When ‘Local’ Makes It Big

By KIM SEVERSON

Published: May 12, 2009

WHEN Jessica Prentice, a food writer in the San Francisco Bay area, invented the term “locavore,” she didn’t have Lay’s potato chips in mind.

But never mind. On Tuesday, five potato farmers rang the bell of the New York Stock Exchange, kicking off a marketing campaign that is trying to position the nation’s best-selling brand of potato chips as local food.

Five different ads will highlight farmers who grow some of the two billion pounds of starchy chipping potatoes the Frito-Lay company uses each year. One is Steve Singleton, who tends 800 acres in Hastings, Fla.

“We grow potatoes in Florida, and Lays makes potato chips in Florida,” he says in the ad. “It’s a pretty good fit.”

Mr. Singleton’s ad and the other four will be shown only in the farmer’s home state. A national spot featuring all five potato farmers begins next week.

Frito-Lay is one of several big companies that, along with some large-scale farming concerns, are embracing a broad interpretation of what eating locally means. This mission creep has the original locavores choking on their yerba mate. But food executives who measure marketing budgets in the millions say they are mining the concept because consumers care more than ever about where their food comes from.

“Local for us has two appeals,” said Aurora Gonzalez, director of public relations for Frito-Lay North America, which is owned by PepsiCo. “We are interested in quality and quickness because we want consumers to get the freshest product possible, but we have a fairly significant sustainability program, and local is part of that. We want to do business more efficiently, but do it in a more environmentally conscious way.”

The original “eat local” movement, an amalgam of food and environmental politics, came of age a decade or so before the term locavore was coined in 2005.

To a certain set of believers, supporting locally grown food is part of a broad philosophical viewpoint that eschews large farming operations, the heavy use of chemicals and certain agricultural practices, like raising animals in large, confined areas.

“The local foods movement is about an ethic of food that values reviving small scale, ecological, place-based, and relationship-based food systems,” Ms. Prentice said. “Large corporations peddling junk food are the exact opposite of what this is about.”

But people on the other side of the argument say the widening view of what it means to eat locally is similar to the changes the term organic went through as it grew from a countercultural ideal in the 1960s and 1970s to an industry with nearly $25 billion in sales last year. A related debate about how to define sustainable farming is now gathering force in government, agriculture and business.

Concerns over food safety, quality and cost are driving people beyond hard-core locavores to seek out food that has traveled fewer miles and has a traceable provenance, said Stephanie Childs, a spokeswoman for the food conglomerate ConAgra.

The company recently began a marketing campaign to highlight its Hunt’s canned tomatoes, most of which are grown within 120 miles of its Oakdale, Calif., processing plant.

Of course, the tomatoes would be local only to people in the area. But if the company can show consumers its tomatoes are grown near the plant that processes them, shoppers who want to know where their food comes from might be more apt to buy them.

“The problem is there is absolutely no way we can have local produce within 100 miles of every person in America, so the question is how do we take it to that next level,” said Phil Lempert, a grocery industry analyst known as the Supermarket Guru who ConAgra recently hired to work on its Hunt’s tomatoes promotion.

Other companies are embracing the term “local” in their own ways. Foster Farms, a $1 billion company that is the largest producer of poultry products on the West Coast, markets its fresh chicken and turkey as “locally grown” because it contracts with hundreds of local growers in the states where it operates.

Some producers are stretching local to mean locale, emphasizing the geographic origin of their food. Dairy products from California, oranges from Florida and almost anything made in Vermont are getting special attention from marketers. Kraft is trying to figure out whether people in Wisconsin will buy more pickles if they know the cucumbers that go into a jar of Claussen’s are grown there.

“The ingenuity of the food manufacturers and marketers never ceases to amaze me,” said Michael Pollan, the author of “In Defense of Food” and a contributor to The New York Times Magazine. “They can turn any critique into a new way to sell food. You’ve got to hand it to them.”

Some people marketing their big-scale food on a small-scale level understand that. They say they’re not pretending to be something they are not.

“This is celebrating the notion of community,” said Dave Skena, vice president for potato-chip marketing of Frito-Lay. “We don’t use the term ‘locally grown’ because that’s a personal issue for so many people.”

Large farms usually given over to commodity crops are also having a local moment, driven in large part by economics.

In central California, the Sacramento County Farm Bureau recently started a “Grow and Buy Local” initiative with a $50,000 grant from the county.

Part of the money is being used to encourage 3,000 area farmers whose fields are filled with feed grain, safflower and other commodity crops to plant acres of grocery store crops like strawberries or artichokes, or to hold some fruit, like pears, back from the canner.

That fresh produce can then be marketed as local and sold to nearby institutions like hospitals and jails that want to buy food raised nearby. And some of it can fill farm stands, which helps satisfy consumers who want to buy local fruits and vegetables and don’t care as much about, say, farm size or organic practices, said Charlotte Mitchell, the executive director of the county farm bureau and a Foster Farms turkey rancher.

“We have to continue to feed the world, but we need to make people aware that going to that local strawberry stand is so important, too,” she said.

For some big agricultural interests, promoting local food has a protectionist bent. Sales of Virginia apples were hurt a few years ago when Chinese apples flooded the market, said Martha Moore, director of governmental relations for the 38,000-member Virginia Farm Bureau.

Those kinds of threats from imported food is one reason her agency started a local food marketing program last year.

“If promoting local agriculture will help America to become food independent, that’s what we want,” she said.

She doesn’t buy into all the values many local food advocates hold dear, like cage-free eggs; limited use of herbicides, fertilizers and other chemicals; and small farms.

“We don’t think the argument should be about the size of the farm,” she said. “It should be, ‘Do you know the farmer and where is the farmer from?’ You can have good and bad actors in any size farm.”

For hard-core locavores, watching the food industry adopt their language is frustrating. But it also means things are changing.

“You know the locavore phenomenon is having an impact when the corporations begin co-opting it,” Ms. Prentice said. “Everyone should know where things are processed. The ‘where’ question is really important.”

Freeze That Thought

The New York Times

By MARK BITTMAN
Published: May 5, 2009

IF I tried to sell you a new appliance that could help you save money, reduce food waste and get meals on the table faster, the only thing you’d ask would be “How much?”


The answer is “Nothing.” You already own it. For just as the stove comes with a hidden and often overlooked bonus — the broiler — so does the refrigerator: the freezer. Why not use it?

I know: you do. In that messy box you have some ice cubes, some stuff you bought frozen — a pizza? Lean Gourmet? peas? — and maybe, if you cook a lot, some stock or hastily stored leftovers. You also have a load of things you’ve already forgotten about and will eventually toss, even though you would have been guilt-struck if you had discarded them when they were fresh.

But if you conscientiously use the freezer in two ways, you’ll value it as never before. The first: take raw ingredients you have too much of — or whose life you simply wish to prolong — and freeze them. The second: take things you’ve already cooked — basics like stock, beans, grains and the like, or fully cooked dishes — and freeze them.

To the extent that you do both of these tasks regularly, and keep your freezer organized, you’ll make your cooking cheaper, more efficient and faster.

If you’re nodding your head because so much of this is self-evident, go take a look. I thought I knew what I was doing, too, until I examined a piece of frozen meat that could have been that bit of lamb shoulder I bought three months ago or the beef chuck from two weeks ago. And, no, I couldn’t visually distinguish between a single frozen egg white and a bit of freezer-burned lemon juice, both in identical containers.

I know I’m not alone: the freezer of nearly everyone I visit is a mess. It’s easy enough to throw things in there, but a little more difficult to exercise the forethought that real efficiency requires.

In terms of reducing waste, the most important step you can take is to freeze things the moment you realize you’re not going to cook them in time. If you get a last-minute dinner invitation, you might freeze that fish you bought; if you take the kids strawberry picking, get the excess in there as quickly as you can; if you have a superharvest of vegetables (or a good score at the farmer’s market), blanch them and freeze them.

After all, few foods improve in the refrigerator. They don’t improve in your freezer, either, but they degrade more slowly, especially if you keep the temperature at 0 degrees or below. Check it with a thermometer, and re-check every few months. Note that full freezers are more efficient than half-full ones, a further inducement to freeze more.

While you’re freezing, remember that your enemy is freezer burn, a freeze-drying on surfaces exposed to air that imparts unpleasant flavors and dry, fibrous textures. To help maintain quality, avoid freezer burn by double- or even triple-wrapping food, filling containers to the top and squeezing the air out of containers (zippered bags are good for this). Some foods and sauces, like pesto, can be stored with a layer of oil on top. Others, like cooked beans, can be topped off with water or cooking liquid, leaving room for expansion. And remember: the idea of freezing is to prolong the life of food that you’re going to eat, not to postpone discarding it. Use what you freeze, within weeks if possible, but certainly before the next harvest rolls around. This isn’t so much a question of safety — frozen food will rarely go “bad” — but of quality. Freezing is not, after all, suspended animation.

One more thing, easy to overlook and impossible to overrate: Label. It is incredible how much things grow to resemble another in the freezer. Use a permanent marker, write exactly what it is (“fish” or “stew” isn’t as helpful as “monkfish” or “lamb/veg stew”), and date it.

Some more suggestions and tips for using your freezer wisely, in very rough order of usefulness. (And see, or make, further suggestions on my blog, Bitten, at nytimes.com/bitten.)

