In Honor of This Life's Battle

Last night, the ever admirable Cristin Zeisler published a blog post entitled "The Gift of my Father's Suicide". I read it a few times before I went to sleep, not quite believing its existence. Part of me is amazed by the perfect timing of its publishing - today is the 3rd anniversary of my brother Jason's suicide. Another part of me is amazed by the fact that, while the details of my and Cristin's situations may be different, the overall message of her post fits perfectly into the confused space in my brain where sadness, grief, anger, bitterness, relief, and motivation all vie for my attention on a regular basis.

During the year or so before Jason died, we talked a lot - more than we ever had in our whole lives. Unfortunately, one of my takeaways from those conversations was that he and I both suffered from some of the same fears and paranoias about certain aspects of life. It was clear that the circumstances of our lives unconsciously led us down very different paths when it came to dealing with those issues, yet neither of us had figured out how to manage the demons. I was continuously working on it in my own way though, making slow progress towards an undefined, yet understood goal of some sort of peace. Despite the fact that there were openings for him all over the place, I think he still felt continuously trapped. And none of us were apparently skilled enough at convincing him that he could in fact survive the uncertainty and confusion of the outside world. In the end, Jason's demons got the best of him, and he ended his fight with life.   

Almost immediately after I found out that he had decided to die, I was generally OK with it. It was still sad and horrible, but I think I also understood that I couldn't blame him for being tired of having to fight all the time. I had quickly made the decision that I had to continue the work I'd already been doing; but, now I'd be fighting for two. When we went to his apartment to clear things out, the scope of this fight got even bigger because I saw that, not only did we both have clogged up brains, but we were both absolutely horrendous at keeping an uncluttered home. 

The fight thus far has been much more challenging than I had expected and hoped, but I continue to be determined to keep making progress. Cristin ends her blog post by saying "I thank him for showing me what path to take — It’s always the one that he didn’t take. It’s always the one that says: Keep going." Part of me still feels guilty about identifying with that so strongly, but thankfully another part of me relishes in its truth. While the fights with our shared demons and my own demons are not quite over in my head, my outside world continues to provide ammo in the form of friends, family, and colleagues who embody the wisdom and love that will allow me to ultimately win this life's battle. And so I march on...

Unnecessary Exercise in Crowdsourcing

The Death of a Terrorist: A Turning Point?

I found this NYTimes page through Twitter: "Is Bin Laden's death a turning point in the war on terror? Place your opinion on our interactive graph."

Is this exercise in crowdsourcing necessary? Why in the world should I, or really any of us regular citizens, have an opinion about this? For example, there's a comment that says "a necessary death, but one that will lead to more terrorism..." HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?! What kind of information could any of us have that would make us capable of having an answer to this. All it seems to do is feed into how obsessed a lot of us are with making snap-judgement opinions about everything, despite the fact that the question is asking something that's impossible for most of us to know. Whether or not an event will be a turning point in the war is something that only the future can tell us.

Is the future really so scary that we can't leave things like this alone, in it's rightful place as "uncertain"? Or maybe we're really just obsessed with having opinions about things. I'm not sure. The kind of person I'm talking about here was me not too long ago (and is still me sometimes)...I'm still conducting internal research.

A Fight for Fair Wages

NYC Living Wage Campaign Invokes Spirit of Dr. King

Last night, upon invitation from a friend who organizes for the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, I went up to the Covenant Baptist Church in Harlem to attend the Mass Meeting for Living Wages. As can be read in the article linked above,

"The meeting was billed as a tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the next step in the struggle to pass the Fair Wages for New Yorkers Act.  For one evening the powerful coalition between clergy and labor that pushed the civil rights agenda forward was reunited." 

I'd never been to anything like this before, and daaaamn was it powerful and inspiring. Before this, I didn't even know about the Fair Wages Act, and honestly, it's appalling that there even has to be a fight for it.

