

There are protests in California over college fees, but the protests are unlikely to seriously concern university authorities considering the dramatic increase in the number of Chinese students enrolling into US universities. Though they do not yet outnumber Indian students, they represent an enticing method for administrators to fill gaps in their budgets.

98,510 Chinese students came to study in the U.S., in the last year (an increase of 21%) whilst India sends 103,260 (an increase of 9%). This may make universities less willing to compromise on increasing tuition fees, but it is of course also having the impact of softening any increases — if no students came, the budget deficit would be substantially greater.

And it's not just the education system which benefits from foreign students' money, "Foreign students bring $17.8 billion to this country," explained Allan E Goodman, president of the Institute of International Education, to the NYT. Meanwhile, universities are also opening franchises in India and China, extending their university's brand from Durham N.C. to New Delhi, allowing them to train students without even requiring them to come to the U.S. Higher education is changing, and Chinese and Indian students are both helping fund the U.S. college system, whilst simultaneously challenging American policymakers to stop being so complacent when it comes to education.

Photo: Lanchongzi

The Manhattan Declaration and the Right's Return to the Culture Wars

Michael A. Jones — 2009-11-21T04:24:00-08:00

If you take a few dozen Catholics, mix them up with a large pack of conservative evangelicals, throw in a former Nixon official who went to jail for obstructing justice, and add the woman who is the leading activist trying to keep marriage rights away from LGBT people, you get what's now better known as the Manhattan Declaration.

If that sounds like a recipe for disaster, it is. It's the right-wing's new call to arms that is not only reviving the buzzword "culture wars," but is a sign that conservative religious leaders will stoop to the lowest levels imaginable to make sure that LGBT people are pushed back into the closet and that women's rights are sent back to the days of back alley abortions and "Mad Men" housewives.

What is the Manhattan Declaration? It's a statement put forward by upwards of 150 religious leaders -- from Catholic bishops including the Archbishop of New York, to conservative political legends like Dinesh D'Souza -- that says conservative religious folks are called by God to go nuclear in order to prevent abortion, same-sex marriage, stem-cell research and a host of what they call "fundamental truths."

"We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life," write the religious leaders.

Funny, but this document takes Jesus Christ and makes him the most partisan, political figure in history. Talk about deception -- they've taken a religious figure that spent just about his entire life fighting for the poor, and turned him into a gay basher.

The Manhattan Declaration is the right-wing's biggest attempt yet to take an older generation of culture warriors, and try to implant their homophobic values and beliefs onto a younger generation living now. U.S. News and World Report brazenly asks, "Can a Culture War Manifesto Reach a New Generation of Evangelicals and Catholics?" Therein lies the purpose of issuing a nuclear religious option -- the right-wing needs a new army of recruits to fight their agendas on abortion and same-sex marriage.

Here's what the Manhattan Declaration says about LGBT people: our relationships are "immoral sexual partnerships." LGBT people "erode marriage." Our sex lives are nothing more than "immoral conduct." And marriage for LGBT people is "not a civil right."

Oh, but of course, they mean all of that in the most loving way. "We have compassion for [LGBT people]; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity," the religious leaders write.

But if this is their idea of love and compassion, I'd be frightened beyond belief to see what they define as hatred.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) responded to the Manhattan Declaration by calling it what it really is: a document filled with misleading claims by conservative religious leaders who want to peddle discrimination.

"This declaration simply perpetuates the fallacy that equality and religious liberty are incompatible and that every step toward fairness for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community is another burden on religious people," said Harry Knox, the Religion & Faith Program Director at HRC.

He's right. This is a document that lives and breathes fear. Conservative religious leaders see their lock and hold of discrimination as slipping, and they don't want to let go of it. So they make bogus claims that advances in LGBT rights can't happen without taking away the rights of religion. That's a downright lie, suggesting that the signers of the Manhattan Declaration ought to go back to Religion 101 and read their Ten Commandments.

But that would actually involve reading the Bible, instead of just using the thing as a weapon against marginalized groups.

(Photo courtesy of NatalieMaynor's photostream on Flickr.)

Developed nations reveal emissions targets

Mike Gaworecki — 2009-11-20T17:19:00-08:00

Ahead of next month’s UN climate talks in Copenhagen, most of the world’s industralized countries have announced emissions targets that they will bring to the negotiating table. I say most, not all. Guess who’s lagging?

If you guessed the good ol’ US of A is the laggard, you were right.

