November 2009 Archives

No, Michaele and Tareq Salahi had no designs to harm to president or anyone else when they crashed a state dinner at the White House last Tuesday. They merely wanted to be part of the glamour, and no doubt boost their chances of being selected for Bravo's forthcoming reality TV series, "Real Housewives of D.C."

But let's not dwell on the security breach that poses serious implications for the safety of the first family and everyone else who was in attendance that evening. Let's not even think about if the Salahis truly believe they were invited to the dinner, as they have insisted since being exposed as unknown guests. It seems pretty obvious that they know they weren't: just look at Michaele's Facebook page, which proudly displays images of the event for all to see. (Don't worry - You needn't "Friend" Michaele to view her profile.)

Instead, I'd rather think about why the Salahis would go to such lengths, apparently just to improve their shot at reality TV stardom. Much like the Heene family, who in mid-October staged an "alien abduction" of their 6-year-old son in their quest to star on a reality TV show, the Salahis represent a cultural shift, and a new kind of obsession with celebrity.

Both stunts would inevitably be exposed, and the participants surely knew this, yet both the Heenes and the Salahis moved forward with their hare-brained schemes. In both cases, the perpetrators were disgraced, laughed at, and picked over by the public and the media alike. So why would anyone subject themselves to such humiliation?

For fame, at any cost -- or so it would seem. Scandal used to shame famous people; now it's how people get famous in the first place. The Salahis almost immediately went into lockdown, communicating with the press exclusively through a third party, and weighed their numerous offers for an exclusive first interview on their White House antics. Originally, they were scheduled to appear on Larry King Live, but canceled for one presumed reason: money.

If they hold out long enough, they could command hundreds of thousands of dollars for an appearance on a single show. But if they hold out too long, the public might stop caring, and they'll be lucky to land an interview with the high school newspaper in their hometown in Virginia, just outside of Washington D.C.

By then, someone else will have stolen the headlines. After all, the Heenes are old news now. By the new year, so too will be the Salahis. Will someone else take their place? Or will we finally grow tired of this brand of "celebrity"?

[Image: New York Times]

According to Byron Harlan, a Chicago-based anchor for FOX News, 70 percent of the GOP supports Sarah Palin for a bid in the 2012 presidential election. Nothing strange about that -- math-wise, anyway. But he also says that 63 percent of the party supports Mike Huckabee, and 60 percent is backing Mitt Romney.

That comes to 193 percent. This video from Think Progress shows Harlan relaying his numbers with nary a pause. Could it be that, to him, they actually make sense?

This has been one rough year.

The economy is in the pits, millions are out of work, and the horizon isn't looking too bright. It could be years before we're out of this hole, even though people have been forecasting the end of the recession since last spring. Either way, some experts are predicting that life will never be like it was again -- the "new normal" they're calling it.

So what's there to give thanks for this Thanksgiving? That depends on how much you've been affected by the downturn, of course, but also on your perspective. Some people are indefatigable optimists, others incurable pessimists. There are those who will always be grateful for what they have, and those who will always want more, or what someone else has.

This holiday, I am grateful for my health -- a cliche, perhaps, but true -- my family and friends, and the simple fact that I will be celebrating Thanksgiving over a bountiful spread of food. Close to 50 million Americans aren't so lucky.

If you're fortunate enough to have a holiday meal to look forward to on Thursday, consider donating some of your leftovers to a local shelter or food drive. But don't stop there: you can also make this the greenest Thanksgiving you've ever had. Sarah Newman of Takepart.com offers these 10 tips for a truly sustainable holiday meal.

And if it's a little too late -- you've already put the turkey in the oven, haven't you? -- keep them in mind for next year, or for Christmas dinner. Either way, you can help make sure that there's something to be thankful for in the years to come. Sounds like a pretty good "new normal" to me.

[Image: Ms. Jones from Wikimedia Commons]

This weekend's opening of New Moon showed that young women are a moviegoing audience that can and will shell out the bucks. The $146 million opening of New Moon is not the highest in history, but it at least doubled the film's production costs, which ranged from $50-70 million dollars. This means that compared to testosterone-fueled movies like Spiderman and The Dark Knight (estimated production costs of $185 million), "chick flicks" can be made for less money and could bring in a bigger return for the bean counters.

While most people will focus on the boatload of money that New Moon raked in over the weekend, Melissa Silverstein at Women & Hollywood, reminds us that women weren't grabbing their popcorn and soda just to cheer on Team Edward or Jacob:

And while everybody expected New Moon to be big (but not this big) what is more astounding to me is how well Sandra Bullock's movie did opening opposite the juggernaut. The film actually performed way better than industry estimates which were at best $20 million and it cements Bullock back as a powerhouse. The Blind Side topped her great opening this summer with The Proposal bringing in $33.6 million.

Bullock's films, moreso than New Moon, demonstrate the buying power of women, even the much maligned older woman. The film's success was built on 59% female ticket buyers with 75% of them being over 25. If you really think about it, it is older women who made this weekend a huge success because 50% of the audience for New Moon was over 21, and 75% of The Blind Side's audience was over 25.

AND let's not forget Precious. The film widened to over 600 screens, took in $11 million, and is still raking in high per-screen averages. It will roll out wider this holiday weekend.

Does this mean that women can finally go to the theater to see movies that might treat us like women and not just objects? I guess it depends on how you feel about the estrogen-packed movies from the weekend. Feminists are having quite a debate on whether or not the Twilight series is a good chick flick. Will our stories be told the way we want? Maybe. But maybe not, as there is debate about the kind of picture "The Blind Side" and "Precious" paints about African-Americans.

Wherever you fall on the debates, it is clear that women of all ages are standing up (or rather sitting down) and saying, "We want our own movies!"

