JUST ENGAGE

In recent years advocacy efforts have gone beyond the traditional rallies & op-eds we are accustomed to.  Apparently, now Urban Outfitters has brought pro-Palestinian advocacy to new levels.  First, it was their “Anti-War Freedom Scarves,” which look like kaffiyahs and have become the newest fashion craze in New York.  Every time I see one wrapped around the neck of a “hipster” New Yorker I cringe for the ignorance and stupidity of the wearer (I’m pretty sure most don’t know what the scarves really mean).

But now, Urban Outfitters has hit a new low with their “Victimized” t-shirts.  These depict three children holding guns, a Palestinian flag, and the word victimized in huge letters on the bottom.  Both the scarves and the t-shirts have been removed from the website and shelves of Urban stores, citing they are sorry they caused offense. To see the t-shirts click here: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30019_Urban_Outfitters_Glorifies_Terrorism

My issue, however, is who at Urban Outfitters permits this stuff to be sold in the first place??

Many of you may remember a few years ago when they came out with the “Everyone loves a…” t-shirts.  The Italian girl/boy shirts had pizzas on it, the Catholic ones had crosses, and the Jewish ones had dollar signs.  Yes, they were all a bit stereotypical, but clearly the Jewish one crossed the line and, after complaints, they quickly changed the design of the t-shirts.  However, if they quickly take these offensive items off their shelves once they get complaints, then the question is: did they know all along that they were offensive?  Given the recurrence of these incidents, one would think that they would pay more attention from the start.  Unfortunately, even though they took the kaffiyahs off the shelves, the fashion trend they sparked was so great that you can now find them at street vendors!  Therefore, addressing the problem only after is not enough.

I admit I am a fan of the graphic t’s they sell.  I have a “little miss” shirt, a couple promoting voting, and some partisan political ones.  However, I’m going to rethink my purchases in the store... at least until they seem to put more thought into their decisions.  Where does a retailer draw the line at being activist and being offensive?  It might be one of those “I know when I see it” circumstances.  But, it seems like Urban Outfitters has done this a little too many times for that approach to continue.

 

By: Rabbi Barry H. D. Block 

Most things are not as simple as they seem.

Last week, both the House and Senate passed the 2007 Farm Bill by veto-proof majorities. This was the culmination of over a year and a half of work by the domestic anti-hunger community, who worked vigorously to ensure a robust nutrition title with improvements and increased funding to food stamps and emergency food assistance.

Some question whether its passage is a victory or a failure.  After all, the Farm Bill is not a perfect piece of legislation. There has been an unending parade of opinion pieces written about its shortfalls. Among other things, its critics argue, it continues a system of payments to American farmers that distort world trade, undermine small farmers in developing countries, and frankly, just don't make much policy sense. It has been denigrated as a scam, a testament to the way in which special interests dominate American politics.

But tell that to the millions of low-income Americans who will receive an increase in their food stamp benefit. Explain it to the millions more who will get increased relief from our nation's food banks, even as food prices are inflating at an alarming rate.

I'm not writing to issue a blanket endorsement of the Farm Bill; the Farm Bill's critics have some solid and important points about how subsidies and direct payments found in Title I of this large and complex bill incentivize undesirable behaviors and undermine international anti-poverty work. However, what people often forget is that members of Congress don't usually have the choice between "perfect" legislation and "terrible" legislation; they are often choosing between a complex set of good and bad outcomes all rolled up into one bill on which they must vote a simple "yes" or "no," endorsing or rejecting the good and the bad all at once.

Critics have slammed the legislation, without acknowledging that 73 percent of the bill's total amount will be dedicated to nutrition programs, and that almost ALL of the new money invested above the baseline (to the tune of $10.36 billion) is allotted to nutrition programs. Of that 73 percent, almost all the funding is targeted to low-income Americans in programs such as Food Stamps, which is widely hailed as an effective and sound investment from members of all political parties. Among other things, the Farm Bill will:

• Increase purchasing power in the food stamp program. Today, the average food stamp benefit is just $1/meal per person and the minimum monthly benefit has been stuck at $10/month since 1977. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, changes in this year's farm would provide the average working family of three with an additional $4-$5 more each month in food stamp benefits in 2009 - and as much as $17/month by 2017 (when adjusted for inflation). When combined with benefits for single-member households, these changes will benefit over 11 million low-income people, including vulnerable populations such as children, seniors and people with disabilities.
• Support low-income working families by eliminating the cap on the dependent care deduction, effectively eliminating penalties for finding safe and decent child care.
• Encourage savings and asset-building byraising the Food Stamp program's resource limits and not counting tax-preferred retirement accounts and education accounts toward the asset limit.
• Simplify and streamline administration of the Food Stamp Program.
• Help emergency food assistance organizationssuch as food banks, food pantries, and soup kitchens in meeting rising demand coupled with skyrocketing food prices by increasing annual funding for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) from $140 million to $250 million and adjusting this amount for food inflation.
• Increase the availability of and access to fresh fruits and vegetables in low- income schools by investing over $1 billion in expanding the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program under the National School Lunch Act.
• Increase funding for promoting farmer's markets and help small growers pay organic certification fees.