Now, it’s true that not all of the emissions targets being proposed are terribly ambitious. South Korea, for instance, has proposed a 30% reduction from “business as usual” by 2020, which sounds great. But that actually works out to be only about 4% below 2005 levels, whereas scientists tell us that we need to reduce global emissions to about 25% below 1990 levels to be on track to avert the worst impacts of global warming.

Russia, on the other hand, has signaled that it’s prepared to cut emissions 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, and even willing to go up to 25% given a favorable outcome in Copenhagen.

This issue of which so-called “baseline year” to use – 1990 or 2005 – is extremely important. The climate bill passed by the House, for instance, uses the 2005 baseline, as does the bill currently before the Senate.

The year 1990 is the preferred baseline because that was when the IPCC issued its First Assessment Report and the world began to get serious about dealing with global warming. I don’t honestly know why 2005 is the alternative baseline year, but I do know that it happens to be the year that US emissions were the highest they’ve ever been.

So when you hear that the Kerry-Boxer bill before the Senate shoots for 20% reductions relative to 2005, that’s not the same as a 20% reduction pledge relative to 1990 made by the EU. The Kerry-Boxer bill’s target works out to about 7% below 1990 levels – which is a bit better than what the House bill calls for (17% below 2005 levels, which is about 4% below 1990 levels).

So while the US hasn’t put its own emissions targets on the table yet, that might actually be a good thing, given the low-ball numbers both Houses of Congress are working with. The US needs to lead the world in Copenhagen, not cover for other low-ballers like South Korea and drag down the efforts of developed countries like Russia and those in the EU who are discussing ambitious emissions reductions targets.

Image by [JP] Corrêa Carvalho via Flickr.

Students in California Fight Back Tuition Hikes

Prerna Lal — 2009-11-20T17:07:00-08:00

In response to the failed anti-immigrant tea parties last week, more than 60,000 people joined the call for immigration reform with Rep. Luis Gutierrez this past Wednesday. The momentum is clearly on the side for reforming America's broken immigration system.

Rep. Gutierrez reiterated his support for immigrant youth and even though he has yet to co-sponsor the DREAM Act, he clarified that his immigration reform bill would strengthen the DREAM Act, making it quicker and easier for undocumented students to legalize their status.

In the long run, undocumented youth don't just need legalization; all American students need access to affordable and quality public education. And that is why student activists across California occupied their schools this week to present a list of demands in response to the rising costs of public education, specifically the 32% tuition hike approved by the UC Regents.

AT UCLA, cops tasered and hit students with batons. The actions were repeated at Wheeler Hall in UC Berkeley. Reportedly, well over a hundred students have been arrested for protesting.

The majority of the students occupying halls at UC Berkeley, UCLA and UC Santa Cruz are not undocumented, but providing a safe environment and accesss for undocumented students and workers is also high on the agenda.

In this AP video, UC Regent Mark Yudof deceptively points out that fee increases are only for those who earn above a certain income level, but he forgets that undocumented immigrant students in California are ineligible for financial aid to offset the increasing costs. Undocumented UC San Diego student, Facundo, testified yesterday as to how he would need to drop out of school in the face of new tuition increases.

For many undocumented students in California, the cost of college is already a prohibitive barrier to an education, with only 5-10 % of such students graduating with higher education degrees. Increasing tuition and fees does nothing to solve the state's budgetary problems caused by Prop 13, let alone provide affordable access to all qualifying students.

It is time to make higher education accessible to all students. Follow http://twitter.com/studentactivism/ucwalkout2 for latest information and updates on the situation unraveling in California as students fight back.

(Video Credit: asiu1990)

Steve Russell Hates the Hate Crime Bill

Maia Spotts — 2009-11-20T15:22:00-08:00

With the ink barely dry on the Matthew Shepard Act, State Senator Steve Russell of Oklahoma is already scrambling to preserve his right to openly hate gays. He is planning on introducing legislation that would exempt Oklahoma, and would disallow state prosecutors from entering hate crime evidence at criminal trials, or assisting in federal hate crime prosecution.

Just to be clear, it's not hate crime laws that bother Steve, it's the extension of hate crime protection to a new class of people, namely homosexuals. Steve is worried that the legislation creates a "special class of people" and "could be used to target people's belief, freedom to associate in groups, right to assemble on issues, as well as target people's right to free speech." He's fighting for his fellow Oklahomans, like Rep. Sally Kern, who just want to be able to say out loud that gays are a bigger threat to America than terrorism.

Fear not, Steve! Preach on, Sally! The government is at least one, if not many many many steps ahead of you. Let's look at the bill itself, HR 1913. You don't have to read the whole thing, it's just a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo about what constitutes a hate crime and proper prosecution. I'd like to direct your attention to the very last line. "Nothing in this Act ... shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution."

