With mid-term elections closing in, politicians are out doing their hand-shaking, baby-kissing thing. They’re also collecting campaign contributions, including nearly $14 million contributed so far, just to the 2010 election cycle, by the oil and gas industry. That kind of money says Don’t forget us when you’re in office. Unfortunately, wildlife doesn’t have the luxury of buying loyalty from representatives. That’s why Defenders of Wildlife is calling on Congress to donate all oil company campaign contributions to help save wildlife in the Gulf of Mexico.

Some people argue that oiled birds are better off dead because it takes so many resources to clean, rehabilitate and release — as much as tens of thousands of dollars per bird — and then many of them don’t even make it. But if I had to choose between throwing millions of dollars at that effort, or funding my representatives’ campaigns, my vote would be on the wildlife. Every time.

But it’s not just the birds and other animals showing up covered in oil that need help; the disaster threatens the survival of entire species. Earlier this week, a batch of critically endangered baby Kemp’s ridley sea turtles was released into the Gulf of Mexico. Todd Steiner, director of the Turtle Island Restoration Network, thinks it was a mistake. “We believe they’re going to get into the oil and die.”

How long could it take before the waters are healthy again for marine life? Well, 20 years after the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska, oil is still impacting wildlife in the area.

The Center for Biological Diversity has filed its sixth oil-related lawsuit against the government this week, and plans to file at least two more. They’re calling for a new analysis on the impact of offshore drilling on endangered whales and sea turtles because the last report said that drilling really didn’t pose much of a threat to wildlife. Miyoko Sakashita, the Center’s oceans director said, “Like Obama’s April 2 statement that ‘oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills’ … the government must revisit its slipshod analysis that oil drilling poses no risk to the Gulf’s endangered species.”

Instead of fueling politics with money from Big Oil, our government should be focusing on restoring the Gulf and protecting wildlife from corporate interests. Tell your representatives and senators to donate any and all campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry to support local Gulf charities working to save wildlife. Now is the time for government officials to start doing the right thing.

Photo credit: LDWF Biologist Rescues Oiled Sea Turtle

Congress Should Donate Oil Company Campaign Contributions to Save Gulf Wildlife

I have no doubt that Japan is grateful for the ocean’s bounty. So grateful, in fact, that the government continually lobbies against international protections for endangered marine species like the bluefin tuna, and flaunts their disregard for international law when it comes to whaling. The holiday not only comes on the tail of the discovery of the shark massacre, but it’s also just days after the start of Japan’s summer whaling mission in the Northwest Pacific ocean, where they plan to kill 100 minke whales, 100 sei whales, 50 Brydes whales and 10 sperm whales.

Although Marine Day has a patriotic, national security bent, it is, according to the Japan Maritime Public Relations Center, a time to “realize our obligations to the oceans.” Which is pretty ironic, considering how one-sided Japan’s relationship is with the ocean ecosystem.

But it’s not surprising that Japan wants to promote its love of the ocean through colorful fish tanks and sushi dinners on Marine Day. They’ve tried to suppress the truth about the dark side of their relationship with the ocean before, pinning whaling on “cultural traditions” instead of owning up to the politics and economics driving the hunts, and even going so far as to censor screenings of The Cove, the Oscar-winning documentary about the annual dolphin slaughter in the village of Taiji.

Seems like Japan is hoping to redefine their relationship with the ocean through a few fish tanks and day off of work. Marine Day is government propaganda at its best. It’s a good thing none of those fish in the Ginza shopping district jumped for their freedom like the dolphin at Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium who leapt out of her tank during a show in early July — that might have ruined the image of a happy co-existence between Japan and marine animals.

As an island nation, Japan has every reason to celebrate respect and gratitude for the ocean, but instead of a meaningless national holiday, they’d be better off changing their destructive policies before the ocean has nothing left to give. 