STORAGE

In addition to produce and meats, there are some less obvious ingredients whose life can be extended by freezing. Most of them can be used straight from the freezer: Fresh noodles; flours or meals; grains; nuts (which taste kind of good frozen); whole coffee beans (supposedly not as good after you freeze them, but most of us can’t tell the difference); banana leaves (nice for plating or wrapping, but they come in huge packages); and more, detailed below.

LEFTOVERS

Make extra of any dish, with leftovers in mind, then freeze in smaller portions that can be taken to work, sent to school or reheated for a solitary dinner. Freeze in individual containers, topping up with water, cooking liquid or oil to prevent freezer burn, or freeze in sturdy zippered bags, then squeeze out as much air as possible. Defrost in the fridge, in cold water, or in a microwave, or not at all — many items can be reheated straight from frozen. (Yes, I’m talking about homemade TV dinners.)


BEANS AND GRAINS

I’m tempted to say that you should never cook beans or grains without making more than you need. Freezing them (covered with water or cooking liquid, leaving room for expansion) works that well, and saves loads of time.

STOCK

For home cooks, the biggest problem with stock is having it around when you need it. So make as much as you can manage — three gallons, say. To save space, you can reduce the stock so that it’s extra concentrated, and reconstitute it with water to taste when you’re ready. Refrigerate and skim the fat, if you like, then freeze in containers of varying sizes, or in ice cube trays.

STOCK-MAKING MATERIAL

Scraps of poultry (most of the chicken parts we don’t eat are good for stock), meat (again, especially the less-used, bonier parts) or fish (heads and skeletons in particular), vegetable trimmings, bones and more. Keep separate bags for each, adding to them when you can. Remember, though, that stock is not garbage soup: Carrot and potato peels, cabbage cores, and the like can be used, but in moderation. Animal organs are best avoided (fish gills and guts must be removed, and offal in general makes bitter stock).

BREAD, BREAD DOUGH, BREAD CRUMBS

Freeze dough in well-wrapped balls; defrost until it regains springiness. (It will never rise quite as high as unfrozen dough, but it works nearly perfectly for pizza or focaccia, and well enough for other uses.) Good crusty bread, wrapped in aluminum foil, can turn lighter dishes into meals — just defrost in the foil at 350 degrees or so for 10 minutes, then crisp up, unwrapped, at slightly higher temperatures. (I’m talking about crusty bread; sliced bread can be defrosted on the counter or in a toaster.) And stale bread can be made into crumbs in a blender or food processor, stored in a container, and added to at will.

PASTRY AND PASTRY DOUGH

Most cake and cookies freeze pretty well, carefully wrapped. Or make a frozen log of “refrigerator” cookies to slice and bake later. Same with biscuits: make a whole batch or double batch of biscuit batter, bake just enough for dinner, and freeze the rest.

TOMATOES AND TOMATO SAUCE

Tomato sauce is best frozen in zippered bags with the air squeezed out. If you have ripe tomatoes, core, quarter, and throw them in a bag; as they thaw the skins will slip off, a bonus. (The frozen chunks separate easily so you can just break off a couple for soups, stews, salsas, sauces and so on.) You can also freeze unused portions of canned tomatoes, preferably in their juice.

BACON

Or pancetta, prosciutto, smoked ham hocks, prosciutto bones, etc. Wrap tightly in plastic and cut off pieces as you need them. (Or cut before freezing — you might need a butcher to do this in the case of big bones.)

FRESH HERBS

If you have extra herbs, your four best options are: Make pesto by puréeing the herb with oil and whatever other seasonings you like; make “pesto,” a purée of herb and water, with or without other seasonings; make compound butter; chop herbs, and freeze in ice cube trays covered with water.

FISH

When I’m in a good fish market I buy too much and later wonder what I was thinking. Fortunately, squid, shrimp and the meat of lobster, clams and mussels all freeze well. Even fillets, steaks, and cleaned whole fish — wrapped carefully in plastic — will keep most of their quality in the freezer for a couple of weeks, and there’s no reason they should spend any longer there. Another note: If you’re buying fish that has been frozen to begin with, ask for still-frozen rather than thawed fish, then store it in the freezer or thaw in the refrigerator.

FRUIT

Easier than making jam: Freeze berries or stone-fruit halves spread out on trays, then bag or put into containers, so they don’t all freeze together in a block. Or cook down a bit and store in their juice. Or purée and freeze.

VEGETABLES

If you find yourself with too much corn, greens, carrots, peas or snow peas, broccoli, cauliflower, string beans, put them up. Blanch them for a minute before spreading them on a tray, the same way you freeze fruit. Tomatoes (as noted above) and bell peppers are the exception; they freeze well raw.

BANANAS

When my kids were young these were a staple. Peel and individually wrap overripe bananas in plastic; freeze. Use within a few weeks for banana bread or smoothies.

TORTILLAS

Wrap two corn tortillas at a time in wax paper, then in a plastic bag; freeze flat. When you’re ready, stick the wax paper packages right into the microwave for a minute to warm. The same technique works well for cooked waffles and pancakes. Where do you think General Mills got the idea?

EGG WHITES

If you make a lot of ice cream, custard, or other recipes that call for a lot of egg yolks, you will have extra whites. Freeze them in batches of two or three for making meringues, macaroons or angel food cake.

Parmesan rinds

Most cheese freezes well, but there’s not much reason to do it. Parmesan rinds, however, add a great deal to risotto and soups (and can be eaten; they’re delightfully chewy and a little rubbery). Freeze them in zippered bags.

CHICKEN OR DUCK LIVERS, FAT, ETC.

As noted above, they don’t make good stock, but they have other uses. Three livers or so and a small handful of fat makes a nice little batch of chopped liver, for example.

WINE

That last quarter of a bottle? Freeze it, then use it for cooking wine as needed. See stock for best methods.

CITRUS

If you have a surplus of citrus — perhaps someone sent you a case of oranges from Florida or you found lemons for a dollar a pound and went overboard — squeeze them. The juice freezes fairly well. Lemons, limes and oranges also can be frozen whole. When a recipe calls for juice, defrost what you need in the microwave.

BURRITOS

It’s a bit of a project, but you can mass-produce breakfast or other burritos, wrap them individually (first in wax paper, then in plastic), and microwave in a couple of minutes.

The Long Voyage Home

Op-Ed Columnist


By DAVID BROOKS
Published: May 4, 2009

Republicans generally like Westerns. They generally admire John Wayne-style heroes who are rugged, individualistic and brave. They like leaders — from Goldwater to Reagan to Bush to Palin — who play up their Western heritage. Republicans like the way Westerns seem to celebrate their core themes — freedom, individualism, opportunity and moral clarity.
Skip to next paragraph

But the greatest of all Western directors, John Ford, actually used Westerns to tell a different story. Ford’s movies didn’t really celebrate the rugged individual. They celebrated civic order.

For example, in Ford’s 1946 movie, “My Darling Clementine,” Henry Fonda plays Wyatt Earp, the marshal who tamed Tombstone. But the movie isn’t really about the gunfight and the lone bravery of a heroic man. It’s about how decent people build a town. Much of the movie is about how the townsfolk put up a church, hire a teacher, enjoy Shakespeare, get a surgeon and work to improve their manners.

The movie, in other words, is really about religion, education, science, culture, etiquette and rule of law — the pillars of community. In Ford’s movie, as in real life, the story of Western settlement is the story of community-building. Instead of celebrating untrammeled freedom and the lone pioneer, Ford’s movies dwell affectionately on the social customs that Americans cherish — the gatherings at the local barbershop and the church social, the gossip with the cop and the bartender and the hotel clerk.

Today, if Republicans had learned the right lessons from the Westerns, or at least John Ford Westerns, they would not be the party of untrammeled freedom and maximum individual choice. They would once again be the party of community and civic order.

They would begin every day by reminding themselves of the concrete ways people build orderly neighborhoods, and how those neighborhoods bind a nation. They would ask: What threatens Americans’ efforts to build orderly places to raise their kids? The answers would produce an agenda: the disruption caused by a boom and bust economy; the fragility of the American family; the explosion of public and private debt; the wild swings in energy costs; the fraying of the health care system; the segmentation of society and the way the ladders of social mobility seem to be dissolving.

But the Republican Party has mis-learned that history. The party sometimes seems cut off from the concrete relationships of neighborhood life. Republicans are so much the party of individualism and freedom these days that they are no longer the party of community and order. This puts them out of touch with the young, who are exceptionally community-oriented. It gives them nothing to say to the lower middle class, who fear that capitalism has gone haywire. It gives them little to say to the upper middle class, who are interested in the environment and other common concerns.

The Republicans talk more about the market than about society, more about income than quality of life. They celebrate capitalism, which is a means, and are inarticulate about the good life, which is the end. They take things like tax cuts, which are tactics that are good in some circumstances, and elevate them to holy principle, to be pursued in all circumstances.

The emphasis on freedom and individual choice may work in the sparsely populated parts of the country. People there naturally want to do whatever they want on their own land. But it doesn’t work in the densely populated parts of the country: the cities and suburbs where Republicans are getting slaughtered. People in these areas understand that their lives are profoundly influenced by other people’s individual choices. People there are used to worrying about the health of the communal order.

In these places, Democrats have been able to establish themselves as the safe and orderly party. President Obama has made responsibility his core theme and has emerged as a calm, reassuring presence (even as he runs up the debt and intervenes rashly in sector after sector).