So the Bill expressly preserves the First Amendment right to believe whatever you want to about gays, and the right to use the Bible, or whatever your rhetoric of choice, to support your opinion. But as soon as you choose to make assault or murder your tool of oppression, be prepared to spend a few extra years behind bars.

I'm sure that had Steve read that bit he wouldn't have gone forward with his campaign. Right, Steve? Unless the real fear is not the Hate Crime Bill, but rather the progression it marks toward making homosexuality a "suspect class" -- a categorization that would likely grant federal equal protection and legalize gay marriage. And so goes the party line -- the more rights given to the gays, the more rights stripped away from everyone else. Scary? For some. True? Not at all.

Oh, and Steve, one more thing: necrophilia is not, as you claim, a sexual orientation. It's also not, as you claim, defined that way by the American Psychiatric Association. It's also not, as fellow traditional values folk claim, condoned by the Federal Government.

Enough already. The First Amendment and Equal Rights and Protections for gay can co-exist. Let's stop this frenzy of misinformation before it hits the ballot box.

Photo courtesy of steverussell.us

For Health or Money: The Motivation Behind New Mammogram Guidelines

Roxann MtJoy — 2009-11-20T13:40:00-08:00

Women and health care professionals are confused and outraged by the mammogram guidelines released by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on Monday, denouncing the task force for prioritizing economy over health.

Regular mammogram screenings have accounted for a 15 percent decrease in the rate of breast cancer. The new guidelines suggest that women start going for regular mammograms at 50 -- ten years later than previously recommended -- and get checked every other year, instead of annually, unless they are at high risk. Critics, such as the American Cancer Society, worry that fewer mammograms will mean a rise in undetected breast cancer, potentially costing women their lives.

Opponents are also concerned that insurance companies will use this as an excuse to refuse to cover mammograms for women under 50. The National Committee for Quality Assurance, a non-profit that grades insurance companies, has already altered its evaluations to reflect the change.

The task force claims that the issue at stake is unnecessary screening and treatment. Women in their forties are 60 percent more likely than older women to have false-positive mammograms; according to Dr. Diana Petitti, vice-chair, this leads to needless medical procedures, such as biopsies, accompanied by high stress. The USPSTF says that the relatively small number of women whose cancer is detected -- only one cancer death is prevented for every 1,904 women screened from age 40 to 49 -- is not worth the anxiety of all those false-positives.

Perhaps that makes sense ... unless, of course, you happen to be one of those women it would save. What really bothers me here is that the new guidelines seem to be based on the idea that we need to save this country's women from anxiety, rather than substantial medical evidence. It strikes me as harking back to the Victorian era, when medical professionals' number one diagnosis for female patients was hysteria -- an anxiety disorder that, it turned out, doesn't exist.

Why not recommend an increase in education and preparation -- including the realities of false-positives -- rather than a decrease in screening? I imagine prostate exams are no picnic for men, so should we spare them the stress and reduce screening for prostate exams, or do we assume they can handle it because they're men? When it comes to matters of life and death, I think women can handle a little stress.

Photo Credit: Buddhini Ekanayake

"I Think About Killing Myself Everyday"

Prerna Lal — 2009-11-20T12:21:00-08:00

[This week's guest Dream Act guest post is written by Lily, an undocumented student whose life took another course when her parents left behind a good life to come to the United States for her sibling. Visit Dreamactivist.org to find out how you can help pass the Dream Act and give students like Lily an opportunity to contribute to this country].

Back home my Dad was a pilot. My mom was a stay-at-home mother and was treated like a queen. I have a brother who is 14 months older than me. I always knew he was different. When playing hide and seek he could never find anyone, so I remember being loud on purpose so that he would find me. It was obvious he had learning problems, and one day we found out his teachers were beating him in school.

My parents had decided to come to California in order for my brother to have something to do through out his days, because it was obvious he could no longer attend school back home. My parents told my brother and I that we were going on vacation (which we always did.) I was 8 at the time and my brother was 9.

We got on a plane and came to California and we were enrolled in school immediately. I knew we weren't going back anytime soon. Life was hard. My parents hired an attorney to help us get our green cards. Little did we know that this guy was fake and not even an attorney. Things just took a turn for the worse from there.

My dad who was a pilot was now a truck driver. My mom started doing hair and has been ever since. Her legs are covered in veins, and she goes to work from 8 am sometimes until 11 pm everyday. My Dad doesn't have a job anymore and is depressed. He is a brilliant man who went to school in Oxford, became a pilot and for the past 4 years he has been sitting on the couch. I cry for him all the time.