Almost everyone I know living in this city has quipped at some point or another about how expensive it is to live here - and we all have comparatively well-paying jobs. While a larger percentage of our paychecks go towards rent here than it would if we lived in, say, Des Moines, IA, we still have enough cash leftover to save for the future and spend on non-necessities. Not far from our offices and apartments, "there are about 317,000 low-wage workers in New York City, and about one in five of these workers are paid less than the legally required minimum wage of $7.25 an hour." (source) Now, if all of these workers were just kids working an after-school or weekend job to save some extra cash, this statistic may not be such a big deal. However, the fact is, there are adults who rely on these jobs to support themselves, and sometimes their families too.

The Living Wage NYC site defines living wage as "a wage which is based upon the cost of living in an area, rather than an arbitrary minimum. Under an ideal living wage, someone who works an ordinary 40 hour per week job would be able to afford shelter, food, health care, and other basic necessities of life." According to the Living Wage Calculator, the Living Wage for one adult in New York County is $11.86/hr. New York State's minimum wage is $7.25/hr - which would be almost fine if you lived in Steuben County (closest "big" city is Utica!).

The New York Daily News says the Fair Wages Act would "require jobs at city-subsidized developments to pay $10 an hour with benefits or $11.50 without benefits." Later in the article they say "Mayor Bloomberg and business leaders [say] it would put a job-killing burden on businesses." And a Crain's New York Business article published on January 12 says "Bloomberg administration officials have consistently argued that tying wage requirements to subsidies would squash development."

As a New York City taxpayer, I find it rather deplorable that Bloomberg and friends think it's ok to use our money to subsidize businesses that don't want to pay their employees (our citizens) enough to be able to afford to live at the most basic level in the city in which they work (and may pay income and/or payroll taxes!). Also worth mentioning is that some (if not many) of these development projects are and would be things like shopping malls, which usually house businesses that are home-based in other states. 

This is not a lot to ask, NYC Council and Mayor. In fact, it's not even enough. The without-benefits rate that's being requested here is still below the Living Wage rate. If passed, the new wage levels will not suddenly launch anyone into the middle class, but it will help the citizens of our city live a teeny bit less of a squeezed life.

Throughout the event last night, I kept thinking about the subject of my last blog post - connections. Many of the speakers talked about the ramifications unfair wages have on those who rely on them. These ramifications are all important players in the overall issue of poverty.

For example,without a living wage, many people end up having to work more than one job to maintain a basic life. For a single person with no dependents, this probably doesn't have much impact on our overall society. But, for someone, such as a parent, the inability to be home with children can have far reaching consequences. There are studies upon studies that show the importance of parental presence and interaction upon a child's development and success in life. Sure, some children are able to develop inner strengths to successfully get them through the hardships that come along with an absent parent; but, on the other hand, some develop emotions that cause them to act-out negatively to the isolation. Either way, it's not right for children to have to experience the absence of a parent, and it's extra wrong for the city to be enforcing these barriers through unfair policy.

Obviously, passing the Fair Wages Act isn't going to magically alleviate poverty and it's consequences, but it's undeniably a part of the puzzle. Do the right thing, city government. Your concern should be your citizens, and this issue is about the most basic of our rights. The right to afford to live. If an incoming company who accepts our subsidies can't respect that, then I don't think they deserve our business.

Just a little addition to this post: there's a great video that The Catholic Campaign for Human Development put together that illustrates the kinds of hard budgeting choices that people living in poverty have to make every day. I encourage everyone to watch it: Poverty USA Tour

The Beauty of Connection

This week, the pro bono community in America is gathering together to celebrate the invaluable work done by all those involved in their great wide world, as well as to reinforce the even greater need for pro bono and legal services in our country. I; however, am going to take Kate Bladow’s National Pro Bono Celebration Blog Challenge as an opportunity to celebrate an aspect of pro bono that I'm a little obsessed with.

Connections.

They. Are. EVERYWHERE. Right this second, your brain is making tons of them in order to keep you functioning. It's amazing. And so to are the connections within, and without, the pro bono world. Here’s a broad example to get us started: clients connect with legal services providers, providers connect lawyers to cases, lawyers connect with the clients, all in the hopes that the clients will then be able to connect with their individual rights. Those are pretty simple connections that are obvious and run-of-the-mill in the regular processes of pro bono. The really interesting stuff comes when one digs down a little further, into the different areas that pro bono exists.