Do you wonder what the world might look like if Sarah Palin manages to oust our incumbent president in 2012? Neither do I, because I don't think for a second that she'll be able to pull it off -- even if she does decide to run. Incidentally, Ross Douthat, the conservative columnist for the New York Times, wrote an interesting op/ed this week about the poor choices she's made if she still has an eye on the Oval Office. But in case you're curious all the same, check out this view of a Palin future compiled by the brilliant minds at SNL:

Editor's note: This video has been removed due to copyright issues, but stills from the clip can be viewed here or the entire episode can be viewed here.

What do you think? Should we be worried about a Palin Presidency?

"In a joint project with The New York Times -- a follow-up to "Secret History of the Credit Card" -- Bergman and the Times talk to industry insiders, lobbyists, politicians and consumer advocates as they square off over new regulation and the possible creation of a consumer finance protection agency. How are the credit, debit and pre-paid card industries repositioning themselves to maintain high profits under the new rules? The stakes couldn't be higher as many fear the consumer loan industry could be at the center of the next crisis."

Tune in Tuesday, November 24 at 9:00pm EST for FRONTLINE's one-hour program, The Card Game.

[image: "The Card Game" via PBS PressRoom]

My girlfriend is a 30-year old black woman from Brooklyn. She manages a cocktail lounge in Manhattan with a fairly well-to-do clientele, where she occasionally has to wear various hats. On busy nights, she could be found tending bar, serving tables, or even taking guests' coats.

Guests are often shocked to learn that she's a manager. We always assumed this was because she looks young for her age -- many people put her at not a day past 23 -- but new research suggests it might be something more permanent than youth: the color of her skin.

Racism is nothing new, but according to a study that was recently published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, black women face a unique disadvantage: virtual invisibility.

The researchers found that in facial and vocal recognition experiments, observers were far less capable of distinguishing one black woman from another than any other group, suggesting that black women are "treated as interchangeable and indistinguishable from one another," say Amanda Sesko and Monica Biernat, both professors at the University of Kansas who conducted the study.

My girlfriend has shared other stories that corroborate the study's findings: of being frequently mistaken for "the other" black girl or girls she's worked with, of a friend who works as corporate lawyer getting overlooked time and again by the firm's partners, and countless tales of the exact form of racism that Ralph Ellison wrote about in his acclaimed novel, Invisible Man. That book was published 56 years ago, before the Civil Rights movement, before desegregation in the schools, before Barack Obama was even born. When will its lessons finally be heard?

[Image: Miller-McCune.com]

My grandfather Cosmas Binyavanga installed solar panels on the roofs of some of his properties before he passed away recently. I like to think that Grandfather was ahead of the curve because the trend is growing. He did it because it primarily was cost-effective -- our ancestral home is far from Uganda's capital city, Kampala -- also it was an organic approach, closer to his pre-British colonialist philosophy of being clean and good to the land which gave him, as a gentleman farmer, so much. Solar is gaining traction across Africa and throughout the Third World.

To put it into perspective, one quarter of the world's population does not have reliable electricity. Kerosene lanterns and candles, in much of the world, are a way of life and not part of some romantic period drama. Leaving aside the cost-effectiveness argument of solar energy, there is also the gendered perspective to consider. The division of labor in much of Africa places great burdens on women. Collecting wood, cooking and the endless search for water -- a growing casualty of environmental changes caused by global warming and greenhouse gasses -- are difficult responsibilities that fall on women. Solar energy may be able to remedy some of that.

Solar energy comes from sunlight, of course, which is a clean natural resource that Africa has in abundance. One might even go so far as to say that sunlight is the continent's most abundant natural resource (that, and potential). So why not harness that unused energy? For more information on Solar Energy in Africa, go here. You can now follow Solar Africa for regular updates on Twitter.

Dear Sarah,

I know you might be tired of me cause I'm tired of writing about you too. But I couldn't let the bush league job that Newsweek pulled on you this week go without commenting.

First, I think that picture did a disservice to you and women in elected office. It was far too tarty in my opinion, but it was originally taken for Runner's World so the spandex was appropriate. While some will say that you asked for the humiliation that Newsweek served up, I am not in agreement. The photo shot was for Runners World and fits in that context. The Newsweek cover is so way out of context it is inappropriate.

Thankfully the Women's Media Center sees it that way too. See, feminists do get it, Sarah! And Media Matters allows us to take a peek into the issue to see the other images Newsweek chose to use of you. *shudder*

I've said it before so many times and I'll say it again. We can disagree on your policy stances, bash your book and eye-roll your "If they had just listened to me" tour. But when we start to pick on your appearance, harp on the fact that you were a beauty queen or use photos in a sexist manner to embarrass, that is going to a place where I won't go.

Because if we let Newsweek do this to you, we are only proving your theory that the big bad media are out to get you. And honestly, sometimes they are. But this time, Katie Couric was spot on.

[Image: Newsweek]

Could VH1 be going positive? On Monday night I trekked downtown to New York's Mocca Lounge to attend a premiere screening of VH1's surprisingly idealistic new series Celebs Gone Good. I say "positive" and "surprisingly idealistic" because over the years VH1 made a name for itself as an unlikely venue for the promotion of humanitarian content. However, VH1 President Tom Calderone, who attended the event, said, "What we love about DoSomething.org and their CelebsGoneGood.com property is that it's meaningful but still fun." The Church, as they say, always makes way for late vocations.

With the help of DoSomething.org, VH1 compiled a list of the 20 celebrities that have the greatest charitable impact. Celebrity is an odd, uniquely modern institution. In olden days it used to be such a narrow category, often conferred only by birth or proximity to power. That is less the case nowadays. Still, what better way to harness the capricious nature of Fame than to use it to draw attention to worthy humanitarian issues? There is synergy between the celebrity-centric VH1, which has often used it's platform for pessimistic snark, and DoSomething.org, which seeks to empower the Obama generation towards volunteerism and philanthropy.

Among the media throng at Mocca Lounge celebrating a worthy cause were Nancy Lublin, the CEO of Dosomething.org and Darrell Smith of HBO's The Wire. "Celebs Gone Good," will air on VH1 December 19th, well-placed in the thick of the holiday season where we are all counting our blessings.