I am now 24. I do not have an I.D., I do not have a driver's license. I cannot work. I think about killing myself everyday. They only thing that stops me is my brother. How could I leave him? He has no one. I go to bed crying. I wake up crying. I feel as though I was robbed. My life was stolen from me. I feel like I could have been at a higher place in my life at age 24. it drives me crazy thinking about it. I still cannot believe our lives ended up this way. It wasn't suppose to happen this way. I feel like a loser and feel that my entire life was a mistake.

We lost everything because my parents had a disabled child. All we wanted was to help a member of our family.

(Photo credit: CSUN DREAMS to be Heard)

'Girl': Is the New MSF Video Good Social Advertising?

Una Vera — 2009-11-20T12:03:00-08:00

Back in August, the humanitarian and international development blogosphere slogged it out over a controversial video from Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) UK. The video, titled 'Boy,' featured a stark image of a small, clay house in an unnamed warzone, with audio of a child's pained screams. It was never aired. MSF deliberately released the video online to provoke responses. And provoke it did, from overwhelmed sadness, to outrage, to furious accusations of sensationalism and exploitation, to passionate defenses of MSF's endorsement of the video --and, in the case of one blogger roundtable discussion, all of those reactions.

MSF communications head Avril Benoit handled the deluge with the skill of a true social media pro. She engaged her critics, and even linked to them.

For my part in the melee, I argued that MSF does emergency medical relief, so it is entirely appropriate for its ads to highlight that. MSF is not CARE, or even the IRC. Even outside active conflict zones, MSF employees work with blood and guts and human goo all day, treating badly injured, ill, and malnourished people during what are surely among the most desperate moments of those patients’ lives. On the operating table, no one is empowered. And we're all made of the same breakable stuff. A campaign featuring nothing but resilient, empowered beneficiaries (such as CARE's “I Am Powerful”) does not make sense in this context, while a disturbing one that shocks the viewer’s conscience does.

Many disagreed. Bill Easterly and Laura Freschi thought the ad played off stereotypes of Africa as a wasteland of civil wars and rape –-even though the setting of the ad was never named, and no actors were ever shown. On Aid Watch, Freschi wrote, "After watching this ad several times (I don’t recommend you try this), I feel 1) deranged and 2) hopeless, as though nothing I could ever do, much less donate a few dollars to MSF, could possibly have any effect on the vast, incomprehensible suffering in the world."

The MSF video debate dominated conversation in the humanitarian corner of blogosphere for a solid week, including here, raising questions about what makes a good (or bad) advocacy or fundraising piece. Can an advocacy video compel people to take action for a cause they weren't previously involved in, or think about an issue differently? Does suffering open more wallets than hope? Can visual media meaningfully convey realities people in rich and peaceful parts of the world have never experienced? Is it even possible, psychologically, for a London tube commuter to empathize with an IDP in Sri Lanka, or a Manhattan office worker with a Darfuri refugee in Chad?

No consensus was reached on answers. That's a good thing, in my opinion. The value is in the debate itself, which just reignited with the release of MSF's follow-up to 'Boy' -- 'Girl.'

(Trigger warning, obviously.)

On its post about the new ad, social advertising blog Osocio has already recieved reactions as disparate as:

"This video is revolting, yet I realize that was the point of the creators. But its so jarring, I wanted it stop, immediately. I couldn’t muster the will to get thru the whole video -it was too painful and gross. And since it remains anonymous, there’s no individual for me to self-identify with or feel a sense of commitment for. I recognize the injustice is real, but you lost me - I don’t have the strength to witness that story. My guess is most people aren’t either."

And:

"Yes this is intense, but totally relevant… so many of us, myself included, live in a sanitised media cloud, that never alerts us to the fact these issues are going on every second of every day somewhere in the world. Well done, hope it get plenty of air-time."

What do you think?

Freedom for the Weekend: International Justice Mission

Amanda Kloer — 2009-11-20T12:00:00-08:00

Well, it's Friday afternoon, and that means the weekend is almost here! W00t! Perhaps you're reading this blog because you're bored at work or school and you're thinking about what you want to do this weekend. How about spending part of your weekend fighting slavery? Each week I'll profile a different anti-trafficking nonprofit who you can connect with to help free slaves and prevent slavery around the world. So, spend a couple hours this weekend getting to know this nonprofit through their website, and then get involved!

