I met an extremely cool Attorney the other day who is fighting for foster care rights here in Los Angeles. She sent me this document and I had to post it on here immediately damnit!
When They Can't Go Home Again
By Miriam Aroni Krinsky
"Having a place to live is everything! You can't go to school or work or have a normal life if you don't have a place to stay." Ebony, former foster youth.
Not many of us would sit down with our about-to-turn-18-year-old son or daughter and announce, "After your birthday, you're going to have to move out, find an apartment, a job to support yourself, transportation, insurance, and whatever else you need. And the very anchors you have counted on to attend to your well being on a daily basis will no longer be a part of your life as you reach this critical moment of transition to adulthood."
Unthinkable! Yet for our most vulnerable youth -- the abused and neglected children we undertake to raise when we bring them into foster care -- this scenario plays out time and again as over 20,000 youth age out of our foster care system every year and struggle with adulthood on their own.
The average age of financial independence in America today has advanced to 26 years of age. Despite this national trend, we expect foster youth to attain financial and emotional independence by age 18, when many of them are abruptly turned out of the child welfare system. And when they falter, too often no one is there to provide support, guidance, or a sympathetic ear.
The challenge of putting a roof over one's head, given these circumstances, is virtually insurmountable. Emancipated foster youth earn an average of $6,000 per year, a number well below the national poverty level, especially since the self-sufficiency standard for a single adult with no children in Los Angeles County is $20,751 per year.
With the average cost of an apartment in Los Angeles pegged at over $1,000 per month, it is not surprising that an alarming number of former foster youth become homeless. Indeed, studies reflect that nearly one third of foster youth will become homeless at some time within the first year after they "age out" of our care and in California, 65% of emancipating foster youth in 2000-01 were in need of safe and affordable housing at the time they left the child welfare system.
A recent survey of youth leaving foster care underscores the extent to which these teens are woefully unprepared for independent adult life: only one-third had a driver's license, fewer than four in 10 had at least $250 in cash, and less than one-quarter had dishes and utensils with which to set up housekeeping.
This year, approximately 5,000 youth who emancipate from California's foster care system will come face to face with these cold, hard realities - alone.
When our own children leave home to live independently, it is usually at a time of mutual choosing, and they know they will always have a safety net if they are not successful in making ends meet. They won't end up on the street, because they can rely on their family, when all else fails, to look after them. We have helped them acquire the skills to find and take care of an apartment. We even co-sign their lease in many cases and often help to underwrite the initial requisite down payments.
"Just getting a place, finding someone to rent to you as a young person is hard. When you're coming out of the system, with its stigmas and stereotypes, that makes two strikes against you," Ebony J.
Faced with these many hurdles, it is not surprising that many former foster youth turn to their birth families. Over one third of the youth who age out of foster care go back to live with their biological family, even where the circumstances of abuse and neglect that precipitated the youth's entry into foster care remain unchanged over the years.
This result reinforces the conclusion that we are doing far too little to provide better options for these youth, who cannot rely upon the stable adult anchors that are so important to other teens.
These are adolescents at a crossroads in their lives. They desperately need help in gaining skills that will be critical to achieving self-sufficiency, and they need to have a safe place to live while they study or work to attain that goal. Our failure to make that possible creates unintended tragedies in the lives of the very youth we seek to protect.
The result of our unrealistic expectations is exemplified by what some refer to as an "epidemic" of homelessness among former foster youth. A study conducted by the National Association of Social Workers reported that more than one in five youth in homeless shelters came directly from foster care, and more than one in four had been in the foster care system during the previous year. The General Accounting Office similarly found that between 25 and 40% of all foster youth become homeless.
Research also underscores the disheartening biproduct of this foster youth housing crisis -- the lack of affordable and available housing is the primary barrier to emancipating youth finishing their education, getting and keeping jobs, finding access to adequate health care, and making a successful transition into adulthood.
