We Still Need Feminism

This post is most likely going to come across a little disorganized and a lot emotional, and I've decided I'm okay with that. And I'm gonna pull a John Oliver on this one and promise you that if you can get through this one with me I'll reward you with funny cats at the end.

A couple of weeks ago Buzzfeed took a tumblr viral when it critically posted that 14 women posted why they were against feminism. I say critically because the intent of the post was to highlight the idiocy of the tumblr (read the URL: http://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means), but in doing so they gave so many more people access to this hurtful, ignorant website.

Just look at some of the pictures on this website. Some of them have understandable reasons they've been hurt by radical feminists. But some of them are just ignorant. "I enjoy being a homemaker..."???? Being a feminist gives you the choice to do that OR go to work. Glad you enjoy it, some women don't. Do you think everyone should HAVE to? fahsdklfhghdaios;hjsgfjs;gj; < me hitting my head on my keyboard

I have some unorganized thoughts on this that I need to get out, and I really hope you can just hang with me for a minute on this one:

I Kinda Sorta Maybe Halfway Understand - ISH:

• I once was a young woman who didn't want to be called a feminist - I thought feminists weren't feminine.
• I want to be a stay at home mom for a couple of years at least. I LOVE the idea of having a man who can care for me - that didn't sound very feminist to me before I became educated about feminism.
• I don't want to be associated with the people who go overboard. I am not a radical. I am not an extremist. 
• I believe there is a difference between men and women and used to not understand that most feminists understand this, too.

And Now the Harsh Truth of What I Really Believe...
YOU do not get to make ANY judgments against feminism to me IF you have never:

• been told to keep your mouth shut because it's a client and it doesn't matter if it's sexual harassment.
• been raped.
• been paid less than your male peers when you work more than they do.
• been abused.
• been told you didn't get the job because they think you'll want to have babies soon.
• been kept out of meetings that you made happen because only men were invited.
• seen how women outside our borders are treated.
• been told you were a bitch when the man who did the same thing was aggressive and doing his job well.
• had a relationship not work out because you make more than the guy.
• been told you were asking for it.
• been delegated to party planning and ordering everyone's lunches when you outrank everyone at the table.
• been told, "girls can't/don't do that."

Polly Young-Eisendrath's definition of feminism is STILL my favorite ever:

“A discipline of thought and action that aims to enhance mutuality and trust among all people; to reveal the meanings of gender differences, especially as these might interfere with reciprocity and trust… and to oppose all models and methods of dominance-submission for relationships among people. What feminism has revealed, in its many forms from theology to literary criticism to psychology and philosophy, is that the silencing and trivializing of women and their ideas affect all of us all of the time in the way that we expect the world and ourselves to be.”

And feminism is ABSOLUTELY still necessary. 
There are so many studies and well-written articles on why it's ridiculous. Here are a few:

• http://www.pay-equity.org/day.html - Women will have to work through April 14, 2015 to make what men will make in 2014.
• http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/bloggers/why-feminism-still-matters-in-2014.1394191059 - 2/week in the world are killed by a current or former male partner, 1/4 women are victims of domestic violence.
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-solod/feminism_b_1693029.html - young women have a choice: pretty and married or successful and bitchy.
• http://listverse.com/2013/03/16/10-reasons-we-still-need-feminism/ - because many countries still remove women's clits without anesthetic, marry them off before puberty, and sell them into prostitution.
• http://www.patheos.com/blogs/simchafisher/2014/04/23/yes-we-still-need-feminism/ - b/c we are constantly faced with new challenges in an evolving world

My favorite response comes from an artist named Rebecca Vipond Brink. I think she's fabulous. And I think her response is on point: http://www.flareandfade.com/i-dont-need-feminism-because/

And now, those promised cats:  http://confusedcatsagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/

Thanks for listening.

Witty Irishmen

I had the incredible opportunity last night to hear Rory O'Driscoll of Scale Ventures speak about the venture capital industry. Phenomenal speaker. The man is effing brilliant -- he kept throwing out references to macroeconomic concepts in relation to his work and he always had a couple of answers to each question depending on how you looked at the issue.

A couple of gems stuck with me:

"Relying on people to do the right thing for other people is not a scaleable process."

"You don't need to cap your upside going in. Life will cap your upside for you."

"You know I'm not lying now because we're talking with money."

Brilliant Man.

No Pretty Boys

You would think the news that most women prefer pretty boys would make my life easier.



Give me a strong jaw line and a bit of ruggedness any day.

Who Controls the Definition of a Word?

Erin McKean is changing the way dictionaries are created. Which means that Erin McKean is changing the way proper word usage is defined.