This Week's Profile: International Justice Mission

The Bottom Line: International Justice Mission (IJM) is a human rights agency that secures justice for victims of slavery, sexual exploitation, and other forms of violent oppression. IJM lawyers, investigators, and aftercare professionals work with local officials to ensure immediate victim rescue and aftercare, to prosecute perpetrators, and to promote functioning public justice systems.

What They Do: IJM focuses on victim relief and aftercare -- removing victims from situations of trafficking and helping them heal -- in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America. They also have teams of professional and volunteer lawyers who work to prosecute traffickers and create legal reform in countries around the world.

What Can I Do?: You can volunteer for short periods of time in their Washington, DC office, or for longer periods of time overseas. They also have specific pro bono programs for lawyers. Or you can get involved as part of your church, community, or school. IJM accepts donations online as well.

Why They Rock: IJM has a tremendous capacity to leverage the law and lawyers in favor of human trafficking victims who really need legal justice. They are able to bring justice to victims around the world who otherwise might not get it.

So now that you've got some basic information on International Justice Mission, visit their website this weekend and get involved. And on Monday morning when everyone else is talking about sleeping in and watching TV over the weekend, you can say, "What did I do this weekend? Oh, just the usual -- abolition of slavery."

Do you have a favorite nonprofit you'd like to see featured here? If so, let me know!

The Seeds of a New Kind of Energy

Erik Vance — 2009-11-20T11:52:00-08:00

First, a confession.

Last week, in my introductory blog entry I lied to you, the reader. What’s worse, I did it knowing full well that I was lying through my dirty little teeth.

In that entry I said that the highest wind densities in the country are above North Dakota. That was a lie. Well, okay, lie is a strong word. North Dakota does have the strongest wind you can feel when you lick your finger and stick it in the air.

But it’s not the strongest in the country.

That is a place where winds howl unrelentingly near 50 miles per hour and occasionally leap well over 200. Where half of the time the wind could generate 8 kilowatts per square meter (that’s roughly four homes powered by a space the size of my crappy TV).

Where is this amazing place? Some long lost corner of Alaska? Florida during a hurricane? Try New York City. Thirty thousand feet above New York City, to be precise.

Here is a little secret that scientists have known since the early eighties: there is enough power in the upper troposphere to power the entire planet 50, maybe 100 times over. Forget what you have heard about floating solar panels and offshore wind turbines, jet stream winds are the most power-rich regions on the planet (the sun, at its hottest at the equator on a cloudless day, drops only about one kilowatt per square meter).

This led a tiny community of inventors to organize the first-ever international conference on “high altitude wind,” or flying wind turbines two weeks ago. Although it sounds like, well, chasing windmills, Google has recently invested somewhere around $25 million in high altitude wind. However, outside of Google, most investors and government scientists still consider it to be kind of space-age and prefer to bet on solar or biofuels.

But this may be a gross oversight. At the conference, presentations showed a dazzling number of kites and wings that fly while tethered to the ground. The audience was mostly early stage inventors and out-of-the-box entrepreneurs. I was the only member of the press covering the event. Even so, the presentations were surprisingly feasible. Several demonstrated that within less than three years we could be generating industrial scale electricity that would be cheaper and more reliable than any turbines fixed to the ground and maybe even coal. Moreover, there’s no need for any fancy new nano-fibers or synthetic organisms needed by other green energy schemes. It's just a matter of combining what we already have. I spoke with an observer from aeronautical giant Honeywell (the only such company in attendance) on the last day of the conference. I expected him to scoff at the flying boomerangs and spinning blimps on display. However, he said that the various devices were all very possible with current engineering knowledge. In fact, there really aren’t any technical challenges to putting a wind farm a few thousand feet off the ground (we already do it with cameras to catch drug smugglers). The only real hurdles are getting investment and convincing the public to believe in it.

Which brings me to the newest round of ARPA-E funding. ARPA-E, for those who don’t know it, is a Department of Energy program offering grants for game-changing new energy solutions. It’s like DARPA, but with ten times less cash and without the invisible tanks and nuclear bunker-busters. The idea was to create a pool of money for truly new energy technologies that could revolutionize the energy sector. In short, the kind of technologies on display in this little-noticed conference. However, in its first round of disbursement, ARPA-E’s selections were less than game-changing. Its biggest pot of cash went to biofuels that, while cleaner than coal or gas, would still burn carbon. The other big winner was in energy storage, which is useful, but doesn't really address the basic problem. About $8 million went to automotive technologies that car companies should be paying for themselves. Only 4 of the 37 grants went to what I would call renewable power and those were small improvements to existing technologies, like slightly more efficient turbines.