Photo credit: ajari

Japan’s Ironic National Holiday

As a legislator, McDonnell was chief sponsor and author of a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex couples from marriage. McDonnell’s Web site proudly boasts that he was twice named “Legislator of the Year” by the Virginia Family Foundation, an ultra-conservative group. As governor, in February 2010, he signed an executive order banning discrimination against state workers on the basis of race, sex, religion and age — but not sexual orientation, as his predecessors had done. A month later, after much criticism, he issued an executive directive (not as strong as an executive order), saying that he would not tolerate discrimination of any kind, including that based on sexual orientation. And his Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli forced the halt of a proposed state regulatory change that would have allowed government employees to add same-sex partners to their state health benefits.

McDonnell’s former in-law, however — the divorced spouse of his wife’s sister — is transgender. In April, at an LGBT-rights rally held by Equality Virginia, she announced to the crowd, “I am father to three of the present governor’s nephews and nieces.” She said she wants to use her association with the governor to advance LGBT rights, especially because she fears her personal situation may have “hardened” some of his views.

The Washington Post has a long piece today on Deane, and reports that several LGBT activists are skeptical of Deane’s motives. Sen. A. Donald McEachin (D-Richmond), an advocate of LGBT rights, told WaPo that “several activists have told him they are worried that Deane will shift attention from the cause to her,” and that “It’s incumbent to all of us to keep the issue front and center. The more all of us do to speak out about the issue, the more it becomes about the issue.”

Wait just a minute. The “issue” here is civil rights — and civil rights are about people. One cannot separate them from the people whom they affect.

Yes, there are those whose activism seems motivated by the desire for personal fame rather than truly benefiting the cause. I have no idea if Deane is that kind of a person. I also hope that the comments about her are not motivated by transphobia. On the other hand, she is related to the governor through a marriage that has ended, which seems a tenuous connection — but tenuous or not, the situation also reflects that more and more non-LGBT people will at some point in their lives know someone who is LGBT.

These connections are critical for equality. Research from the Pew Center has found that “People who have a close gay friend or family member are more likely to support gay marriage and they are also significantly less likely to favor allowing schools to fire gay teachers than are those with little or no personal contact with gays.” It does not seem like a stretch to think this would apply to those who know transgender people as well.

Imagine what would happen if every LGBT friend, relative, and ex-relative connected to anti-LGBT politicians made themselves publicly known, in addition to having private conversations with the official. It would be no guarantee that the politicians would change their minds, but it would make it much more awkward for them to justify their positions.

Come out. Be visible. That is perhaps the oldest and simplest tactic in the LGBT-rights handbook. Could it also be the most effective?

Photo credit: Conk 9

Six Degrees of Bob McDonnell

How Experience in Foreign Cultures Facilitates Creativity: Most of the folks I know who have spent significant time of broad probably would have argued this point before they had any data to back it up, but it’s very cool to see some significant research suggesting that being exposed to foreign cultures has significant, measurable positive impacts on people’s ability to think creatively and solve problems. Importantly, however, the study also shows that the attitude you have going in — the desire to actually engage with that foreign culture — is key to actually getting these benefits.

Revitalizing the American Dream: Inc magazine put together this awesome list of tips for revitalizing the American Dream, and it’s all about making it easier for people to start, join, and succeed in startups. This means teaching entrepreneurship across disciplines (not just in B-School), changing our general approach and disposition towards immigration (and immigrant entrepreneurs), and even some legal ideas like to stop enforcing “noncompete” agreements that force former employees of companies not to work for (or start) competing companies after leaving. Total must read.

Microfinance Group Unitus Shuts Down, Eyes ‘Reinvention’: This is one of those confounding stories that could be incredibly significant or totally irrelevant, depending on what’s behind it. Basically, one of microfinance’s leading institutions has shut its doors and laid off its staff, saying that it’s exploring a reinvention, without saying much of anything about what that is. If this is due to a lack of confidence in microfinance, it’s significant. If it’s a real-life example of a nonprofit actually “putting itself out of business” because it feels it has accomplished what it set out to do, it’s significant. If, more likely, the root of this is just difference in opinion about future direction within the leadership, it’s just internal politics and doesn’t much matter. A story worth watching, though, for sure.

