“It’s time for Belmont to change and to recognize that we have gay students, faculty and staff,” said Curb, who is also a trustee emeritus at Belmont. “I want to see this board and the school leadership act like Christians.”

It’s probably the harshest criticism that has been leveled at Belmont University to date. And there’s been quite a bit. Students and alumni have protested outside of Belmont buildings. The Faculty Senate passed a resolution saying that employees shouldn’t be fired on the basis of sexual orientation. And local columnists have said that the school is fostering a culture of intolerance and discrimination, cloaked in a misinterpretation of religious values.

But the power of having a major donor to the University call attention to the LGBT problem on campus is pretty significant. Nothing quite catches the ears of administrators like a man with a $10 million wallet.

Curb went on to add that Belmont University has a choice to make about what kind of school it wants to be. Does it want to be the type of school that caters to a national audience, and builds a reputation that puts it among the elite schools of the country? Or does it want to be a school, ala Liberty University or Regent University, much more concerned about a stiff commitment to conservative religious values than on a national reputation for success?

“Belmont has to decide whether they want to be a national recognized university — particularly with their school of music business — or they want to be a church,” Curb said.

That underscores a very important point. Nobody is denying the right of Belmont University to hold religious values. Indeed, some of the best schools in the country have deep religious traditions that frame their identity. But the question remains: Is Belmont the type of school where gay Christians, or those straight Christians who believe that homosexuality is not a sin, can feel comfortable? The University should say, so that faculty and staff know what’s expected of them, and that students (both current students and incoming students) know what to expect on campus.

Photo credit: Belmont University

Millionaire Donor to Belmont University: Christians Don’t Fire Gay Employees

Jordan Rubenstein reports on the Gay Rights blog that Yust, a transgender woman, was getting her name changed on her driver’s license in a San Francisco DMV. Actually, that official part of the visit went pretty smoothly: she came prepared with a court order for the change, and went home with her shiny new license.

Soon after, she received a letter at her home. It contained all the typical hateful rhetoric: that she was going to Hell (one similar to the DMV?), that she was an abominated, that she had done an evil thing. The letter was festively decorated with Biblical quotes being used to back up the vocal transphobia.

The DMV employee who helped Yust committed a severe breach of security by taking the woman’s private information and used it to send a harassing and hate-filled letter. People shouldn’t have to fear that providing personal information to government employees will give somebody the power to harass and threaten them.

The California DMV must hold the employee responsible accountable, investigate this case, and assure its customers that this kind of breach of trust is not standard practice at the Department Motor Vehicles.

Photo credit: Chris Harrison

Transgender Woman Harassed by DMV Employee

The winner of the competition was Zimride, a “rideshare service [that] helps organizations establish easy to use, private, social networks for ridesharing.” One of the company’s unique angles is to use networks like college campuses and companies to arrange rideshares in “trusted communities,” allowing members to search and post ride options including personal cars, shuttles, vanpool, and zipcar. It’s also marketed for events (so perhaps the line to get in to Burning Man next year will be 7 hours and not 8 if enough people try it?) Already in use at UCLA, Stanford, University of Michigan, and USC, Zimride has proven to engage 10-20% of student populations and integrates with facebook and Twitter. Since I don’t have a car and I’m not part of a campus or corporate network, I’m planning to test out their free public rideshare option, which is (probably) safer than hitchhiking and faster than the bus.

These finalists also caught my eye:

• Airbnb is an upgraded version of couch surfing that matches private residences with travelers. A friend of mine recently used the service to stay in a mountain-top vineyard cottage with an ocean view. I intend to advertise my less exotic, but just as friendly, couch and air mattress in my living room if you ever need a place to stay in LA.
• ecoATM is an “automated eCycling station.” In my experience, most ewaste recycling centers do not currently have the capacity to provide convenient drop offs. This solves the problem: how should I dispose of my broken phone charger after 5 p.m. (that was intentionally built to last no longer than 5 years so I’ll buy another one) and get money for it?
• GoodGuide, Inc. rates over 65,000 non-toxic and environmentally-friendly products and helped me determine that there is a better toothpaste than the one I’m currently using (but mine is second best). Also, the company is a B Corporation.
• Soleo Organics makes the highest rated sunscreen by the Environmental Working Group. I tried it this weekend for several hours in the intense LA sun and I was well-protected.
• ThinkEco makes a product they’ve coined the “modlet” for “modern electrical outlet”. Plug your electronics into the modlet and “then use your web browser to wirelessly monitor and manage your power consumption.” It should save you 10-20% on your electricity bill.