In the context of an economic downturn and the rising costs of food, this is a hugely important victory on behalf of low-income families across the United States.

Perhaps one of the least covered outcomes of the Farm Bill is not found in the legislation itself, but in the mobilization that led to the bill's passage. The 2007 Farm Bill can be seen as a turning point in Jewish communal activism on hunger and poverty. Last September, JCPA led hundreds of Jews in over 30 communities across the country in taking the "food stamp challenge", living on $1/meal for a week to show the inadequacy of the benefit and prove the nutritional deficiencies in such a diet. Jewish agencies and communities built interfaith coalitions and recruited faith, civic and political leaders to take the food stamp challenge with them, including 4 members of Congress, state legislators and city officials. They forged new partnerships and created new mobilizing structures that succeeded in advocating for the strongest possible nutrition title in a tight budget year.

These are the untold success stories of an imperfect bill. Do I personally wish that the Farm Bill had undergone more reform this year? YES. Am I proud of the robust nutrition title and the transformative work that the Jewish community undertook to make it happen? You can bet the farm on it!

I've been feeling pretty self-righteous lately.  About a week ago, I switched our home power supply to wind.  It had been on my "list of things to do" for months.  Every time I walked into my synagogue, I made a mental note to contact Interfaith Power and Light to learn more about renewable offsets.  And I kept meaning to grab one of the brochures about "clean, green power" on display at my local hardware store.  But, between my packages and my children, I never seemed to have a spare hand or a spare minute.  But last week, I finally decided to make the switch.  And it feels great.

For months, I've asked Senate staffers to support a provision that would require 15% of US energy supply to come from renewable sources by 2030.  I've bemoaned the last-minute omission of this mandate from the Energy Bill, which was signed into law last December.  I've written blogs, issued action alerts, and signed multiple coalition letters about the need to extend renewable energy tax credits to encourage continued investment in wind power.  And then I remembered Gandhi's exhortation: "You must be the change you wish to see in the world."  Sure, I'd love to mandate that all Americans purchase clean, home-grown power. And I'd love to provide the incentives to make this economically viable. But climate change is moving faster than the political process – and I can vote for change with my light-switch.   As I wrote when the "We" campaign was first launched on national television, the key is to "mobilize America – and, in turn, empower our leadership." 

It turns out, this satisfaction is fairly cheap to come by.  For about 5 cents more per kilowatt hour – less than $500 per year – I can fuel my home on local wind power, instead of coal.  And you can, too (simply click here to find a green power supplier in your state). 

My purchase comes at a remarkable time.  Last Monday, the US Department of Energy released a new analysis concluding that wind energy could produce 20 percent of US electricity by 2030.  Critically, the report concludes that this energy could be reliably integrated into the grid for less than 0.5 cents per kWh.  This makes sense.  After all, the Energy Information Administration reports that the United States has the third highest wind power capacity in the world -- higher than Denmark. And the American Wind Energy Association reports that wind power has the potential to provide more than twice the electricity generated in the United States today!

At a time when our government (and each of us) is concerned about a faltering economy and lost jobs, the federal report estimates that the wind forecast will create 500,000 new jobs.  At a time when scientists are telling us that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 80% to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change, the federal report concludes that domestic wind capacity alone has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector by 25% (displacing up to 50% of natural gas and 18% of coal electricity demand). 

As a student in college, my car was emblazoned with the words: "If the people lead, the leaders will follow."  The 14,000 kWh my household uses this year will not single-handedly solve the climate crisis.  But imagine the cumulative effect if we all made the switch.  [Fellow COEJL blogger, Nina Beth Cardin imagined just that in this inspirational post]  And imagine how this effect can be multiplied when the political process catches up with popular demand. 

Click here to find out about COEJL's Earth Aid Kit campaign and purchase products that will make your electricity dollars go farther.

Click here for information from the Union of Concerned Scientists about various renewable energy options.

A common line one hears in religious circles is “God works in mysterious ways.” Is it possible to conclude that when God realized people were going to love eating large, long-lived fishes (which were, after all, created on the 5^th day) to the point of oblivion, God actually made us humans pollute the waters so that eating these fish would be toxic to our bodies and we would moderate our consumption?