In my business model innovations class, we frequently have guest speakers to tell us about their entry into a market. We were fortunate enough last week to have Erin McKean of Wordnik. Erin is one of approximately 145 lexicographers in the country, and she knew that she wanted to work with dictionaries from the time she was 8 years old. To watch her present her new company, Wordnik, is to watch a woman in love with what she does. I highly recommend watching her speak if you ever get a chance.

After Erin spoke at TED, venture funders approached her, wondering how possible it would be to capture all of the words that were used in the English language, rather than simply the small set included in print dictionaries. Regardless of your interest in language or dictionaries, the story is pretty damn fascinating. Print dictionaries capture less than a million words, and it takes years for a word to make it into the collection. Wordnik uses a technology to mine a large corpus of historical text and contemporary writing (including the internet). The algorithm pulls information about words and how they are used, offering immediate context, definitions, and references to "words" that aren't included in the print dictionaries. To date, Wordnik has counted about 4 million words, and about 10 million things that are used like words, far surpassing the capacity of print dictionaries - and it does so automatically and immediately.

An interesting question that arises from Wordnik is the question of who actually defines a word. In Erin's dream world, gone are the days of 4th grade English teachers correcting your usage of who and whom. Erin believes that the users of a language define the language, and she bucks the idea the only real definition is the one in the OED. It's an interesting question, really. Is the correct usage of a word the one defined for us and listed in the print dictionaries? OR is the correct usage really just defined by how the population uses it? Take a look at Erin's talks, browse the site, and decide for yourself.

Erin McKean at TED

Erin McKean at Google

Erin McKean article about using words

Wordnik

British Reaction to American Health Care Debate

A couple of friends living in London have made me aware of the reaction there to our current Health Care debate. Many Brits are appalled at the reluctance of Americans to adopt health care reform, and even more so at the falsified information that is being touted about their own system.

I was directed to a discussion on yelp.com, and decided to add my two cents. Thought I'd throw it up here, since I've mostly avoided the discussion up til now.

My post:

I'm approaching this conversation as a fiscally conservative and socially liberal American with decent medical insurance.

What's happening in the town halls and across the middle and rural areas of our country in regards to the health care debate is the result of American pride, a bit of cognitive dissonance, and a big dose of fear. For years we were told we had the best doctors, the best specialists, the best hospitals, the best research, etc. We took pride in having beautiful teeth and state of the art treatments, and told ourselves that we paid so much because it was worth it. We had to justify the cost, and we've spent years cultivating a sense of pride to validate the outrageous costs. We were told (and told ourselves) that if we didn't pay so much, we'd all have bad doctors and long waits and inferior treatment (and the worst of all things...bad teeth!)

It is only as blogging has become accessible to those for whom this system is not working that we've started to become aware of just how bad it really is. We are now faced with daily (hourly?) reminders of how the American healthcare system has failed the people, and we are reacting to this information with the stage-appropriate denial and fear that you are all seeing. It will take time for the middle of America and rural America to understand what is going on and why this needs to change. The coasts and the cities are starting to understand better, but the reluctance of the more conservative people should not be seen as stupidity or unwillingness to change - it is simply the result of learning that what we thought we were good at really wasn't all that great.

A number of republicans are using fear tactics and distorting the truth to compound this fear. But the democrats aren't helping much, either, by just trying to pull heartstrings rather than offer tangible, balanced solutions that can work in a capitalist society. The fact that there are so many possibilities further confuses the issue and adds to the fear you are seeing from our people.I think if someone could really highlight for people how our system works (because believe me, none of us really understand how it all works in our country, let alone anyone else's), we'd find that we could come to a new system through relatively minor overhauls, and that the new the system wouldn't be so different as to be socialist (which is a bad word here).

I don't know what the new system should look like. I don't know if the NHS is the perfect example of the right answer (although it does seem like a great step in the right direction, and one that could work here). I do, however, know a few things about the fears people have and how are current system addresses those:

1. We are scared of the QUALITY of public systems because we've only seen bad examples. In our cities, community health clinics are supported by the government and private donations, and they are utilized by the poor, the homeless, and those other people who are NOT US. We have an image that they are dirty and inferior and that they cannot attract good doctors. And many of them are, but we do have good community health clinics that are totally supported by the public and by government grants. Clinic Ole, in the San Francisco Bay Area, for example, has become so well known as an excellent provider of health care that the demand from insured patients required them to start accepting insurance when available. The clinic itself serves the entire community on a sliding scale based on your ability to pay, with many free services. If the public could see more examples like this, rather than the images being strewn about by those against reform, they might believe we could adopt something like the NHS and make it work.