Start-Up Chile: Putting some of the ideas from the Inc story above into practice, this new program from the government of Chile is offering $40,000 in startup grants for companies that are willing to relocate to Chile for a time. The goal is to welcome the global entrepreneurship community to the country and hope that some people decide to invest in Chile as a primary or secondary home for their companies. Few strings attached money is definitely a good way to grab an entrepreneurs’ attention.

Photo credit: Gonzalo Baeza Hernández

Weekend Entrepreneur Links: American Dreams and Foreign Cultures

The research team looked at television advertising targeted at children from 2003 to 2007. Researchers found that on average, children between the ages of two and 11 are seeing 30 percent fewer ads for fruit drinks and soft drinks. In addition, ads for candies, cookies, and other sweets went down 35 percent. But ads for fast food increased by eight percent, with two-to-five-year-olds seeing more ads for fast food than cereal. Lisa Powell, one of the researchers, commented, “That suggests a lot of branding is going on. They are starting marketing of brand loyalty at an earlier age.”

What is perhaps most shocking, however, is the disparity between children of different races. The researchers found that African-American children saw 1.4 to 1.6 times as many food ads each day as their white counterparts, and they saw double the number of fast-food ads. Just think about that for a moment along with the oft-cited statistic that one in three children born after 2000 will suffer from diabetes, and if that group is narrowed down to just minority children, the number rises to one in two. Maybe not a direct correlation, but I wouldn’t be willing to bet against a connection.

I’ve written previously that the American Academy of Pediatrics states that “advertising directed toward children is inherently deceptive and exploits children under eight years of age.” The Institute of Medicine has also stated that evidence suggests short-term food choices among children aged two to 11 are influenced by TV ads. The American Psychological Association and numerous other organizations agree, and believe that marketing of food products towards young children should be eliminated.

The researchers attribute some of the decline in sweets advertising to voluntary industry programs, such as the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. While I would never say something like that is a bad idea, I think a recent post on Marion Nestle’s blog draws a good analogy between industry self-regulation of tobacco and food. How much of the “self-regulation” is just good publicity, and how much is actually meaningful?

It seems that more and more studies are coming out (or at least gaining some attention) on the connections between advertising, food, and childhood obesity. While this latest report provides a bit of good news, it’s really just negated by the increase in fast-food advertising. Win some, lose some? Until marketing targeted at children is eliminated or severely restricted, I’d say it’s all a loss for the kids.

Photo credit: tempophage

TV Advertising to Kids Switches From Sugar to Grease

So it’s no wonder that folks are wondering what Michael Steele has to say about the party platform of the Texas GOP. It was released a few weeks ago, and it might just be filled with some of the most anti-gay sentiments in the country.

Among the calls of the Texas GOP include:

• suggesting that gay people should not be allowed to have children;’
• wanting to recriminalize sodomy;
• suggesting that straight people who officiate anything that can be construed as a gay wedding be sent to prison;
• labeling homosexuality as something that “tears at the fabric of society.”

Sounds a little oppressive, right? Not to mention quite un-American. That’s why several groups, including the Human Rights Campaign, are out with a call to Michael Steele, urging him as one of the senior leaders in the Republican Party to repudiate this Texas GOP platform.

Steele owes it to Republicans to do so. Much has been made about how the Republican Party wants to become the “big tent” party, or the party that prizes individual liberty. Nothing strikes against those wishes more than this Texas GOP platform, which looks like a party platform more fit for the year 1810 than 2010. Will Michael Steele really stand idly by and say nothing, while the Republican Party in the biggest state in the country openly talks about arresting gay people, and putting straight people who support gay rights in jail?

Texas, of course, isn’t the only state making headlines for its statewide Republican Party’s position on gay rights. Montana is trying to get into the swing of things as well, with a 2010 party platform that includes calling for the criminalization of homosexuality, too.

Nobody’s accusing Michael Steele of contributing to these backwards policies. But the longer he remains silent about efforts on the statewide level to criminalize homosexuality, the longer it looks like a tacit endorsement of these kinds of platforms from the national GOP. And while the Republican Party is definitely looking for a new road map, given the thumpings they took at the ballot box in 2006 and 2008, pushing for the recriminalization of homosexuality surely can’t be it.