If the Republicans are going to rebound, they will have to re-establish themselves as the party of civic order. First, they will have to stylistically decontaminate their brand. That means they will have to find a leader who is calm, prudent, reassuring and reasonable.

Then they will have to explain that there are two theories of civic order. There is the liberal theory, in which teams of experts draw up plans to engineer order wherever problems arise. And there is the more conservative vision in which government sets certain rules, but mostly empowers the complex web of institutions in which the market is embedded.

Both of these visions are now contained within the Democratic Party. The Republicans know they need to change but seem almost imprisoned by old themes that no longer resonate. The answer is to be found in devotion to community and order, and in the bonds that built the nation.

Still Singing

Editorial: Appreciations


By LAWRENCE DOWNES
Published: May 4, 2009

I saw Pete Seeger Sunday night, alive as you and me. They threw a birthday concert for him at Madison Square Garden. John Seeger, age 95, said from the stage that he expected his 90-year-old younger brother to make 100, which seems reasonable. Standing there, banjo off his shoulder, head thrown back, Pete looked eternal, in that pose so engraved in American memory it should be on a coin.

More than 40 artists, including John Mellencamp, Arlo Guthrie, Joan Baez and Bruce Springsteen, joined in a stage-clogging sing-along. When its four-plus hours are edited down to highlights, from “This Land Is Your Land” to “Goodnight, Irene,” it will be a PBS special made in pledge-week heaven.

I wonder, though, how many of the angry moments will survive.

Will we hear the Native American musicians pleading for support in their battle with Peabody Energy? Peabody is a giant strip-mining company that has been at the center of lawsuits by Southwestern tribes over drinking water and income from mineral rights.

Will we hear the praise for the Clean Water Act of 1972, or the acid remark from one of the Indians: “Ever since that man by the name of Hudson went up that river, it’s gone to hell.”

The evening was, after all, a benefit for Clearwater, the name of an organization and a boat, both built by Mr. Seeger, that have fought for decades to rescue the Hudson River from life as an industrial sewer. The job isn’t done. Remember PCBs? General Electric dumped tons of them in the river. The company is about ready to dredge them out, but for now they are still there, seeping downriver and into fish.

That’s one hot issue. But issues and leftist anger were mostly confined to the first half of the evening. Under a sweet, heavy nostalgia glaze, the show summoned but never lingered on bygone days when folk singing was considered both relevant and dangerous.

Mr. Seeger has walked the walk for so long that he has outwalked most everybody who would ever want to beat him up, throw bricks at him or denounce him as a Red.

He’s “outlasted the bastards,” Bruce Springsteen said. But others will outlast him, and it will be up to a new generation to write and sing songs to fight power with truth. Will they? Or will they close their eyes and sway to “Michael, Row the Boat Ashore,” forgetting the part of folk singing that was never sweet for its own sake?

“Behind Pete’s somewhat benign, grandfatherly facade,” Mr. Springsteen said, lies a “nasty optimism,” a great way to describe the steel-willed Seeger method, the geniality that others mistake for softness.

Mr. Seeger is “a stealth dagger through the heart of our country’s illusions about itself,” Mr. Springsteen said, getting it exactly right.

Is Rape Serious?

The New York Times
April 30, 2009

Op-Ed Columnist


By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: April 29, 2009
When a woman reports a rape, her body is a crime scene. She is typically asked to undress over a large sheet of white paper to collect hairs or fibers, and then her body is examined with an ultraviolet light, photographed and thoroughly swabbed for the rapist’s DNA.

It’s a grueling and invasive process that can last four to six hours and produces a “rape kit” — which, it turns out, often sits around for months or years, unopened and untested.

Stunningly often, the rape kit isn’t tested at all because it’s not deemed a priority. If it is tested, this happens at such a lackadaisical pace that it may be a year or more before there are results (if expedited, results are technically possible in a week).
So while we have breakthrough DNA technologies to find culprits and exculpate innocent suspects, we aren’t using them properly — and those who work in this field believe the reason is an underlying doubt about the seriousness of some rape cases. In short, this isn’t justice; it’s indifference.

Solomon Moore, a colleague of mine at The Times, last year wrote about a 43-year-old legal secretary who was raped repeatedly in her home in Los Angeles as her son slept in another room. The attacker forced the woman to clean herself in an attempt to destroy the evidence.

Tim Marcia, the detective on the case, thought this meant that the perpetrator was a habitual offender who would strike again. Mr. Marcia rushed the rape kit to the crime lab but was told to expect a delay of more than one year.

So Mr. Marcia personally drove the kit 350 miles to deliver it to the state lab in Sacramento. Even there, the backlog resulted in a four-month delay — but then it produced a “cold hit,” a match in a database of the DNA of previous offenders.
Yet in the months while the rape kit sat on a shelf, the suspect had allegedly struck twice more. Police said he broke into the homes of a pregnant woman and a 17-year-old girl, sexually assaulting each of them.

“The criminal justice system is still ill equipped to deal with rape and not that good at moving rape cases forward,” notes Sarah Tofte, who just wrote a devastating report for Human Rights Watch about the rape-kit backlog. The report found that in Los Angeles County, there were at last count 12,669 rape kits sitting in police storage facilities. More than 450 of these kits had sat around for more than 10 years, and in many cases, the statute of limitations had expired.

There are no good national figures, and one measure of the indifference is that no one even bothers to count the number of rape kits sitting around untested.

Why don’t police departments treat rape kits with urgency? One reason is probably expense — each kit can cost up to $1,500 to test — but there also seems to be a broad distaste for rape cases as murky, ambiguous and difficult to prosecute, particularly when they involve (as they often do) alcohol or acquaintance rape.
“They talk about the victims’ credibility in a way that they don’t talk about the credibility of victims of other crimes,” Ms. Tofte said.

Charlie Beck, a deputy police chief of Los Angeles, said that there was no excuse for the failure to test rape kits, but he noted that integrating a new technology into police work is complex and involves a learning curve. Since Human Rights Watch began its investigation, he said, the department had resolved to test rape kits routinely — and as a result, cold hits have doubled.

While the backlog and desultory handling of rape kits are nationwide problems, there is one shining exception: New York City has made a concerted effort over the last decade to test every kit that comes in. The result has been at least 2,000 cold hits in rape cases, and the arrest rate for reported cases of rape in New York City rose from 40 percent to 70 percent, according to Human Rights Watch.

Some Americans used to argue that it was impossible to rape an unwilling woman. Few people say that today, or say publicly that a woman “asked for it” if she wore a short skirt. But the refusal to test rape kits seems a throwback to the same antediluvian skepticism about rape as a traumatic crime.

“If you’ve got stacks of physical evidence of a crime, and you’re not doing everything you can with the evidence, then you must be making a decision that this isn’t a very serious crime,” notes Polly Poskin, executive director of the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault.

It’s what we might expect in Afghanistan, not in the United States.

More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: April 26, 2009

CHARLESTON, S.C. — Two months after the local atheist organization here put up a billboard saying “Don’t Believe in God? You Are Not Alone,” the group’s 13 board members met in Laura and Alex Kasman’s living room to grapple with the fallout.

Loretta Haskell, a board member of the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry, is also a church musician. “I am not one of the humanists who feels that religion is a bad thing,” she said.

The problem was not that the group, the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry, had attracted an outpouring of hostility. It was the opposite. An overflow audience of more than 100 had showed up for their most recent public symposium, and the board members discussed whether it was time to find a larger place.

And now parents were coming out of the woodwork asking for family-oriented programs where they could meet like-minded nonbelievers.

“Is everyone in favor of sponsoring a picnic for humanists with families?” asked the board president, Jonathan Lamb, a 27-year-old meteorologist, eliciting a chorus of “ayes.”

More than ever, America’s atheists are linking up and speaking out — even here in South Carolina, home to Bob Jones University, blue laws and a legislature that last year unanimously approved a Christian license plate embossed with a cross, a stained glass window and the words “I Believe” (a move blocked by a judge and now headed for trial).

They are connecting on the Internet, holding meet-ups in bars, advertising on billboards and buses, volunteering at food pantries and picking up roadside trash, earning atheist groups recognition on adopt-a-highway signs.

They liken their strategy to that of the gay-rights movement, which lifted off when closeted members of a scorned minority decided to go public.

“It’s not about carrying banners or protesting,” said Herb Silverman, a math professor at the College of Charleston who founded the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry, which has about 150 members on the coast of the Carolinas. “The most important thing is coming out of the closet.”

Polls show that the ranks of atheists are growing. The American Religious Identification Survey, a major study released last month, found that those who claimed “no religion” were the only demographic group that grew in all 50 states in the last 18 years.

Nationally, the “nones” in the population nearly doubled, to 15 percent in 2008 from 8 percent in 1990. In South Carolina, they more than tripled, to 10 percent from 3 percent. Not all the “nones” are necessarily committed atheists or agnostics, but they make up a pool of potential supporters.

Local and national atheist organizations have flourished in recent years, fed by outrage over the Bush administration’s embrace of the religious right. A spate of best-selling books on atheism also popularized the notion that nonbelief is not just an argument but a cause, like environmentalism or muscular dystrophy.

Ten national organizations that variously identify themselves as atheists, humanists, freethinkers and others who go without God have recently united to form the Secular Coalition for America, of which Mr. Silverman is president. These groups, once rivals, are now pooling resources to lobby in Washington for separation of church and state.