2. We are scared of LONG WAIT times and not being able to get the services we need when we need them. But we already have those. How long do people have to wait to get approval from an insurance company to have a procedure? I would much rather wait because the doctor is not yet available to perform the surgery, than be waiting when the doctor says I need it now because an insurance company wants to approve the necessity of the cost first. I had a fairly urgent, but not emergency, surgery 2 years ago. Once diagnosed, I had to wait over a month to have the surgery. Not because the doctor wasn't available, or because there were no operating rooms - but because my insurance company made all of us jump through hoops to prove that it was necessary. However, I was fortunate enough to work for a private funder who happened to be a major donor to the hospital where the surgery was to be performed. Somehow, once that became known, I was immediately booked for surgery within 2 days. The hospital insurance liaison worked with the insurance company to get me approved right away because I was suddenly a VIP. Meanwhile, millions of other Americans were waiting for their insurance companies to approve their treatments. Although thankful for the bump, I find this incredibly depressing.

3. We are scared of bad teeth. I kid, a bit, but seriously...too many people in this country think all Brits have bad teeth because of public health care. Ridiculous, but it is a common perception. But here's the thing...I have pretty good insurance with good dental coverage, and I still can't afford to care for my teeth. Cleanings are covered, sure, but anything else is so expensive that many people can't take care of it. Even root canals that are deemed medically necessary are usually only covered at half cost, if that. A root canal in a city like San Francisco costs a well insured patient about $600 at a mid-range dentist. That doesn't included xrays, diagnoses, and follow-up. So many people forgo them all together. There's a reason we have images of hillbillies with no teeth. We are scared of not being able to access the best doctors and the best treatments, but honestly, most Americans can't do that even here, because the cost is so prohibitive.

4. We are scared of not being able to get treated well when we need specialists, but we don't get the preventative healthcare that would keep us from ever needing it. I currently am working on funding for obesity clinics for children. They need private funding because insurance companies won't insure a child who has been diagnosed as obese. We know that obese children turn into adults with diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, etc. Yet we don't fix it when we can? There are countless examples of how the American system represents sick care rather than healthcare.

Just throwing out what I know. I have a great deal of respect for the pride you take in your system, and am looking forward to our government offering a system that might work for us.

The Autism Vaccine Debate Again

A classmate of mine from way back when posted a couple of interesting articles today that sparked my interest.

The first is a blog on Discover's website:
Discover Blog: Antivax kills.

The second is a publication regarding much of the research that has been done on the autism vaccine link:
Science Daily Vaccine and Autism Article

My classmate made a really good point about how it's easier for people to blame the government than their own DNA. I absolutely think this is the case. It's so much easier for us to believe that we can change things than it is to believe that we are doomed to whatever diseases our body has predetermined.

As in most things, I find myself firmly in the middle here.

Do I think vaccines cause autism? In general, probably not, but maybe in some cases.
Do I think the debate is over? Definitely not.
Do I think parents should avoid vaccines? NO!

This is a difficult situation because the waters are so murky.

First of all, the autism diagnosis is handed to people with a wide array of symptoms. As an ABA therapist I worked with children who many different sets of symptoms. At the time we frequently referred to that as high functioning or low functioning, but I don't think it was just on a spectrum of bad to worse. Some of the symptoms were qualitatively different.

For example, what about the difference between kids with autism only, or those with autism and mental retardation. Is it really that they have both, or is it that they have a qualitatively different type of disorder? We called the first category high functioning, but it's really just totally different. I had one kid who could read, write, draw, speak in sentences after being taught, but could express no emotion. I had another kid who couldn't sit for more than 2 seconds. Yes, they shared some common symptoms - language delay, eye contact, lack of emotional involvement, and a little OCD, but they were very very different and required much different treatment plans. I've got a ton of these types of comparisons.

Doesn't it seem possible then, that maybe we've grouped a whole bunch of different things into one lump called autism? Just so happens that mercury poisoning looks a whole lot like some of these kids, but definitely not all or even most. Some cases seem to be more about extreme sensory sensitivity than anything else. Others mimic the isolation and turning inward that happens to some kids after severe trauma. Maybe they differ so much because they are actually different. And if that's the case, doesn't it follow that maybe they have different causes?

And if THAT's the case, then it seems totally plausible to me that SOME cases of autism were caused in SOME part by vaccines. I find David Kirby's hypothesis in Evidence of Harm particularly reasonable. He basically says that some kids are born with a genetic defect that keeps them from processing toxins properly. In those children, when you introduce vaccines containing thimerosal (which contains mercury and other toxins) in high doses, you might get autism-like symptoms. We also see the same thing in small communities where there has been significant exposure to mercury through fish consumption or environmental waste. A genetic problem would also explain differences between communities that aren't accounted for by toxin exposure. Anyway - this is all a MIGHT for SOME of the population, and it doesn't actually state anything conclusive.