The conference also hosted a Green Product Design Competition. All 50 companies/products are worth a review for inspiration to all you social entrepreneurs out there. I’ll say it again: You are the best at finding solutions where others see problems. You thrive on it. So go, create, and introduce yourself to me at next year’s OG25.

Photo Credit: opportunitygreen

Six Sustainable Startups

All Kickstart participants receive a free daily diet plan in your inbox every morning, complete with recipes, tips and video messages from doctors and nutritionists. The Kickstart menu is based on the Power Plate, the PCRM’s vegan alternative to the USDA food pyramid. The Power Plate is divided into four recommended food groups: fruits, vegetables, grains and legumes.

Anyone can try a vegan diet for a three weeks, remember when Oprah did? The Vegan Kickstart website explains: “Whether you are transitioning from a vegetarian to a vegan diet, changing your lifestyle because of diabetes or heart disease, or just want to lose some extra weight, you will notice some amazing improvement in your health.”

Each day of the Vegan Kickstart has a celebrity leader to guide you. Today’s leader is Alicia Silverstone, actress and long-time vegan. She shares her recipe for “Crocodile Crunch,” a dessert from her cookbook The Kind Diet. She also offers some tips on sticking with a plant based diet, including this gem: “If you fall off the wagon, just get back on—no drama, no guilt.”

Ginnifer Goodwin is another vegan celebrity leader. The Big Love actress writes: “It doesn’t take more than a sprinkling of knowledge about factory farming to drive your commitment and to make it impossible to rationalize supporting the industry. Educate yourself! Eliminating cruelty from your life is not only easy, but also very practical and reasonable.”

The 21-day Vegan Kickstart is a great way to try out a cruelty-free diet, and see how easy it is to thrive without animal products. And even if you’ve been practicing veganism for a while, as I have, it’s a great opportunity to recommit to healthy eating. There are days when I bake vegan cupcakes when I should be steaming broccoli, and so I welcome the chance for a healthy vegan menu to be planned out for me.

If the 21-day Vegan Kickstart sounds interesting to you, sign up for a diet plan. There’s still plenty of room on the bandwagon.

Photo Credit: Geishaboy500

Physican’s Committee for Responsible Medicine Launches 21-Day Vegan Kickstart

But lately, she focuses on one thing that basically drives me up the wall. As the Post explains it, MacEachern “started a campaign on her website encouraging women to join the ‘One in a Million’ initiative by pledging to shift $1,000 of their household budgets to green products and services.” Much like the books she’s authored on the subject, her BGP website encourages women to “go green” with tips about buying less bottled water, eating less meat, having an eco-friendly Halloween, and demanding to receive fewer catalogs in the mail.

Is this Chicken Soup for the Wannabe Sustainable Soul? How many poor women who barely scraping by can think about buying “green” products in this economy and too many catalogs in their mailbox? How few of us have a grand lying around for our “household budget?” Buying fair trade chocolate and worrying about “responsible investing” are some of the most underwhelming options available when faced with melting polar ice caps, but promoting a so-called “eco-lifestyle” is really only the beginning of my frustration.

There are several serious flaws in MacEachern’s strategy to green the world. In my mind, it isn’t about pressuring companies to sell more eco-friendly products, though that’s certainly one part of a larger environmentalism strategy. But what we oughta be doing instead is something much more simple: quit buying stuff and quit hoarding. There is life after shopping.

I’m a tough critic, and I don’t like being pandered to. I really want to know: why are we still making compromises when it comes to these issues, telling people they can engage in some harmful behaviors in moderation? I believe we ought to be considering just how far these ideas about temporary solutions extend instead of blindly embracing anything labeled “woman-friendly” and “green.” When is something just not green enough? Where’s the challenge in telling women to head to the mall instead of rolling up their sleeves? Most women I know are better suited for hard work than prancing around a galleria anyway. I also figure if you have enough money to donate to a cause or go shopping for charity, you’ve likely got an hour (or a lot more) to volunteer somewhere.