Send Michael Steele a message today, urging him to condemn these efforts. As the Human Rights Campaign asks, “Does the Texas Republican Party speak for the National Republican Committee?”

Only Michael Steele has the answer to that. And it’s time for him to come clean with a response.

Photo credit: Republican Party of Shelby County

Does Michael Steele Want to Criminalize Homosexuality?

I speak from personal experience on this one (my partner is an immigrant): that just isn’t the case. My guy and I will squeak by because we have a number of other privileges working in our favor, but when the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services continues to raise rates for green card applications and naturalization fees, they really ought not wonder why undocumented immigration seems so appealing to so many.

The self-financed agency recently decided that raising most fees by 10 percent would be the best way to make up for its $200 million budget shortfalls. Green card application fees, or legal residence permit fees, will increase from $930 to $985. Employment authorization forms — that is, a work permit — will cost $380, up from $340. And if you think $50 here and there isn’t a big deal, you oughta read the list of required paperwork, fees and fingerprinting charges to boot. This stuff adds up quickly. Oh, and they’re also tacking on a few new fees for good measure. Wouldn’t want anyone not paying their dues. (Please note the sarcasm.) The only consistent fee is the $595 it costs for naturalization. That fee was already hiked by a whopping 69 percent in 2007.

To be fair, a few of the costs will be dropping, like the price of fiancée visas. But perhaps you’ll appreciate why this isn’t exactly a victory: a fiancée visa has to be thrown out and a new spousal visa requested and approved after you get married. Lowering the fee on a temporary permit that will be revoked the moment you get hitched? Gee, thanks for the cheaper double payment.

There are waivers available for poor immigrants to avoid some of these steep fees, but for now, there’s no clear system in place for navigating the bureaucratic maze, nor is there a standardized process by which waivers are granted.

There are an inordinate number of U.S. citizens who get all bent out of shape about immigration and demand we build fences and ramp up border patrols. But will those same people defend legal immigration and take a stand against outrageously high fees just to keep the CIS afloat in the first place? Will they argue in favor of redirecting the billions spent on keeping undocumented workers out by welcoming legal applicants? I highly doubt it.

Photo credit: Dru Bloomfield – At Home in Scottsdale

Immigration Fees Go Up, Penalizing Legal Applicants

Under pressure from the gun-rights lobby, House Democrats might exempt the National Rifle Association from pending campaign finance legislation. As you might recall, earlier this year, the Supreme Court upended 100 years of campaign finance restrictions, determining for the first time in the 223-year history of our Constitution that corporations are equivalent to human beings under the First Amendment. It was a startling chapter in the Roberts Court’s embrace of conservative judicial activism — one that disgusted the American public and earned a central role in coverage of President Obama’s second State of the Union address.

Since that remarkable demonstration of judicial prerogative, Democrats have included campaign finance reform among the planks in a populist platform that they hope will mitigate losses in the mid-term elections. That political calculus, however, is giving way to pressures from the NRA.

While conservative politics undergoes an identity crisis, with moderates losing out to the looniest elements of the hardcore right, Democrats on Capitol Hill seem bent on sacrificing their principles to maintain the broad tent that brought them electoral landslides in 2006 and 2008. The latest lamb sent to the slaughter? Common-sense gun regulation.

Despite myths about gun regulation propagated by the NRA, America’s history of protecting citizens by limiting access to firearms is long and proud. Democrats on Capitol Hill, however, seem on the precipice of forgetting such history amid pressure from short-term political demands.

Right now, in exchange for a promise that the NRA will not actively oppose current campaign finance regulations under consideration, House Dems have formulated a compromise that would exempt the NRA from the proposed law. You read that correctly: Dems on the Hill are sacrificing American lives, all to avoid an active challenge from a powerful interest group. It’s a move that speaks not only to the NRA’s extraordinary reach — but to the desperation of the Democrats, in what’s shaping up to be a disastrous year for them at the polls.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Under NRA Pressure, Dems Propose Unraveling Gun Regulation

Posted by cabinets in Uncategorized

(UKPA) – 7 hours ago

The junta that seized power in the West African nation of Niger says its leader is squadron chief Salou Djibo.