What we do know is that children are getting more vaccines than ever before, and that some of them are thought to be unnecessary by some parents. So do we stop vaccinating our children?
NO! I really haven't heard anyone rational state that parents should forgo vaccines. Even Jenny McCarthy suggests an altered schedule, rather than not getting vaccines at all. I personally recommend learning about the issue as a parent and working with your doctor to determine what you feel is safe for your child. Make sure your doctor takes your concerns seriously, and then listen. One mother described this process on her blog about an alternative schedule.

It is irresponsible to not vaccinate your child at all: to your child and to the children with whom he'll come in contact. I think the biggest takeaway here is that there are a lot of possibilities, but reacting out of fear won't help. Educate yourself by reading many sides. Read David Kirby's book, read all the stuff on both sides of the issue, then work it out with your doctor. Ask for thimerosal free vaccines whenever possible. When you get the flu shot, get the pregnancy version (the one with no preservatives). Just be smart about it, don't overreact, and approach it from a middle ground that makes sense. Would you really risk your child dying of diptheria because you were too scared to work out a better way?

Heather Armstrong wrote a great post about her feelings regarding the responsibility of mothers to vaccinate their children.

In the early 2000s in Arkansas there was a huge outbreak of diphtheria because parents didn't have great access to vaccines. I was at a talk with David Kirby and some safe vaccine advocates when a pediatrician from northern Arkansas, who agreed with Kirby about the possibility of vaccine and autism links, begged the crowd to get their children vaccinated. She had just watched a significant portion of her clients die because they just hadn't gotten the shot. Death is not an alternative to a fear of autism. Carrying a disease to another child who didn't get vaccinated is not an alternative to a fear of autism.

Some of my other posts about this issue:

Charity Divided
Missouri Thimerosal Ban
Autism and Vaccinations

Emotional Citizens

Because we are all emotional people, I present Gail Collins' article on irrational expectations in the NY Times.

My favorite part:

Let’s complain about Barack Obama. Why doesn’t he sound angrier? Doesn’t he understand that his job right now is to be the Great Venter?

Sure he keeps saying he’s mad. But you can tell that he secretly thinks it’s crazy to obsess about $165 million in bonuses in a company that’s still got $1.6 trillion in toxic assets to unravel. “I don’t want to quell that anger. I want to channel our anger in a constructive way,” he said on Wednesday. Everybody knows constructively channeled anger doesn’t really count. It’s like diet pizza.

If John McCain were president, you can bet that we’d be getting outrage 24-7. McCain would be so angry that we’d be scared that he’d have a coronary or invade a new country. The New York Post would be running “Calm Down, Mr. President” headlines.

Except, of course, the whole reason we elected Barack Obama was because when the economy started melting down, Obama seemed sane and calm while McCain appeared to be a loopy visitor from the Planet of the Overwrought.

I hate it when we make irrational, contradictory demands of our president. But, it seems as if that’s what he’s there for.

Finally!

California Senate Passes Budget

The Senate had been one GOP vote short until Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria (Santa Barbara County), changed his mind to support the budget plan, but only after Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders agreed to his demands.

"I know there will be dire political ramifications for me, but I know the ramifications for the people of California would be more dire (without this budget)," said Maldonado. "This budget is about shared pain and shared sacrifices."

Glad you finally figured that one out, Maldonado - everyone else came to that conclusion, oh, about 4 days ago - BEFORE the deadline. Thanks for your sacrifice.

What's even crazier, though, is that I agree with ONE of Maldonado's demands:

Maldonado's demands included the removal of a proposed 12 cents a gallon gasoline tax, suspending hikes in pay and per diems for lawmakers when the state is facing budget deficits, and a ballot measure in June 2010 that asks voters whether they want open primaries.

A 12 cent/gallon gasoline tax? Now? Right - because that doesn't hit the families that need the most help or anything. Historically, particularly in California (except for the Bay Area), the people in the most dire circumstances are the people who have to drive the farthest. That's because they can't afford to live in the cities, so they live farther out and have to cross longer distances to find work. So increasing the gas tax almost immediately hits the people who are already struggling the most. I can't believe the democrats supported that one. I mean - 2 or 3 cents maybe, but 12 cents?!?

But Maldonado's other demands? NOT suspending hikes in pay during budget deficits? If a public company is in bad shape, employees don't get raises. Why should it be different for lawmakers? Might actually get them to work to close the budget deficit. But Maldonado doesn't want to have to come up with solutions in order to get a raise. What I will agree to, though, is that this really shouldn't have been tacked on to the budget in the first place. This isn't part of the budget, so why does it matter in face of the deadline? Same thing with the primaries. I don't really understand everything behind it at this point - I know it's a big deal - but why does it need to be tacked on to the budget?

So anyway, I'm actually kinda happy with the results of the delay. Craziness.