A wave of donations, some in the millions of dollars, has enabled the hiring of more paid professional organizers, said Fred Edwords, a longtime atheist leader who just started his own umbrella group, the United Coalition of Reason, which plans to spawn 20 local groups around the country in the next year.

Despite changing attitudes, polls continue to show that atheists are ranked lower than any other minority or religious group when Americans are asked whether they would vote for or approve of their child marrying a member of that group.

Over lunch with some new atheist joiners at a downtown Charleston restaurant serving shrimp and grits, one young mother said that her husband was afraid to allow her to go public as an atheist because employers would refuse to hire him.

But another member, Beverly Long, a retired school administrator who now teaches education at the Citadel, said that when she first moved to Charleston from Toronto in 2001, “the first question people asked me was, What church do you belong to?” Ms. Long attended Wednesday dinners at a Methodist church, for the social interaction, but never felt at home. Since her youth, she had doubted the existence of God but did not discuss her views with others.

Ms. Long found the secular humanists through a newspaper advertisement and attended a meeting. Now, she is ready to go public, she said, especially after doing some genealogical research recently. “I had ancestors who fought in the American Revolution so I could speak my mind,” she said.

Until recent years, the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry were local pariahs. Mr. Silverman — whose specialty license plate, one of many offered by the state, says “In Reason We Trust” — was invited to give the invocation at the Charleston City Council once, but half the council members walked out. The local chapter of Habitat for Humanity would not let the Secular Humanists volunteer to build houses wearing T-shirts that said “Non Prophet Organization,” he said.

When their billboard went up in January, with their Web site address displayed prominently, they expected hate mail.

“But most of the e-mails were grateful,” said Laura Kasman, an assistant professor of microbiology and immunology at the Medical University of South Carolina.

The board members meeting in the Kasmans’ living room were an unlikely mix that included a gift store owner, a builder, a grandmother, a retired nursing professor, a retired Navy officer, an administrator at a primate sanctuary and a church musician. They are also diverse in their attitudes toward religion.

Loretta Haskell, the church musician, said: “I did struggle at one point as to whether or not I should be making music in churches, given my position on things. But at the same time I like using my music to move people, to give them comfort. And what I’ve found is, I am not one of the humanists who feels that religion is a bad thing.”

The group has had mixed reactions to President Obama, who acknowledged nonbelievers in his inauguration speech. “I sent him a thank-you note,” Ms. Kasman said. But Sharon Fratepietro, who is married to Mr. Silverman, said, “It seemed like one long religious ceremony, with a moment of lip service.”

Part of what is giving the movement momentum is the proliferation of groups on college campuses. The Secular Student Alliance now has 146 chapters, up from 42 in 2003.

At the University of South Carolina, in Columbia, 19 students showed up for a recent evening meeting of the “Pastafarians,” named for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster — a popular spoof on religion dreamed up by an opponent of intelligent design, the idea that living organisms are so complex that the best explanation is that a higher intelligence designed them.

Andrew Cederdahl, the group’s co-founder, asked for volunteers for the local food bank and for a coming debate with a nearby Christian college. Then Mr. Cederdahl opened the floor to members to tell their “coming out stories.”

Andrew Morency, who attended a Christian high school, said that when he got to college and studied evolutionary biology he decided that “creationists lie.”

Josh Streetman, who once attended the very Christian college that the Pastafarians were about to debate, said he knew the Bible too well to be sure that Scripture is true. Like Mr. Streetman, many of the other students at the meeting were highly literate in the Bible and religious history.

In keeping with the new generation of atheist evangelists, the Pastafarian leaders say that their goal is not confrontation, or even winning converts, but changing the public’s stereotype of atheists. A favorite Pastafarian activity is to gather at a busy crossroads on campus with a sign offering “Free Hugs” from “Your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist.”

Naomi Klein on Obama's First 90 Days: A Lexicon of Disappointment

* By Naomi Klein
The Nation, April 15, 2009
Straight to the Source

All is not well in Obamafanland. It's not clear exactly what accounts for the change of mood. Maybe it was the rancid smell emanating from Treasury's latest bank bailout. Or the news that the president's chief economic adviser, Larry Summers, earned millions from the very Wall Street banks and hedge funds he is protecting from reregulation now. Or perhaps it began earlier, with Obama's silence during Israel's Gaza attack.

Whatever the last straw, a growing number of Obama enthusiasts are starting to entertain the possibility that their man is not, in fact, going to save the world if we all just hope really hard.

This is a good thing. If the superfan culture that brought Obama to power is going to transform itself into an independent political movement, one fierce enough to produce programs capable of meeting the current crises, we are all going to have to stop hoping and start demanding.

The first stage, however, is to understand fully the awkward in-between space in which many US progressive movements find themselves. To do that, we need a new language, one specific to the Obama moment. Here is a start.

Hopeover. Like a hangover, a hopeover comes from having overindulged in something that felt good at the time but wasn't really all that healthy, leading to feelings of remorse, even shame. It's the political equivalent of the crash after a sugar high. Sample sentence: "When I listened to Obama's economic speech my heart soared. But then, when I tried to tell a friend about his plans for the millions of layoffs and foreclosures, I found myself saying nothing at all. I've got a serious hopeover."

Hoper coaster. Like a roller coaster, the hoper coaster describes the intense emotional peaks and valleys of the Obama era, the veering between joy at having a president who supports safe-sex education and despondency that single-payer healthcare is off the table at the very moment when it could actually become a reality. Sample sentence: "I was so psyched when Obama said he is closing Guantánamo. But now they are fighting like mad to make sure the prisoners in Bagram have no legal rights at all. Stop this hoper coaster--I want to get off!"

Hopesick. Like the homesick, hopesick individuals are intensely nostalgic. They miss the rush of optimism from the campaign trail and are forever trying to recapture that warm, hopey feeling--usually by exaggerating the significance of relatively minor acts of Obama decency. Sample sentences: "I was feeling really hopesick about the escalation in Afghanistan, but then I watched a YouTube video of Michelle in her organic garden and it felt like inauguration day all over again. A few hours later, when I heard that the Obama administration was boycotting a major UN racism conference, the hopesickness came back hard. So I watched slideshows of Michelle wearing clothes made by ethnically diverse independent fashion designers, and that sort of helped."

Hope fiend. With hope receding, the hope fiend, like the dope fiend, goes into serious withdrawal, willing to do anything to chase the buzz. (Closely related to hopesickness but more severe, usually affecting middle-aged males.) Sample sentence: "Joe told me he actually believes Obama deliberately brought in Summers so that he would blow the bailout, and then Obama would have the excuse he needs to do what he really wants: nationalize the banks and turn them into credit unions. What a hope fiend!"

Hopebreak. Like the heartbroken lover, the hopebroken Obama-ite is not mad but terribly sad. She projected messianic powers onto Obama and is now inconsolable in her disappointment. Sample sentence: "I really believed Obama would finally force us to confront the legacy of slavery in this country and start a serious national conversation about race. But now he never seems to mention race, and he's using twisted legal arguments to keep us from even confronting the crimes of the Bush years. Every time I hear him say 'move forward,' I'm hopebroken all over again."

Hopelash. Like a backlash, hopelash is a 180-degree reversal of everything Obama-related. Sufferers were once Obama's most passionate evangelists. Now they are his angriest critics. Sample sentence: "At least with Bush everyone knew he was an asshole. Now we've got the same wars, the same lawless prisons, the same Washington corruption, but everyone is cheering like Stepford wives. It's time for a full-on hopelash."

In trying to name these various hope-related ailments, I found myself wondering what the late Studs Terkel would have said about our collective hopeover. He surely would have urged us not to give in to despair. I reached for one of his last books, Hope Dies Last. I didn't have to read long. The book opens with the words: "Hope has never trickled down. It has always sprung up."

And that pretty much says it all. Hope was a fine slogan when rooting for a long-shot presidential candidate. But as a posture toward the president of the most powerful nation on earth, it is dangerously deferential. The task as we move forward (as Obama likes to say) is not to abandon hope but to find more appropriate homes for it--in the factories, neighborhoods and schools where tactics like sit-ins, squats and occupations are seeing a resurgence.

Political scientist Sam Gindin wrote recently that the labor movement can do more than protect the status quo. It can demand, for instance, that shuttered auto plants be converted into green-future factories, capable of producing mass-transit vehicles and technology for a renewable energy system. "Being realistic means taking hope out of speeches," he wrote, "and putting it in the hands of workers."

Which brings me to the final entry in the lexicon.

Hoperoots. Sample sentence: "It's time to stop waiting for hope to be handed down, and start pushing it up, from the hoperoots"

Afghan Women Protest New Law on Home Life

By DEXTER FILKINS
Published: April 15, 2009

Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images for The New York Times
Women critical of new restrictions applying to Shiites demonstrated Wednesday in Kabul.

KABUL, Afghanistan — The young women stepped off the bus and moved toward the protest march just beginning on the other side of the street when they were spotted by a mob of men.

Enlarge This Image

Shah Marai/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
The women were confronted by a much larger crowd in favor of the measures.

Enlarge This Image

Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images, for The New York Times

Some women in Kabul chanted in support of a new family law for the Shiite minority that permits marital rape, among other things, and applies other restrictions.

“Get out of here, you whores!” the men shouted. “Get out!”