Some innovative programs are attempting to fill this gaping shortfall. A unique public/private partnership in Los Angeles between the Department of Children and Family Services and United Friends of the Children created the Bridges to Independence transitional housing program.
This program provides housing for former foster youth, ages 18-21. Residents maintain their own apartment while receiving counseling, education and career assistance, and weekly life skills training in areas such as budgeting and meal preparation. The program has served over 1,100 youth since its inception in 1996.
But a much broader approach is needed. At this time, the Transitional Housing Placement Program for Emancipated Foster/Probation Youth (commonly referred to as THP+) is the only dedicated state-funded program to provide housing and support services for youth leaving the foster care system. In some of the models utilized, youth pay rent with tapering subsidies and receive assistance with items such as grocery vouchers, transportation, educational, and vocational skills so that they can gradually achieve self-sufficiency. While these models are encouraging, our state's investment in these programs is woefully inadequate.
The California legislature is tackling the problem of how to refine and improve housing alternatives for transitioning youth by means of two bills currently under consideration. AB 824, authored by Assembly Member Judy Chu, extends the age of eligibility to allow newly emancipated foster youth up to the age of 24 to access critical housing and support services through THP+. Other federal departments that fund services for emancipated youth, such as the Department of Labor and the US Department of Health and Human Services, already recognize the need to provide services for youth up to age 24. AB 824 thus aligns THP+ with existing federal funding services.
Positive results stemming from extending care beyond traditional age limits were documented by a study released last month by the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago. The Chapin Hall research found that allowing foster youth to remain in care beyond their 18th birthday conferred significant advantages during their transition to adulthood.
Youth who were able to stay in the foster care system were more likely to have better preparation for independent living, to continue their education, and to have access to health and mental health care services. They were also more likely to be working or in school than those not longer in care.
It is unrealistic to expect that, following a turbulent childhood, 18 or 19 year old adolescents are prepared to cope successfully with the pressures of economic self-sufficiency, especially in a housing market shaped by skyrocketing costs.
SB 436, introduced by Senator Carole Migden, seeks to address another critical issue -- the high-risk population of young parents leaving foster care. The bill puts in place key steps to address the challenges facing teen parents by recognizing that their housing needs are particularly acute.
Approximately two thirds of females discharged from foster care in California had at least one birth within five years of leaving care. A teen parent with nowhere to live has far fewer options than other emancipating youth, and the stakes are even higher when homelessness can put at risk not simply the teen, but also that teen's child.
It is clear that all emancipating youth need - and deserve - affordable, safe housing. We must give them a helping hand in obtaining it, if they are to become self-sufficient and stable adults. That investment is the least we can do as the children our entire community commits to "parent" transition to adulthood.
Miriam Aroni Krinsky is executive director of the Children's Law Center of Los Angeles, a nonprofit organization that represents over 80% of the abused and neglected children in the Los Angeles Dependency Court system.
U.S. advisers steered Iraqi oil contracts to Western firms By Bill Van Auken
As the Iraqi government formally opened the bidding for foreign oil companies to resume exploitation of the country's oil wealth, it was revealed that U.S. "advisers" played the leading role in drafting the contracting procedures and steering preferential deals to the big U.S. energy conglomerates.
"A group of American advisers led by a small State Department team played an integral part in drawing up contracts between the Iraqi government and five Western oil companies to develop some of the largest fields in Iraq," the New York Times reported Monday.
The team of government lawyers and private sector consultants provided "detailed suggestions on drafting the contracts," the Times reported, citing a senior State Department official.
Among the other "services" offered by the U.S. advisers was ensuring that the Iraqi Oil Ministry dismissed claims by the Russian oil company Lukoil based on contracts signed with the Iraqi government before the U.S. invasion of March 2003.
The Times continued: "It is unclear how much influence their work had on the ministry's decisions."