Mostly, I’m insulted by the Post’s uncritical praise of the idea that women are only good for spending money or shopping our way to a better world. If we’re going to focus on “harnessing women’s power,” you’d think we’d at least be given the benefit of the doubt: our power is in more than our pocketbooks.

Photo Credit: Alanna George

Does Consumerism Save the Environment?

The star spangled banner. Moving, beautiful, and above all symbolic to the people, do we dare change it’s lyrics to be constitutionally sound?

We think so. Have you ever noticed the discrepancy? The First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” Although an anthem is no law. There is no legal basis to our request. I think common sense would imply that separation of church and state applies here as well.

So we the people suggest: that the line – ‘And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.” be changed too ‘And this be our motto: “In freedom trust.” This great song would give our motto as something that all faiths could sing in equal good faith. For I think we can all agree that in America the Brave. We are free to worship what gods we will.

O! Thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In Freedom we trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

In Freedom we trust

She’s not the only one. Around here, Kevin Poor Bear is known for his charcoal drawings and the occasional piece of beadwork. Award-winning musician Will Peters carves and paints turtles from wood, selling them alongside the stone turtle necklaces created by his wife Lena. And Joe Pulliam, whose intricate watercolor depictions of Lakota life and tradition are often featured in world-class exhibitions, routinely sells paintings and prints around town.

The native art trade is an economically viable way to carry on the vibrant artistic traditions of indigenous populations — that is, when vendors are protected from fraudulent, factory-made items being passed of as native art, a practice that is estimated to drain the market of 80 percent of its value.

Commenting on this trend of illegally-marketed arts and crafts, Chad Henderson of the Old Town Merchants Association reasons, “When you consider that out of that billion dollar industry, $750 million is going toward fakes, it’s enormous. Just imagine what $750 million would do for the indigenous populations.”

A newly-passed amendment to the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, some benefits of which were extolled by Women’s Rights blogger Brittany Shoot yesterday, provides further protection to Native American artists like Valerie from fraudulent “Indian” arts and crafts on the market.

The legislation, an extension of H.R. 725, specifically grants authority to any federal law enforcement official to investigate possible cases of fraudulent Indian art selling. Previously, only the F.B.I. held this power.

In communities where self-employment via individual artisanship is often the only source of income available to tribal members seeking to support their family or fund their education, this Walmart-esque trend of selling cheaply made replications alongside legitimate art is nothing short of market exploitation. Congress, a historic enemy of indigenous rights , has remarkably begun to inch forward in this long road we like to call “democratic progress.”

Photo credit: Ashley Eberhart (bracelet by Valerie Brown Eyes)

Leaving the Native Art Trade to Native Artists, Not Factories

In an unsurprising move, Senate majority leader Harry Reid made it official this afternoon. He announced he would introduce an “admittedly narrow, limited” energy bill that contains no greenhouse gas provisions and maybe even no renewable electricity mandate. The votes, he said, just weren’t there.

“It’s easy to count to 60,” said Reid, according to Politico. “I could do it by the time I was in eighth grade. My point is this, we know where we are. We know we don’t have the votes.”

Despite tireless climate champion Sen. John Kerry’s  vague assurances that he will keep negotiating for a cap on carbon emissions at some future point in time, Democrats just gave up on the last, best chance to pass a global warming measure anytime soon.  How often does an oil spill Armageddon come along to illustrate why this matters? And the Democrat majority ain’t getting any bigger in November, that’s for sure.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world gets it. For god’s sake, even China — America’s eternally convenient climate punching bag  — is reportedly on the verge of establishing a mandatory carbon trading program by 2015.

Looking for someone to blame for this sad state of affairs? Here are a few options:

1) Beholden Democrats: If Republicans go down in flames together, Dems are the stumbling drunks who wouldn’t know party discipline if it hit them upside the head. A few from states such as Louisiana and Nebraska, beholden to their home-state energy interests, balked at any measures to limit carbon dioxide emissions. Even Sen. Reid screwed things up when he suggested he would make politically convenient (for him) immigration reform a priority over climate. Compared to the House-passed version from a year ago, the failed bill was already watered down to cover only electric utilities — even that would only secure only some 53 Democrat votes. Hence, we can also blame:

2) Promiscuous Republicans: The John Boehners and James Inhofes of the Senate would probably wait until the Earth looked like it belonged in The Day After Tomorrow before voting for a climate bill. But some more moderate GOPers, notably South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe played coy — teasing their support for a compromise that they abandoned in the end.