For more a sneak peek at "Celebs Gone Good," check out the trailer below:

[Image: Steven B Ekerovich / SBE Photography]

What, exactly, is noise pollution? According to the Wikipedia entry on the term, it is any "displeasing human-, animal- or machine-created sound that disrupts the activity or balance of human or animal life."

Balance. Now that's an interesting concept, especially to a city-dweller, for whom sights like the one to the right are part of the routine unpleasantness we collectively endure. After all, what could be less "balanced" than the matrix of subways, all-night diners, and blazing lights of our urban eco-systems? But yet, as humans, we still strive to find balance and create a semblance of control over our lives in these over-populated concrete jungles.

It's not surprising, then, that we flinch when we're stuck in close quarters with noises that disrupt our personal quiet. For me, listening to someone's cell phone chatter, hand-held entertainment center, or even the tinny beats emanating from their ear buds is the definition of short-term hell. I usually read on the subway, and to be plunged head-first into an aural world I didn't choose makes me a little ornery to say the least.

I've been known to ask people to turn it down, ask how'd they like it if everyone blared their business for all to hear, or simply glare in their direction. Sometimes my efforts have worked, more often they haven't.

So it was with enormous pleasure that I read this article in Sunday's New York Times about other people for whom such 21st-Century noise pollution is equally disturbing. Among them is Amy Alkon, who chronicles her experiences with rude people in a section on her blog titled - what else? - "I see rude people."

Will the Times article have any impact? Doubtful. The people who should be reading it are too busy making "urgent" phone calls every time they get a decent signal. But at least it lets us ornery people know that we're not alone.

[Image: Daniel Schwen from Wikimedia Commons]

I haven't heard this much talk about boobs since Breast Cancer Awareness month!

"The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) now recommends that women at average risk start mammograms at age 50, and get them every other year." I, along with many others, am concerned by this new recommendation. Is the government misunderstanding what women really need? Shouldn't we start mammograms at 40?

Christina Applegate's public battle with breast cancer scared the beejezus out of me last year. She's only a few years older than me! Even tempered by the fact that breast cancer runs in her family, it's still scary. Applegate isn't even 40, which is where the previous guideline was set at for first mammograms.

My friend WhyMommy summed up the decision nicely:

The findings are based, in part, on a finding from a meta-review of studies by the Oregon University Health Sciences Center showing that mammography reduced deaths from breast cancer by about 15% in women ages 40-49. This data was put into a set of models that then predict that, if women postpone their first mammogram to age 50, only 3% more would die. The study authors then weighed this risk of death versus the harms, identified in the study as "false-positive mammograms, unnecessary biopsies, and overdiagnosis," and concluded that "the benefits of screening from ages 40 to 49 years were small."

So, mammograms help save lives. Just not enough lives.

Seriously?

She's a real rocket scientist, so I know she knows the science behind the decision. But science doesn't prevail when we are facing life and death decisions. Our emotions get the better of us right? We're women! Except that we're smart women who know that public health is all about herd immunity and looking at a bigger picture than just our BFF who is still a shoulder to cry on because of her early detection via mammogram.

But there are questions about the study that WhyMommy brings up. How was this calculated? Is the method of taking a median of a bunch of studies good enough when it comes to our lives? Will the new recommendations take into account the racial differences in how breast cancer develops?

The American Cancer Society isn't happy with the recommendations either. They correctly point out that mammograms (in fact almost any medical intervention) has risks and we as individuals along with our medical team must weigh those risks and act accordingly.

The big question that women have today is whether these new recommendations will mean a red light on any insurance covered mammograms before 50. What about low-income women who rely on government insurance plans? Will they be covered?

A lot rides on how this recommendation is implemented in our current health care system and in any type of health insurance reform we get out of the Congress. What do you think of these new mammogram recommendations? Do they have you worried?

President Obama is in China this week for the first time since he took office in January. The largely symbolic trip included a "town hall" meeting with Chinese youth at the Shanghai Science and Technology Museum, where Obama encouraged the next generation of industry leaders and politicians to engage openly with the United States in the future. Josh Gerstein of Politico, meanwhile, suggests that if Obama really wanted to address Chinese dissidents, he should have traveled to smaller cities, where blue-collar workers are far more likely to desire change.

But that doesn't make Obama's speech worthless. After all, he's not trying to start a revolution in the countryside, Che Guevera-style; he's trying to make his voice heard. And the best way to do that, of course, is to go where the cameras will be sure to follow.

"The notion that we must be adversaries is not predestined," Obama said to the students, after reminding them of an ancient proverb from their own culture: Consider the past and you shall know the future.

While Obama directly addressed the issue of censorship, he spoke around the controversy of human rights abuses that many Westerners routinely protest. But he did address it, if obliquely. Stating that America has no interest in imposing its system of government on any other country, he was quick to add that he does not believe American values are exclusive to America.

"We don't believe that the principles that we stand for are unique to our nation," he said. "These freedoms of expression and worship, of access to information and political participation, we believe are universal rights. They should be available to all people, including ethnic and religious minorities - whether they are in the United States, China or any nation."

His speech may have been diplomatic, but it was indisputably pointed. It's doubtful that anyone in that audience failed to hear the subtext in Obama's words: Stop being tyrants to your own people and start recognizing the work we can accomplish together to make this world a more prosperous, peaceful place. In other words, come on.

Obama ended his speech with a simple wish: that in the future, America and China will continue the dialogue going forward. Let's hope the students take his plea to heart.

[Image: Xinhua for The Hindu]

In a historic move, Australian prime Minister Paul Rudd formally apologized to British migrant child laborers and their parents. "In an emotional address in Canberra," Mark McDonald of The New York Times writes, "with many in the audience weeping." A year ago Rudd apologized for Australia's treatment of aborigines. What makes this such interesting news is that apologies by heads of state are often considered a bad idea because they are signs of weakness. Is it?