There is nothing unclear about it. The U.S. government dictated terms that are set to bring back Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, Total and Chevron, the very same multinational energy giants that dominated Iraqi oil production before Baghdad nationalized the sector 36 years ago. They, along with a consortium of smaller firms, have been offered no-bid contracts by the Iraqi government.
These so-called technical support agreements, worth $500 million each, represent the foot in the door for the major Western oil firms, giving them a decisive advantage over rival companies from Russia, China, India and elsewhere.
Iraq has proven crude reserves of 115 billion barrels plus another 112 trillion cubic feet of gas. Under conditions in which other nations, from Russia and Kazakhstan in the East to Venezuela and Bolivia in the West, are imposing tighter national control over their energy resources, the U.S. occupation of Iraq has opened up the potential for an unparalleled profit bonanza for big oil.
That this was the principal aim of the U.S. invasion in the first place is becoming increasingly impossible to deny. Behind all of the lies about "weapons of mass destruction" and supposed ties between Baghdad and Al-Qaeda, the U.S. war was about reinstating the domination of the U.S.-based oil giants over the world's third largest petroleum reserves and blocking access to them by their foreign rivals.
Domination of strategic energy resources and their utilization to further Washington's increasingly desperate struggle to preserve its global economic hegemony were the real reasons that, as of Monday, 4,113 U.S. troops have lost their lives, with nearly 30,000 more having returned from Iraq wounded, many of them grievously.
These predatory strategic aims, and the related profit interests of the oil conglomerates, are the sole justification for the slaughter of more than one million Iraqis and the transformation of nearly five million more into exiles or internal refugees.
The determination of both major political parties and the U.S. ruling establishment as a whole to pursue this criminal war, whatever their tactical differences, was underscored Monday with President George W. Bush's signing into law another $162 billion war funding bill, sent to his desk by the Democratic leadership of the U.S. Congress.
Bush praised the Democrats in Congress for having "agreed to provide these vital funds without tying the hands of our commanders, and without an artificial timetable of withdrawal from Iraq."
As in the past, Bush portrayed the funding for the war as an act of support for the "brave men and women, who ... risk their lives to defeat our adversaries and to keep our country safe."
What lies! This funding will pay to ensure the sacrifice of more U.S. soldiers and Marines and the killing of far greater numbers of Iraqi civilians to ensure U.S. domination of Iraqi oil and vast new profit streams for Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron and the other major energy companies.
Moreover, the Democratic Congressional leadership has crafted the spending package-which brings the total amount spent thus far on the war to over $650 billion-so that it pays for the war through the first six months of the next administration. Their aim was to get the issue off the political agenda well before the November election-allowing them to better posture as opponents of the war-while at the same time sparing an incoming Democratic administration led by Barack Obama from having to seek new money for this vastly unpopular war during its first months in office.
The nakedly colonial character of the oil deals now being pushed by the administration has provoked murmurs of criticism from sections of the Democratic Party.
Democratic Senators Charles Schumer of New York, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Claire McCaskill of Missouri released a letter addressed to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week urging her to block the no-bid contracts. As the Associated Press reported, the Democrats feared the agreements "could fan the perception that U.S. involvement in Iraq was motivated by oil." In other words, the agreements are so blatant that they give the entire game away.
The Democratic senators called for any contracts to be postponed until the Iraqi regime succeeds in passing a long-delayed hydrocarbon law, working out such thorny issues as the precise role that the foreign oil firms will play in the country and how revenues accruing to Iraq are to be divided between the federal government and various regional entities.
The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has failed to pass the bill for the past year and a half. The legislation has been stalemated in large measure because of the overwhelming popular opposition within Iraq to the return of the major oil companies that are so closely identified with the country's history of semi-colonial subjugation.
"We urge you to persuade the (government of Iraq) to refrain from signing contracts with multinational oil companies until a hydrocarbon law is in effect in Iraq," read the Democrats' letter to Rice. "We fear that any such agreements signed by Iraq's Hydrocarbon Ministry without an equitable revenue-sharing agreement in place would simply add more fuel to Iraq's civil war."