I don’t mean to look a gift grant in the mouth, but I think we can do better. To be honest, I don’t know if a flying wind farm will work or not. But I do know that if it did it’s the kind of solution that could actually replace coal and that the people doing it are serious scientists. Isn’t that worth a more serious look? Stay tuned, the next round of grants is coming out soon.

California Raises Tuition Fees By 32%, Students Occupy Buildings to Protest

Mike Smith — 2009-11-20T11:20:00-08:00

California has been forced to raise tuition fees by almost a third to close a widening budget gap. Facing a $1.2 billion deficit, higher fees are required to mitigate a loss of funding. Fees will gradually rise of the coming years, with students facing a heavier burden as they progress. The president of the University of California system explained to the WSJ that the drastic measure "is designed to provide access, maintain quality and stabilize the fiscal health of the university." He further believes low income students will be hardly effected by the changes.

Students aren't so convinced. And they aren't taking the risk of ever rising fees lying down. They have occupied university building to protest. That dozens of students were arrested indicates that this isn't a minor issue, but one that goes to the heart of further education in America: how much students should be expected to pay and when high-fees become too expensive and start becoming exclusionary. The New York Times proposes that students take a semester off in order to save money, saving their parents money, and allow themselves to gain to valuable experience of the working world. But once students do go back to college, if they think it's worth it, they'll feel the full force of the higher fees. A holiday won't solve this problem.

Photo: Epioles

Climate Change Will Exacerbate Gap Between Rich and Poor

Mike Smith — 2009-11-20T11:18:00-08:00

Climate change won't just hit the poorest the hardest, with those in developing countries bearing the brunt of climate change — losing access to crucial water supplies, and feeling the effect of rising sea levels. Climate change will additionally exacerbate gaps between the rich and poor. The effects of climate change is likely to reverse many of the hard earned and costly developments gains of the Millennium Development Goals. Specific setbacks will include increased water scarcity, and changes in the availability of food. Quite simply, climate change is the perfect storm. And oh yeah, climate change is already producing more ferocious natural disasters.

The increased necessity of migration due to the failure of crops and rising sea levels will further impact health from both a perspective of the stress and strain of mass migration, and also due to increased potential for civil strife.

Altering family planning, reproductive health care and improve the rights of women could reduce population stress and in turn reduce greenhouse emissions. But in the short term, there is nothing better than rapidly cutting emissions. The long term strategy will continue to be a challenge as the richer get richer and consume more, and the poor get poorer and continue to be hit even harder.

Photo: Suburbanbloke

Senate Health Bill: Less, Later, and Holy Complexity Batman (P2)

Gillian Hubble — 2009-11-20T11:15:00-08:00

We covered the good parts of HR 3590, the new Senate healthcare reform bill, in Part 1. Now, on to the Less, Later, and Holy Complexity Batman aspects.

Less

Numbers: HR 3590 costs less than the House bill, $849 billion vs. $894 billion. It lowers the deficit less, $127 vs $139 billion (see more dollar comparisons here.) It manages this by covering less of the population (94% vs 96%) and delaying major insurance reform. That costs less, but it also does less. There are also unintended consequences like skyrocketing insurance premiums prior to 2014 due to implementation of consumer protections in 2010. Hey, if private insurers have to pay out and can’t get rid of you, they are going to charge more. Plus in 2014 they’ll have to take riskier customers. Their business is to make money, not spend it; they’ll circle the wagons.

Coverage: Fortunately for insurers, this bill lowers coverage levels. They only need to spend 80% of group premiums and 75% of individual premiums on claims, compared to the typically reported 85% in group coverage now. Additionally, there are tiered plans starting at only 60% actuarial coverage for bronze plans, up to 90% for platinum. Again, typical coverage is at 85% now. Ack – that’s a big new gap in coverage for regular folks (I won’t go into subsidies and out-of-pocket costs, as Tim Foley is doing a series on HR 3590 affordability.) I’m also going to bet platinum plans conveniently fit into the Cadillac bracket so a 40% excise tax applies.

Mandates:There is less mandate burden and, for employers, more penalties. Individuals only have to pay $750 by 2016 for deciding to go bare; not a big incentive to reduce their potential burden on the public. For businesses it’s the opposite. Employers aren’t mandated to provide coverage but are fined if even one employee qualifies for subsidies on the exchange – and the fine is based on total employees, not per subsidized employees. That may keep the Walmarts of the world more honest. Finally, the mandated public burden of providing reinsurance to early union retirees is half that in the House bill, $5 billion.