Regarding the original budget plan, I do have to comment on the sales tax increase. This doesn't help the economy. I propose a plan more like some other states (Minnesota comes to mine), with sales tax eliminated on necessities (food, school supplies, children's clothing). Then maybe we could increase the sales tax more on other items. Perhaps you just do a moratorium for a year, which would boost the economy by encouraging people to buy more of those necessities now while there is no sales tax on those items. At the very least, we shouldn't be increasing the sales tax on food. How is that helpful at all? People will just be able to afford less, which means food banks will have more demand, which means the government will have to provide more in food stamps and aid. Not smart people.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could get our officials to think past the next election?

Real Global Warming Options

As someone who finds myself fascinated with simple mechanisms scientists think might help (like painting roofs white, or sending a giant bomb up into the atmosphere to deflect radiation), I am even more fascinated by a recently released ranking of the various methods.

We hear so many options in different contexts, and they all sound good, so how do we know which ones to actually try?

I am often struck by the fact that many people, when faced with something they are told is a "good cause", react with some sense of obligation to goodness. People not in the field, or not associated with the field, often justify drunken galas or excessive auction spending (guilty!) with the "good cause" clause. As long as it's going to charity, it's good, and I get to feel good about myself...right?

In philanthropy, it's an entirely different world. Because there are so many "good causes", we not only have to determine which issues are most important (to our boards, to our missions, to the world), but also which organizations address those issues best. It's a crazy competitive world involving impact rankings, financial efficacy, and some relationships thrown in for good measure. We never take a good cause as simply that - always delving into it further before supporting it.

The green movement, however, throws most of us back into the uneducated category. We all want to do something good for the world. We want to address the issue, so we grasp at anything we can. We step up our recycling, we promote windmills, we install solar panels, and we might even paint a roof or two white. But are we really doing the right things?

Well, Wired Magazine just featured a recently published scientific paper that collects the different ways in which we could address global warming, and how effective each of these methods would be. VERY informative article with some great graphics and a pretty comprehensive and easy to understand list of potential solutions.

Here are a few of the more interesting ones, with rankings:

1. Inject enough sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to reflect the small percentage of sunlight necessary to offset increased warming caused by carbon dioxide. This scheme is akin to the cooling induced by large volcanic explosions.
2. Manufacture sea salt spray to change the way clouds form over the ocean to increase their reflectivity.
3. Cover the earth's non-sandy deserts with a material composed of a white polyethylene top and an aluminum bottom. That would increase the albedo of those surfaces, cooling the earth.
4. Use chemical processes to pull carbon dioxide out of the air and sequester it in geological reservoirs.
7. Create charcoal from biomass, effectively sequestering the carbon in the plant matter, and bury it.
9. Breed or genetically engineer shinier crops to increase the reflectivity of the world's farmed land.
12. Plant massive amounts of trees across the Earth and count on them to sequester more carbon dioxide naturally.
16. Cool down huge amounts of water with large pumps to form and thicken sea ice that would in turn cool the sea water. That water would descend to the depths, taking a bit of extra carbon with it.
17. Make cities considerably more reflective by, say, painting roofs white.

Check out the complete Wired article, including awesome graphics.

At the very least, I feel a bit less guilty about not secretly splashing white paint on all the roofs of the city.

California Hunger Crisis

I've been working on a proposal to address the California Hunger Crisis, and I thought I'd share some of the background info here.

Hunger in California
Before the recent economic downward turn, 4.2 million Californians (12% of the population)
were considered “food insecure”, which means they had to make choices between food and other
living expenses. A much larger percentage was considered to be living in “marginal food
security”, which means they were sometimes threatened with these choices while frequently
facing the lack of a healthy balanced diet. This population is constantly vulnerable to becoming
food insecure when circumstances change.

Families with children are much more likely to be food insecure.

The Current Food Crisis
Nationally, food banks are reporting a 15-20% increase on average in the number of people
turning to them for help now compared to one year ago.

Decreased Support
Food banks receive the bulk of their food from the food industry, including producers,
distributors, and grocery stores. Usually this food is donated because of surplus inventory or
slightly damaged product. Increased efficiency in the food industry, and thus decreased surplus,
along with the proliferation of bargain grocery stores that will purchase dented cans for resale
has led to a major decrease in food donations from this previously steady source.

Since 2002, USDA commodities distributed nationwide has decreased more than 60% - the
equivalent of 45 million lost meals in California. The low dollar has increased food exports,
which has further decreased USDA donations over the past year.