The Bush administration made it clear, however, that it had less concern about giving Washington's imperialist venture on behalf of big oil a fig leaf of legality.
"Since the United States had no involvement in this, I'm not sure on what basis the United States could ... block the Iraqi government from contracting in the way it sees fit," State Department spokesman Tom Casey told the media.
Similarly, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino commented, "Iraq is a sovereign country, and it can make decisions based on how it feels that it wants to move forward in its development of its oil resources." She added: "And if that means that our companies here in the United States can compete and win business, then that's for them and the Iraqis decide. But we don't think the federal government of the United States needs to get involved."
How many lies can be crammed into a single statement? Iraq is an occupied, not a sovereign, country. The decisions undertaken by its government are sharply constrained by the presence of over 140,000 U.S. troops, upon whom its survival depends. As for the U.S. companies, they did not "compete and win business," but rather reached no-bid deals, prepared by U.S. government advisers working out of the Iraqi oil ministry.
A more honest assessment was provided to the Times by Frederick Barton, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, an establishment think tank whose board of trustees includes figures such as Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski. "We pretend it (oil) is not a centerpiece of our motivation, yet we keep confirming that it is." Barton told the paper. "And we undermine our own veracity by citing issues like sovereignty, when we have our hands right in the middle of it."
The Iraqi regime announced Monday that negotiations on the no-bid contracts with the big Western oil companies were continuing. Last week oil ministry officials had said that the deals were already concluded and would be signed Monday, yet no signing took place.
The agreements had carved up Iraq's oil fields between the major companies, with Shell gaining access to the northern Kirkuk oilfield, BP set to operate in the southern Rumaila field and Exxon seeking access to the Zubair oil field in the southern province of Basra.
"We did not finalize any agreement with them because they refused to offer consultancy based on fees, as they wanted a share of the oil," Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani told a press briefing in Baghdad Monday. "It's a service contract and not a production-sharing contract," he added. "We think there is no need to share Iraq's oil with anybody."
Last week it was widely reported that the Iraqi government had agreed to no-bid deals that would indeed provide the major Western companies with a share of the oil produced in the fields where they would be "consulting," offering a hugely lucrative return under the present conditions of soaring energy prices.
This shift in the line from Baghdad is likely driven by the immense popular opposition to turning over the country's oil wealth to the foreign companies and fear within Maliki's government that the deals could provoke its downfall.
While claiming that negotiations on the no-bid deals was continuing, Shahristani also announced that Iraq is opening up six giant oil fields and two gas fields to foreign companies, 41 of which have been invited to bid for contracts. The minister described the six fields being thrown open to foreign exploitation for the first time in nearly four decades as "the backbone of Iraq's oil production."
The bids are to be prepared over the next two weeks, with the Oil Ministry saying that deals will be signed by June 2009. The deals are supposed to include Iraqi "partners" with a minimum of 25 percent interest.
While the motives behind the U.S. war of aggression have now been laid bare, their accomplishment remains anything but certain. Thus far, the major U.S. oil firms have shown no intention to launch any immediate resumption of their long suspended operations in Iraq. The continuing resistance of the Iraqi people to the U.S. occupation makes any such venture hazardous in the extreme.
Moreover, the revelations of the profit interests for which the ongoing war in Iraq is being fought are certain to provoke increased anger and militancy among the Iraqi people and, despite the bipartisan support for this war in Washington, revulsion and opposition among masses of American working people as well.
I wrote an e-mail to Gloria Molina regarding the recent taco truck ordinance. Here's her reply!!
BTW- We're hooking up for lunch next week! haha
Thank you for taking the time to write to me to express your views on Los Angeles County's recently amended catering truck ordinance, and to solicit my views. As I am sure you are aware, feelings run strong on all sides of this issue. So I appreciate both your input and the opportunity you have given me to elaborate on why the County has chosen to take its current course of action.