Probably not. While the notion may be laughable, it does shed light onto the occasional irony that is human induced pollution. While more often pollution and climate change work to endanger and eliminate species from our planet, in this case could our destructiveness save several?

Some background information: Half of the planet’s atmospheric mercury is human generated, most to produce power that fuels our lives. As the hunger for sushi has grown and globalization aids all fish exports, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that over 70% of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted.

The general public is only beginning to learn what pregnant and breast-feeding women (and some others) have known for years: many fishes have mercury, and it is dangerous to eat too much as mercury can get passed along through the placenta and breast milk.

Though children and fetuses are at the highest risk, because their brains and nervous system are still forming, it has only recently been published that the quantities of mercury in the fishes we eat can be harmful to adults. The Environmental Defense Fund has a useful report on mercury, from which I excerpt:

“Mercury exposure can also harm adults. Symptoms can include numbness, burning or tingling of the extremities (lips, fingers, toes); fatigue; weakness; irritability; shyness; loss of memory and coordination; tremors; and changes in hearing and blurred vision. Extremely high mercury levels can permanently damage an adult's brain and kidneys, or even lead to circulatory failure.”

Last January, the New York Times broke the story, “High Levels of Mercury Found in Tuna Sushi,” inspired talk, blog posts and more news reports. Maybe people will be motivated to care for their bodies and eat less mercury heavy, over-fished fish? Maybe, just maybe, one day our fisheries will be healthy, and eating the fish from them will be healthier, too.

Some Really Great Resources:

My favorite: Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch – a complete guide of all fishes and their health/environmental implications
Environmental Defense Fund’s Guide of “How many meals (of which fish) are safe to eat each month”
Hilarious analysis of the news threads from Newsweek, “Would You Like Mercury With Your Sushi?”

Filling my gas tank is much more painful than it used to be.  With gas averaging $3.61 a gallon last week, I'm spending about $45 with each visit to the pump.  Thankfully, my hybrid can drive 550 miles each tank – but that does not negate the pain of each fill up, regardless of the frequency. 

In a rash attempt to alleviate this discomfort, our political leaders have proposed a "gas tax holiday."  For three months, we will (theoretically) spend about 18 cents less per gallon of fuel, or about 2 dollars each visit to the gas station.  Over the course of the summer holiday, the blog Autopia reports that this proposal will save the average American about $30.  Of course, it's unlikely we'll actually see this "tax break" at all, because oil companies will simply raise the price of gas by almost the size of the tax cut.  Americans will continue to pay roughly $3.61 a gallon – but now, our nation will lose billions in potential tax revenue, which could be used to maintain our nation's infrastructure.   And at a time when unemployment rates are already rising, the proposed gas tax holiday could cost more than 300,000 jobs.

The flaws of this approach are clear.  Automobiles are the second largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions. Shouldn't we be trying to reduce the amount Americans drive – rather than creating incentives for people to drive more?  And what better way to incentivize carpooling and public transportation than to raise the price of gas?  In fact, the market is already creating its own incentives, with AAA reporting a decline in miles traveled and sales of compact and subcompact cars reaching record highs last month – a trend Ford's chief sales analyst has called "the most dramatic segment shift" in his 31-year career. And if we want to encourage the use of clean-burning alternatives to fossil fuels and coal, shouldn't we give tax breaks for those alternatives?  Sadly, our leaders are painfully misdirected. They are offering a tax break on the behavior they hope to discourage – yet, as I described in my February 12 post, they have failed to extend tax breaks on activities they should reward. 

More than 2000 years ago, our ancestors fell victim to a similar scheme.  Left alone in the wilderness at the base of Mount Sinai, the Israelites built a golden calf in a desperate attempt to find security.  The calf, of course, did not offer any answers.  To the contrary, when Moses descended from the mountain, he rebuked the Israelites and repeated his journey to retrieve the Ten Commandments.  The calf was an exercise in futility – a false prophet that never brought its intended reward.

Today, it is our leaders who offer a false prophet – suggesting $30 could ease a troubled economy or eliminate our dependence on foreign extremists who control our oil markets.  Like the Israelites, we need strong leaders who can guide us through times of adversity.  We need leaders who will require our cars to drive farther on less fuel and who will support a growing transit system, who will invest in research on alternative energy and provide incentives for the people who use it.  In short, we need leaders who have the courage to introduce policies that will actually reduce our dependence on oil – so that it does not matter if prices rise. 

[For thoughtful commentary about ways to solve the fuel crisis, visit "Are Gasoline Prices Too High or Too Low" at the blog of the Friends Committee on National Legislation]