Rising Food Costs
The United States is experiencing the worst food inflation prices since the 1970s.
The federal consumer price index (CPI) for the cost of food rose 4.7% from March 2007 to
March 2008. The CPI for the Thrifty Food Plan, the basis for Food Stamp allotment, increased
even more at 5.6%. The Thrifty Food Plan includes items that will feed a family at the lowest
possible cost while providing basic, although not adequate or healthy, dietary needs. In 2007, the Thrifty Food Plan cost $320 per month for a family of two. Changes in the price of items in the Thrifty Food Plan present a more accurate description of the stresses felt by low-income
families.

In the first quarter of 2008 crop prices were up 20%, and livestock prices were up 10%.
The CPI for cereal and bakery products increased by 4.4% in 2007 and is projected to rise 8% in
2008. Price of milk is up 30% and bread is up 16%

Rising Fuel Costs
The cost of gas has led many families to make choices between going to work and purchasing
groceries.

The increase in cost also has great impact on Food Banks. The cost of distributing food is greatly
increasing the overhead required of these programs, particularly in outlying communities and
areas where food banks have had to close.

Economic Crisis
The recent economic crisis, including home foreclosures and job losses, has disproportionately
affected citizens living in marginal food security. This has led to those families that previously
were able to subsist without assistance to turn to food banks in recent months.

In early 2007, California’s Central Valley experienced a devastating freeze that destroyed crops
and caused widespread economic hardship. Many families have yet to recover.

Several California food banks have reported that past donors and volunteers are now turning to
them for help. The number of first time aid recipients is up an estimated 26-50%.

Insufficient Utilization of Federal Aid
Of the Americans eligible for food stamp benefits, only 65% are enrolled nationally. In
California this number is even lower at 50%. In the subgroup of working families, nationally
57% eligible households are enrolled, while in California it was 34%. California ranked 50th in
the nation on this measure (including D.C., we only performed better than Colorado). Even if
California aims only to participate at the national average, the state is currently forgoing $1
billion in federal funds for its citizens each year.

Food Stamp benefits are entirely federally funded and provide economic stimulation to
communities in California. Every $5 in new food stamp benefits generates $9.30 in community
economic activity. Every additional dollar in food stamps generates up to $0.47 of new spending
on food.

Food Bank Response
The recently passed Farm Bill will deliver some relief in October, but the new level of funding
will still not return food supply to the 2002 level and will certainly not address the excessive
increase in demand.

Food Banks across the country are responding by decreasing programs while dipping into
reserves. Several food banks have closed in the past few months. Most food banks, however, are
avoiding closure by limiting programs. Food pantries and soup kitchens across California have
decreased from five to seven open days per week to one to five days open every two weeks.
Distribution programs are reporting that they have been forced to decrease handouts from seven
days of food to two days of food.

Most commonly, though, food banks are simply depleting their reserves in order to supply the
needed resources to communities. This will have a devastating effect in the coming months and
years.

The federal budget does not currently allow for a comprehensive plan for addressing hunger in
America, and the California budget deadlock further incapacitates state and local agencies in
efforts to help. Food banks are completely dependent upon private donations to weather this
crisis and work toward a more sustainable future.

Please consider donating what you can. Volunteer time, non-perishable food, and of course, cash, are always valued and greatly needed.

Resources

Information

Food Crisis Effect on Food Banks

“Food Agencies Go Hungry in San Francisco” San Francisco Business Times

“Potato Chips Beckon as Food Prices Rise” San Francisco Chronicle

News Articles Regarding Current Crisis - LA Food Bank


Donate/Volunteer

San Francisco

Alameda County

Contra Costa/Solano Counties

Peninsula and South Bay

Marin County

Sonoma County

Napa County

And my goal is still top 10%

I must be nuts.

Haas School of Business was ranked #1 in the US in Corporate Social Responsibility by the Financial Times. #2 by the Wall Street Journal.

But then again, it seems maybe I picked the right field:

Berkeley CA - The Haas School was ranked #1 in corporate social responsibility in the Financial Times Global MBA 2008 Rankings of full-time MBA programs published on January 28. This is the first time in the seven years of the annual survey the top ten programs by academic discipline were identified. Inclusion of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on the FT's top academic discipline list signifies its rapidly growing visibility and importance in the business world.

“We have been fortunate to receive some great recognition for our Center. This FT rating catapults us out into the global CSR-leadership stage and makes us more proud than ever of the Center's faculty, staff, and, most importantly, our Haas MBA students – who have continued to drive us forward with their intense desire to use the power of business to make a better world," said Kellie McElhaney, executive director and professor at the Haas School's Center for Responsible Business.

Coupled with the recent #2 ranking in CSR by The Wall Street Journal for the second consecutive year, the Haas School is leading business education in CSR teaching, research, and experiential learning opportunities for students, which is offered through the Center for Responsible Business. The Center works closely with a host of companies - including Gap Inc., Hewlett-Packard, McDonald's, Intel, eBay, and Levi Strauss - on strategic consulting engagements, research projects, case competitions, and fellowship opportunities.