From the day I first held public office as a member of the California State Assembly in 1982 through my time serving on the Los Angeles City Council right up to the present day in my current post as a County Supervisor, my primary mission has been to improve the quality of life for the residents I represent. I consider safe neighborhoods, clean streets, a robust economy, and a law-abiding society to be solid indicators of a good quality of life in any neighborhood-and I know my constituents do, too. Undoubtedly, a top reason people choose to live where they live is the quality of life in that area. I understand this motivation and I take seriously my duty to support it.
So when local residents complain about leftover trash, late-night noise, public urination, and trampled gardens caused by some catering truck operators and their clientele, I feel obliged to do something about it. When residents and merchants rightfully note that some catering truck operators ignore existing public safety laws regulating where and how often they may do business on public streets, I feel compelled to take action. And when catering truck operators point out unfair inconsistencies between the catering truck laws on the County's books and those in the sprawling City of Los Angeles, I feel persuaded to rectify the situation fairly.
Indeed, this is exactly why the County's catering truck regulations recently were changed. In two court cases-People v. Hernandez and People v. Zepeda-the court ruled that the County had the fundamental right to regulate in this area. Afterward, catering truck operators noted that the County's laws permitted them to park in a commercial zone in an unincorporated area for only half an hour while the City of Los Angeles allowed them to operate for a full hour. They felt that the time limit should be uniform between the County and the City. We agreed that this change would be reasonable and just.
As a result, the County actually extended the amount of time a catering truck operator could do business in a commercial zone in an unincorporated area to one hour. Residential zone time limits in both the County and the City of Los Angeles remained unchanged at 30 minutes. Also unchanged is the requirement that once that hour has expired, catering truck operators must move their vehicles at least one half mile from their original location. They may return after three hours have elapsed. It is important to note that the County's ordinance only affects unincorporated areas. Cities are not affected; they enact and enforce their own catering truck laws.
It is also important to mention that throughout the County's lengthy experience on this issue, we have found that some catering truck operators continually violate the spirit of our laws by refusing to move their vehicles and by simply accepting the payment of numerous small fines as "the cost of doing business." So our revised catering truck ordinance gives the County's District Attorney the discretion to charge time limit violators with a misdemeanor-rather than an infraction. Our goal is to strengthen our leverage when prosecuting repeat offenders. We have no intention of putting anyone out of business, but the law must be followed. And our laws on this issue are quite similar to those on the books in various cities throughout Los Angeles County-from Whittier to Montebello to Pasadena to Beverly Hills.
I understand how puzzled some catering truck operators and their clientele who are unfamiliar with our ordinance may feel upon first learning of our recent actions-especially since many in the news media and the blogosphere have painted an inaccurate, alarmist portrait of the situation with calls to "save" catering trucks and claims that the County is turning their business into a "crime." That was never our intention-and we feel confident that our ordinance will not cause that outcome. We understand, and enjoy, the fact that catering trucks are part of the County's cultural landscape and we delight in the fact that they contribute to our local color much like mobile hot dog stands do in New York City. But regulation is not synonymous with suppression-and we feel strongly that our revised law strikes a reasonable and fair balance between the rights of catering truck operators to make an honest living and the rights of local residents and merchants to enjoy a good quality of life. Moreover, we feel that maintaining a good quality of life is just as important to our constituency as the myriad other significant issues that the County faces.
I hope you agree-and, if you remain unconvinced, I truly hope that my correspondence has shed some light on why we took this course of action. Once again, thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts on this important issue. Please feel free to do so again in the future regarding this or any other County-related matter.
The US currently has a 3 billion dollar a year budget to end homelessness in America.
President Bush thanked American Idol Gives back for raising 23 Million dollars to help the worlds children!