Technology

For the past 2+ years, I’ve been sitting here behind my computer screen at Pro Bono Net (and every so often venturing out into the field) learning about technological connections that currently exist and connections that could, and hopefully will, exist in the future. Pro bono/legal services communities are currently utilizing technologies that help make connections in a slew of ways:

• Lawyers have access to available cases and training materials
• Pro bono coordinators can capture information on their attorneys’ interests and manage their practice more efficiently 
• The public can find reliable information about their rights and available options for legal help
• Pro se litigants with basic needs can interact with courts by using document assembly forms (knowledge of legal jargon not required)

It’s no secret that the legal community is, in general, a bit behind on the technological curve (See Courttoon, Feb. 26, 2010). But, in a way, that’s actually a-ok; I believe that our society is a little over-saturated when it comes to technology anyway. The fact that members and clients of the pro bono and legal services community have such varying technological knowledge and experience, coupled with the always-looming funding obstacles we all face, means that we have to work that much harder to come up with the best solutions. Thankfully, there is an awesome culture of sharing ideas and tools that allows for less technical and/or funded organizations to provide the information and online services that clients need. I still get a little giddy every time I hear one of our site administrators talk about a new tool they’ve created and then offer to share their resources and expertise with the rest of the community. It’s our own little version of open-source!

Humans

Beyond our computers, the people within the pro bono/legal services communities are also creating the most important connections of all: human-to-human connections. Some scientists and movies dream of a world where robots and computers will create peace on earth. While that would certainly make our lives easier, the likelihood of it actually happening seems pretty slim. So, in the meantime, creating fairly peaceful communities in the world is up to us.

Throughout history, it’s been proven that we diverse humans really can live in relative harmony by opening up our minds, putting our differences off to the side every once in a while, and interacting with one another in a more understanding way. Of course, in order for that to have a chance at happening, the opportunities for these kinds of interactions need to exist. And in the pro bono world, they’re everywhere. In many situations, pro bono cases bring together people who otherwise might never come in one-on-one contact with one another. While the circumstance of the attorney/client relationship limits the extent of the relationship, there are still great opportunities for new internal connections on each side.

For example, lawyers who spend most of their time working with corporate clients can step outside of their comfort zones and work with clients who have totally different issues and needs. These kinds of opportunities have the ability to open minds to new perspectives, which can have trickle down effects in any number of useful ways. Alternatively, a client who is seeking help with a domestic violence issue could glean some hope for an independent life with freedom that may be gained from legal action.

How often these types of connections are made, I don’t know. But, it’s encouraging to know that mind-opening and life-changing situations are possible, and that they do happen at least sometimes.

Systemic

Beyond the more minute technological and human connections are the crucial roles that pro bono and legal services play in the ongoing expansion of human rights in America and around the world.

This past June, the maternal health advocacy organization, Women Deliver, held an inspiring international conference that enforced the connection maternal health has to the success of societies and economies around the globe. Many of the panels focused on such topics as the importance of readily available and effective health services, and the empowerment that comes from education and economic development opportunities. One thing I found largely missing from the panels I watched were discussions about the important role legal support and advocacy would play in their achieving goals.

Thankfully, a powerful example of fighting for women’s rights through legal action is readily available in the story of an incredibly strong Ethiopian woman named Woineshet Zebene Negash. When Woineshet was a teenager, she was twice kidnapped and raped by a man who would later try to force her to marry him (at the time, there was an old, traditional law in place which said that men could not be prosecuted for violations against a woman he eventually married). She refused to marry him and, in response, she and her father teamed up with the legal services group Ethiopian Women Lawyers Association and the human rights organization Equality Now to help change the law. Last I'd heard (from a screening last spring of CARE International's event "Half the Sky Live"), Winoshet was studying law in Ethiopia so that she can continue to seek positive change in her country. Additionally, there were outreach programs that went to villages and educated the people about the changes in the law, and how the changes could and hopefully would affect the culture of everyday life in the villages.   