Adds McElhaney, “We are honored that a reputable global publication such as the Financial Times now counts corporate social responsibility among its substantive fields of recognition within MBA rankings, solidifying its place among good business strategy.”

The trend article, "Making an impact", which focused on career opportunities in CSR and sustainability, also acccompanied the rankings. The article highlighted the increasing number of MBA graduates who are looking for jobs that exhibit at least an element of corporate social responsibility. The trend – a 37 per cent increase per year in the number of postings for CSR jobs since 2004 – is reflected in recent research by Net Impact and Ellen Weinreb CSR Recruiting, both based in the US.

The Truth Hurts

From Psychology Today:

Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature
Why most suicide bombers are Muslim, beautiful people have more daughters, humans are naturally polygamous, sexual harassment isn't sexist, and blonds are more attractive.

By:Alan S. Miller Ph.D., Satoshi Kanazawa Ph.D.

Human nature is one of those things that everybody talks about but no one can define precisely. Every time we fall in love, fight with our spouse, get upset about the influx of immigrants into our country, or go to church, we are, in part, behaving as a human animal with our own unique evolved nature—human nature.

This means two things. First, our thoughts, feelings, and behavior are produced not only by our individual experiences and environment in our own lifetime but also by what happened to our ancestors millions of years ago. Second, our thoughts, feelings, and behavior are shared, to a large extent, by all men or women, despite seemingly large cultural differences.

Human behavior is a product both of our innate human nature and of our individual experience and environment. In this article, however, we emphasize biological influences on human behavior, because most social scientists explain human behavior as if evolution stops at the neck and as if our behavior is a product almost entirely of environment and socialization. In contrast, evolutionary psychologists see human nature as a collection of psychological adaptations that often operate beneath conscious thinking to solve problems of survival and reproduction by predisposing us to think or feel in certain ways. Our preference for sweets and fats is an evolved psychological mechanism. We do not consciously choose to like sweets and fats; they just taste good to us.

The implications of some of the ideas in this article may seem immoral, contrary to our ideals, or offensive. We state them because they are true, supported by documented scientific evidence. Like it or not, human nature is simply not politically correct.

Read the Ten Truths here!

Charity Divided

Autism has long been divided into many camps, with one of the most prominent divisions between those who believe vaccines play a role in causing autism, and those who don't.

Recently, this debate was put into the forefront of autism news when Katie Wright, daughter of the founders of Autism Speaks, made an appearance on Oprah, and later interviewed David Kirby about his book Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic.

Katie was a little brusque in some of her statements, as she asked the old guard to let the new generation explore new potential causes and therapies (such as vaccines and chelation, a treatment for mercury poisoning). Her parents took steps to keep their charity, Autism Speaks (which they began in honor of Katie and her autistic son), separate from Katie's statements. The New York Times reported:

So, in early June, Bob and Suzanne Wright repudiated their daughter on the charity’s Web site. “Katie Wright is not a spokesperson” for the organization, the Wrights said in a brusque statement. Her “personal views differ from ours.” The Wrights also apologized to “valued volunteers” who had been disparaged. Told by friends how cold the rebuke sounded, Mrs. Wright belatedly added a line saying, “Katie is our daughter, and we love her very much.” Ms. Wright called the statement a “character assassination.” She said she had not spoken to her father since.Now the whole community is abuzz amidst the current federal "vaccine court" hearings that are reviewing over 4,000 cases of supposed vaccine-induced autism.

This is an important time in the community. The results of this hearing could effectively shut down the vaccine argument for good...at least in the eyes of the public. After so many past federally funded studies (that David Kirby claims were biased due to political interests) have found that vaccines do not cause autism, this hearing could end up being the final straw. With the community at odds over this cause, a finding against the plaintiffs will cause major waves among parents, politicians, and researchers. A positive finding could finally allow those who believe vaccines do play a role the ability to conduct proper research into possible treatments.

One of the most plausible theories regarding the vaccine theory currently is described in David Kirby's Evidence of Harm. The basic idea is that autism is a set of symptoms associates with many diseases (researchers have agreed on this for many years), and that one of those diseases seems to be a form of mercury poisoning. The vaccines do not affect all children, though. It seems that some children have a genetic predisposition toward the effects because they are not able to properly process the mercury and other environmental contaminants. In those children, vaccines do seem to cause the autism.

To me, this means that the research does need to be directed at both environmental and genetic factors--both because these vaccine cases only represent a portion of children with autism and because even these cases seem to have a genetic component. It's just that because research into vaccines has been pushed to the backburner, those who believe in it have to have a bigger voice.

The debate currently going on is ludicrous, but will undoubtedly have a major effect on research that continues after the ongoing hearings.

