Here’s why: This rule is particularly devastating for African American populations and under-served communities. It would limit the amount of federal financial aid given to populations that had slower pay-back rates or were likely to have longer periods of debt – specifically the people that need financial aid.


Millions of people attend career colleges every year, and many need financial assistance to do so. Isn’t the purpose of financial aid to help those who cannot afford to pay for it themselves? Why would we take that opportunity away?


Add your voice to the 83,000 people who have already taken action. Tell the DOE that the GE rule is unfair and will have devastating results for our economy.
Don’t Leave Underserved Populations Out of Higher Ed!

Sadly, most candidates are lacking in substance and their campaign ads are more likely to tell what is wrong with their opponent instead of where they stand on the issues. I live in Los Angeles where the airwaves are full of campaign attack ads throughout most of the day. All the commercials show an out of focus bad picture of the opponent with horrible music and a few sound bites with a cheesy voice-over. Missing from all of these ads are the candidates’ platform and their stance on real issues.

The most important issues to voters in these elections are the economy, healthcare and the deficit. Large numbers of Americans are still out of work and it is a daily struggle to put food on the table. People are losing their jobs, their homes and their healthcare in one fell swoop and sometimes it seems like Washington, D.C is “printing money on demand.” I share these concerns with voters but I also have another worry – the wars.

Missing from the priorities of most voters are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  These two wars have claimed the lives of nearly 7,000 U.S. soldiers and injured tens of thousands more. These two wars have killed hundreds of thousands Iraqi and Afghan civilians, but none of the politicians are talking about it.

The war in Afghanistan is now in its ninth year and the war in Iraq, which still has a considerable American presence, is in its seventh year. There are nearly 100,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and nearly 50,000 troops still in Iraq. Billions of dollars has been spent on these two wars, with all of that spending passing through Congress, and yet for the mid-term elections these two wars have become “the forgotten wars” that no one dares speak about.

For the sake of the soldiers and their families, I think we need to press the political candidates to talk about the wars and the future of these countries. We owe it to the soldiers to never forget them, regardless of the politics of the day or what the polls say.

Photo credit: Christine O’Donnell Facebook

The Politics of War

Tell Congress: It’s my education. My job. My choice.
Protect Student Choice in Education

It is now clear, that the greatest threat to mankind and Earth itself comes from overpopulation, which is growing at an exponential rate – as underlined in a recent UN Study: Slower Population Growth To Help Environment

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j74yWpJ1atBwCsu78IVj2VOABDzg

?

As we all well know, the population of a given country is to be considered in relation with the available territory, the resources, the state of, interaction with and impact on the environment, the flora and fauna, and this all with regards to the modes of social and economic productions and the standard of life, which are therethrough responsibly achieved or made potentially realizable.
This is as true as the fact, that this planet forms a rather homogeneous eco-system, wherein not only all the elements are interdependent and interconnected, but also one, in which each of these elements is equally important and necessary to the preservation of the whole.
Human societies are not exempt from these natural principles and in the current world view and international practice, whereby the notions of integration and globalization are the motto, it is practically impossible to render proper measure of overpopulation in national or regional terms or to approach it exclusively in such a context. No country is an exception.

Overpopulation is a worldwide issue.
Overpopulation is an all-human tragedy and, as such, it requires a worldwide understanding and solution.
The situation may of course differ from one country to another, but this does not substantially change the global picture, for, also the less overpopulated areas would eventually face it and taste it through immigration and the effects of overpopulation on the overall state of the climate, the environment, the resources and the globalized economy as well as on world peace and stability.
Besides, without tackling overpopulation, all measures, which would be taken to ensure the growth of the economy and provide a given population of a given country with a higher quality of life, would only be postponing, shoving the problem onto future generations?? -? as if “killing our grandchildren to feed our children.”, to quote one wise man.

Overpopulation and its consequences on our evolution and our security as well as on the sustainability of this planet?are definitely a source of great concern: there are just too many of us? -? think of the amount of garbage alone, which seven billion Humans produce! Daily.

It is also obvious, that our planet is subject to far-reaching changes.
The consequences of these changes could be catastrophic, if we do not re-adjust our ways of thinking and doing, also with regards to reproduction and population.

Our world is extremely overpopulated; our legitimate demands of food, energy, water and other goods of first necessity weigh heavily on the available resources, the environment, the flora and fauna. This is no longer sustainable.

?

A worldwide, rational, responsible, democratic ( applicable and mandatory to each and all! ), scientific and rigorously monitored Birth Control is the only logical, mature and ethical answer to this unprecedented, but largely foreseen challenge.

?