This is just a small sampling of the connections I’ve noticed thus far. I will undoubtedly make more as I continue to learn about pro bono and legal services, as well as the human rights and social services industries as a whole. I can only hope that all these thoughts and ideas don’t connect in ways that make my head explode. J What are some of your favorites?

BP, you're not impressing me

BP Says Limits on Drilling Imperil Oil Spill Payouts
NYT - 9/2/10

BP, you are doing a horrible job convincing me that I should give any shits about whether or not you're able to stay in business after you pay for the damages caused by the oil spill.

“If we are unable to keep those fields going, that is going to have a substantial impact on our cash flow,” said David Nagle, BP’s executive vice president for BP America, in an interview. That, he added, “makes it harder for us to fund things, fund these programs.”

Makes it harder for YOU?!?!?!?!?! This oil spill has damaged (if not totally ended) the livelihoods of many thousands of people, and you're whining about having to work harder?!?!?!?!?! You're a multi-billion dollar global corporation run by people with various impressive post-graduate degrees - if the only revenue-generating business strategy you can think of is to do more of the thing that caused you to have to make these payments in the first place...well, I kinda think you deserve to go out of business.

This is the kind of monkey business that makes me able to understand why so many people think corporations are pure evil. BP - a major disaster happened on a piece of your property during an operation that produces a large percentage of your income. You chose to invest in this type of risky activity, you chose Transocean and Halliburton as your business partners in this venture. If they are to blame for any of this, it should be your responsibility to collect moneys from them. If you're having a hard time staying in business and coming up with the funds you'll need to pay for the damages caused by this flaw in your business operations, then either go out of business or figure out other ways to make money.

I'm no business student, so obviously I could be totally off the mark here. However, I like to think I have a pretty good understanding of basic business & economics. And the more I learn about corporations (and the effects some of them have had on things like local economies and the health of our environment and citizens), the less I'm able to accept the seemingly illogical support the government keeps providing to companies who mess up in major ways.

I keep thinking about what would happen to, for example, a restaurant in my neighborhood that had a fire caused by a faulty piece of equipment they owned. And that fire resulted in, not only the destruction of that business operation, but also damages to surrounding buildings. Now, if the business has fire insurance, I'm sure it would lessen the blow. But, regardless, if the damages incurred by the fire cost them everything they had, and they couldn't start over for whatever reason, they'll be gone...and another business will fill the space in which they used to operate before the disaster. It's the circle of capitalism...and it moves us all.

So, if there's an actual, logical, answer to why BP should be treated differently, please tell me.

yo yo, embryo!

Haven't written in a while? Why not rust off the old fingers and keyboard by blogging about complicated news stories? Here's one!

Judge stops federal funding of embryonic stem cell research

Ok, soooo, complicated no? There are so many things one could write, and that have already been written, about this topic.

• What's the big deal about stem cells?
• Why is this ruling important and what's the impact?
• Who is this Judge Royce Lamberth anyway?
• Who are the interests involved in this lawsuit and what do they stand to gain?
  
• ...and more!
  

The fourth bullet point is something that, if I was a journalist, I'd love to dig into deeper. I find the relationship of the players on each side to the issue interesting. For example, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are "a pair of researchers who study adult stem cells" (source). The suit is called Sherley v. Sebelius - Sherley is Dr. James Sherley, a scientist who does adult stem research....and whose program would compete with embryonic stem cell programs for funding. Also there are many religious activists who disagree on right-to-life grounds (like the group often cited as being involved in the suit, Nightlight Christian Adoptions). How is this relationship between science and religion shaping this issue?

Another interesting aspect is the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which Judge Lamberth cites in his ruling. Here are the judge's words as quoted in the article above:

"The Dickey-Wicker Amendment unambiguously prohibits the use of federal funds for all research in which a human embryo is destroyed," said the ruling by Lamberth, who was nominated to the federal bench by then-President Ronald Reagan in 1987. "It is not limited to prohibit federal funding of only the 'piece of research' in which an embryo is destroyed. Thus, if ESC [embryonic stem cell] research is research in which an embryo is destroyed, the guidelines, by funding ESC research, violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment."