Quite the contrary. It takes a secure, mature nation to apologize for their past political sins. No country is immune from doing ill in what appeared at the time to be in the national interest. As times change, civilizations grow. In 1998, then-President Bill Clinton just stopped short of an apology for slavery in Uganda. He was roundly criticized for what was called his "apology tour." But Clinton proved to be ahead of his time. Just this year the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution apologizing for that peculiar institution.

As the above video outlines, thousands of children across the declining British empire were sent to cash-starved Australian orphanages during World War II, many even being told that their parents had died. Though no one can go back in time and erase the horrors these people experienced, an apology is at least a step in the right direction.

When several women tried to voice their opinions on health care reform to the House on November 7th, they were repeatedly admonished and silenced. But two Republican state representatives, who also happen to be women - Lynn Jenkins (KS) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA) - argue that such reforms to our nation's health care system are actually anti-women. They co-authored an opinion piece for the Washington Times last week making their case.

Their claims: women make most of the health care decisions for their families, most health care professionals are women, and most women are satisfied with their current providers. Why not leave well enough alone?

Well, because the situation isn't "well enough," as numerous women tried to state on the House floor.

In this mash-up from Media Matters, the assembly at the House of Representatives is condensed to just over one minute, but the spirit is true to what actually occurred.

Hmm . . . This doesn't look like a group of women who are satisfied with leaving "well enough" alone, now does it?

In case you missed Saturday Night Live this weekend, here's the show's take on why Lou Dobbs up and quit CNN last week. But contrary to what many are saying -- that Dobbs's departure was abrupt -- I'd argue that he's been in a tailspin for months. Ever since the man's anti-immigration position became public and he aligned himself with others on the far right, efforts to get Lou Dobbs to quit his job have gained a lot of steam. And it seems that, in the end, they worked.

Now that he's no longer part of a legitimate news outfit, and has openly stated that he plans to pursue a more "activist" role, I wonder if he will wield even more power than he did at CNN. After all, "going rogue" seems to be all the rage these days.

There will never be closure in the Nicarico case as long as Jim Ryan continues to run for public office.

The Nicarico family never missed a court date. For years they sat in courtroom after courtroom listening to the lies from Attorney Jim Ryan's team as they refused to admit their mistakes and consider Brian Dugan as a suspect. Instead, Ryan kept the case rolling along to wrongfully convict two innocent men and send them to death row.

Jim Ryan is now running for Illinois Governor and "spent a decade as DuPage state's attorney, previously had said he based his case against Cruz and Hernandez on the best information available at the time, though Dugan had long been a suspect in the crime." As I have said before in this space, the Nicarico case made a significant impact on my life. As a child it taught me to make sure the doors are locked. As a teen it taught me the harsh realities of racism in our judicial system.

Now that Brian Dugan has confessed and been sentenced to death, Ryan is apologizing. Not to Rolando Cruz, not to the Nicaricos, but to the voting public. Will we accept it? I can't. I simply can't accept his apology, especially since he has never given one to Cruz.

The fact that Ryan continues to run for public office only reminds us of the miscarriage of justice that occurred. The pain that he put not just the Nicaricos through, but an entire generation of Chicagoans. And it's not over. This case will be an issue throughout the primary election. Dugan still has one automatic appeal owed to him: Illinois has a moratorium on the death penalty. Amazingly, the huge flaws seen in this case alone are still not enough to convince people that we need to abolish the death penalty.

According to Amnesty International "ninety three percent of all known executions took place in five countries: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the USA." I think that says a lot about the United States as a country. As our moms have said, we are judged by the company we keep.

I am opposed to the death penalty because it drags out court proceedings (thus wasting money), it is racist, but most importantly because we are flawed as human beings. The Nicarico case screams with our flaws. I don't believe any set of checks and balances can ensure that we won't make a mistake, especially in a country where we are still debating whether people have a right to NOT be framed or a right to DNA testing to prove innocence.

And sorry Jim Ryan, but no apology can make up for all of that.

The Stupak amendment is the disappointment that just keeps on giving.

Monday morning, my inbox was flooded with emails from many organizations appalled by the passage of the House healthcare bill. One email stood out from the rest (including a few celebratory emails) and that was from the National Council of La Raza. It was celebratory and failed to mention the Stupak amendment, which would ban abortion coverage in public and private insurance plans:

"The health care reform bill passed by the House is a fundamental step toward making health care more affordable and accessible for all Americans, including Latinos," said Janet Murguía, NCLR President and CEO.

NCLR focused on some admittedly big gains won in terms of immigrant coverage, but oddly the next email was from the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health which blasted the bill, and not just for the Stupak amendment:

While health care reform passed a hurdle in the House of Representatives, women and immigrants were left on the sidelines.

What is the difference? Is NCLR telling Latinas to stand back in favor of the other half of the community?

From an observer's viewpoint, I think it is fascinating that these two organizations are taking a vastly different view of the bill, yet are representing the same community. Which goes to further show that not all Latina/os are the same.

From a Latina viewpoint, it pisses me off. In the Latino community, women/mothers are the center of the family. I see eldest daughters put their dreams on hold to help with younger siblings (see Cindy's story in CNN's Latino in America series) and mothers walking their children to and from school each day. But their reproductive health is a bargaining chip? One not worthy of mention? NCLR mentions the flaws in the immigrant part of the bill, which tempers my anger at their celebration of a bill with so many problems. But there is no mention of Stupak at all. This invisibility hurts.

I honestly don't believe we can get undocumented immigrants covered, hell, we can barely get documented ones covered, but I do expect that women's full range of health care needs to be covered, and I wish the Latino community felt the same.

This story from Inside Africa story on the plight of Nairobi's street children is positively heartbreaking. Though much of it is difficult to watch, the hardest part about the report on the abandoned children of Kenya's capital is how one of the children makes pocket change by selling paint thinner to other street children. As in the slums of Brazil, Nairobi's homeless kids looking to forget the desolateness of their lives, turn to sniffing the chemicals, thus killing brain cells and further disadvantaging themselves. "Living in the streets, especially if you are a girl, is very risky," 19-year old Joan told CNN's David McKenzie. "You can be raped any day, any time, by anyone who wants to do it."