Wishing For Less: Also, perhaps I’m getting cynical with all the healthcare bills that have come out, but this one seems especially laden with overly smarmy buzzwords and phrases. For example, Medicare being a “sacred trust”, helping those with pre-existing conditions avoid “medical bankruptcy” through risk pools (hey, the premiums alone can lead to bankruptcy!), and “cracking down” on waste, fraud and abuse. This bill really goes for shiny popular phraseology that I would like to see less often.

Later: Fair access is delayed, just like in HR 3962. Also, the public option, state-based exchanges, potential co-ops (I’m wincing at the $6 billion in funding), and other potential state programs for those 134-200% of the poverty line won’t start until 2014. That’s a year longer than HR 3962, and is a long time to be stuck in current private insurance programs and interim risk pools. Remember, Congress wants the federal government’s budget to look good, not yours. Also, since states can opt-out of the public option, 2014 means four long years for special interests to make the rounds and convince states (some, like Texas, don't need much convincing) to pass a law to opt-out. That makes a weakened public option a guaranteed-to-fail public option with a "See? We told you so" tag line.

Holy Complexity Batman: Did I mention the state opt-out public option, state-based exchanges, state co-ops, optional state semi-indigent programs, CLASS long-term care, Medicare, expanded Medicaid (to 133% of the poverty level), S-CHIP, and oh yes, inter-state and even national private policies? This bill is as far from single payer as you can get. I don’t care how much administrative simplification you try, it's still a provider’s (and patient’s) bureaucratic nightmare. Imagine trying to get paid or avoid going out of network in an even more complex mess of an insurance web than we have today. It’s not a good use of valuable tax dollars either – although CLASS doesn’t use public funds, because it is strictly self-funded by its customers.

Overall this bill has good features, but it does not make good use of tax dollars. It tries to please everybody in Washington, especially special interests, so it ends up far more complicated and obtuse than necessary. When you raise taxes on the wealthy, institute a hefty Cadillac benefits tax, and raise Medicare payroll taxes, taxpayers should expect more for their money. It was only realistic to expect the duct tape and baling wire solution that was rolled out though.

So what’s next? Harry Reid has filed for cloture, with a procedural vote scheduled for 8pm ET on Saturday. This is a critical test of the Democratic caucus, because all 58 Dems and 2 Independents who caucus with them must be on board for the 60-vote supermajority necessary to ward off a filibuster. Ben Nelson seems to be in, while Blanche Lincoln and Claire McCaskill are still unknowns. Joe Lieberman has made his position all too clear. Republican Orrin Hatch took it a little too far by saying he would participate in a “holy war” to delay the bill if the decision is made to move forward. Great, so we have radical extremists on the US payroll now too?

Photo kevindooley // CC BY 2.0

Three Important Ideas from Real Time CrunchUp

Nathaniel Whittemore — 2009-11-20T10:37:00-08:00

I'm at the TechCrunch sponsored Real Time CrunchUp. The event is all about the real time stream of information and sharing that is increasingly what the internet is about. There are a few key conversations.

1. Determining What's Important. Facebook product bro Chris Cox was just sharing some background on how FB is thinking about the difference between Live Feed and News Feed. Basically, they want to be able to use better information about context to help figure out which parts of the stream of information and friend updates you might actually care about. Angel Investor supreme-o Ron Conway suggested that 2010 will be all about filtering.

2. Social Context (or Not). The speakers today have spent a lot of time discussing the social context of information, or to put it less wonkily, being able to see what your friends care about as you're interacting with news, music, or social causes. The former CEO of FriendFeed (who is now at Facebook) and Seesmic CEO Loic Le Meur suggested that the "private" context - being able to see what specifically your "offline relationships" think about different things is going to be supremely important. Others pointed out that only being able to see what your friends like and care about can be a constraint - particularly if you care about something niche - like hardcore metal like me - that not that many of your "offline" friends know about. I think this is important, because who you've been around physically is only one sort of context. One of the great powers I've seen in social media is the ability to discover peers who I wouldn't have met otherwise.

3. Location Based Services. One of the areas of real time information that is poised for growth is location-based services like FourSquare and Google Latitude, which will increasingly be pushing notifications about where our friends and contacts are. They haven't talked about this much yet, but it looks like it will appear this afternoon.

So why might this matter for social entrepreneurs?

First, people care deeply about their causes. As services get smarter about adding filters and social context to the stream, it's going to be easier for your people to discover how much you care about the issues you care about. All social innovators and nonprofits need to build networks of support, so this matters.

Second, being able to discover new people who you don't know yet is immensely powerful for social entrepreneurs. Rather than just having to convince people that your issue is the best, you can start by finding the people who already agree, discover what they offer, and build strength from there.