The women scattered as the men moved in.

“We want our rights!” one of the women shouted, turning to face them. “We want equality!”

The women ran to the bus and dived inside as it rumbled away, with the men smashing the taillights and banging on the sides.

“Whores!”

But the march continued anyway. About 300 Afghan women, facing an angry throng three times larger than their own, walked the streets of the capital on Wednesday to demand that Parliament repeal a new law that introduces a range of Taliban-like restrictions on women, and permits, among other things, marital rape.

It was an extraordinary scene. Women are mostly illiterate in this impoverished country, and they do not, generally speaking, enjoy anything near the freedom accorded to men. But there they were, most of them young, many in jeans, defying a threatening crowd and calling out slogans heavy with meaning.

With the Afghan police keeping the mob at bay, the women walked two miles to Parliament, where they delivered a petition calling for the law’s repeal.

“Whenever a man wants sex, we cannot refuse,” said Fatima Husseini, 26, one of the marchers. “It means a woman is a kind of property, to be used by the man in any way that he wants.”

The law, approved by both houses of Parliament and signed by President Hamid Karzai, applies to the Shiite minority only. Women here and governments and rights groups abroad have protested three parts of the law especially.

One provision makes it illegal for a woman to resist her husband’s sexual advances. A second provision requires a husband’s permission for a woman to work outside the home or go to school. And a third makes it illegal for a woman to refuse to “make herself up” or “dress up” if that is what her husband wants.

The passage of the law has amounted to something of a historical irony. Afghan Shiites, who make up close to 20 percent of the population, suffered horrendously under the Taliban, who regarded them as apostates. Since 2001, the Shiites, particularly the Hazara minority, have been enjoying a renaissance.

President Karzai, who relies on vast support from the United States and other Western governments to stay in power, has come under intense international criticism for signing the bill into law. Many people here suspect that he did so to gain the favor of the Shiite clergy; Mr. Karzai is up for re-election this year. Previous Afghan governments, during the Soviet era and before the arrival of the Taliban, did not impose such restrictive laws, although in practice many rural women’s freedoms have long been curtailed. Rights advocates say the law for Shiites could influence a proposal for Sunnis and a draft law on violence against women.

Responding to the outcry, Mr. Karzai has begun looking for a way to remove the most controversial parts of the law. In an interview on Wednesday, his spokesman, Homayun Hamidzada, said that the legislation was not yet law because it had not been published in the government’s official register. That, Mr. Hamidzada said, means that it can still be changed. Mr. Karzai has asked his justice minister to look it over.

“We have no doubt that whatever comes out of this process will be consistent with the rights provided for in the Constitution — equality and the protection of women,” Mr. Hamidzada said.

The women who protested Wednesday began their demonstration with what appeared to be a deliberately provocative act. They gathered in front of the School of the Last Prophet, a madrasa run by Ayatollah Asif Mohseni, the country’s most powerful Shiite cleric. He and the scholars around him played an important role in drafting the new law.

“We are here to campaign for our rights,” one woman said into a megaphone. Then the women held their banners aloft and began to chant.

The reaction was immediate. Hundreds of students from the madrasa, most but not all of them men, poured into the streets to confront the demonstrators.

“Death to the enemies of Islam!” the counterdemonstrators cried, encircling the women. “We want Islamic law!”

The women stared ahead and marched.

A phalanx of police officers, some of them women, held the crowds apart.

Afterward, when the demonstrators had left, one of the madrasa’s senior clerics came outside. Asked about the dispute, he said it was between professionals and nonprofessionals; that is, between the clerics, who understood the Koran and Islamic law, and the women calling for the law’s repeal who did not.

“It’s like if you are sick, you go to a doctor, not some amateur,” said the cleric, Mohammed Hussein Jafaari. “This law was approved by the scholars. It was passed by both houses of Parliament. It was signed by the president.”

The religious scholars, Mr. Jafaari conceded, were all men.

Lingering a while, Mr. Jafaari said that what was really driving the dispute was the foreigners who loomed so large over the country.

“We Afghans don’t want a bunch of NATO commanders and foreign ministers telling us what to do.”

“The Real Truth Behind the Fake Ad”

From HRC, info on the National Organization for Marriage ad:

The general argument of the ad is that the push for marriage equality isn’t just about rights for same-sex couples, it’s about imposing contrary values on people of faith. The examples they cite in the ad are:
(1) A California doctor who must choose between her faith and her job
(2) A member of New Jersey church group which is punished by the state because they can’t support same-sex marriage
(3) A Massachusetts parent who stands by helpless while the state teaches her son that gay marriage is okay

The facts indicate that (1) refers to the Benitez decision in California, determining that a doctor cannot violate California anti-discrimination law by refusing to treat a lesbian based on religious belief, (2) refers to the Ocean Grove, New Jersey Methodist pavilion that was open to the general public for events but refused access for civil union ceremonies (and was fined by the state for doing so) and (3) refers to the Parker decision in Massachusetts, where parents unsuccessfully sought to end public school discussions of family diversity, including of same-sex couples.

All three examples involve religious people who enter the public sphere, but don’t want to abide by the general non-discriminatory rules everyone else does. Both (1) and (2) are really about state laws against sexual orientation discrimination, rather than specifically about marriage. And (3) is about two pairs of religious parents trying to impose their beliefs on all children in public schools.

The real facts of each case are:

• The California doctor entered a profession that promises to “first, do no harm” and the law requires her to treat a patient in need – gay or straight, Christian or Muslim – regardless of her religious beliefs. The law does not, and cannot, dictate her faith – it can only insist that she follow her oath as a medical professional.
• The New Jersey church group runs, and profits from, a beachside pavilion that it rents out to the general public for all manner of occasions –concerts, debates and even Civil War reenactments— but balks at permitting couples to hold civil union ceremonies there. The law does not challenge the church organization’s beliefs about homosexuality – it merely requires that a pavilion that had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians.
• The Massachusetts parent disagrees with an aspect of her son’s public education, a discussion of the many different kinds of families he will likely encounter in life, including gay and lesbian couples. The law does not stop her from disagreeing, from teaching him consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family’s religious traditions.

Iowa’s Family Values

By STEVEN W. THRASHER
Published: April 8, 2009

IF it weren’t for Iowa, my family may never have existed, and this gay, biracial New Yorker might never have been born.

In 1958, when my mother, who was white, and father, who was black, wanted to get married in Nebraska, it was illegal for them to wed. So they decided to go next door to Iowa, a state that was progressive enough to allow interracial marriage. My mom’s brother tried to have the Nebraska state police bar her from leaving the state so she couldn’t marry my dad, which was only the latest legal indignity she had endured. She had been arrested on my parents’ first date, accused of prostitution. (The conventional thought of the time being: Why else would a white woman be seen with a black man?)

On their wedding day, somehow, my parents made it out of Nebraska without getting arrested again, and were wed in Council Bluffs, Iowa, on March 1, 1958. This was five years before Nebraska would strike down its laws against interracial marriage, and almost a decade before the Supreme Court would outlaw miscegenation laws throughout the country in Loving v. Virginia.

When the good state of Iowa conferred the dignity of civic recognition on my parents’ relationship — a relationship some members of their own families thought was deviant and immoral, that the civil authorities of Nebraska had tried to destroy, and that even some of my mom’s college-educated friends believed would produce children striped like zebras — our family began. And by the time my father died, their interracial marriage was seen just as a marriage, and an admirable 45-year one at that.

That I almost cried last week upon reading that the Iowa Supreme Court overturned the state law banning same-sex marriage will therefore come as no surprise. I’m still struck by one thought: over the years, I’ve met so many gay émigrés who felt it was unsafe to be gay in so-called flyover country and fled for the East and West coasts. But as a gay man, I can’t marry in “liberal” New York, where I’m a resident, or in “liberal” California, where I was born, and very soon I will have that right in “conservative” Iowa.

Of course, the desire to define relational rights and responsibilities with a partner, to have access to the protection that this kind of commitment affords, is rather conservative. But it’s a conservative dream that should be offered to all Americans. Though it takes great courage for gays to marry in a handful of states now, one hopes that someday, throughout the nation, gay marriages, like my parents’ union, will just be seen as marriages.

It’s safe to say that neither the dramas of our family, nor its triumphs, could have been possible without the simultaneously radical and conservative occasion of my parents’ civil marriage in Iowa. And so when the time comes, I hope to be married at the City Hall in Council Bluffs, in the state that not only supports my civil rights now, but which supported my parents’ so many years ago.

Steven W. Thrasher is a writer and media producer.

STATEMENT ON MARTA FINANCIAL CRISIS

ATLANTA TRANSIT RIDERS UNION – ATLANTA JOBS WITH JUSTICE

Layoffs, budget cuts, and foreclosures are all signs of a deepening
economic crisis that is affecting every sector of our society. While
trillions of dollars are spent on wars and to bail out Wall Street and
the banks, very little of that money is getting down to the masses of
people who need it the most. In public transit, we see fare increases,
service cuts, and layoffs hitting every major system in the country.
St. Louis, for example, lost 43% of their bus service because of
severe cuts in operations funding.