Riding the Charity High

Not only does it look like pure altruism might truly exist, we might just be prewired for it:

That good feeling you get by writing a check to your favorite charity could be your brain patting itself on the back.

Reporting in Friday's issue of the journal Science, a team of economists and psychologists at the University of Oregon have found that donating money to charity activates regions of the brain associated with pleasure.

The study represents a major advance in the young field of neuroeconomics, a collaboration between economists and psychologists to determine how the brain directs the way people handle money.

Read the whole article at the Chicago Tribune.

WUSTL Rankings

This article gave me justification for the fact that I've got $26k to go on my student loans:

UNIVERSITY HITS THE TOP TEN AGAIN: In three national ratings - faculty
scholarly productivity, black student college graduation rates, and number
of National Merit Scholars in the freshman class - Washington University
ranks in the top 10. The University is ranked in the top 10 in five broad
areas and 19 specific disciplines, according to Academic Analytics' Faculty
Scholarly Productivity Index, a new quantitative method for ranking
research universities' doctoral programs.

The full story is in the Wash U faculty paper, The Record.

Even better is the fact that the Psychology department is listed as 4th in the nation! Now only if I was in a psychology field.

The Cost of a Human Life - The Philanthropic View

Peter Singer (I've always thought of him as "the ethics guy") wrote a fabulous article on the value of human life versus the way we give to charity. He makes two strong assumptions that should then lead to a pattern of giving:

1. If we were to place a number on the value of a human life, it would surely be in the millions.

2. All people are created equal.

Singer attempts to determine an appropriate amount of giving that would even out the discrepancies between intrinsic worth (which should be equal) and actual net worth in dollars (bill gates vs. you or me). He points out that Gates has given away nearly 35% of his total worth, while former partner Paul Allen, the 5th richest man in America, has given only 5% (although that 5% reaches over $800 million). Should we all strive to be like Gates? or is 5% enough? Who would tell Paul Allen that $800 million is not good enough?

Singer then goes through various income brackets and argues what they could reasonably give, pointing out that the richest of the rich (the top .01% of taxpayers) could reasonably give 1/3 of their income and still be super wealthy. The rest of the top .1% could give 1/4. The top .5% could give 1/5, and the rest of the top 1% could give 15%. If the then remaining top 10% of taxpayers paid a traditional tithe of 10%, a total of $404 billion could be given to those in need. Singer admits the scale could be steeper, so that the rich pay more and the comfortable pay less, but regardless of the scale, this is only asking the top 10% to pay a relatively small amount. But it adds up to so much!!! And this is only from America. If the rich in other countries did the same, think of what could happen to global poverty!

He says so much more, but the point is made.

I personally believe very strongly in a capitalist society, but have always felt that includes the generosity of the rich to the poor. If only the richest of the rich took heed and followed Singer's plan to share brotherly love, capitalism could still lead to the greatest cure for social problems in our times, too.

The challenge is on, rich folk.

Philanthropy = Economy

This is soooo a longer post I need to write eventually detailing my move from socialist leanings to fiscal conservatism, but for now I'll offer up the current trends. Not that I'm a big fan of the Christian Science point of view, but the Christian Science Monitor had a great article recently:

The Christian Science Monitor
By Mark Trumbull

11/27/2006

Everybody knows Americans are big givers. But their charitable impulses keep generating surprises.

Consider just a few conclusions from recent research:

* Charitable giving plays an even larger role in the economy than is suggested by some $260 billion in annual contributions. Each dollar of giving appears to create $19 of extra national income, according to a book released this past weekend.

* Demand for nonprofit services gets proportionately bigger, not smaller, as a locality's income rises, a Federal Reserve economist finds.

* The philanthropy of the wealthy may not hinge on tax incentives to the degree many believe. In one new survey, a majority of wealthy givers say they would contribute the same amount if the estate tax were abolished. Ditto, they said, if they could no longer deduct the value of gifts from their taxable income.

These disparate studies are shedding light not just on who gives but also on why they give and what their actions mean to society. Often, the conclusions run counter to expectations.

"This is supposed to be the start of a conversation. It's the first word, not the last word," says Arthur Brooks, referring to his new book on charity, called "Who Really Cares." "We need more people thinking about [the study of charitable giving] in a serious way."

See Full Text and Diagrams Here

art as social commentary

I recognize that it has been exactly forever.2 days since I last wrote, and that I'm going to get a lot of shit for just posting a link to another website, but this was too cool not to share.

So this kid makes art that comments on things like bioengineering and sweatshops, but it does it in a way that is really cool and fun.

To start, check out the Urban Legends about his stuff.

Then check out the store front that's causing such a ruckus.

And keep in mind he has other pretty dern cool stuff, too!