3) Mr. Clean Energy Revolution himself: Green groups have been torn of late about whether to go attack President Obama’s lame climate campaign or whether to pull their punches for the best hope they’ve got. Obama never gave a rousing speech dedicated to climate change and never pulled out the big guns in lobbying for what was supposedly one of his top policy priorities coming into office, as Dot Earth’s Andy Revkin sums up so well.

4) Greedy Power Companies: After Big Oil and Big Manufacturing eked out a pass from the climate bill in the end — it came down to electric utilities, which represent a major portion of U.S. emissions. Would they go-it-alone? Some executives did in fact negotiate in good faith for a bill they could live with. But, sensing their leverage, they also tried to win major exemptions from existing air pollution rules, making the negotiations a tough pill for liberals to swallow in the end.

5) Big Green vs. Grassy Green? The environmental world is increasingly fractured between two camps (see #4 above). Big Green groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, believe the best strategy to win a climate bill is to negotiate politically realistic compromises with energy interests. Grassroots groups such as Greenpeace or 350.org are less willing to settle and believe a push from below is the key missing piece. Both ideally want the same thing in the end, but this division of interests is not helping anyone.

In the end, there is no one person, industry or group who killed this bill. But, I’m honestly disappointed in President Obama for not doing more to back up Sen. Reid. The health care bill and the financial reform bill looked bleak, but in those cases, our leader would not settle for inaction. As always for climate, here’s to next year.

Photo Credit: Sister 72, Flickr User

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Who Killed the Climate Bill?

Dr. Stephen Schneider, who died suddenly yesterday of a heart attack, devoted his life to the climate cause. If Al Gore is the poster child of the climate campaign, Stephen Schneider was the science, messaging and brains behind the show. This humble genius was a power-broker who changed the world and was doing it well before most others arrived on the scene.

Schneider has long been an inspiration in his ability to inspire other scientists, politicians and average citizens to care about global warming, which was, and still is, no small task. I first met him more than 10 years ago when he spoke at the annual conference of a faith-based global warming groups. What impressed me most was how he commanded the awe and respect of religious leaders of all denominations. He had the unique ability to speak with both scientific authority and with respect and honor for those who took stock in the power of faith. He knew, early on, the climate movement needed their voices and clout. Part of his genius was his ability to bring together people of all stripes.

His book Science as Contact Sport, released this year, outlined the day-in and day-out challenges he faced in grappling with global warming for a whopping four decades, offering details of the tumultous scene he so deftly navigated. Our lack of real progress on the climate front so far, he concluded, is due to  “ignorance, greed, denial, tribalism, and short-term thinking.” Yet despite his land-mine riddled world, in which the media and politicians so often insisted on pitting his expertise against skeptics with a sliver of his training, Schneider continued to be a leader, and continued to maintain an optimistic, enthusiastic and upbeat attitude about our ability to solve this crisis.

In seeking examples of leadership, others looked to Schneider. Those looking for a target did too. Tim Flannery, the chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council  noted that Schneider had “been so effective at countering climate skeptics and lobbyists that he’s become a special target of their campaign to discredit leading scientists.”

His death is too early for us and for the planet. We can each honor his memory by humbly doing our part to address global warming. When I heard him speak in Los Angeles, I asked him what he tells people who want to make a difference, since this issue can be daunting and depressing and discouraging. In his answer, Schneider emphasized that environmentally-literate individuals empower the movement and can counter unscientific arguments from others. And despite all the potential that he had become disillusioned in his long political fight, Schneider also maintained that simple consumer changes, such as switching light bulbs, turning off lights, and driving less do indeed make a difference.

The global warming movement will continue but, this week, it is pausing to remember a man who tirelessly worked to help the world save itself.  I would encourage you to honor his memory by reading Schneider’s book and becoming more climate-literate or by joining our recent Change.org campaigns to combat climate misinformation: here and here.

Photo credit: Joi Ito, Flickr User

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

The Death of a Climate Giant