MARTA’s current crisis is caused by these national conditions, but is
made even worse by this state’s racist history of under-funding and
paternalistic control of Atlanta’s public institutions. In 1971,
MARTA’s original idea was to have a free fare, but this was
unacceptable to the Lieutenant Governor, well-known segregationist
Lester Maddox. He made sure that MARTA would be forced to spend half
of its budget on capital expenses. This forced MARTA to make up the
difference in operating costs at the fare box. In addition, the state
placed four members on the MARTA board and MARTA continues to be the
only major U.S. transit system to receive no operating help from the
state.

Legislation to lift the 50/50 restriction on MARTA’s budget recently
failed to pass. MARTA now faces a $24 million deficit, $40 million
next year, and a projected $588-634 million shortfall over the next
decade. What is MARTA management’s response? They propose to raise
fares, eliminate Friday service, and layoff workers. These drastic
measures will have a severe impact on MARTA riders, those 30,000 who
transfer to MARTA from outlying systems, and Amalgamated Transit Union
members. Those who will be especially hit hard are the 63% of MARTA
riders who have household incomes of less than $30,000 a year and the
54% who depend on MARTA to get to work.

The state’s racist refusal to provide MARTA operating resources it
needs represents a failure to respect, protect, and fulfill the
government’s human rights obligations to our community. The Atlanta
Transit Riders Union and Atlanta Jobs with Justice believe that
everyone has a human right to jobs, housing, education, health care,
and transportation access. Atlanta taxpayers pay half the state’s
taxes, but get back only one-third of what the state spends on
services. It’s time to stop the subsidizing of road-building in south
Georgia, while MARTA, Grady, and our public schools struggle to survive.

Only a movement led by those most affected by this crisis can build
the power we need at this critical time. We demand the state reconvene
in order to lift the 50/50 restriction. We say “NO” to service cuts,
fare increases, layoffs, or state takeover of MARTA. We say “YES” to
better service, lower fares, state and regional funding, and community
control. Nationally, we will be working with Transit Riders for Public
Transportation, which supports mass expansion of transit and
restriction of auto use. We organize knowing that the people
themselves are the only protection we have against injustice. We did
not cause this crisis and we are determined to not be the ones to pay
for it.

Atlanta Transit Riders Union/Atlanta Jobs with Justice

The Forgotten Rich

Published: April 1, 2009

The Senate budget debate began this week against a backdrop of war and recession, rising unemployment and surging foreclosures, runaway health care costs and diminishing insurance coverage — to name just a few of the nation’s big problems. But for Senator Blanche Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas, and Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, the most pressing issue is clear: America’s wealthiest families need help. Now.

Readers' Comments

"Bring on the guillotine."

Betsy Herring, Edmond, Oklahoma

• Read Full Comment »

The two senators plan to propose an amendment to deeply cut estate taxes for the fraction of the top 1 percent of the population still subject to those levies.

The proverbial millionaires next door — the plumbers, contractors and accountants who amass substantial wealth through hard work and modest living — are not the intended beneficiaries of the proposed cut. The Obama budget already takes care of them, because it retains today’s law, which imposes the estate tax only on couples with property worth more than $7 million, or individuals with property worth more than $3.5 million. That means 99.8 percent of estates will never — ever — pay a penny of estate tax.

The heirs of the remaining 0.2 percent of estates are who Ms. Lincoln and Mr. Kyl are so worried about. Their amendment would increase to $10 million the level at which the estate tax kicks in. It would also lower the top estate-tax rate to 35 percent from 45 percent.

With all the serious work before Congress, it is a colossal waste of time to have to rebut the false claims and warped premises of ardent estate-tax cutters. Ms. Lincoln’s and Mr. Kyl’s colleagues in the Senate should make short work of it and move on to urgent matters.

In addition to creating the false impression that the estate tax eventually hits everyone — by mislabeling it a “death tax” — opponents routinely denounce the 45 percent top tax rate as confiscatory. In fact, the rate applies only to the portion of the estate that exceeds the exemption. As a result, even estates worth more than $20 million end up paying only about 20 percent in taxes.

Another misleading argument is that the estate tax represents double taxation. In truth, much of the wealth that is taxed at death has never been taxed before. That’s because such wealth is often accrued in the form of capital gains on stocks, real estate and other investments. Capital gains are not taxed until an asset is sold. Obviously, if someone dies owning an asset, he or she never sold it and thus never paid tax on the gain.

If those arguments aren’t enough to stop the Lincoln-Kyl show, lawmakers should consider this: The estate tax creates a big incentive for high-end philanthropy, because charitable bequests are exempt. On Tuesday, Independent Sector, a nonpartisan charitable coalition representing thousands of public charities, private foundations and corporate-giving programs, urged the Senate to reject the Lincoln-Kyl amendment and to keep the tax as proposed in the Obama budget.

Finally, reducing the estate tax from the level proposed by Mr. Obama would cost an additional $250 billion in forgone revenue over 10 years, at a time when the nation already has to borrow heavily for real needs. Ms. Lincoln and Mr. Kyl have made rumblings about offering a way to offset that cost. Let’s hear what they say, and once we see how they’ve come up with a quarter-trillion dollars, let’s talk about better ways to use the money.

Harlem Agency Hopes to End Poverty Cycle - 'Baby College' Teaches Parents Child-Rearing Skills

By BILL WEIR and TRACEY MARX
March 21, 2009—


As the nation roils with fear of poverty and political debates over 
socialization and the free market, there is one man who has been 
wading through that thicket for years. And he may have found a "cure" 
for poverty.

His name is Geoffrey Canada. He was raised in New York City by a 
single mom who provided enough for him to earn a master's degree in 
education from Harvard before he went on to work as an urban do-gooder.

But for years, no matter how much he did, he saw very little good.

Canada, 57, has been working at the Harlem Children's Zone, which 
includes two charter schools, for more than 20 years. His main goal 
has been to turn children of tough inner-city neighborhoods into 
college-bound citizens. He does it by getting to those kids when they 
are still in the womb and well before they ever hear a discouraging 
word or feel a slap of anger.

Three out of four kids are born into poverty in New York City's Harlem 
neighborhood, according to a report from the Children's Defense Fund. 
And most stay there, despite expensive social programs. This cycle 
confounded Canada, until his wife got pregnant 11 years ago and he had 
an epiphany.

"I really started thinking about how little I knew about early brain 
development," said Canada, president and chief executive of the Harlem 
Children's Zone.

Canada became a new dad right around the time of the "Baby Einstein" 
boom. Bookstores were filled with new science theories showing that a 
toddler's brain is like a sponge.

"That brain is receptive from birth and you, as the parent, have to be 
putting in valuable information," he explained. "You have to be 
talking, you have to be singing, you have to be playing with this 
child, you have to read to this child."

One study by the American Educator, the professional journal of the 
American Federation of Teachers, found that by the age of 3, children 
of upper-class parents hear about 30 million words, most of them 
encouraging, while children of parents on welfare hear only 10 million 
words, most of them harsh and scolding.

Parents from the suburbs swarmed bookstores, clamoring to get their 
children exposed to more words, but the people of Harlem were using a 
style of parenting handed down since the days of slavery.


Canada said Harlem parents were preparing children to be quiet, well 
mannered and subservient because they thought those were the kids who 
got jobs. And a lot of that teaching included hitting the child.

"We had to go to parents and say, 'You know what; first of all, you 
are spending all of your time trying to beat this child into 
submission,'" said Canada.

He tried to tell parents that kids are just being kids, testing limits 
and learning by touch and sound.

"They're not being oppositional, they're called being 2," he said.

While the Harlem Children's Zone already had clinics and charter 
schools, Canada added Baby College to the pipeline. The program 
consists of a nine-week series of workshops for parents of children up 
to age 3.

To recruit parents, the Zone sends workers into the streets telling 
them that they can learn about nutrition, nurturing and discipline. 
But in the workshop, they'll also get to share their own experiences 
with discipline.

Marilyn Joseph, director of Baby College, said most parents use what 
she calls the P-words, " the plucking, the punching and the popping."

The trick is convincing young mothers like Enjolie Evans to use a 
different P-word: patience. And that can be hard for parents to learn.

Evans, a 22-year-old mother of two boys and expecting another, said 
she likes to use time out.

"I do it according to their age," she said. "So say like for the 2 
year old, I give him a two-minute time out. And the oldest one I will 
time him out for about seven minutes, or maybe a little longer, like 
maybe a half an hour, and then I go tell him mommy still loves you and 
what you did was wrong."

"And I'll explain to him it's all right and then we'll go about our 
day. Sometimes I do pop him but by the end of the day, I'd rather put 
him in the corner; it's much easier like that, instead of beating your 
child."

Evans recognizes that learning patience will benefit everyone in the 
family.


Others Can Undo Mothers' Progress

But it's slow going. Grandparents and neighbors can undo any progress. 
The good news is that the mothers who first attended Baby College have 
kids hitting fourth grade. And they are testing off the charts.

In statewide testing, 75 percent of the third-graders at the Zone's 
Promise Academy Charter School tested at or above grade level in math. 
And 60 percent of its seventh-graders tested at or above grade level, 
which bodes well for those who stay in Canada's charter school pipeline.

Six of a group of ninth-graders said they were definitely on their way 
to college, throwing out names like Yale, Columbia, Duke and Harvard.

In the end, what many have learned from this system is spare the rod 
and you might just save the community.

"I think it's true, but I will tell you that there is a lot of 
skepticism," Canada said. "Our theory is we have got to stay with 
these kids straight through until we get them through college. When 
I've got hundreds and hundreds of my kids coming back into my 
community with college degrees, then I know Harlem is going to be fine."