Some, however, speak of free energy, as the ultimate remedy to this crisis.
Truly, technology alone is not a panacea in human matters.
Lasting food security, development in sustainability thus, could hardly be realized without absorbing into the equation the determining factor of human population and its diverse legitimate demands, both of which will be growing exponentially.

?

Others may still say, “multiply yourself” orders The Bible.
Genesis 1:22: “God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.”.”

Well, we certainly shall argue here, that reason is also given to us, so that we can know, judge and decide when we ‘have multiplied enough’.

And again, the Commandment could have as well been: “multiply yourself with wisdom and reason and humaneness and knowledge and care and management.”
Besides, if we keep procreating the way we now do, there wouldn’t be much animals, fish, trees, “birds” left “on the earth”!

Overpopulation has indeed a deeper spiritual dimension and, besides,? the following summary makes convincingly the case for a serious struggle against overpopulation, even if one is to consider?the issue?from a solely practical point of view:

Fewer Humans = smaller petroleum demand = less carbon dioxide/monoxide produced by cars and industry

Fewer Humans = reduced food demand = fewer trees cut down for farmland (e.g. Brazilian rainforest)

Fewer Humans = reduced demand for everything which results in a reduced price/cost for everything (education, well-being, housing, energy, food…)

?

We are already causing drastic climate change; species are going extinct and fellow Humans are starving to death en masse which means that the population is obviously already too high.

?

Do please endorse us and most importantly, do strongly advocate a rational, democratic and scientific birth control, at home and abroad; empower Women, add your influential voice to ours, help us promote a humane and just solution to this tragedy!

?

?

Thank you and may reason and wisdom prevail.

Overpopulation Awareness & Birth Control

“Bag lady” is my generation’s term for “homeless old woman with everything she owns stuffed in two big shopping bags.” It is a position that women, regardless of age, marital status, employment or resources, fear. It summons up visions of a “living death,” of tottering down a grimy street pushing a shopping cart, dragging our eco-friendly cloth shopping bags crammed to their cloth brim with fat-free cookies, a blanket with a torn satin edging, a stuffed animal, flannel pajamas and unread copies of supermarket tabloids. Don’t laugh. I asked several women just exactly what they envisioned would be IN those bags. That’s what they told me they thought they might need if they wanted to pass the night on the street in comfort. Obviously they’ve never given serious thought to what it truly means to be homeless.

I’ve found that for the middle-to-upper class, “bag lady” is a euphemistic way of saying “homeless.” It conveys slightly more pity than “homeless” because the stereotype doesn’t include addiction of any kind, only the sheer, oppressing poverty that frightens middle-aged women living in suburbia (and maybe a little mental illness). “Bag lady” is a step above homeless because it seems more like a specter in the night than a real possibility.

Of course, bag ladies and the homeless both live on the streets. But in the minds of those who don’t dwell on the reality of it all, bag ladies “feed the pigeons in the park, wear coloful knit caps, fingerless gloves, and leg warmers pulled up over their aging calves.” They are to be pitied and taken to lunch at a place that serves chicken-salad-on-toast and hot tea. Those who use the term typically don’t have any idea of what it would really be like to be a bag lady or to be homeless. They only allow their imaginations and the depictions of “bag ladies” from movies and from glimpses of elderly women standing on street corners downtown to fuel their fears.

But bag ladies are more than just romantic images of poverty in the minds of the middle-class. Bag ladies are, or will soon be, the new face of homelessness. They are the bewildered 50 and 60-somethings, single or divorced, without children or with kids with lives of their own. They now live in the suburbs and shop at the mall — not at the Salvation Army or Goodwill. They eat out at the Olive Garden with friends. I have known many of them.

One of my mother’s best friends — a social butterfly who bought $1,000 designer gowns for holiday parties in the 80’s — was squatting in her former million-dollar mansion in a wealthy neighborhood in the 90’s. Divorced and unable to get a job, since being a wife was her only experience and her husband had fired her decades ago in a mean-spirited divorce, she was reduced to eating canned tuna and hauling her drinking water from a nearby park. She grew her own vegetables in her backyard and became a vegetarian when she could no longer afford tuna, let alone meat. A reverse mortgage on a house allowed her to fuel her aging Volvo and get a gym membership. It kept her in kerosene in the winter and allowed her for a time to keep from suffering the final indignity — true homelessness.

Like Patricia Reid, the aging soccer moms, divorced single mothers, and unemployed baby boomers are all becoming the new face of homelessness. According to the Department of Labor, more than two million of the 15 million currently unemployed are 55 or older. Like Reid, The New York Times notes, “Nearly half of them have been unemployed for six months or longer. The unemployment rate in the group — 7.3 percent — is at a record, more than double what it was at the beginning of the latest recession.” With August 2010 being the worst month yet for home repossession during this recession, I predict it will only get worse.