Fortunately the news is not entirely bleak for Nairobi's street children. All too often the entire continent of Africa is represented in the West as such a lost cause that it is hard to imagine there is any laughter anywhere. Oprah's Book Club, this month, for example, is throwing light on the plight of Africa's children, highlighting the uplifting fiction of Uwem Akpan. Akpan, a Jesuit priest and writer, has written quite movingly about the richness of the inner lives of those trapped on Africa's streets.

Further, SOFAPAKA FC, a soccer club founded in 2004 and catering mainly to street children, clinched the Kenya Premiere League title. What makes the story even more cinematic (Hollywood take note) that they clinched the title the same year they made their debut in that league. In the words of Nairobi's The Standard, "Sofapaka, are raising eyebrows thanks to the organisational structure, prudent player signing backed by the financial muscle of Congolese preacher and businessman Elly Mboni Kalekwa." Prior to Kalekwa's stewardship, SOFAPAKA FC was sponsored by M.A.O.S Ministries and took part in small inter-church competitions. It is now not outside the realm of possibility that some of those former street children might achieve national or even international soccer stardom proving, perhaps, by example that nothing is impossible.

A blogger can dream, can't he?

California's First Lady Maria Shriver stopped by The Colbert Report earlier this week to talk about the Special Olympics. The Kennedy family -- and Shriver in particular -- has had a long commitment to the developmentally disabled community. Last year, in the thick of the 2008 presidential campaign, she chastised then-Senator Obama -- her candidate in the race -- for an insensitive joke. It was, as they say, a teachable moment. The late Eunice Kennedy Shriver, Maria's mother, was the advocate and founder of the Special Olympics in 1962, where it started as a summer day camp in her backyard. Now, according to their site, the Special Olympics has more than 3 million athletes in over 150 countries.

During the segment, Shriver and Colbert fed each other flirty spoonfuls of her family's Lovin Scoopful ice cream brand. Lovin Scoopful, according to their site, has half the fat and fewer calories than premium ice cream. Best of all, however, is the fact that that 25% of the profits of sales are shared with the Special Olympics and other worthy charities.

Click here to learn more about how you can get involved with the Special Olympics in your area.

I haven't seen someone ridicule the deaf since I was in grammar school. It's clearly in bad taste, so juvenile that even some 13-year-olds are mature enough not to do it. So it was with a mixture of shock and awe that I watched this clip of Alex Borstein, the voice of Lois Griffin on the animated TV show Family Guy, mock the deaf Academy Award-winning actress Marlee Matlin. The awe came when Marlin appeared and gave Borstein a taste of her own medicine.

I'm not a big fan of Family Guy, Seth McFarlane's acerbic brainchild of the post-politically correct age. I just don't think it's well-written or, really, all that funny. But I appreciate it for helping us move past the tyranny of hyper-sensitivity that political correctness imposed. After all, such sensitivity is often shallow or even empty, and rarely an honest show of compassion. But I have to wonder, are there lines that even a risque show like Family Guy shouldn't cross, lest we devolve into savagery? On the other hand, if Matlin herself can take the joke, who are we to complain?

Have you heard of the portal "Peace on Facebook"? The social networking group seeks to start global conversations by asking, among other things, "Do you think we will achieve world peace within 50 years?" (In the U.S., an optimistic 9% believe it is possible.)

The group, in partnership with The Persuasive Technology Lab of Stanford University, seeks to foster peace between people of different, often opposing, countries (India-Pakistan; Turkey-Greece; Israel-Palestine), religions (Sunni-Shiite; Muslim-Christian; Christian-Atheist), and political affiliations (Conservative-Liberal). Their hub features thousands of online friendships between users from regions in geographic or intellectual conflict. Graphs chart the electronic connections between historical antagonists. For example, over 900 Muslim-Jewish friendships formed on just November 10th alone, despite the present bleak situation in the Middle East peace process.

The portal, part of the The Peace Dot initiative, launched late last month. Its goals have been attracting serious online criticism for being too idealistic. Still, the goal -- peace, understanding between organizations and ideas in conflict -- is profoundly worthy. As always, it is valuable to give peace (even if it's just on Facebook) a chance.

[Image: ICT4Peace]

We take Jon Stewart, at his most positively acidic, for granted. Not every country is free enough to allow such critiques. The Australian satirical cartoonist Bruce Petty once said that "satire flourishes in a secure and knowing society." If that is so, then the success of The XYZ Show, produced in Kenya, says a lot about how far the embattled East African nation has come. Kenyan stability is still fragile, which makes the presence of boundary-pushing satire all the more remarkable a phenomenon. Variety, the BBC and African Voices have all recently spotlighted the popular latex-constructed puppet show which lampoons Kenya's often corrupt ruling class.

The XYZ Show was influenced by the British 1980s show Spitting Image and, of course, Genesis' Land of Confusion video. Gado, the popular cartoonist for Kenya's The Nation newspaper is behind the show. The episodes (which are available on YouTube) -- in equal parts acutely funny and devastatingly brutal -- are fearless, as good satire ought to be. Gado told the BBC, "I think it's everybody's duty ...You can't put that responsibility on one individual, as every Kenyan should contribute to expose what is happening and to expose corruption."

The XYZ show also has a Facebook page (4,486 members at post time, and counting!).

While Tuesday's election results signaled wins for moderate candidates, the House's version of health care reform signaled a win for anti-abortion bullies.

176 Republicans voted yes on the Stupek amendment, which prohibits abortion to be covered though a new government plan, and it "also would prohibit people who receive new federal health subsidies from buying insurance plans that include abortion coverage." How many of those Republicans voted to pass the full bill? ONE. Rep. Joseph Cao was the lone brave Republican to stand by his Stupek vote.

Stupek, a Democrat, stood by his vote.

The media was all over the victory and many framed it as exactly what it is - a loss for pro-choice advocates. Oddly President Obama's victory statement failed to mention the loss, but he still asked for my $25 to help push health care reform to final victory in the Senate. As I said on Twitter, sorry, Mr. President, but you sold out women for this victory - I'm sending my money to the Chicago Abortion Fund.