Canada has a lot of fans, including President Obama, who has budgeted 
20 "Promise Neighborhoods" in the nation based on the Harlem 
Children's Zone.

For more information, visit Harlem Children's Zone at www.hcz.org


Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures

I need a man!

Woman seeks Man for Manly Duties

---

Date: 2009-01-30, 12:30PM EST


I would like a man to perform some duties that have become beholden to him through generations of selection, and to a lesser degree, racism, sexism and plain stupidity.

Here's what I need. I need a man, first and foremost, to get my damn car out of the snow. There's only one of me. I need someone to push it and by "it" I mean car. You can say, "crank it!" or maybe "gun it!" or "that's my FOOT, goddammit!" Seriously I need groceries. Oh. Also I need a tune-up. On the car. I can help, I will purchase the air filter and flushing fluid or whatever.

Now, other things I need you to do include some simple patchwork on my walls. Then you'll need to paint of course. I mean, I could do this I guess, but see I lack the tools and this just would be a nice gesture on your part. Also I'm going to need furniture and its subsequent arrangement. You are the perfect candidate what with your higher muscle to fat ratio. Remember to lift with your knees, hon. Also the bathroom is pretty gross. It needs to be finished since my man-boy landlord figure is as useless, as say, the elder Rocky Balboa, electric toothbrushes (are you really so lazy you find the task of rotating toothbrush in circular manner yourself daunting?) and WalMart.

I don't currently have anyone whose ass needs to be whooped, but we will work on that. I'd expect no less of you than to fly into a jealous mad rage for my dubious honor. I'd be mad at first but then secretly delighted.

I'd also like a man to be more knowledgeable about alcohol than I am. I don't drink that much. But I enjoy it and I don't know what to order. You may NOT take advantage of this arrangement by sitting bourbon in front of me, repeatedly, and letting me drink it because if I didn't it would be wasted. You know how I hate waste. But I also hate dry-heaving and sleeping with my contacts in.

I need someone with whom I can purchase a house. You can store your wall patch, metric wrenches, and girly mags (frown) in it and I will store myself and collection of houseplants. I can't justify buying a house myself. And certainly the steps would be crooked or door mishung and there are limits, as mentioned previously, to my supreme handiness. You can have a workshop and I want a large bathtub surrounded my mysterious feminine products subtly reminding me that my wa-hoo is dirty and thus I am not worthy of love/validation. I think we should get some cats.

While I have a computer, obviously, it is probably laden with viruses and insecure and god knows what else. I bet you can fix this. I'd also like decent speakers through which to broadcast woxy, wnku, and npr. Really anything with letters. If you are unfamiliar with these broadcasts, please exit stage right and slip on the ice immediately.

In return, I perform Womanly Duties that have become beholden to me through generations of selection, and to a lesser degree, racism, sexism, and plain stupidity. They include: being more socially and environmentally conscious than you generally speaking, eating healthy (and making you eat healthy too), being passive-aggressive instead of directly communicating, complaining that you are too sensitive, witholding sex in case of argument, and perhaps bearing your offspring. Things I don't do that women may typically do include shopping (except food and your ass is coming to the farmers market too), asking you about my ass, and talking excessively.

Things I find unacceptable but could possibly turn my head if performed your Duties include excess. Such as excessive smoking, excessive gaming, excessive masturbation, excessive TV, excessive leaving your dirty socks/dishes strewn about, really excessive anything. Things you find unacceptable but could possibly turn your head might include: negativity (working on it), thrift (not working on it), excess sarcasm (see previous statement). Also I only really shave during the summer and then only knee-length. Frequently the hair on my head is just out of control.

I except that your bad habits will influence me and shorten my life span and my good habits will influence yours and lengthen your life span. Nonetheless, you will die before me and then I'll have to post on Craigslist again. Until then I look forward to your replies which either praise me or tell me to go fuck myself.

Sincerely,
Me

Immigrants face detention, few rights

By MICHELLE ROBERTS
Associated Press
Sun Mar 15, 11:15 pm ET

AP – This photo released by Lauren Rivera
shows Sarjina Emy in an April 2006 photo.
Emy, a 20-year-old former …

America's detention system for immigrants has mushroomed in the last decade, a costly building boom that was supposed to sweep up criminals and ensure that undocumented immigrants were quickly shown the door.

Instead, an Associated Press computer analysis of every person being held on a recent Sunday night shows that most did not have a criminal record and many were not about to leave the country — voluntarily or via deportation.

An official Immigration and Customs Enforcement database, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, showed a U.S. detainee population of exactly 32,000 on the evening of Jan. 25.

The data show that 18,690 immigrants had no criminal conviction, not even for illegal entry or low-level crimes like trespassing. More than 400 of those with no criminal record had been incarcerated for at least a year. A dozen had been held for three years or more; one man from China had been locked up for more than five years.

Nearly 10,000 had been in custody longer than 31 days — the average detention stay that ICE cites as evidence of its effective detention management.

Especially tough bail conditions are exacerbated by disregard or bending of the rules regarding how long immigrants can be detained.

Based on a 2001 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, ICE has about six months to deport or release immigrants after their case is decided. But immigration lawyers say that deadline is routinely missed. In the system snapshot provided to the AP, 950 people were in that category.

The detainee buildup began in the mid 1990s, long before the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Since 2003, though, Congress has doubled to $1.7 billion the amount dedicated to imprisoning immigrants, as furor over "criminal aliens" intertwined with post-9/11 fears and anti-immigrant political rhetoric.

But the dragnet has come to include not only terrorism suspects and cop killers, but an honors student who was raised in Orlando, Fla.; a convenience store clerk who begged to go back to Canada; and a Pentecostal minister who was forcibly drugged by ICE agents after he asked to contact his wife, according to court records.

Immigration lawyers note that substantial numbers of detainees, from 177 countries in the data provided, are not illegal immigrants at all. Many of the longest-term non-criminal detainees are asylum seekers fighting to stay here because they fear being killed in their home country. Others are longtime residents who may be eligible to stay under other criteria, or whose applications for permanent residency were lost or mishandled, the lawyers say.

Still other long-term detainees include people who can't be deported because their home country won't accept them or people who seemingly have been forgotten in the behemoth system, where 58 percent have no lawyers or anyone else advocating on their behalf.

ICE says detention is the best way to guarantee that immigrants attend court hearings and leave the country when ordered.

"It's ensuring compliance, and if you look at the stats, for folks who are in detention, the stats are pretty darn high," said ICE spokeswoman Cori Bassett.

By comparison though, most criminal suspects, even sometimes those accused of heinous offenses, are entitled to bail.

"We're immigrants, and it makes it seem like it's worse than a criminal," said Sarjina Emy, a 20-year-old former honors student who spent nearly two years in a Florida lockup because her parents' asylum claim was denied when she was a child. "I always thought America does so much for justice. I really thought you get a fair trial. You actually go to court. (U.S. authorities) know what they are doing. Now, I figured out that it only works for criminal citizens."

The use of detention to ensure immigrants show up for immigration court comes at a high cost compared to alternatives like electronic ankle monitoring, which can track people for considerably less money per day.

Based on the amount budgeted for this fiscal year, U.S. taxpayers will pay about $141 a night — the equivalent of a decent hotel room — for each immigrant detained, even though paroling them on ankle monitors — at a budgeted average daily cost of $13 — has an almost perfect compliance rate, according to ICE's own stats.

For years, ICE and its predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, had the power to detain immigrants. With little bed space or public clamor to lock people up, though, millions of foreigners quietly went about life in the United States.

In 1996, Congress passed a pair of laws requiring that immigrants who committed crimes be locked up for deportation, beginning a dramatic run-up in incarcerations. So-called "criminal aliens" — immigrants convicted of a crime, including some misdemeanors like low-level drug crimes — became mandatory detainees even if their original crime brought no prison time.

A system that housed 6,785 immigrants in 1994 now holds nearly five times that amount in 260 facilities across the country, most under contract with local governments or private companies. For this fiscal year, ICE has enough money budgeted for 33,400 people on any given night.

Emy, who was raised in Orlando, Fla., spent 20 months in a detention center even though she had no criminal record. She traded her Baby Phat clothes for a gray uniform and window-shopping at the mall for a law library behind razor wire.

Her only crime? Her parents, who feared her father's political affiliations endangered the family, brought her and two brothers to the United States from Bangladesh when she was 5, according to court documents.

She doesn't speak Bangla and never imagined a future without college. No one in her family realized her father's work certificate from the Labor Department didn't equate to legal immigration status.

Family members were rounded up in July 2007, treated as fugitives on a dated but active deportation order.

Her parents were deported first. Emy languished in custody while continuing her fight to stay.

But because the asylum application had been filed on behalf of the entire family, only the parents got a hearing. Emy never saw a judge, according to Emy and her attorney.

"Justice is not being served," she said from a prison pay phone.

In January, a federal appeals court denied her petition to stay in the U.S. Fearing she'd celebrate another birthday behind bars, Emy agreed to be deported and left the country Feb. 18.

Immigration law "is the only United States law where we punish the children for the actions of their parents," said Emy's attorney, Petia Vimitrova Knowles.

Immigration violations are considered civil, something akin to a moving violation in a car, so the government can imprison immigrants without many of the rights criminals receive: No court-appointed attorney for indigent defendants, no standard habeas corpus, no protection from double jeopardy, no guarantee of a speedy trial.