Sounds like this Dickey-Wicker Amendment needs to be revisited. When I looked up "Dickey" on the The Genetics and Public Policy Center website, an article talking about it in the context of cloning is the first result. The Amendment was written up in 1995, which was a time when cloning animals bigger than mice was a reality (Dolly the Sheep was "made" in 1996). It was a big deal (I think this kind of cloning is cool from a scientific point of view, but creepy because it is creating an exact copy of another living animal, and that could definitely become VERY sticky if we go cloning human beings - with the intent of creating actual additions to the human population).

Another thing I looked up was a little history of embryonic stem cells. According to the National Institute of Health Stem Cell Information site, "Scientists discovered ways to derive embryonic stem cells from early mouse embryos nearly 30 years ago, in 1981. The detailed study of the biology of mouse stem cells led to the discovery, in 1998, of a method to derive stem cells from human embryos and grow the cells in the laboratory." So, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment came before embryonic stem cell research was a big deal. I think it's fair to reconsider its restrictions.

Why? Because stem cell research is important - all stem cells. There are plenty of people running around talking about how adult stem cells are the better option and can do the job, but I don't think that means we should stop there. This is science we're talking about - the discipline that has made, and continues to make, a great deal the human progress we love and rely on, possible. How can anyone know for sure that adult stem cells are the be all and end all if embryonic stem cells haven't had as much research attention?

While, I don't necessarily agree with them, I can theoretically understand some of the people who have moral issues with destroying embryos. And until the debate about when life is created comes to a consensus, the moral implications will continue to be an issue whether we like it or not. Therefore, I definitely think that the practice of utilizing embryos that would otherwise be thrown away is a fair compromise. Why waste something that could be used for research? Sure, we have no idea if embryonic stem cells will prove to be at the magic we all hope it'll be, but the thing about research is that, you never know what else you might learn along the way. And you also never know what learnings will lead to what discoveries in the future.

It kind of reminds me of the popular pro-life anti-abortion propaganda that talks about all the possible geniuses who are lost to society because of abortion. "What if the aborted fetus would have turned out to be another Mozart?" Well, what if the thrown away embryo turned out to be the cure for cancer? Both are pretty bold statements and kind of dramatic, but nonetheless, provide a similar comment about possible greatness that is being wasted.

Whatever the arguments, I just hope rational progress comes out on top here.

ramble...

This post was originally going to be about how I wish I had a waterproof journal because I seem to get flooded with awesome realizations while I'm in the shower...but can't write 'em down! It causes some anxiety...having all these awesome thoughts flying around with nowhere to go. I get scared that they'll disappear forever if I don't get them out.

But, then I saw this article pop up in my Twitter feed:

US Border Patrol union rep: It's okay to shoot Mexican kids who throw stones

Uh...what?!

So, I read the story...which is about the NPR piece, Border Agent Shoots, Kills Mexican Boy At Bridge. The story features Drew Carey's tweeted opinions on the piece. Ok...

Boing Boing, your headline is misleading: the NPR piece doesn't feature any quotes from a Border Patrol union rep saying that It's okay to shoot Mexican kids who throw stones. Here's some context from it:

"T.J. Bonner, president of the union representing Border Patrol agents, said rock-throwing incidents against Border Patrol agents are common and capable of causing serious injury.

"It is a deadly force encounter," Bonner said. "One that justifies the use of deadly force."

Boing Boing's headline makes it sound like Bonner said it was okay to shoot children. But his quote doesn't seem to refer to any specific group of people other than rock-throwers. This feels like a Daily Show moment, and if I weren't tired, I might have jumped into a diatribe about the state of journalism. Maybe another time.

Before I retire for the night, another thing struck me while I was reading the NPR quote....

Really? Rock-throwing is dangerous enough to warrant the use of gunshots as a return attack? Cowboys & Indians! Israel & Palestine?