Maybe he should allocate some funds in a more positive direction rather then taking advantage of his position as the President of the free world!
George Bush and Dick Cheney should be ashamed of themselves!
Our current administation is literally OFF THE HOOK!
For your quick reading, I've listed key statistics about the Iraq War, taken primarily from data analyzed by various think tanks, including ..."zT(this, '1/XJ')">The Brookings Institution's Iraq Index, and from mainstream media sources. Data is presented as of April 20, 2008, except as indicated.
US SPENDING IN IRAQ
Spent & Approved War-Spending - About $600 billion of US taxpayers' funds. President Bush has requested about $200 billion more for 2008, which would bring the cumulative total to close to $800 billion.
U.S. Monthly Spending in Iraq - $12 billion in 2008
Cost of deploying one U.S. soldier for one year in Iraq - $390,000 (..."zT(this, '1/XJ')">Congressional Research Service)
Lost & Unaccounted for in Iraq - $9 billion of US taxpayers' money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors. Also, ..."zT(this, '1/XJ')">per ABC News, 190,000 guns, including 110,000 AK-47 rifles.
Missing - $1 billion in tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces. (Per ..."zT(this, '1/XJ')">CBS News on Dec 6, 2007.)
Mismanaged & Wasted in Iraq - $10 billion, per Feb 2007 Congressional hearings
Halliburton Overcharges Classified by the Pentagon as Unreasonable and Unsupported - $1.4 billion
Amount paid to KBR, a former Halliburton division, to supply U.S. military in Iraq with food, fuel, housing and other items - $20 billion
Portion of the $20 billion paid to KBR that Pentagon auditors deem "questionable or supportable" - $3.2 billion
Number of major U.S. bases in Iraq - 75 (..."zT(this, '1/XJ')">The Nation/New York Times)
TROOPS IN IRAQ
Iraqi Troops Trained and Able to Function Independent of U.S. Forces - 6,000 as of May 2007 (per ..."zT(this, '1/XJ')">NBC's "Meet the Press" on May 20, 2007)
Troops in Iraq - Total 164,891, including 155,000 from the US, 4,500 from the UK, 2,000 from Georgia, 900 from Poland, 650 from South Korea and 1,841 from all other nations
US Troop Casualities - 4,042 US troops; 98% male. 90% non-officers; 80% active duty, 12% National Guard; 74% Caucasian, 10% African-American, 11% Latino. 18% killed by non-hostile causes. 51% of US casualties were under 25 years old. 70% were from the US Army
Non-US Troop Casualties - Total 309, with 176 from the UK
US Troops Wounded - 29,780, 20% of which are serious brain or spinal injuries (total excludes psychological injuries)
US Troops with Serious Mental Health Problems - 30% of US troops develop serious mental health problems within 3 to 4 months of returning home
US Military Helicopters Downed in Iraq - 68 total, at least 36 by enemy fire
IRAQI TROOPS, CIVILIANS & OTHERS IN IRAQ
Private Contractors in Iraq, Working in Support of US Army Troops - More than 180,000 in August 2007, ..."zT(this, '1/XJ')">per The Nation/LA Times.
Journalists killed - 127, 84 by murder and 43 by acts of war
Journalists killed by US Forces - 14
Iraqi Police and Soldiers Killed - 8,145
Iraqi Civilians Killed, Estimated - A UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stating that Iraqi civilian casualities have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualities at over 600,000.
Non-Iraqi Contractors and Civilian Workers Killed - 549
Non-Iraqi Kidnapped - 305, including 54 killed, 147 released, 4 escaped, 6 rescued and 94 status unknown.