Pro-choice organizations are mad as hell and appear willing to derail the entire health care reform movement due to this amendment.

If health care reform is signed into law with the Stupek Amendment, it will not reduce abortion rates. Rather, I believe it will increase the number of second trimester abortions. If women who seek abortions use the federal program or rely on federal subsidies to pay for health insurance, they will need to pay for the procedure themselves. After 20 years as a pro-choice activist, including the last four with the Chicago Abortion Fund, I know that most women who obtain second trimester abortions do so because they could not raise the funds for a first trimester in enough time. This cannot be seen by any rational person as a moderate position.

An actual moderate position would be one that allows all the plans to cover abortion as a part of a woman's comprehensive health care package. An actual moderate position would allow women to make their own decisions and have access to all the necessary health care options.

Now we have to wait and see how much courage there is in the Senate, which is scary. (To further this process along, contact your Senators and demand they support women's rights in this debate.) If a pro-choice Speaker of the House, who is a mom and grandmother, had to rely on an anti-abortion amendment to pass a bill, what chance is there for a shaky pro-choice Senate Majority leader Reid to stand by women?

[Image: Bitch Media]

A few months ago, I shared a video on this blog from Scott Harrison of charity: water on the organization's annual September Campaign. The September Campaign encourages anyone with a birthday during that month to donate money/resources to bringing water to those in need that otherwise would have gone to gifts. Though I was born in November, I mentioned that this year I would be donating my birthday to the cause. Well, November is finally here, and it's time for me to put my money (or rather, my birthday) where my mouth is.

In lieu of birthday gifts, this year I am asking for a very special gift on behalf of the one billion people in the world without clean and safe water. My wish is to help others by donating my birthday to charity: water, an amazing organization that in only three years has provided water to over 721,000 people in 16 countries. But they don't want to stop there - they have a goal of bringing clean water to 1,000,000 people this year, and we can help them get there.

Please, help me help them reach their goal by donating as little or as much as you like. Thanks to charity: water's unique nonprofit model, 100% of your donation will directly fund freshwater projects in developing nations. A donation as small as $1 can give provide one person with clean water for an entire year.

In the interest of raising the most money possible, I am hosting a birthday event this week and am donating all drink purchases to charity: water (the more drinks people buy, the more money goes toward helping others - that's where you might come in). If you are in NYC, come by Nelson Blue (on Front St) Tuesday, November 10 (tomorrow night!) at 7:30 p.m. to celebrate for a good cause. If you aren't able to make it, you can visit my donation page and help me help charity: water reach their goal. Or - better yet - create your own donation page and make your birthday (or holiday or any day) gifts this year the kind that keep on giving.

Although it was expected, the announcement last week that unemployment in the United States hit double digits for the first time since the early 80s didn't fail to startle. How does one prepare for news like that? And besides, didn't the economists tell us recently that we are in a recovery (jobless, no doubt)?

Some observations on these hard times: The ranks of the homeless are growing. African-Americans have been particularly hard hit by the recession (surprise, surprise). Spanish youth unemployment exceedes forty percent. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, this year the proportion of young people employed in July was the lowest July rate on record (the series goes back to 1948). Women, increasingly, are becoming the breadwinners of their families. Though this might seem like a step forward for gender inequality, think of the sectors of the economy most affected by the recession - manufacturing, construction, Wall Street finance - they are male-dominated. Meanwhile, more women-friendly sectors - education, health care - have not been hit quite as hard. Unfortunately, women do not make as much as men, and many of those industries are not as lucrative as more male-dominated professions.That persistent, unaddressed American injustice is now hurting whole families during this recession.

But when will jobs return? Some, unfortunately, may not. Others, many economists say, may take years to return. Rutgers University economist Joseph Seneca told the Wall Street Journal, "the U.S. wouldn't get back to a 5% unemployment rate until late 2017." That, unfortunately, would cover an entire two-term Obama Presidency. On Friday, trying to stave off popular discontent on the heels of a punishing election night, the President signed an extension of jobless benefits. During the 2008 campaign the running joke was: Why would anyone want to be President nowadays? Unfortunately, it has proven itself all too true.

Washington state residents this week approved Referendum 71 - a law giving same-sex couples the same state benefits as heterosexual married couples - 52 percent to 48 percent. Registered couples, among other benefits, will have the right to use sick leave to care for one another and will be able to claim one another's death benefits. The law is expected to take effect in about a month, as soon as the vote is certified.

Nicknamed "Everything but Marriage," Referendum 71 asked voters to approve or reject a sweeping domestic-partnerships bill passed by the Washington legislature this spring and signed by Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire. Congratulations, Washington state residents!

In other, less exciting news this week, voters in Maine overturned a law - 53 percent to 47 percent - that would have legalized same-sex marriage. The state legislature originally passed a bill in May to legalize same-sex marriage, (a move that was approved by Governor John Baldacci). However, a petition by opponents of marriage equality, orchestrated by churches and conservative organizations, stalled the law's implementation until it was brought to vote this week. Maine is the third state in which residents have reversed lawmakers' decisions to permit same-sex marriages, after California and Hawaii.

The decisions in both Washington and Maine were sharply watched across the nation, with many considering the turnout to be a sign of where the country is moving in terms of its opinion of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is currently legal in four states: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa. Not to be outdone, New Hampshire will begin granting marriage licenses to same-sex couple in January 2010.

On a similar note, New York Governor David Paterson included a vote on same-sex marriage in a special session of the state Senate scheduled for Tuesday. The bill has already been approved by the Assembly, although the prediction is that the Senate may not pass it as easily.

Although the defeat in Maine is a blow to the marriage equality movement, the win in Washington state is hopefully a sign that the U.S. is warming to the idea of same-sex couples having the same rights as those in heterosexual relationships.