Photo credit: Schick

"Bag Lady," the New Face of Homelessness

According to the man who owns the bakery, rainbow cupcakes and cookies celebrating LGBT pride violate the values of the bakery.

“I explained we’re a family-run business, we have two young, impressionable daughters and we thought maybe it was best not to do that,” said co-owner David Stockton to a local Fox television station. He then added that it’s his bakery’s decision to decide what is obscene. Apparently rainbow colors fall under that label. “We have our values, and you know, some things … for instance, if someone wants a cookie with an obscenity, well, we’re not going to do that.”

All of a sudden making cookies and cupcakes for a gay student group is against family values? So much for customer service, and so much for making a good impression on those daughters, who were just shown by their parents that discrimination can come in the form of baked goods. Meanwhile, the Indianapolis City Market has a mission to enrich “the city’s economy, expands its educational options, enhances its culture.” Having vendors that refuse to serve LGBT customers doesn’t do any of that.

Customers have also started to take to other social media channels to complain about the bakery’s actions. On Urban Spoon, several users blasted the bakery for its actions.

“Having been a previous customer (fortunately the clerk didn’t inquire about my sexual orientation at the time) I can say that my experience with their product was on par with the treatment of an entire segment of society – POOR,” wrote user Eric Benge. “Last time I checked, my money is as green as the heterosexual community.”

Pretty good point there with that last statement. You’d have to bet that the cookie order for National Coming Out Day would have earned Just Cookies a nice haul. Now, the negative publicity from turning down a group of students who just wanted rainbow baked goods could just paint the bakery in a thoroughly negative light.

“[The students] weren’t asking to petition for anything, they just wanted cupcakes for an event,” said Rebecca Scherpelz, a friend of an IUPUI student, to the local Fox station.

Here’s hoping this can be a teachable moment. Maybe this can be the impetus for the Indianapolis City Market to make sure that all of its vendors are serving every eligible customer. Sure, it’s easy to see the bakery owner’s point about having the right to turn down orders they consider offensive. But rainbow cookies? Could anything be more harmless?

The students did find another bakery to place their National Coming Out Day order. Good for them, and here’s hoping their celebration is successful, educational and tasty.

Photo credit: Aldo Fonticiella

Indianapolis Bakery Won’t Serve Gay Students

Walmart has just announced that it will use smaller format stores (as opposed to the monstrosities it has favored in the past) to try and force its way into urban markets like New York, Boston, Washington, D.C., Chicago and others. The company has been struggling over the last several years to get a foothold in cities because U.S. sales are slumping and, quite frankly, it doesn’t have any other place to go. But cities aren’t like the suburbs, and you can’t go building 200,000-square-foot big box stores downtown.

So what does this mean for our cities? Nothing good. Beyond Walmart’s infamous treatment of workers, a new store, especially in an urban market, usually spells trouble for the local economy. For one thing, a recent study found that urban Walmart stores did not create new jobs in area. In other words, when a Walmart moved in to town, other stores closed. The result is that instead of improving a community by adding jobs, Walmart is instead replacing jobs that were already there. Often the jobs they replace paid more, offered better benefits and paid for some health care (which Walmart does not). To top it all off, Walmart often uses tax loopholes to cheat states and local governments out of the money they need to provide essential services.

Small format stores may sound more palatable than big box stores, but in reality, this strategy will allow Walmart to expand in even more communities, replacing existing, local jobs with poorly paid jobs. Once the buying power of a community has been weakened, residents are often forced to turn to an inexpensive place to shop … like Walmart.

Photo credit: Brave New Films

Walmart Hopes to Invade Bigger Cities by Opening Smaller Stores

Honey, of course, comes from bees. Though not the cuddliest members of the animal kingdom, they’re still animals (although the vegan community is divided on the question of eating honey). Whether you’re an omnivore or on the anti-honey side of the vegan debate, unless you eat a strictly local diet, commercial beekeeping plays a role in your life.

The “liquid gold” only accounts for a small percentage of the bee economy; in the U.S., honeybees are primarily used to cultivate plant production, including fruit, vegetables and nuts. You may imagine bees freely coming and going from hives, pollinating nearby crops and keeping ecosystems healthy. On a local level, that’s true. But in a world of concentrated animal feeding operations and genetically modified crops, Big Ag has managed to make the poor little honeybee just another cog in the factory farm system.

Beekeepers who want to squeeze as much profit as possible from their colonies don’t want to share the sweet stuff, but if they take all the honey, what will their bees eat to keep producing more? So, they pull a bait-and-switch, taking the honey and replacing it with sugar water or high fructose corn syrup.