Daily Insurgent Attacks, Feb 2004 - 14
Daily Insurgent Attacks, July 2005 - 70
Daily Insurgent Attacks, May 2007 - 163
Estimated Insurgency Strength, Nov 2003 - 15,000
Estimated Insurgency Strength, Oct 2006 - 20,000 - 30,000
Estimated Insurgency Strength, June 2007 - 70,000
QUALITY OF LIFE INDICATORS
Iraqis Displaced Inside Iraq, by Iraq War, as of May 2007 - 2,255,000
Iraqi Refugees in Syria & Jordan - 2.1 million to 2.25 million
Iraqi Unemployment Rate - 27 to 60%, where curfew not in effect
Consumer Price Inflation in 2006 - 50%
Iraqi Children Suffering from Chronic Malnutrition - 28% in June 2007 (Per ..."zT(this, '1/XJ')">CNN.com, July 30, 2007)
Percent of professionals who have left Iraq since 2003 - 40%
Iraqi Physicians Before 2003 Invasion - 34,000
Iraqi Physicians Who Have Left Iraq Since 2005 Invasion - 12,000
Iraqi Physicians Murdered Since 2003 Invasion - 2,000
Average Daily Hours Iraqi Homes Have Electricity - 1 to 2 hours, per Ryan Crocker, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (Per ..."zT(this, '1/XJ')">Los Angeles Times, July 27, 2007)
Average Daily Hours Iraqi Homes Have Electricity - 10.9 in May 2007
Average Daily Hours Baghdad Homes Have Electricity - 5.6 in May 2007
Pre-War Daily Hours Baghdad Homes Have Electricity - 16 to 24
Number of Iraqi Homes Connected to Sewer Systems - 37%
Iraqis without access to adequate water supplies - 70% (Per ..."zT(this, '1/XJ')">CNN.com, July 30, 2007)
Water Treatment Plants Rehabilitated - 22%
RESULTS OF POLL Taken in Iraq in August 2005 by the British Ministry of Defense (Source: Brookings Institute)
Iraqis "strongly opposed to presence of coalition troops - 82%
Iraqis who believe Coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security - less than 1%
Iraqis who feel less ecure because of the occupation - 67%
Iraqis who do not have confidence in multi-national forces - 72%
By Hank StueverWashington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, April 22, 2008; Page C01
Today isn't Earth Day anymore. Haven't you heard? Earth Day is dead. It collapsed yesterday after one of its many news conferences and was rushed by hybrid ambulance to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. (Where staff members were immediately fired for peeking at Earth Day's medical history.)
This happened not long after we simultaneously received an e-mail alerting us that "Access Hollywood" host Nancy O'Dell is throwing a celebrity "eco-aware Mother's Day party!" and another e-mail alerting us that the Finnish ambassador's wife has taken it upon herself to make buildings in Washington more green. (Her last job? "Director of sustainability" for Nokia, which makes us think of all those haunting photos of scavengers picking through piles of dead cellphones in Chinese landfills.)
Earth Day was 38 years old. What killed it? A long but admirable struggle with celebrity piety and corporate baloney, mainly.
But specifically? Too many "green" issues of too many magazines. Michael Pollan insisting that everyone garden, rightnow. Pop stars getting on their private jets to go speak on behalf of the polar ice caps. BP and ExxonMobil ads touting the greeniness inherent in the petroleum industry. There was so much eco-junk to buy, so as to replace your wasteful junk, that the National Retail Federation was soon going to have to create a whole new holiday shopping forecast for Earth Day and implore people to shop more during Earth Day season, when retailers are counting on them the most. ("Save up to 50 percent on green items at Amazon.com!") People griping about people griping about light bulbs. People griping about people griping about Al Gore.
Finally, Earth Day died the minute they canceled that Earth Day concert here on Sunday. Because of rain. Because of lightning.
That sort of wussiness won't save the planet. Earth Day died because, it turns out, saving the Earth is going to be very complicated. It is going to require attention spans, intelligence, sacrifice and lawyers and more than one day a year. To save the Earth, Earth Day had to go.
Earth Day is survived by its longtime companion, Mother Nature.
My first blog is cutting and pasting a Wash Post article! :>0