[Image: KATU]

In February this year, a small group of people in London started collecting used books and handing them out for free outside that city's Tube stations. The idea was to get people reading something besides the free tabloids they might otherwise pick up on their way to work, and help them "step off the conveyor belt of information," as the program's founder, Claire Wilson, puts it.

Now, Choose What You Read has jumped across the pond and begun collecting and distributing books in New York City. I stumbled - almost literally - on volunteers handing out the free books Tuesday night as I was crossing Astor Place in the East Village. Scattered about on the sidewalk were books of all kinds - paperbacks, hard covers, textbooks, fiction, anthologies - all for free. A few people stood near the books encouraging passersby to take a look, and to take or leave a book.

"Please take something to read!" one shouted. "Anything left we have to drag back to the warehouse."

With drop-boxes in several Manhattan locations, avid readers can easily contribute to the cause. And on the first Tuesday night of every month, they can replenish their supply by hitting up one of a few high-traffic areas in the city.

Participants often write their names in the books to record a book's path from one "owner" to the next, creating a kind of living testament to the notion that ideas should forever be in motion, on through the generations. What a nice alternative to the hyper-kinetic world of digital information. Everyone could use a good book, after all.

[Image: Lienhard Shultz via Wikimedia Commons]

Tuesday's study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows us that the glaciers of Africa's tallest mountain (and the highest free-standing peak in the world) are thinning. "We've lost 26% of the ice since 2000 alone," said lead author Lonnie Thompson, a glaciologist at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University. "And that, unfortunately, is just what we predicted would happen." The report, which calculates the annual percentage of recent ice cover loss, contains harrowing aerial photographs that illustrate the rapid disappearance of ice since the turn of the millennium.

Though the cause of the ice melting has not yet been determined, it is likely that global climate change plays a role. "The fact that so many glaciers throughout the tropics and subtropics are showing similar responses suggests an underlying common cause," Thompson said in a statement. "The increase of Earth's near surface temperatures, coupled with even greater increases in the mid- to upper-tropical troposphere, as documented in recent decades, would at least partially explain" the observations.

The authors conducted the study using the photos as well as drilling into the ice cover over time to measure the shrinkage. According to their results, 85 percent of the ice cover that was present in 1912 has disappeared and 26 percent of the ice present in 2000 is now gone. If present trends continue, the report concludes, "the ice fields atop Kilimanjaro will not endure."

Regardless of our stance on global climate change, most of us can likely agree that we don't want to see the peaks of Kilimanjaro disappear. To find out how you can get more involved with environmental issues, visit Volunteer Match.

[Image: Flickr]

It started as a little homemade movie about climate change, and 7.5 millions views later, Greg Craven's climate change project has garnered a book deal and millions of fans.

In the video that started it all, Craven, a high school science teacher, spoke plainly and logically about climate change with a simple premise: It's not about knowing what's going to happen, it's about looking at the various possible outcomes and making an informed decision. Craven is smart, logical, nonpartisan, and engaging. He'll remind you of your best college professors, whether they were ecologists, philosophers, historians, or political scientists. He's a bit of all four. Check out Craven's video on the issues we face surrounding climate change and see for yourself:

What do you think? Is Craven right? If so, you know what to do: Spread the word!

Have you seen the latest in lounging fashion? Weezer has teamed with Snuggie for the release of their latest CD, "Raditude."

The winning combination of music, hipster irony, and a blanket with sleeves is just too good to not spread the word. It's just that kind of "whhaa??" news that makes you do a double take and then laugh. And really, don't we need a few more silly stories these days that make us laugh just for the heck of it?

Sadly "Raditude" does not come with a Snuggie for dogs. My doxie is uberpissed about that. And with that, I will return to writing about more serious topics.

Former Vice President Al Gore is getting a lot of heat these days, and not just from the sun. (Besides, we're all getting more of the sun's heat as we can handle, as Gore's efforts to curb global warming have helped reveal.)

Conservatives are accusing Gore of profiting off of the very causes he's built his career on since leaving office in 2001. As a partner at a venture capital firm that invests in green energy innovators, Mr. Gore has developed a reputation among his supporters as a man who puts his money where his mouth is. But when one of those investments stands to receive more than $500 million in a new government grant for developing smart grids, some people see a conflict of interest.

In other words, is Al Gore using the green revolution he helped start to get rich?

If you think this is a new question, think again. People have been speculating about Gore's sincerity for years, and this latest development merely proves that whenever a man of great influence makes a difference, there will always be those who shout "Hypocrite! Sell-out! Liar!" from their rooftops.

Should Gore's wealth be our primary concern here? Why do people care? If his efforts are helping the environment and generating a profit, isn't that a win-win for everyone involved? If he continues to make money by investing in green energy, then others with capital will join him and create more green investment opportunities and jobs that benefit the global economy as well as global ecology. Isn't that a good thing?

[Image: Al Gore]

A lot of Americans rejoiced Sunday morning when one of their own broke the tape at the 40th New York City Marathon, something that hasn't happened since 1982. The winner of the 26.2-mile race is a 34-year-old Californian, who graduated from UCLA with a degree in communications and who has represented the U.S. in the past two summer Olympics. His time was 2:09:14, 42 seconds ahead of the second-place finisher.

But for all those celebrating, plenty of others were quick to dismiss the moment. Their reasoning? The winner may live in California, but he's really an African.

Mebrahtom Keflezighi, better known as Meb, was born in Eritrea, a small country on the horn of northeast Africa, not far from Sudan and Ethiopia. He and his family emigrated to the U.S. to escape his war-torn country when he was 12 years old, settling in San Diego. He never ran until he began junior high school in his adopted country, when he surprised his gym teacher with a 5:20 mile.

That mile got him the recognition of coaches who would cultivate Meb's talent and help him earn a track scholarship for college. At UCLA, he set records and won a lot of races, earning him professional sponsorship when he graduated in 1998.

To a lot of people, Meb's is a quintessential American success story. A young refugee emigrates to the United States, where he receives a top-flight education and becomes a naturalized citizen and productive member of society. But to plenty of others, he's just another African, and to hail his win as an American victory is misguided at best.