If you thought high fructose corn syrup was bad for humans, there’s evidence that it’s just as bad (or worse) for bees. Last year, a study found that, in warm temperatures, high fructose corn syrup can form a substance that’s deadly to bees. Some researchers believe this contributes to Colony Collapse Disorder, the mystery disease that’s killed off at least one-third of America’s honeybee population. But it’s cheap. And like any other factory farm, the opportunity to cut corners gets commercial beekeepers buzzing.

In addition to the health issues, it’s pretty unethical to hog the honey and replace it with an unnatural food. In an interview with Grace Pundyk, author of the The Honey Trail, NPR’s Diane Rehm summed up the practice as going in after the insects have done the hard work, and “taking all the honey from the nest and then force-feeding these bees something else so they’ll continue to produce for us.” It would be like swooping in on a small farm at harvest time, stealing all their veggies and leaving them to subsist on a basket of potato chips.

Besides the honey theft, bees are rarely left in peace. They spend a good half the year on truck beds, being shipped around the country to pollinate whatever is in season. You know the issues surrounding livestock trucks, like the stress of travel and deadly highway traffic accidents? Same goes for bees. Earlier this year, a truck carrying about 17 million bees crashed, causing chaos on the interstate in Minnesota.

Like any other factory farmed animal, bees are pumped full of antibiotics and pesticides to minimize nature’s ability to get in the way of agriculture. When honey is harvested, it’s not exactly a scene from Winnie the Pooh. Bees are typically gassed so they (and their stingers) are incapacitated during collection. When the colony has run its course, the hives are often left out in the cold.

Since there’s no viable large-scale alternative to bee pollination, what can you do to take the sting out of agriculture? Buy local. Smaller family farms are less likely to hire hives trucked in from the other side of the country (and you can always visit your local farmers market and ask). If you eat honey, find a local beekeeper who keeps high fructose corn syrup out of his colonies. There are environmental and health benefits to supporting local honey.

So make a resolution to help bees and have a sweet year.

Photo credit: BotheredbyBees

The Not-So-Sweet Side of Honey

Last year, President Obama stood before the UN and made a powerful pledge to the world that the U.S. will support the MDGs and approach next year’s summit with a global plan to make them a reality.

This lifesaving pledge is due this September and we need more than just talk. Sign this petition to urge President Obama to follow through on his words and take the lead on achieving the MDGs by 2015.
Tell Obama to Keep His Promise to Cut World Poverty in Half!

Lincoln, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee who is gearing up for a tough re-election battle this fall, has been fighting for the funds since July when they were removed as a compromise deal from a small business stimulus bill.  The Obama administration had promised to approve the package, which was designed to provide “disaster aid” to farmers who lost crops in 2009, by Aug. 31.

August has come and gone, and there’s no sign of the package. But before we get all sad for the poor farmers down the street whose crops were ruined, let’s examine this plan. America’s biggest, least sustainable farms — many of them in Blanche’s Arkansas — would benefit most from the plan, while smaller, more damaged farms would be left high and dry. Why? The funds would not be distributed based on losses, but on how much they received or should have received under a federal subsidy program based on farm size. As the New York Times explained last week, it’s an “unjustified” windfall, as farms with as little as five percent loss would receive an additional chunk of 90 percent of the subsidy in aid. Bigger, more profitable farms — the ones least damaged by rains — are far more likely to qualify. The Wall Street Journal pointed out that the top 10 percent of wealthiest farmers would receive about two-thirds of the money, and about a quarter of the funds would (curiously) go to Arkansas farms.

Lincoln herself told the Arkansas News, “If you have a large farm, you had a large loss, which means you’re going to have a large assistance.”  She lambasted critics of the plan, saying they just do not understand farms: “I think it’s just another example of how those folks truly, I don’t think, understand production agriculture and how important it is to our economy and how important it is to feeding the world.”

Well, “these folks” understand the major problem with the aid: It applies to all farms unilaterally rather than proportionally to the hardest-hit farms. Southern rice and cotton farmers, who faced damages after heavy rainfall last year, have pleaded for aid, even if their losses were minimal. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) considers the package “a six-figure windfall for hundreds of plantation-scale, highly subsidized rice and cotton farms across the South.” Even large corn, wheat, and soybean farms would benefit. EWG President Ken Cook wrote to the Office of Management and Budget earlier this week to urge the White House not to push the package, arguing that  it should only give aid to farms with a 30 percent threshold of losses.

Payments and politics shouldn’t go hand in hand, especially in times of such economic distress. The administration should reject Lincoln’s plan. After all, an initiative that merely rewards Lincoln’s supporters is an extraordinary waste of taxpayer dollars. These funds should go towards supporting the farmers who need help the most.

Photo credit: takomabibelot via Flickr

Sen. Lincoln’s Farm "Aid" Plan Falls Flat