Third, the geographic location creates new ability to connect people who care with interesting opportunities.

(Photo: webtreats)

Does the New Senate Health Care Bill Get the Job Done?, Conclusion

Tim Foley — 2009-11-20T10:05:00-08:00

In part 1, I looked at joy with some of the provisions in the new Senate bill to make coverage more affordable, and shouted “Woohoo!” In part 2, I looked at some other less impressive policies and shrugged, “Meh.” But the fun times must come to an end.

I had three big “Aw Crap!” concerns while skimming through the new Senate bill. These aren’t just qualms. To my mind, they’re major problems. We’re talking “Tom Hanks is on the phone with Houston and they need to put a square peg into a round hole in order to get breathable oxygen in the Apollo 13 module” problems.

The simplest is the most inexcusable. The Senate bill delays opening the Exchange, providing individuals and families with these very affordable subsidies insurance plans, and creating a public option to bring some competition to private insurance -- all of that is delayed until 2014. Why? To get a better CBO score -- that’s all. We’ve hit the real failure of our health care debate this year square in the mouth once again: “more affordable” in terms of a prettier price tag for the federal government can only come at the expense of “more affordable” in terms of making coverage affordable to Americans.

While we’re talking about the good deals on that subsidized insurance in the Exchange -- yes, there’s a catch. Although the Senate bill makes insurance more affordable, the House bill is much better at making care more affordable through a better consumer protections on out-of-pocket expenses. Remember, of the staggering number of personal bankruptcies involving medical debt, more than three quarters were people who had insurance but got clobbered by co-pays, deductibles and out-of-network costs. The House bill does a much better job shielding low-income families from this financial peril by setting a limit on their out-of-pocket spending. That family of 4 making $44,000 may not notice the difference in premiums between House and Senate, but their House insurance plan would cover 93% of their medical costs; the Senate insurance plan would only cover 80%. Even more alarming, the House’s cap on total out-of-pocket spending per year, the strongest defense against medical bankruptcy, seems to be entirely absent from the Senate. I really hope I’m just overlooking it in the bill. If not... dude, where’s my cap on out-of-pocket expenses?!

There is a real disturbing trend towards making it more likely for people to buy insurance policies at the expense of making it less likely they’ll go broke when they get sick and their insurance doesn’t cover everything they need.

Worst of all, Reid has kept the “Free Rider” provision in the Finance bill -- another obvious nod to Olympia Snowe, who first championed it. I and many other have mentioned the folly of a complicated policy that only requires employers to chip in if and only if their employees receive the tax credit subsidies instead of a more balanced approach that would have nearly all employers (except the most vulnerable small businesses) share the same responsibility to provide benefits or pay into a fund. For one thing, it creates a perverse incentive against hiring low-income workers, especially since most undocumented workers will continue to be uninsured if this bill passes. For another, the administrative difficulties in keeping track only of Free Rider employers will make enforcement tricky. Reid has made a tweak aimed at netting more money -- if a company has even a single employee without benefits receiving a subsidy from Uncle Sam, they either have to pay $3,000 per employee who gets a subsidy in the Exchange or $750 per every employee in the company. As Jon Cohn has noted, that’s an important change. But it still doesn’t come close to netting the money of a true employer mandate. For comparison, the Senate bill’s Free Rider brings in $28 billion over 10 years which can be used for subsidies for individuals and families, the House “pay or play” $135 billion.

And here’s where the Free Rider really falls down -- it doesn’t do enough to prevent employers from “dumping” their employee benefits. The tale of the tape is the CBO score. A strong “pay or play” mandate like the House bill prompts the employer to think, “If I have to pay most of the cost, I may as well play the whole thing.” As a result, the CBO score for the House bill projected that the number of people in employer-sponsored insurance would not only remain stable, it would increase slightly each year. The opposite is true for the Senate bill, where the number in employer-sponsored insurance would decrease by 5 million starting in 2016. By 2019, the House bill covers 96% of Americans, including 21 million in the Exchange. The Senate bill has more people in the Exchange -- 25 million in the Exchange -- but only covers 94% of Americans. Why doesn’t everyone who gets dropped by their employers find their way into the Exchange? Chances are because they can’t afford it.

The Senate bill Reid unveiled this week isn’t as bad as the Baucus bill. But these red flags aren’t done for policy reasons, and they’re not tradeoffs to improve some other part of the bill. They’re political calculations, pure and simple -- and many Americans will suffer for them unless they’re corrected in time.

(Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/talkradionews/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)