Last I checked, however, America is a land of immigrants. Alberto Salazar, the last American to win the New York City Marathon, was born in Cuba. Bill Rodgers, who won before him, was born in Boston, but his family line is British. In fact, not a single winner of any major U.S. marathon has been a native American. So what's the real issue here?

It could well be race. Salazar is Latino, Rodgers is white. Being African-born, Meb Keflezighi may be too hard for some Americans to accept as one of their own. And if that's the case, how will we ever achieve a truly integrated society, one that embraces people from distant lands and allows them to realize their dreams? Isn't that what America is supposed to be about?

[Image: AP via Fox Phoenix]

I have long been fascinated by the nexus point at which glam Hollywood meets dour Washington D.C. Celebrity politics, at its best, transform the silliness of the celebrity concept into a platform that can be used to inform large groups of otherwise uninformed voters about worthy political issues. One-term United States Senator Barack Obama's ascent to the American Presidency -- partially on the back of his celebrity -- represents, perhaps, the height of "Poliwood." Hollywood director Barry Levinson -- of "Diner" and "Good Morning, Vietnam" fame -- turns to the documentary format to delve into this fascinating phenomenon.

Are you looking forward to this film? Or do you feel that it furthers the frivolity of "celebrity politics" in a way that is unproductive? Can we, in our mediated culture, ever separate our love of celebrity from our need for politics? Should we?

As we reported on Wednesday, President Obama signed the "Matthew Shepard Act" into law last week, expanding the definition of "hate crime" to include acts committed against someone because of his or her sexual orientation or sexual identity.

That's good news in and of itself. But there's something even greater about hearing what Mr. Obama said at the signing. His words are like a salve on a generations-old pain, brought on by discrimination, suffered by millions of Americans over the years. Watch the video to hear Obama's words on the subject:

Any progress we can make on upholding the constitution and treating all citizens as equal should be commended, and Obama should be as well. Let's just hope that this goodwill and progressive thinking spills over into his decisions surrounding don't-ask-don't-tell and gay marriage as well.

Fellow AWEARNESS writer David Alm shed a light recently on the plight of teenage runaways. Having to cope with economic uncertainty ripping their families apart, and even sex slavery (that's what I call underage prostitution, especially when it involves 10-year-olds), many of our nation's youth are facing tough times that can result in homelessness. Even my favorite "Golden Girl," Bea Arthur, chimed in on the topic from the heavens when her estate revealed last week that she left $300,000 to a gay youth shelter. Now that's being a friend to the end. . . and then some!

But if there is any silver lining whatsoever to the cloud of homelessness, it's that the media are beginning to show homelessness in a new, human, light. The Chicago Tribune just profiled a family who goes between living in a storage unit and various motels. Why is this news? Because it is straining our education systems:

Ron O'Connor, Will County's homeless liaison, said this academic year has been like no other. 'Where we used to see single moms, maybe leaving a domestic situation, now we're seeing more and more two-parent homes that just aren't making it,' O'Connor said. 'That's never happened before.'

The Tribune profiled a working family. They aren't slackers, but people whose jobs were hit hard by the recession. This profile, and others like it, gives a face to the homelessness crisis and shows readers that not only lazy "bums" are struggling to find shelter. This is happening to families and individuals of all walks of life, and it could happen to just about anyone - even you.

This got me thinking. . . Will profiling families like this help the homelessness problem? Will we stop assuming that people live on the street because they are lazy and don't want to work? Can we begin to see them as human beings who caught a bad break or have other issues which require outside help? The face of a homeless person appears to be changing in the media, but many of the factors that contribute to the situation are the same. In fact, NOW on PBS updated their website on homelessness to reflect the new statistics on homelessness.

If one good thing comes from the current recession and the increase in homelessness, I do hope it is a change in our culture's notion of who is homeless and most importantly, why.

[Image: NOW on PBS]

Americans, thoroughly disgusted with the socialistic programs that have been thrust upon them over the last few years, vote out 17 of the 19 Democrats in the Senate and 178 in Congress that were up for reelection.

The year is 2011. The United States has become saturated with suspicion and unrest. Since early 2010, President Barack Obama, President Felipe Calderon of Mexico, and Prime Minister Stephan Harper of Canada have been conducting private meetings with each other and various political heads of the U.N. None of the meetings are open to the media, let alone the public.

Thus describes the future as imagined by a "2011 Obama's Coup Fails," a new online video game that capitalizes on right wing fears of the Obama administration. In the game's near-future America, President Obama has dissolved the Constitution and outlawed private gun ownership, and 20 million armed "patriots" have begun seizing local and federal government offices.

The site promoting the game, United States of Earth, assures that it is merely "action-packed, satire-filled" entertainment. But the game's creators also advise that, "If current events keep transpiring as they are, then 2011 Obama's Coup may in fact become a dark chapter in American history."

These doomsayers are not purportedly anti-Obama, but rather a group of libertarians living in Brooklyn. They say they are not advancing any particular agenda, and that this game is merely one of many United States of Earth projects they envision that will engage players to build their own empires and "dominate other players' regimes across real-world maps."

David Corn of Mother Jones reports that the site will launch an "Ambush" game next week, in which players can hunt down former president George W. Bush in Texas.

Corn asked Michael Russotto, one of the designers, why they decided to launch with the Obama game. "For the most publicity," answered Russotto. "There's a lot going on with Fox, the White House, and we wanted to capitalize on that."

Satire or no, "Obama's Coup Fails" depicts precisely what the right wing propaganda machine is touting as the certain outcome of the president's "socialist" efforts. Reenacting a worst-case scenario that like the one described by the game's creators is not likely to bring any reason into the boiling political climate in this country. And reason is, frankly, what we need most right now.

But hey, I'm sure Glenn Beck is happy. As Corn writes, even if Huffington Post readers love the "Ambush" installment, the site is for now a "right-wing wet dream." What do you think of this new game? Is it merely harmless entertainment, or something else?

[Image: United States of Earth]