"You're locking up people without even a hearing," said Judy Rabinovitz of the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants Rights Project. "That, to me, is the outrage: basic due process. Since when do we allow the government to lock up people without even giving them a bond hearing?"

Most immigrants are navigating a complex legal system without an attorney. Fifty-eight percent went through immigration proceedings without an attorney in fiscal year 2007, according to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, a branch of the U.S. Justice Department.

But, ICE officials often argue, immigrants largely hold the keys to their own freedom. If they simply agree to return to their home country, they can go, Bassett said.

"They're making a choice (that) they're going to appeal, which is their right," she said.

But even giving up, or winning a claim, doesn't always spell freedom because ICE acts as police officer, arraignment judge, jailer and prosecutor. It has sole jurisdiction over when a detained immigrant is sent back after a deportation order is issued, and can continue to hold immigrants while it appeals a decision that didn't go its way.

In another telling case, Ahmad Al-Shrmany, a 34-year-old Iraqi with no appeal pending, begged for a year to be deported and yet remained in detention. He wanted to be allowed to go to his native Iraq or his adopted Canada, where he had been granted asylum a decade ago. A lawyer filed a habeas corpus petition in December that went unanswered.

"Just deport me. That's your job," he said in a late January interview with the AP that ICE officials tried to block minutes before it was scheduled at a Houston lockup.

Less than a week after the interview, Al-Shrmany was deported to Canada, said his lawyer, Afreen Ahmed.

Immigrant advocates say ICE prefers incarceration for non-criminal immigrants, even though alternatives are available, for one major reason: to strong-arm people.

"When you're there for weeks and weeks or months or months, your determination to fight your charges is reduced," said Judy Green, a policy analyst with Justice Strategies, a nonpartisan think tank on incarceration issues. The goal is "to keep intense pressure on detainees to agree to removal and not to fight on whatever grounds they have for relief."

The Rev. Raymond Soeoth, a Pentecostal minister from Indonesia who had never been imprisoned, said his lengthy incarceration — and the uncertainty of how long it would last — wore on him as he fought his immigration case and pursued a lawsuit accusing ICE officials of forcibly drugging him and other detainees.

"We just wait. We cannot do anything," said Soeoth, who was released after more than two years, given a special visa as part of the government's settlement of the drugging lawsuit.

An Empire for Poor Working Women, Guided by a Gandhian Approach

March 7, 2009
THE SATURDAY PROFILE


By SOMINI SENGUPTA
AHMADABAD, India

THIRTY-FIVE years ago in this once thriving textile town, Ela Bhatt 
fought for higher wages for women who ferried bolts of cloth on their 
heads. Next, she created India’s first women’s bank.

Since then, her Self-Employed Women’s Association, or SEWA, has 
offered retirement accounts and health insurance to women who never 
had a safety net, lent working capital to entrepreneurs to open beauty 
salons in the slums, helped artisans sell their handiwork to new urban 
department stores and boldly trained its members to become gas station 
attendants — an unusual job for women on the bottom of India’s social 
ladder.

Small, slight and usually dressed in a hand-spun cotton sari, Mrs. 
Bhatt is a Gandhian pragmatist for the New India.

At 76, she is a critic of some of India’s embrace of market reforms, 
but nevertheless keen to see the poorest of Indian workers get a stake 
in the country’s swelling and swiftly globalizing economy. She has 
built a formidable empire of women-run, Gandhian-style cooperatives — 
100 at last count — some providing child care for working mothers, 
others selling sesame seeds to Indian food-processing firms — all 
modeled after the Gandhian ideal of self-sufficiency but also 
advancing modern ambitions.

She calls it the quest for economic freedom in a democratic India.

Her own quest offers a glimpse into the changing desires of Indian 
mothers and daughters, along with their vulnerabilities. Tinsmiths or 
pickle makers, embroiderers or vendors of onions, SEWA’s members are 
mostly employed in the informal sector. They get no regular paychecks, 
sick leave or holidays. Calamities are always just around the corner, 
whether traffic accidents or crippling droughts. Without SEWA, they 
would be hard pressed to have health benefits or access to credit.

SEWA’s innovations bear lessons for the majority of workers in the new 
Indian economy. Since economic reforms kicked off in 1991, the share 
of Indians employed in the informal sector — where they are not 
covered by stringent, socialist-era labor laws from the time of the 
cold war — has grown steadily to more than 90 percent, according to a 
recent government-commissioned report.

Among them, the report found, nearly three-fourths lived on less than 
20 cents a day and had virtually no safety net. “Why should there be a 
difference between worker and worker,” Mrs. Bhatt wondered aloud, 
“whether they are working in a factory, or at home or on the footpath?”

WITH 500,000 members in western Gujarat State alone, the SEWA empire 
also includes two profit-making firms that stitch and embroider 
women’s clothing. More than 100,000 women are enrolled in the 
organization’s health and life insurance plans. Its bank has 350,000 
depositors and, like most microfinance organizations, a repayment rate 
as high as 97 percent. Loans range from around $100 to $1,100, with a 
steep interest rate of 15 percent. “We don’t have a liquidity 
problem,” its manager, Jayshree Vyas, pointed out merrily. “Women save.”

A SEWA loan of roughly $250 allowed Namrata Rajhari to start a beauty 
salon 15 years ago from her one-room shack in a working-class enclave 
called Behrampura. At first, the neighborhood women knew little about 
beauty treatments. They only wanted their hair trimmed.

Then Mrs. Rajhari began threading their eyebrows to resemble perfect 
half-moons, waxing the hair off their forearms and offering facials. 
During the wedding season, business blossomed. Mrs. Rajhari, who only 
has a 10th-grade education, expanded to a small room in the next lane.

With money from her business, Mrs. Rajhari installed a toilet at home, 
added a loft and bought a washing machine. “Before, I felt blank. I 
didn’t know anything about the world,” she said the other day. “Now, 
with my earnings, my children are studying.”

Mrs. Rajhari then motioned to an object of pride in the living room. 
“The computer is also from my parlor money,” she beamed. A daughter, 
Srishti, is now enrolled in a private English school. She wants to be 
an astronomer.

Behrampura buzzed with work and hustle on this morning. Men 
disassembled old television sets and put together new sofas. A woman 
pushed a cart loaded with used suitcases. Another herded a half-dozen 
donkeys loaded with construction debris.

Nearby, in another slum, shortly after dawn, Naina Chauhan rode a 
motorized rickshaw across town to start her shift as a gas station 
attendant. Her mother, Hira, now 65, had spent a lifetime ferrying 
coal, cleaning hospitals and going house to house to collect old 
newspapers. Naina said she resolved never to slog as her mother had.

Today, she contributes about $1 a month to her own SEWA-run pension 
plan. A SEWA loan has allowed her to clear a debt from relatives. She 
easily makes three times what her mother made collecting newspapers 
and as she shyly admitted this afternoon, almost as much as her 
husband, a hospital cleaner. She just recently married, and plans to 
move into her husband’s family home soon. She said she hoped he would 
let her manage at least some of her own money.

Mrs. Bhatt’s Gandhian approach is most evident in the way she lives. 
Her two-bedroom bungalow is small and spare. The one bit of whimsy is 
a white swing that hangs from the ceiling in the center of the living 
room. She uses her bed as a desk chair. Her grandson has painted a 
child’s pastoral mural on the bedroom wall. She is known for having no 
indulgences.

“Above all you should emphasize her simplicity,” said Anil Gupta, a 
professor at the Indian Institute of Management here who has followed 
SEWA’s work for over a decade, sometimes critically. “In her personal 
life, there is not the slightest tinge of hypocrisy.”

Mrs. Bhatt is not without detractors. The chief minister of Gujarat, 
Narendra Modi, accused her group of financial irregularities three 
years ago in the management of a rehabilitation program for earthquake 
victims. SEWA denied the charges and pulled out of the government-run 
program. Mrs. Bhatt accused Mr. Modi of trying to discredit the 
organization. Their war of words has since cooled down.

BORN to a privileged Brahmin family, Mrs. Bhatt charted an unusual 
path for a woman of her time. She earned a law degree and chose the 
man she would marry. She began her career as a lawyer for the city’s 
main union for textile workers, the vast majority of them men, and 
broke away in 1981 to create a new kind of union for women.

Early on, she won higher rates for women porters, then a landmark 
legal victory that allowed women to sell fruits and vegetables on the 
street without harassment from the police. The fishmongers and quilt-
makers who were SEWA Bank’s earliest customers sometimes stashed their 
checkbooks in the bank’s steel cabinets, she recalled, lest their 
husbands discover they had money of their own.

At first, the women’s ambitions were limited, she said. They wanted 
toilets, hair shears or sewing machines for work and money to pay for 
their children’s school fees. Slowly, she noticed, they began to dream 
big. Mothers now want their daughters to learn to ride a scooter and 
work on a computer.

“They didn’t see the future at that time,” she said. “Expectations 
have gone very high.”

Not long ago, Mrs. Bhatt recalled, she asked SEWA members what 
“freedom” meant to them. Some said it was the ability to step out of 
the house. Others said it was having a door to the bathroom. Some said 
it meant having their own money, a cellphone, or “fresh clothes every 
day.”

Then she told of her favorite. Freedom, one woman said, was “looking a 
policeman in the eye.”


Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company