Armed soldiers stormed the presidential palace, kidnapping the country’s president.

It is not clear where President Mamadou Tandja is.

The soldiers later announced on state TV that the country’s constitution had been suspended and that Niger is now being led by the Supreme Council for the Restoration of Democracy.

In a statement on Friday, the council said Djibo is its leader and that government business would be handled by heads of government ministries and Niger’s regions until a new government is formed.

The junta said it wanted to turn Niger into “an example of democracy and of good governance.”

A diplomat in the region described the coup’s leaders as being part of an army faction that is deeply disillusioned with Tandja for violating his constitutionally mandated term limit.

The uranium-rich country has become increasingly isolated since then, with the 15-nation regional bloc of West African states suspending Niger from its ranks and the US government cutting off non-humanitarian aid and imposing travel restrictions on some government officials.

However, there are also fears that the military group could attempt to cling to power in Niger, as the junta in Guinea did following a December 2008 coup. The coup leader there first promised to hold elections in which he would not run, only to later to suggest he may have changed his mind. Only a year later, he went into voluntarily exile after his aide-de-camp tried to assassinate him.

The African Union’s (AU) top executive, Jean Ping, condemned the coup in Niger and said the AU “demands a quick return to constitutional order”. Meanwhile in Washington, US State Department spokesman PJ Crowley said Tandja may have invited his own fate by “trying to extend his mandate in office.”

The Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday defended its proposed $33 million settlement with Bank of America over bonuses paid to Merrill Lynch executives just before the bank took over Merrill last year.

The S.E.C. said in a federal court filing that the settlement was “fair” and “reasonable” and that it had lacked enough evidence to charge individuals at the bank with misleading shareholders about the $3.6 billion in bonuses paid to Merrill employees.

In its own legal filing, Bank of America maintained its previous stance that “there is no evidence that any individual is culpable” and said it had agreed to the settlement with the S.E.C. to avoid a protracted public court fight that could potentially damage its reputation.

On Aug. 25, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court in Manhattan refused to approve the proposed settlement until he received an explanation about why the S.E.C. had failed to pursue charges against individuals at the bank.

Even as Bank of America was defending itself in federal court, it moved a day closer to facing potential charges from Andrew M. Cuomo, the New York attorney general, regarding the Merrill acquisition.

The bank’s lawyers sharply rejected an assertion by the attorney general’s office that the bank was hiding behind attorney-client privilege to avoid disclosing crucial facts.

In a strongly worded letter, the bank’s lawyer, Lewis J. Liman of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, wrote that Bank of America was “extremely surprised and disappointed” when it received a letter on Tuesday from the attorney general’s office, and said that its basic premise was wrong.

Mr. Cuomo’s office has been investigating several aspects of the takeover of Merrill, including when and how the bank had decided to disclose unexpected losses at Merrill as well as the bonuses paid to Merrill employees.

The letter on Tuesday from David A. Markowitz, the chief of Mr. Cuomo’s Investor Protection Bureau, said that “attorney-client privilege is hindering this office’s ability to make fair and fully informed decisions as to what charges, if any, to bring and whether individual Bank of America officers should be charged.”

In its response, Bank of America disputed that assertion on several fronts, writing that “because Bank of America did not violate the law, it has not offered reliance on legal advice as a defense.”

The letter, addressed to Eric O. Corngold, Mr. Cuomo’s executive deputy attorney general for economic justice, also said that Bank of America had offered several times to meet with Mr. Cuomo’s office to explain its side of the case but had been rejected each time.

On Tuesday, Mr. Cuomo’s office said it was nearing a decision on whether to file fraud charges against Bank of America or any of its executives. It has given the bank until Monday to provide details on the Merrill deal.

In seeking approval to buy Merrill Lynch last year, Bank of America told investors that Merrill would not pay year-end bonuses without the bank’s consent. But in its complaint filed Aug. 3 in federal court in Manhattan, the S.E.C. said Bank of America had already authorized Merrill to pay bonuses and had not shared that information with shareholders.